Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/May-2007

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

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

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

CLOSED AS UNUSEABLE AS AN FPC DUE TO LICENSING RESTRICTIONS

Reason

Very good 3D quality; shows the connection of all the languages spoken around the world. Plus, represents the world`s largest online encyclopedia.

Articles this image appears in

Too many, see the list at the images page.

Creator

Nohat

• Support as nominator — ♠Tom@sBat 19:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural nitpicking - can this really be called "free"? #4 of WP:WIAFP - "It is available in the public domain or under a free license." This image is not GFDL, and is in fact "all rights reserved". Mak (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is present in many user-pages and tons of articles. Also, this is wikipedia, so I assume we can use it here. ♠Tom@sBat 19:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it shouldn't be on those userpages…but that's not our job to police that. (By the way, that sig is annoying!)--HereToHelp 21:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, isn´t this Wikipedia? I mean like, it´s copyrighted, but, this is wikipedia; so why can´t we use it? ♠Tom@sBat 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps ironically, it's against the spirit of Wikipedia to promote Wikipedia's own logo, as it's not a free image. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and promotes public domain and freely licensed ("open content") images. The logo is, however, a trademark which Wikipedia protects so as to keep its identity, so doesn't qualify, and would be against the spirit of Wikipedia if it were. Similarly, we reject images which are licensed only for Wikipedia's own use. —Pengo 22:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then, can it be used in articles and userpages? ♠Tom@sBat 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be. That's because I think the Wikimedia Foundation has granted permission for the logo to be used freely only on Wikimedia projects, so long as a licensing notice accompanies any derivative images as well. I may recall incorrectly, however. Gracenotes^T § 23:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on the previous comment, it can be used on Wikipedia because it brands the site, but is not part of the content, so it can be removed without loss of substantial content. To have it as a featured picture would make it content in and of itself. —Pengo 13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I think the most appropriate word to describe self-promotion like this is vanispamcruftisement. Violates WP:ASR. And the copyright issue - {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} is an unfree license. MER-C 03:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No free license, plus, once you get into full view, the rendering is not FP quality. ~ trialsanderrors 04:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for all the above reasons. Besides, it's already on the front page... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no need to be featured, it's already visible enough. --Phoenix (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As it's copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation, it's not a free image and since it's already on the main page, we don't gain anything from featuring it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it appears as if it is missing some pieces... ;). ~ Arjun 23:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• heheh excellent. Debivort 05:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose it is in violation of WP:ASR and it is a copyvio - Booksworm Talk to me! 16:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose All of the above, and I just don't like it *gasp*. It isn't pleasing to the eye. Wikipediarules2221 06:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is an image of the jewelery item Bangles, taken by Flickr user Surajram, its flickr page can be seen here. It is licensed under a free creative commons's license, and it appears on the article Bangle. This photos has some beautiful colours, and its one of the best composed pictures I have seen of bangles ever! I also think its one of most visually pleasing photos I've seen on Wikepedia, I have nominated it so that I can know if there are others who agree with me on the great quality of this image.

Articles this image appears in

Bangle, Jewelery

Creator

Flikr User: Surajram at [1], uploaded by Zainub

• Support as nominator — Zainub 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose depth of field is too small to really see their shape, and the stacking makes this worse. Debivort 21:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Pretty - yes. Descriptive - no. This doesn't actually show what a bangle is - therefore unencyclopaedic. Try listing at Commons FP perhaps? Witty Lama 21:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Witty Lama. Too much is out of focus. --Phoenix (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a. Jewelry should be worn; b. Illegal license ($). ~ trialsanderrors 16:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has a creative commons license, how could that be illegal? --Zainub 17:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noncommercial is not acceptable, see [2]. ~ trialsanderrors 18:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That link is broken unless one has a Commons account, so care to explain what you're getting at here? --Phoenix (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A free license requires that the image can be used for commercial purposes. This one is a non-commercial license only (the crossed-out $ sign). Hence it is not eligible for Featured Picture here. ~ trialsanderrors 03:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • See also WP:CSD: Improper license. Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission" that were uploaded on or after May 19, 2005, and for which no assertion of fair use is provided. [1] This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License".[2] Such images uploaded before May 19, 2005 may also be speedily deleted if they are not used in any articles. ~ trialsanderrors 04:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I stand corrected trialsanderrors, you can de-list this nomination if you want. --Zainub 07:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You can of course ask the original photographer if s/he wants to make it available under a commercial license. ~ trialsanderrors 17:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (non-commercial). Taken to WP:PUI. MER-C 09:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Encyclopedic picture in high quality

Articles this image appears in

Ségolène Royal

Creator

User:Jastrow

• Support as nominator — Tomer T 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Guy on the left is a little out of focus, and the event and people are not overly important. Clh288 13:14, 24 April 2007
• weak oppose there seem to be some (for lack of a better word) jiggery issues - if you along many of the lines, they are kind of ragged, like there is some scaling or interlacing artifact. Does anyone else see that? Other than that I rather like it, it is an interesting portrait of politicians. Clh: What are you talking about "not overly important?" Which FPC criterion are you referencing, and how is one of two front runners for the presidency of France not an important person?Debivort 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know she is not very favored to win, I know a 5% difference doesn't sound like much, but in France were the vote is spread out among so many people it is a killer.Chris H 03:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which FP criterion says that the subject of an FP must have a high chance of winning? :-) Debivort 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This must be a joke. It doesn't characterize that event and the topic is pointless/unimportant anyway.--Svetovid 20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which FP criterion says that the topic/subject must be important? Debivort 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's nonsense! The topic is very important, it includes notable French politicians and one of them even can become France's leader. Tomer T 11:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It fails the 3rd, 5th and 7th criterion.--Svetovid 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which FP criterion says that the topic/subject must be important? Debivort 00:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, technically, it's not a very good shot. I can see why it was nominated because it is a closeup of three important figures in French politics. I would say it better represents the party (and I added it to that page) than it does Royal. But, I still don't think it's FP material just because it's hard for us without press passes to get photos of the famousies. gren グレン 16:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I think we need more pictures of current politicians in general, and this is a good, but not great, picture. Beautiful coloring. There are technical issues, and the focus is soft, but I still vote for it. --Asiir 12:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Primarily because of the blown skin tone, and that the picture is not very sharp even though it's been down-sampled quite a lot. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What does blown skin tone mean?Debivort 16:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Either it's blown red channel in the skin tone or it's posterisation. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although I like this shot I really wasn't going to actively support it. Despite good lighting, composition, and enc value, it does fail other FP quality criteria (softness, posterisation, compression defects, strange post-processing anomolies) but Asiir's conditional support (and gren's oppose) made me realise it really is among the best Wikipedia has to offer in the way of current affairs shots. In the face of considerable opposition I'd like to encourage people to think again, because until press agency photographers are persuaded to release their work under a CC license (ie a *long* time!) it will remain among the best we have, I think. mikaul^talk 18:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Aesthetically I find it striking and pleasing; the colours are fantastic. It is a high quality scan/photograph of the painting, 2500 × 1571, showing the opening of the Parliament of Australia in 1901. I'm pretty sure it fulfils all the criteria. Hope you enjoy it.

Articles this image appears in

History of Australia

Creator

I can't infer the uploader from the image's page.

• Support as nominator — Rothery 08:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it was painted by Tom Roberts. Pstuart84 Talk 09:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yeah, it says that in the caption. I meant I didn't know who uploaded the image to Wikipedia- it is actually from Wikipedia Commons btw. Cheers. Rothery 10:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that Fir0002 was the original uploader. Pstuart84 Talk 11:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is a vey important painting in australian history - the most famous representation of Australia's political independence. However, is it possible to get a better scan?? The quality here is quite bad... Witty lama 21:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In what way? I didn't think it looked bad. Rothery 04:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Nah I kinda agree with Witty, its pretty ordinary quality, and you can see the stitch mark along the middle. It was scanned from a really thick book over a double page spread on a pretty cheap scanner. Ive got a better scanner now and could probably rescan at a higher res (although the print quality of course will limit how much I can get out of it) if people really want it. --Fir0002 06:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I thought that was just part of the actual painting or something. If you wouldn't mind then that would be fantastic. I'm currently using it as my desktop background, hehe. Rothery 07:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I'd support a higher quality scan. --Asiir 12:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Striking picture of a low flying goose (the included shadow underlines the low altitude), high contrast between bird and surrounding environment (ice/snow).

Articles this image appears in

Canada Goose, also on es:Barnacla, zh:加拿大雁 and on 3 wikibooks pages

Creator

Cszmurlo

• Support as nominator — Qyd 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While definitely an interesting shot considering the low flight, I think for this common of a bird, the focus and minimization of artifacts could be improved. --Tewy 03:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice capture, but technical details are underwhelming. Compare the sharpness to the existing Canada Goose FP: howcheng {chat} 05:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, but encouragement. I actually much prefer the composition of this image to our current FPC (although it's a bit closely cropped for me), but sadly there's way too much noise on the feathers, etc. Mak (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Visible pixelation at both high-res and in thumb version. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Both images would do well in an article about bird flight. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well, I think this has far more merit in most respects than the current featured picture of a Canada Goose above. Yes, this has some quality issues, but the curve of the wings as it swoops so low to the icy ground is infinitely more interesting. --Vaelta 21:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Technically only adequate, but compositionally compelling. You can almost feel the rush of air from the wing flap. The not-too-dark shadow connected at the wing tip touching the ground nicely signals, but doesn't overly stress, how close to the ground the bird is. The white, icy background offers no visual distraction, but coupled with the wings in a downstroke, augments this beautiful illustration of the power exerted in flight. --Bagginz 05:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is, perhaps, a rare nomination, but anything goes. This is a absolute wonderful picture of the Albanian flag and with excellent display resolution.

Articles this image appears in

Flag of Albania

Creator

unknown

Nominator

Albanau

• Comment. As far as I know, Wikipedia has exact representations of all national flags and they have generally been considered ineligible for featured picture status. However, one option might be to have a single featured picture set of all flags of sovereign states. Thoughts? --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a great idea, although I am wary of possible arguments over which flags should or shouldn't be featured in the set (Quebec? Palestine? England+Scotland+Wales+N.I.? etc.) Spebudmak 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I didn't find any national flag in the FP gallery and agree that is the most reasonable thing to do (with the exception of this one, of course!... :-) Alvesgaspar 22:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Either we promote all flags or none since they are effectively the same for our purposes. I would not be against promoting all flags per se. Witty Lama 04:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Itsa Flag!.. And its SVG.. but.. almost all flags are SVG.. and i mean.. that flag isnt uber beautiful eitherYzmo ^talk 17:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, err nominator? Explain to me your reasoning for classifying this as a "wonderful picture". --Phoenix (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Uninteresting ^8thstar 18:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Its just a flag! -Zainub 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's a neat flag and all, but it's still a flag. I like the FP flag set idea, though. Amphy 17:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The idea of promoting to FP a set of national flags sounds good at first thought. However, and because all national flag representations obey to some oficial standard, we will be evaluating the flags themselves instead of the pictures. This is not, I believe, the purpose of WP:FPC and might contribute to start some kind of nationalism contest. Alvesgaspar 19:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Beautiful Picture of an Albanian Orthodox Church in the City of Korçë, Albania.

Articles this image appears in

Korçë

Creator

Commons:User:Tubetends

Nominator

Albanau

• oppose - too small, and jpeg artifacts. 17:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Debivort 02:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - All this nomination needs is a larger image (If the creator is a user of Wikipedia, then he might be able to give us the original resolution without any compression.) I would definitely support when that is done. --Arad 18:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Agree, tilt should also be corrected - Alvesgaspar 19:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - disadvantageous shadows. If nothing else works, a compound picture might be better. I'm referring to the shadow that stretches to the front steps. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small. Witty Lama 04:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The Photo itself is good, but too low resolution...Yzmo ^talk 07:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small. ^8thstar 15:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, resolution too low. --Phoenix (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above; it's just too small.--HereToHelp 01:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The Image looks good, has a good resolution, and shows a typical tree. I just love that picture.

Articles this image appears in

Tree

Creator

User:Yzmo(self nom)

• Support as Nominator Yzmo ^talk 16:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose A bit blurry at full res, but mostly the subject can barely be distinguished from the background. Debivort 16:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Tree completely out of focus, species not identified. Alvesgaspar 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppoose It's a tree...I have tons in my backyard. Besides that, the background blends with the subject. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just a tree... ^8thstar 15:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: What's so special about a tree? ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No FP criterion demands that the subject be "special." We must evaluate the merits of the photo, not the subject. Debivort 19:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe criteria #5 sort of covers that. If the subject is commonplace, then it doesn't really add much value to the article. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• When the article illustrated covers a common subject: tree - a image of a common tree (not that we know the species of this particular tree) would seem to illustrate the article perfectly. Debivort 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Would that only be a stereotype of what a tree is? If it's a generic tree, then it's not entirely useful. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 04:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're saying a picture of a common tree doesn't illustrate tree in an encyclopedic way? ... ok... Debivort 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What the heck defines a "common tree"? The common tree in my mind does not look like that. ;) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose uninteresting to me is not enough to justify an oppose but...this also falls technically short. Out of focus, bad DOF also you are getting dust spots; sensor cleaning time ;). ~ Arjun 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote (Why be gratuitous with an oppose?) The sky is nice, the colors are nice, the smudge can be Photoshopped out, but, as mentioned, there's little background contrast. I can't see the tree for the forest. --Bagginz 05:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This picture looks nice with the sunset at the back, and has certainly got a strong emotional impact due to what it´s meaning is.

Articles this image appears in

Half-staff

Creator

fr:User:A3 nm

• Support as nominator — ♠Tom@sBat 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, awful quality, pointless.--Svetovid 23:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please comment with a civil tone. This clearly has a point and might very well illustrate hald-staff. Debivort 00:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Far too dark. Witty Lama 23:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Way too dark. And a flag flying at half-staff isn't all that unique. Sorry. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 00:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose per above. Debivort 00:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is quite atmospheric and evocative, although the picture quality could be improved. But ideally a picture explaining "half-staff" should put it in context, e.g. a funeral procession. This one does not adequately explain the symbolism. With a little bit of Photshopping this might succeed on Commons. ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Way too dark. —dima/talk/ 15:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too dark. ^8thstar 18:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sigh. Strong emotions created is certainly not the only thing required to take a picture "to tha next level". --Phoenix (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's pretty, but far too dark. Amphy 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The asian pear is a beautiful fruit in its own right, but I believe Fir0002 has captured an even more memorable scene with a radiant rainbow and a scene of vivid color with the pyrus pyrifolia in full bloom.

