This photo is bright with good contrast and shows the full downtown area of Erie. And it just sort of struck me as a photo that could be a featured picture.
strong oppose barely passes minimum resolution requirement, on its long axis - very regrettable in a panorama. Noisy, compression artifacts. Sorry - not FP material. Debivort07:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree that there's a lot going on, but it works because the light of the city and the dark of the sky and water form an interesting juxtaposition. That, coupled with the presence of two shafts of light that seems unbreakble yet fade sum up the attitude of the period (i.e., immediate post 9/11). Support. Arius Maximus17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Another exciting and interesting photo with issues at 100%. Since part of the focus of the image is the sky, I am taking more notice of the sky, and there I see a lot of artifacts. I see a lot of little 3 parallel bars that look unnatural in the sky. Unlike the other one, I think that an edit may be able to clean some of this up.-Andrew c18:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New York City, N.Y. (Sept. 9, 2004) - As the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack approaches, a test of the Tribute in Light Memorial illuminates a passing cloud above lower Manhattan. The twin towers of light, made-up of 44 searchlights near “Ground Zero,” are meant to represent the fallen twin towers of the World Trade Center. Depending on weather conditions, the columns of light can be seen for at least 20 miles around the trade center complex. U.S. Coast Guard photo by Public Affairs 2nd Class Mike Hvozda
Reason
High quality image depicting high powered beams of light as well as the memorial from the 9/11 attacks. Also in public domain.
Support This pic was nominated before: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tribute in Light. However, I don't see all the artifacts everyone is complaining about. There's motion blur, but not jpeg artifacts that are suppose to be in the night sky. A lot of Wikipedians also said something about better pics online, but I frankly could not find any better ones after several google pages. It's unfortunate that the motion blur kind of takes away from an otherwise brilliant pic in my opinion. However, it's hardly distracting, even at full res. Inspiring, stunning, and of course encyclopedic. Jumpingcheese07:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took another careful look at the pic and I kind of see the artifacts that some people are complaining about. Those blocky artifacts in the haze do get annoying after staring at them for a while and focus in on them. However, they're not really noticeable, since they are basically all slightly different shades of black. I guess downsampling might work, but I know that's discouraged. Jumpingcheese07:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very dynamic thumbnail. Subject matter is moving. The colors are interesting. That said, at 100%, the artifacts coupled with the building being not sharp ruin it for me. I wonder if there is an uncompressed version out there, of if the compression was in camera?-Andrew c18:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It doesn't look balanced to me, and gets a bit blurry at the depth of the skyscrapers with a couple of artifacts. Seems that a shot like this coud be easily replaced with a higher-quality one by any interested, Baltimore-based Wikipedian. SingCal15:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Encyclopedic, but not very sharp or stunning. There are also some random pedestrians jaywalking...which is a bit distracting. A panorama would be much better in this case. Jumpingcheese19:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best Wikipedia has to offer. Very uninteresting perspective, surely a better view could found easily. Cacophony20:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An external image of the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount in theOld City of Jerusalem, Israel. The Temple Mount is home to the Western Wall, the holiest site in Judaism; and the Dome of the Rock, the 3rd holiest site in Islam. The structure was constructed as a platform for the two Jewish Temples, which were destroyed in 586 BC and 70 AD, respectively. Muslims believe that the ProphetMuhammad ascended to heaven upon the Rock over which the Dome of the Rock (built 690 AD) stands, and are the only ones permitted upon the actual Mount itself. In the background sits the Mount of Olives, where it is used as a Jewish cemetery. Also present is the Al-Aqsa mosque on the Mount.
Reason
The picture fits the criteria, and is also a photograph of one of the most relevant and controversy-sparking structures on Earth.
oppose very very encyclopedic - great for an article, but the stitching and masking errors preclude it from FP status. Debivort17:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Forget stitching errors, the harsh lighting kills it. There's purple fringing around the corners of the walls, and there are many places where it is unsharp.--HereToHelp17:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the thing that got me at first is the sky. What a transition! The crop is a little odd, seems like there isn't enough to the left, but too much to the right. I like the idea of having the building in the left third of the image, but the execution was a little weak. Also smaller technical issue such as fringing and stictching errors.-Andrew c18:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tan Son Nhut, Vietnam. This twelve year old ARVN Airborne trooper with M-79 grenade launcher accompanied the Airborne Task Force Unit on a sweep through the devastated area surrounding the French National Cemetery on Plantation Road after a day long battle there. The young soldier has been "adopted" by the Airborne Division. 05/07/1968Alternative version from new source
Reason
Good image of a child soldier and high resolution, no featured pictures from Vietnam war.
Oppose - the quality is awful. Either it looks like someone has applied an extremely strong noise reduction, or it's been upsampled from the much smaller original. Even though the age and reproducibility may be mitigating factors, I would support a lower res version closer to the guideline in favour of quality. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ10:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To address your points, it has not been upsampled, rather this is reproduced from the uncompressed TIFF file not the gif file you linked to (gif only supports 256 indexed colors anyway, not a good comparison). The only retouching done was to the sky, because of bad grainyness in the sky, if you would like to try editing yourself I can give you the link to the tiff file. I didn't use a dust and scratch filter so you can't call that 'strong noise reduction' the original image is like this. Bleh99910:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Child is a bit blurry, which is bad. But the image is historic, which is good. I'm not sure. On the one hand, it's certainly a historically interesting, perhaps even important photo. But it's not actually a very good photo.... Vanished usertalk10:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It certainly looks like extremely strong noise reduction has been used on this image. Almost all fine-grained texture is completely missing. I visited the NARA website and although I didn't find the original TIFF file, the image I did find was quite terrible quality compared to this one and obviously some significant processing has occurred. Based on the original I saw, I find it hard to believe that it could be fixed to the point of FP. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No matter how interesting this might be from a historical POV, there's no way it represents the very best that Wikipedia has to offer. Technically, it's practically unusable, thanks to vast amounts of sharpening followed by way-over-the-top selective blurring to hide the excessive noise that the sharpening generated... a genuine disaster of an image and a sure candidate for a "what not to do with a picture" gallery. mikaultalk11:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is accusing you of anything, but there is no disputing the fact that this image has been very heavily sharpened and blurred *by someone* prior to your uploading it. mikaultalk11:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that you are wrong. Anyone can zoom into the edges and seem that there is no sharpening, sharpening leaves very clear artifacts. Bleh99911:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh, I think you are wrong. There are clear sharpening artifacts! Look for any contrasty edge and you will see a thick black line.. Eg, the pipes he is standing on, the tip of the grenade launcher, etc. Also, can you see in the sky a very distinct 'edge' where the sky becomes very noisy? It seems like a mask was applied only to part of the sky and or something. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)12:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Actually, looking at it again, I think what happened is picture degraded a bit before anyone scanned it. The lack of detail in the child's face is typical of aged pictures from that time - some of the inks were pretty awful, particularly reds and yellows. Not need to attribute to photoshop what chemistry can all-too-readily explain.
But there is no chemistry on earth which could completely blur one part of an image and radically granulate an adjacent area! The lack of detail is typical of nothing except very careless photoshop work. Sometimes attempts to enhance detail have the opposite effect, and looks like one of those instances. I feel certain that the original, however small, degraded or poorly-scanned, would show more detail than this. Is there no way of getting hold it? mikaultalk12:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[3] also accusing others of being careless is not constructive criticism, especially since you don't appear to know the difference between chromatic aberration and sharpening noise Bleh99913:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly is the chromatic aberration that you refer to? I don't see anything overt. In any case, if you are referring to me, I wasn't trying to provide constructive criticism - I was justifying my reasons for why I don't believe it is FP quality. Its not as though you took the photo or scanned the photo. The original source image is what many of us have issues with. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)14:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The encyclopedic use is more important the quality, which is decent for 1960s photography. remember criterion #3, wikipedia should have a featured picture of a child soldier, and I don't see any alternatives being offered here. Recesende12:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion re enc value, but feel I should point out that there is no criterion stating that we have to have a featured picture of any specific subject. mikaultalk12:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Desaturated the sky and masked off the boy for selective tweaking. It's had a small downsample, which helped a lot. The grain seems to have partly resulted from the negative, which gives horrible scans from modern film stock, never mind 1960's stuff, but the scan is really rough too... The sky was an entire rainbow of moiré and had to lose most of its colour. Glad you like it :) mikaultalk22:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative - Resolves technical flaws, and very enc for child soldier, since it's so unusual to see them in uniform rather than filthy rags, not to mention wielding an American weapon rather than a beat-up Kalashnikov. Technically good enough. Oppose original due to quality issues. --TotoBaggins18:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The first one is too noisy; in the second one, the color cast is off and I don't like the desaturated sky at all. The boy also looks over-sharpened to me. The sky can be denoised pretty well without desaturation using GREYCstoration. What are the URIs of the originals you've been working from? Lupo08:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see the URL. Both claim to have been derived from ARC image 530623, but are much higher resolution. And the caption of your edit says "from new source". So what's that "new source"? The only hi-res TIFF I can find for this image is this one, and that is indeed in such a bad shape that it's a wonder we've got the two images shown here. (But I still consider both still short of FP quality.) Lupo12:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the TIFF I used, I just assumed it was a different source to the original nomination. Part of the cleanup involved downsampling, hence the smaller size. Re FP quality, it certainly does fall short of one or two parts of criterion #1 but is exempted from these due to its historical significance. It has other FP qualities which more than compensate for this IMO. mikaultalk14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative image shown on this page Second image is a great improvement over the first and the historical value far outweighs any technical shortcomings. While subject in Chinesechildsoldier.jpg appears to be much younger and, therefore, brings home the point better, this image is more contemporary. I would also support using an even more modern image, perhaps from one of the African conflicts where child soldiers are active today. CWPappas05:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've also cropped it a little, and renamed it to Image:Helophilus-pendulus.jpg, and added it to that article. On closer inspection, I note that its right wing is cut off by the leaf, so that would have killed this nom for me anyway, but thanks for the upload, Brent Ward! --TotoBaggins14:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This is a good image. I like the composition and bokeh. However, there are depth of field issues. The left wing and legs and the head are all rather blurry at 100%. Since someone can reasonably retake a similar photo with a greater DOF, I'll have to oppose this image and hope that we get a better image one day. A slightly higher angle that would have shown more of the head would have been nice, and while I am being nitpicky, there is some visible gradient striation in the background.-Andrew c17:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you can only do so much with photoshop. If you take a 200 KB photo and apply a blur filter to the whole image and resave the file, the file size will have gone down because you are decreasing the amount of information contained in the file. Similarly, a blurry photo only captured so much information, so Photoshop's unsharpen mask only has that limited information with which to work. If you apply too much of a filter, such as unsharpen mask, you can start to see artifacts from the filter, which generally discount images from featured status. All that said, I don't believe there is enough information in the blurry section for Photoshop to compensate. I'd gladly re-examine any submitted edit though for FP criteria.-Andrew c18:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You call this a wasp? This is a classic example of a Hoverfly with mimic camouflage. As far as quality, the head is out of focus, and the bug is too small in the shot. The POV isn't interesting, either. I've changed the caption because it was incorrect. Althepal18:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only took the photograph, i though it was a wasp
That's okay. I guess the fly's mimicry worked. ;) Still, the caption needs to be correct. (Check out the Hoverfly article and see other pictures.) BTW: I only said why it should not be featured. I would like to say that it has a nice blurred background and the colors are beautiful. Althepal20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You took the picture and nominated it here. As a general remark: This is a good example that a picture should not be nominated right after insertion into an article. Let it be scrutinized by the people who have the article on their watchlist! --Dschwen10:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't lie to people. Objective criticism is the way to improvement. Not telling the truth not to "hurt" someone's emotions is the way to the current shitty public school system.--Svetovid15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The light is great, but the cut tower hurts the composition, and I fail to see how this contributes to city. Plus it is only 0.6MP ... :-( --Dschwen10:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wonderful artistic image, but I'm not exactly clear what it is illustrating. The encyclopedic value is weak. There are also technical issues described by toto. Additionally, the size is on the small size and there are halo JPG artifacts around the figures.-Andrew c17:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That tower is the highlight of Shanghai, known as the "DongFangMinZhu" meaning pearl of the east. I'd like to see any photo of the Shanghai skyline not cut it off. Cheers, Corvuscoronoides17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bow view of the battleship USS Wisconsin (BB 64) with her Mark 7 16-inch/50-caliber guns trained to port prior to a fire power demonstration in the Gulf of Mexico.
Comment There are too many techincal issues – grain/noise, blown highlights, apparent lack of sharp focus – at this resolution to stand any chance of FP promotion, I fear. I'd suggest a downsample, which would cure all but the lost highlights and still leave a reasonable-sized image. If people think it's worth the effort, I don't mind doing the work. mikaultalk09:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What does this picture do that this one does not? I guess there is no rule that says you can't have two featured pictures of the same subject, but it seems kind of silly. I prefer the other one because it is a full moon. Cacophony03:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other is not a full moon, and if you flip from one picture to the other, the current FP is of much worse quality and should really be delisted. This is the picture that is used more prominently on the wiki. Also your example that is a full moon, is not a wikipedia FP, its a commons FP. Chris H04:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where's that been hiding? It's easily the best of the three and should replace the moon FP we have, IMO. Well spotted! mikaultalk14:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted - This one seems to have escaped everyone's notice. I'll stick it back up the top for some more comments. Raven4x4x05:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support version 2, as it's the nearest to a full moon that we have. I also support delisting of the current FP on the same basis. Techincally all three(? – four?) here are quite close (current FP is the worst, even if it is bigger) but the Luc Viatour one has the technical edge, especially in terms of exposure. mikaultalk09:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked at a 50% downsample of the current FP (Lune_nb, version 3) and it's better than I imagined, but still overexposed. I'm getting confused.. the current FP is up for delisting down the page. The current nom is clearly better quality than the current FP, but not as worthy a candidate as Version2 here. Ok, now I'm going for a little lie down :o/ mikaultalk10:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It doesn't appear in any article, distracting power lines, the grass isn't quite as sharp as it could be, distracting overexposed white roof among the trees, slightly underexposed overall. Also, many photos could be said to "portray the beauty of nature". A nice photo, but not FP quality. --13:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't appear in any article and has unknown copyright status. It is advisable to lurk a while to get familiar with the standards and procedures before nominating your first picture. --Dschwen13:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This image can now be deleted as having held a no source tag for long enough- do we have a definite source/would anyone be opposed to its deletion? J Milburn10:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Chinese soldier, killed by Marines of the 1st Marine Division in Korea during attack on Hill 1051, on Kari San MountainEdited version: tonal imbalance (L-R), dust removed
Reason
A perfect image of a war causality, it beautifully represents the subject matter of war dead. High resolution.
Support edited version. A striking and moving image. I thought the original looked tonally imbalanced; the new version is corrected and cleaned up. mikaultalk11:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not convinced this image has enc value. How did this soldier die? The caption mentions him being killed by marines but looking at his shattered legs I'd hazard a guess at a land mine rather than a gunshot. Do we know whose? It's a powerful image but I think it fails criteria 5, 6 and 7. ~ Veledan • Talk22:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The (slightly) extended caption at the image's source page states "Killed by air support, 05/23/1951". I'm not sure how certain anyone can be of this under the circumstances, but that's the way it's been archived. Land mines are unlikely at this location, assuming that is the location.. absence of proof is not proof of absence, or something like that. mikaultalk13:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with mikaultalk, I'm not sure you can accurately tell a cause of death from a single photograph, the other photo by 'N.H McMasters' shows helicopters picking up wounded marines on the same kari san mountain on the same day, I wonder if this Chinese soldier was killed by a helicopter MG, however I don't know enough about the Korean War and helicopters used there to say with certainty. Bleh99914:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of point 5 in Feature picture criterion because it adds value to the article, and 6 because there is no proof that this is accurate. In the article this pic is in, it does not cite that this vehicle can travel through water, and this image seems to suggest that it can. The FJ45V model is also not mentioned in text in the article it is nominated in. Only this pic states that there is even a FJ45V model. Z172003:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, something went wrong here: oppose because it adds value to the article? And because there is no proof that this is accurate. So you doubt that this car is capable of fording? And the picture is not proof enough? May be you can clear up my confusion. --Dschwen08:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is suffering the same tech problems as the battleship nom up the page: contrasty film + low-end scan = poor definition and blown out highlights. But it's a good shot! The grain is way less distracting and the whole image improved by downsampling. There's no need to replace the original, just look at it as if it was in print (which is the whole point of a hi-res file). The edited version here is half-size, a little bigger than the original would be in print, for evaluation purposes. mikaultalk14:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I agree with mikaul. Many of the scans are not promoted because of the super high res scan for original pics not intended to be viewed at such high res. Thus, the scan picks up a whole mess of noise and graininess. The problem is that many Wikipedians evaluate digital photos and scans on the same criteria, thus placing all scans at a great disadvantage (unless you have a very very nice scan). The pic is still exceeds the size requirements even after the downsampling...so it might be a good idea to downsize it. I know its discouraged, but no details will be lost in this case. In its current form, the noise at 100% is distracting. Nevertheless, the pic is unique and more or less encyclopedic. Jumpingcheese21:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Very nice shot, and I believe it is a great addition to the article. However, there is a lack of detail detracting considerable value from the shot.--Puddyglum18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I like the downsampled version better than the original nom due to graininess being less of a distraction. Presumably this shot is replicable and the lighting could be better. Spikebrennan17:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - I agree with Spikebrennan that the graininess of the downsampled version is not too bad, but the detail in the shadows is lacking in my opinion.Supaluminal04:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's great as an illustration of the vehicle's fording capabilities, but we have no references establishing this vehicle is good for fording rivers so if it isn't and the engine is flooded this is misleading. On technical merits there is a lot of grain and some blown highlights. —dgiestc06:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Renewed support for version 3. Not convinced by the opposers' arguments; this image is of excellent quality and illustrates the subject of the article very well. It maybe could be even better if it was an in-the-wild shot, or if it was burrowing or exhibiting one behaviour or another, but we have pictures like that. This one is an excellent high resolution shot which identifies its subject well. --John07:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC) (formerly Guinnog)[reply]
Weak Support It's good, except for the sharpness. Compare it with an FP like this one. See how detailed the feathers are? That said, I don't want to raise the bar too high for Featured status.--HereToHelp18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have four different pictures of almost the exact same image...currently working on deciding which one can be used to best cleanup any shadowing and contrast issues. I'll try and upload another version for comparison.--MONGO21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost the exact same perspective as above, further edited by User:Wsiegmund (Photoshop Elements, 66% Levels eyedropper tool to set grey to white feathers under left wing, 17% unsharp mask, 17% original image)Recropped and reedited into 4X3 ratio
Support, attractive, encyclopedic and well-composed, it is high resolution, free of significant compression artifacts and in focus. The contrasting background color helps to draw attention to the subject. The Burrowing Owl article describes the legs, toes and white chin patch. that describes those features. The lighting helps to draw attention to these features. The color balance of the image 2 is more neutral and is the version I prefer. Walter Siegmund(talk)00:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that thing sticking out above the leg a phallus? If not, what is it? If so, why is it not hidden (as bird phalluses normally are except when mating, according to bird anatomy)?--ragesoss03:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha...! I almost spit up my water! That is his right leg, tucked up under his feathers. I have other shots with him standing on both feet but the quality level is inferior.--MONGO04:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent image, "phallus" notwithstanding. Version 2 is preferable as the colour balance appears more natural, somehow :) - Alison☺06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both versions I'm not sure what everyone sees in these, but I find them over-sharpened the background distracting, the cropping a bit tight and the environment highly unnatural (doesn't look much like scrubby grasslands the species typically inhabits, the tree behind it looks deciduous). With the bird crouched down like that it doesn't show the species' distinctive long legs (I find this image much better). --Pharaoh Hound(talk)(The Game)12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been recently told by MONGO that picture was taken at an indoor aviary - so it's not a natural environment to begin with. I had failed to consider the background when I nominated the picture, but instead it seemed like a good species shot and as such added encyclopedic value. Whether the background and leg issue detracts from that is something that's going to be decided with continued voting.--YanA16:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, the image Pharaoh Hound suggests needs to be cropped, has very unnatural leg bandings and I can't see it's face! I also don't see the "distinctive trait" uh, the burrow in that image either. It is of high resolution though, but one wonders how an image that is so unnatural and lacks it's full face could be better than one that doesn't suffer from these kinds of issues.--MONGO19:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not saying that the image I suggested is perfect either. After some more digging around I found this one which, though blurry, is otherwise better than this candidate and the first image I suggested as it not only shows two adults clearly but also two juveniles, illustrating their social nature (also has better lighting and more natural settings). Or this image. True, it's not freely licensed, but I'm merely trying to point out that it is entirely possible to get better photos of this species. --Pharaoh Hound(talk)(The Game)17:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unfortunately, even though it's a blurry image that's been oversharpened, the biggest problem is the completely incorrect habitat. I used to see dozens of burrowing owls every day on the way to work in New Mexico; they were always in a sparsely grassy desert wasteland, no trees, no wood, no leaves (and certainly no plants like you see the background, which could not thrive in the desert). The trait that makes these animals unique - the fact that their homes are big holes in the dirt - is not shown here at all. These images are easily reproducible, and should be reproduced in their natural environment. There also needs to be some sort of scale, because these owls are pretty small (sort of like the oompa loompas among the owls), but from this image one could easily be led to believe they're quite large. These problems make the image unencyclopedic, misleading, and not particularly useful. Its only positive is the high-resolution, which I'm guessing is the reason for most of these supports, but in light of these other problems, high-resolution is not enough. Given the reproducibility, I can't support.
So, to summarize,
Pros:
High resolution
Cons:
Blurry, oversharpened (of minor concern)
Incorrect environment (HERE's where you would see burrowing owls normally)
Incorrect plant life
Animal's unique trait (their hole-for-a-home) is not even shown (deal-breaker)
Scale is misleading - these birds are very small (poll: who here thought this bird was tiny when they saw this image?)
Easily reproducible
Very easily reproducible
Very, very easily reproducible — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-02 18:25Z
You need to read about the habitat of the burrowing owl...they are not just found in desert wastelands. They live primarily in the middle of the North American continent and are a species of special concern in Florida, which is hardly suffering from desertification. I fail to grasp what you mean by (repeated) issues of it being reproducible. Precisely what is the animals' unique trait I wonder. However, on the whole, I do agree that the image is way less than perfect...especially compared with other images of other species.--MONGO18:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the deal-breaker is that the image doesn't even show the single trait that identifies the burrowing owls (their home-in-the-ground, as I said twice). I keep repeating that's it's easily reproducible to show why the listed Cons for the image are really problems, and not just me being nitpicky - if the image wasn't easily reproducible, then I would be more accepting of some (but not all) of these problems. Again, the image provides no scale (these birds are small, this image makes them seem medium-to-large). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-02 22:04Z
On the other hand, the image does illustrate many of the distiguishing field marks of the species, e.g., bright yellow eyes, white eyebrow, incompletely feathered legs, gray toes, missing "ear" tufts and white throat. Only the long legs and flattened facial disc are not well-depicted. Regarding the scale criticism, the leaves of the background do indicate scale to those familiar with the species (but that does not include me nor probably the average reader). I note that some reviewers of these images may object to the inclusion of artificial objects (that would indicate scale) in images of nature. Walter Siegmund(talk)05:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, I'm just not inspired. Compared to a lot of our bird images, this one looks unsharp, noisy and poorly lit. It also lacks important context for this species, the apparent scale is misleading and there's an aura of "zoo shot" about it that I was aware of before I read that it was taken in an aviary. --YFB¿16:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This was always a borderline submission on technical grounds, not helped by a harsh and uncomplementary background. Deferring to the more ornithologically informed opposes, I can't see any reason to promote. mikaultalk23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, actually as noted several times above, it's not in its natural environment, which is among the reasons for opposing. --YFB¿22:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why is looks so unhealthy...it can't exist anywhere except in semi-arid climates. What difference does it make as to where the picture was taken...it's used to illustrate the bird, not his hole. I guess since I would have better off if I got an image of the Owl near "earthen berms; cement culverts; cement, asphalt, rock, or wood debris piles; or openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement", since that is also their "habitat"....[4]--MONGO22:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I can manage without sarcasm, thanks, MONGO. My point is that since bushes and trees and aviaries are not its natural habitat, "beautiful image of bird[s] in its natural environment" is not a reason to support. Hence my use of the qualifier "among" before "reasons for opposing". Furthermore, if we really want to be deconstructing people's comments, "beautiful" is not a Featured Picture Criteria either. --YFB¿23:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, everyone who knows me knows I am sarcastic, don't take it personally and sorry if it seemed insulting. I do, however, think that, especially for the purposes of an encyclopedia, that a detailed image of a animal species is more important than capturing one in it's precise habitat. The aviary is an outdoor one, in Nebraska, where the birds are native, just for the record. I really do appreciate the attention the image has gotten regardless of whether it is rated as a FP or not. Thanks!--MONGO03:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just out of curiousity, how long after seven days do nominations go before they're closed? I'd guess three days from some of the past nominations, but can someone confirm or debunk that. Many thanks.--YanA00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically voting is closed after the seventh day, although whether it gets closed immediately, moved to "7 days is up" or left a bit longer depends largely on the availability of people with time to go through the closing procedure, which is fairly tortuous. In this case, it's been moved to the Additional Input section because although it has (had?) a supermajority of supports based on vote counting alone, several people have expressed doubt at the Featured Picture Candidates talk page about whether or not it should be promoted, due to the apparently stronger arguments made by opposers than by the majority of supporters. --YFB¿01:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe my standards for FP pics are too high, but my feeling is that (historicity or uniqueness aside) the pictures should be the best possible shots. This is a perfectly lovely picture, but it fails to show the bird in its natural habitat. The minor imperfections in the picture quality don't bother me, but the fact is I think the article would be better served by a picture of the bird in its normal surroundings. Matt Deres13:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know...normal surroundings also include: "earthen berms; cement culverts; cement, asphalt, rock, or wood debris piles; or openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement", since that is also their "habitat"....[5].--MONGO17:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read that the first time you wrote it. Just so you know... lush broadleaf undergrowth isn't on your list. Hence my objection. Please don't take the votes personally; FWIW, I wish I could take shots as good as this one. I'm not objecting because I have any fault with your picture; I'm objecting because I think a slightly different shot would be significantly more encyclopedic. Matt Deres22:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely don't take it personally...but the point is that these owls are highly adaptable and indeed they do live almost anywhere they can find a burrow or opening, including forest fringe environments. [6], [7]--MONGO05:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have convinced me. I've struck-through my opposition above and now vote to Support. I don't have a strong preference regarding which version to use, but I think the bottom picture (second edit) looks a bit nicer.Matt Deres16:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A large, high resolution image taken from Maxis' Sim City 4. Additional "plugins" are installed to add buildings, road textures, etc to the game. Its colourful detailing and well-designed infrastructure make this city appealing to look at, and demonstrates the best the game has to offer.
Strong Support I agree with User:Thegreenj, this is the original document and should be featured. Yes, we have a featured picture of a copy of the document with much better legibility, but the historical context of this outweighs its less pleasing points. For a similar situation, the first permanent photograph (and some other physically replaceable images from Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History) is/are much more important than if someone took a better photo of the same view. --WillMak05038917:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh but whats the point of having something featured you can't read; people wont know or understand what their looking at? At least the first permanent photo isn't written; so you can make out what it is; this, although it is an original its an original in very poor condition and i would much rather have a featured copy than a crappy original; despite historic important. The only difference between a copy and the original in this case is the penmanship and the parchment; so why does historic things matter?--Brent Ward23:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close per Svetovid. OPEN ME UP and you will see that this image is already a featured picture. (I would have nominated it myself if I hadn't seen that someone else had already beaten me to the punch. Spikebrennan18:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current FP is better. It may be be picture of a copy, but that copy is faithful enough that it's thought to be a direct ink transfer from the original, and after all, any digital image is a copy including this nomination; I reckon the key question is which looks most like the original document. As for enc value, the article is about the Declaration of Independence, not about how documents fade when they get very old, and the current FP represents it better. ~ Veledan • Talk21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cumulus Mediocris clouds, as seen from the rear seat of an Airbus A320 at altitude over the midwestern United states.
Reason
This picture captures the essence of being above the clouds, and, being a direct picture of the clouds, depicts the clouds very well, conveying what they are in an encyclopedic and straightforward way. The picture contributes much to the cloud article, where it is the first picture in the article.
Support - Image does provide a good overview of what clouds are. Doesn't have blown highlights, and shadows are ok; plus, its near impossible to say whether the image is soft in focus, thanks to the fact clouds are inherently fuzzy.Supaluminal04:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I’m going to disagree with Supaluminal here — I do think that the image is blurry. It seems strange, since the exposure time was .001 s, but something just appears “off” about everything — either the picture is soft in focus, or looks like it has been upsampled. Also, there’s some banding on the left (darker) side of the picture, which seems a tad underexposed anyway (or maybe it’s just the airplane’s shadow; I don’t know). Either way, I’m still going to have to vote against it. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 09:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Bad technical quality (focus, light conditions) and certainly not the best Wikipedia offers (it does not show any more than any one could see by looking at the sky).--Svetovid10:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are indeed nice images, but they don't show the same information as the proposed image, which demonstrates the core of the station, ie. the minimum number of modules that were required to host a permanent crew. The first image is a drawing, not a photo, and shows the station in the future, the second shows the station when it couldn't support a crew, with just the Zarya and Unity modules, and the third shows it after extra additions. Basically, the reason that this is important is that it demonstrates the minimal station. Colds7ream10:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The source, here at NASA's website, seems to be a small image. I agree with the above about this image being very helpful from an encyclopedic viewpoint (as well as it being a view of the subject from a helpful perspesctive)--and for those reasons, I do not oppose the nomination, but the image isn't as sharp as I'd like. Is there a more hi-res source image available? Spikebrennan17:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Would definetly support a higher res image, and the compression artifacts visible in the shadows at 100% are a bit irritating. Supaluminal03:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Hadrosaurids comprise the dinosaurs commonly known as "duck-billed" dinosaurs. They were common herbivores during the Cretaceous period, and prey to therapods such as Tyrannosaurus. Spectacular fossils of hadrosaurs have been found, including mummified specimens in which soft tissue was preserved, skin impressions, tracks of footprints, and nest sites that demonstrate the animals had parental care of offspring. Animals are shown to scale.
Reason
A crisp diagram showing the evolutionary relationships between the tribes of the Hadrosauroidea, with representative individuals shown to scale. Conveys the diversity of the group, and aesthetically appealing, imho. Self-nom. Oh, and every dinosaur shown has passed review for scientific acuracy at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review.
Support Pretty dinosaurs...oooooooo. =) Very encyclopedic diagram. And good job with the dinos...they look so cute (when they're not biting your head off)! Jumpingcheese06:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bonus too, cause I recall an episode of Star Trek Voyager where this dinosaur family evolved into a bipedal space faring species. Maybe you should add that one in, or maybe not. --Cody.Pope13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Encyclopedic, and illustrative. Thought there was a spelling error, but I just don't know my dinosaur vocabulary ;) --Puddyglum17:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comment: I infer from the scale bar at the lower right that all of the dinos are drawn to scale, but perhaps the scale bar could be captioned to specifically say this. Spikebrennan18:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the caption is changed to give a time-scale rather than a copy-paste from an article. Right now the caption is of little value. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-28 18:20Z
What do you mean by time-scale? Also, I take a bit of umbrage at the totally unfounded assumption that this was ripped from an article - since I wrote it from scratch in prepping the nom. Debivort18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying; the caption sounds more like the beginning of an article than a discussion of what's in the picture. That's what I meant by it being of little value. By time-scale, I mean some explanation of the time between when the various species diverged; something like "species X came about Y million years ago, species Z came about..." etc. The image shows wavy lines branching from eachother, but no indication of the time represented by those lines. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-28 20:16Z
We can at least give time ranges for when these species appeared/disappeared (based on known examples). An approximation is all that I'm looking for. Did it take 50 years, 5 million, or 50 million? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-29 04:01Z
First of all, there are no species shown here. The individual drawings are genera, and the branches of the tree go down to tribe. The problem is all these groups were alive in the late Cretaceous, and are generally known only from a single fossil site - so they probably all diverged within 80my (the length of the Cretaceous) but even that is a guess. Given that, feel free to modify the caption as you see fit. Debivort14:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making the clickable map! You can't replace the large image. So I've just made the second image smaller (and made it a template to make it easier to insert elsewhere). Also added to the Hadrosaurid article. Also added some select text from this discussion to the description.