Articles this image appears in

Pyrus pyrifolia

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator — --Valley2city^₪‽ 06:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Gives encyclopedic info on the tree, has stunning composition. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Background is distracting, not very high resolution, not very sharp. The image is highly reproducable and could be composed much better. Cacophony 09:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Agree with Cacophony, but there's nothing wrong with it, just isn't great…except the composition, which probably is hard to duplicate.--HereToHelp 10:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a small crop from a bigger picture. The quality is a bit disappointing for the given size. And although I like the rainbow it does not help illustrating the flowers. More flower detail and concentration to the main subject would be appropriate for an encyclopedic illustration. --Dschwen 11:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Beautiful picture, but does not illustrate its subject as well as it could. While the inclusion of the rainbow and surrounding scene is nice artistically, it distracts from the pear tree. Calliopejen1 11:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unbalanced composition: tree cut off, rainbow obscured by flowers. --Janke | Talk 13:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Calliopejen. Witty Lama 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The Image looks nice.. but the resolution is a bit low.Yzmo ^talk 15:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Janke; subject is unclear. --Phoenix (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Simply ugly and uninteresting, no defined subject and a DOF that doesn't know whether it is coming or going. --Vaelta 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (with regrets). The appeal isn't there somehow. The rainbow makes me feel like it wants to be a condolence card. --Bagginz 06:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Out of interest, why "with regrets"? The photo is awful: cropped to a weird looking (condolence card) square shape, muddy dark sky, dull DOF that doesn't highlight any one aspect of the photo, the supposed "subject" climbing its way in and out of the picture without much context, not horizontal (not always a bad thing in my opinion, but here, yes), rainbow... well, I'm not going to go on. Why was this even proposed? It's ugly.--Vaelta 08:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "With regrets" because I think Fir0002 is one of the best, most productive shutterbugs around here. (Yes, I know he didn't nominate this, but I'd love to hear what he thinks of this picture.) I don't think it's ugly, but the composition feels unfocused. The rainbow, skimming the edge of the blossom, competes with it rather than compliments it, so it's not obvious what the picture is about. --Bagginz 15:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The first time I saw this picture I wasn't sure if it was supposed to illustrate the pear blossoms or the rainbow. That's a problem. Amphy 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I created this diagram a few days ago to illustrate the Munsell color system article. I think it turned out especially well.

Articles this image appears in

Munsell color system, Color theory

Creator

jacobolus

• Support as nominator — jacobolus (t) 12:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't show enough to enable someone not familiar with this to understand the entire system. You would need a complete slice of one color muted from black to white, not just the middle color sector muted to gray. Hard to do in 2-D! --Janke | Talk 19:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm. Well, it maybe can't be understood independently from the text of the article. But I'm not sure how achievable that is. Note that there is a complete slice of one color shown a bit further down the wiki page. --jacobolus (t) 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You could put the numbers on the side and expand the slice vertically...but you would block the puple-ish hues behind it on the ring.--HereToHelp 23:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess I just think there's value in two separate diagrams. One that shows the whole shape of the color solid, and another that shows what its dimensions are, as this diagram does (and maybe even a third diagram that just shows particular slices through the solid horizontally and vertically). I'm not sure there's much benefit to be gained by combining the two, and I can't see a particularly good way to do that. --jacobolus (t) 04:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess my question then is can every diagram enable someone with no familiarity to understand the entire thing being shown? I thought the point of a diagram was to illustrate an article, not to replace it. Not that your criticism isn't legitimate; maybe there's some way to accomplish all of the above. --jacobolus (t) 04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The chroma, hue, and value are plotted to make a cylinder, a 3D figure. It is therefore very difficult to represent it in 2D. Perhaps an animation could be made? (Not to devalue a 2D but vector image, however).--HereToHelp 01:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think an animation could be made, but it would serve a different purpose from this image. That is, it would show the overall shape of the thing, rather than labeling the parts. I think this diagram still has value independent of that (and is still pretty good, IMO). --jacobolus (t) 02:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking of color systems, I've found no mention of the Ostwald system in WP - only a short note in Wilhelm Ostwald... Anybody? --Janke | Talk 15:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems that almost all color systems go unmentioned in WP, and in general the articles about color theory are underdeveloped, with a misguided emphasis on the RGB and CYMK models. Wikiproject Color has an absurd focus on making stub articles about large numbers of (arbitrarily) named colors, instead of explaining color theory. It would be good to have a summary of color models in their historical context at Color models or similar, but that is a rather large project to undertake. --jacobolus (t) 00:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment well maybe I should just withdraw the nomination, as only one person is actually willing to offer an opinion. Maybe FPC is just not meant for diagrams? --jacobolus (t) 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think this is a very high quality diagram that quite intuitively shows this color system. While I cannot judge how accurate it is, since I'm not familiar with the system, I can say that this 3d representation does a far and away better job of explanation than the other flat 2d images from the article. That said, I'm willing to be corrected if the image does not accurately describe the color model. But I don't think it should be demoted because it does not represent every aspect of the system. --Asiir 12:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. It's definitely of good quality, and it's a great illustration in general. However, I know that if I had no background in colour theory I'd be confused looking at it, and there is the problem Janke mentioned with the varying value levels. Maybe putting one near values 2 & 3 for yellow-red (is there a reason this isn't called orange?) or yellow would help. As it stands, this is almost as good as it gets for a diagram. Amphy 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, it's called yellow-red (or actually YR) because the purpose of the system is to get away from color names, and instead specify things numerically. So the 5 hues aren't supposed to be the colors a person would associate with those names, but are just instead supposed to provide evenly spaced reference points in the hue circle. --jacobolus (t) 02:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A good quality svg map that contains a lot of information in a clean, well presented way. Couldn't be done better, IMO.

Articles this image appears in

Falkland Islands / List of Falkland Islands placenames

Creator

Eric Gaba (commons:User:Sting)

• Support as nominator — Jack · talk · 12:52, Saturday, 31 March 2007
• Comment It's a shame that the population data is so old - 1982 puts the data probably before the Falklands War, before the change from wool to fishing and tourism as the primary industries, and before very substantial population changes including a 40% decline in population outside Stanley[3]. Could more recent data be obtained? TSP 16:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The legend at left should read Elevation and depth, not elevation (note that the reference level is not necessarily the same for both). In the legend at right, should read date instead of data. - Alvesgaspar 17:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded the map with the corrections requested. Yes, it's a pity that the population data is so old (they're taken from the CIA map), unfortunately I haven't got other ones (if you have a link…). By the way, I'm preparing for the next days a new map more precise based on NASA data, with real UTM projection and maybe also with shaded relief. Sting-fr 20:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks like a great map. I await the NASA data and perhaps newer population info; I will support a version that incorporates this data over the current one.--HereToHelp 23:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If additional/ newer data is added, I'll support the newer version.Enuja 02:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For data, cartographers could try this series of links, or email the government directly at [email protected] to obtain the local census. I'd love to do it myself, but something tells me they won't respond to a hotmail address — Jack · talk · 02:13, Wednesday, 4 April 2007

Here is the new map created with digital elevation models, more detailed and with shaded relief. I hope you like it. Sting-fr 05:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. : The census is still of 1982. I will write them in the next days, with the hope they will reply.

• Support new version - High quality map. Alvesgaspar 10:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Out of date. Pstuart84 Talk 22:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but I'd keep it from the front page until newer census data is found. Did you try to contact any Wikiprojects? ~ trialsanderrors 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Argentina & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America — Jack · talk · 02:41, Monday, 9 April 2007
• Comment Very nice, but most maps show both British names and Argentinian names, at least for the islands themselves. Perhaps this could be added for the name of the islands (Malvinas) and for any settlements that have other names, I think most maps have one set in italics following or underneath the other. Otherwise there is quite a significant British bias. |→ Spaully°τ 14:10, 9 April 2007 (GMT)

Humm ! Well… I didn't find so many maps with the two names. I don't think putting only the British names gives this map a British bias : this version is in English and displays the names used in that language. For a map with the Spanish names, it sounds logical to me to look for a Spanish translated version. In the same way, for the map in French I used the names in French when they exist, the only concession I made is about the name of the archipelago which is pretty different from the French but also well known in France. But it's also true that the Falklands are a specific case… I'll wait other opinions before doing something on the map. Sting-fr 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that editors who want to create a local version can get in touch with Eric at Commons. ~ trialsanderrors 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I would support if I knew this was right--even time bounded. If the map properly represents the Falkland islands in 1971 that's fine by me but we just need to label them as such so we don't fool people into thinking it represents the present day if it doesn't. Can anyone give clearer information about this? gren グレン 08:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I compared them to a couple of other maps, notably this one and this one, and the nominated one seems accurate, or even more detailed. I'm not sure if "administered by" is proper wording though, maybe this should be changed to "Overseas territory of". ~ trialsanderrors 17:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map is as accurate as the USGov allow us to do (the topography and the shorelines come from the NASA). It could be a little more precise using a width of about 6,000 pixels (the maximum the software allows) or 3,900 for a ratio 1:1, but this would mean a heavy file weight due to the size and all the small details I've bypassed because almost invisible. All this for finally no more real information.

About « Administered by », I used the expression of the CIA WFB map. Sting-fr 22:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. : The mail address registry.fig@… doesn't seem to exist anymore, so I wrote to the Gov and still wait the reply. What I propose, if there's no reply, is to delete this kind of information from the map.

I'd support a version with no population data to take away from the geography over outdated population data. New pop data is still preferable if it can be obtained; have you tried googling it?--HereToHelp 00:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and the only results concern Stanley and the islands E/W. The other information give sometimes approximations for some settlements, but nothing on official sites. Sting-fr 15:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - is there any news on the census figures from the FI government? We should use the latest figures available; if they are rather outdated, there is little we can do about it other than make the age of the statistics clear. Will support if no newer data is available. Warofdreams talk 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've received no answer from the FI Gov, so I uploaded a modified version without the demographic data. Sting-fr 15:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I will support. The map's clarity is excellent, and the main area of concern has now been addressed. Warofdreams talk 13:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Falkland Islands topographic map-en.svg

Reason

This picture is very pleasing to the eye, improves all of the articles in which it appears, is of high resolution, and is pleasing to the eye.

Articles this image appears in

Frankfurt, Commerzbank Tower, Maintower

Creator

Patrik Kalinowski

• Support as nominator ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 18:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm adding an alternative shot that was recently featured on Commons. ~ trialsanderrors 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It may be just me, but isn't the reflection of the buildings in the water in slightly distracting? Nice shot otherwise. --Zainub 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I seem to recall another FP that had some stretched lighting over water, but I can't remember what the image was :P ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 21:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both - the first is tilted and the composition is a bit odd (lamp post seems to dominate, feels like I should be able to see more of what lies to the left - the bit of the foreground bridge that's in view seems arbitrary); the second is overexposed, with really poor control of the highlights, and looks as though it's been heavily noise-reduced in places. --YFB ¿ 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both, the reflections in the water actually add to the shots in my opinion. However, as per above, the second image is overexposed. The first seems out of focus to me, as well. --Phoenix (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, very weak oppose Alternate, added edit. The original is too small. I really like the alternate a lot, especially the reflections on the water. I added an edit of the alternate if anyone cares to consider it.--Uberlemur 04:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Beautiful macro shot of this pine's cone.

Articles this image appears in

Cryptomeria

Creator

User:Pengo (self nom)

• Support as nominator — Pengo 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I hate to be the first to comment about the shallow DOF, but someone is always first... --Janke | Talk 21:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm witholding support for lighting and composotion reasons, but I have to say there's not a DOF problem here. It seems to have been focussed as well as could be expected for a non-bracketed macro and was shot at f29! mikaul^talk 00:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was shot at f29 and it is focussed well, does not make is as sharp as I would like to see... Check it in full size, only the front of the cone is sharp, and there are some ugly "hairs" on it, to boot. These defects don't show in 800 px size. --Janke | Talk 07:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did! It's probably not as sharp as it could be because it was shot at f29 (v few lenses do their best stuff stopped right down) but the DOF really couldn't get any better without focus bracketing I just looked again and I think it may have been autofocussed, which would mean the optimum DOF maybe wasn't achieved, although it's still not "shallow"" by any means. While I don't think the hairs are necessarily a defect and the OOF bits of the main subject are resolved well enough maybe your objection has more weight than I first thought. mikaul^talk 13:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auto focusing has no effect whatsoever on the DOF, only the focal point. --Fir0002 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what he meant. Autofocus will set the center of the DOF at the front of the subject. Manual focusing enables you to use the DOF creatively, maximizing the subject area that lies within the DOF. Agree? --Janke | Talk 07:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Max DOF means you choosing the focal point, not the camera. There is no AF system which can figure the hyperfocal distance so MF is crucial in macro shots like this one. Even if it was focussed 5mm further (than the nearest subject detail, as you say) there would be considerably fewer OOF elements in the main subject. mikaul^talk 13:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is beginning to grow on me as an image. I might be tempted to support a suitably cropped version, although the original problem I had with the composition was the way a more mature cone is just a tiny bit too far out of frame to add that extra encyclopedic value. mikaul^talk 13:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - was this lit by flash, by any chance? mikaul^talk 13:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Ring/dual flash. —Pengo 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What model? --Fir0002 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Composition is not optimal and image is diffraction-limited, but otherwise it's good. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a nice and clear macro image, illustrates the subject well, and it just looks good, nice resolution aswell.Yzmo ^talk 15:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternate shot added Don't know if it addresses many of the issues above, but I've added an alternate shot (shows a bit more of the more mature cone, but DOF is similar I think). Also if anyone wants to have a go at cropping/editing either one, please feel free. —Pengo 02:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose both, sorry. Mick is spot-on about the DOF and I find the lighting just a little harsh - maybe a half-stop or so less flash would have helped. It's an OK image but I suspect you can do better with that equipment. Compositionally, I prefer the first. --YFB ¿ 23:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support original, Oppose alternative I do not like the composition of the alternative, the cone is crammed into the frame, and the background isn't well balanced (the brown in the lower right erks me). Also, the flash is a little bit too harsh in the alt. As for the original, the concerns about DOF are valid, but a bit nitpicky. It seems like to marginally improve the image would require a more than marginal improvement in equipment (I don't think a simple reshoot would improve the DoF enough, but maybe a $2,000 lens would), so acknowledging the flaws, I'm going to throw a weak support behind the original because the image is well framed, and the subject is clear, and the composition is good, and the exposure is decent.-Andrew c 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Best hubble image I have seen.

Articles this image appears in

Eta Carinae Nebula

Creator

HST/NASA/ESA

• Support as nominator — Chris H 13:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Excellent quality, adds greatly to the article. Amphy 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Support This is a fantastic picture. There is a truely remarkable depth of detail. It is both aesthetically pleasing and scientifically fascinating. The Bok globules, the lobes of Eta Carinae, the visceral impression of the violence associated with the birth and the death of stars. (Particularly very large O-type stars.) This is one of the best astronomical images of all time. (Although that is a large list.) Calen716 18:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC) — Calen716 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Support - wow. ...adam... ( 131.111.244.234 20:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
• Support. If it's good enough for Reuters, it's good enough for me. JHMM13 00:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support *Drools*--HereToHelp 01:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pollockesque. ~ trialsanderrors 08:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning and encyclopedic.Pedro |  Chat  10:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's utterly gorgeous. I can't find a flaw with this. --Paul 20:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with Paul ^^^ Flubeca 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• An absolutely astonishing picture and I happily Support. But, this is a bit embarrassing, where is the star in the picture? Kinggimble 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some content to the page that sould help.Chris H 01:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as if my vote is really needed...per above. --Tewy 01:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm speechless. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hubble rocks. --Bridgecross 18:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ooooo...pretty colors. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 00:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This just looks amazing :O.. good res aswell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yzmo (talk • contribs).
• Support ... --Arad 21:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ohhhh... ^8thstar 15:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Nicest photo I've ever seen...amazing subject material, highly encyclpedic, beautiful resolution. Theonlyedge 00:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I love these space images... --Valley2city^₪‽ 16:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yep, no way anybody could not find this enchanting and mystifying... who would have thought that space could be so beautiful? Although, having said that I find the stars beautiful in themselves... but yes, this is something altogether different. --Vaelta 08:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I am...at...a loss...for...words.... Breathtaking. J Are you green? 01:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I also recommend including a link to the zoomable version wherever this is placed. It shows the true power of astronomical cameras. Also, it's worth noting that this is Hubble AND CTIO. The people responsible for the image (Nathan Smith, John Bally, and others) should probably be credited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keflavich (talk • contribs).
• Support-until-there-can-be-no-more-support If this doesn't get an FP status, I'll change my name to George W. Bush. BeefRendang 14:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sorry, last time I checked, this wouldn't qualify for Featured picture. National Geographic is 3 blocks down. · AndonicO ^Talk 18:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support To my mind, this is as pleasing aesthetically and as valuable encyclopedically as Image:Polarlicht 2.jpg (which illustrates a wholly different subject, to be sure, but a similarity to which one must perceive), which earned Commons POY in 2006. Joe 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy support I think it's fair to say there is a consensus here. Noclip 17:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Ngc3372.jpg MER-C 02:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC) – changed to commons:Image:Eta Carinae Nebula 1.jpg --Ü 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I'm nominating this picture because it is a well done historical Panorama of Edo from 1865 or 1866 done using Five albumen silver prints to form a panorama.