Source: http://rs6.loc.gov/mss/mcc/019/0001.jpg Text: "This sentence was written from Washington by me at the Baltimore Terminus at 8.h 45min. A.M. on Friday May 24.th 1844, being the first ever transmitted from Washington to Baltimore by Telegraph and was indited by my much loved friend Annie G. Ellsworth." {signature-Sam F. B. Morse.} Superintendent of Elec. Mag. Telegraphs.
comment - kinda neat at full size, but the thumb is pretty pathetic... Don't know if anything can be done about that. Would support if we can get a zoomed in scrolling version. Debivort04:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? It can be modified/adjusted easily enough. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-28 18:38Z
Or use the {{wide image}} template, but either is fine. Oh...and Support. Very encyclopedic and historical pic. Great quality for such an old subject. Jumpingcheese03:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's shocking how beautiful the penmanship on the "indited" message is. Morse must have been going s ... l ... o ... w. --TotoBaggins13:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can see what look like rough versions (in pencil maybe) underneath the fancy lettering. It looks like the first draft wasn't as pretty. Debivort20:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - wonderful encyclopaedic value, but awful technical quality. Full of JPG artifacts, and it would be nice if it was a little higher res vertically. E9T4A8. I've also expanded the div containing the image above, but I've used a relative measure (percent not pixels, vector not absolute) to specify its width so it scales for those running at higher and lower resolutions. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ18:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. The paper wasn't straight when it was originally photographed, so I'd say it's accurately preserved here. Stitching is very well done if you look at the top/bottom edges.-DMCer07:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This looks distorted. If it is proven not (simply the shape of the building), then I am still opposed, because it doesn't seem very interesting anyway. Althepal17:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I dont think the building is distorted very much. There is some minor barrel distortion lower left but it isn't on the building its self. -Fcb98118:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It does seem distorted somehow, as if it's leaning to the right. Looks over-exposed to me and some of the stiching errors are visible even at 800px. Sorry dude :o/ mikaultalk21:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The natural vs. the artificial, as represented by the flowers in the foreground and the car in the background
Reason
Self-nom; this is one of my favorite pictures from my garden. It's large enough to be used as a desktop background, and I actually use the image as my desktop wallpaper.
The red car behind the flowers is mine, and I didn't think about it at the time of taking this image, but looking at the image now, I think it provides an interesting perspective on nature vs. technology. In today's technologically advanced world, the intricate complexity of man-made technology eclipses the simpleness of nature. A small tree is unnoticeable next to a giant skyscraper, and the complexity of an advanced piece of machinery seems to dwarf the surface simplicity of a blade of grass. In this image, however, technology, represented by the car (an intricate piece of technology in its own right), is eclipsed by the simple beauty of the flowers of a potted plant that are in reality smaller than even the headlights of the car.
Oppose - The flower in the center of the photo is out of focus and the background is distracting. The FP criteria says the "encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value" and the image should "not promote a particular agenda or point of view", so the whole nature vs. technology thing doesn't really seem appropriate in my opinion. Pretty flower though. Cacophony09:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Panel of glazed tiles by artist Jorge Colaço (1922) representing an episode of the battle of Aljubarrota (1385) between the Portuguese and Castilian armies. The Ala dos Namorados (Wing of the fiancés) was the left wing of the Portuguese defense formation. Lisbon, Pavilhão Carlos Lopes.
Reason
Encyclopedic and high quality example of the typical Portuguese "blue glazed tiles" (azulejo).
Support - that's a lovely image, and even the imperfections are useful, because the (rare) chips, cracks and lines between the tiles show what it was constructed of. Adam Cuerdentalk00:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, looks like it suffers from over zealous NR, but the texture loss might be just the style of the artwork I really don't know --Fir000202:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we double-check copyright status? Since this is a fairly recent work (less than 100 yrs old) and I believe it's subject to Portuguese copyright laws, we should be absolutely sure before proceeding. SingCal20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info - The author died in 1942 and the copyright period in Portugal is 70 years. However, there is in the Portuguese law the right of reprodution of artistisc works when they are exposed in public spaces (right of "panorama"). That is exactly the case of this one, which is in the outside wall of a building, in a public park. - Alvesgaspar08:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good rendition of a superb piece with top enc value for azulejo. Detail is good enough, but did you shoot this as a compressed JPEG? It seems just a tiny bit blocky. mikaultalk13:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The remains of Milecastle 39, on Hadrian's Wall, one of the many small forts built to protect Roman Britain from the Picts.Alternate, more dynamic photo, but clips the fort a bit.
Reason
I think it's an attractive picture that gives an idea of the length of Hadrian's Wall (stretching off into the distance, as well as present in the foreground), nice depth of focus. That said, I'm not a photographer, so if it's not good enough, that's fair enough. Adam Cuerdentalk14:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality image, mostly to do with the camera I suspect than any fault of the photographer. However also has a rather uninteresting/commanding composition --Fir000202:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's something weird going on with the quality; it almost looks like someone turned up the median filter. I can't support the images due to the technical issues alone. --Mad Max03:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well. Fair enough. I'll leve it up just in case someone can tweak the levels, but it's not a particularly good camera, and the best I can say for these shots is they're better than the pictures already in the Hadrian's Wall articles. That, however, is not difficult. Adam Cuerdentalk15:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose I have mixed feelings about the cartoony look, but there are inconsistent line widths, opacities etc, that make it appear jumbled. Debivort07:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (see below for vote change) Since in most cases there are hundreds of species of birds with each beak type, all with widely varying colors (both in feathers and beaks), it would be better if these were done in black-and-white silhouette, as is done by field guides like Peterson's (I believe). This would allow you to actually focus on the beak shape, not on anything else - I find the current image much too distracting. Other than silhouetting, maybe making the image grayscale would help. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-25 12:58Z
I also don't think this image covers the variety of different beaks out there. This diagram simply suits the need of giving one example of each type of food, but it doesn't really characterize all the types of beaks based on their shape. For example, [8]. Sure, the ones that are not included probably already fit into one of the generic food categories you have listed, but the point of the diagram is to be useful and comprehensive (maximally encyclopedic). See a more comprehensive example here. Are we trying to make a diagram that can be useful on its own, or that simply provides one common example of the different food types? (It's not like I'm asking for 3 dozen beaks to be included; just some of the different ones like the crossbill and the avocet). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-25 13:04Z
Weak support The gradients bother me. I can understand wanting to introduce shadow, or give the appearance of dimension, but the rendering of the gradients in SVG is weak. I think that contributes to the cartooniness. Otherwise, the illustrations are well executed and professional. I feel like some sort of in image indexing or caption or numbering could help the image, and help identify what is being pictured in the caption better.-Andrew c18:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not sure if the creator is allowed to vote(?). The image was created since Bird was a collaboration and we were trying to work it towards FA status. From the Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria, the only item that I would have trouble deciding is 3. The remaining 8, seem positive to me. Shyamal01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Nicely drawn diagram, though there are some notable beak shapes that are missing, as Brian0918 has pointed out. --Mad Max02:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could be added,(maybe this weekend) but the original aim was to point out the diversity of food gathering and not the diversity of beak shapes per se. Shyamal03:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. While I would still rather see it in black-and-white to keep the focus on the beak shapes and not on subspecies-specific colorings, this is an improvement. It's still not comprehensive and generic enough, but gives enough examples to my satisfaction. Good job! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-29 17:23Z
Weakest support Good diagram,but the organization inasingle column is at best impractical for actual use in articles.Circeus21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like the second version better if: there would yet another type of beak (I don't know what, like for a thrasher, penguin, parrot, whatever other feeding type would best add to the illustration), so the flamingo isn't in the center like that. I would also feel more comfortable if they were spaced out a little more. Althepal18:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are a lot of positive votes here, and I agree that this is a very nice piece of work, but I just can't quite give my support. I don't like the cartoony look; I'd much rather see a collection of photos or a collection of silhouettes (as Brian0918 brought up above). I'm also not the crazy about the selection of beaks; if we're going to include such unique bills as the skimmer and the flamingo, why not the shoebill (specialized for digging lungfish) or the spoonbill (specialized for non-visual aquatic hunting)? No woodpeckers (hammering for food) or nighthawks (trolling for insects)? Matt Deres01:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You know what I'm thinking? It either has to have a small number of general feeding adaptations or a high number of specialized beaks, because this needs to do one of two things: illustrate how different types of food require different types of beaks (doesn't require many examples), or it needs to, encyclopedically, show all the unique differences for every type of feeding (many examples needed). I personally think this is doing a fine job with the former. I also don't think that these look cartoony; to me they look like realistic illustrations. IMO, a black-and-white would make it harder to see the beaks. Althepal01:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Common yet enc subject, done very well. Some might whine that it doesn't show context, but I think there is room for both a macro and a wide shot.--HereToHelp23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support: It's an extremely good image, but perhaps a somewhat uncompelling one, due to how common the subject is. Still, it seems to by and large meet Featured Picture criteria (with the "compelling" criteria in slight doubt, though for a picture of a brick...), and it's a very strong technical image. Caption is confusing, though ("stretcher brick"?) Adam Cuerdentalk23:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a brick wall...and not a very encyclopedic pic of a brick wall, since only a single brick in the wall is fully shown. It's not like the fruit and veggie pics that usually pass the FPC process. The pic would be much more encyclopedic if there was a single brick by itself and a brick broken in half next to it in order to show its contents (probably more red stuff, but maybe not). I'm not saying that it isn't a great shot, but that it doesn't seem like a whole mess of effort was made to prepare and take a shot of a subject well under your control. Also, as others have mentioned, it's a very common and uninspiring subject matter...which places it at a great disadvantage compared to other more interesting pics. For example, a brilliant pic of a paper clip would pale in comparison to a pic by the Hubble. So, I guess I'm opposing the pic on the the weak encyclopedicality and the blandness. Sorry. Jumpingcheese03:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, and I do not disagree with any of your statements concerning the mundanenss of a brick. However, I cannot quite see what you are pushing for. The purpose of the picture is, quite simply, to show a brick, as most people find one. True, I could smash a brick open (well, on second thought I probably couldn't!) and put in on a white surface next to a whole brick. But, what exactly does that show? People don't identify bricks by their insides, as a person might do with a fruit. Bricks serve no purpose alone, or broken. The purpose of the photograph is to provide the viewer with the texure and detail that only that picture could bring. It isn't an dissection of a brick. It's just one common, arbitrary brick where it should be found. It's a stretch to make this comparison, but I wouldn't call this unencyclopedic for not showing the whole face. It's a picture of an iris, just as this is a picture of a brick. If I had wanted to caputure the whole wall, I would have done that, which, for a lack of texture, is much less interesting than one brick. J Are you green?03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanxs for the reply! I guess I'm saying that for a subject as common as a brick to be as encyclopedic as a pic of an exotic and rare bird, there needs to be more done to the subject. Like how the common fruit are cut open for FP, the pic can be more encyclopedic if it showed several types of bricks or different angles of the brick (in retrospect, cutting open a brick isn't a very good idea). Jumpingcheese22:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think it would be much more illustrative/encyclopedic to show the edge of a brick wall. The straight on view lacks the depth required to fully comprehend what a brick looks like (it only shows 2 dimensions). I don't agree with the notion that it should be split like the fruits and veggies because the inside of a brick looks identical to the outside, and it really needs to show mortar around it. I also don't care for the lack of symmetry on this composition. Cacophony07:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose I guess some subjects just wern't meant to have a featured picture. Paperclip, pencil, brick wall, brick, wall. There just arn't that interesting to look at. Plus I feel a bit like looking at a test chart picture. Blowing it up to full size to see how sharp it is. It is very sharp and has nice lighting I just dont think it merits featured status. Also, not to worry, with your new DSLR you shouldn't have any problems getting some featured pictures, its just a matter of time. -Fcb98103:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A panoramic view of Castle Crags from inside Castle Crags State Park. Heavy glaciation at this location during the Pleistocene eroded much of the softer surrounding rock leaving the towering crags and spires exposed.
Reason
It is of high technical quality, high resolution, and illustrates its subject well, adding encyclopedic value to the Castle Crags article.
Oppose - Sorry, very pretty but it's not in focus and I suspect downscaling sufficient to put it in focus would run afoul of resolution requirements. —dgiestc06:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Malibu Hindu Temple, nestled in the hills of Calabasas
Reason
Lighting was a problem with my previous nomination. This one is bright and has blue skies. The image is of high resolution, adds greatly to the article.
oppose sorry - there is some harsh chromatic abberation, particularly on the left and right edges of the side structures. Debivort05:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Detail is quite good despite rather harsh overhead sunlight, but the unpleasant combination of distortion, skew and tilt, plus weird goings-on through the doorway makes it very confusing image to view. mikaultalk12:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A much needed rain front moving into the Swifts Creek Region in January 2007
Quite a dramatic storm front moving into the Swifts Creek Valley. As can be seen from the state of the grass on the surrounding hills, it was very welcome!
Oppose On a technical basis, there is very little wrong with the picture. Anyway, that isn't why I'm opposed to this becoming a FP. Obviously you have a very high quality camera, but the image seems dull and uninspired to me. Basically, it looks like any other picture of clouds I've seen, and I think FP have to be eye-catching as well. On the subject of pictures, I actually think your panorama in the rain article is just as good, if not better, than this one. --Mad Max02:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Of all pictures in the article it contributes the least to my understanding of rain. The camera is aimed slightly too high. It shows no detail, is oversharpened. Just some clouds... yeah, clouds are pretty... --Dschwen08:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, make sure to look at the photo at full res and not the image page (the new software on the commons oversharpens images terribly); not sure what detail is missing...; and I believe it shows a rain front quite well; but perhaps you're right it might be aimed a little high. :-) --Fir000209:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to ask if there was a wider version.. my eye is hunting for some uncropped foreground interest, despite the intended subject being really compelling. Even the tree showing fully on the left would have cracked it. Oh well :o/ mikaultalk12:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Dschwen on this one. The photo purportedly illustrates "rain", but it just looks like a cloud to me- I have to take your word for it that it is in fact raining. Compare this one from the rain article. Spikebrennan14:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I really must take issue with you there Spikebrennan, the picture you pointed out shows a puddle with white blobs on the surface which persumably were caused by rain - but you can't see any rain! In my image however, the rain is clearly visible as the gray sheet below the rain front. --Fir000222:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say that I recognized the image as rain right away. This is what rain typically looks like from a distance, especially in desert settings. There may be an issue that it's more encyclopedic to show a penny close up than a giant pile of pennies from 100 meters away (well in this case, substitute penny with raindrop). I however, agree with the "aimed too high" comment, but I think that an image of a rainfront could by FA one day.
Lyndon B. Johnson taking the oath of office on Air Force One following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Dallas, Texas. Left to right: Mac Kilduff (holding dictating machine), Judge Sarah T. Hughes, Jack Valenti, Congressman Albert Thomas, Marie Fehmer (behind Thomas), Lady Bird Johnson, Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry, President Lyndon B. Johnson, Evelyn Lincoln (eyeglasses only visible above LBJ's shoulder), Congressman Homer Thornberry (in shadow, partially obscured by LBJ), Roy Kellerman (partially obscured by Thornberry), Lem Johns (partially obscured by Mrs. Kennedy), Jacqueline Kennedy, Pamela Tunure (behind Brooks), Congressman Jack Brooks, Bill Moyers (mostly obscured by Brooks)New version from Tif file, slightly adjusted curves and downsampled to 3000 px width
Comment This image is obviously of huge historical significance, and it’s a great digitization — insanely high-res, and the overall image quality is very high. But perhaps we should hold off on this nomination and instead time it to coincide with the 44th anniversary late this year, as Commons did last year? Or can a picture be promoted to FP status, but just not selected as a POTD for a few months? —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 08:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The POTD appearance can be easily arranged to be on the correct date, however we don't suspend noms for the sole reason that their promotion coincides with some date. MER-C08:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support How could this not have been nominated and featured already? I'm aghast! Enuja 04:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC) New version is better; it has the same scratches, which are sometimes a little more noticeable (man's face in far lower left), but that's because everything is clearer. I am not expressing an opinion about how high resolution the FP version should be, simply that the lighter version is better. Enuja12:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very historical pic...I've seen this pic in multiple U.S. history textbooks (that's like the third time I said that on FPC). Maybe a task force should be created for finding all the historically significant PD pics in textbook. Anyways, very high quality scan of a pic a couple of decades old. Jumpingcheese04:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It always helps to check the source before commenting on copyright [9]Rights Information: This image is in the public domain and may be used free of charge without permissions or fees.Bleh99907:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry about that should have realized it was PD just from originally looking at it, I guess I'm out of practice :) Cat-five - talk23:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. It's not even like Battlestar Galactica was the first to do that. Oh, by the way, support. Was the lower left of the photograph always so dark and obscured? Spikebrennan18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support new version which is even better.
Weak oppose Scratched. Look at the air vent or whatever in the wall on the far left, about half way down. And it's so big at high rez it's hard to tell what you're looking at, eyt it can be blurry in places. Downsample?--HereToHelp22:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be helpful if someone could download the .tif from here and redo the jpeg. The current one, as Spikebrennan says above, is rather darker than the original. Chick Bowen22:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I did that, but I'm not sure how well received my version will be, the high res is overkill especially since all you are looking at is film grain at full resolution. Bleh99903:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative - the second version is still high enough res that you can see the film grain, so any more is just wasted. Everything else has already been said. Zakolantern17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original, Oppose Alternate The original seems slightly dark, but so has every copy of this image I've ever seen. The new one just looks washed out on johnson's face. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose While the image is encyclopedic and all, its a tad small, ok, its not too small in general, but its easily reproduced, so it should be bigger. Yzmotalk23:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good image and all, but in an encyclopedia, I'd expect to see more of the plant than just what the consumer's presented with at the fruit market. —Pengo03:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose considering reproducibility - should be spot on. I also don't like how the seeds reflect bluish on the left half and green on the right. Debivort04:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as with the other Aka photos that are already featured. This method of presentation is elegant and simple and clean and very encyclopedic. You can see the whole fruit and you can see a cross section. This illustrates the fruit. I think a more natural image may be good to illustrate the plant, but there is no way you'd get a cross section like this in nature, and a non-neutral background would distract from the subject matter. FPs don't have to entertain. They can just be well executed, and informative (and aesthetically, this image is beautiful to me, but that is subjective).-Andrew c04:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Although more of the plant would be better in some ways, this picture is very good. It is very clear and colorful and it easily allows people to see a good kiwi. Agree with Andrew c.-Jetset5908:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enc, adequate quality. I would also like for it to be a bit bigger, but you can still look at this and know exactly what a kiwi fruit looks like. I eat them without peeling. --TotoBaggins16:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There doesn't seem to be anything there other than kiwis. It wolud be better if there was an interesting background, but for now it's just...a bunch of kiwis. A kiwi, by itself, is not an interesting-looking fruit. Oppose. Arius Maximus14:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support If Fir's tomatoes and someone's lemons are interesting enough to be FP then why not kiwifruit? Yes the quality is not as good but still acceptable. Comment You guys eat Kiwis? You should be ashamed of yourselves, eating a threatened, protected species. --antilivedT | C | G23:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with comments made by Antilived... Fir0002 has made many similar images (of lemons and whatnot) and another user's images should also be able to go to FP status if they are so similar...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Booksworm (talk • contribs) 2007-06-25T05:05:34
Comment The lemons came from the same source, a(nother) prolific and talented commons contributor. For me, the issue isn't so much "that one was promoted, therefore.." or "enc, technically good, best we have, etc" but whether, overall, this is a compelling picture, one which draws in an otherwise passive viewer. In this respect (in my opinion, the most important FP criterion) this image is borderline, as would be any of these "straight" studio-style shots, no matter how technically accurate they might be. Great quality, just not featured pictures. mikaultalk08:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I do like the picture, and I'll probably never understand the "it's just not feature-worthy, even if it's very good" idea. It'd be nice to have a larger picture though, one where you can see the texture of the skin or pulp better. ShadowHalo06:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I said it on Fir's pathetic tomato and I'll say it again here - by accepting this kind of generic, technically fine image, but devoid of imagination, and quite simply completely bland, you've opened a floodgate whereby every single image that depicts any fruit or vegetable and is technically sound has to be accepted. However, if you still think that this picture "Is among Wikipedia's best work", then by all means support it. Also, people are complaining that the owl in the photo below is not in its natural habitat - why can't the same be said of here? Surely it's very artificial to take a kiwi that has been processed to no end, packaged up, placed in a supermarket, then cut by a knife and placed on some white paper - is that natural?? All I'm saying is, a well taken photo of a kiwi plant being naturally grown would be a hundred times nicer. Schcambo11:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not be too hasty with the disparaging comments about other people's work. These studio shots are deliberately "bland", in keeping with traditional encyclopedic illustration in which a subject is removed from its environment and placed on a context-free, neutral, "scientific" background. It's a time-honoured way of exhibiting specimens "on a level playing field", allowing objective comparisons between different exhibits. I'm sure you know this. It's 100% encyclopedic, to the point of having 0% drama in the image. What this doesn't square with is the need (I agree there's a need) for a "wow" factor, something compelling in the image, and I honestly don't know whether this precludes this kind of image from featured status. I know there are several contributors here who actively look for something compelling in a image before they'll even muster the enthusiasm to comment, let alone support a submission. All things considered, I'd support this kind of shot for FP, but only if we raised the tech quality bar way high. This one wouldn't make it, but for criterion #1 reasons, not for lack of natural context. mikaultalk22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture that clearly illustrates the subject of the article. Wikipedia isn't a photography magazine, so I don't really see why we need a "wow" factor. --snowolfD4( talk / @ )08:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot of Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed in the American film It's a Wonderful Life (1946). The film lapsed into the public domain in the United States due to the failure of National Telefilm Associates, the last copyright owner, to renew. See film article for details. (The child actress portrayed is Karolyn Grimes).
Reason
As far as I know, there are no FPs that are stills of 20th century films (much less a well-known one such as this one). The still conveys the mood of the film. Besides, teacher says that every time a FPC gets promoted, an angel gets his wings...
Comment For those of you cousios about the copyright claim (and that's going to be everyone, most likely) the entire rational for this FPC is set out in the section Ownership and copyright issues.
I would summarize that discussion as follows: The film appears to have fallen into the public domain under U.S. copyright law because somebody blew a deadline to file a renewal. Some have asserted that certain aspects of the film are still subject to copyright, but it doesn't appear that those arguments would apply to a still image from the film. Spikebrennan13:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Film stills bring up various problems; the technical standards are completely different, leading to Svetovid's points above, and indeed, the composition is entirely different as well. If this is an iconic shot, it's because it reminds us of the film, not because it is particularly interesting or well-composed in itself. It is, in fact, deliberately soft-focused, which makes sense in the context of the film but not so much as a stand-alone image. So I oppose this one, and if film still are regularly nominated there may need to be some discussion of them as a group. Chick Bowen22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a Better quality screenshot could be made from a high quality reproduction of this movie, although the quality is not bad considering it is only 88 kb @ 1024x768 Bleh99913:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If for no other reason (and a number of good points have been raised already), there are JPEG artifacts present, such as by the man's thumb. We could have a better version of this exact same image. Zakolantern23:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One or two bits blurry, but for a historical image, superb. So long as it's no worse in that respect than the original, I give it my wholehearted support. Adam Cuerdentalk23:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support AlternativeMaybe I'd be inclined to support it if it was the only photo of him available, but my opinion is that this image is much superior because it really illustrates his "seamed weather-beaten face, unkempt hair and scraggly red beard."[10]Cacophony07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I considered nominating the one that Cacophony references--that image certainly does simultaneously convey a mood of weariness and arrogant defiance, and it's a great image-- but I found the darkness of the corners of that image to be distracting. Spikebrennan13:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative - I'm sure this breaks some element of FPC protocol, but I *love* that image Caco posted, so I'm offering it as an alternative. While the original's composition is better, the alternative is just so humanizing; he looks like a rough bastard I might run into at the Kwik-E-Mart today, and whom I wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of. This one is great too, but a bit small and blown-out. --TotoBaggins16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Votes in favor of the alternative won't work unless somebody goes through the protocol of nominating it. (Nothing stopping you from doing so). Spikebrennan18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The second one is a far better portrait - there's more than just lighting and angles to a photo, and it really captures something, as TotoBaggins says above. But the crop is a little weird and the vignetting in the bottom right is off-putting. The first one is just bland, only shows half of his face, and feels PR-ish, like someone's trying to artificially make Sherman seem grandfather-ish. zafiroblue05 | Talk00:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Intersection of Vesey St. and West Side/Joe DiMaggio Memorial Highway showing NW corner of the World Trade Center, taken on September 23, 2001. From left to right; Debris from WTC 1 has been strewn on and around WTC 6 opening a large hole in the roof, below it the damaged North side of WTC 5 is visible. The building near top right is Verizon's, and below it is rubble from WTC 7.
Reason
Sharp, clear, high-resolution, historic and encyclopedic
support wow - stunning. I'd like to know a bit more about which buildings we are looking at. the main towers? building 7? Debivort17:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support And I'd vote that way even if it was reproducible. Perhaps not the most stunning pic I've ever seen, but certainly FP material.--HereToHelp22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with everything nominator said, except that I can't see it as FP material. There's no composition or obvious focus, the picture is of part of the rubble with a few cranes. It's appropriate for the article of course, but I don't think it's an example of WP's best. ~ Veledan • Talk22:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree with everything i said, you'd agree that its "sharp,clear, high-resoultion, historic and encyclopedic" which qualifies it for featured picture status, and contradicts most of your reasons for opposing Brent Ward23:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it fails part of criterion 1 (good composition), and criterion 3 (WP's best work). I don't think the special circs for historical or irreproducible pics apply when there are hundreds of thousands of images of a subject available. A google image search finds 1000s of more impressive images IMO: couple of examples from just the first 2 pages: [11][12][13]. The fact that many of them are unuseable due to copyright or small size doesn't mean we should promote an inferior image just because it's the only one we've found so far. For that matter, doing the image search just on .gov sites where many if not most of the images are PD quickly turns up some good hi-res ones: check out [14] for an example. But even if there were no better PD images of the same subject, I'd still find this one a bit grey and flat. Worthy of being in the article if no better could be found, yes, but I'd not support it for FP. ~ Veledan • Talk23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of a good image in this nomination in all the others is clearly subjective. However, this is an aerial view of the rubble and the shot occurred 12 days after the event so you wouldn't expect much of an impact. Also this image coveres more ground, and it isn't meant to be pretty, its rubble, and if the alleged good images have copyright restraints, why bother mentioning them. At least this image gives some idea as to the scale of the attack --Brent Ward00:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think this image does a pretty poor job of showing the scale of the attack since there are no obvious references in the image. Its difficult to know exactly what you're looking at. this one that Veledan mentioned does a much better job at showing scale, since we can see the surrounding buildings. And I think Veledan does have a point - better images may have copyright restraints, but we don't HAVE to have a WTC featured picture if the available images are not up to scratch. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)06:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually [15] has blown highlight at the top left, is covered with chromatic speckle, and does not show the extent of the devastation. Yes, that one mound--who's top is cut off so I can't see how tall it is--looks pretty bad, but the nominated image shows how much area the debris covered.--HereToHelp23:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not even the best free image of the aftermath on the September 11 page. The remains of world trade center 6 also wouldn't be my first choice for a september 11 aftermath shot. We DO need a featured picture of this general subject, but that doesn't mean this image should be featured. Enuja00:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, photo meets WP:FP requirements, and shows more than just WTC 6. I re-wrote the caption to point out what is visible in the photo. Anynobody03:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor, uninteresting composition, doesn't tell me much about the subject or make me interested in learning more about it. Even though it isn't just a construction site, that's pretty much what this image looks like. Mak(talk)05:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject matter is amazing, the photo relatively (and individually) quite poor, per comments above. Another "featured subject" candidate, I'm afraid. mikaultalk12:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator and the first couple of support votes. I disagree with the comments that the composition is uninteresting or uninformative. Spikebrennan16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of context. I've see better images which display a lot of the surrounding area. In this case it's hard to identify what's pictured. --snowolfD4( talk / @ )00:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An example of how minuscule particles can be caught between dermal ridges in the hand, yet remain unseen by the naked eye. Washing one's hands removes such contaminants.
Reason
I think it has great detail. The small dirt particles make this an excellent addition to the hand washing article, illustrating how small particles can be hidden from the unaided eye. In thumb version of the picture, the dirt particles are uncontainable and the hand looks clean. One does not notice them until the image is enlarged.
Oppose Besides what others have said, it should be possible to achieve a significantly higher depth of field in this image. Your metadata says that you used a f-stop of 3.5. For this image, try not more than 2.5. (Use a good macro lens and a slight higher speed film than 64). Zakolantern17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are both correct, of course. I misspoke. I should have said no smaller than 2.5, although my general point and the numbers I choose are still valid.Zakolantern22:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. The picture was not taken wit an aperture number smaller than 2.5, 3.5 is bigger (smaller aperture opening). To get a reasonable DOF depending on focal length an f-number above at least 8 should have been chosen. --Dschwen22:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I clearly am done for the day - I apparently have forgotten how to think. One would think that spending several years shooting on full manual with both film and digital SLRs would make you immune to sounding like an idiot online when talking about photography, but I guess not. Zakolantern23:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NASA's modified 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft with Atlantis on top lift offs to begin its ferry-flight back to Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
Reason
This image is simple, yet complex. The image clearly shows the steps to a human civilization in space from the shuttle to the moon. The simplicity of the sky and the complexity of space and space travel may be interpreted in this picture as well.
Oppose. We're looking at the back of the aircraft, from rather far away. This doesn't effectively illustrate the apparent subject matter of the photograph (the shuttle and the modified 747 that carries it)-- and it certainly doesn't effectively illustrate the article in which the image is located (STS-122 is a future shuttle mission.) The composition is also problematic-- it looks like the wing of the aircraft is resting on top of the moon. Spikebrennan03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the problem is definitely the composition here. The image to the right is a much better image, though grainy as, unfortunately, so many of these NASA images are. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThe second image that TheDJ uploaded is actually no more grainy than the candidate, and is actually really cool. I would still oppose it too, unless someone tried to down-size it to reduce the grain and artifacts a bit, which may work because of how high res it is. Zakolantern17:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Victoria Memorial Hall was opened in 1912 as a memorial to Queen Victoria of Britain. The memorial is situated on 64 acres of land surrounded by sprawling gardens and an artificial lake. The hall is presently a museum featuring rare photographs and exhibits from the British Raj.
Reason
The best free high res image of this famous monument on the net.
Comment The perspective seems weird. First, the shot was not taken from the exact center. Second, the tops of the twoers on the sides look like rhombuses with inward curves. Are they really squares?--HereToHelp19:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per HereToHelp and Fcb981 — a good analogy to this picture, for me, is when an HDTV stretches a 4:3 image to fill the 16:9 screen, but not uniformly. To reduce apparent distortion, the stretching is minimal in the center and very noticeable on the sides (this mode is called "Wide Zoom" on Sony Bravia LCD TVs). I’ve actually been to the Victoria Memorial, and the parapets are definitely not parallelograms (or, to be specific, rhombuses — as HereToHelp mentioned); they’re squares. Also, it seems a bit overexposed. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 08:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
William F. Cody ("Buffalo Bill"). Photograph copyrighted 1911, by Moffett, Chicago.
Reason
Striking early 20th century portrait of a well-known historical figure. The indication of copyright in the caption is a transcription of a notation on the photo itself; the licensing on the image page indicates that the photo is in the public domain.
Support I may be a little biased because I love the quality of old style photos, but this meets the requirements of a FA in my eyes. Size is big, very little flaws, especially for a photo that old (very few water stains and dust). The DoF could be better, but technology was limited back then, and I believe that is part of the aesthetically appeal of the image. The figure is a notable figure with not many portraits, and this image is of historical importance. -Andrew c[talk]16:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I am appellationly biased. Don't like the signature bottom right though, someone could take that off. --Cody.Pope18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, since this is a work of art, and a historic image, it probably isn't the best thing to alter the image to remove the signature. It would lessen the accuracy and encyclopedic value by doing so (and in the past, commentors here at FPC have opposed such actions, as I learned first hand when I photoshopped out a copyright signature from a print, IIRC, of Abe Lincoln.)-Andrew c[talk]22:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coryphistes ruricola on a white backgroundAlternative 1 - showing camouflageAlternative 2 - on a blade of grass
Series of high quality images of the Bark Mimicking Grasshopper, Coryphistes ruricola. Found him near a river bank in Swifts Creek, in January 2007. Specimen approx 60mm in length. Rocks used for Alternative 1 were collected near where specimen was found and are the likely cause of his colouration.