Articles this image appears in

Edo, Felice Beato

Creator

Felice Beato

• Support as nominator — Cat-five - talk 04:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both Impressive, given the I guess circonstances. Blieusong 09:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with trialsanderrors on the scan errors, but also with Mikaul on the fact it doesn't spoil the picture enough. Blieusong 07:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Could this be restiched with better quality? -Fcb981 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support if we can get a better stitched version. If absolutely impossible then "support". Witty lama 21:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I understand (and hope I'm not wrong) that the "process which created the pano" itself was from the photograph, and is here part of the picture (as visible technical flaws). So I think this isn't to be "restitched". I'd even say, this is what makes this panorama so valuable. Blieusong 22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As an extrememly early example of panoramic photography, and not least as a historical document, this is outstanding, even if it isn't exactly classically beautiful. The yellowing, stains and slight mis-matching are relevant details and should be left as is, as evidence of the technique employed. mikaul^talk 23:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In response to those of you above who asked about restitching it can't really because the stitching is really part of the historical work and in terms of quality of the stitching etc you have to remember that this was done using plates some 150+ years ago... not to mention falling under the exemption from many requirements due to it's historical status which I doubt anyone will contest considering it's age and importance. Cat-five - talk 02:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to note that I have also nominated this for a featured picture up on Commons. Cat-five - talk 02:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Granted, this isn't the best stitch job. However, considering this panorama was done so long ago, it's actually quite well done. Amphy 16:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now Can anyone identify which ones are stitching errors and which ones are scanning errors? I get the impression the most obvious ones are scanning errors, which should lead to rejection. It's also a very small scan for a 1.32m pano. ~ trialsanderrors 19:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean. These old panoramas weren't stiched as such, AFAIK they were glued together onto a backing sheet. Without modern digital blending methods, this particular example is a fairly remarkable, techinically-speaking, given that there's very little vertical mismatching. See these examples for comparison. I suppose the scan isn't totally brilliant but it's quite detailed; most of the imperfections I can see are probably due to the age of the prints. Finally, 1.03Mb is about right for a 3000x450 jpeg, although I agree it could maybe have been bigger. mikaul^talk 22:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad teminology, sorry. "Stitching errors" = discontinuities in the original pano. "Scanning errors" = discontinuities from scanning the pano. I can accept the stitching errors if that was how panos were assembled in the mid 19th century. But if the discontinuitites are in fact from the scan as it appears, it should be done better. On what we can do with panos in terms of size, check the "Along the River" nomination below. ~ trialsanderrors 22:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's an awesome image in many respect, and one hell of a scan to boot. The scan here has certainly had less TLC applied. Now that I've gone looking for them I can see a couple of minor stiching errors in the scan; I see what you mean now, but I'm not sure they detract from the value of the image so much. mikaul^talk 23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, scan is too small... gren グレン 16:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont' see how it could be any larger considering the aspect ratio, for example to make the height over 1k (which is the normal standard for FPC's) you'd have to make the width about 6000 pixels which is both unwieldy and unecessary for use on Wikipedia. Cat-five - talk 08:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhh... ~ trialsanderrors 21:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hehe.. I still don't think this is a good oppose rationale in this case. 450px is probably less than borderline "too small" for a regular pano shot (I've been hassling for consensus on concrete guidelines for this, 6-800 high would seem a sensible minimum pano height) but this one delivers much more than just technical exactitude. mikaul^talk 00:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • An exact number will only be a crutch for people who know nothing about photography. A picture file is big enough if it shows an adequate level of detail. I might even argue that the almost 1000px height of the QingMing pano is at the lower end given the astounding detail in the original. Of course 30,000px width is the limit for Photoshop, so that's what we have to make do with in that case. In this case here, it's clear that the original provides much more detail than the scan. ~ trialsanderrors 01:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wouldn't argue with you there. Pano shots are (generally) one of those which demand exceptional levels of discernable detail. The issue here is whether the detail you can't make out detracts substantially from the value of the image. There's huge historcial, photographic and encyclopedic value here which, along with it's uniqueness, greatly diminishes the file size / scan quality issue, in my opinion. I'm guessing that the chances of re-scanning what must be a very delicate print are slim to none. mikaul^talk 12:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm still waiting for evidence of this historical value. It's interesting to see a cityscape that doesn't exist anymore, but there are thousands of those images. The panorama exhibit at the Library of Congress goes back to 1851 [4], so age can't be the deciding factor either. I'm also pretty sure that this was scanned larger and downsampled to the current size. Compared to the stuff we can get at the LoC I'm not impressed. ~ trialsanderrors 00:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1. Interesting and historically valuable. Cacophony 05:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support interesting shot with much better resolution than the similarly dated Image:Panoramic from Lookout Mountain Tenn., 1864.jpg currently used in panoramic photography. Warofdreams talk 17:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Panorama of Edo bw.jpg MER-C 02:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Extremely beautiful image and very educational.

Articles this image appears in

NGC 2244

Creator

NASA/JPL

• Support as nominator — Chris H 03:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support- Sushant gupta 12:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Are the halo things edited in? I noticed they weren't on the original in the file history. ^8thstar 18:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the exact same thing. The resolution when compared to everything else suggested to me when I first looked at the image that they were added to highlight those 4 stars. I imagine that they are there to show the stars in the clustor (because there is a brighter star which is in proximity to the others in the image, but I imagine is actually closer and not in the cluster). This needs to be cleared up. However, the use of translucent halos, while stylized and reminiscent of nebula gas, actually works to confuse the viewer into thinking it may be part of the image. If we do need to highlight those four stars, we should use something more plain, geometric, and graphical for the highlight (like a white circle), so it is clear that the highlight is not part of the image (a nice caption could also clear up this issue without the use of editing the original image).-Andrew c 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's a link to the original image: [5] I oppose the version with "highlighted danger zones". Mgiganteus1 23:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because of the circly things. Debivort 00:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Looks good.--HereToHelp 15:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only. Mgiganteus1 23:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original - Halos detract from the image, the original obviously doesn't suffer from this. Supaluminal 07:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. The cluster highlights are too distracting for the edited image to be an FP. Amphy 16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose halos, neutral, original. gren グレン 18:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Anyone else notice the grain? The distinct lack of sharpness? Astronomical pictures are capable of being much much better than this. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only. While many astronomical pictures are much sharper than this one, you have to remember to consider the source. The Spitzer Space Telescope sees in infrared, not visible, wavelengths. And the reduction in sharpness compared to pictures made with visible light, is from the increased wavelength of the infrared light. Also, the fact that some think this could've been Photoshopped, I feel actually counts towards the support of the (original) image. It's so good and weird looking, it fools some into thinking it's a fake.Calen716 18:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC) — Calen716 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Oppose Too small, grainy, does not stand out among pictures of nebulae, esp. compared to NGC 3372. ~ trialsanderrors 08:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both especially the photoshopped edit. The stars in the former are a little grainy (but what can you expect from pictures taken in deep space?). This is really neat! --Valley2city^₪‽ 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only All good astronomical images should be promoted IMHO. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:NGC 2244.jpg The Sunshine Man 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:NGC 2244c.jpg, many more people voted for the original.Chris H 18:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It is beautiful, and none of the other photos show a colourful moss.

Articles this image appears in

Moss

Creator

Vaelta

• Support as nominator — Vaelta 12:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Attractive composition, but poor depth of field. Spikebrennan 18:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In the opinion of most photographers, the "correct" depth of field is the one which captures the subject in focus while ensuring that other elements of the photograph do not overpower the subject. This photo would be a good example of that: the moss stalks (and pretty little water droplets) are in focus; the rest of the photo is not. Imagine a photograph of a bird sitting in a twiggy tree: if all the twigs were also in focus, the bird would be almost invisible (in most cases). But anyway, uploading a few of my photographs to Wikipedia's featured pictures is just a personal experiment, and so far, so cliquey... this is still a fabulous pic. It goes with all of my fabulosity fact about moss! :D--Vaelta 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your tree example is correct, but in this particular photograph, a bit more in focus subject would probably benefit the picture. Artistically, the effect is gorgeous, but I feel that a larger depth of field would illustrate the subject better. J Are you green? 20:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Oppose original, weak support full size given conpyright info (The large version is highly detailed, but it still is more artsy than encyclopaedic.) J Are you green? 02:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC) I am not a huge fan of the DOF. The photograph also seems almost unreal, as if it had been overprocessed. I also really do not see much detail in the subject. Although I am struggling to find a quantitative fault, I cannot find enough to convince me to support. The image resolution does not cut it for me either; upsampled to the tiny size of one megapixel it is undeniably soft. J Are you green? 20:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for at least justifying your DOF comments. As I said, this is mainly just an experiment on my part, as I am amazed at the number of artistically poor photographs (nature in particular) that get featured picture status. However, I do understand this is an encyclopaedia, and artistic value is not necessarily the most valued aspect here. To your other points, the image is actually unprocessed apart from a VERY small border crop. I simply don't do processing, and don't even HAVE a copy of the supposedly vital Photoshop... And as for size, my screen resolution is not much more than this image. Is it necessary to have it any larger? --Vaelta 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it pretty hard to believe no editing has been done to that pic, if for no other reason than that the exif is stripped. --Fir0002 06:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The size is not necessary, but I certainly would appreciate the added detail, especially if you have an 8 MP version as with your other nomination. If your camera is digital, it seems to be doing you the favour of sharpening the picture a tad past my preferences. Personally, I enjoy the detail of a high resolution picure even if it does not fit on my screen. I might change my mind if you upload a higher resolution verison, though. As for our current FPs, if you feel that any truly do not meet quality guidelines there is a place for that. J Are you green? 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not that they do not meet any quality guidelines, just that I feel some are rather uninspired. Just personal opinion, nothing more. But anyway, I'll go and dig out a larger copy of this... just a mo'. --Vaelta 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my vote, but you should add the new picture's copyright information. J Are you green? 02:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, or next to no encyclopedic value without identification of the species.--Peta 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The DOF makes it impossible to see any detail on the gametophytes (the leafy part that is half of the moss's lifespan). Calliopejen1 20:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Image:RedMoss.jpg --The Sunshine Man 21:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful image of two baby goats about a week old. Despite their very different appearance but were born of the same pure white mother, and AFAIK, the same pure white father.

Appears in Domestic goat

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 00:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose lighting is very cold, right animal has poor contrast with background, white of the right animal's coat is a bit harsh (due to the lighting, more than a poor exposure) foreground grass a bit distracting. -Fcb981 04:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I also don't like the way the white goat blends in with the grass. I'm thinking that a bright green grass background would be great to get both goats, but, this being fall in the southern hemisphere, I guess the goats will be older and not as cute by the time you could get a bright contrast. Maybe they live in a red barn that could be used as a contrasting background? I love they way they are both posed, looking at the camera, but the background just kills it. Also, to be encyclopedic, this should illustrate an article about coat genetics. Enuja 05:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wholeheartedly wish it was a green background too - it hasn't rained well in months! No red barns, this is Australian not Kansas! However I take issue with saying it has to appear in an article on coat genetics to be enc, it's an interesting side fact but by no means detracts from the illustration of a kid --Fir0002 11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support It's not bad, and it's encyclopedic, but I think the goat on the top of the article page is of higher quality.-DMCer 06:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but needs to be cropped on the right. ~ trialsanderrors 07:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree, the composition is great the way it is. The goats heads capture the attention, and they are balanced within the frame. --Dschwen 10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bulk of the bodies is what needs to be balanced, also there is a stretch of darker grass on the right border. In any case, I added an edit that's both cropped and increases the contrast between white goat and the background. ~ trialsanderrors 06:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose Edit. For the compositon the elements that attract attention are important. Weak support original because of bg contrast problems. --Dschwen 15:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: another thing is bugging me about the edit. I find it rather presumptuous to state colors enhanced in the caption. Who is to say that it really is an enhancement? If anybody than it should be an eyewitness, i.e. Fir. --Dschwen 07:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Color enhancement is the summary term for increasing saturation, contrast, luminosity, etc., in order to create a better separation of objects from the background. This has nothing to do with the fidelity to the original, this common imaging lingo. ~ trialsanderrors 06:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- encyclopedic and good --Penubag 08:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)penubag[reply]
• Weak support - Lovely picture. It is a shame the background is not different to make a better contrast with the white goat. Alvesgaspar 09:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Surely tilted (or do goats stand like that?) - Adrian Pingstone 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They seem to be on sloped ground. There is something like a fence in the background, and the lines between the boards seem to be vertical, although it's hard to make out since it's quite blurry. But it's noticeable that their heads tilt the other way. ~ trialsanderrors 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the pic is probably not tilted. Nevertheless the apparent tilt spoils it for me - Adrian Pingstone 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Picture was taken on a hill. --Fir0002 11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The tilt barely distracts me from the subject, which is photographed wonderfully. Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 20:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like it. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Background distracts. --Janke | Talk 10:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It was a fine shot without the crop, just a bit over-exposed. Some selective tonal correction - or shooting with a polarizer, perhaps - would help the white kid stand out from the bg, but equally a -0.5 gamma shift would do the job. I'd support a darker version & will reserve my vote pending that. I'm not sure the 'slant' is a real, FP-obstructing problem, FWIW. mikaul^talk 14:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original -- I nominated it a bit late though. :-D --Arad 14:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, poor background. -- Avenue 12:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only. Edit washes out the blacks a bit. I don't have a problem with the background. Good quality image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original. Until the day comes when Fir can get a dozen healthy goats (two of each sex aged exactly 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1 fortnight, 1 month, and 1 year), lined up with equal distance between each other, standing a freshly mowed field of green grass, all facing the camera and smiling... this picture will do just fine. Chicago god 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That of course being two-dozen goats, ;) Pstuart84 Talk 21:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The goats are great, but the background almost eats them up. bobanny 02:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned over at the commons, why would the animals have a contrasting coloration to their background? It is in their best interests to blend in with their surroundings! Particularly at this early stage when they are very vulnerable, as their mothers often leave them by themselves for a period of time and graze. --Fir0002 07:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid point generally, but it's not a strong enough consideration in this case for me. What I see here is a portrait of the animals themselves, not camouflage. They're engaging with the photographer and us by extension, standing in what could be a studio pose contrived to illustrate what two wobbly kids with different markings look like. (Your praying mantis was probably trying to blend in with his surroundings when he was nabbed, but nonetheless turns out to be quite photogenic in the studio). If this was illustrating camouflage, that characteristic should make a more immediate impact on the viewer (like the "Lace Monitor" FPC above and some other FPs I've seen). The interesting juxtaposition here is between the 2 animals, not the animals and their environment, and that's what the background takes away from. I also think the one on the right's coat is too whited-out, making the photo look a little flat. bobanny 09:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that they are not in a studio pose - they are not at all familiar with humans at that age and won't allow people to get near them. Hence the use of the 200mm lens. As to the white of the baby - that's what it looks like! It's a fluffy bundle of pure white! --Fir0002 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to imply that it was a studio pose, just that if a photographer were to (somehow) get them to pose, this would be a good one (especially with the up and down ears). bobanny 22:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well, if Featured Pictures won't take them, I'm sure that Cute Overload will. :) --TotoBaggins 04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – background and white goat have too little contrast. It's a good photo, but not FP-worthy --jacobolus (t) 05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If the colour variation is supposed to be the theme of this image, "as far as I know" is not very good information as to the identity of the father. Goats are not at all monogamous. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK it was a pure white father as we only have white billies. Aside from that I can't see any validity in your vote as the image is not meant to illustrate colour variation - it's not even in an article on that! --Fir0002 06:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to be so defensive, but okay, if it's not about colour variation, why does it have two differently coloured kids in it? This is an encyclopaedia, I wouldn't want children thinking goats pop out in uneven pairs because that's what you chose to take a picture of. This is not your private photography contest, Fir. If you want credit for taking beautiful pics, for heaven's sake take it to Commons! Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find comments like that immensely irritating and not very productive. It seems because I have a number of FP's people think they can use the "it's not your private photo show etc etc etc" to oppose an image. Where exactly is it stipulated that "Thou shalt not address comments on thy photos"? You accuse me of being defensive, but seems to me you're clutch on straws to hang on to your oppose vote. Why shouldn't they be different colored? Do you think all goats are white? Because it's an encyclopaedia is all the more reason to have variation, giving a better representation of the species. Please confine yourself to judging a photo based on the guidelines here!! --Fir0002 06:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let him who cast the first stone - oh, no, the original is different... Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm sorry... not really sure what you mean by that! --Fir0002 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, we also don't want children thinking that all goats are the same color. And I think it is perfectly appropriate for the photographer to try to address the opposers' concerns. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if he manages to do so without being dismissive. It's just about possible that I made the comments for a reason, but if you don't want to know, fine! Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you are unwilling to provide appropriate reasons to oppose this image then I suggest you reconsider or strike out your vote... --Fir0002 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's tilted anyway, so what's the point in arguing? Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't possibly determine tilt without any valid reference points. The background cannot be used because it appears to be tilted through perspective and/or the slight incline of a hill. In any case, such an image does not rely on such precise horizontal accuracy. I suppose the point of arguing was to produce a valid reason for opposing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dark lines of the fence are quite clearly visible, and they're vertical. The rest is hogwash. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we all know that gravity is measured in fence units. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I still wouldn't put too much faith on the fence posts as absolute vertical since from my experience they can start to lean over time, they're clearly the most reliable source in this image. There is no horizon, perspective can greatly affect what would otherwise horizontal lines, and animals don't always stand straight, particularly on a hill. I would say the fence posts and the fact that both animals have their heads vertical in the photo suggests it is near enough untilted. This is not a defense of Fir0002's ego, this is just my opinion on the matter. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff, even if animals on a hill won't always stand straight, then in this case they are certainly leaning the wrong way. Please guys, let the laws of physics and common sense prevail here! Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that they are leaning the correct way. From the perspective, it appears that the hill gets higher towards the right side of the frame and the goats are leaning towards that hill. This is normal. Would you expect them to lean away from the hill? I agree, let common sense prevail. Its just that I think common sense is on my side in this example. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not normal. It requires that both goats have two short legs on the hill side. How likely is that? Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...you can't lean away from a hill. Well, you can for a second, but then you roll down it. The goats probably have their knees bent a little on the higher side. That's how I would stand on a hill. 67.86.86.217 21:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support If Terrence Malick made movies about goats, they'd probably look like this. --Bagginz 07:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The white goat's back is a bit overexposed, and it's tail is slightly blurry, but a lovely image overall. On my desktop already. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 18:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Fcb981 above. The constrast between the white goat and the background is a problem. David D. (Talk) 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• neutral - cold lighting, low background contrast. Debivort 05:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Image:Baby goats jan 2007.jpg --The Sunshine Man 10:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Its been a while since the last nomination as I've been both busy and lacking in inspiration of late, but I took this mosaic stitched image of the Royal College of Music recently, and although the lighting was a bit flat, I think the composition is pretty good and the detail available of the impressive architecture makes it worthy of a nomination. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Royal College of Music

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator — Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent shot, shows its subject well. You need to teach me how to stitch so well, it always looks terrible when I try. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Living in a time when a mere sketch or the intention of a good work is enough to satisfy many, we have to applaud the care and attention to the details. Good work Dilif, but please take away that white plastic glass at left... Alvesgaspar 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I was wondering when I could at last support a diliff picture :). For information, there are tiny stitching errors on the right tower (edge with the sky) (and no I won't oppose for them). If you have some time, maybe you could fix ? I'm also wondering how you achieve such huge quantity of details, because I'm trying hard to do something similar but certainly with less success... Blieusong 22:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has a lot to do with a great camera and top-flight optics. I've only ever seen comparable detail from 5x4 transparencies. Support, of course, despite some (barely noticeable) lighting anomolies. Great enc image. mikaul^talk 22:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Really great image, though I too would like the plastic cup removed and any other small cleanups necessary.--HereToHelp 23:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks great, even with the cup. Amphy 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, because complaining about the cup, people's head, and woman through the railings is being too picky. Yet, I will mention them to feel better ~_~ --gren グレン 06:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the woman you see through the railings is a statue/fountain. Mak (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Stunning detail and quality in a picture of a very pretty building. --Paul 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image. Good detail and quality.
• Support. The women's heads can be removed from the image if need be, but the cup isn't distracting at all. I didn't even know it was there until I read the comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ♠Tom@sBat 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Automatic Support, although is it just me or is there posterisation in the sky? --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's there - but very weak, couldn't see it on my calibrated CRT until I upped contrast/lowered brightness - it may be more visible on some flat screens, as well as the largish, blurry dark dots in the sky (no, I won't tell where, you'll have to find them yourself... ;-). No reason not to support, those flaws are minor. --Janke | Talk 09:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. Considering the lengths that were gone to make this image, I feel a little extra effort to take the images on a day with better lighting would have been worthwhile. --Vaelta 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very good picture, Very clear and crisp, centered and takes up most of the picture. Keep up the good work!! Chris H 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even though the trees are slightly blurred, there's litter near the bottom-left corner, and I can barely read where it says "Royal College of Music" without wearing my glasses. ;) · AndonicO ^Talk 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Royal Colege of Music.jpg The Sunshine Man 17:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A high resolution mosaic of a popular recreation spot in Bielefeld. Much of the city was destroyed during WWII and few historic sites remain, the Sparrenburg being one of them.

Articles this image appears in

Sparrenburg Castle

Creator

Dschwen

• Support as nominator — Dschwen 07:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the rather ugly lamp post, one of the people at the bottom walking, and the overall composition don't really seem to help this make the grade. Nice enough shot but not FP quality IMHO. Pedro |  Chat  10:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the lamppost exists, editing it out would make the image inaccurate. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. I don't think the lamp post really distracts from the scene. I suspect there may be an exposure issue though. The grass is much darker on the left quarter of the frame. Not sure if it was an issue with the length of exposure on that segment or whether a cloud obscured the sun while photographing the scene (the bane of multi segment photography!). That said, it isn't that obvious unless you're looking for it. Otherwise a good shot. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support When it's not from diliff, it's from dschwen. ack Diliff on the dark grass, but I don't think either that's such a big issue. I like composition and technical quality. Some people may be surprised to see themselves on a FP :) Blieusong 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rather impresive shot, my first reaction to the full size was that the sky was very fake but actualy it's not too bad. Anyway, the DOF is huge and there is no grain from using high a high ISO setting, also there is no real motion blur on the people is the shutter was long. it looks like a bright day but still you (or your camera) did a great job with the exposure. -Fcb981 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't even notice the dark grass until i read diliff's vote, interesting- Fcb981 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Blurry in some points. Flubeca 20:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, you gotta be a little more specific than that. Where is the blur that vindicated an oppose??! --Dschwen 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Catches the eye. beutifull. there are lamp posts in many historic places. i don't thin kthe lamp post really affects the photo. -Nelro 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. All the people in the shot are distracting to me. Perhaps there's another angle? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I highly doubt it, and it would completely misrepresent the subject. I know, folks from certain contries go nuts about every hut thats older than 200 years, build a fence around it, put actors in costumes inside, and have a friendly park ranger explain the history to school classes. But this castle is no sacred historical preserve. Despite being over 750 years old it is a gathering spot where tons of people hang out, enjoy the view and the weather. --Dschwen 10:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Very nice colors, contrast and illustrates the subject quite well; only problem is that ugly lamp post, it seems to ruine the image; well, auctually it doesn´t really ruine the entire image reputation, but it certainly ruines it´s attempt for being a featred picture in my opinion... But, I will remia neutral due to the other feautures, which ar excellent. ♠Tom@sBat 22:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sorry, the people spoil it for me. Witty Lama 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Blieusong. If a noteworthy topic normally is surrounded by people, why shouldn't the people be in the picture showing the topic? I also don't think the lamp post - probably used to illuminate the castle by night, and at least to me helps illustrate how the area looks today - should disqualify the picture. highlunder 01:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose uninteresting camera angle/composition. Nothing artistically or technically interesting about this photo. High resolution is not enough for FP. --jacobolus (t) 05:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Support per Fcb981, although a dawn shot with no-one around would be better =p. FP does NOT have to be interesting. I don't find a picture of a spider with various parts blurred or a clichéd postcard Tower Bridge picture very interesting, but that's no reason to oppose it. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would have supported the nomination if it werent people in the picture. --Albanau 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - Agree it would be better without people. Also, the geometry looks a little weird after the geometric correction. But the composition is nice and the quality of the pano very good. Alvesgaspar 22:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose E7T9A5 QP, not FP. ~ trialsanderrors 07:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support - I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned this, but it seems to have some sort of perspective distortion. The tower (and the flag pole at the top) seem to lean out to the left towards the top of the image, while at the bottom right the cars look "squashed" and the same can be said some of the people on the far left. Otherwise, I really like this photo - Dschwen is right to say that the people are part of the enc and I like the way the castle is a surprisingly congruous part of a modern scene. I'll support if someone can do something about the perspective. --YFB ¿ 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost forgot to respond to this one. Check Image:Bi_Sparrenburg_western_lawn.jpg, a separate shot of the tower. You'll see that the flag pole is not parallel to the center axis of the tower. It seems to be slightly tilted. This is not an artifact of the stitching or perspective correction. --Dschwen 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, the flag pole tilt isn't due to perspective but I still find the image distorted-looking. Diliff might be able to explain better what I'm on about (he's on holiday 'til Wednesday) but basically I think the perspective isn't fully corrected-for. Still a great image, I'll hold off supporting until I at least get the opinion of a projection-expert :-) --YFB ¿ 23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I wasn't aware my services were required! ;-) I'm hardly a projection expert but I think I do see the same phenomenon that YFB does. The image is quite a complicated one to compare though, since there are so many angles and shapes to consider the effects of projection on. Comparing the single image with the panoramic one, you can see that they were taken from different points, so it is hard to compare apples with apples. The tower appears oval shaped in the panorama but circular in the single image, but this could be because you are looking straight at the sharpest side of the oval whereas the panorama is looking at the transition from sharp to soft curve, resulting in a strange looking tower shape. Google Maps doesn't give you quite enough detail to determine this. There is also a another issue that I think YFB was refering to, which is a slight curve in the vertical walls of the tower in the panorama that doesn't exist in the single image - at least, there are slight curves but these seem mainly inwards due to the perspective, rather than by projection distortion, whereas the dominant curve on the left wall of the tower in the panorama is slightly to the right, then vertical then a strong shift to the left towards the top. It seems as though the initial inwards lean is simply minor perspective distortion but then as you look further up, a curve towards the left occurs. All of this could be simply the result of a slightly warped tower wall, but even though the view is from a different angle, it doesn't have this problem in the single image so I'm not sure what to make of it. The jury is out here too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is simply an effect of the rectilinear projection, similar to the Smithsonian nomination a few weeks ago. The distortion is not visible in the sigle frame, as the towertop is at a lower angular distance from the image center. The single frame is taken at a slightly different angle (maybe 10-20°), but the tilt of the flagpole is more or less tha same. So it is like comparing boskop with granny smith :-). --Dschwen 09:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, I see what you are saying, but if the tower was circular and not oval/oblong shaped, with rectilinear projection surely the ring around the top of the tower would have horizontally opposed vanishing points on either side of the tower and therefore would have a horizontal 'line' between them? The only reason I can think of for the two points on either side to not be horizontal is if the tower is not circular. You're the one with a Physics PhD, but I don't see the logic of it with my less advanced geometry knowledge... ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I don't find the lens warping of the tower distracting: I think it helps give some sense of scale. I would PREFER it without the people, but they don't detract too much from this one. --Vaelta 08:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the people add to the photo because they give it more life, and also their modern dress contrasts well with the old building. Since this is a photo of how this castle looks today, I think the lamppost and the parked cars are OK to have in the photo. Spebudmak 18:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow, that guy sure has a lot of armpit hair... erm... I mean the details are fantastic. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 18:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high resolution, good detail, and overall a nice shot. Lorax 01:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Image:Bi_Sparrenburg_pano.jpg The Sunshine Man 21:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please recount, I count 6 opposes, 12 supports, and 1 conditional support --Dschwen 19:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. Yes, it's high resolution...but that's about it. Not especially creative, beautiful or original. Theonlyedge 03:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorry this is just unfair. The voting period is over (it is in the category Ended featured picture nominations) and this nomination should have been closed properly. Had it been, the pic would be FP by now and no more voting would be allowed. --Dschwen 07:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed --Fir0002 10:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bi_Sparrenburg_pano.jpg --trialsanderrors 20:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Informative and impressive photo of a war-struck country, where the dead are all kinsmen.

Articles this image appears in

American Civil War, Battle of Chancellorsville, Pattern 1853 Enfield

Creator

Capt. Andrew J. Russell

• Support as nominator — Communist47 00:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Historical, but really very bad quality. Hard to call this not knowing the rareity of the shot. -Fcb981 19:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One must remember, this picture was taken 145 years ago, this is pretty good quality for a photo from then 1860's.Communist47 23:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the photographic quality avaliable at the time was much better, but this is a very historic photograph, and it is hard to ask for more when this picture illustrates its subject so well even if it is of low quality. J Are you green? 23:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original See my above comment. J Are you green? 23:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per Thegreenj. I love the cracked and broken plate at the top; very fortunate that images like this have survived in any form. mikaul^talk 23:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support original Agree with Fcb981 that I, not an expert in historical photography, find it hard to judge the historicity of the photo. Quality is not too bad, all considered. In any case, I feel the original is better, not only because of the cracked plates but also because the figure in lower left gets cut off in the crop. --Asiir 11:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The original pic is currently not used in any pages. The alternative pic is the one that appears in all the pages listed. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 07:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose alt / weak oppose original. Alt has weird levels - looks posterized. Original is also poor quality, and I can't even make out all that many corpses in it. An image like this one, while also not of FP quality, at least is clear in its portrayal of the slaughter. Debivort 00:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - very poor quality; while it is of significant historical value, we have technically better shots of similar subjects from the Crimean War of ten years earlier, and much better shots of the Paris Commune dead from a couple of years later. Warofdreams talk
• Support Even though there are probably better quality Civil War images, this one is very interesting. · AndonicO ^Talk 18:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only. Interesting historical photograph. Mgiganteus1 06:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Conf dead chancellorsville.jpg The Sunshine Man 21:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It's beautiful.