Support lol: One or the other. I must say I admire your solution to constant criticism about which background you should be using. However, you need to make a page for Coryphistes ruricola, link it appropriately from other grasshopper pages, and put all three images in its gallery. I think I like alternative 1 best because I can see the blue spots on the inside of the jumping leg. You should avoid speculation in your description of the rocks and the grasshopper's coloration, though. Enuja17:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original nom with white background or Alt 1. Another great photo Fir. but make it easy for us and number ALL the alternatives next time ;-) ~ Veledan • Talk21:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2 - I think the enc value is higher when it is placed in context of its likely habitat to show why it has its markings. Version 1 actually may be a more useful picture for many purposes, because it would be easy to place on a completely photoshopped background, but it is not as enc. As I said about your spider picture, I would love a sense of scale here as well, either in a digitally inserted ruler or a modification to the caption that gives length. Note: I'm going to say thing repeatedly, considering your body of work - it's not a criticism of the work as a whole (which is excellent) but a suggestion to add enc value to great macro shots. I am going to briefly write my thoughts in detail on your talk page, since they are broader than this picture. Zakolantern22:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, you're supporting "Alternative 1", not "Alternative 2", correct? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-06 15:43Z
Support Alternative 1. Encyclopedic value of showing the camouflage trumps all. Given that image, the other choices make no sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-06 15:41Z
File:Burning Viet Cong base camp.jpgDescription: My Tho, Vietnam. A Burning Viet Cong Base Camp. In the foreground is Private First Class Raymond Rumpa, St Paul, Minnesota, C Company, 3rd Battalion, 47th Infantry, 9th Infantry Division, with 45 pound 90mm recoiless rifle., 04/05/1968
Reason
Header image for Vietnam War-- a powerful illustration.
Weak Oppose I love the pic, but the line that states "A Viet Cong base camp being" needs to be fixed up. When it is, please notify me so I can support it :). Z172006:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected it based on information available from arcweb image 594380 (not available online) but obviously taken at the same time, it says Photograph of Private First Class Raymond Rumpa Walking Past a Burning Viet Cong Base Camp 04/05/1968Bleh99907:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes I just uploaded it without any editing back in april, feel free to make new improvements, although apart from scanning dust, the quality is good for a Vietnam color image. Bleh99909:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm... the jpg differs a little bit from the TIFF. Besides a slight crop, the blue (ink?) blotches in the upper left corner are gone, and the contrast/brightness and saturation are a teeny weeny bit different (visible for instance in the highlights on the plant just left of the soldier, and in the burning roof just above it). Sorry, I don't have the time to try to remove the damage the original has acquired since it was taken (the scratches). Maybe someone else would like to try it? Lupo09:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I remember now, I did a slight levels adjustment and cropping, the main distracting scratch I see is the one near his wrist, this could be removed rather easily with a dust scratch filter used selectively on the area. Bleh99909:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very dramatic pic, but the scratches are really distracting in full res. I'm sure there are better quality color pics of the Vietnam War out there. Sorry. Jumpingcheese18:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image does a great job of illustrating the Willamette River as it goes through Portland. It took months of planning and a lot of luck to get this pic.
Strong support Most impressive. I can find no stitching errors, though they still might be in there, given the size of the pic.--HereToHelp02:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose support has tilt/curvature to the right. Would support otherwise. Debivort 03:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC) -- tilt fixed, but curvature is still there. Debivort17:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I was staring at the details for so long that I forgot to take a step back and look at the whole thing. I straightened it and cropped a bit more of the sky off. Now some of the buildings on the far left are slightly tilted to the left, but overall it is much improved now. Cacophony04:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak support It looks great. A bit soft in the focus at right, and there's still some tilt. Did you take this yesterday? Because I shot the picture two below yesterday afternoon. (Broke my tripod too) : (. That would be coincidental if you did. -Fcb98104:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, twas a great day with not very much smog/haze out. As for the poor focus at the right, I took literally 400 photos from this location and unfortunately every single one looking south was focused on the trees in the foreground. I thought about chopping it off at the south end of Ross Island, but I figured I'd give this a go and crop it is too bothersome for others. Cacophony05:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In the sky there are noticeable stitching errors, but the city itself looks free from those errors. The stitches go sharply from one shade of blue to another, but they line up very well. Also, the haze -- however naturally it occurs -- is dense enough that it takes away from the color detail.--Puddyglum18:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Illustrates the subject satisfactorily, and in any case it is a generally good photograph. I have tried to look for some stitching errors but personally I haven't seen any; I am assuming they must be quite subtle. The photograph is best appreciated at full-scale. Chris Buttigiegtalk19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This certainly represents the river very well, as well as the city, and it's a high-quality image — solid sharpness (except for the slight loss of focus on the right), contrast, and color overall. Great work. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 13:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, I can definitely appreciate the effort that went into this image, but there are a few technical issues present. There are some minor stitching errors, particularly near St. Helens; on either side of the mountain there are very slight but nevertheless noticeable differences in the sky that appear as grayish vertical bars where the photos were stitched. There is also a noticeable one about midway between Hood and St. Helens. Also, the softness and curvature others have mentioned. Other than that the image is well executed, with nice colors and contrast. --Mad Max23:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow wow wow. This photo is a significant contribution to the commons. For those not living in Portland, understand that sunny, cloudless days like this don't come around that often. I've lived here over 15 years and never knew Mt. Adams was visible from Portland. (Is this from Council Crest?) I'd say more, but I want to go back and look at it some more. -Pete00:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC) p.s. No strong preference between edits.[reply]
Support - a few minor photographic/stitching issues but as previously pointed out it would be extremely difficult to do any better. In any case, it's high res and very encylopedic given the number of bridges visible and the perspective of the mountains/river vis-a-vis downtown Portland so it should be an FP in my book. -BigSmooth21:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kerala is a small state of India situated at the southern tip of Indian subcontinent. Known as - God's own country, Kerala is famous for her natural beauty, bio-diversity, Art and Culture. Kerala's greenery consisting of Lagoons, Backwaters and Rainforests makes her a famous tourist destination.
Reason
Kerala is famous for its greenery. Its backwaters, lagoons, pond and lakes are world famous. Kerala is a famous tourist destination. We have an FA on Kerala and this picture is really portraying the natural beauty of the state.
Oppose Thank you for your submission. My reasons: First, the image is overall slightly hazy and blurred, or not as clear as I would like (at full size, look at the trunks of the palm trees). Next, the composition is flatter and less interesting than a FP should be. Finally, I do not think the enc value is particularly high, because it does not show anything unique about Kerala or anywhere else. I could be a generic pond in Hawaii, an over-watered area by Los Angeles, or practically anywhere else. Zakolantern22:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I dont mean to sound suspicious but why is there no evidence of something behind the soap bubble? I cant imagine you taking a black background to the golden gate bridge. But even if you did, you yourself, holding a camera, would show up in the reflection. And given the lighting there would be some parts of the scene, both in front of, and behind the soap bubble. Because of that it doesn't even look as though you cut in out in photoshop. Maybe there are other explanations but this looks like a fisheye shot with alterations more than an actual soap bubble?? -Fcb98101:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was cut and pasted to a black background in a photo shop. Nothing else was done with the image.Here's one of original images: the Golden Gate Bridge, as captured in the reflection from a soap bubble. My reflection sometimes was seen and sometimes was not. It is just how soap bubbles are working. Below is, for example, half bubble with my reflection:the Golden Gate Bridge, and my reflection in a half soap bubble--Mbz117:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Comment - I don't know if "suspicious" is the right word, but your concerns are valid. Is the nominator the creator of the image? --Iriseyes05:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, primarily for unnatural background... and while it may be cool... you don't need a bridge to represent a soap bubble (and the background obfuscates the fact that it floats, etc.) and it surely doesn't represent the bridge well. grenグレン06:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it doesn't represent the bridge well. Who would try to represent GGB in a soap bibble? The thing is I took so many pictures of the bridge that I'm looking for something new all the time. Here's the image, which shows reflection of the Bridge in the rain drops on my car window. Does it represent the Bridge well? Of course it does not, but I believe it is a fun picture.--Mbz117:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Come on! This certainly is no soap bubble. Atleast not one made from soap and water, flaoting in the air. The reflectance is much to high, sthe surface structure is off, it does not even look sprerical (the perspective is wring for the dark blotches bottom left), the edge looks fuzzy, there is no reflection of the photographer. What also makes me wonder is the reflection around the edge, it looks like a window frame. --Dschwen08:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the creator of the image and I do like it enough to be nominated here, so I guess I'll Oppose it too. Still I cannot agree with user Dschwen. He says:"Come on! This certainly is no soap bubble. Atleast not one made from soap and water, flaoting in the air." Well he was right only in the last sentance. That soap bubble attached itself to a nearby building and did not brust. Did it stop to be a soap bubble? I don't think so. By the way, if somebody knows how to make a soap bubble with no soap and with no water I'd be really interested to learn the process. I like to play with soap bubbles. Here's the image, which shows how soap bubbles were made:the Golden Gate Bridge, as captured in the reflection from a soap bubble As you could see it is a normal process of making soap bubbles. Here's one more example the Golden Gate Bridge, as captured in the reflection from a soap bubble of a soap bubble with GGB reflection. That bubble was floating. Any more questions? By the way I put the first image back to the article, but you could remove it again or better yet request it to be deleted. I care no more.--Mbz116:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Ok, my assessment was based on two things, the soft edge and the odd transparency. On the unmanipulatied pic it looks like a soap bubble, but the manipulation ruins the pic for me. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who was confused by it. So, do we want such a picture to illustrate the soap bubble article? --Dschwen15:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the picture from article. I've also removed 3 other pictures of mine from the article too. --16:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Relax, log off, drink a beer, log back on, readd the nice bubble pics, and don't give a crap about what I think about the nominated pic :-). --Dschwen19:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i dont understand what its supposed to illustrate? and if it is in none of our articles, then its somewhat unencyclopedic
To understand what it illustrates you should have imagination, which only lucky few have, but, if you read all posts maybe you'd understand what it illustrates. Yet I see you were in such a hurry to oppose that you even forgot to put your name at the end.--Mbz115:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Not the usual Fir standard. It looks snapshotish with the dark corner and the two red lines. Plus the cat is cut and I don't really like the composition. --Dschwen10:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I just don't want to slap the nominator with a big fat oppose, but rather just give a detailed opinion. It's a psychological thing ;-) --Dschwen16:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but we can certainly do better for this subject - after all, it's not a particularly hard subject to photograph. Basically, agree with Dschwen. (NOTE: Added the sig in a second edit - I forgot) Zakolantern17:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I herebey endorse Fir taking another picture of his cat, with better composition than this one, and giving the bug thing a rest. Chick Bowen01:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm not going to say this is a great photo because it's not. But can't do a reshoot because I don't have a cat (I took this one as I walked down the street) and tell you the truth I don't see why I should give the "bug thing" a rest. Thanks anyway, --Fir000204:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope it's clear that I was joking about that. I have a phobia, but I was not making a comment about the photographs, which are obviously excellent. Chick Bowen04:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A young boy killed and set aflame by a V-2 rocket attack on the main intersection in Antwerp on the main allied supply line to Holland. Belgium, November 27, 1944
Reason
Nice composition and subject matter, this image was published in some magazines and newspapers I believe, a good example a civilian casualty of a ballistic rocket as well the desperation of the Germans at this stage of the war (V = Vergeltungswaffe or Vengeance weapon, as said by Dr Goebbels)
Support but improve caption. Add who used the V-2 and other information. Also make it more encyclopaedic and less an essay ("ghastly witness of the horror of the damage").--Svetovid12:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will try and find out more about this incident but I'm not sure if it can be determined who launched the V-2 other than saying it was Nazi Germany, there were hundreds of such attacks in 1944, the caption is pulled straight from the national archives database, and is a typical POV editorialized caption of the time, I will reword it. Bleh99912:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support immense historic and encyclopedic value; and for a world war two photograph, surprisingly good quality. --Brent Ward14:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While my moral compass agrees to showing the devastating consequences of the deployment of such weapons my enc compas disagrees with adding the image to that article. A burning young boy (most of the soldiers were boys especially that late in the war) conveys emotion rather than information about the destructive power of the rocket. An overview picture showing the complete damage would be more valuable in that article. --Dschwen12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support strong picture. The tires of the truck are still burning and the corpse is still smoking yet the people walk by casually. --Dschwen12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whoa...flaming carcass and nobody cares. Grim. Anyways, very encyclopedic and historical pic. Surprisingly good quality. Jumpingcheese20:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support “Hm, a charred, still smoking body. Ho-hum.” Eek...the horrors of war — in more ways than one. Good quality shot, too, for something from 1944. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 06:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of full monkeys, I should point out that the first page of a multi-page document is ugly(but it is this first page, because of the famous "We the People" that is really the iconic one.) Spikebrennan11:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a great scan of one of the most important documents in American history. Of course, the template/licensing issues on the image page will have to be fixed, but there’s nothing wrong with the scan itself. As to the first part of the reason, well, it’ll definitely be ready for July 4, 2008... —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 06:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral, I am not trying to be nasty, but the fact is that we already have the declaration of independence featured (therefore already in the American scope) and there are thousands of other iconic and historic documents including constitutions, war proclamations, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Magna Carta for example which are not. Anyhow, the image is not the best in being aesthetically eye-catching. Chris Buttigieg12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're different documents, so that objection doesn't make sense. If we have good, hi-res scans of those other historical documents then they are worth considering for FP status also. I checked the articles for the two you cited and the scans are not hi-res enough. (The British Library evidently sells hi-res scans of the Magna Carta; I don't know whether any is available from a PD source. The Lincoln Cathedral's copy of the Magna Carta is temporarily here in Philadelphia at the National Constitution Center but they don't permit photography even if I were a photographer.) I disagree with the notion that the image is not aesthetically eye-catching (I guess that's a matter of personal taste. I like looking at 18th century penmanship.) Spikebrennan13:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The non-FP status of other similar documents is not a valid criticism of this image unless those documents were nominated for FPC and failed due to a concern that could be applied to all such documented bananas. As for the aesthetic value of an image, people will obviously disagree with you on that, but even if they don't, the FP criteria allow for images that are not aesthetically-pleasing as long as they're of significant historical value; that is arguably the case here. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-06 15:34Z
Don't get me wrong, I do not doubt its historic value or even its aesthetics, indeed I normally support etchings, documents, maps etc. The only thing I said was that it seems a bit superfluous in the context of Americana. We already have the declaration of independence featured whereas other iconic documents are not, and I used the above-mentioned ones solely as an example. It is certainly an aesthetically-pleasing document, yet not aesthetically eye-catching. However, it appears that I have been swayed enough to change to neutral. :) Chris Buttigieg13:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per discussion above. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-06 15:36Z
Harry Houdini (1874-1926) Promotional photo from ca. 1899.Harry Houdini (1874-1926) same image as above from Library of Congress, but the version from LoC is flipped so it was left as is. This appears to be the correct orientation; cf [1].
Reason
Best portrait of Houdini "at work" in Wikipedia. 992 px tall, which is just a hair under the requirements. There's some schmutz on the image, but this is a scan of an 1899 image.
comment yes the nominated image is very poor quality, bad compression artifacts, as a courtesy I uploaded a better version from the Library of Congress but it is flipped, maybe that is the correct orientation, difficult to tell. Still the resolution is not much better, but it's not suffering from compression artifacts. Bleh99907:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the results of a GIS for "houdini" show his part on the left side of his head, so I believe the LOC version is the correct orientation. --TotoBaggins18:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either this image or the rolled-up-sleeve version is the most famous depiction of Houdini, but either way, we need a higher-quality version. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-03 14:15Z
A panoramic view of Melbourne Docklands and city skyline from Waterfront City looking across Victoria Harbour, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Features include (from left), some residential and commercial buildings along the harbour at New Quay, the Seven Network digital broadcast centre, some of the original (now renovated) Melbourne docks sheds on Central Pier, the Telstra Dome (Docklands Stadium), and commercial buildings, including the colourful lowrise National Australia Bank headquarters. In the background is the Melbourne CBD skyline, including the Rialto Towers (the tallest office building in the Southern Hemisphere) and the Eureka Tower (the tallest residential building in the world). The construction in progress of some buildings in Docklands shows the still evolving nature of this part of the city.
Reason
I uploaded this image late last year and intended to nominate it then as I believe it meets all the FPC requirements, but just never got around to it. I was reminded of it when Subaru Australia contacted me to tell me they had used it as the backdrop for their advertising for the Melbourne International Motor Show a few months ago, so thought if it's good enough for them I may as well give it a try here.
Oppose On balance, the good lighting and careful composition aren't enough to excuse lack of detail, slight fringing and rather over-exposed highlights. I like it & I can see why Subaru liked it, but the one thing which might have swayed me to support – enc value – seems to be its weakest virtue. mikaultalk11:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to see more detail in the summary statement. What exactly are we looking at? I can see at least five cranes - what are they building? If the same shot was taken today, would it look substantially different? I'm leaning towards support, but I'm not sure of the encyclopedic value of a picture that's now out of date (and with no particular historic value). Matt Deres18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this shot has low encyclopedic value, surely the same would apply to this, this, this and most of the other featured panoramas we have? I really don't see the problem with the encyclopedic value in this picture. Raven4x4x14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the views of those photos are now out of date, then I'd be concerned about the encyclopedic qualities of them as well - for example, a shot of the NYC skyline in 1999 is an historic image, but no longer of much encyclopedic value compared to the way the city currently looks. There seems to be a great deal of construction going on in the FPC image, which means that it may now be out of date. It might have encyclopedic value as an historic image, but those are judged by slightly different criteria, which is why I've asked for more info. If the construction was actually pretty minor, then I'd be happy to support as I genuinely like this picture.
IMO, historic pics get some passes as regards film quality, composition, etc, but they need to have some real historic value to be considered FP - this shot has the quality and composition to make it as a 'current' image, but may not be historically important enough to warrant getting in as an historic photo. Yeah, I know I'm rambling; hopefully, you get the gist of what I'm talking about. In either case, the caption needs some mroe detail. Matt Deres01:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting comment to make for this image - this is the one area of Melbourne which really *is* changing. The stadium in the centre was built less than 10 years ago. The tower to the right of the word 'dome' was completed in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, the central area on stilts is about to be redeveloped into some crappy restaurant or hotel. I suspect most of the apartment buildings in the area are less than 10 years old as well. I'm neutral on the FP-ness of it - the rightmost third of it is a bit vacuous, and I don't like seeing the boardwalk at the left. Stevage04:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Not quite FP material. The lighting is simply wrong, and the composition is a little off. --Hetar23:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak support not as big as I would like in a pano, but illustrates its topic very well. I don't understand why people are saying it is low enc. Debivort02:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Debivort - seems to have good enc value. Also good to see is a lack of the distortion you usually get with such wide angle panos involving straight lines --Fir000207:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Sorry, have been away and have only just got back and had a look at this. I have updated the caption and picture summary to try to address some of the concerns raised by some voters about lack of encyclopaedic value, as this seemed to be the main cause for opposing or being unsure. The concern about it being almost a year old I can't do much about now, except to say that last time I was down that way, about 3mths ago, the area shown in the pano hadn't changed all that much (yes, Stevage is right, this area of Melbourne in general is undergoing lots of development, but the main stuff you see here hasn't changed much). I'm not sure what can be done about the lighting for Hetar as everyone else seems to think it's good, as did I. Re the composition, I accept that some may prefer the buildings at the right to be cut from perhaps where the NAB buildings end (Subaru did cut them out in the ad I mentioned), but I left them in as I thought it added to the encyclopaedic value; I disagree with Stevage about the walkway at the left, as it does add considerable value by showing how Waterfront City is connected to the rest of Docklands via New Quay, and that this photo wasn't taken, say, from a boat out on Victoria Harbour. --jjron15:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support My concerns have been met by the expanded caption and I think the shot itself is both eye-catching and encyclopedic. Matt Deres16:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The image needs to be clicked on to be seen, for some obscure reason. I followed all nomination procedures, so i've no idea what it is
Reason
Although an unconventional nomination, we have to remember when voting, that wikipedia is not censored. I find this image to be well composed, clear, high resolution and rather sharp. It also demonstrates the subject well.
Oppose image is off center, the background is too dark, the guys head is cut off (which I find distracting), and any photograph of the male penis should cover both sides of the subject. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its a photograph of his penis not his head; either way it still shows the subject well.
speedy close this troll nom - but in case you need a real reason: harsh lighting, poor composition, erect state is atypical of penes, obvious jpeg artifacts and given prevalence of subject an aesthetically appealing image should be procurable. Debivort02:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, a quick look at the nominator's contributions shows virtually nothing outside of FPC. Not promoted . MER-C03:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only just created an account! And it is an encyclopedic image so dont have a go at me
Oppose Yeah, the artifacts are pretty bad. Also, for such an important piece of history, the resolution is sort of low... I know that it meets the 1000px requirement, but still... I would like to see something much bigger. tiZom(2¢)23:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeAt the very least, the subject shouldn't be cropped so close that you lose parts of it on the left hand side. I've seen this mask and can still recall the level of detail in those inlays, which are rendered as a smudge of colours here. As a copy of an artwork it should impart that sort of information, at least. mikaultalk11:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Darjeeling Himalayan Railway is a narrow guage railway system in Darjeeling, that has been identified as a world heritage site by the UNESCO. Climbing over 2000m in a distance of 86km from Siliguri, the system was hailed as an engineering marvel when it opened in 1881.
Reason
A unique image where both the diesel and coal fired engines of the DHR is visible in the loco shed and the view of the historic Darjeeling railway station.
Reluctant Oppose It's a great scene but the leftmost stitch has left half a woman who reappears further to the left... people appearing twice in one panorama is unavoidable but it's a pity that this one was caught right on the stitch. I take it there were no shots that could be used to patch her out? ~ Veledan • Talk17:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ive removed the ghost lady and another guy who was walking down the tracks. Also fixed the highlights. Can you please be specific on the sharpening. I havent sharpened it --PlaneMad|YakYak18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice, and good to see a picture from a less covered region of the globe. First of all not many areas of the pic are actually blown, just two patches of overcast sky, which is hardly avoidable. The clods on the left edge are well exposed. Secondly I know from experience how hard it is to get good stich of an unforgivingly straight subject such as train tracks, especially as some are faily close to the camera. In the thumbnail the image looks pretty tilted, but at full size it's not that bad. Maybe this could be straightened even more. As for the oversharpening... ...it is no oversharpening but results from how the camera lens is corrected for spherical aberration, most compact cams are tuned to produces an accutance increase, which looks like sharpening. --Dschwen18:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also like that there is a lot going on in the picture. The only criticism I have is the vertical composition. The image could have used some more room on the top edge. --Dschwen18:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, I feel like we are looking at different images. One of the most glaring examples of what I had seen as oversharpening is the edge of the man standing by the train number 122A - it has the characteristic dark line next to a light line. So, that's due to some lens engineering? As for highlights, my analysis in photoshop shows lots of FFFFF pixels in the roof on the right side of the image, the rocks, and the people near them. These white pixels are 1% of the image by area. Debivort18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I overwrote the original, so you may have to clear your cache. Ive fixed the blown highlights on the left part. There are a few highlights on the rights side which can be reduced the same way, which i will do tomorrow (its night here in India). This was a 7 image stitch which i took in quite a hurry when i found a pause in the heavy traffic on the highway. Ive tried to expand it vertically as much as possible using a lot of cloning to fill in the missing details --PlaneMad|YakYak19:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm seeing the same oversharpening and blown areas as Debivort in both images. The second is better, but it just doesn't fix the problem. However, I'm getting .36 % pure white pixels in the oldd version and .27 % in the new one, so I can't imagine that the blown part is as irredeemable as Debivort's 1 % suggests. I'm could be wrong though in my quick measurement. J Are you green?22:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the way I calculated it was to select all FFFFFF pixels, with no antialias, fill them to black, fill the rest to white, average the image, and then read the RGB value of the resulting light gray field. I got RGB=254 254 254 and HSB = 0 0 99%. Maybe there's a more elegant way. Debivort23:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right. I'm messing in an area that I don't know enough about. I just went to the luminosity histogram and put the total pixels with level 255 and put that number over 10.72 million. J Are you green?03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1/255 is about 0.392%. You method has way less precission than the histogram method, and due to rounding the white pixel count could be as low as 0.196% but not higher than 0.588% and certainly not 1% of the image by area. So if you must do pixel-counting, please do it right. --Dschwen10:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
d'oh I subtracted from 256! I wonder why the HSB value was 99% though. Hmm. In either case, a lot of white pixels. Debivort13:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, All the above votes address technical quibbles, but I just don't see what the big deal is with the subject. It's a rail shed, there's nothing really distinctive about it, and it's just all distorted off to the sides with nothing really important in the middle. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that the half-a-woman has been fixed! This is a great scene, and a good stitch job. Night, you have the right not to be wowed but for my part I think it doesn't need to be a featured subject to be worthy of featuring as a picture. I think it's really compelling. And Per Dschwen, we have little enough coverage of India in FP ~ Veledan • Talk07:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image updated I have removed the highlight problem (hopefully). As for the oversharepening bit, ive fixed the part that was mentioned. I never sharpened the image, so i dont know how it got oversharpened. Night Gyr, your right that the pic is not stuning to bring you to your knees, but the scene thats been captured is very unique. What do you think would have been the best way to capture the DHR? Trains are difficult subjects to capture, which is why you have so few (or none?) featured pictures of them --PlaneMad|YakYak13:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have a lot of reservations about the usefulness of this kind of image. What would you do with it? It's not beautiful to look at. It's not especially informative, as what you're mostly seeing is the people and trains etc that were there at that particular moment. And the composition is very loose - what are we looking at? People? A train? A train station? A train line? There's no real focus to it. Also, the closeness of the photographer to the people makes the shot seem very voyeuristic, like the viewer is really right there on the platform - but why? That might be good in a photo about a cultural event, a festival or something, but for a photo about a train line? I think the above discussion has become very fixated on fixing the technical deficiencies without thinking about the broader picture of "is this a beautiful, useful, encyclopaedic photo that is valuable to Wikipedia"? I just don't think it is. A super-wide, super-narrow panorama isn't a great way to capture that subject for us. Stevage04:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Two sun streaks in the middle of the church-like structure on the hill and there is also some missing pixels from stitching on the very top and some by the concrete blocks on the bottom right. --Digon314:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now normally I'm a real stickler for chronological order when uploading photos (I'm currently at Jan 2007), but was really proud of this shot! Now when I first found her floating in a puddle while walking around our somewhat flooded property I thought with fangs like that it must be a funnel web. So camera shake was a bigger problem than usual when photographing this deadly insect! But it's a female mouse spider (still deadly), rarely seen outside of her burrow, forced up into the open by the floods.
support either focus is better in 2, but pose is better in one. I do have one problem with some of these studio shots though - there is no sense of scale. How large is this spider? Debivort05:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1 Scary hairy spiders! Someone smash them quick!!! Heheheh Anyways, I like how 1 shows the fangs. Slightly out of focus, but nothing major for a microshot in my opinion. Encyclopedic pic. Jumpingcheese07:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2 It looks to me like there is more area in focus, and the head isn't obscured by the mandible (I think that's what that is). Unfortunately, you can't see the fangs.--HereToHelp16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Debivort's comment but not his conclusion - a sense of scale is necessary. I don't know if there should be a quarter or a tennis ball next to the spider; that's how hard it is to gauge. That said, they're really cool pictures which I would support otherwise. And I might support a version with a digitally added ruler. (NOTE: Added the sig in a second edit - I forgot) Zakolantern17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a great idea - what do you think Fir, add a (maybe 2mm) scale bar, and annotate it with some of your smooth Photoshop fonting? Debivort18:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm OK, I could have a shot at that - it'd spoil my beautiful white bg tho! Other problem is perspective, it won't be a problem in Option 2, but Option 1 may pose a problem --Fir000222:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the perspective would not be that big a deal because you do not need to have that fine a level of granularity on the scale, so it does not have to really match the perspective of the image. However, you could also just modify the caption as I said below. Finally, this issue is broader than just this one (very good otherwise) picture. If you are interested in the topic, I posted my thoughts on Fir0002's talk page. Zakolantern23:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1 The size is given in both the image page caption and the article, so I don't think the lack of scale as a problem. Hideous spider :-) ~ Veledan • Talk17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The size is not in the caption as it appears on this page. I really like Debivort's suggestion - if it is a ~25 mm spider, putting a 2 mm ruler in one of the white corners would look good. I might support with just a caption modification that indicates size. Zakolantern22:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. Good photos. I don't think it's necessary to include a scale-- that's what the image file description, the caption and the article are for. Parts of both spiders are out of focus-- is this inevitable with microphotography? (as I've mentioned in FPC before, I really don't know anything about photography.) Spikebrennan00:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC) (update) oppose the addition of the scale[reply]
Support either with a shudder - As much as I'd like to keep these horrifying creatures away, excellent job as usual Fir. --Iriseyes05:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scale While not the way I personally would have added a scale to that picture, the craftsmanship and clarity of it is great. I think it adds to the enc value and should be the picture chosen. Thanks for trying the change, Fir0002. Zakolantern22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support without scale, preference for No. 2. Though I question the lack of background - it's a bit weird having a sand-covered spider on a pure white background - where did the sand come from? Wouldn't showing it on a natural surface be better? Stevage04:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shot at f/11 - max DOF w/o loss of sharpness/detail due to diffraction of light. Focus bracket on such a subject would be impossible without killing it. --Fir000208:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fir, did you really need all 150mm of your dedicated macro? Its not as if you need 1:1 size repro with this big a spider. Taking a shorter lens would have given substantially greater DOF. that or spacing out the distance with any lens would have helped. I'm just curious if there are any particular reasons you chose the set up you did, I'm not in anyway saying those are mistakes. given your achivements with bug macros I'm just happy to get a few tips. oh, one more thing briefly, how many strobes do you use and are they slaved or synced? -Fcb98107:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the questions Fcb, I'll gladly answer. First you do actually need pretty close to 1:1 macro to fill a frame at this size - I could have used something like my Tamron and cropped, but this would mean that I wouldn't have a high res image and the sharpness would be significantly degraded (both because I'd be using a lens which isn't that sharp at min focus distant and because photos are never perfectly sharp at 100% and you gain sharpness by downsampling). Second (and equally important) reason is that I felt much more comfortable at a safer distance from this spider, and the spider would have felt less threatened by me as I wasn't so close. Not sure what you mean by "spacing out the distance with any lens". Single shoe mounted flash and reasonable sunlight was all I used - I wish I had a strobe(s)!! --Fir000207:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
huh, I see what you mean not wanting to get to cozy with your hairy friend up there. and by spacing out I just meant increase the distance to the subject, but that would mean more cropping. I am impressed that you manage to get good white balance on the bg with sunlight and flash ligh. Thanks for the reply. -Fcb98116:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pref for No 1 (no scale). Another fantastic photo from the frightening Fir menagerie. I like the concept of the scale, but by adding it afterwards we get the perspective problem that Fir0002 suggested; as he said it's fine if you do it horizontally, like if done in No 2, but not where it's going 'back' into the image, but where the gradations stay constant. As mentioned, the size of the beast could (and should) just be put into the caption. No 1 is better than No 2 as it shows the classic mygalomorph spider pose with the head/thorax arched up (this is another article this would be really good for). And BTW spiders are arachnids, not insects ;-). --jjron06:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I did some level adjustments, minor sharpening, the usual. I do shoot with enhanced saturation in camera, plus, I have tried many times to calibrate my LCD but I can never tell what is due to viewing angle. Color aturation came up in a my portland skyline nomination so this is not a passing concern. I'll change the settings today and upload a less satuarated version. I appreciate the feedback. -Fcb98118:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Would it be possible to modify the image, or use a different collection of shots for the stitch, so that the sky color is even? The way that it lightens on the right is distracting to me. Zakolantern22:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly easy to fix, no. I keep all camera setting consistant throughout so that is natural lightening, maybe made more obvious by the very nature of panoramas. In this case, for better or for worse, that brightening effect is here to stay :\ -Fcb98122:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too many issues. The image is rather blurry. Look at the mechanical structure above the bridge, look at the boats under the bridge. (was this taken on a tripod?) The changing sky color is a little distracting, but if it was around dusk, something like that could be expected. Also the saturation seems a little off. It's a good shot, but because it is relatively easily recreatable, I think we can do better for wikipedia's best work.-Andrew c[talk]17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did use a tripod. I think it is a good time for me to point out that the boats are not in fact exibiting motion blur due to camera shake. They are simpily out of focus and not by accident. There is some minor motion blur high on the left tower, it is less noticeable lower on it. This is due to camera shake when I was taking that particular segment. I'm realy confused that you think the bridge is blury but maybe you see something i dont. -Fcb98118:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, if you see more "encyclopedicality" in that nomination and if you do could you please explain why, and if you do not why you've never opposed it?--Mbz121:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Thanks form your time, J. How nice of you to give such "a courtesy" to me and to answer the question that was not even addressed to you. --69.181.181.22622:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Oppose. Since it sounds like the photographer wants feedback - I think that this picture and the one you linked to have approximately the same amount of enc value. And yours may be more artistic and a nicer shot overall. However, I would personally oppose them both because as other people have said, while a truly beautiful shot, I don't think its enc value lets it be one of the best pictures on Wikipedia. Zakolantern22:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great image, but the caption needs work. FPC 7. SingCal 20:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Yeah, that's great, although I think it could benefit from a bit more detail about what's going on in the picture, but in the meantime... SupportSingCal23:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that the image is probably _not_ that representative of gladiators-- per the text on the image page, the weapons are wrong; also there is scholarly debate over whether the "thumbs down" gesture really meant "kill the loser". However, the image was apparently very influential with respect to 19th and 20th century conceptions about what gladiatorial combat was like-- so I guess it's very encyclopedic with respect to Pollice Verso, Hand gesture, Gladiator (2000 film) andJean-Léon Gérôme and less so with respect to Gladiator. Spikebrennan00:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it serves a good purpose as the main picture on the gladiator page. What you said with respect to wrong weapons and sketchy hand justures may be true but for me, having limited knowlage of gladiators, It captures an appropriate aura for the gladiator artical. As well as serving purposes for the others. -Fcb98101:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A change from the usual; illustrates the subject satisfactorily and as far as I can see, there are no major technical problems. Chris Buttigieg14:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reluctant oppose I made this image my desktop background, and since doing so have noticed a lot of blocks and checkers that appear to be jpeg compression artifacts. They are pretty subtle because the painting has soft focus to begin with, but now that I have noticed them they are pretty distracting. Debivort16:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, there are major tech propblems here. I've had a search about and this is a big canvas with plenty of detail, none of which comes over in this scan. It's far from high-res and seems to have lost most of its fine detail to JPEG compression atifacts. The colour balance also seems a bit off compared to the Phoenix Museum scan. It may be enc for Gladiator but it's far from being a high-quality version of the painting. mikaultalk17:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. The artifacts are just too bad. Look at the black square where the doorway is. There are little horizontal and vertical bars. Then look around the whole image to see more. Unfortunately, this particular file to TOO compressed. -Andrew c[talk]17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Yellow Warbler, Dendroica petechia, is a New World warbler. It is the most widespread Dendroica warbler, breeding in almost the whole of North America and down to northern South America.