Articles this image appears in

Coccinellidae

Creator

Vaelta

• Support as nominator — Vaelta 11:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. White shine on insect. Also, if the insect has "unusual markings" then it doesn't really illustrate the subject in a general sense. Would you illustrate the "Dog" article with a photograph of a three-legged dog? Spikebrennan 18:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it adds to the article, why not? I just illustrated a bird article with a one-legged bird. --Bagginz 07:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Great picture of a pinecone, but low enc for the bug itself. Also, for a picture that just barely meets size requirements, I would like to see more real estate dedicated to the lady bug itself.--Uberlemur 19:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The original image is 8 megapixels and several megabytes. Do you want me to upload that instead of a nicely resized version? And as for composition, unlike some Wikipedia photographers I could mention, I think it is actually more "encyclopaedic" to show things in their natural habitat. Oh, and the "white shine" is sunlight, a naturally occurring phenomenon. --Vaelta 19:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if you do not mind, the 8 megapixel version would be much better; I would not worry about artifacts in an 8 megapixel photograph compressed to 1.5 megabytes or so. As is, the subject of the photograph is less than 130 by 105 pixels - really small. There is not much you could do about the shine except to keep shooting until it is photographed without the shine. J Are you green? 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Subject is far too small, annoying shine. J Are you green? 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) natural habitat 2) simple aesthetics --Vaelta 20:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot quite see what your reply means in response to my comments. Could you please clarify? J Are you green? 21:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just mean that if I were to crop it to the ladybird it would then become an incredibly dull photograph, lacking in both context and artistic merit. --Vaelta 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In comparison to the full picture, the subject is so small that there is almost no detail. Unfortunately, the 8 megapixel version is so soft (it seems to have focused ahead of the ladybird by a few millimetres) that a crop does not add much detail from the downsampled verion. Perhaps a closer photograph in another contex would be better, but there is not much to be done about this one. J Are you green? 21:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Half-bred lamb jumping.jpg

Reason

There were no other photos of lambs, and I have dozens and dozens of them. This one shows a lamb at its playful best. I would like to point out that the lamb is perfectly in focus (motion blur on the legs aside), and the little dark spot near its head is a fly.

Articles this image appears in

Domestic sheep, Swaledale (sheep)

Creator

Vaelta

• Support as nominator — Vaelta 11:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose - nice colour and composition, but the subject (i.e. Lamb) isn't looking in the camera/lens, and that's off-setting, IMO at least. --Zainub 18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support The positioning of his eyes make this seem more encyclopedic, the only thing is the motion blur. You should have used a faster shutter speed... ~ Arjun 23:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The motion blur on the legs and the grass works for the photo; it makes little lamb look more playful without taking away from anything major. The DOF and focus are right on the money, and the composition isn't kitsch. The shadow falling across BaaBaa's side is a bit of a distraction. --Bagginz 06:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh well thank you. Although strange that the weakest of the three pictures I submitted gets most support... Actually, I shot four shots of this lamb jumping; perhaps I should put them together as a .gif and upload that! --Vaelta 08:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't care for the motion blur, but my biggest objection is encyclopedic value -- I know not all lambs are white, but this one's coloring makes it very hard to make out the lamb's face. Calliopejen1 04:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful image of two baby goats about a week old. Despite their very different appearance but were born of the same pure white mother, and AFAIK, the same pure white father.

Appears in Domestic goat

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 00:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose lighting is very cold, right animal has poor contrast with background, white of the right animal's coat is a bit harsh (due to the lighting, more than a poor exposure) foreground grass a bit distracting. -Fcb981 04:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I also don't like the way the white goat blends in with the grass. I'm thinking that a bright green grass background would be great to get both goats, but, this being fall in the southern hemisphere, I guess the goats will be older and not as cute by the time you could get a bright contrast. Maybe they live in a red barn that could be used as a contrasting background? I love they way they are both posed, looking at the camera, but the background just kills it. Also, to be encyclopedic, this should illustrate an article about coat genetics. Enuja 05:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wholeheartedly wish it was a green background too - it hasn't rained well in months! No red barns, this is Australian not Kansas! However I take issue with saying it has to appear in an article on coat genetics to be enc, it's an interesting side fact but by no means detracts from the illustration of a kid --Fir0002 11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support It's not bad, and it's encyclopedic, but I think the goat on the top of the article page is of higher quality.-DMCer 06:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but needs to be cropped on the right. ~ trialsanderrors 07:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree, the composition is great the way it is. The goats heads capture the attention, and they are balanced within the frame. --Dschwen 10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bulk of the bodies is what needs to be balanced, also there is a stretch of darker grass on the right border. In any case, I added an edit that's both cropped and increases the contrast between white goat and the background. ~ trialsanderrors 06:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose Edit. For the compositon the elements that attract attention are important. Weak support original because of bg contrast problems. --Dschwen 15:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: another thing is bugging me about the edit. I find it rather presumptuous to state colors enhanced in the caption. Who is to say that it really is an enhancement? If anybody than it should be an eyewitness, i.e. Fir. --Dschwen 07:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Color enhancement is the summary term for increasing saturation, contrast, luminosity, etc., in order to create a better separation of objects from the background. This has nothing to do with the fidelity to the original, this common imaging lingo. ~ trialsanderrors 06:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- encyclopedic and good --Penubag 08:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)penubag[reply]
• Weak support - Lovely picture. It is a shame the background is not different to make a better contrast with the white goat. Alvesgaspar 09:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Surely tilted (or do goats stand like that?) - Adrian Pingstone 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They seem to be on sloped ground. There is something like a fence in the background, and the lines between the boards seem to be vertical, although it's hard to make out since it's quite blurry. But it's noticeable that their heads tilt the other way. ~ trialsanderrors 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the pic is probably not tilted. Nevertheless the apparent tilt spoils it for me - Adrian Pingstone 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Picture was taken on a hill. --Fir0002 11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The tilt barely distracts me from the subject, which is photographed wonderfully. Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 20:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like it. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Background distracts. --Janke | Talk 10:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It was a fine shot without the crop, just a bit over-exposed. Some selective tonal correction - or shooting with a polarizer, perhaps - would help the white kid stand out from the bg, but equally a -0.5 gamma shift would do the job. I'd support a darker version & will reserve my vote pending that. I'm not sure the 'slant' is a real, FP-obstructing problem, FWIW. mikaul^talk 14:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original -- I nominated it a bit late though. :-D --Arad 14:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, poor background. -- Avenue 12:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only. Edit washes out the blacks a bit. I don't have a problem with the background. Good quality image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original. Until the day comes when Fir can get a dozen healthy goats (two of each sex aged exactly 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1 fortnight, 1 month, and 1 year), lined up with equal distance between each other, standing a freshly mowed field of green grass, all facing the camera and smiling... this picture will do just fine. Chicago god 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That of course being two-dozen goats, ;) Pstuart84 Talk 21:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The goats are great, but the background almost eats them up. bobanny 02:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned over at the commons, why would the animals have a contrasting coloration to their background? It is in their best interests to blend in with their surroundings! Particularly at this early stage when they are very vulnerable, as their mothers often leave them by themselves for a period of time and graze. --Fir0002 07:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid point generally, but it's not a strong enough consideration in this case for me. What I see here is a portrait of the animals themselves, not camouflage. They're engaging with the photographer and us by extension, standing in what could be a studio pose contrived to illustrate what two wobbly kids with different markings look like. (Your praying mantis was probably trying to blend in with his surroundings when he was nabbed, but nonetheless turns out to be quite photogenic in the studio). If this was illustrating camouflage, that characteristic should make a more immediate impact on the viewer (like the "Lace Monitor" FPC above and some other FPs I've seen). The interesting juxtaposition here is between the 2 animals, not the animals and their environment, and that's what the background takes away from. I also think the one on the right's coat is too whited-out, making the photo look a little flat. bobanny 09:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that they are not in a studio pose - they are not at all familiar with humans at that age and won't allow people to get near them. Hence the use of the 200mm lens. As to the white of the baby - that's what it looks like! It's a fluffy bundle of pure white! --Fir0002 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to imply that it was a studio pose, just that if a photographer were to (somehow) get them to pose, this would be a good one (especially with the up and down ears). bobanny 22:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well, if Featured Pictures won't take them, I'm sure that Cute Overload will. :) --TotoBaggins 04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – background and white goat have too little contrast. It's a good photo, but not FP-worthy --jacobolus (t) 05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If the colour variation is supposed to be the theme of this image, "as far as I know" is not very good information as to the identity of the father. Goats are not at all monogamous. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK it was a pure white father as we only have white billies. Aside from that I can't see any validity in your vote as the image is not meant to illustrate colour variation - it's not even in an article on that! --Fir0002 06:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to be so defensive, but okay, if it's not about colour variation, why does it have two differently coloured kids in it? This is an encyclopaedia, I wouldn't want children thinking goats pop out in uneven pairs because that's what you chose to take a picture of. This is not your private photography contest, Fir. If you want credit for taking beautiful pics, for heaven's sake take it to Commons! Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find comments like that immensely irritating and not very productive. It seems because I have a number of FP's people think they can use the "it's not your private photo show etc etc etc" to oppose an image. Where exactly is it stipulated that "Thou shalt not address comments on thy photos"? You accuse me of being defensive, but seems to me you're clutch on straws to hang on to your oppose vote. Why shouldn't they be different colored? Do you think all goats are white? Because it's an encyclopaedia is all the more reason to have variation, giving a better representation of the species. Please confine yourself to judging a photo based on the guidelines here!! --Fir0002 06:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let him who cast the first stone - oh, no, the original is different... Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm sorry... not really sure what you mean by that! --Fir0002 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, we also don't want children thinking that all goats are the same color. And I think it is perfectly appropriate for the photographer to try to address the opposers' concerns. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if he manages to do so without being dismissive. It's just about possible that I made the comments for a reason, but if you don't want to know, fine! Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you are unwilling to provide appropriate reasons to oppose this image then I suggest you reconsider or strike out your vote... --Fir0002 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's tilted anyway, so what's the point in arguing? Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't possibly determine tilt without any valid reference points. The background cannot be used because it appears to be tilted through perspective and/or the slight incline of a hill. In any case, such an image does not rely on such precise horizontal accuracy. I suppose the point of arguing was to produce a valid reason for opposing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dark lines of the fence are quite clearly visible, and they're vertical. The rest is hogwash. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we all know that gravity is measured in fence units. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I still wouldn't put too much faith on the fence posts as absolute vertical since from my experience they can start to lean over time, they're clearly the most reliable source in this image. There is no horizon, perspective can greatly affect what would otherwise horizontal lines, and animals don't always stand straight, particularly on a hill. I would say the fence posts and the fact that both animals have their heads vertical in the photo suggests it is near enough untilted. This is not a defense of Fir0002's ego, this is just my opinion on the matter. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff, even if animals on a hill won't always stand straight, then in this case they are certainly leaning the wrong way. Please guys, let the laws of physics and common sense prevail here! Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that they are leaning the correct way. From the perspective, it appears that the hill gets higher towards the right side of the frame and the goats are leaning towards that hill. This is normal. Would you expect them to lean away from the hill? I agree, let common sense prevail. Its just that I think common sense is on my side in this example. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not normal. It requires that both goats have two short legs on the hill side. How likely is that? Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...you can't lean away from a hill. Well, you can for a second, but then you roll down it. The goats probably have their knees bent a little on the higher side. That's how I would stand on a hill. 67.86.86.217 21:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support If Terrence Malick made movies about goats, they'd probably look like this. --Bagginz 07:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The white goat's back is a bit overexposed, and it's tail is slightly blurry, but a lovely image overall. On my desktop already. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 18:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Fcb981 above. The constrast between the white goat and the background is a problem. David D. (Talk) 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• neutral - cold lighting, low background contrast. Debivort 05:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Image:Baby goats jan 2007.jpg --The Sunshine Man 10:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[:Image:Tianasquare.jpg|thumb|300px|"Tank Man" stops the advance of a column of tanks on 5 June 1989 in Beijing.
Photo by Jeff Widener (Associated Press)]]

Reason

World recognised and iconic moment in history. Won a World Press Award and recognised by LIFE magazine as "100 Photos that Changed the World". The resolution is not too good but surpassed by its importance in World history.

Articles this image appears in

• Photograph
• 1989
• Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
• History of the People's Republic of China (1976–1989)
• Type 59
• Tank Man
• Jeff Widener
• Foreign relations of the European Union

Creator

Jeff Widener

• Support as nominator — Matt. P 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Does the limited copyright license for this image make it eligible for FP status?
• Oppose Too small, copyrighted. J Are you green? 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ineligible not free. Mak (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy oppose Perhaps, in my opinion, the greatest photo ever taken. However, it's copywritten, and that's that. -- Kicking222 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, didn't notice that.Matt. P 21:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (fair use). MER-C 01:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beautifully ripe tomatoes purchased believe it or not from Safeway. Excellent enc value

Appears (surprise surprise!) in Tomato

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I won't vote on this (it would get lost in a sea of "supports" whatever I did), but I just want to point out that these photographs may be highly informative about certain aspects of a tomato (it's red with a squishy interior), but I find them incredibly anaemic. Additionally, I think the encyclopaedic value of it is compromised entirely by the lack of scale information and total lack of context. How do they grow? Do they pop up from a white table plump and ripe? Basically, technically competent, otherwise bereft. --Vaelta 08:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original To the comment above, this is the "finished product" shot. How they grow can be covered in another image.--HereToHelp 10:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But you don't give any justification why this photograph is one of the "finest images on the..." --Vaelta 10:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Having looked at the tomato article I have to oppose this photo. While it IS the most appropriate image to use as the title image, being simple and clean, nothing about this image deserves to be "featured", and it is considerable less "encyclopaedic" than many others on the same page. Just below, for instance, is a small group of tomatoes on a plate: it's not flashy but it does the job of showing scale and variety. Secondly, another of the photos further below (perhaps far too small to be a featured picture) is of tomato slices with light shining through, taken, surprisingly, by a US government agency (it seems). I found this picture to be more interesting than this featured picture candidate. --Vaelta 10:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry Vaelta, but that image you brought from the article is simply awful. Unsharp, blown reds, terrible specimens the list goes on and on.... --Fir0002 22:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm completely with Vaelta- is this "Among Wikipedia's best work"? I'd argue that it's not. The image is fine, but there's nothing "featured-worthy" about it. -- Kicking222 13:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote according to the criteria, in what respect is this image not fulfilling the criteria? --Fir0002 06:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

users first vote on FPC --Fir0002 06:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is in no way my first vote on FPC. Second, I already voted according to the criteria- it fails #3, "Is among Wikipedia's best work", which I explicitly mentioned above. Third, I'm now changing my !vote to Strong Oppose based on the nominator's above comments. -- Kicking222 07:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is your first vote on FPC. Second, in what way is it not of Wikipedia's best work? Third, you can do that but it doesn't make any difference. In fact, childish actions like that are more than likely to result in your vote being unconsidered in the final decision. --Fir0002 08:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fir, no offence but you're beginning to dig a hole for yourself here. Kicking222 has made nearly 6400 edits to the project, including quite a few here not to mention a very large number at Featured Article Candidates. The user's first FPC edit tag isn't intended for users with significant contribution histories who clearly have a good understanding of the project's workings and policies. Seriously, you should consider not responding to comments you feel are off the mark - if you're right, other people will be able to judge that for themselves. I don't think Kicking222's vote is out of line. --YFB ¿ 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, YFB. I was about to make pretty much the exact same comment- I was even planning on doing the one-word-per-link thing- and not just did you beat me to the punch, but you probably did so far more eloquently than I would have. The nominator was also somewhat rude to Makemi below, and that user is an administrator. I'm not saying that my opinions are more or less important because I've been here for a long time; this is not the case. However, I do think my objection is completely valid. Also, even if you (the universal "you") don't agree with the "Among WP's best work" criterion, gren brings up a spectacular point below, which is that this image also fails criterion #8, as the photo has the barest of captions. -- Kicking222 16:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, let it be known that, while I have not participated in many FPC discussions, I have certainly participated in more than zero. The fact that I've also participated in (literally) thousands of XFD, FAC, RFA, etc. discussions should show that I've got at least a fair grasp of policy. (Though, as I've become far more interested over the past few months in the WP: space than the article space, I'd argue that I have an excellent grasp of policy. And even if I didn't, I could read- and have read many times- the Featured Picture criteria.) -- Kicking222 16:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops sorry! I guess I should have click on the "older 50" button :-) I didn't mean any offence by the 1 edit thing, but it's pretty customary to mark new users how may not understand how FPC works --Fir0002 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, you're welcome. Although I'd prefer not to think of it as a "punch", but rather a gentle invitation to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Some of the opposes here have used dubious reasoning; Kicking222's isn't one of them (although the caption issue has been debated ad nauseum and Fir0002 is one of those who sees it as optional - this isn't the place to restart that discussion) and vitriolic and/or snarky posts from Vaelta, Fir, Arad and anyone else who cares to join in are not helpful. Let's get back to commenting on content, rather than contributors, please. --YFB ¿ 16:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because although the tomato may be red, it is not properly ripe. A good tomato should not have such grainy and pale flesh. It's a good photo of an unappetizing tomato. Mak (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on myself - I just want to mention that I strongly support high quality encyclopedic images of every day objects. It's just that I have this thing about not-really ripe tomatos :( Mak (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please check your monitor calibration, on mine it comes across as a vivid and full ripe red. --Fir0002 22:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The outside is bright red, I'm talking about the inner flesh. It's also the wrong texture. Maybe it's just because I'm from NJ where we have real tomatos :) Mak (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I've never even in home grown "real" tomatoes seen the inner texture be anything other in appearance than what is pictured here. What about other people? At any rate just because it doesn't look the same as the species you're used to, it is fully representative of the species in Australia, and hence I can't see any reason for you to object to the image. I mean saying it's not like the tomatoes you have is like opposing an Australian ant photo because it's not like the ants you have in NJ. Please reconsider --Fir0002 06:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The original is technically great (the alternative is crap in comparison), and it sure is a valuable contribution to show the tomato fruit. But I'd say this is rather a QI than an FP. That stream of opposes comes across pretty hard though. The pic deservers a little more appreciation. This scan is pretty good too by the way. --Dschwen 15:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I like that scan: on the vine with flowers. May I ask what "QI" is? Quality Image? If so, I would agree that this candidate is most certainly a "quality" image, just nothing especially noteworthy. It's not something I would have as my desktop certainly, and how I first came to know about Wikipedia's featured pictures is because I found myself downloading them to use as desktop wallpapers... --Vaelta 15:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is just so bizarre, suddenly FPC has become "pretty pictures". I can't comprehend the double standards that are currently being used on FPC, from this near identical candidate: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Red capsicum and cross section.jpg to what is happening here. Does enc not matter any more? Is it all "would I use this as my wallpaper?". We are an encyclopedia for crying out loud!!! It really makes you wonder why we went to so much trouble developing the criteria when new voters such as Vaelta either haven't bothered to read them or vote in flagrant disregard to the standards set forth there. --Fir0002 22:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, it is a bit troublesome that enc seems to be on the retreat. I guess the nomination closers should pay attention to the votes and weigh the arguments with respect to the criteria. --Dschwen 22:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, in that case you have me: I personally would have expected "featured pictures" to have a bit of wow factor about them. I know all the ones that made me keep coming back to Wikipedia did, and frankly, there is nothing wow about a couple of tomatoes (or bell peppers either for that matter...). However, if I really am voting in the wrong fashion then I accept I am wrong and Wikipedia is obviously not for me, as I do think that if you are to "feature" a picture it should have something special about it. I think my favourite in the current list of candidates is the flying Canadian goose below: technically it's a bit of a train wreck, but I can look at with an interest that two tomatoes fail to generate. --87.127.126.177 edit: Sorry, forgot to logon, Vaelta. 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vaelta, I think perhaps you're unclear about the purpose of Featured Pictures. A featured picture is intended to be an example of Wikipedia's best images; since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, rather than a coffee-top photography book, the strongest emphasis we place is on encyclopaedic value - what does the image add the articles in which it appears, which helps the reader to better understand/appreciate the subject? If you want images which make great wallpaper, there are literally hundreds of sites dedicated specifically to that purpose, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. That's not to say that some of our photos don't make great desktops, but that's not why they're featured pictures. Now, I'm going to vote Weak Oppose to this picture (and I would have done the same for the bell pepper and for the walnut, if I'd been about - not that it would have made any difference...) because it doesn't actually tell me all that much about tomatoes - the vine photo does a better job, with the flowers and vine adding a great deal to the enc. I wouldn't support that one either, though, because the technical quality (composition, particularly) is only average, the tomato blends in too much with the background, and it's covered in a scary amount of dust (do people not look at these things before they scan them!?). My point is, though, that to be a featured picture an image doesn't have to make me go "wow, awesome, must have that as my wallpaper", it has to inform me about the subject, be technically excellent (except where there are mitigating circumstances) and, as a bonus, grab my attention. "Artistic" compositions and shooting techniques like those you're advocating are great if the aim is to produce art, but here the aim is to illustrate a reference work and the criteria that determine excellence are necessarily different. --YFB ¿ 00:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - per above comment. --YFB ¿ 00:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fir, don't forget about WP:BITE. Call this a wolf vote, but I still think these setups are technically great shots (most certainly Quality Images) that also have a great deal of enc. They show both the full view and the cross section, and at an extremely crisp resolution. There's only so much you can show in an image, and I don't think these images should be denied featured status because there is another way they could be taken. To me, it comes across as a generic photograph of an elephant being denied featured status because the animal isn't interacting with its environment. I think either way, a person unfamiliar with the subject can tell what it was by simply glancing at the photograph. --Tewy 02:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is a "sheep" vote better than a "wolf" vote then? And don't worry about biting me, because I am more than happy to bite back if provoked correctly. And I'd be happy to admit that I am glad some other people agree with my opinion that these "product" shots are nothing special: camera, two tomatoes, a knife, white surface, five minutes, hey presto! If a picture tells a thousand words, this picture has writer's block. --Vaelta 08:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Try 45 minutes, a month of searching for perfect specimens and the eloquent perfection in expression which makes a thousand words look so small. As with all brilliant literature, it isn't surrounded by superfluous adjectives and sentences which require opera singers to be able to say in a single breath. It is the very essence of the tomato. The outside and the inside. Presented on a completely neutral background. Every anatomical feature of a tomato is present. The carefully chosen specimen exhibiting a fresh stalk, excellent interior balance between flesh and seed mucus. The surface of the tomato is almost without blemish. You could write an oddessy and still be unable to convey to someone who had never seen a tomato what this picture does. Writers block! My foot! A remark which is both a cheap shot and completely lacking in merit. ok back to my english homework :-) --Fir0002 10:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's much smoother if you make all those witty comments in one edit ;-) --Dschwen 09:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Touche! lol --Fir0002 10:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The internet lacks the immediacy of other mediums. Nothing wrong with adding your thoughts as you go... But I wouldn't call them witty anyway. Just observations... and I am a journalist, so it's habit to use metaphors and similes. --Vaelta 09:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My sympathies that it took you a whole month to find such a tomato. Where do you live that good tomatoes are so rare? But anyway, now that you think it's amusing to spend your time looking through edit histories (my apologies if I'm straining their capacity, but as we are always told, "bandwidth is now cheap!"), I think I'm going to get back to packing my gear; I am spending the next week or so in the Ural mountains on assignment... Dasvi daniya! --Vaelta 10:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• support - please indicate in your nomination which article is illustrated by the image. Debivort 04:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I saw it for the first time in the article today, and it looks especially nice in that context, in the taxobox. Debivort 18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It is a fine photo that demonstrates about as much as can be demonstrated by a single image. Yes, you could take a photo of a tomato hanging from a vine, and you could photograph it far more aesthetically, but doing so would likely result in an image with far less encyclopaedic value as there would be more distracting elements. 'Product' shots obviously have a harder time running the FP gauntlet but they certainly have a valid place in an encylopaedia, and I think others are being unnecessarily unappreciative of this one. Lighting is very good and the perspective is just right (in the original, not so much in the alternative). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There isn't another picture on the tomato page that I could see being an FP, including the one Vaelta posted here. The first image is extremely encyclopaedic, and it deserves to be an FP. To me it meets all the criteria and more importantly, it makes me want to eat a tomato. Amphy 17:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Final Comment This is on a PDA so excuse any input errors. Although I know comments should be about the photo and not photographer, I need to point out how to me as a new user, Fir0002's behaviour has seemed very petulant and off-putting. I also want to say to you Fir0002 (having looked through some of your images) that I believe you are one of the most artistically stunted photographers I have seen, although I do of course see you have plenty of technical skill. Why do I think this? Because of your comments on the other photo from the tomato page: purely technical, nothing about the image itself. You seem to see photography purely in terms of dots per inch and errant artifacts. Perhaps this is mainly due to the nature of Wikipedia as a reference tool rather than art gallery, and if so, fine. I won't speculate anymore, and I don't feel a community that supports your behaviour with such nepotism is a particularly welcoming one. edit: Except for Dschwen: thanks for the welcome even after I managed to insult you. Perhaps the difference is in being able to take things a little more light-heartedly... --Vaelta 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't exactly been a ray of sunshine either Vaelta. The most "artistically stunted" photographer you've ever seen? Ouch, that could really hurt, but fortunately I've visited your own website. You know it might be a good idea to build up your own portfolio before criticizing someone elses. Currently the term "the kettle calling the pot black" hardly does justice to the situation. --Fir0002 08:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Uhm, thanks. But all the light-heartedness aside, and although I've also had my share of disagreements with Fir, I have to respond with two three quick points. You are right, this page should be used to comment on the photos, for further issues there is Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. The most artistically stunted is indeed pretty harsh. Wikipedia is a reference tool, and over the course of many months the goals of Featured Pictures have been refined and discussed over and over again. The consensus that was reached has a pretty big emphasis on encyclopedic value. Check out commons:COM:FPC they seem to correspond more to your ideas of FPs (or the german FPC with their blatant disregard for the technical side). Nontheless, in my opinion Fir has always (mostly) succeeded to combine encyclopedic illustration with clarity and a very aesthetic look. Art should be open to interpretation, encyclopedic illustrations should do the explaining. So I hope you can get into a bit of the technical and encyclopedic side of photography and bring us back some great images from the Ural. --Dschwen 20:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, sorry. Every page has a talk page... gotcha. As harsh as I was, I hope Fir0002 doesn't take it too personally. His landscapes have beauty, particularly the current featured one on his userpage. And I hope he does have an artistic eye, even if Wikipedia doesn't get to see it. As for myself, I might look at the Commons when I get back, but I don't think my photos would ever be accepted here! I guess we all just use cameras in different ways: I don't think they are just simple recording devices, and I like photographs that capture not what my eyes see, but my mind, and its own interpretation of reality. Having an outlook like that makes it difficult for me to simply document; I always have to reinterpret. Hence, why I think the photograph of tomato slices is of value, blown red highlights or no. Okay, enough! --Vaelta 20:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blown highlights aside, the photo is still as artistically devoid as you claim mine is. --Fir0002 08:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • While I too have had my share of disagreements with Fir0002 and he can be quick to snap, he did have a fair point that you (and others) were applying your own personal criteria to the photos instead of using the community-agreed criteria. I suppose it could be by design a closed and unwelcoming 'system' but the fact is, we tend to get a lot of fly-by-nighters waltz in and start spraying their own opinions around without first getting a feel for what FPC is and what it aims for. It isn't a beauty contest (although obviously beautiful subjects are easier to present photographically) and it isn't about artistic expression. You're right, photography is different things to different people but it has been agreed that for the most part, photography for use here should be primarily encyclopaedic. That means succinct, high quality/resolution, accurate images, even if it results in what you consider soulless photography. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Emphatically seconded. --YFB ¿ 22:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is trying to define enyclopedicity - I still have a reluctance when it comes to the brilliant white background, especially for animals, but even here a tomato on the vine would tell you more about a tomato. I'm not convinced that enyclopedicity is best served by a sterile background replacing the natural context. Pstuart84 Talk 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • • As explained last time you brought that up, white backgrounds are almost universally used in the scientific community to display specimens etc. They're extremely enc --Fir0002 08:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Vaelta, don't take harsh comments made on FPC seriosuly. Fir gets angry real fast, so we're used to it. Perhaps you'll enjoy Commons more since it's more about Quality and Beauty not Enc. And about this photo: it is nearly perfect on technical side but there is something that I don't like. Maybe because it has too much white. So I prefer not voting. --Arad 00:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Yeah thanks, Arad for your as always valued opinion. But the very fact you are (erroneously IMO) implying that I am some kind of hot headed volcano condemns your own nature. It's also interesting to note your double standard, vigorously, and dare I say angrily, asserting that a photo is worth featuring if wikipedia hasn't a better example on at least two occaisions. [6] [7] --Fir0002 08:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I do agree that i'm harsh sometimes. And I do make my comments look angrily sometimes. But I don't take it serious. And yes, I do make a lot of mistakes. But I don't get the point you're making here? I'm just saying that we should all take this FPC thing easy and do it for fun. After all we're not paid. You and me, we're probably the youngest contributers to this page (I think) so on my behalf, I do make mistakes, probably because I'm not that experienced. --Arad 22:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I think I hold the honor of being the youngest contributor here... J Are you green? 23:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]
• Support I'd be a little freaked out if I saw a tomato sliced that neatly growing on a vine. The purpose of a cross section is not to show a tomato growing in the wild; it's to illustrate the parts of a tomato, and the white background does a fine job of that. ShadowHalo 23:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. You need a caption too... but, my weak oppose is because of blown highlights on the slice... they are speckly and really detract from the image. gren グレン 04:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The very model of modern featured picture. :) It's in focus, nice size, great colour, simple, and informative. The is an encyclopaedia, not the Louvre. Iorek85 09:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Devoid of context and the texture looks odd. It's an ok picture, but doesn't make me say "wow" in any way. The highlights are blown out, and the pure white specks of highlights in the slice look really bad. pschemp | talk 16:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It meets all of the criteria, great color, shape and texture. It isn't absolutely perfect, but nothing is. Cacophony 16:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Don't like the alternate version, because it's overexposed. By the way, are you sure it's ripe? · AndonicO ^Talk 18:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could everybody just cool down for a moment and remember: this is for discussing the image, not the voters or the photographer? If you really want to do that (and I would say that if you do, you are asking for an argument), a talk page would be a better place. How about if the strands involving bickering between Vaelta and Fir and those calling Fir "hotheaded" remain unedited for, say, 24 hours, so that we can keep this somewhat civil? Just a suggestion... J Are you green? 20:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm cool. And most people here are civil. Maybe you shouldn't edit for 24 hours ;-) --Arad 22:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a bad idea, actually :). Maybe then I can concentrate on schoolwork... Anyhow, I just wanted to note that to an uninvolved passerby, everyone involved in that discussion doesn't really quite seem "cool." Thanks for the suggestion, though. See you 23:18, 4 May 2007! J Are you green? 23:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:FPC is my anti-study. Amphy 03:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Just happened to be looking at the tomato article and clicked on what I thought was an amazing picture. Great enc, or whatever you guys call an excellent illustrative picture. I would love to see beautiful, encyclopedic images like this one on all flora/fauna articles! Alsandair 03:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great picture, nice colours and post processing. Sometimes, very simple images turn out to be excellent. The edited version is rather overexposed and the quality of the picture is not there anymore. Terence 15:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose, horribly plain and dull, pathetic caption, camera flare visible on right hand tomato. Conor Campbell 16:57, 4 May 2007 (GMT)