Reason
Beautiful shot of this lovely bird in great light, in front of a nice smooth background and on a natural perch. In short there aren't many better pictures of this species.
Support Beautiful shot--color, sharpness, composition, DOF (blur is spot-on, eliminating far background, deemphasizing the closer tree, and keeping the whole bird in sharp focus). I'm happy to make this my first FPC vote. :) Peter16:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Obviously will succeed, but I wanted to add that it is one of the best composed single animal photographs I've seen in a while, for many reasons said by Peter. Zakolantern17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not a photographer, but in this shot, I think I got lucky. Everything seems reasonably crisp, I think... Well, I know engravings. I don't really know photographs. See what you think. Vanished usertalk23:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Nice snap but wrt FP, the pic has a very distracting background. In the thumb view, most of the seal's features meshes into the background. In the full view, there is still issues. --Kalyan11:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose a good shot to be sure, although i do not think that this is "among wikipedias best work", sorry --Hadseys11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because their should be more focus on the seal and less on everything else (basically a different, narrower composition). Zakolantern16:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Lone Cypress near sunset. The Lone Cypress is the official symbol of Pebble Beach, California and a significant landmark on the scenic 17-Mile Drive just outside the city. The Drive is on the northern edge of California's Big Sur coast, an area of rugged cliffs and mountains over the Pacific Ocean.Edit 1, resolution increased to 1280 x 1707 pixels. Lighting, I notice, is also a bit brighter.
Reason
Other images of the Lone Cypress that I have seen on Wikipedia don't have quite as good of lighting, in my opinion. In addition, the Lone Cypress is a cultural symbol of the Big Sur area of California and holds significant educational value.
Weak oppose I don't believe a sunset is the best lighting for the Lone Cypress, since the lighting obscures some of the details. I personally prefer the lighting in Image:Lone cypress in 17-mile-drive.jpg. It's not as dramatic, but the details are easier to see. Also, the pic is a bit on the small side. I'm sure someone can go out there and take a high res shot. It's the most photographed tree in the world (at least according to the brochure I have somewhere), so it shouldn't be long before a high res pic is uploaded. Jumpingcheese07:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized something...the pic was uploaded like yesterday by the nominator. Hersfold, can you upload the higher res version you surely have? I'll appreciate it. Also, I heard rumors that the Lone Cypress is copyrighted (or trademarked...not sure), thus the pic is some sort of copyright infringement. I did some Googling and the results suggest that it's not.[18] I can't be for sure though. Jumpingcheese07:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand copyright law, you have to copyright a specific image. A blanket copyright on an actual object doesn't work very well. Anyway, I'm working on the higher resolution now, and should have it soon. Hersfold(talk/work)16:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)(New image up now)[reply]
Well, you can copyright a sculpture, but not a tree (since copyright belongs to the creator, not the owner [no God jokes please]). They might restrict photographic rights on their property, but if so it should have been posted somewhere, and Hersfold I presume would have noticed. That's not a copyright issue anyway; it could get the photographer in trouble, but not WP for posting it. Chick Bowen02:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't any copyright notice - at least, none in a conspicuous location. I'm not the only one to have taken pictures of it, so I can't have simply missed it. Looking at Google Earth, there's pictures of this tree all up and down the coastline from Panoramio. Hersfold(talk/work)03:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely image; without the sunset the image wouldn't be half so eye-catching, I think, and eye-catching is in the definition of a FP. Adam Cuerdentalk14:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose - lovely yes, nice light, but not very detailed, especially in the tree. Illustrates "Pebble beach" best among its articles, but the other articles not that well (by FP standards). Debivort19:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would point out that it is impossible to get a more close-up shot of the tree itself, due to steep cliffs and fences preventing anyone from leaving the roadside without risking life, limb, and arrest for trespass. Hersfold(talk/work)04:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWell, a longer zoom would have got you closer, but that's not the problem. I like the lighting, trees usually do look better lit by a low sun and this shot is a good example. I really don't like the composition at all, which makes a bigger deal of the rock than the tree on it. I would much rather see a wider view (or a less-tight crop) with a better subject-oriented composition, but I'm also thinking an even later shot, with the sun just about to disappear, might have picked out the tree in the shot better than any other technique. mikaultalk11:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This 1863 Woodburytype shows French poet Charles Baudelaire just before his health began to decline. Baudelaire famously declared photography to be "the refuge of every would-be painter, every painter too ill-endowed or too lazy to complete his studies."[2]File:Charles Baudelaire2 zoom.jpgDetail showing typical offset printing halftone screenEdit 1: despeckled, downsampled, lightly retouched
Reason
This is a wonderful portrait with high encyclopedic value.
Woops, I forgot to fill out the source field when I uploaded it. This is an image that I scanned from a book. It has somewhat less dust and scratches than the other image, though it is not nearly as clean as the low-res version from The Met. It is a Woodburytype print, so there are likely many different versions that exist. The nominated version is the same quality as appears in the book. I'm hesitant to do any touching up because I know that is often frowned upon. Cacophony19:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll support. The texture of the paper is apparent in the scan, but my understanding is that since Woodburytypes are not printed on photo paper, that would usually be true anyway. I also added the image to Woodburytype. Chick Bowen21:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that it's the texture of the paper. It looks like halftoning, and seeing that it is a scan from a book as well as comparing it to the image that Cacophony linked, I'd say it probably is. However, until I'm sure, I'll refrain from voting. J Are you green?22:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's halftoning that is somewhat visiable on the image from the book. I'm not sure how to improve it other than finding another source. It is really too bad because it is going to be difficult finding another image that large (it's about 8"x6" in the book). Cacophony23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can remove halftoning quite accurately without loss of detail with reverse fourier analysis, plugins available for gimp and photoshop on the internet, but when I use it I find it messes up the corners sometimes, another option is using smoothing tools like NL filter in gimp or gaussian blur but there will be some loss of detail Bleh99911:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to oppose this version. I can't look at the Met one and not wish it was here instead; the halftone conversion has blown almost all of the subtlety of the original print. It's a bit ironic that the technique this shot is partly notable for is obscured by the halftone of the book it was scanned from. The Woodburytype was specifically developed for book repro and remains (I believe) the only way of rendering a gray in offset printing without using halftone dots! As a shot of the subject, it's a fine portrait and judged on that basis I'd support, but no matter how hi-res this version is, it'll be horrible in repro and isn't very nice to look at unless heavily downsampled. Nonetheless I've uploaded a despeckled, downsampled version (with the worst of the dust removed) for consideration. mikaultalk15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit Great comment by the person above me - if you read this, go back and sign your post. You did a great job editing the image; it improves it enough for me to support it. Zakolantern21:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I guess I dropped a tilda. Glad you like the edit :o) mikaul
Oppose both Sorry, but the halftoning means that this is an inferior and inaccurate reproduction of a wonderful portrait. The edit is significantly better, but the seeming texture caused by halftoning remains. Although this is a wonderful picture, the halftoning artifacts are misleading and show that this is not the best that Wikipedia can offer. J Are you green?15:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: has anyone e-mailed the Met and asked for a high-res version of their scan? It's not beyond the realm of possibility. Chick Bowen15:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I got so excited when I saw the thumbnail. This is such a wonderful, haunting portrait. However, the halftoning issue at 100% bothered me, and the edit just looks too soft/artificial. I'll see if I can't find a better version.-Andrew c[talk]17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a complete sucker for historic drawings and this is a good scan but I'll refrain from voting for now. I reckon a transcription and translation of the various inset texts on the image page would raise the enc value a lot. The header is translated in Murerplan but not the rest. ~ Veledan • Talk23:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support' I agree with Veledan that a translation would make it more encyclopedic, but that's an article issue, not an inherent problem in the image itself. Adam Cuerdentalk23:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the translations belong on the image page irrespective of whether they're in the article, but I'll offer a weak support despite what I think is an incomplete caption :-) ~ Veledan • Talk21:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support what a wonderful illustration. The detail of the image is very nice, the execution is good, and of course the historic value.-Andrew c[talk]17:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's cut off at the edges (including text in at least one place). Even if that were fixed, I would expect the full translation to be included before supporting.--ragesoss04:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an extremely shocking and interesting piece of road. Only in extreme circumstances does roads need to have wrong-way concurrencies and ones that have entirely different directions.
Oppose I can see why the image's content may be notable, but the image itself doesn't grab me. The telephone wires in back are distracting, and the backdrop of the image is fairly bland. Not really FP-quality stuff, I think. SingCal08:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. This is an interesting image, thus my (weak) support. Not much "wow", but it illustrates the concepts well, thus high enc. Quality is adequate for this type of image. --Janke | Talk13:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. It gets the point across, properly illustrates the articles, and is probably a rare situation. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-10 13:28Z
Oppose based on composition. We can't see the road, which (together with its signage) ought to be the true subject of the photograph. Spikebrennan14:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the telephone lines would be fine if there were a road, a line of trees, etc. also included to give a sense of the road's direction, but as is, this photo gets the point across well (and I agree that wrong-way concurrency is cool to see), but isn't really exceptional. From a technical standpoint, it could use some sharpening, contrast, and perhaps saturation. --Peter15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cool image, good for the article, however not enough artistic merit or good enough composition to warrant FP. As said above, maybe if the road was included? Zakolantern18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given the rather un-spectacular nature of what is depicted, it would have to be an awesome picture to be featured. This one really isn't. --snowolfD4( talk / @ )20:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. On the contrary, I can look at this picture and understand that what is being talked about is having conflicting route signs on a road. I think it's an interesting and appropriate image for the topic. └Jared┘┌t┐13:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment without getting into a COI here, there is clearly no need to see the road, given that there will be no sign bridges nearby showing a division point. Also, as this is designated an Interstate Highway, it is plain obvious that the road is a freeway. (→vishwin60 -soon will be User:O (possibly))14:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's obvious to anyone who's driven on an American highway that it's a road. And it was immediately obvious to me what wrong-way concurrency is, despite never having heard the term. My comment on the road was to contribute to the telephone lines' sense of perspective/direction, and a road would be a more appropriate inclusion than the phone lines. So I could see two tacts taken here--one including lines and road with the existing perspective, which could be more artistic, and another with no lines nor road and with horizontal and vertical perspective corrected, which would be more ENC. --Peter16:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd agree that it's appropriate for the topic; for me it's a question of whether it's an exceptional image among those in Wikipedia. --Peter16:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I had to question that as well, but I came to the conclusion that, while it may not be the greatest image as far as size goes, it offers a variety of types of route signs (State, Interstate, Business) with 3 of 4 directions. I think that it is probably tough to get a good shot of this landmark (seeing as how it's most likely on the edge of a bustling highway) so I think that the image we have here in front of us is one of the best we can get. That said, sure if someone comes around someday with a 20 MP shot of the sign we'll exchange FPs for that one, but I don't think that's likely anytime soon, and would hope that others would put their ridiculous opposition reasons behind in support of this image. └Jared┘┌t┐16:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While I think it adds a lot to the article, is of high resolution, and is lacking any major technical problems, I think that the composition and background are too much like a snapshot and not enough like an example of Wikipedia's best work. Thank you for the use of the picture, Rama - it's good for the article it is in, just not for a FP. Zakolantern17:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support: Great snap with amazing clarity. But the front leg seems cut (at the extreme edge). If not, i shall change the vote to SUPPORT. --Kalyan09:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has the head (eye, specifically) been selectively masked and sharpened? It looks as if the eye edges should be out of focus, given the camera orientation and the surrounding detail. It wouldn't put me off, particularly, but I would like to know before I vote. mikaultalk10:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either - Wow, the thumb really doesn't do this image justice. The abdomen section alone would get my support; it's magnificent! --198.178.232.212:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose edit. It suggests that the leg is shorter than it really is. Wrong information is even worse than obviously missing info. --Dschwen12:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question What exactly was done to the edit? A very slight unsharp mask or other sharpening tool? I can't tell. Thanks. But Dschwen - I am trying to figure out what you're referring to and failing. Explain? I will support one of the two after a reply. Zakolantern17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the self-reply. It appears that ~10 pixels were added to the right side of the image, making it appear that leg naturally ended and the green started again. Is this true? Zakolantern17:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Another superb pic. Cut foot doesn't bother me, it's outside the focus anyway and doesn't spoil the composition. But don't edit it.~ Veledan • Talk17:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support original An amazing shot; I haven't seen a photograph like this for quite some time now. The cut-off foot is of secondary concern. Chris Buttigieg09:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The original of these two options, however I think I like the VERY slight bit of sharpening in the alternate (and like everyone else don't like the fake foot). Zakolantern16:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems some people have inadvertently confessed to failing to follow guidelines and vote on the full size image. I applied no sharpening whatsoever, the sharpness you see is only on the image description page because it has been uploaded after the new software on the commons was set to apply a mild unsharp on image description pages. Make sure to view all images at full size before voting! --Fir000209:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right! But it doesn't hurt to purge the old thumbnail (add ?action=purge to the imagepage URL and force a reload). --Dschwen12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at both images at full size (if you're talking about someone in particular, you might as well be honest and name them...me) I gave a pretty detailed comment for that matter. Additionally - a pair of questions - could you link me to where it describes that software feature, and explain why (I believe there is a reason, I just don't know it) I might have noticed a hint of sharpness in the alt but not the original? Thanks. Zakolantern16:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - another great image from fir0002. I'm really not fussed about cut-off legs, you guys obviously just needed something to be picky about :) Stevage01:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original What a wonderfully detailed image! Subject is perfectly illustrated IMHO and background is complimentary and non distracting. aliasd·U·T09:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lowery's most widely circulated picture of the first flag raising. This picture is usually captioned as: 1st Lt. Harold G. Schrier with Platoon Sergeant Ernest I. Thomas, Jr. (both seated), PFC James Michels (in foreground with rifle), Sergeant Henry O. Hansen (standing, wearing soft cap), Corporal Charles W. Lindberg (standing, extreme right), on Mount Suribachi at the first flag raising. However, PFC Raymond Jacobs disputes these identifications, asserting that it should be: Pfc James Robeson (lower left corner), Lt. Harold Schrier (sitting behind my legs), Pfc Raymond Jacobs (carrying radio), Sgt. Henry Hansen (cloth cap), unknown (lower hand on pole), Sgt Ernest Thomas (back to camera), Phm2c John Bradley (helmet above Thomas), Pfc James Michels (with carbine), Cpl Charles Lindberg (above Michels).other version already present on wikipediaSlightly different shot of same event that I found on the web, notice the flag position
Reason
On February 23, 1945, members of the United States Marine Corps succeded in reaching the top of Mount Suribachi, a dormant volcano located on Iwo Jima. At the top of the volcano they raised the Flag of the United States for all to see. At the time USMC photographer Louis R. Lowery had taken a picture of the event, without realising that a second flag rasing later that day captured by AP photographer Joe Rosenthal would overshadow his as the accepted flag raising photograph. Since Joe Rosanthal's picture is copyrighted for the next few decades, I decided to place this one up here for a shot at FP status to enlighten our members about the flag raising and in some small way honor Louis R. Lowery's original flag raising photograph. Because Lowery was employed by the USMC, and on duty when he shot this photo, THIS PICTURE IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
I have been cruising the internet via Yahoo! and Google for a couple of monthes, and this is the best one I could find. Others are too dark, most are too small, and the ones that are not too dark or too small have series flaws (like large gashes or handwriting on the photo) that are not FPC material. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is grainy when at full resolution, and the caption is too long. Also, I am not sure if the focus of the picture should be the flag or the people.
I too agree with debivort, after all, a captain be re-written, this photograph can't be re-taken, and because of that i give my support— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs)
Support In my opinion, historic significance outweighs concerns about image quality.. A better scan will be preferred though. --snowolfD4( talk / @ )00:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment besides the details in this image are no worse than Joe Rosenthal's image (dark and lacks any fine details), and his one has been replaced with a low res version on wikipedia, not sure why the US government claims it is public domain since Rosenthal wasn't a US soldier when he took the photograph Bleh99903:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose given that there's a (much) better shot illustrating this landing, no matter how small or non-free it happens to be. For FP, historic events need to be reasonably well-photographed as well as encyclopedic. This one is just not a particularly good capture; I agree there's too much emphasis on the foreground and the whole shot is out of focus. mikaultalk10:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rosenthal's shot had more emotional impact, I wouldn't say it was a much higher quality image, there wasn't much fighting up mount suribachi since most of the battle for Iwo Jima was fought underground so portraying the marines fighting up the mountain wasn't entirely accurate. Look at this color painting of the famous shot [19] I wonder if it is really public domain as claimed by the US government Bleh99911:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's probably the most famous war pic in which there's no actual conflict... I can't get that link you posted to work, but I know what you mean. I agree the quality of the copy of the Rosenthal shot we have here isn't up to scratch, but I've seen a print of the original and it's not only in focus, it's a really well-framed, powerful photo, where this one is a lame snapshot in comparison. mikaultalk15:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can someone please down-sample the image and attempt to slightly clean it up? I think we can give away some resolution to reduce the film grain seen. Zakolantern17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already have another version on wikipedia, uploaded in January 2007, I have added it here for comparison. Bleh99905:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eastern Bearded Dragon in the undergrowth of a Blackberry bushEdit 1 by Fir0002, lightened shadow on snout
High quality and enc image taken outside the studio (not on a piece of paper) for a change. Quite difficult shot to get without anything obstructing him in the undergrowth. Specimen is about 25cm in length from head to tail.
Support You'd be hard-pressed getting one as enc as that in the studio! Angle, moment and context are all spot on. Great shot, well done. mikaultalk10:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support contributes significantly to the article its in; it als has an interesting composition and very few technical flaws - except the blurry tail --Hadseys11:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm afraid that my vote is Oppose since the image makes it look like the animal has a darkened snout tip, whereas in real life the animal doesn't.Spikebrennan16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did. The edit is actually worse in that it makes it more likely that a viewer of the picture would get a mistaken impression of what the animal looks like. Spikebrennan03:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the edit, the snout tip still looks darkened to me. If you are telling me that the edit actually reflects the true color of the animal's snout, then I will take your word for it and withdraw my oppose vote. Spikebrennan14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well without completely flattening out the shadow and creating a 2D look to the face, yes it is a natural colouration --Fir000212:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support meets all the criteria for a FP, looks good overall, however I wish the tail was in focus and there wasn't the couple of twigs going across his body. Zakolantern16:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it misleading? If I was game enough I could have pushed the blackberry stalk ever so slightly to remove the shadow. The image without the shadow isn't suddenly giving him an extra toe or something, it is an entirely realistic depiction of the subject. Just because it was done in Photoshop and not the darkroom it is suddenly taboo? --Fir000222:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm looks like white backgrounds are to be preferred then? Because this is it's natural habitat, and therefore very enc and any "messiness" is unavoidable. --Fir000206:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't go assuming my reasons. Natural background is fine, the picture is not. It has harsh flash(?) lighting and the green stem ruins the comopsition (apart from adding a shadow). I'm sure you were just lacking a bit of luck with this uncooperative subject, but sometime that's just what it needs to make a really outstanding pic. --Dschwen21:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well in the case you have an unrealistic understanding of the environment. I took maybe 20 shots of him and this was the only one without anything obstructing him. Blackberry bush undergrowth (his natural environment) is dense and messy. That's just real life. Yes it was taken with a flash, but it was diffused and aimed in line with the sunlight so it looks no different from a shot taken with stronger sunlight (it was slightly overcast when I took the shots, hence the need for a flash). So personally I don't find the lighting harsh at all, but that's just my opinion.--Fir000222:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the angle is too high, giving a bad perspective on the subject and where it is. That is to say, a lower angle would have given context to the picture. The compositioin leaves me hanging, a small bit of ground just doesn't do it for me in terms of context. -Fcb98121:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's rather an unusual comment really. Taken from a low down angle you'd get maybe his head and shoulders and the rest would be completely OOF [20]. Secondly it was taken on a slope so the angle is correct, with the barrel of the lens being close to the horizontal. I can provide a wider uncropped image if you want more context, but honestly I think that's just going to introduce more "messiness" and is entirely unnecessary as the subject is the lizard and not the undergrowth. --Fir000222:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it isn't really that unusual that I'm not a fan of the composition of a picture, but in most cases there are other technical problems that I can cite as reasons for opposition (i'll mention composition in those cases as well). the picture you linked too is better overall in my opinion. while I like opening up a picture that is 9000 pixles wide and seeing tack sharp lines, Composition and lighting are much more important. See, in the picture you linked to, I may have tried an ultra close up, filling the sensor with the subject but I also would have taken the camera back a meter, stoped down to f/18 (screw diffraction), and crop. I'd settle for unoptimal sharpness but have a picture that has more context and a DOF that covers the subject. -Fcb98116:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's where we'll just have to disagree - you may be happy to settle for suboptimal sharpness, I don't. Even with your proposal at f/18 you'd still get far less of the lizard in focus (remember from snout to tail he measures 25cm!) - f/18 doesn't give you that much more DOF than f/11. Stepping back and cropping wouldn't bridge the gap either - that picture I linked was a pretty heavy crop off an image taken at about f/6.3. But stepping back wasn't even an option here - keep in mind this is taken inside of a blackberry thicket! So really, and I speak acknowledging my bias, the composition in terms of DOF and aesthetics is pretty close to optimal. --Fir000212:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two thoughts (I dislike the bold comment): First, I like the lighter nose. I usually believe that anything I (personally) can do quickly and easily in a film (analog) darkroom is acceptable manipulation of an image. This certainly qualifies and should in no way be considered a problem. Second, I think photographing in a natural habitat adds to enc value over a studio / white background, even if it is more "messy". However, this is of course an opinion; some people will always oppose one, some the other. I personally will support a great example of either (except for my like of a sense of scale), and would strongly urge everyone to do the same. Zakolantern17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't convince me at at all when viewed at full size, quite blurry and some visible sensor dirt. Plus it is ever so slightly tilted to the right. --Dschwen15:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sensor dirt? Where? I noticed the tilt, but wasn't sure if it was me or the picture (I put a vertical line next to the tower and didn't see anything would verify that there was a tilt). Although the tilt could be worse considering it probably was taken without a tripod (because that wouldn't have been a good idea to set up a tripod in a street). --Dtbohrertalk•contribs16:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tilt can be corrected. I see two dark blotches (looks like a typical sensor dirt artifact), one is half way between the right streetlighthead and the tower, the other one is straight above the first one. --Dschwen19:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see it now. Wanted to make sure you weren't looking at the seagull between the first & second streetlights on the left. Take a look at this photo of the same thing but I cropped & attempted to straighten (after seeing your comment). See if it is straight or tilted to the left. --Dtbohrertalk•contribs20:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, the cropped version leans more to the left than the original leans to the right. You really have to count pixels or use guide rulers. The eye is very sensitive to small deviations from vertical and horizontal. --Dschwen21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Half the photo is taken up by ugly and irrelevant road, cars, and yellow lines that draw the eye away from the subject. --TotoBaggins18:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a picture of the tower, but definitely not Featured material. The road and streetlights are not appealing at all. The picture would be much more effective if the body of water was prominently featured, and if there was some more context of how the tower is situated in relation to the rest of the landscape. --Asiir23:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - but thank you very much for your submission and for making it Public Domain. It's a good picture, and certainly enhances its main article, I just don't think it has enough artistic value for a FP. Zakolantern16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Sorry, this is perhaps a little irrelevant, but it's got me intrigued. Are the double yellow lines down the middle of the road really as wonky as they come out in these photos? What did they use to paint them to get them like that? How strange. --jjron16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its either because the road isn't perfectly flat or the when the lines were repainted the guy painting couldn't stay on the originals (knowing Erie & its numerous budget cuts; the city probably had some drunk guy paint them). Next time I'm downtown, I'll look at the lines. --Dtbohrertalk•contribs16:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the attractions of the Puy du Fou historical theme park include an attack on a French Donjon by English Knights. The replica castle joins in the defense, shooting flames from it's windows.
Reason
Because it looks so dramatic, and I was lucky to catch it at the right time.
Oppose per Svetovid, and doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. It's a cool shot and well-timed, just not what I'd consider a featured picture in an encyclopedia. --Peter16:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a neat shot, but the technical flaws (such as the castle top being cut off at the top, the person's head at the bottom right) make this image not FP material for me. It could easily be replaced (compared to many FP's where historical irreplaceability is present.) --WillMak05038918:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think castles typically employed flame throwers in their defense. Debivort
To the creator: I just wanted you to know this is one of the coolest images I've seen nominated that doesn't meet the guidelines for a FP. And it's Public Domain. (But I oppose it for all the reasons people said)
The edges of the petals are out of focus and blurry. Also, the stylus and stigma at the middle of the flower is also out of focus. Since the flower is commonly available, advise a different snap for FPC. --Kalyan09:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose per Vanished user. Try it again with a higher aperture, possibly on a tripod. Other than the DOF it is a nice shot. Cacophony15:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Smaller aperture will help. I'm curious what settings you used--lens/focal length, aperture, etc. --Peter16:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from author Thanks guys, I'm a newbie in terms of photography and this picture looked really good to me at first. But now I see that I exagerated on the aperture, trying to get rid of a very polluted background. When my plants start flowering nicely again, I'll try it with a smaller aperture. This picture was taken with a Nikon D50 and Nikkor 18-55mm kit lenses. The F number was 5.6, exposure time 1/124 sec. and focal length of 55mm. Yes, I know I should get macro lenses for this kind of picture ;)
I'm glad to hear that you're taking the criticism in that spirit, as we FPC regulars frequently tear very serviceable images a new bunghole for the good of the project. If you showed me this image in real life, I would be delighted and amazed at your abilities! I have a friend who is a professional chef, and I've often mused on how she might serve me a meal at her restaurant which I would consider so-so or even bad, but that same meal served to me at her home would have me raving about her talents. --TotoBaggins22:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
+1... Hey, my SLR's a D50 too, though I haven't used the kit lens in a good long while. Yeah, for macro shots like this (aside from a macro lens being preferable as you said), f/5.6 is generally far too large an aperture--something more in the f/11-f/16 or so range (even smaller for longer focal lengths, like Nikon's 105mm macro) should get you the DOF you're looking for. --Peter03:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, max aperture you should be using is probably f/13 - beyond that sharpness is too far degraded due to diffraction of light IMO --Fir000207:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, Fir0002, what do you know about macro photography--oh wait. ;) But seriously, thanks for the comment. I don't own a macro lens yet; I know shallow DOF is a concern at too wide an aperture and diffraction at too narrow, ideal being f/8-f/11 for general shots (not necessarily macro), but I figured you'd have to get a pretty high f-stop to compensate for reduced DOF at that focal length. I'd love to see the shooting data on some of your FP's and other shots, until I do get a macro lens and start putting it to work myself. --Peter23:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping spider of the species Holoplatys semiplanataAlternative with scaleScale Version 2
A high quality and enc image of the jumping spider Holoplatys semiplanata. Image was taken in Swifts Creek, Victoria in January 2007. As you can see in the version with the scale the specimen is approx 12mm in length.
*Weak Support Scale A bit more DOF issues than I would like to see in this image, however overall good enough for FP, and I do think that the scale adds to the enc value and is very tastefully/artistically done. Zakolantern16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind me asking how you produced the scale, half a year after taking the picture. What input besides guessing did you have? Did you use an average specimen size from the article? (Not mentioned). Did you keep the specimen (or find a new one)? Whats the estimated precision of the scale? If people oppose based on lack of scale I'd be slightly irritated if pulling a scale out of thin air suddenly warrants a support. That is generally speaking of course, I'm not accusing the creator of any such things, just asking... --Dschwen17:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're quite common and I just found another one and measured it roughly with a ruler. I wouldn't claim that it's terrible precise, probably good to +/- 2 mm something like that. --Fir000207:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The DOF is fairly low and the pic is not in an article (unless you call a list of red links an article). I'd rather wait featuring this until an article has been written. Or are you speculating on the the article being written because the pic gets featured? Maybe we should change the FP criteria then and remove the Adds value to an article and It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page lines. --Dschwen17:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this DOF obsession is getting a bit ridiculous, you can see all aspects of the spider, the mildly OOF back legs are mirror images of the in focus front legs. In short everything is there which you need to understand what this animal looks like. It is entirely because of the low amount of written information on that article that the image is so valuable - it really does fulfill the 1000 words saying. And you're twisting the It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page - that criteria refers to the accuracy of the picture, and what can you say contradicts the accuracy of this photo? However the pacify you I've also included the image in the parent Jumping Spider article. If you are still unhappy with this, may I point out the minor role that Image:Calopteryx virgo male.jpg plays in it's stub. --Fir000207:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. (but prefer scale). Thanks Dschwen - I hadn't noticed that the bug wasn't in a real article. That combines with my earlier comment about the DOF issue changes my vote. Note that I am fine with the scale, because it should be simple to find out how big this bug normally is (assuming good faith, he could have just walked outside, picked one up, and got its size from that if nothing else). To add enc value I don't care how big this particular specimen was, I want to know how big this bug usually is. Zakolantern18:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Zakolantern for assuming good faith in regards to size, the entomologist I contact to get it identified says that this is a typical size for this species. Please reconsider your rationale behind opposing based on the article it appears in (read above) --Fir000207:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support (w/ scale) The words "scale in" aren't needed (it should just say "millimetres (mm)"). Why is there a white vertical bar over the back leg? If these minor issues ("Scale in" and white bar) are resolved I lend my support. (The DOF is good enough for me. The spider is only 12 mm! and the poor focus areas are mirrored anyway. The stubby article doesn't bother me either, as the potential for an expanded article is obvious). I'd probably left-align the word "millimetres" too, but I'm not fussed. —Pengo01:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Someone finally realizes the minute scale this pic was taken on and how it affects DOF!! I agree with Toto, the line is probably a broken hair or something like that. I can clone it out if you want. I wont be able to change the scale stuff until I get back home Saturday night (I'm in melbourne attending a Chemical Engineering program at monash uni at the moment) as I don't have the files with me. --Fir000207:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fir, don't you have a higher-res version of this you could upload? I like to get down and dirty with these bugs. --TotoBaggins18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do have higher resolution, but this is all I'm willing to upload to wikipedia under the commercial license options they provide us. The day Wikipedia realizes it's an encyclopedia and not a stock site where anyone can come and take my hard work for their gain is the day I'll being uploading 8 MP files. --Fir000207:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All credit to you for carrying on providing such a generous supply. You could be forgiven for uploading much smaller versions. ~ Veledan • Talk16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. I don't think the DOF is an issue, and it does add value to the article imo: until more has been written, this picture is the main source of information. I must say I think is cuter :-) ~ Veledan • Talk16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Scale version 2 - In short, I was rereading this debate, especially Fir0002's comments, and I changed my vote. EDIT: Specified which scale. Zakolantern06:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: I can't shake a vague feeling that there's some slight difference between the TIFF and the jpg that looks better in the TIFF, but think I may be going mad when I try to find the difference. However, I'll mention it here in case anyone can spot anything. Adam Cuerdentalk23:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C03:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I think. In general I've liked Spike's recent historical nominations. But there are several troubles associated with this image: it's badly damaged; it wasn't a great photograph to begin with (highlights are blown); and most importantly, the author, date, and circumstances of photography are all apparently unknown, which to me reduces the encyclopedic value of the image. Chick Bowen05:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the image page and the sources cited there, photographer was Mathew Brady, photo was taken some time between 1855 and 1865. Thanks for your comments, Chick. I guess I had a promotion rate of something like 40% to 50% for that batch of photos that I nominated last week, and I learned a great deal about photography appreciation from the oppose votes (particularly in the case of that Vietnam one), and also from the Sherman and Sitting Bull ones (where, in the first case, I basically selected one of two available images for nomination but the other one ended up passing, and in the other case, it looks like a different version of the image than the one I nominated could very well end up passing). It's an interesting process and lots of the people here clearly have a careful and trained eye, as well as an appreciation of the subtle aspects of photography. Spikebrennan14:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think it is proper to "relist" a nom with few responses. It should be considered as not supported instead. Thus, and also per above, oppose. --Janke | Talk11:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Janke. Lack of votes = lack of interest = not an interesting picture = not FP material. --Dschwen11:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sitting Bull (c. 1831-1890). Sitting Bull was a HunkpapaLakota chief and holy man, famous for his 1876 victory over Custer at the Battle of Little Big Horn. He also participated in Buffalo Bill's Wild West show (Photograph by D. F. Barry, 1885).edit of the original archive file, see comment
Reason
Good scan of famous portrait of famous 19th century Sioux chief. (What a shame that we don't have a better scan of this even more famous photo of his Apache cotemporary).