• Be civil please. Debivort 18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The caption is surely no part of our judgement on the photo? I thought this was Featured Picture not Featured Caption - Adrian Pingstone 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Have a read of the featured picture criteria - number eight is "The picture is displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption." And I'm sorry but if you're expecting to get a picture featured, the least you could do is make a half decent caption. Also, number three states that the picture must be "among Wikipedia's best work." This, quite simply, isn't. It's technically excellent, but then I could go and take technically excellent pictures of a hundred thousand other random household foods, implements, etc etc, and expect them to be featured. And IMO, a really encyclopedic picture of a tomato would at least have some part of the plant it grows on in it. Conor Campbell 15:46, 5 May 2007 (GMT)

• Neutral, but comment: How come a shot like this spawns such a heated debate? The pic is pretty good, high in enc, low in "wow", but hey - we should discuss the picture of these ripe tomatoes, not throw them! --Janke | Talk 06:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, nothing special, sorry. And try searching for a tomato somewhere other than Safeway. We do have other varieties here in Australia if you're willing to look for them. Perhaps grow some yourself, then you could include the flowers and other anatomical bits that Safeway hides from you. —Pengo 09:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Support either artistic considerations are far more important for commons QI than for Wikipedia FPs. A big part of the criteria is how useful it is 'encyclopedically'. And this surely is. Simple, but you expect these kind of images from a quality encyclopedia. Borisblue 20:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original image. Encyclopedic value and technically sound. If we can have a similar FP on a Walnut, I don't see why tomatoes are out. If someone can make a picture that also includes the previously mentioned Australian tomato varieties, I'd support that. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original image. Note how the image on the left shows very clearly the texture of the tomato. --HappyCamper 00:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted Image:Bright red tomato and cross section02.jpg The Sunshine Man 15:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My take on this is that there are a total of (factoring weak opposes and weak supports as 0.5) 15 supports and 6.5 opposes, and of those opposes, my gut feeling is that the supports had better justification than the opposes. For example, if I were closing this nomination I would take into consideration that User:Makemi's justification for opposition was that it didn't look ripe and appetising like she is apparently used to seeing in New Jersey. While this is subjective, very few others shared this opinion and Fir0002's counter-argument was valid. My personal gut feeling is that it doesn't have the be the most succulent and juicy tomato, it just has to be well presented and representative photo of a typical tomato. Regardless, this nomination received more than a 2/3 majority. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree. Should this nom be moved to the additional input section? --Tewy 18:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it should just be promoted. It's run its time on the FP page already, there's a consensus to promote, and it's been improperly closed by someone who apparently doesn't fully understand how FP nominations work. There's nothing to stop someone overturning an improper closure; I'd do it myself but I don't have time at the moment... where's KFP when you need him? :-) --YFB ¿ 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bright red tomato and cross section02.jpg

Reason

This image shows an extremely rare phenomenon, that of a noble gas in a state other than gas. I am aware of no other images of liquid or solid noble gasses anywhere else on the web, let alone free images. This image is kind of a test, in that it has pretty bad qualities to it like purple fringing and overexposure. However, I think it may have a chance at passing because it is so unique. This image, the best of a lot that I took, was EXTREMELY difficult to capture, I had a total of no more than 5 seconds from the time the ice was removed from its cryogenic liquid nitrogen bath to get the shot before it completely melted and vaporized. I think this is probably nearly the best result one can hope for when imaging such an exotic phenomenon. If anyone wants to take a crack at fixing its faults in photoshop I'd be more than thankful. (I feel I should also note that while the ice may look a bit blurred, this is the maximum sharpness achievable due to the fact that the whole thing is (unavoidably) continuously cloaked in the haze of condensing droplets of air and water vapor.) --Deglr6328 05:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

phase transition, argon

Creator

User:Deglr6328

• Support as nominator — Deglr6328 05:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As you said, it has some pretty huge technical problems, and cannot be fixed as lost information cannot be recovered. Other than that, there are also other faults such as unable to show how does it look different from say a normal block of ice (IOR difference for example). Is the whole thing ice or is it contained in some sort of glass tube? Also a 5 second window is considered quite generous as you can prepare it before hand, setting the correct exposure etc. manually (so you won't get the awful over-exposure), many sports photographs have time windows of far less than that. It's a good picture illustrating it, but not FP material. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah but you only have to concentrate on taking the picture with that scenario. Here, you have to hold the ice as its disappearing, the airflow has to be positioned just right so the ice isn't occluded by mist and you have to be careful not to burn your fingertips on the super-cold tweezers! I never figured out how to avoid that last bit. :) Everything you see here is argon ice, it has been taken out of the glass cylinder. --Deglr6328 22:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you had gone through all the effort to produce something like this why not just ask a friend or someone and take the picture (or give them the cold burns, either way) and take a better picture instead of managing everything by yourself --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What's the purpose of keeping this in color? ~ trialsanderrors 06:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well, it is beautiful, no question: I love the harsh glare off the reflective surfaces. What kind of background is it though? It doesn't look like the inside of a lab or anything! --Vaelta 08:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! The background is just a piece of black felt.--Deglr6328 22:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can you go into more detail on how you created Argon ice? The current process is that the Argon was "frozen by allowing a slow stream of the gas to flow into a small graduated cylinder which was immersed into a cup of liquid nitrogen". That's a little vague. Not that I don't trust you or anything, but it'll help if you elaborated a bit more. =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did you avoid getting water condensation in the cylinder? Was the argon gas stream applied before immersing the cylinder into the liquid nitrogen? --Dschwen 09:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, you can find more images of the graduated cylinder on the wikimedia page for argon [8]. So, I took the small graduated cylinder and put a thin plastic tube which was connected to the tank of argon, just inside the lip of the cylinder. Then I turned the gas on to release a slow stream of argon into the graduated cylinder, I let it purge with argon like this for a minute or so. Then I lowered the closed end (bottom) of the cylinder into a cup of liquid nitrogen (taking care not to let either the liquid or the vaporizing nitrogen to rise above the open end of the cylinder with the argon gas tube still in it. Then I just let the argon condense to a liquid on the cold inner walls of the cylinder. After a while the collected liquid began to freeze at the wall and move inward (you can see the resulting hollow cup like shape of the ice chunk. There is no risk of condensing out nitrogen or oxygen (or water) from the atmosphere because the cylinder is being continuosly purged with argon throughout the process. When I was satisfied that I had collected a sufficient amount of argon ice in the cylinder I quickly pulled out the gas supply tube and capped the cylinder (LIGHTLY!) with a piece of plastic. After this point you have to really work quick to set up the camera, precool the tweezers in the liquid nitrogen and finally image the argon ice after you take it out of the cylinder. After you take the ice out of the cylinder it WILL start condensing water out of the air but the thing melts so incredibly rapidly that it doesn't have time to accumulate anywhere because the surface of the ice is continually sloughing off so fast. water only condensed on the ouside of the cylinder a little bit above the liquid nitrogen level it was immersed in and none condensed inside. Curiously, the argon ice was absolutely clear, there were no individual crystals that I could see at all and I wonder if it was indeed a single crystal. --Deglr6328 22:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm satisfied with the response, so ...Support. Not exactly the sharpest or clearest pic on Wikipedia, but the difficulty in capturing the image and the rarity of the pic makes-up for those technical lapses. Highly encyclopedic and unique. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - I think there's a policy somewhere in Wikipedia that states original research, i.e. things you did or researched yourself, cannot be submitted. I really hope it doesn't apply to images, as this is a gem (no pun intended)! BTW, what does it feel like to have a cold burn? Mrug² 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the original research clause applies, the melting and boiling points of the noble gasses are WELL established in the literature. The frostbite burns aren't much fun, it makes like a little blister that fades quickly. The pain goes away pretty fast actually. I think it was worth it to actually SEE a noble gas though! --Deglr6328 07:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The technical faults are simply too great for FP, no matter how rare the photo is. The object of the photo, the liquid stream and drops, are barely in tolerable focus. I understand the technical limitations pertaining to the speed needed to take the shot. If you are able to get your hands on another sample of argon to take another picture, try to pre-focus the camera. Better lighting (more flash) might help to increase depth of field as well. --Asiir 15:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The glare is really bad, and the liquid and gaseous forms are barely in focus. But I love the enc and difficulty you went through to get it (and the felt background was a nice touch). Maybe with a partner, a better pic can be taken.--HereToHelp 22:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not good quality, but extreme rarity. · AndonicO ^Talk 18:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's a worse example of purple fringing than any of the images currently at the purple fringing article.... if anything, it should be added to that article. --Interiot 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well...add it to the article then. ;) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 12:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit 1 Noise reduction makes it worthy for me. Flubeca 18:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Image:Argon ice 1.jpg --The Sunshine Man 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think it is a good, encyclopedic image of Bryce Canyon

Articles this image appears in

Utah, Bryce Canyon National Park, Amphitheatre, and Hoodoo (geology)

Creator

Digon3

• Support as nominator — Digon3 16:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we currently have this other panorama of the same place as a FP. Witty Lama 19:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is of a different amphitheater. Look at the arrangement of the hoodoos and the rock formations on the left. I also believe that mine is of better quality if you have problems with the same subject. --Digon3 19:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply pointing out a simmilar photo. I have not suggested that this is better or worse than the old one. It is merely there as comparison and also because it is important for others to know this exists. Witty Lama 19:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank-you --Digon3 19:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Is everyone else abstaining from commenting for the same reasons I have? Because I think this photograph is as good as it possibly could be: it illustrates the scope and scale of these amazing rock formations. And I also love the stormy looking sky in the distance: moody... But, aside from that, I don't know what to think. I personally think subjects like these rocks look better up close, taken with a very wide angle lens, but some guy above blasted me for that, so... perhaps I'll just keep my yap shut... --Vaelta 08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh boy, at least call me by my username and not some guy. That makes me feel so insignificant :-). --Dschwen 15:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry! New here! Getting to know people slowly! --Vaelta 15:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is very discouraging that no one is bothering to vote. At least comment... --Digon3 15:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but one reason, at least for me, is that I have the feeling that this picture (and/or similar ones (even a segment from this very image) from your bryce canyon trip) has been nominated a gazillion times before (here, on commons QI and FP) and there is not much to add to the previous comments. --Dschwen 15:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • : QI+COM:FP, : com:QI+com:FP+en:FP, com:QI+en:FP, com:QI. Persistence is a noble character trait :-) but you have to understand that it can be a bit tiresome for the voters. --Dschwen 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the commons. As far as I know, few Wikipedia FPC voters also vote in the commons FPC. As for the pictures, I think this version is the best version, and it got that way from the feedback of the other versions. As for being tiresome for the Wikipedia voters, I understand how you, being both on wikipedia and commons, might find it a bit tiresome, but not to others. --Digon3 16:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer the third image along, even though the format is not as attractive. It has more depth than all the others... perhaps just tweak the contrast on it and I might vote that up... --Vaelta 15:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried that once [9]. It lacks detail which cannot be recovered by increasing contrast. --Digon3 16:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you really sure about that? I just took the small sized image and cranked up the contrast and it instantly looked ten times better. If you want, I'll send you it. Got somewhere it can go? --Vaelta 17:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak oppose. The image seems a bit blurry to me. I'm not sure if that's because of the camera, because of the distance of the subject, because of the image itself, or what. Otherwise I'd support it. Amphy 17:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Loads more detail than the current FP. Very slightly blurry, but seeing how gigantic the picture is, I doubt any more detail could be brought out no matter if a different picture is sharper than this one. I am all for it. J Are you green? 20:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• That scene is intrinsically beautiful, but I'm not quite convinced that this picture really can keep up with the technical standards of today. A year or 18 months ago I surely would have voted in support. Conversely I wouldn't dare nominating my variation of this theme. --Dschwen 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A shame. I would've supported it. If fuzzy is your concern, you have a big enough file to do some size reduction to make it sharper. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This new images has a higher resolution, and shows more of the green surroundings of the place. In addition, the part of the sky is not blown out, which it is in the current FP. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it's good enough, but hopefully someone can improve the contrast and sharpness enough. Let's all be nice to each other, FPC is not that big a deal. Stevage 01:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bryce Canyon Amphitheater Hoodoos Panorama.jpg --The Sunshine Man 15:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

You can see the nom for a different image (of this car) here. This car is unique and privately owned so it's not exactly easy to take photos of, unlike a normal Ferrari. The article Ferrari P4/5 is short but acceptable.

Articles this image appears in

Ferrari P4/5

Creator

Simon Davison from Los Gatos, United States

• Support as nominator — James086^{Talk | Email} 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Enc, high rez, free license, etc., but some distracting people and objects. There's some blurring in the upper left and around the faces.--HereToHelp 00:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too much going on in the picture, I find it distracting. · AndonicO ^Talk 18:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That's it…I knew there was something off-putting about this image. I'll keep my vote, though.--HereToHelp 01:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Too busy. Calliopejen1 20:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit — Cropped most of everything else. ♠ SG →Talk 17:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both Rarity of the subject doesn't outweigh the fact that this is a standard car show shoot. Cutting off the bystanders at the hip doesn't change that. ~ trialsanderrors 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both I'm completely with Trials. Even if this was the sole car of its kind in the world, the photo itself is not at all spectacular- I could've taken it with my Kodak one-use. Even with the edit, there's still too much going on in the background. -- Kicking222 21:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the sole car of its kind in the world! J Are you green? 02:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL, my bad. I thought that there was only a single run made, not just a single car! But still, my objection stands. -- Kicking222 14:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both per Trialsanderrors. J Are you green? 02:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted Image:Ferrari P45 front right.jpg The Sunshine Man 16:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very good resolution, and is catchy to the eye.

Articles this image appears in

• Black hole
• Technology in Science Fiction

Creator

?

• Support as nominator — ♠Tom@sBat 22:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This needs a better description (tell us that it's an artist's impression), and I think the entire thing may be CGI-ed. I have added an alternative which is also distorted using editing software, but I think it uses a real astronomy picture as a base. (That's a complete guess as that one doesn't have a good description either.)--HereToHelp 22:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better description where? "Simulated" isn't good enough? --Phoenix (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The image description page says "Gravitational distortions caused by a black hole in front of the Large Magellanic cloud". (Not even a period!) Where do you see "simulated"? (Captions in article aren't enough; that information needs to be present on the image page.)--HereToHelp 02:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, I'll go out on a limb here... the picture is ugly... it doesn't really add much to the understanding of a black hole... (it's, literally, just a black hole with some distortion on a picture of space). The first image shows no sign that it's done as a serious scientific explanation rather than fan art of some sort. The alternative may have a better explanation of why it's important in helping to understand a black hole but I can't read it (if someone wants to explain that, it would be helpful). I would say that this series does a pretty decent job since it shows the differences from different distances or that this (if made into an SVG) helps explain distortion of light. But, this image is not aesthetically pleasing and in itself doesn't help me understand what a black hole is any better than · --gren グレン 03:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both for now It isn't clear how these images were made, and if they are anything more than using a corny photoshop filter. If these images were made by someone with knowledge of astrophysics and they were applying theoretical mathematics or some other form of actual research into creating these images, I'd be more likely to support. The first one may even work as an artist's interpretation, but the second one just seems like a couple of clicks with photoshop (i.e. nothing special, thus not wikipedia's best work). Is there anyway to get more information on how the images were created, and what they exactly are depicting?-Andrew c 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It does show gravitational distortion well and the size is great, but I agree with HeretoHelp—I'd like to know where the original image came from before changing my vote. Amphy 02:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution, stunning contrast, very encyclopedic.