Conditional support Please improve the caption. However, the image itself is acceptable. I would also support some dust removal.--HereToHelp14:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked at the nominated photo at 100% and saw artifacts from digital sharpening, and also saw extreme contrast. I decided to look at the original archived file and compare, and I believe the edits performed on the nominated image degrades the image quality. So I have uploaded my own edit. I have removed a few dust spots and made very, very minor adjustments to levels and sharpening. Also, I have left the original frame in because it is part of the history of the physical image (note the nom is cropped). -Andrew c[talk]17:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2I really like Andrew c's change. I think that adding the frame adds something to the enc value and makes the whole image cooler. Zakolantern17:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in this case, the frame does actually improve the image. Maybe not the white outer edge though, which is not part of the subject... vlad§ingertlk03:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A breathtaking view of Bhutan's most famous monastery. I found this fascinating picture to be of very good and rare quality, and thought that it could have it takes to become featured.
Oppose. This is a really, really cool place, and a decent shot. However, it has a number of artistic flaws that makes me unable to support it for a FP. Something like the rule of thirds is not an absolute, but this picture would definitely benefit from the monastery not being dead center and instead being either in the bottom left or top right - probably the top right, which would eliminate some of the wasted space of sky. While I'm sure it is often cloudy and damp there at 10,000 feet, the other picture at Taktshang shows it is possible to capture this scene in better weather, which would make the scene feel less flat and washed out. Finally, there appears to be no point in the image that is perfectly in focus; it should be possible to get the monastery itself sharp, and it is not. (To tell quickly, look at the lines of the building at 100%). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zakolantern (talk • contribs). - I don't know why it said it was unsigned. Zakolantern23:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support High on stunning value, high on ENC value. Would this look good on the main page and draw visitors into Wikipedia? Oh Yes - therefore support.Pedro | Chat 07:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per User:Zakolantern, looks like a snapshot with almost no composition value to speak of; Detail smeared due to noise reduction (probably camera in-built); It may be a difficult to capture picture, but it just doesn't cut it. --antilivedT | C | G09:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per User:Zakolantern and antilived, I agree entirely that the composition is not very good and the monastery is not very sharp. Beautiful place and nice picture to show your friends (aka. "I've been there!" ;), but not an FP. Luca10:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. I've seen several better pictures of this subject matter. (A pity that those better pictures aren't in the public domain). Spikebrennan17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is in the Lightening article now; I didn't bother to check who added it, but it is probably the most artistic image in the article, and I really like it. Zakolantern16:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Definitely gets a 'wow' from me, especially with the detail captured in the multiple leaders. --jjron16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yep, that's a pretty cool picture even for an intrinsically impressive subject. Perfect framing and exposure! --Dschwen17:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I happen to have looked at lightning a few days ago, and I much preferred the lead images at that time. [22] Yes, this image is very good, and very high resolution, but where there used to be an image of cloud-to-cloud lightning and an image of cloud-to-ground lightning, there are now three images of cloud-to-ground lightning! Yes, this image is far better than the image of cloud-to-cloud lightning, but this is an encyclopedia, and, to me, breadth of subject is more important than beauty of subject. Honestly, Fir's image is probably technically better than the current featured pic of lightning, but since I've seen lightning mostly in populated places (instead of attractively against hills), I'm used to seeing the smaller threads of lightning, and it's exciting to see the strike points, I personally like this one a lot better. In other words, I don't think this candidate fulfills criteria #5 - Adds value to the article. Enuja00:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suport, and comment to above: I actually feel the enc is higher in Fir's photo - even though I've watched scores of thunderstorms, I've never seen four simultaneous strikes! Who says we can't have two FPs of lightning? --Janke | Talk07:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image actually seems more encyclopedic because it shows lighting in a non-urban setting because it shows what lightning naturally looks like. Plus, the quality of the image is excellent. <~KULSHRAX~>02:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support As above. While the lightning is overexposed, this allows a clearer view of all the forking going on, adding to the article in question by demonstrating the path of least resistance thing. Bigbearbooth11:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A dead confederate soldier during the civil war, 1865, Petersburg, Virginia, This photograph was taken April 1, 1865, in the Rebel trenches at Petersburg just after their capture by the Union troopsAlternate shot
Reason
Impressive historical image and very encyclopedic, good condition considering the age
Strong oppose: Nothing against the snap but showing images of dead people at these personal levels should be avoided. As a matter of fact, if we allow this as FP, we need to do the same in future if someone produces images of dead soldiers from the recent conflicts (inc. Iraq). I am not comfortable with either and hence the strong oppose to the FPC. --Kalyan08:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second everything Kaylan said. Wikipedia may not be censored, but there is a difference between having an image in Wikipedia and specifically granting it featured picture status, something which is reserved for the best of images. In my opinion this image bears no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. What does it show but the bashed face of a corpse? How will the viewer know which war it is illustrating? It is also hard to get a sense of the time period; it could easily be from WWII at first sight. Chris Buttigieg10:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
your comments seems to speak favorably about the technical quality of the image however (WWII quality), anyway we already have a featured pic of confederate dead but this one is surely of a superior quality. Bleh99910:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Powerful image, not replaceable due to era taken, but enc. value is moderate - what does it illustrate other than a dead human being? Pedro | Chat 09:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I have no problem with the subject matter since Wikipedia is not censored, but I don't think the image is of much use to the articles its in. Maybe someone can argue me to a Support. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-11 14:09Z
Weak oppose I don't really see much encyclopedic value. If it was a wider image of a dead soldier on a notable battlefield, it'll have been a different story. --snowolfD4( talk / @ )17:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I want to support it, since it's a good clear shot from an historic period when many photos were awful, but it just isn't enc., and I find it difficult to really take in due to having to turn my head upside down. For the record, I am strongly inclined to support pictures of dead/wounded soldiers from any period, to help remind people what their leaders' distaste for diplomacy always results in. --TotoBaggins18:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - illustrates Death very well. And much less inflammatory/arguably POV than an image of a dead person from a modern conflict would be. Debivort18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate - The alternative shot is superior in my opinion. The first one seems to be cropped too close, almost voyeuristically so. -- Grandpafootsoldier08:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop, support full version. Roche's original composition is much better. Encyclopedic value is considerable given the quality of the photograph. I see we don't yet have an article on Thomas C. Roche, but I'm planning to try to write one in the next couple days. Chick Bowen14:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and got started on the article. Incidentally, let me clarify what I say above: the top photograph here is not a digital crop but literally a cropped negative. In case that wasn't clear. Chick Bowen15:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt The original is not as good a composition and has far less enc value. The alternative is really cool, amazingly high quality for the time period it was taken in, and paints enough of a picture for enc value. Also - good start to the article on the photographer. Zakolantern16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Regardless of non-censorship, it's simply bad taste to feature a photograph of a real corpse on the main page IMO. Not all Wikipedia readers will find this photo pleasant, and they will probably not get the chance to oppose it's nomination here if they do not know the WP processes. Joseph C Talk 16:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize this was published as a stereograph in the 1800s, the era of so called Victorian censorship, besides even I stumbled onto this picture by chance when I was searching for something else, I wasn't warned of graphic content, I don't see why it should be too graphic for wikipedia Bleh99922:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it bad taste to show a war photograph on a site devoted in large part to history? It might be bad taste to put it as the lead image on flickr, but it is quite appropriate for an encyclopedia. Chick Bowen00:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hadseys: I know. I said regardless of non-censorship.Peter: I stand corrected - I mixed up FP and PotD obviously. Bleh999: You're argument is nonsense, as I am fully referring to the fact of it becoming PotD on the main page regardless of non-censorship of this wiki - nothing to do with general content or stumbling across it by accident as I also did. Chick Bowen: It's not bad taste to show it within the site - I was referring to having it featured on the main page. IN CONCLUSION: I have struck through my own vote, due to my confusion with Picture Of The Day. Thank you, especially Peter. Joseph C Talk 14:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support if we can definitely agree that this isn't original research (at least, no more so than other successful FPs which arguably contain some original research). Maybe it's covered under the umbrella of "artistic license". — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-09 17:51Z
Oppose. This, if anything, is "original research"... ;-) Seriously, the whole idea of terraforming is more or less science fiction, so I regard the enc level of this as pretty low. --Janke | Talk19:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Encyclopedic for terraforming which is very often brought up for Mars. Whatever OR is only in choosing how to represent a well-discussed subject. Adam Cuerdentalk22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's an original work of art, but I don't think that is unacceptable. After all, many of the diagrams that become FPs are original works of art as well. It has enough enc value because of how it is used in the article, which is a very good, well-written enc article. If you agree with me about that (and you don't have to of course), it seems to meet all other criteria, and is quite cool. That said, I may prefer the horizontal version to this vertical version. Can someone please post it for me? I'm not getting it to format properly. It is linked to from the main image. Zakolantern00:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with original works of art; I am more likely to support the original artwork of a Wikipedian than some random online user. What I'm not fine with are original works of art that present situations that may not be the result of actual research, which eliminates any encyclopedic value. Sure, it looks nice, but how do you know you're actually be informed, and not misinformed, by this image? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-10 13:34Z
Oppose, I'd be fine with an artistic rendition, like we have on the dyna-soar article, or Newton's cradle or several others, but it has to be based strictly on known information. There's nothing to indicate that this image is accurate, so I don't want to feature it unless we can add some information about what sorts of known techniques are being depicted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Terraforming certainly is science fiction, and this is a remarkable illustration of it. I don't see the need to be pulling Ittiz up and asking to inspect his/her artistic license. If the image was meant to illustrate a particular proposed method of terraforming, then accuracy may be more important, but instead it illustrates the concept as a whole. Images are always original, but it's a stretch to call this "research". —Pengo02:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how is the water supposed to have gotten there; are we supposed to have transported water from earth via rockets or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk • contribs)
Support Terraforming is a hypothesis and nowhere near an exact science. I don't believe anyone can accurately portray how terroforming will really turn out. In that light the best we can do is conjure up images how we think it'll work, and this is a really good example of that, to illustrate terraforming itself and not User:Ittiz's opinion of how terraforming will work. --snowolfD4( talk / @ )17:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support There seems to be a high degree of attention to technical accuracy, at least in the sense that lower elevations flood first. Debivort18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A useful fantasy. (not for voting)
Strong support - The fundamental idea of terraforming comes down to this: "add water". This image does a good job of illustrating what such a change to a dry planet might look like. At right is another FP that simplifies and takes a best guess at the parts that are unknowable (to civilians), but still does an excellent job of conveying the idea of the article. --TotoBaggins18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to explain my reasoning for support further. Yes, at the moment terraforming is science fiction, outside the realm of current technology. But it is also very throughly discussed; if you don't believe that, please see the article in question. This image does a great job of illustrating that article. That article is detailed and footnoted enough that it is impossible to argue it is not suited for Wikipedia. Therefore, objections just because the image is fantasy is an opposition that is almost against WP:COI. Zakolantern16:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Talk about adding value to the article. This is an impeccable representation of the topic in question. Whether or not it is feasible with present technology is a topic to be discussed within the article. It should NOT stop this image from gaining FP. I prefer the vertical vers. vlad§ingertlk03:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per NightGyr. And it's original research unless it's already been published in some other source (not this particular illustration, but the particular technique and form of the terraforming depicted.) Spebudmak21:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the creator of this image I support it. Many techniques for terraforming Mars have been purposed. I made this image to best fit the general trend of what they describe. Basically: Heat Mars up to release CO2 and liquefy water. Then grow plants to make O2. If needed I can add this to the image as well as any publications which describe the method of terraforming this image depicts. Ittiz17:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are the positions of craters, land, sea, and lakes based on actual Martian topography? That would make it worthy of supporting imo, I just want to know it's contibuting some real information. ~ Veledan • Talk21:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The globe is based on MOLA data from the Mars Global Surveyor. All the shore lines are approximate to where it's believed they would be if all the permafrost on Mars melted. Ittiz00:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renomination of a withdrawn image with a much better scan. I should probably note - as there's been some doubt - that Victorian paper does not necessarily degrade, provided the paper is reasonable quality to start with; and engraving technology was very well-developed. In other words, this is more-or-less exactly how it appears in the original.
Weak Support It's not a very good painting (in my opinion), but the subject matter is important enough to trump that, since I don't think that any better contemporary images exist. Adam Cuerdentalk21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I won't support a picture that should get replaced as soon as we find a good scan of a different image. This may be unfair, but the original image is not good enough for me to support it with the information a better painted portrait is out there; it is good, but not amazing. Zakolantern03:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An 18th century map of the Iberian Peninsula illustrating various topographical features of the land. The Iberian Peninsula, or Iberia, is located in the extreme southwest of Europe, and includes modern day Spain, Portugal, Gibraltar and Andorra.
Reason
A crisp and clear scan of an 18th century hand-coloured map by the eminent London mapmaker Robert Wilkinson. The map depicts the Iberian Peninsula as it would have appeared over two hundred years ago.
Support Beautiful picture, exceptional colour preservation even if it has been touched up or false coloured in photoshop. Nice large size, historical, artistic although a little obscure. WikipedianProlific(Talk)18:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Think that's the real colours - I have an old victorian map that's similar. It does look very clean, so it might have had any the paper colour compensated, but even then, it could well just be a very well-preserved specimen. Adam Cuerdentalk22:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator says the mapmaker is "eminent" but I don't see an article about him.. Is there any other info about the circumstances under which this map was made? Interesting to note which of the place names are in Spanish and which are in English. Spebudmak03:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have managed to ferret out some more information about the map and updated the summary accordingly, so have a look. It was published in Robert Wilkinson's General Atlas, 1794. (Volume 2., page 666.). The colours are natural and haven't been manipulated. I was told that when it was hand-coloured, most likely too much water was used and hence these vibrant tones. Chris Buttigieg13:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's pretty normal colours for hand tinting, in my experience.. It's pretty similar to watercolour painting. Just that you don't normally get maps that clean. Adam Cuerdentalk20:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perfectly ordinary high-quality map such as you'd find in a good, expensive atlas. Not unusual, but it's a good scan of a clean copy. I think the detail on the mountains is a nice touch. Chick Bowen05:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Female Australasian Osprey clutching a recently caught, half-eaten fish
Reason
A quality photo which has encyclopedic value for the detail it shows of an Australasian Osprey. Please note that its value is added to by the difficulty involved in getting a close up of a wild raptor.
I've also added it as the header pic at Bird of prey. The existing one was tiny and grainy. We have only one other raptor FP, . I've not decided on a vote, it's a good picture but looks a bit oversharpened and lacks detail compared with most of our bird FPs. ~ Veledan • Talk16:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's nothing hugely wrong with the picture, but the grainy bits (right wing primaries) and an overall lack of sharp detail bring it down. The bar for bird FPs is set extremely high due to the large number of very good pictures that have been promoted. This is a fine picture, but isn't close to the quality for the other bird FPs. Matt Deres18:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unexceptional and theres some moderate to severe graining in the image, most abundantly where the wing joins the blue of the sky. Its a great angle and I'm sure a very challenging picture to take, but in my opinion it doesnt meet FP criteria. I personally feel a FP should also appear in more than one article unless its really breathtaking. WikipedianProlific(Talk)18:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy, halo/diffraction outline, probably from oversharpening, as overall it doesn't seem to be too small an aperture. (Though honestly, the other FP Veledan linked seems to have been oversharpened a bit too, mostly visible in the bokeh.) I like the composition, though. --Peter02:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, I think a tripod might be in order if I ever get another chance like this. - Psylexic
I just noticed you took this with a point-and-shoot... wow, that makes it more impressive. Forget a tripod--by the time you set it up, the bird would be gone. You'd need image stabilization, but really, the shutter speed was fast enough that you wouldn't even need that. Have you considered investing in an SLR (which you'd almost have to do to shoot in raw as Zakolantern suggests)? --Peter15:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Psylexic, I'm glad you're taking the opportunity to learn from feedback. My advice - next time, shoot the image as a RAW format image, or the highest quality JPG image possible, and be very careful to now lower the quality of the image when you save it as a JPG. Your image shows JPG compression artifacts - look at the border between the wing and the sky for example. Zakolantern06:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds as though an SLR might be a good idea. If I can shoot in RAW then I could play with HDRs as well, which might be fun. I do have some other osprey photos taken at the same time. If I can fix that halo difraction and grain, then I'll post a couple of alternatives. Thanks for your suggestions. -psylexic
You could play around with HDR shooting JPG; there's very little you can do with raw that you can't do with JPG. The main reason you'd want to shoot raw is to have the sensor data exactly as it was shot, before any processing was done (even white balance), and in the case of JPG, before it was compressed (which throws out some of this data and degrades quality). If you shoot JPG, then need to make changes to it, it's like making a copy of a copy, and quality will degrade quickly (per Zakolantern's comments above on compression artifacts). --Peter15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I only shoot raw to have absolute control of WB and to get the maxium possible dynamic range. What you need to keep in mind is that this picture is outstanding at 800 pixles, which is as big as most people will blow it up. I get more satisfaction from a perfect exposure and stunning composition than a mediocur picture that is sharp at 8000px. An SLR will give you somr more potential at this end and therefor a better chance at an FP. But, if you are shooting to have some really visualy nice photos. 800px is fine. -Fcb98123:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either pref to original. Great shots. before seeing your Sigma tag i thought you had gotten some bellows or something. -Fcb98115:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either Prefer original, as it has a better view of the diagnostic criteria for the species - the vein pattern on the wings, mouthparts, etc. Adam Cuerdentalk22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. With respect to the second image, may I suggest a 90o rotation so that the insect is portrayed in a more human-intuitive, horizontal fashion? Spikebrennan14:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support First I think the detail on it is better than the second, although they are both excellent. In the first image you can even see the individual parts of the compound eye - impressive work. I really agree with Spikebrennan - I would prefer the composition of the second one rotated. Zakolantern21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could rotate, but it'd look a little odd because the fly is gripping the leaf to remain upright (this was the original orientation of the pic) --Fir000208:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both Neither shot shows the insect completely in focus. As nice as the shots are, it's not like there will be a shortage of opportunities to get a completely clear shot. Matt Deres00:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that this is an exceptionally small insect (10mm), and the photo was taken at f/13 to maximise DOF w/o losing sharpness. A fully in focus image would be nigh impossible - focus stacking is probably the only way and is utterly impractical "in the wild" where you have to contend with wind and the movement of the insect itself. --Fir000207:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm in no position to give you advice on photography, but the pictures I saw through Google image searches, while not having nearly the quality yours does, tended to have a more even quality if it was a top-down shot. No surprise there since there's less depth to cover. As for "in the wild", hey, it's a house fly, right? ;-) My oppose vote simply comes down to this: there are zillions of these bugs and the same guy with the same camera and a slightly different angle or chance of light could take a (IMHO) significantly better shot, even taking into consideration that these ones are head and shoulders above most of the other fly photos out there. Matt Deres02:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I didn't realize until I posted that Fir had taken this shot. :D At least I can't be accused of the any of the pro- or anti-Fir bias that sometimes afflicts this page. :) --TotoBaggins01:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, indeed you couldn't! But just so I know and can improve etc, what makes this photo "imperfect"? Thanks, --Fir000207:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative - I was objecting to the poor DOF, but having looked at other fly pics on the web, and reading your comments, I have changed my mind on the vertical shot. --TotoBaggins16:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt, without rotation. The blurred background isn't an issue any more than it was here; it draws your eye to what you should be looking at ... the fly in all its detail. Daniel Case06:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Features such as a symmetrical face, full lips, and low waist-hip ratio, are commonly considered physically attractive because they are thought to indicate physical health and high fertility to a potential mate. This model's thin figure is also usually considered attractive in Western culture.
Reason
High-quality image, extremely relevant to the articles which it illustrates. (Videmus Omnia's reason.)
First off, this is an excellent, professional image of a contemporary, attractive model. The lighting, composition, and selection are excellent. Secondly, User:Videmus Omnia has been doing a great service by contacting celebrities and obtaining permission to use representative images under the terms of the GFDL. (See User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images for details.) I think it would be a great way to encourage more of this by featuring some of the best images obtained in this way. (Quadell's reason)
Oppose- Author is listed as Michele Merkin but she obviously did not take the pictures. There is no proof here that the photographer, who is the original copyright owner released this or gave permission for Michelle to release this. Additionally, there is nothing in this picture that sets it apart from the thousands of other pictures of half-naked supermodels in the world. using this picture everywhere and nomming it for FP is tantamount to advertising for this one supermodel. This nomination seems to be more about little boys getting excited about a half-naked woman than true encyclopedic value. Additionally nominator (Quadell) has spammed every page remotely related to naked women with these images with flimsy reasons for inclusion, then reverted when they were removed even though consensus to include does not exist. pschemp | talk14:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ms. Merkin is the copyright-holder, because the photographer created the photograph as a "work for hire". This image has had OTRS approval as being released under the GFDL. There is as much "proof" that it is released under the GFDL as any featured image. What sets this image apart from the thousands of other pictures of half-naked supermodels is that this is a free image. If this is advertising for the model, then this is advertising for Mccoy Tyner, this is advertising for Nikkor, etc. In addition, please leave attacks on me out of this. This is a debate about the image. – Quadell(talk) (random)15:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. The OTRS queue hasn't approved it yet, and if the information proving she is the copyright holder is so easy to get, why can't you produce it? 2. "Because it's free" is NOT a good reason for it to be a featured pic. There is no special artistic merit here. Additionally, professional photogrpahers do a lot for hire, and then usual procedure is to release the picture to the person for use, but not under a free liscense. Nowhere has it been shown that the photographer has released the rights to Michelle or anyone else. pschemp | talk21:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where pschemp's "(t)he OTRS queue hasn't approved it yet" comment comes from - it was approved and the ticket number added to the talk page before I ever nominated the image here. Videmus OmniaTalk05:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not on a promotional campaign, and I had never heard of this model before a week ago. My only interest is in promoting "free content", and I feel this is a great (and, yes, sexy) example of free content. By the way, are you aware that one of your links shows me reverting obvious vandalism (not related to images), and that others of your links show me adding unrelated images to articles? – Quadell(talk) (random)16:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "because it's free is not a good reason for it to be a featured picture. This no different than hundreds of other model pictures, and not outstanding artistically. pschemp | talk21:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ...sorry. For all the same reasons discussed in wearying detail in the Military Brat nomination below. The picture doesn't have enc value, it contributes no information. ~ Veledan • Talk 16:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)New vote below ~ Veledan • Talk21:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures are not featured because they show a notable person. They get featured because they are both outstanding artistically, and contribute significantly to the understanding of a subject. This picture does neither. pschemp | talk21:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really see nothing special in the picture, and for a number of other reasons as well I just don't see this picture on the main page. Just a note though, I think we'll all be better off commenting on the picture's merits of becoming featured, rather that on the nominator's motives. --snowolfD4( talk / @ )17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is it ever acceptable to have a professional-quality image of a supermodel as a featured image? If not, why not? And if so, what is it about this particular image which is lacking, where another might be worthy? – Quadell(talk) (random)17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate you meant the first question to be rhetorical, but no, I can't think of a reason why any professional supermodel pic should be featured, unless it's an exceptional example of a famous photographer's work, or is notable for some other reason. These pictures abound in every magazine, it needs to have something to set it apart to be a featured picture for an encyclopedia. Yes we promote less striking and attractive pictures, but it's the enc value that sets them apart. ~ Veledan • Talk20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't really like the message this sends young women, splashing this around physical attractiveness, etc. It's encyclopedic for Malkin, but... Adam Cuerdentalk22:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral It could be ENC, it might be free use and it is very eye-catching... But, as noted above, the nominator has plastered this picture everywhere on wikipedia, the model owns the copyright, and her name is very prominent in all the articals. These facts lead me to belive that this nom is for the purpose of premotion of Michele Merkin. Basicly, advertisement. I might be wrong but (as also mentioned above) this picture is nothing special compared with the other 5 trilion images of half naked women. therefor, i don't belive it should be featured. If it does become featured, I would feel better about a caption that doesn't included here name, to prevent an advertising motive and also to increase the anomity and there for ENC value. -Fcb98123:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I have been a Wikipedian since 2004, and I've never shilled for anybody. I'm not even the image uploader, and I only edited the model's article once (to add this image to it). Please don't accuse me of promoting one model over another. Also, I didn't "plaster this picture everywhere on Wikipedia". I added it to exactly two articles. – Quadell(talk) (random)14:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I got that information from the links provided by User:Edgarde above. It (or one of the alternatives) was added to Model, History of erotic depictions, Pornography, Erotica, Physical attractiveness, and of course Michele Merkin. I didn't check your user page/contribs and now, in doing so I have become confident that you arn't an advertiser of any kind. Even so, I am still not convinced that this is a shining example of the above articals. Sorry for jumping to the conclution that you were a promoter. -Fcb98118:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite whatever the motives behind the nomination may be, I must disagree with above comment. This is an exceptional photograph. The backlighting creates a quasi-religous halo around the model's face, accentuating her beauty and even recalling the Birth of Venus, at least for this critic anyway. Composition is excellent.
Strong Support - I think that a number of people commenting are not thinking about this right. I fully agree that they're are hundreds of similar pictures published in various magazines (and available online), however this one in particular has a very high degree of artistic merit, and is in three articles, two of which are major non-biographical works (actually since removed from Erotica). Most importantly, to me, is this is a very unique image to be released under a free license. An example of a commercial modeling photograph, is a good thing to feature (once, and only once). Zakolantern06:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support As Zakolantern said, this is definitly a once, and only once type of thing, but as it passess all the necessary criteria, I can't see why this one picture shouldn't be featured. I mean, I can attest that this image does an outstanding job of illustrating erotica and physical attractiveness...--Mad Max08:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the model just degraded to an object of sexual fantasy? That’s IMHO pure sexism and therefore also anti-women... --FSHL11:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It’s definitively not a good thing and an encyclopaedia has IMHO to a certain manner also an educational order... --FSHL08:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it's not a good thing. Empowerment, freedom of choice, really, this portrays many good, wholesome things. --Golbez06:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FSHL, this isn't about whether it's good or bad. This person has made her career out of being a model... so it's more fitting and enc to have a picture of her as a model than just an ordinary picture. Whether or not she is a sex object is completely irrelevant... and more importantly NPOV mandates that we accept that she is a model and not try to judge the moral character of her work. grenグレン12:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t want »to judge the moral character of her work« because finally we’re all running for the money but would like to clarify that this picture simply can’t be neutral. --FSHL14:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, if this is sexism and anti-female, then the photo of Arnold Schwarzenegger showing off his muscles is also sexism and anti-male. She is a model and as such it is fitting to have a picture of her modeling, just as Arnold is a bodybuilder and there is a picture of him doing such. Gonzo fan2007talk ♦ contribs00:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reproach »chauvinist and not encyclopaedic« would be definitively appropriate if it would has been nominated as featured picture candidate... --FSHL03:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand what the problem with this photo is, i agree with gren グレン above, i mean for a picture to be encyclopedic, it should show the person, thing, etc, in action in what it is known for. In the article Ronaldinho all the pics are of him playing football, which is fitting since he is a footballer. There are numerous articles and pictures on wikipedia that are like this. Since she has made a living as a model, isnt it fitting that her article is accompanied with a picture of her modeling? I understand where you are coming from, because if this picture was nominated cuz shes "hot" or somethin like that, then yes that is sexist. but if you read the reason above for nomination, the only mention to attractiveness is saying that she is "attractive" which corrolates to the article on physical attractiveness. And yes if she were all bones, like a nicole richie, then yeah thats bad and we shouldnt support it on wikipedia. Also if michelle were in a demeaning position, say wearing hand-cuffs while a man holds her on a leash (i know thats an extreme example) then definitely not. But it is a classy picture of a beautiful woman in front of a beautiful background, and the picture itself, without any bias is a great picture. And like an earlier user said, we cant judge her for what she does for a living, whether it be the president or a porn star. We users may have our own thoughts on certain subjects, such as i believe that wikipedia should not have nudity on it, but as a whole the community has concluded that for encyclopedic sources there needs to be on certain articles. I want you to not be offended, cuz all we are trying to do on wikipedia is make a better encyclopedia for everyone. And if someone out there wants to look up "model," "supermodel," "Michelle Merkin," or "physical attractiveness" then i think this photo would add encyclopedic content to those respective articles. I hope this helps, like i said i dont want to offend you, i just want to show you where all of the "Supports" are coming from. Gonzo fan2007talk ♦ contribs20:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have any problems with nudity or any kind of sex on WP but I’ve got definitively a problem with this image as a featured picture candidate because IMHO it didn’t fulfil the rules in particular number 8 and 9. --FSHL06:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that was an example of my own personal thoughts, i wasnt implying you thought that, and i understand the debate on #8 but i dont understand what you mean by #9. I understand how the neutrality could come into question, that is pretty much the debate that has been brought up on this page and it will probably be decided by an admin. But what do u mean by it doesnt fulfill #9? From what I can see and read and what I know about photography (which i admit isnt a lot) this photo alterations make the photo look better (my opinion). Gonzo fan2007talk ♦ contribs17:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It applies: »More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text« – but there’s simply no description about that. I really know no professional (fashion) photographer who doesn’t make substantial use of Photoshop. In particular her backside, parts of her legs and her face are definitively retouched. --FSHL09:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but all of your arguments are completely bogus. Do you have any proof that she was, in fact, extensively touched up, especially her legs and backside? None, other than your intuition. If we do not know, for a fact, exactly what was touched up, how are we to describe what was? This is how the image came to us; I'm sure saying that it was touched up would qualify as original research. I believe I debunked your argument for criteria 8 with my reply to Kla’quot below.--Mad Max10:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just look the picture with 400% enlargement and be surprised how badly it was retouched – especially at her face. And no, you »debunked« in fact nothing but clarified your POV... --FSHL14:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised at how well they were touched up, if in fact they were, because seeing as how most people have supported the images, including a few who undoubtedly have extensive experience with image editing, I would say that's a pretty good indication others haven't spotted any of these "badly retouched areas".--Mad Max22:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support any (but only one) - Professional photographs, freely licensed, and they fulfil all of the FP criteria. Iorek8511:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support initial photo. You have to take FPCs at face value. If the image is of good quality, adds to the encyclopedia, and looks superb, then there should be no reason to oppose it. Simple as that, right? └Jared┘┌t┐12:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (I would support, but as of this posting, the nominated image is not contained in any articles.) I should point out that I do not think that opposition to sexism is a valid reason for opposing the article-- we have featured images of dead soldiers and of whipped slaves; this doesn't mean that Wikipedia supports war or slavery. Spikebrennan14:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To summarize so far, two users have opposed this nomination because I have added it to too many articles, and they suspect I have a conflict of interests. (I added this image to two articles, and added the three related images in the gallery above to a total of four articles. I don't think my actions were inappropriate, and even if they were, I don't see how that would make this image less feature-worthy.) One of those two users also opposed because he doubts the GFDL status, even though the model has stated that she owns the copyright and that she releases it under the GFDL. Another user opposed because he feels it doesn't have encyclopedic value, even though it's used to depict a notable celebrity in an article about her. Another opposed because it's "nothing special", and he doesn't want the article on the main page for "other reasons". Another opposed because he doesn't like the message it sends, and another because he thinks the image itself is sexist. A final user opposes because it wasn't used in any articles (this has been fixed). I hope the deciding admin will take into account the reasons given by those opposing, and not rely solely on a "head count". – Quadell(talk) (random)14:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.That pretty much his the nail on the head. Too many times do I see a FXC get quashed because of illegitimate oppose votes and the closing admin's blatant indifference to the actual content of the oppose (or for that matter, even support) votes. So I hope that the closing admin is sensible enough to judge the opinions here rationally, and if not, I would urge you to allow someone else to close this FPC. └Jared┘┌t┐16:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main oppose reason and others have stated this too is that this picture isn't any more spectacular than the thousands of other pictures of supermodels in the world. There is nothing special artistically here that sets it apart from others of its genre. That's a very valid oppose reason. Additionally, I'm not comfortable making this a featured picture because doing so is free advertising for this model. Wikipedia is not here to promote one supermodel over another. pschemp | talk17:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photo 1 Other than this being a rare free-use image of a celebrity that is depicted well (compared to photos that caught the person on stage at a concert or at a convention or something similar, which are still good photographs, but the subject is not ready for the photo, so they are not putting themselves in their best light, theoretically). The picture itself is well done (as it was taken by a professional, I assume), and it has merit in the model's article and it could be used to depict other articles. Also, any complaints of sexism, I believe, should not be used to oppose the nomination, the picture is used to represent the subject in question (Ms. Merkin), the subject was the person that allowed the image to be on the encyclopedia. To claim this photo is of an attractive woman or erotica is personal opinion, but the article that this is now in, Michele Merkin, removes personal opinion, and it is used to describe the subject. --WillMak05038915:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This would be a good image for cheesecake and similar articles, and it is unusual to have a free image like this. I support Quadell's project to get good-quality free images of celebrities, as many of the ones we have are fair use or poor-quality. I do think s/he should relax during the FPC review, though. --TotoBaggins16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Statements of "sexist" or "creates a bad attitude for bad women" degrades the FPC process. I do not think either of those statements are true, but even if they are, the picture could be a FP. Let me go through the rules, in detail: 1) Is a VERY high technical standard. No one has disagreed with this. 2) High Resolution - also, no one has disagreed. 3) Is among Wikipedia's best work. Yes. It is - the quality level is superb (because it was a professional shoot, which most Wikipedia photographs are not) 4) Free License. 5) Adds value to multiple articles, including her biography. 6) Accurate. 7) Good caption. 8) "Is neutral" - the question that people seem to be disputing. If you assume good faith, and listen to the nominator's comments, it is neutral. And it's not like other models have donated work for use with a free license. 9) no problems with digital manipulation. Considering it meets all the rules and we have very little similar work, and getting similar work is hard, I wanted to explain my support further. Zakolantern17:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whining here because you don't have consensus for a mass spam campaign will hardly help your cause. Besides, it's hardly like I'm the only one who has raised objections. However, this isn't the place for such a discussion. pschemp | talk18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only one who has reverted these contributions and not apologized for it. Calling my addition of images to five articles a "mass spam campaign" is rude and disingenuous. – Quadell(talk) (random)18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the uploader, I also want to state that I have no particular vested interest in promoting this model's career, either. I normally seek out photos per WP:ERP by hitting 'random article' until I find an interesting article that needs a photo, and sometimes I'll go through biographies in a category that seems interesting. (I tend to make more requests from models than other people, since they are more likely to reply, and their articles are frequent targets for non-free image uploaders.) This page shows image requests I've sent out, this one shows images I've received under free license. Ms. Merkin was just one of many who replied to my queries. (And if more celebrities decide to contribute high-quality free images, how does that harm the encyclopedia, no matter what their motivation for doing so is?) Videmus OmniaTalk18:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I really appreciate the work that goes into securing free content on all topics, so I am a bit reluctant say anything negative here. But Michele Merkin's glamour photography is just not very valuable encyclopedically; the world is plastered with such photos, and Ms. Merkin is not exactly a highly notable person—in short I fear noone will learn anything from this photo other than what Michele Merkin looks like. I would of course 100% support a photo of comparable technical quality for Sophia Loren, if by some miracle that could be obtained.--Pharos07:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Support I don't think there's any question that this photograph represents technical excellence (up to and including Photoshop, I'm quite certain) as it is in commercial photography today. From an artistic standpoint it's reasonably good as well -- certainly high above what all but the top rank of our own contributors accomplish (which they probably could with the same resources). It represents several encyclopedic subjects well, topics which as noted are often fending off non-free images. There may be models more famous than Ms. Merkin, but she is the most famous model (apparently) to have done so to date. I believe the presence of this image as part of our free content will do as much as anything else, and possibly more, to promote its existence and encourage similar donations. All that said, I understand some of the objections stated above, but they seem outside the scope of this discussion. --Dhartung | Talk09:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The technical quality notwithstanding, my main concern is that by promoting the picture of an active, working model for Featured Picture, Wikipedia could be contributing to her further commercial success. That, I believe, is not Wikipedia's mission. In that, this picture is no different from a high-quality still from a TV Coke commercial (assuming permission had been granted by the Coca Cola Company). For a non-profit encyclopedia to indirectly contribute to profit in such a manner is contrary to its principles. It would be setting a very dangerous trend. Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those images are quite different. Featuring a lens to explain aperture (or whatever the task was on hand) doesn't directly contribute to the success of that particular brand, since, when people buy a camera, they look at the specs, read reviews, etc. The same with the hood ornament, people don't drive a Bentley for reasons of the hood ornament alone; however, a super-model (or whatever grade of model this particular woman is) is the image— there is nothing more to it. I am not now talking about the particular product (a bikini perhaps) that the model might be selling, but rather of herself as a brand. If photographic images hadn't been invented, old cars, hood ornaments, racing cars would still be there. But super-models? Forget it. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but I would still say that the hood ornament pic is just as much an ad as this is. I'd also note that featured articles on purchasableproductsandcompanies have not caused a problem thus far (although no doubt a company would pay us for this if they could). – Quadell(talk) (random)20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns about personality rights. These images are indeed free (as in freedom) in terms of their copyright status, but whereas many photographs that are featured on Wikipedia and Commons can be used for commercial purposes or can be modified without restrictions, these cannot (due to personality rights. --Iamunknown20:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personality rights don't really enter into it. To quote GMaxwell, "There are no personality rights implications for Wikimedia's activities: they are only an issue when you use a persons image to promote something or suggest an endorsement in advertising." So yes, someone could potentially do something illegal with this photo, as is true for all photo of recognizable celebrities (quite a few of which are featured). The photo is still free, and our use doesn't cause any problems. – Quadell(talk) (random)20:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that personality rights would come into concern for our use of the image; I said that they would come into concern for use beyond Wikipedia. I realize that is not a copyright issue, and I realize that there are other illegal uses of images that are neither personality rights- nor copyrights-related, but I expressed my opinion anyways. --Iamunknown20:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture. Let alone perhaps other articles, it is encyclopedic for sure in the article Michele Merkin. Garion96(talk) 22:25, 17 July 2007
Support' - It's maybe the best modern image of a living person in Wikipedia (and yes, photos of people are encyclopedic). It's no more "commerical" than many previous featured images and articles we've had. --Abu badali(talk)02:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original nomination Very stunning and certainly eye catching pic. Exceeds all the FP requirements. As mentioned above, other more "commercial" pics were perviously promoted without controversy (more or less). The only qualm I have is the potential outcry when the pic is featured on the main page (like with the eyeball surgery and dead dolphin pics). However, I hardly believe that should be a reason to oppose the pic. Oh, and it was really awkward to view the pic at full res at an internet cafe overseas...with everyone staring at my screen after the pic popped up. ;) Jumpingcheese04:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV should be read by anyone who opposes this image because it may be "sexist" or promotes a "bad message for young women". They are simply not the questions that should be addressed by this discussion in my opinion. (Quotes taken from two comments above in this discussion). Also, a number of pictures we have featured have people who would, if we acted in such a manner, have paid Wikipedia to either feature or to NOT feature the image. This is, to me, irrelevant, and certainly not one of the Wikipedia FP criteria. While I do assume good faith, I think that on some level people who brought up that issue are not considering the nomination on its merits but instead justifying their emotional reaction. I would welcome comments on this issue, since I know it is a touchy subject. Zakolantern07:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your sense-free censorship reproach has simply nothing to do with my valid objection. If I really would like to censor this image I’d make a deletion requests. But I don’t. --FSHL04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, professional quality free images of supermodels are very new to WP. If this becomes the norm, I'd have no problem delisting it, but as it stands it represents WP's best works. This is definitely a new and unique thing for WP and it's very enc to have her picture as a model since that is why she is famous. grenグレン12:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Perfectly illustrates the subject of the article and the subject's profession. Also, the rarity of the image (a free use image of a supermodel) adds to the usefulness for the project. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-18 20:54Z
Sorry for being confusing. If one celebrity is willing to offer professional images in a free format, it can "inspire" others to do the same, which can only improve our articles. And the Delist procedure, combined with careful scrutiny, should prevent any potential flood of free celebrity photos on here. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-19 19:09Z
Comment I've noticed many oppose votes are citing neutrality, and to be honest, it's taken me a while to figure how it is neutral. This image displays the subject, Michele Merkin. Where many FPs display an object, an animal, or an event, this image is being nominated to represent Ms. Merkin. It shows her in her natural light, I presume, at a photoshoot. If this image were being nominated as a representation of an ideal woman or bodily perfection, then this wouldn't be neutral, but I believe it is neutral. Any thoughts? --WillMak05038907:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see this as a picture of a Model working as a model. It's like a picture of a musician performing, a dancer dancing or an athlete competing. In this regard, this is completely neutral, as it accurately documents something real. --Abu badali(talk)12:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When this nomination started, the picture was nominated only for Physical attractiveness and Model I think. In those contexts the neutrality might be up for debate, though personally I opposed it for lack of enc value in those articles. I'll support it in the context of the model's own article ~ Veledan • Talk21:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Great snap but violates criteria #4 (Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value.) and #7 (Has a good caption The picture is displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption). The article of Michele Merkin is very poor and this image adds no further understanding about her. The photo can be considered if it is used for other articles that deals with modeling, photo shoots like these etc. But the pic is a no-go in the present state. --Kalyan13:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. The image is now used in Physical attractiveness with the caption "Features such as a symmetrical face, full lips, and low waist-hip ratio, are commonly considered physically attractive because they are thought to indicate physical health and high fertility to a potential mate. This model's thin figure is also usually considered attractive in Western culture." I'm certainly willing to footnote the points in this caption if they are controversial, and am open to suggestions for a caption change. Does this address your concern? – Quadell(talk) (random)13:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I think those criteria have been sufficiently met now. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-19 19:06Z
Support. Though this has no doubt been modified considerably, it is a fine example of what it is: a contemporary glamor model photo (seems like glamour photography would be a good place for it, as well), with all the kitsch that goes with that. It adds value to the articles it's in, certainly. If we had a flood of high quality professional images like this, then we would quickly have to rethink the balance between de facto advertising and highlighting Wikipedia's original content. But that's a problem we want to have. The sooner that people in the entertainment and fashion industries realize that it is to their benefit to release free/libre photos, the better. As for sexism, it certainly has that potential (and I would actually say that putting it at the lead image in physical attractiveness is a bit biased, even if the caption tries to specify the cultural embeddedness of this particular view of attractiveness), but also has the potential to be used enlightening ways. Part of the problem is that physical attractiveness has a decidedly Western, presentist, male bias; as Wikipedia articles improve, so will the contexts in which this photo is used.--ragesoss19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Changed vote. I wouldn't support in the context of the originally nominated articles, but happy to support in the model's own article. We might not want too many commercial-style shots as FPs but one will be a good addition ~ Veledan • Talk21:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per pschemp. I would even say this picture is not as good as those found at any time on any magazine rack. The free license alone isn't enough. Spebudmak02:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting looks cheesy to me and the composition of the background is mediocre. There are many free-licensed photos out there which win more aesthetic points. The excessive thinness of this person actually contradicts the caption's assertion that our concept of physical attractiveness is based in recognizing signs of health and fertility. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merkin is excessively thin by whose standards? Merkin's ribs aren't poking out, her shoulders and hips are not bony to the point of being frightening to look at, and, she actually has a butt. Compared to truly thin models — or even the average model — Merkin is not excessively thin. Or are we "measuring her up" by the standards of Americans, with 74% of the U.S. population overweight? Because if that's what you're talking about, then I wholeheartedly agree, compared to the average American she is definitely "too skinny". What do you suggest we change the caption to? By the way, if there are many free-licensed photos of models out there, which "win more points," then please nominate them, because as far as I can tell, the general consensus here is that images of this caliber and a free license are difficult to obtain. --Mad Max07:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to retract your oppose or at least make the slightest effort to explain to me how I did not answer any of your objections? Your primary arguments were cheesy lighting and mediocre background. Fair enough, though if you read the entire debate I think you will find that few agree with you when it comes to technical and artistic quality. Hopefully, the deciding admin will take that into consideration. Your second issue was Merkin's "excessive thinness," though I believe I was correct in saying that she is not excessively thin by the standards of the modeling industry. You were also concerned about the "contradiction" in the caption. I do not see any contradiction, as the caption reads "symmetrical face, full lips, and low waist-hip ratio, are commonly considered physically attractive because they are thought to indicate physical health and high fertility to a potential mate." Merkin has a symmetrical face, full lips, and a low waist-hip ratio. This would make the caption true. The caption makes no assertions regarding thinness and physical health and high fertility, only saying that Western culture usually considers thin to be beautiful. This is also true. I asked you what the caption should be changed to, although you ignored that request. I wish you would show the rest of us the "many free-licensed photos out there" of models as well. By the way, I apologize for not having checked your profile first. --Mad Max08:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll forgive you for thinking I was American :) I don't understand though why you're still going after arguments I didn't make. I didn't say that Merkin was excessively thin by the standards of the modelling industry, I said she is excessively thin, which is quite a different concept. I said that there are many more aesthetic free-licensed photos out there, and you're replying as if I said that there are more aesthetic free-licensed photos of models.
Anyway, after thinking some more, I am even more convinced that these pictures are inappropriate for the caption and for the lead of the Physical attractiveness article. Merkin's face is not particularly symmetrical in any of these pictures, her face and lips are too small to illustrate these concepts when the picture is viewed within in the article, and the fact that she is scantily clad and seductively posed is a huge distraction. The concepts in this article, which include, "Physical attractiveness is distinct from, but can include, sexual attractiveness," would be much better supported by frontal pictures of people wearing at least a swimsuit. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this ridiculous argument is going too far. This is similar to the bogus argument that says featuring a picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger would be inappropriate because he is muscular. Apparently, because some men do not look as good as he does, it is okay to label pictures of Schwarzenegger as "chauvinistic". I suppose if this utter rubbish does not end now someone will eventually have the audacity to oppose an otherwise excellent picture of Stalin, arguing that, because Stalin was a communist, featuring a portrait of him would be POV. Same thing with a portrait of Einstein (too smart), a picture of a gun (pro-violence, or something), and Rosie O’Donnell (too fat, promotes obesity). It is a scary thought that people no longer have to leave their point of views at the door and judge a picture on technical and encyclopedic quality. If you think Merkin is too thin, that is one issue, but opposing the picture on the grounds that you don't share the same standards as Merkin and I do on what counts as "too thin," is ludicrous. On the issue of free-licensed photos, why exactly did you bring that up if you were not talking about models? I'm sure there are many free-licensed photos out there, but not many of models, and that is what we're talking about here. As for physical attractiveness; you have to be kidding me. Any normal person can tell her face is symmetrical, as image 3 does an adequate job of showing facial symmetry. You're forgetting that physical attractiveness does not only deal with the face, but the body as well. If we just got a close-up of her face, we could not discuss low waist-hip ratio, could we? And regarding your issues with nudity, luckily that is a none-issue, as Wikipedia is not censored.--Mad Max09:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only you stated that »featuring a picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger would be inappropriate because he is muscular« – and you’re right that’s really ridiculous. But it isn't about Arnold Schwarzenegger, Stalin, Einstein or someone else. It’s about a model and as well known at the Madrilenian fashion week Pasarela Cibeles in September 2006 by resolution of the district government the appearance of models whose body mass index (BMI) was below 18 has been forbidden as preventive measure against anorexia nervosa... --FSHL14:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is what you said; "The reproach »chauvinist and not encyclopaedic« would be definitively appropriate if it would has been nominated as featured picture candidate..." in an above post. Anyway, I might go with the BMI argument if you can cite your sources which say Merkin has BMI below 18. --Mad Max22:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just that I don't grasp the argument that the photo objectifies women. This is a photo, contributed by the woman shown in it, of her expressing herself in her chosen artistic career. It doesn't objectify women any more so than any other photo of a person. But this has already been discussed by others further up the page. My comment immediately above was inappropriately sarcastic and I am withdrawing it. Videmus OmniaTalk14:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone resigns to be regarded as an object than it’s IMHO just reasonable to support this with free pictures... --FSHL15:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image was difficult to research and create, due to lack of official information in the area. The map illustrates the subject matter well and is simply drawn, allowing ease of viewing. This map is a part of a project to map all the provinces of Papua New Guinea, but is the best work in the series so far.
Weak Support It might be useful to list your references on the image page, and say what "LLG" means there as well. The red dots for settlements seem a little too big as well: Buka obscures the strait between the islands, and Kieta and Arawa overlap. However, these are minor points, and this really is excellent work. Adam Cuerdentalk04:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to make the dots visible in thumb view as well as full view, but you are right about Buka, and I should probably merge Arawa and Kieta into a single settlement, as these urban areas have grown to the point of almost merging. Your comment about LLG explanation and listing of references is very sound, and I will include this in my work very shortly. Thankyou for your support. aliasd·U·T05:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support As an editor working on Papua New Guinean articles, I know how difficult this map would have been to research. Excellent and thorough job - and a fine map. Wantok(toktok)13:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting map but I don't like the labelling method, its quite innacurate especially for a vector image, as is the coastal outline, very square, but I'm yet to find a perfectly straight strip of coast in real life. I also found the choice of colours quite aesthetically displeasing. It has the potential though, don't be put off by my comments, I hope it will make an excellent addition to the article. WikipedianProlific(Talk)18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the map a bit confusing. After I carefully study the map, it seems to me that the Solomon Islands are a different country and New Ireland is a different province in the same country-- but these distinctions are depicted in a way that is possibly too subtle. I suggest that the distinctions between international and various sub-national boundaries be more distinct from one another. Also, is "Bougainville" the name of the main island in this group? The name of the island itself (as distinct from the political subdivisions) does not appear to be on the map, even though some other islands are named. Spikebrennan14:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the main island is marked, and the difference in shade for interprovincial and international land is marked in the key, along with the border line, which is also different. aliasd·U·T21:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the Bougainville Island legend. Now I see it, but it's wedged in between other legends and easy to miss (and easy to misinterpret as referring to "Torokina LLG" rather than to the whole island. May I suggest that this legend be printed across the island or alongside it, at an angle? Similarly for the "Bismarck Archipelago" legend. The "Nissan Is." and "Green Islands" legends are placed in a similarly confusing manner- which island is which? Also, does this map depict the province of Bougainville (or of the North Bougainville or South Bougainville districts) in their entirety? If so, then perhaps these boundaries should not extend to the edge of the map-- it gives the impression that only a portion of these jurisdictions are depicted. Don't get me wrong-- you have obviously spent a lot of effort on this map and it shows. Spikebrennan14:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The caption is also confusing: "The province has been involved in a civil dispute since 1990, which officially ended in the year 2000. "" Is the civil dispute still going on, or not? "...has been involved... since 1990" suggests that it's ongoing. Spikebrennan14:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing blatantly wrong with it, and I admire your hard work and the value it adds to the article. However, I simply think it is not a true example of "Wikipedia's best work". If you are doing a lot of these for a project, keep working on your artistry and nominate a different one at the very end of the project. Specific, constructive feedback: It is good form to not mix font sizes, colors, and styles more than absolutely necessary in a chart or map. You are using too much variety. If this many variants are necessary to include all the information, maybe less information should be included. There is also a font problem where the name of the districts and the name of the towns are too similar, and a list of similar tweaks that I don't have time to describe right now. If you would like become engaged in this, check out any of a host of books on the topic. For a specific suggestion, ask me here or on my talk page; I would have to look in my bookshelf for the name of one I really like. Zakolantern04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Panorama of Milwaukee, from the Library of Congress archives. Proposed caption:
This 1898 chromolithographic panorama of Milwaukee, Wisconsin shows the German Renaissance Revival style City Hall in front center. By the mid-19th century, Wisconsin and the Milwaukee area had become the final destination of many German immigrants fleeing the Revolution of 1848. One of the most salient consequences of this migration was the emergence of a brewing industry in Milwaukee, such as the establishment of the Pabst, Schlitz, Blatz and Miller breweries, all established by German immigrants between 1840 and 1855.
Strong Support That is a lovely image. Colour prints of that period tend to have very bright colours, but this one uses the bright colours well, unlike some I've seen (I'm afraid I can't provide an example of what I refer to, because I don't grab copies of things I dislike unless they're historically significant). Anyway, I babble a bit, but seeing such a good image produced by a technique that's difficult to get really good images from doubles the value. Adam Cuerdentalk15:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, being familiar with the typical quality of such panoramas in physical form (yellowed, dirty, cracked paper, smudged ink, etc.) this is fantastic. Thanks for finding it, the LOC does good work. It could probably be used to illustrate articles like panorama as well; there's nothing in there from this important genre. --Dhartung | Talk09:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison: Note the parietal lobe is very distinctly divided from the frontal and temporal.
Reason
Nominated by User:Cronholm144 on Wikipedia:Picture peer review. I seconded because it is a very clean, clear illustration that is heavily used on the encyclopedia. As a caveat, there is only one use of this image in the mainspace; the rest of the links are because it's in the neuroscience template. Enuja03:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well, I’m simply the author therefore not really impartial and I surely won’t negate my own creation... --FSHL12:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose: The exact folding of the brain is biologically meaningful, and I'm having trouble matching the ridges on this image to any photo of the brain I can find. Notably, the divisions of the Parietal and temporal lobes seem unduly indistinct: There's ridges that might work as their divisions, but they seem a little off. Compare this coloured image Now, there is some natural variation, and it's possible that this comes within the typical range. But I need to know what source was used for the ridges, and whether all due care was taken. Adam Cuerdentalk16:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose a.) its unlabelled and doesn't follow anatomical diagram conventions b.) it looks like its been produced by an automated raster to svg programme, perhaps thats not the case though. c.) the colour scheme is slighly off putting and not true to life, the brain of a living person is a fascinating shade of pale blue and pink d.) as a biochemist and anatomist who has dissected a human brain and held it in his hand, I can tell you that the folding is immensly important, infact it is without doubt the most important thing about identify the parts of it. I should be able to seperate the frontal lobe from the parietal lobe along a fold line called the central sulcus for example, but here I can't. [This, http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Image:Lobes_of_the_brain_NL.svg] is an ultimately superior diagram which shows the lobes and folds correctly, although is still unlabelled. We have some marvellous diagrams from grays anatomy here and these are far superior to this as well. Please take all this constructively though and don't be put off, but theres more to anatomical diagrams than whats included in this picture. There are some quite strict conventions which should be followed. Usually the best diagrams are the simplest, the complex shading here doesnt assist in any way what so ever in my humble opinion. I suggest getting a text book on human anatomical artwork as they are seriously complex diagrams if they are correct. I hope all this is constructive and helpful, any questions please message me. WikipedianProlific(Talk)18:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Child holds on tight to her dad's leg while saying goodbye to him. Her father deployed to Southwest Asia for six months in support of OEF and OIF. Military brats can experience long periods of separation from their military parents.
Reason
A great photo that really captures the emotion of deployment.
Conflicted Support As an image, this is a beautiful, emotive work. But should we censor the girl's name (or keep it just on the image page) out of respect for her privacy? Adam Cuerdentalk15:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Illustrates the article perfectly. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-12 16:24Z
Comment Umm, WHAT!? doesn't realesing photos of this kind of minors require parental consent of some kind. Plus, why is the picture called "I'll miss you daddy" surly that isn't a discriprive image title. Since the picture is PD it isn't as if the author needs to be stuck in the image title as well. Touching picture but c'mon. The title, description, caption all seem a bit contrived. -Fcb98116:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the title and caption of the photograph as given by the photographer... In the words of a caveman, "Yeah, next time, maybe do a little research..." — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-12 16:35Z
Oppose I belive it is time for me to offer my opposeition. In the words of me, "I dont care what the photographer named it because he has no rights to this picture and this is an encyclopedia and for all we not that girl will not miss her dad, and I doubt the subjects leg is the author's father." -Fcb98105:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That made no sense whatsoever. Can you try explaining again??? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-19 20:34Z
Sorry. :/ when I said "for all we not" I meant "for all we know". On reading it again I myself can bearly make heads or tails of it. I'll just leave it at per below. \ -Fcb98103:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on a number of grounds. For starters I quite like the photo, it's cute, artistically done, fairly well lit (although there's probably too much blown out highlights even for me, especially on the ground and the girl's dress) and generally well composed (other than the bit of cut off feet on the soldier and bear). However, this is an encyclopaedia and I don't find the encyclopaedic value that high. I share Fcb's concerns with the file name - I don't care if that's what the photographer named it; it should be renamed to something more appropriate for Wikipedia. Additionally, as Adam said, the girl's name, and for that matter the soldier's name, should be removed - given that they are not publicly notable figures, the names do not belong in an encyclopaedia, consent or not. --jjron17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So your main objections are to the caption and filename? That's fixed easily enough. As for the encyclopedic value, do you not believe it illustrates the article Military brat very well? To me, it seems perfect for that article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-12 17:57Z
No, my main objections are to it being unencyclopaedic - as you said the other things could (and should) be easily fixed up. You say it illustrates the article perfectly, which is fine as your opinion. But for me, when I hear the term 'military brat', I don't think of a cute little kid like this, so to me it does not illustrate the article all that well. It's just all too cutesy. Also I honestly doubt that a child this age would even comprehend the notion of her father going away for six months (according to the caption), so I don't find it especially accurate or NPOV (sure she'd understand her dad was going away, but not in the way the caption suggests). --jjron09:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, descriptive filenames are encouraged - but this is not descriptive of the photo, it's descriptive of the photographer and his POV. --jjron09:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, the caption in the article is actually better than the (already) altered caption here. I wonder about the 'holds on tight' though; it's not what I'd call holding on tight. --jjron07:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the grip of her hand. That's what the text is referring to. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-14 15:04Z
I realise that's what it's referring to but you could just as easily use that argument to caption the picture 'child holds on tight to her teddy bear'. To me holding on tight to the leg would be something like hugging it with both arms. I really don't even think her grip on his pants is even that tight. --jjron06:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak conditional support - It does illustrate an important part of the life of a young military brat, so I think the enc is OK. I wish the soldier's boots hadn't been cut off, as that's distracting to the composition. I'm still OK with it, though, as it strikes a good balance of showing great emotion without being too maudlin. Conditional on changing to a more standard, encyclopedic, and anonymous image name. --TotoBaggins18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the tight cropping makes it more personal. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-12 19:47Z
'Military brat farewells father' or something like that; removes the unnecessary details of author and POV. --jjron07:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't understand the name change. It's not one of the FP criteria, and the name exactly references the photograph and creator. Should we change Image:The Scream.jpg to Image:Expressionist painting of individual screaming.jpg? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-12 18:36Z
The reason it is different is that a scan of the Scream is to illustrate the painting the Scream whereas here we are using the image to illustrate military brat rather than the photo "I'll Miss You Dad" which has no notability on its own. Debivort20:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree completely. It may not be the name we pick, but photos are pieces of art and this is the name given by the artist. If the artist has named a piece of work, it is not in WP's pervue to rename said piece of work.Balloonman15:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're making an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. If the name is unencyclopedic, and it is within the license to change it, we should! Debivort17:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if we technically have the right to, morally I would object. If an author writes a short story, it is up to said author to give it a name. If an artist draws a picture, it is up to the artist to name it. It is inappropriate for us to rename a piece of work... it is also unencyclopedic to do so. The photographer gave the name. It is the name.Balloonman04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"morally"? what silliness. If the author had titled the image "lamer little crybaby can't let go of daddy --- USA r0XX0rZ FTW!!" would you still protect the picture name? What if they had titled it "IMG_3681.JPG?" Let's keep our eye on the ball here. We're writing an encyclopedia. Debivort02:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice mature response. The fact is that the author DID NOT name it "lamer little crybaby can't let go of daddy --- USA r0XX0rZ FTW!!" But even if they did, there are books/news articles/etc that I don't like. An encyclopedic is to preserve the facts as presented. The fact is that this picture has a name---period. It is not our place to change the name.Balloonman03:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with Debivort. I actually had a good laugh at your moral opposition. The author took the picture as part of their duties as a government employee. This is the same thing as taking a photo on assginment for the united states. Therefor, as a U.S. citizen, I have as many moral rights to this as the photographer. I want it named: "shmargusbargindeeder.jpg"... And while not mature, my response illistrates the reason why the name should be changed. As mentioned by debivort, Photos (without notability on their own) should always have a descriptive image title that reflects the subject matter in an NPOV way. This is common sense, otherwise it will be near impossible to find images by running searches. -Fcb98105:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you make a very GOOD point, that completely undermines your argument. But herein lies the problem. We choose to rename it. The New York Times picks up on the picture, they decide to rename it. People Magazine pick up on the photo and they choose to rename it. Before long, nobody knows what the name of the picture is because everybody has renamed it and nobody can find it because it now has a dozen name. Of course, I don't think this would ever happen. People Magazine and NY Times wouldn't rename it. It was given a name, if people are going to look for it in the future, they need to know what the original name was.Balloonman16:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have no problem with the feet and bear being cut off; they're not the subject of the photo. Also, with respect to hesitation about disclosing information about the subject, see here. Spikebrennan20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really do not see any encyclopedic value in this photograph. What does it illustrate? A sad girl hugging a soldier's leg. And what exactly does that add to the article? It's a very nice picture, but I haven't been enlightened as a featured picture should do. I don't find it NPOV either. Is this what we want to illustrate the "average" military brat? J Are you green?20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained repeatedly, it illustrates the article Military brat perfectly, by showing the child, and her relationship to the military parent. Can you explain the POV that you believe is being presented in this image? What would you suggest could be a better illustration of the "average" military brat? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-12 20:27Z
Exactly how can you generalise from this particular photograph to all military brats? Just because this girl, a military brat, has a certain relationship with her father does not mean that the concept of a military brat is defined by the emotions that this girl experiences and that this photograph illustrates so well. Perhaps there is no better way to illustrate the "average" military brat, but that does not justify showing the emotions of this particular girl and extending it to the much broader concept of a military brat. J Are you green?20:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood me. A simple picture of a kid who happens to be a military brat is not encyclopedic, because you have no way of knowing the kid is the child of a military person. That's why this image is better, because all of that information is contained in the image. You said the image is not neutral and that it is not typical of the "average" military brat. Please explain both of these claims. "Military brat" just means the kid of a military person, and this image shows all of that. Whether or not there is some emotion in the picture is of no consequence, and indeed any picture of a person is going to show some sort of emotion, so I don't see the point of your rambling. Explain how it's not neutral, and what you meant by "Is this what we want to illustrate the "average" military brat?" — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-12 22:43Z
I appear to not have answered your questions in the abover rambling, so I'll ramble some more :). It's very hard to use quantitative arguments to prove a picture biased or neutral, and in the end it boils down to my opinion. I feel like I'm looking at a piece of propaganda, like I should sympathise for her and her father's sacrifice and and stick a ribbon on my window. I know that it's not a satisfactory argument, but that's not the main reason for my oppose. When I questioned the use of this picture to represent the "average" military brat, I was questioning whether this picture is really about showing what a military brat is. I really like Svetovid's comment about it being like illustrating a vegetarian with a picture of one. This picture shows the emotions of having a parent leave home. So? Does every military brat have this particular experience? Is having this particular experience what defines a military brat? Since I find the answer of both of these to be no, I find it not illustrative of a military brat. It's like showing that vegetarian eating a carrot. Do some vegetarians eat carrots? Yes. Do a disproportionate number eat carrots as compared to the populace? Yes. Does being a carrot eater make a person a vegetarian? No. I might take a picture of a vegetarian eating a carrot and label it "vegetarian" much as the soldier labels this child a military brat. It could be perfectly true, but I don't find it encyclopedic or illustrative of the "average" military brat. J Are you green?16:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who said that only "an average" picture could have encyclopedic value? Isn't it other way around? Shuld not be the picture special in some way to have the value? What do you know about military brats at all? Are you one of them? Do you have a freind, who is a military brat? What is so wrong with the sympathizing with the girl and her father, but please, relax, I'm sure she will do just fine without your sympathy. The picture has nothing to do with propaganda. I do see propoganda in your comment --Mbz121:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
I think you are throwing up a red herring. There is no such thing as an average military brat, but there are experiences which are typical of military life. Having one's parent deployed for extended periods IS a very typical life.Balloonman21:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating the institution of a picture depicting the "average" military brat. Rather, I question how encyclopedic this one is because it focuses entirely on how the girl feels at her father's departure. Anyone (military brat or not) would feel the same in this situation. I don't deny that this experience is part of typical life for a military brat, but calling this picture illustrative of a military brat is taking a far too broad idea from a specific concept that may or may not be experienced by a military brat or an ordinary person. When I look at the picture, I don't see the girls face as showing what it means to be a military brat; I see her face showing the emotion that might be expected of anyone whose parent was leaving. Quite simply, I am not informed of anything about military brats by looking at this picture. And, to Mbz1, of course my comments (and yours, and everybody else's) are propaganda - I wouldn't bother giving a reason for my oppose if it weren't to clarify my opinions in the hope that somebody else might be able to see the situation more clearly. J Are you green?22:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support How can someone oppose something that cute??? I see no abberations, but here at FPC, people generally do make a mountain out of a molehill — a molehill not visible to the casual eye that reads wikipedia. Also per Brian0918. —«ANIMUM»20:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure if you blanked a page and stuck a dr seuss story on there, no matter how cute, it would be reverted as vandalism. Same Idea. Also, I find this picture more emotional and a bit sad than cute. This girl may never see her father again: oh, how cute. (sarcasm) -Fcb98116:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have. I don't think it's possible to illustrate something like a military brat. It's like wanting to picture a vegetarian with one image of one particular person.--Svetovid11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose all we see are the soldiers legs, I'm sure we've all seen photos of a child saying farewell to a soldier father, but this one looks too generic, and image has no time, date or location. Bleh99923:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What does this tell me about military brats per se. All it tells me is that this girl is sad to see her daddy leave. I don't need a picture to tell me that most girls love their fathers. The picture is nice enough but it's not informative in any way hence it fails criterion #5. --D. Monack | talk23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all girls see their fathers leave for war; that's the difference. The encyclopedic value is obvious in how the image shows the emotional connection between the child and father, and how the child feels as her father leaves for 6 months and may not return. That's why it's perfect for the article, and I can't think of a better way to illustrate the article. Can you? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-14 15:03Z
Whether or not this is the best image to illustrate the article is irrelevant here. The best possible image is not necessarily an FP. As for this image illustrating the emotional connection between fathers and daughters, that should be obvious to anyone with parents. What does this image show that I didn't know before? Absolutely nothing. It's powerful because of the emotion involved but it isn't edifying at all which is what encyclopedia images should be and is an important criterion for all featured pictures. --D. Monack | talk01:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The encyclopedic value is obvious in how the image shows the emotional connection between the child and father, and how the child feels as her father leaves for 6 months and may not return. That's why it's perfect for the article, and I can't think of a better way to illustrate the article. Can you? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-14 15:03Z
Oppose At the risk of being flamed, to be honest I find it corny and hence not Wikipedia's best work. (Compare it with today's stunning Ansel Adams POTD, also of a child in a difficult circumstance, and there is no question that this is not in the same league IMHO.) Also there is the question of whether this image was fabricated (as for the FPC of the Pakistani girl getting water a couple of months ago) Spebudmak06:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's corny about it? It's not supposed to be cute. It's a tragic illustration of the emotional connection between the child and father, and how the child feels as her father leaves for 6 months and may not return. That's why it's perfect for the article, and I can't think of a better way to illustrate the article. Can you? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-14 15:03Z
No, knowing absolutely nothing about military brats, I can't, but that doesn't mean that this image should be featured. Not every article needs a photo and not every subject has an image that should necessarily be featured. And I think it would be kind of corny even without the teddy bear. It's not like I don't sympathize with whatever this family is going through, but the cheap symbolism of the teddy bear just puts it over the top for me. Spebudmak02:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't understand the need to repeat the phrase "That's why it's perfect for the article, and I can't think of a better way to illustrate the article. Can you?" six (6) seperate times in the same FPC. Spebudmak03:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I saw this when it was first posted, and did not comment or vote until now because I was undecided. My decision has become: It's a visually stunning picture; artistically more than worthy of FP. However, that is only enough on Commons - where I think it should easily win FP status. That little girl to me does not successfully illustrate the article. Some articles do not have a great image that can illustrate it; print encyclopedias do not actually have photographs with every article for reasons other than just printing cost. Also, we have a much wider viewership than the military photo contest website. I do not approve of posting the girl's name. Zakolantern21:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does the image fail to illustrate the article? The encyclopedic value is obvious in how the image shows the emotional connection between the child and father, and how the child feels as her father leaves for 6 months and may not return. That's why it's perfect for the article, and I can't think of a better way to illustrate the article. Can you? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-14 15:00Z
Support My sole concern (aside from the fact that the girl's name still appears in the caption used in the article) is encyclopedic value, but I think it's definitely there. The picture itself is beautiful and tragic (I disagree with these assessments of "cute"). It was a bit of a close call at first, but the more I look at it and think about it, the more I feel this is worthy of being featured. -- Kicking22222:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not quite decided yet, but I'd like to comment on what's causing my indecision and perhaps some of the opposes above. I think the picture is powerful, technically sufficient (but shame about the cutoffs), and encyclopedic. My problem is that I feel like a voyeur intruding on a little girl's (possibly final) goodbye to her daddy. The fact that she's not looking at him, but at us, only heightens my feeling that the photographer has violated her personal space and interrupted an extremely personal and emotional time. To me, that's not the "best" thing Wikipedia has to offer. My indecision is caused by not knowing how much I'm simply reading into the picture (being the father of a girl about that age). Matt Deres02:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uniqueness is not one of the Featured Picture criteria. It simply has to be an excellent example of the article in question (Military brat). The encyclopedic value is obvious in how the image shows the emotional connection between the child and father, and how the child feels as her father leaves for 6 months and may not return. That's why it's perfect for the article, and I can't think of a better way to illustrate the article. Can you? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-14 14:56Z
You have to use your imagination to draw that from this picture, I didn't see much of an emotional connection when a man is patting a young girl on the head and he is cut out of the photograph. Do people usually take photographs of their family with one member partially cut out? There is a famous photo from WW2 of a Canadian boy saying farewell to his father literally marching off to war, that one has excellent composition, this one is a snapshot anyone can take therefore very generic, good for the article perhaps but I didn't think it was special. Bleh99915:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm going with my first instinct here, and say I'm tired of contemporary US Military government propaganda as FP. On Wikipedia, neutrality is primary. Promoting any group's propaganda as encyclopedic content seems unwise, especially when it's presented with such an unquestioning adoring caption. Note that I'm using the word propaganda in the literal sense, not meaning "something the bad evils want us to think that's not true". Propaganda can be True. But it's still propaganda, and I think it's best to simply steer clear of it until we have some —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Makemi (talk • contribs).
How is it propaganda? What goal is it trying to accomplish? Should we defeature the several propaganda pictures/posters that we currently have featured? To put it simply, your objection rationale is absurd. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-14 14:54Z
The image attempts to gain sympathy for the US solders and their families. I don't see the US military taking photos of Iraqi insurgents' children. I also don't understand how the comment itself could be considered propaganda or what relevance there is if it was. Please explain. —Pengo06:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to explain. Everybody could have their own opinion. The girl's father is not going to Iraq. He's going to South East Asia to teach local people there how to fight terrorists, who kill innocent civilians. Do you have something against the war on terror? What is wrong with the sympathy for the soldiers, who risk their life to fight terror? Remember the soldiers have not started the war. They only follow the orders. So in my opinion the image has nothing to do with propaganda (and once again it is only my opinion), but because in my opinion the image has nothing to do with propaganda, if somebody says that the image is a propaganda, his/her comment sounds as propaganda to me. I wish very, very much that we could have lived in the world, where no soldiers are needed, but I'm afaid it is not going to happen in a near future.By the way I really do not believe that the comment :"US military taking photos of Iraqi insurgents' children" is fair one. I hope you agree that it is very hard for US military to find Iraqi insurgents themselves, leave alone their kids. Yet I wish very much that instead of fighting people all over the world started taking pictures ot other people kids. Don't see it is going to happen any time soon.--Mbz113:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Please read the caption properly before replying like this: it says "Her father deployed to Southwest Asia for six months in support of OEF and OIF". Note it says Southwest Asia (not Southeast as you claim), and that he's going for OIF, i.e., Operation Iraqi Freedom. I don't really care about the 'propaganda' argument that's come up (personally I'd tend to feel it's not really propaganda, I oppose for other reasons), but you need to get your facts right. BTW, it's also rather contentious whether Afghanistan (where he is presumably going for OEF) is part of Southwest Asia according to the article, which is yet another problem with the caption. --jjron08:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as page's principle author. To answer the question about how is this photo representative of military brats... that is simple. The article goes into more details, but the lead reads, "This group is shaped by frequent moves, absence of a parent, [...] the threat of parental loss in war, and the militarization of the family unit." Extended deployments are a part of life in a military family as is the threat of loss. As for not seeing more of the military member---the picture isn't about the military person, but the child.Balloonman15:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The artistic value of images is not important here, if you want to illustrate an emotional bond between two people they should generally both be visible - therefore the encyclopedic value of this image is degraded and this image is 100% reproducible. Bleh99915:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who said that it was illustrating and emotional bond between TWO people---it is capturing the emotion of the child---which is the subject of the picture and the article. I find that the parent isn't visible accentuates the message of the parent's absence!Balloonman21:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to lack of encyclopedic value. I would cast a support vote on Commons though. BTW, I find it curious that nearly every oppose vote has some sort of rebuttal. Cacophony04:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's usually how discussions work, people talk to eachother... Unfortunately FPC has been sorely lacking in that respect, to the point that we now have comments like yours. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-15 11:19Z
I dont participate at RfA but i have sen a few noms and they are nothing like this. Even most noms here dont have this kind of argument. I also agree with rebuttals, I respond to Opposers in my noms but at this point it seems a bit much. it isn't as if most of these concerns all the way down here havent been addresed farther up. -Fcb98115:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The encyclopedic value is obvious in how the image shows the emotional connection between the child and father, and how the child feels as her father leaves for 6 months and may not return. That's why it's perfect for the article, and I can't think of a better way to illustrate the article. Can you? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-15 11:22Z
I'll grant you that it does a fantastic job of showing "the emotional connection between the child and father", but how is that unique to being a military brat? Only a very small percentage of military brats (throughout history) have had to deal with a parent being sent off to war, and even then it is only for a relatively short period of their childhood. What is a much bigger part of life for ALL millitary brats is the transient nature of that lifestyle, having to move just when you start making close friends. Or the homogenous lifestyle that is associated with being raised by enlisted parents close to a base in a highly disiplined household. Or having to live within a sub-cluture within the military brat sub-cluture. Just because the picture does a better job of illustrating it than some images do does not mean that it has high encyclopedic value. An image can be emotionally engaging without adding value to an encyclopedia article and that is why I would vote for it on commons, where the encyclopedic value is not considered. Cacophony08:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree... some of the ad hominem attacks here (from both supporters and opposers) is ridiculous... people (on both sides) are attacking the people who are making a comment, rather than addressing the questions/concerns.Balloonman18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Low enc (thegreenj summed it up nicely above), and ack Cacophony about the rebuttals they are actually bordering on personal attacks. --Dschwen11:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images involving in progress conflicts will always be contentious issues, that's why I prefer historical photographs. Besides I still think this image is a privacy violation, even if the girls parents agreed to it. Bleh99911:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I noticed there hasn't been nearly such a big stink whenever the myriad dead soldier or child soldier pictures have come up for FP. Why aren't those considered "propaganda"? This image is encyclopedic in that it shows another facet of military life. -- Grandpafootsoldier17:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between an image of a dead soldier from 142 years ago and an image of a young girl alive today, personality rights mean you can only use such images in a certain way regardless of copyright, including how you use it endorse certain views or products Bleh99919:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This clearly isn't propaganda to me. I could see it being used by either pro or anti-war people. I.e. "Honor the sacrifice of our military and their families" or "Please don't harm military families by sending them off to an unjustified war." Hard to call something propaganda when it has no clear bias. Debivort01:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. This picture could be just as easily used to show the horrors of war and military life. In the article it is currently being used in does not glamorize military life.Balloonman04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How do we know that the image was taken or made during the course of Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr., TSgt, USAF official duties? The MILPHOG 2007 Standard Operating Procedures link is not does not seem to be working to confirm this. I found the MILPHOG SOP for 2006, but could not confirm that the contest only accepted photos taken by military personnel as part of their official duties. Signaleer skedaddled on June 22, 2007 (posting, adios suckers!) so we can't ask him. -- Jreferee(Talk)06:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jreferee, in the PDF you linked, under II. Eligibility, it clearly states:
A. The VIAP competitions are open to Active Duty, Reserve, and National Guard enlisted personnel of the five Armed Services holding the MOS, rating, NEC, or AFSC of photographer, journalist, photojournalist, videographer, broadcaster, graphic artist, mass communication specialist or equivalent. Members who leave the Armed Forces during the year may compete as long as the material submitted was completed in its entirety while on active duty or in a Reserve or National Guard status.
Which also begs the question of why Signaleer is listed in the nomination as the creator, unless he is also Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr. - and I can see no indication that he is. Ideas anyone? --jjron08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Quadell. The image conveys what daughters anywhere would feel as their father is getting ready to go away. -- Jreferee(Talk)02:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, while I was fixing the creator, I went and checked the original image again. Seems the original filename was, and I quote: 10237_060612-F-3961R-063.jpg. Below the picture is the photographer's name and the caption that Signaleer has made into the filename here on Wikipedia. Rather negates all that nonsense argument above not changing the filename because it's a piece of art, etc, don't you think? --jjron08:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is the file name, not the photo name. File names are often formatic, but if you hold the cursor above the picture, you will clearly see the name of the photo... as it is also identified as "I'll miss you dad" in the caption. It is not identified as 10237_060612-F-3961R-063.jpg.Balloonman18:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (added sig, it wasn't meant to be anonymous, just forgot to sign, FWIW it happens.)[reply]
You (Balloonman anonymously FWIW) are talking about the alt-text. It's a weak argument. Hold your cursor over a picture on Wikipedia and you'll get the picture's caption as the alt-text - should we therefore rename filenames to match their caption here, or vice-versa? Sure "I'll miss you dad" is the photo's caption on the original site, as I already said, but the argument above is about the filename, and the original filename is 10237_060612-F-3961R-063.jpg. Therefore there is no logical reason not to give it a meaningful filename on Wikipedia, without the POV and author that Signaleer gave it. If you are really that hung up about it, you could add the "I'll miss you dad" to the caption here. --jjron08:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The filename is NOT the name the photographer gave it. The filename fits a format/coding system that the government utilizes. But it is known by the name given to it by the photographer. Short of fraud/misrepresentation, I doubt if there is anything that convince me that it is appropriate to change the name of a published piece of work given to that piece of work by the creator of that piece of work. If we were dealing with a picture a wikipedian took, then no problem, but when the picture is published and named, then the published name should stick.Balloonman18:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are making little sense. You are saying that the filename it had on its originating website is irrelevant, but the filename it now has is untouchable, and by some massive leap of logic, that that was in fact its real original filename. How do you know this? You only know the original caption. You also want this sacred name retained as the filename, which very few users will ever actually see, but are perfectly happy not to include it in the caption, which users will in fact be reading. To be honest, what you are arguing above seems to defy the rules of Wikipedia, and, to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, suggests that this image shouldn't be here at all (BTW I'm not claiming this is the case, simply following your argument through). Have a good day. --jjron09:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "cut off" argument only applies to the subject of the article. Neither the boots nor the bear are the subject of the article. This would be like having an insect sitting on a branch and opposing because the whole branch isn't shown. Also, as others have argued, the close-cutting adds to the image, more-so than the reduction of value from not being able to see the complete tread pattern at the bottom of a boot, or all the toes of a stuffed animal. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-19 18:59Z
Not necessarily. If the voter feels that this affects the overall composition then it's quite valid (Criterion 1). For example, a closeup of a lizard last week was opposed by some voters mainly because of a distracting grass blade or something at the edge of the picture, even though it didn't cut across or affect the actual subject. And for mine, I regard the bear as integral to the girl (i.e., it adds context to the girl), therefore part of the subject anyway. I don't buy the 'close-cutting' argument either - it's not like he's asking for the whole soldier, we're talking about an extra few centimetres at the bottom and right (in real life measurements) for a cleaner overall composition.
BTW, I only bring all this up because I'm sick of every opposer of this picture being challenged and harangued about it; as someone said earlier on, he feared being flamed for opposing. It's pretty sorry if people are being frightened off from voting or giving their opinion because of this harrassment. It's almost like some people have some sort of personal reasons for wanting to see this promoted, rather than simply thinking that it is an appealing, high quality, encyclopaedic image. This is reminding me of the sad Wikipe-tan nomination last year, with the nature of the repeated challenges of anyone who happens to oppose. --jjron09:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop characterizing the replies to opposers (many of which are mine) as being part of a flamewar. It's called discussion. If they care to explain their rationale further, and listen to my reply, then I can understand their view better. Nobody is forcing them to read replies to their votes (and indeed most of my replies seem to have been ignored), so this "fear" cannot be of much substance. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-20 12:53Z
Support. The debate around this thing has gone through the roof, as if it were a hot-button political debate. Discussions are fine, but it'd be nice to keep them less personal. As an American, I don't find it to be propaganda--it's a fact that there are military brats, soldiers going off to fight and leaving their children behind, etc. no matter how you feel about the whys and hows (in fact I could see where both sides argue that it's propaganda for the other). If I lived in a country where the military was a more minor aspect of citizenship, maybe I'd feel differently (and be even more compelled to click on the article to learn more about the concept of a military brat). And I think the composition (including cut-off) and technical aspects are fine; I wouldn't say no to a little more sharpening for encyclopedic value, as soft focus trades off more for artistic value, nor to cropping a bit of the left side out for balance, but it's fine. --Peter20:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The version with the tag is a com:fp, I originally left the tag because that's the animals most common state to have a tag (or some other brand or hole in it’s ear) on farms where it is usually found but I ended up getting rid of it anyway to see how it looked.
Self Nom Support both — Benjamint [31] 12:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Support original only - Nice shot; I wish the tag wasn't there, but I can't get behind that much non-incidental 'shoppery. --TotoBaggins13:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it just means that I don't think such a large amount of photoshopping should be used for pictures in articles. I think I'd be neutral to oppose on the image... but, I hadn't really made up my mind. grenグレン18:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support either (but not both). Nice composition and illustrates its subject well with no really obvious flaws. I have hesitated on pics like this before because I personally find animal shots more encyclopaedic if they include the full beast; additionally I would prefer the full face rather than profile. These concerns lead to the 'weak' support. I know some people here are really anti-photoshopping, but that's a neat job and I'd be quite happy for it to go through. --jjron09:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't consider this before, but following that military brat discussion above, this seems to be lacking a bit in the detail in the caption and image description. These could be added to and improved. --jjron09:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose both - unfortunately, the other goats "sitting on the snout" of the main one spoil the composition, even if they're far out of focus in full size. Pictures like this need a clearer background to get high enc points from me. --Janke | Talk11:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose both for the reasons jjron gave. I have almost the exact same view of the image's pros and cons that he has, but to me they add up to oppose. I want more of the animal for enc value. Great picture though. Zakolantern21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have improved the image descriptions. Hypothetically, what would people's opinions be if there were no goats in the BG, weren't there in the first place I mean. Benjamint
Oppose I'd like to see the whole animal in the picture. The head only won't even be suitable as the main image of the article. May have been suitable for the article Boer goat's head though :) --snowolfD4( talk / @ )13:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I made the comment earlier about preferring images of the full animal as well, please note that there are a number of 'head-shots' of animals that have gained FP status in the past, so your last comment is a bit unfair. See here. --jjron08:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't support any of those other head shots now, did I :) ? My point is head shots are alright if you're looking for great pictures and would be acceptable on Commons, but not including the body of the animal means the encyclopedic value of the picture takes a big hit. In some instances if the picture is that good exceptions could be made, but this one isn't that exceptional. --snowolfD4( talk / @ )13:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I tried to make clear, I'm not arguing with your views on preferring full body shots (especially as I tend to share that view anyway), I just felt your comment saying it's not even suitable as the main image, and joke about the Boer's head article were a bit unfair to the nominator given previous promotions of head only shots. --jjron08:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and apologies if I was misunderstood, but ideally featured pictures should be picturesque, encyclopedic, and of high quality. Like I said omitting the body takes away some of the encyclopedic value of the image, and it would have to be exceptional in another regard (i.e. historic etc) if I was to support it, which sadly it isn't. --snowolfD4( talk / @ )15:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most famous Imperial coronation ceremonies was that of Napoleon, crowning himself Emperor in the presence of Pope Pius VII (who had blessed the regalia), at the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.Alternate version
Reason
One of the difinitive pictures in any History Textbook: the Coronation of Napoléon Bonaparte as Emperor of the French Empire. This is easily one of the most reconginzed paintings of the French Revolution, and captures the rise of one of history's most influential people.
Comment I don't like the encoding either. Also, although the painting relates to the coronation ceremony of Napoleon, the actual action depicted in the painting is the crowning of Joséphine de Beauharnais, not of Napoleon himself (that is to say, the caption is incorrect). Spikebrennan14:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. But thank you for making the image and placing it in public domain; it's very useful for its article, just not up to the standards for a FP. Specific reasons why: The book or other object with a price tag under the dish is distracting, as is the angles chosen in the composition. For a picture of a specific dish to be a FP, the photograph should be carefully set up to highlight the dish without background objects in the scene unless they help explain the dish. The coloration of the image is off; it appears it might have been taken in too little light, something that is supported by an exposure time of a half second. That half second exposure also produced some (slight) motion blur, causing nothing to be perfectly in focus. Zakolantern20:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Zako took many of my comments. It seems to have a color cast, e.g. regular incandescent tungsten bulbs on the "toad" but less so on the plates. I also see some barrel distortion (see how the table in the top left bows out, rather than being perfectly straight?) which you'll get at 18mm focal length (assuming you used a midrange zoom like the 18-55mm kit lens) and is easy to mostly correct in Photoshop. Another possibly better option is to get farther away and use a focal length without that distortion, another lens like the 50mm where it's not a concern, etc. I'd also recommend using a tripod and higher aperture, say f/8 or f/11. --Peter21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly oppose - A noble feast like that deserves support, but unfortunately the poor focus puts it beyond consideration. I'd happily support an invitation to help it eat, though! --TotoBaggins01:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super Hornet Strike Fighter Squadron 103 is parked on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) as the ship operates in the Arabian Sea on Dec. 5, 2006. The Eisenhower is in the Arabian Sea in support of maritime security operations.
Reason
It caught my eye, so I decided to place it here and see what everyone else thought
Oppose. Sorry; not close. At full size, there are all of the following: Compression Artifacts: on the sides of both engines. General fuzziness/blur: both wings. Some really crazy distortion that is probably a combination of compression artifacts, blown out highlights, bad white balance, motion blur: the wheels, especially the back ones. Some strange distortion that makes the asphalt look wavy and bumpy. A number of other technical issues in various places. Most of these problems can even be seen on the image page / not at full size, which means they are major, not minor, flaws. If anyone can comment on the series of things technically "off" with the wheel area in more detail than I did, I would be interested. Zakolantern22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the nominator: I should add that it caught my eye too; it's a fairly cool picture, just not at nearly the technical standards of a FP. Zakolantern22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. That's a fine camera; something tragic was done to it in Photoshop, as evidenced by that being a 1.7 MP image from a 8.0 MP camera. :-/ I will say the thumbnail was striking, but that's not what we're going for on FP's. --Peter02:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slave laborers at the Buchenwald concentration camp at the camp's liberation in April 1945 by the United States Army's 80th Division. Elie Wiesel is on the second row from the bottom, seventh from the left.
Reason
Important historical photograph which also happens to include a well-known personality (Wiesel). I am aware that there are some odd artifacts in the picture (such as the ghostly doubling of the ear of the standing prisoner, more obvious in the full version). These are apparently in the original (see [here]
Support, the historical relevance far, far outweighs the minor technical issues (and consider that this was done 60 years ago, in less-than-ideal conditions). I'd seen this picture before, but never really zoomed in; I was astonished to see their eyes. After all they've been through, they still have strong, proud eyes, especially the standing prisoner, they're still human. --Golbez19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, I think this image is great and very historical. Considering the conditions under which the picture was taken, as well as its age, I don't think technical quality should even be a factor. It's near impossible to get a higher quality of this image without having to resort to extensive photo manipulation. --AutoGyro19:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technical quality could be a factor if it was likely a better scan or print of the same photo existed. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here. Adam Cuerdentalk20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. To me, one of those "iconic" historical images that are in all the textbooks and we should FP the best version available of. This is that photo. Zakolantern22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only: the DVIC copy (which is the one I had uploaded) has been restored by the DVIC. It has a minor cloning error at the foot of the pole on the right. User:Dschwen once said he'd try to produce a better cleaned up version (see User talk:Dschwen#NARA images). Lupo08:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The slight doubling of the standing man (it's not just his left ear!) is indeed already present in the original TIFFs available here and here. Lupo09:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But given the restoration, maybe we should create a new image that hasn't been touched up from the original TIFF's Lupo linked, especially considering how other historic photos this month have tended towards the original, pen-marked, imperfect versions over the cleaned ones. Regardless, it's a great photo. As for the ghost, I'm sure that's part of the exposure, likely from the man moving during the exposure--the main image we see is from the flash, the ghost from movement before/after the flash fired while the shutter was open. --Peter19:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting that explanation. I was wondering how it was possible that his upper parts were ghosted, but the beam he's leaning on and his legs were not. --TotoBaggins15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. An iconic image of the horrors of World War II. The minor technical issues pale to irrelevance when compared to its historic significance. ValentinianT / C23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
World War II aircraft worker at the Vega Aircraft Corporation in Burbank, CaliforniaAs above, but no UFO above her head
Reason
This picture had a peer picture review without opposition. While the above is the original image, I support the edited version that removes the spot above the worker's head.
Calliopejen1 nominated the picture for review and said in the nomination "Good encyclopedic value, and beautiful picture--love that her red lipstick matches her red tool. Also love the contrast between her blouse and the armband/leather gloves. A nice complement to the Rosie the Riveter poster at FPC now. Background/hair might be considered too dark, but I like it because it highlights her paleness and delicate features."
I think the image is of good quality and it's quite historical, having been taken in June of 1942.
Weak supportSupport edit. There's a lot I like about this image--it looks like a painting, and must've been taken with a pretty impressive view camera--and there are a lot of FP criteria it fits, probably "Is of high resolution" more than any other. *G* And it does a great job of illustrating the article, how women without prior experience were sort of rapidly thrown into fields like this that were traditionally dominated by trained male workers. That "UFO" got me thinking, and some tinkering around with Photoshop (I'd show you what I made if I knew how to upload it to WP the "right" way--the upload interface is pretty intimidating to new users!) confirmed--there's a lot of detail lost to the shadows, like reflections on her hair, a big difference between her hair and the background, and lots of stuff in the background itself like shelving on the left, more tables/benches in the distance, and a light/reflection of some sort (which survived as the UFO). For artistic value, I have no problem with that remaining underexposed, but for an encyclopedic/technically exemplary image, I think it'd be better to not chuck the background altogether as this is practically doing. Nevertheless, I don't think that should keep it from being an FP, so I'm giving it weak support for now. Any more experienced Photoshoppers (on hardware that can handle a file this big!) want to take a swing at upping the background exposure without blowing out the subject? --Peter17:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better on a brand new, bright, high contrast LCD than a four year old blurry CRT. Who knew! (Actually I knew there was a difference; I'd calibrated both displays to minimize it, but it's still a lot more than I realized. A lot of detail I considered important, such as the woman's hair, shows up well enough on the better display.) --Peter02:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support edited version - I love this image, and I think it's very enc for women workers of WWII. The background being dark doesn't bother me, but I would probably support any contrast-enhanced version that anyone cares to try. Full disclosure: I did the UFO-removal. --TotoBaggins18:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either Beautiful image. I can see why you'd want to remove the UFO, though I'd keep the original available, lest information be lost. I'd like to see an edited version that brings out the background a bit, though I'm not sure if I'd actually support it: The darkness is a nice effect. Since we're probably going to be asked which one we prefer in the end, so that which one to promote comes out - I prefer it sans UFO. Adam Cuerdentalk21:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either - I tried my hand at adjusting the contrast a bit; I don't think we're missing anything with the current version and I agree with Calliopejen1 that the darkness serves to highlight the woman as well. I'm not sure what that UFO is, but it is a bit distracting. Matt Deres00:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit Great encyclopedic value (even though the subject is clearly posed) and good quality. I was going to complain about the hair-background contrast, but read Peter's comments and realized that it is me who needs a new monitor. Aside: Any idea what the tool in her hand is ? Abecedare07:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit, normally I'd prefer the (marginally) defective original, but if this does get on the main page, we'll probably have people wondering what the "UFO" is. --snowolfD4( talk / @ )01:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, yes, because it would lessen the historical and enc value of the image. If it was a panorama you shot yourself, of course not. Zakolantern17:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, panoramas of this type were pretty common. Here are a few examples: [32], [33], [34], [35]; you can find hundreds more of varying quality by doing an LOC search. Obviously they are stitched by hand and will not be up to our digital standards in that regard, but I'm sure some thorough searching could find some that would have high encyclopedic and visual value. I would say look for ones that are high-res (and sometimes the downloadable tiff file is somewhat higher-res than the image on the index page), early (the earliest are late 1890s as far as I can tell), have good focus and condition, and are of places we have good articles on (and show interesting things), and don't worry about the stitching. Many of them are labeled, which can be very interesting as well. Chick Bowen04:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well... it's old, but it also deals almost solely in things that could be found today, if not in that arrangement. It's encyclopædic for Erie, of course, but, well, you don't see the trains, can't make out the details of the few people, there's no vehicles on the street. You can see old buildings of that sort - with the painted advertisements of that era slowly fading on their sides - in any American city, and train tracks of that sort in any British one. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike the image: it's a great find for Erie-related articles. But it doesn't really transcend Erie-related articles. Adam Cuerdentalk06:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually ,there are vehicles. I see a couple horse-drawn vehicles, an early automobile (possibly a Model T) and in the distance are some streetcars. Also, its going to be impossible to get a photo from this era and see a lot detail of anything that is moving because of the long exposure time. --Dtbohrertalk•contribs10:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but they're so small and blurry that it's hard to get excited about them. Don't get me wrong: it's a great image of Erie. But I can't really see someone using it as, say, a desktop wallpaper, or wanting a print of it for their wall, or being strongly emotionally moved by it - but that's true for most FPs. Adam Cuerdentalk06:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I might make a suggestion: Erie was a big rail town until standardisation really took hold sometime after 1858, right? Well, I work a lot with newspapers from the mid-1800s, and there's some really excellent engraving work in them, particularly the illustrated weekly newspapers (Illustrated London News, etc. I'm sure that America had a few.) I'll bet if you look in American illustrated newspapers and periodicals for 1858 you could find some great engravings of the standardisation riots. Adam Cuerdentalk07:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A striking historical image. By today's technology, we'd be able to make a better image, but that preserved style unto itself has inherent historical value. --Midnightdreary18:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a lovely composition, but not enough of the plant is in focus - just a single flower, even at preview size. For an FP, we need a lot more depth of field, at least as far down as the nearest leaves, preferably farther. Could you have another go at it? Adam Cuerdentalk15:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the focus is to be on the flower head. I've added a shot with less distracting other stuff. The shots are at f/22 already (EXIF data was lost from uploads due to using raw files). —Pengo22:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, unless focus stacking tricks were used, or the angle of the photo was very different. The photo was already with a small aperture (f/22). Also the subject is in a different city to me. Besides ... having the leaves in focus would mess with the composition :). —Pengo02:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the second picture, the one with a tighter crop. Excellent picture, I hope I'll take pics of similar quality some day (re my rocoto pic below ;)) Luca19:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Napoleon III, soon after his death. After losing the Franco-Prussian War, Napoleon III spent the rest of his life in exile in England. He was haunted by his loss, and his last words, to the doctor attending him, harked back to the battle that ended his time as an emperor: "Were you at Sedan?" From the Illustrated London News of January 25, 1873.Cropped: No title or caption.
Reason
I love these evocative Victorian engravings, and this is a very good one, and very encyclopædic for discussions of Napoleon III.
Conditional Support - it is really cool, and great quality. However, the text at the bottom of the image is slightly slanted. If someone can fix that, full support. Zakolantern16:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't have the software to fix this myself. The best way might be to cut the line reading "Illustrated London News Jan 25 1873" - as that seems to be on a slightly different lineup than everything else, then rotating the caption and photo, which seem to be in line with each other, as far as that goes given the funny borders. This is, I fear, typical of Victorian printing. Vanished usertalk14:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image seems to be level enough. The border lines themselves are pretty wobbly. So I've made a cropped version with no rotation. —Pengo06:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose even though the image is interesting and the scan of good quality. My concern is how well this image illustrates the subject: we're looking at a horizontal profile of the face of a dead body-- does this really effectively illustrate Napoleon III the man? Spikebrennan14:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I don't think this is Wikipedia's best work. This type of illustration would be good to include in the article, but I don't think it's worthy of FA status due to the lacking illustration of the subject. DMCer03:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neurons (also known as neurones and nerve cells) are electrically excitable cells in the nervous system that process and transmit information. In vertebrate animals, neurons are the core components of the brain, spinal cord and peripheral nerves.
Reason
Bumped into this at COM:FPC. Clear, technically precise and encyclopedic SVG diagram of a neuron cell.
Probably from the angle the image is drawn, which is why the synapse is magnified to show that there is a very tiny gap between the synapse and cell. I would be inclinded to agree with you if the magnification was not shown, but as it is I think it is made clear they are not physically connected. --Mad Max08:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the synapse is not shown adjoined to the cell body then it is not to a dendrite either - which is even less accurate. Debivort00:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, so excuse me if I'm a little confused. From your first comment, Debivort, you raise the issue of the synapse being connected to the soma, but this is not necessarily wrong, as presynaptic axons often synapse with postsynaptic neuron's body, creating an axosomatic synapse. Not all synapses are axodendritic synapses. See this image. There are some issues to clear up with the terms, such as microtubule, axonal terminal, and the axonic cleft and nucleolus should preferrably be labled, but diagrammatically it looks okay to me. --Mad Max08:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah ... maybe I'm biased by experience with invertebrate neurons for which I have never heard of a dendrite onto the soma. Well, I'd still prefer to see the synapse to which special attention is drawn be a typical dendritic one. Debivort02:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please teach me (my talk page or here) how to link to an image page without the image appearing? (I want the link I used to go to Image:Eye-diagram_no_circles_border.svg, without the image appearing. I failed. Thank you. Zakolantern22:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support if Tokugawapants's question is answered and someone with knowledge in this field can go over the picture and confirm the image is accurate. Other than that, highly encyclopedic and SVG, couldn't ask for much more. --snowolfD4( talk / @ )14:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: I think this picture satisfies all the criteria for a FP. I like the value this will add from an academic perspective for wikipedia users. --Kalyan13:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Hello everyone. I am the creator of this image. I have gone over your requests and made the changes you asked for. for all those NumderFans I also fixed the numbered version. You can find it if you go to the description page in commons and scroll down, or simply click here. Next time you want to make any changes to one of my images just leave me a message. I do not come here often. Due to some controversy, I did a small investigation on the axonsomatic synapse and they are not that rare. However, I moved the circle. Thank you for your attention and time -LadyofHats11:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately now there are still problems with the spelling of terms, as Nucleolus is spelled incorrectly, as well as Axoaxonic. There also appears to be some problems with background opacity on Mitochondrion and Smooth ER as well (shouldn't they be completely transparent for consistency?) One of the reasons I have a preference for the numbered version is that misspellings like this could be easily corrected by anyone without needing any knowledge of how to edit SVG graphics (not to mention the convenient wikilinking). --Mad Max03:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture shows three rare and beautiful Atmospheric Optical Phenomena: Fog Bow, Glory and the Spectre of the BrockenIt is a different picture taken a few minutes before the nominated picture. In my opinion it shows the glory a litlle bit better than the first one does
Reason
The picture shows three beautiful Atmospheric Optical Phenomena It is quite rare to see even one of these phenomena. It is much more rarer to see the three of them together. The picture also shows an interesting Fog, which, as you could see, formed below the Bridge, leaving the Bridge alone. Please notice that the picture was taken in such a way that the North Tower of Golden Gate Bridge is seen, that gives a viewer a prospective view of the phenomena against the Bridge. The picture has strong encyclopedic value.
The thing is that the Fog Bows in general are so huge that a fisheye lens is needed to capture one. That's why the Glory and the Spectre seems to be small. That's OK. The idea of the nominating that picture was to make the Wikepedia readers to learn more about the phenomena with the hope the next time they'll see one they would know what they are looking at.--Mbz122:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Comment. IMO enc or value of the pic do not increase with the number of phenomena depicted. On the contrary, I'd prefer pictures with one single phenomenon each, that makes it much clearer to see what's described. --Dschwen22:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aga,I see, you are a specialist not only in soap bubbles, but also in Atmospheric Optics. Well, you are mistaken. The encyclopedic value of the picture is increased dramatically because all three phenomena are present.The scientists prefer to see the three of them together because it helps them to measure the size of the water droplets. These rare pictures are studied and analyzed by many scientists because the origin of some of these phenomenas is still not well understood. On the other hand, if it is confusing for you to concentrate at the three of them together (you probably are still confused by Golden Gate Bridge reflection in a soap bubble), maybe you could try to concentrate only at the Fog Bow. The Fog Bow is the most prominent phenomena at that picture.--Mbz122:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
I don't think so. Thanks for the bringing my soap bubble image back to life. It is a nice image after all and it was really hard to capture.--Mbz113:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
The Brocken sprectre does not allow droplet size calculations, but both the Fog bow and the Glory provide enough information on their own. Calculation of the dropletsize is not what the primary concern of an FP should be. It should illustrate its articles well. It does show a nice fog bow, but for both the Brocken spectre and the glory there are better images in the respective articles. By the way, the Brocken is only 40mi from where I live :-). --Dschwen07:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you live close to Brocken? How interesting! I've always wanted to visit the place. Have you ever seen the Spectre yourself? Any pictures? OK, lets go back to the nominated picture. Let's say 2 people are looking down and see a bright, beautiful fog bow. Let's say that one of them knows, that if he sees a fog bow, he should try to look for a glory and maybe hard-to-see spectre, so he looks, bents his head dawn and eventually sees one. They are not bright, but they are still very interesting to see,especially for the one, who's never seen them. On the other hand the second person has no idea that he could see something else, except a fog bow, so he looks at a fog bow and goes away without ever seeing the glory and the spectre. I could have taken a picture of a fog bow only, I could have cut a glory out in a photo shop,but I will not. I do not want to deny people the knowledge that all three phenomena could be seen together. I want people to know, if they see one, they should look for the others. The nominated picture does not intend to introduce all three phenomena at the equal level, it does intend to introduce the knowledge that they could be seen together. By the way the ones, who ever seen any ot these phenomena know that they are ever changing in their appearance. For example, that glory A Solar Glory was photographed few minutes before the nominated picture. You could see how much brighter it was, yet a fogbow was not bright at all. Now, would it be even more confusing, if I told you, that when I saw a fog bow, a glory and the spectre, I turned around and saw a corona too? So , if you see a fog bow and/or glory please turn around and take a look at the sun. You could see something else, yet be very, very careful with the looking at the Sun. It could hurt your eyes. I hope I answered all your questions,Dschwen, and now you're going to support the image:) (just kidding , I know you will not)--Mbz113:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Oppose Quality is very low, and I don't say why you had to use a focal length of "0mm" to get this - it's distorted the image horribly and it looks like you could have easily got the full bow in with say a 17mm lens --Fir000222:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. I've used 8mm fisheye. I do not have 0mm (does it exist at all?). I tried to get Golden Gate Bridge in view to show a fogbow compare to the Bridge to give the people, who are interested in atmospheric optics the knoledge that the rare phenomenas could be seen from Golden Gate Bridge. That fogbow would have never ever fit in 17mm. I assume you've seen many fogbows, glories and the Spectres of the Brocken and you sure know how they look in a real life to talk about the image quality. What? You have not seen any? I'm not sure what is your policy, but I usually try to avoid opposing the subjects I know nothing about like house flies, for example. I've also would have never oppose a nomination in the last few hours. Support yes, but never oppose. Thanks for stopping by. --Mbz102:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Oppose per Fir. I agree that a 17mm lens would be plenty wide enough to capture this phenom and would reduce the distorsion significantly. As Dschwen commented on another candidate: "Lack of votes = lack of interest = not an interesting picture = not FP material". I also think that sometimes it is a good thing to not be a subject matter expert when voting on an image. Cacophony08:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have changed your equation:Lack of votes = lack of interest = voters, who are not interested in atmospheric optics and are not eager to learn something new. You see one of my fogbows pictures was published at APOD, my other fogbow picture was published at Spaceweather.com, one more of my fogbow pictures was published in a very big magazine "Sky&Telescope".Each and every one of these sources are much more reliable than Wikipedia is in the matters concerning atmospheric optics. I wanted to evoke interest in a broader population. Well, I failed, but once again not because the picture is not interesting , but because Wikipedia readers are not interested in the picture. I feel sorry for them. I'm glad you are not one of them. I saw you were interested enough to visit the fogbow page and even make unnecessary changes in the titles under my pictures. It also looks as you were interested enough to vote. So, thanks for your interest in fogbows and my pictures of them.I also wish you good luck in capturing a fogbow with 17mm. It is of course, if you'll ever see one.--Mbz113:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Comment I guess Dschwen was right after all and I should request all Fog Bow page to be deleted for the lack of interest.--Mbz115:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
I don't think it should be deleted, I just don't think it is among the top .01% of all images on Wikipedia. Just because it is not FP quality does not mean that it should be removed. Thanks for your contribution and have a nice day! Cacophony16:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that right? You really don't think fog bow page should be deleted? That's great! Thank you very much. I guess now I really could have a nice day. By the way the quality of the nominated picture is as good as it gets with fog bow pictures.--Mbz116:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Blowing Rock is a rocky outcropping, at the town of Blowing Rock, North Carolina, above a gorge in Caldwell County, in the northwest of that state. The prevailing wind blows through the gorge toward Blowing Rock. There, at the end of the gorge, the wind's path of least resistance is up the steep slopes surmounted by the outcropping, resulting in a nearly vertical wind, typically quite strong, accounting for "Blowing" as part of the spot's name.
Oppose ENC value is a bit lacking, sure there are some mountain ranges but they are indistinct and not particularly notable. Overexposed haze in background is distracting. Lighting is pretty uninteresting and overall it isn't very eye-catching. sorry -Fcb98103:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although the caption is quite detailed, it is actually unclear exactly where in the photo Blowing Rock is. Are we standing on Blowing Rock, looking out, is it somewhere else in the picture, or what? The image summary seems to suggest that we are probably on Blowing Rock ("This picture was taken from the Blowing Rock Park, and shows the Blue Ridge Mountains in the foreground and the Great Grandfather Range in the extreme background"), and if so, the caption should be clear on this. --jjron08:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An emaciated British (Indian) army soldier who survived the siege of Kut (December 1915-April 1916) in WW1 .
Reason
This photograph shows an emaciated British (Indian) army soldier who survived the siege of Kut (December 1915-April 1916) in WW1 . It was probably taken in July 1916, after he and other British POWs had been released from Turkish captivity in Baghdad during a prisoner exchange. The soldier's skeletal frame indicates not only the appalling conditions inside Kut during the siege, but also the harsh treatment meted out to 'other ranks' while in enemy hands afterwards. About 8 million men surrendered and were held in POW camps during the WW 1. All nations pledged to follow the Hague Convention on fair treatment of prisoners of war.
As opposed to WW2, very few images of WW1 POW abuse exits probably due to the lack of photography equipment. This is one of the rare images
Sorry, this isn't eligible because it is a fair use image; featured pictures have to be free images. Enuja 01:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC) I was just going by the image page, but since the copyright has, indeed, expired, then it is, indeed eligible. Sorry. Enuja19:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Reluctant) Oppose - it's an amazing image, very enc. However, there simply has to be a higher res version out there. This one is too small and has JPG artifacts. If someone found a better version, I would support it instantly. Zakolantern02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Though it does not fulfill size requirements, I believe that this is exceptionally encyclopedic and rare. The quality is not so low as to diminish the educational value of this photo. Remember, when considering the size rule: "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images." Jellocube2718:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, while the pixel count is low it is perfectly sufficient for the picture's message to be put across. Compression artifacts exist but are not immediately visible, or visible at all to most people. Very strong and powerful image. Central212:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on size, would support a better version with everyone else. The size exemption for historic images is there so as not to disqualify images that don't (and will never) exist in better versions; where we do know there is better quality available, we should hold out for it. ~ Veledan • Talk22:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on size, support very much for a better version. Point about lack of WWI photography of this subject matter well taken. --Dhartung | Talk12:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a dramatic image of an interesting and unique subjects - glaciers and icebergs, which broke off those glaciers. The picture provides a rare aerial view of the unique, remote and seldom visited region of High Arctic.
Reason
The picture of the unique and beautiful subjects has a very high encyclopedic value. The picture is very important in the discussions about the change in the climate. There are no nearly enough icebergs pictures on FP.
Yes, I did not let the nomination to finish. I took it out in a day or two (maybe even a few hours) after the nomination. Now I nominated it again with a new caption. I'm not sure what the ruls are, but I guess it's OK. This time I'd like to get the nomination to finish for the record. Please take your time to oppose it again. Thanks.--Mbz117:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Well, if there's no rule against renominating an image, I'm not sure what was the purpose of bringing the old nomination back, but I could tell you my purpose of renaminating the image: I hope that maybe one or two people will see a huge enciclopedic value behind that clossed helicopter window.--Mbz118:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Doing much better here. If I nominate the picture for the third time I believe you will support it(just kidding)--Mbz102:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Well, giving it a second look, there isn't really anything out of focus; it's just a minor unsharpness that gives that appearance. But given it's gigantic size, I think I can give a little room for detail. It's really the exposure that kills it. J Are you green?18:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHere is my last comment for that nomination. After this I only will respond, if somebody has a question. I just would like to tell everybody, that I do not really care, if the picture will be nominated or it will be not. I do not sell my pictures. The licenses for all my pictures are absolutely free for everybody to use(I even do not ask to e-mail me, if a picture is used). The only goal of the nominating the picture was to share it with as many people as possible because in my opinion it is a very interesting and very unique shot with OK quality. --Mbz102:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Oppose The framing and subject matter are fine, but the lack of clarity really brings this one down. The entire image seems fuzzy, but it's particularly noticeable in the landmass on the left. Matt Deres02:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (sadly) Great composition, but lack of clarity and some lighting concerns. As nominator admits, it is only "OK" quality. It would be great if you had a second chance at this exact shot. --Midnightdreary18:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Divers preparing to recover bodies from the wreck of the Northfleet, a major shipwreck of 1873. Of the 379 people aboard the ship, 293 died, including 41 women and 50 children, with only one woman and two children surviving. The outfits used are the standard diving dress, the basic diving equipment from its invention in 1837 until replaced by the rise of SCUBA and other modern diving outfits in the 1960's. On the left of the picture, we see one of the support crew tightening the wingnuts that connect the helmet to the canvas suits, creating a watertight seal that protects the helmet from flooding. (From the Illustrated London News of 6 February, 1873.)
Reason
Three useful illustrations: Helmet and canvas suit separate, helmet being screwed on, and a back view of the diver climbing into the water. Illustrates features of the suit not shown in any other photo or illustration of the standard diving dress we have, as well as providing a useful historical perspective. Plus, it's a really good engraving. Also, it did well in the Commons FPC, so I figgered might as well bring it up here too.
Note: I was going through that volume of the Illustrated London News today, and realised the context: The Wreck of the Northfleet had happened two weeks previous, and divers were sent to recover the bodies and other remains. I didn't realise before because... well, the wreck was a major story up until the end of February or so, and of course everyone at the time would have made the connection. However, the article actually mentioning divers going to work appears in the previous issue (lag time on engraving, you know...), so I didn't make the connection until I was going through the volume again today, saw the article, and it clicked. Should I redo the caption? Vanished usertalk14:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The caption would definitely be better if it had that context. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-20 15:45Z
I've worked it in. Was just worried that the context might be too.. grisly for the main page. It was a pretty nasty disaster. How's it look? If it's too long, we could probably lose the exact reference to the newspaper. It's in the file info anyway; noone interested is going to find it difficult to identify where the image is from. Vanished usertalk15:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Main Page talks about violent death on a daily basis in the news section. Besides, it's POTD's concern not ours. Debivort22:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as fantastic combination of superior engraving artistry, encyclopedic value, and technical scanning. Grim, but in no way grisly. The artist communicates the emotions of the men well. --Dhartung | Talk12:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hmmmm where did you get that shot from Taronga zoo? When I was there the lighting was either terrible or behind bars and had a much better chance of getting a picture in the Koala Park in North-west Sydney. However the shot still has a wrong white balance (too much red for my liking) and doesn't really compare with our other koala FP. The face and a lot of the body is blocked off by the branch and either way it is not in its natural environment (well less natural, that's just a dead tree branch). --antilivedT | C | G10:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't remember exactly where they were in the Zoo, but it was one of the first animals I saw, so somewhere close to the entrance, I guess. There were no bars, just a relatively small wall that allowed me to take the pic easily. I have seen that other picture of the koala climbing a tree, but didn't see it was an FP. In my opinion that one is a bit too greenish and yes, it definitely is "posing" for the camera, but the light in the background is a bit disturbing and its face is not really on focus. But anyway, who am I to judge an already elected FP? ;) On the other hand, I think it doesn't make much sense to choose another koala pic, if one has already been a POTD. Luca11:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion it has a pleasant asethetic balance, good resolution and sharp quality. The pose is unique and original. I would argue this isn't posing as the creature did not assume its posture due to your presence so we at wikipedia could get a "cute" shot, it just worked out that way. I like the detail in the fur and claws as well, the only thing I can fault with it is the fact the face and head isnt really visible but its asleep so thats less important. I think this would look lovely on the front page and so it has my support. WikipedianProlific(Talk)22:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom. Great image, good composition, and very "real" image of an often idealized cutesy animal. Sure, if a little more of the head was visible it would be an improvement, but I don't find that detrimental for this nom. --Midnightdreary18:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "obtrusive and distracting tree" is there on purpose. I could have taken the picture from a different angle to avoid having it blocking the koala's face, but I think it looks better and more natural like it is. I didn't want to have a koala "posing" to the camera. Luca07:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose - I actually like the sleepiness of the image, the detail and focus. Seems more encyclopedic than images of alert looking koalas. I'm opposing because of the artificial background. Selective cropping might help, but I'm afraid that would throw off the centering. Debivort18:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cropped the picture a bit and added here as an alternative. I still prefer the original one which has a bit better composition, but this one has a less distracting background. Luca07:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image has a good resolution, is very encyclopedic, and is freakin' cute. I don't know what the statement "composition is uninteresting," has to do with this picture, Wikipedia has plenty of featured fruit pictures with nothing but the subject and a white background. The color balance on this is also rich. I don't think the Flickr images in the link above are better than this one; but I do think this shot is a higher resolution than the featured, first picture, on the article page (and without the blown highlights). - DMCer03:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would love to support but the sheer fact that the koala's face is not visible really does it for me. I am also finding it somewhat blurry, yet I don't think it deserves an oppose :) Chris Buttigieg13:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose There's some lovely detail in there, but there's a sort of texture overlaying the picture that makes it really hard to appreciate this as much as it really deserves to. Maybe if it was downsampled a bit? Adam Cuerdentalk07:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't see any major technical flaws at full size; it could be worked on and improved a bit, but detail and encyclopaedic value are good, and it's an attractive photo. --jjron08:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any flaws on my screen. And you can see the scales of the wing. Wonderful image. Please don't downsample the image -- it might please those who must examine the "actual pixels" but it in no ways improves the image. Reviewers should consider the level of detail an image holds rather than considering pixel count and sharpness as separate hurdle requirements. —Pengo09:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Something doesn't seem right with the tech quality. It sort of seems grainy, especially around the edges of the wing. --snowolfD4( talk / @ )13:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is nice, but its not high enough quality to be featured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddiekate (talk • contribs)
Comment. As is meant to be the case with all candidates, please ensure you view this at full res before voting. Some 'apparent' flaws in the downsized versions are not there at full size. I hope all opposers above have viewed at full size (because some of the reasons sound like they're referring to what I see in the downsized versions). --jjron08:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think the picture is worthy of FP. Nice snap with focus on the subject. Details of wings, eyes and legs are visible with amazing clarity. --Kalyan12:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't find any artifacts in the image though it's not totally noise free. But the auto-generated 800x600 preview has some very bad jpeg compression artifacts. For comparison I've uploaded an optimized 800x600 version: --Michael Apel14:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may already be aware of this, but it is quite acceptable to actually post a vote for your own image. --jjron08:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's pretty, well done, and very detailed, if not perfectly crisp, at full size. Being detailed does not necessarily require it to be perfectly sharp or noise free. J Are you green?18:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Opposing this is like balancing intangible good qualities against tangible downsides and essentially giving precedence to the tangibles. In my opinion this image is reasonable; it is detailed, attractive, and it has caught the butterfly exquisitely. Chris Buttigieg09:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't get this wrong, if there were any major technical flaws in there I wouldn't be surprised. But I just can't see any. I didn't submit it here and won't vote as I'm not really active on en. The image itself is slightly noisy if you look at the out of focus parts. But the amount is really negligible imho. What I suppose many see as a pattern on the butterfly wings are the scales and not noise, grain or other artifacts. The wings do have an inherit pattern. --Michael Apel08:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fullsize image have no sharpening artifacts, is not 'grainy' or noisy, is sharp, is of very high technical quality, the butterfly have a pattern on the wings, so be it. Very good picture of a butterfly, encyclopaedic! Only thing is that background could be blurred a bit to take noise away, but that is sometimes not acceptable and not needed in this case. Full support! Stefan03:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportEdit 1 Nice photo, although composition would be greatly improved if more of the flowerhead was visible --Fir0002 08:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No consensus. MER-C 08:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nomination. I've never tried for a featured picture before, and I thought this one might be worthy. If not, I'd appreciate feedback so I can improve my efforts. Thanks. JKBrooks8523:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed caption
The Stephen W. Groves (FFG-29) as seen at sunset in Key West on July 22, 2007. This ship is typical of the frigates, destroyers, and smaller military vessels that call at the port. Larger ships, such as aircraft carriers, are prohibited due to their deep draft and the shallowness of the harbor.
oppose Hello JKB - thanks for bringing this to us. The reason I'm opposing is primarily the FP criterion that an image be encyclopedic. As an illustration of the ship, there is very little detail - a day image would be preferable. Similarly, as an illustration of the island, the image doesn't show too much other than its mood. These considerations trump a technical analysis. Debivort00:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I don't know that scene, but FPs on the Commons are based more on aesthetic considerations and this might have better chances there. Debivort00:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. What, in your view would be an encyclopedic illustration of the ship? What would be the proper approach to address the subject? With this, I thought the silouhette would be a great way to show the shape of the hull and superstructure as well as the individual antennae while still being artistic. But what do you feel is the best way to approach this? Thanks! JKBrooks8502:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a daytime shot would allow you to see the shape and details of the super-structure too, though not as obviously. Plus it would let you see the three dimensional aspects of the ship that are totally lacking here, as long as the light isn't straight on the ship either. My two cents, others may have other ideas too. Debivort02:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice picture with good composition, but the ship is out of focus and the lamp posts in the background are distracting. Also the dock in the foreground is not very aesthetic. Luca07:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good picture, but hazy at the top. The angle of the picture and the composition are not very good either. The angle distorts the farther section and the composition is tilted. I think aerial shots are better taken straight down, not from a window. Luca07:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not entirely sure how to interpret what I'm looking at: is the mite basically a bug that has a shell on "top" and legs "underneath"? If so, perhaps inverting the image might make it more intuitive. Spikebrennan17:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Preference for edit the 180 degree rotation version[reply]
Support edit 2 - I also think it's better inverted, since the subject is the mite, not the bee. I often feel uncomfortable with false coloring like this, but the detail on this critter is too much to pass up. --TotoBaggins17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better if you just rotated it 180, rather than mirroring reality. There may be some minute features that only an expert would notice are in the wrong positions due to the invert. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-23 23:08Z
Comment With a slight crop so that the bug's butt is in the bottom left hand corner of the image, I *might* support the image you just linked to; it's really really cool. Zakolantern22:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have withdrawn the inverted image from consideration, since it was incorrect, and withdrawn my rotated image, since Brian0918 did the same thing with the original; votes for the edit actually refer to the only image now present in this nom. I have also reworked the caption. This image is really growing on me (zing!). --TotoBaggins14:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine example of Ansel Adams's artistry as a portrait photographer.
Proposed caption
Portrait of Tōyō Miyatake (1896–1979) by Ansel Adams, 1943. Miyatake was a Japanese American internee and camp photographer at Manzanar War Relocation Camp during World War II. A studio photographer prior to his internment, Miyatake started taking photos at Manzanar with an improvised camera fashioned from parts he smuggled into the camp. His activity was discovered after nine months, but camp director Ralph Merritt supported the endeavor and allowed him to have his stored studio equipment shipped to the camp and continue the project. Initially a camp guard had to release the shutter for him after Miyatake had positioned the camera, but this procedure was later abandoned. Miyatake met and befriended Adams at the camp and in 1979 they published a book together, Two Views of Manzanar.
Support. Of course! What say we go ahead and nominate all Ansel Adams' free content works. :) He actually hasn't had too many so far. Because Adams' published works are pretty much technically perfect, the only criticism I could find is that it's not really "compelling... making the viewer want to know more," but that'd be pretty picky. --Peter17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'll probably be a lone voice here, but I just don't like it, nor any of his people shots for that matter. I really don't understand why the acknowledged grand master of dynamic black & white landscape photography should have produced such a raft of uninspiring, staid and unimaginatively composed portraits. His contemporary, Cartier-Bresson, is in another class entirely (although I've never really liked HC-B's landscapes, to be fair..) I'd give this a couple of points for being by a notable photographer but its FP-worthiness ends there. mikaultalk18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not alone I dont like it either, so i oppose— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs)
Well, CB's are certainly more interesting (the Truman Capote shot especially) - but the standard is best of Wikipedia, not best of the world - and to me, this falls well, well within that range. Debivort00:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree w/ Debivort; additionally, I don't think the quality of HCB's work (which I agree is very high) detracts from Adams's. Regardless, an Oppose vote is an Oppose vote. --Peter14:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point(s). My opposition is based on the "final analysis" of personal preference. I find the image washed-out and kind of average-looking, rather than exceptional. I like portraits to have *more*, somehow, than this one offers. It's really hard to relate the caption to the image, for example; none of that comes through the way it might with a more expert portraitist like HC-B, which is why I offered him up as an example of what's "wrong" here, IMO. mikaultalk17:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to criticize your opinion, which you have every right to hold, but Cartier-Bresson's photographs are atmospheric celebrity portraits. Light and shadow are used to create an air of mystique, to elevate the celebrity from the everyday life. Adam's Manzanar pictures on the other hand are snapshots of internees, and his goal was to portray resilience under adverse conditions, and in particular to show that the internees were "people like us". So his nature photography technique would have been counterproductive for this portrait series. ~ trialsanderrors19:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, I'm really not sure this is such a casual snapshot. It looks like the studio set up described in the caption and would have been a formal sitting. The similarity of this applied approach to the very average (again, IMO) rendering of this snapshot is pertinent to his lack of accomplishment in this particular field. The other shot is an FP and maybe his notability as a photographer, plus the historical context, is enough for this one too. I just tend to look at images on their own merit, I guess, and I see little here which his compelling or inspiring in any way. 20:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The restrictions mentioned in the caption were imposed on Miyatake, not on Adams. This is probably less of a point-and-shoot snapshot than it pretends to be, but clearly Adams's intent was to create a series of images that resemble snapshots, including portraits, still lives and pictures of everyday activities, along with his well-known nature photographs. The full book can be seen here. ~ trialsanderrors22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adams surely used the studio kit that his friend was eventually allowed to keep, though, and used it for obviously formal sittings like this one. The book is wonderful, but it's also a fine example of the point at issue: there are stunning landscapes, a number of spontaneous-looking snaps as you say but there are a large number of rather stiffly-posed, poorly-lit formal portraits which don't seem to make any attempt at a "snapshot feel" and which do demonstrate a lack of finesse in that particular field. I really don't have a problem with them, they're undoubtedly a valuable addition to the book, but neither they nor the candidate shot here are photographs worthy of individual accolade, in my opinion.. mikaultalk23:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think it's a great portrait, with high enc value. And scanned wonderfully. Even Ansel Adams, known for his pickyness in print quality, might have approved. Zakolantern17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Ansel, I love your landscapes but I'm gonna have to agree with mikaul on this one. It does look kind of washed-out. Spebudmak05:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, slightly informal and lighting is problematic but it's still of superior technical and compositional quality. --Dhartung | Talk12:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pupae of western honey beedrones. After passing through their larval stage within cells of the honeycomb, and continue there until they develop into their adult form. Due to the protection this provides, the pupae do not need to be surrounded by a chrysalis or other shell, but are instead have their legs and proboscis free.
Reason
It's a beautifully instructive image. Wonderful detail, showing two stages of development of the pupa. Plus, by showing a stage not as photographed as the imago, it stands out from the crowd of insect pictures. This user has a lot of other wonderful photos worthy of nomination, by the way.
Support either - If you nominated these separately, I'd support them both. The top one is so pretty, and the bottom one is so enc and informative. --TotoBaggins17:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1, oppose 2. I agree with the other users' comments about image 1, but I oppose the second one because the background is inaccurate as far as depicting where these bees are while they develop. A plain white (or other) background would have been better. Calliopejen110:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first picture that I've uploaded that I'm really proud of. I believe that it shows a beautiful piece of scenery and contains many interesting quirks and features, such as the family walking along the quaint stone path that is barely visible. It also illustrates tides as the tidal line is clearly visible on the rocks.
Oppose - very nice composition, but the picture is mostly out of focus. Also per T, that group of people should not be there. Luca07:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not totally sure about the person issue, but it could be good as it gives the viewer an approximation to gauge the size of the cliff. Geoking66talk02:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - superior personal landscape photo, but of limited encyclopedic value. Doesn't seem to show anything unique about Newport even if it can be used in the other articles. --Dhartung | Talk12:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Support alternative version - much better, well done. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC).jpg)
_preps.JPG)
Oppose Subject isn't that special and it's pretty poor technically --Fir0002 02:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Nice work! Good to get some better anti aliasing on the text tho --Fir0002 02:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)
in_soap_bubble_2.JPG)
is cuter :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
a lot better. In other words, I don't think this candidate fulfills criteria #5 - Adds value to the article. Enuja 00:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
_(2).jpg)
.jpg)
. I've not decided on a vote, it's a good picture but looks a bit oversharpened and lacks detail compared with most of our bird FPs. ~ Veledan • Talk 16:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
--Michael Apel 14:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
. I should have bought a SEM! --wau > 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