Articles this image appears in

Iapetus (moon)

Creator

Cassini Orbitor/NASA/ESA

• Support as nominator — Chris H 02:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Debivort 03:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A rather rare picture, considering contemporary technology; very encyclopaedic; personally, I find it fascinating. Jellocube27 04:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, beautiful, just beautiful. --Phoenix (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the original by the way, it's probably better than the edit. --Phoenix (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Per Phoenix. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 18:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ...very nice --Zainub 19:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - very strange and very cool indeed. Great image. --YFB ¿ 23:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm more impressed by the methane lake image that's up at PotD next week. ~ trialsanderrors 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image of the methane lakes has nothing to do with this picture, other then it was taken by the Cassini Orbitor. The two images were not even taken using the same camera or wavelengths for that matter.Chris H 17:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point being? ~ trialsanderrors 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point being message after vote should be reasoning by Featured picture criteria.Chris H 17:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fails #3. ~ trialsanderrors 18:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • 1. 3: Is among Wikipedia's best work. It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation that exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work. This is highly objective :) Please try to base your vote on encyclopaedic value, as opposed to personal taste! Jellocube27 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Probably the best image of the satellite there is. By the way, is that a large black monolith I see there? ;) · AndonicO ^Talk 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original and oppose edit. Meets all the criteria. Mgiganteus1 06:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original - Everything has been said. Alvesgaspar 02:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted The Sunshine Man 18:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Pleasing to the eye, this fine architectural piece seems to be very potent with its height and massiveness. Also, it has certainly got historic value.

Articles this image appears in

• History of India
• Indian architecture
• South India
• Hindu temple architecture
• History of South India
• Raja Raja Chola I
• Chola Dynasty
• Chronology of Tamil history
• Chola art
• History of Tamil Nadu
• Tamil history from Sangam literature
• Dravidian architecture

Creator

Venu62

• Support as nominator — ♠Tom@sBat 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Might want to change your nom, I don't think impotent is really what you mean. Maybe potent? Mak (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooops... Thanks for the notification. ♠Tom@sBat 19:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose too small, very little detail in full size view. Debivort 19:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, this pic has no chance. The criteria for Featured Pics is 1000 pixels at least in size. This pic is 600 by 396 pixels - Adrian Pingstone 19:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very poor resolution. Poor photography. Sarvagnya 21:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per resolution requirement. --Phoenix (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Fuzzy round the edges at full size. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per everything said above. Wikipediarules2221 07:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

clear and sharp, enc and seems to meet the criteria

Articles this image appears in

the species page zosterops lateralis

Creator

Benjamint444

• Support as nominator — I took this in an orchard where these birds were practicaly swarming over the ripe fruit, the white patch in the BG is netting over a tree to (unsuccesfully) keep them out, this is a juvenile which was being tended by several adults Benjamint444 09:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support There is some slight artifacting around the edge, and the branch which cuts off part of the tail is distracting, but the detail of the feathers (in some places) is razor sharp.--HereToHelp 14:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because of strong compression artifacts around bird, possibly due to oversharpening. This appears to be the original image of the composite that created a storm of opposition here. --Janke | Talk 15:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Agree with Janke. Also, background is distracting and strongly pixelated at the upper left corner. Alvesgaspar 17:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, definitely oversharpened. --Phoenix (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Janke. For the halo of artifacts around the bird, my first guess was jpg artifacts, but I can also see a bit of oversharpening. The image is pretty good, and if it was cleaner at 100%, I'd have supported it.-Andrew c 01:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very high quality of Euro coins and fits all the criteria.

Articles this image appears in

Euro Euro coins

Creator

?

• Support as nominator — Bewareofdog 04:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I like the image and it is high quality, but I would find it much more fitting in an encyclopedia if none of the coins were cut off, though it is a small portion in this image, I would rather see each completely. --WillMak050389 04:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose - the compositing was done very clumsily. Some of the drop shadows are cut off, the shadows weren't masked for transparency above the other coins, simply cut off of a light background, and there are huge artifacts in some of the shadows - which seems strange considering the coins themselves are pretty good looking. Debivort 05:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Debivort. Making a composite of overlapping images is not as simple as cut and paste. The obvious layers shown by shadows suddenly cut off along a straight line make this look very unprofessional. J Are you green? 05:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Debivort. Loses enc because coins cover one another. --Janke | Talk 06:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unfortunately, per the above. It wasn't put together properly. --Phoenix (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose very poorly done composite image. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 11:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per all above.--HereToHelp 14:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - Rowing against the flood... I like the composition and technical quality is quite good. Showing the whole coins is not necessary IMO. Alvesgaspar 17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Opposers are right, quality is not good enough - Alvesgaspar 01:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support This is excellent! Neutral slightly leaning towards support That close-up changed my mind! ♠Tom@sBat 18:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment people seem not to be noticing what seem like blatant flaws to me. Here is a blow up. I should have also added that the shadows have different hues for some reason too. Debivort 19:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Shows many different types of currencies, is present in many articles, is pleasing to the eye, and the fact that visitors donated all that so that money it could be displayed is an inetersting fact...

Articles this image appears in

• Banknote
• Money

Creator

Although

• Support as nominator — ♠Tom@sBat 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Blown out highlights ruin it for me . But I realy like this image.Bewareofdog 04:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as of this writing, this image certainly does not appear in all those articles. It seems to be in Banknote and Money, not sure what's going on there... Mak (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't care so much about the blown headlights as the lack of a subject or even a completely visible banknote... Repetition and a handwritten note near the left-centre also irk me somewhat. I am no fan of the reflected light ot the blue line (lens artifact?). J Are you green? 06:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The image used to be in Template:Numismatics, but was reverted to a smaller image of coins. Oppose, because it looks messy. --Janke | Talk 06:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per J; as there is no defined subject it fails to contribute signifcantly to any article. --Phoenix (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, why is there a piece of green paper in the picture? I don't know if I'd oppose any image like this... but I think it would need to be done better. gren グレン 21:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose How could this possibly illustrate Ancient Greek coinage!! The above Links list seems to be a lie. The pic illustrates nothing (except randomly strewn around bank notes) - Adrian Pingstone 21:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied the articles that were in the image´s list... ♠Tom@sBat 21:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. --Janke | Talk 06:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It looks like pile of money on the floor...not all that encyclopedic. Also, the file link list is inaccurate. Only the banknote and money pages use the pic. I made the necessary corrections. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 22:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The image is clearly upside down. (Just kidding). Actually, it's the blinding flash in the lower right that kills it for me. Spikebrennan 16:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Of extreme historical importance and encyclopaedic value. A slight quality improvement would be preferable, but the photo is /extremely/ clear, and I don't feel that a higher-resolution photo would add much to it's composition.

Articles this image appears in

District Six

Creator

District Six, Cape Town

• Support as nominator — Halo 18:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It fails WP:FP? #2. · AndonicO ^Talk 19:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'd argue that it meets the spirit of WP:FP? #2 even if it is missing 100 pixels in width. I don't think a larger photograph would add much, if anything, or know if it'd be readily obtained given the town's regeneration. -Halo 19:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have no problem with the resolution but the size of the view. Where exactly is the plaque? How big is it? A zoom out would be nice.--HereToHelp 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. Certainly it couldn't fail on #2. A higher res shot wouldn't do anything at all. It's a wonderful image, but I do agree some context would be nice too. (See Image:DurbanSign1989.jpg for example.) _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  11:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose it does little to explain the significance of the plaque beyond what a transcription of the text would do, showing it against what ever surface it is on, or its circumstances generally would be better. Debivort 18:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Debivort. Calliopejen1 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Debivort, and that a zoomed out image, perhaps showing some of the surroundings, would have been more effective. --Phoenix (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Debivort. It adds to the article, but it could add more if it was zoomed out. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution photo which does the monument justice plus it is a huge step up from all previous pics of the same subject.

Articles this image appears in

Externsteine

Creator

User:Dschwen

• Support as nominator — Dschwen 18:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I like the image, but I wish there weren't so many people in there detracting from the beauty of the shot. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  20:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Full support. I have changed my vote to full support. After some contemplating, and seeing others' comments, I see that the people are actually an interesting part of the picture, and I don't think a picture should fail FPC because of the people that are in it. It's a bad precedent for me to follow. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  11:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. I support the original image only. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  11:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. Yes, yes, technically good, etc etc. However, I don't just find the people distracting, I also find the positioning questionable. Why not go forwards to the edge of that sandy path and shoot it with a wide angle lens? Far more impact. --Vaelta 21:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I was not aiming for a cheap sensationalist shot and because a wide angle lens would cause unnecessary distortions. And geez not that people argument again. If I had sopped them out / composed them away, anybody who knew that place would wonder if a neutron bomb had been dropped or why the hell else with a weather like that there were no people. --Dschwen 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I obviously have rather a lot to learn about Wikipedia's "featured" pictures. Should they not be sensational by definition? This picture is informative, yes: it shows some of the rocks and the fact that it is a popular site for visitors. However, do I find this shot especially interesting? No. However, as I read for another photograph below, apparently this is not actually a condition for featured pictures, but to me this looks like any old tourist snap. --Vaelta 07:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. While the people are a little distracting, what would you do? Ask them to leave? Though I have to say, the rocks are tilted. :p Iorek85 00:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The people give an accurate portrayal, as does the tilt (it's on a hill from what I can tell…).--HereToHelp 01:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The people in this image give it both a sense of scale and purpose (since they are engaged in enjoying/climbing the subject). I doubt it would be as interesting without them. I have complained about distracting people in other candidates, but it's a judgement call for each image. --Bridgecross 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, "the more people, the better" to a certain extent here. I like the naturality of the shot as well. --Phoenix (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Other than the high resolution I don't see how this is FP quality. Composition is not particularly interesting (compared to this one or this one for instance). Technically, I find the uneven sky and the shadow in the foreground more distracting than the tourists, but they don't help either. (Btw, to avoid tourists at a touristy site it's usually best to take a picture early in the morning.) ~ trialsanderrors 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So just that I get it straight, a "boring" composition which shows the subject well without distractions is great for a tomato but leads to an oppose for these rocks? --Dschwen 12:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should ask someone who actually supported the tomatoes. ~ trialsanderrors 02:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, sorry, it wasn't directed specifically at you. Just the usual FPC frustration. The same pic was nominated by someone on the german FPC and severeal comments point out the good composition. This shows how arbitrary some of the votes are... --Dschwen 09:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, there is an obious difference in the scope of the pictures. The tomato picture is a technical representation of an everyday object. The goal is accuracy and high detail. Most landscape pictures represent subjects that are extraordinary, so the picture should convey what makes the scene so extraordinary, which means technical accuracy is a secondary criterion. On the arbitrariness of the process, it's pretty obvious that a whole lot of commenters don't have any expertise in photography or imaging. I also suspect that few click through to the image page or to the full resolution picture, and even fewer look for comparable alternatives. In short, it's the standard problem with Wikipedia decision making that opinions are cheap while research is costly. I stopped nominating images at Commons because the selection process there is essentially a joke. Here we at least still have discussions about the pictures. ~ trialsanderrors 18:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Agree with Trialsanderrors, good quality photo but composition not interesting enough to be featured. Alvesgaspar 21:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - Poor composition. <3 bunny 02:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor?! Sorry, but whats poor about the pic? The Person contemplating the rocks in the lower left corner and the slope on the right frame the subject, which fills the frame and is depicted adequately. The foggy detail example quoted by trials is artsy but doesn't tell you much about the rocks, and the other perspective is nice, but the northern rockwall is always in the shadow. --Dschwen 08:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, I'm sorry I'm voicing my opinion, but there's no reason to flame it. I find the persons in fact do not contemplate a frame, and the sky is definitely not part of the frame. The picture is high resolution, but I find the colours slightly bland, and I'm not sure, but I don't think many of those people you photographed gave you permission to photograph them. Plus, having people defeats the purpose of a landmark photo. <3 bunny 19:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not flaming, I'm complaining about a rude and unexplained vote. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. One thing though, the permission to be photographed point is completely irrelevant. Under german law (which is where the pic was taken) no permission is necessary if the people are only decoration in a public place. --Dschwen 19:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I strikes me that this image may have originally been saved in Adobe RGB color space, if you open it up in Photoshop and assign Adobe RGB you'll get a much nicer color. --Fir0002 09:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks turquoise now :-(. My cam saves sRGB and I haven't bothered with proper color management yet. The original looks as I remember it. --Dschwen 10:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, there is a colour shift and saturation increase in the edit, not just an increase in brightness and it doesn't look as realistic as the original. That said, It does look like it could do with a slight contrast/brightness increase without the colour work in the thumbnail but looks about right when viewed full size. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support original/oppose alt - what I don't like about the original is the shaded slope on the right, compositionally it is heavy and distracts from the subject (particularly in the thumnail). I'm not sure there's a crop that can get rid of it though. Debivort 17:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Good quality; don't like the color of the sky in the second version though. · AndonicO ^Talk 18:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Great quality, but I don't like the sky in the edit. It's a little too intense for my eyes. Next time shove the people down the hill =D Amphy 03:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either image. Great image, technically fine, very encyclopedic. Conor Campbell 17.01, 4 May 2007 (GMT)
• Oppose per trialsanderrors. J Are you green? 01:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only. Sorry about the late vote; I don't know if it will help or confuse a closer, but I really like the image. The nice sprinkling of people gives needed perspective and scale, the colors look real, the rocks look impressive, and it makes me want to know more about the subject. In fact, I read the article, and if I could think of any german history resources, I'd be contributing to it to make it better, because an article with a picture that nice should be a better article. This picture does what a featured picture should; it wows me, makes me want to know more about the subject, and is an essential contribution to the article.Enuja 00:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have to agree with trialsanderrors. Wikipediarules2221 21:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Image:Externsteine pano.jpg --The Sunshine Man 15:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

9 supports, 3 opposes, 2 weak opposes *0.5?. Anyway I unclosed this one as well. The closer Sunshine Man apparently is an unexperienced FPC contributor and his other closings were disputed too. This one is looks like a pro consensus to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dschwen (talk • contribs)

Make it 9 1/2 support votes ! - Alvesgaspar 08:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Perhaps move it to more input needed?--HereToHelp 01:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its closing time and the vertict seems clear to me. --Dschwen 09:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Promoted Image:Externsteine pano.jpg --Debivort 00:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Beautiful, historical value

Articles this image appears in

Gaucho Huaso

Creator

Toni Frissell

• Support as nominator — Calliopejen1 18:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until it's cleaned up. Almost all LoC scans need an hour or so of dust removal. ~ trialsanderrors 22:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • LoC?--HereToHelp 00:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Library of Congress. I just did my best at the dust removal, if anyone else wants to have at it, they're obviously welcome to.Calliopejen1 00:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The sky is still of oddly low quality, puzzling since the original tiff is 78MB and from 2005. Also, we would need more background on the subject. ~ trialsanderrors 00:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support edit 1 2 Fine job with the dust, but still a bit blurry. Perhaps downsampling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HereToHelp (talk • contribs) (Whoops, happens to the best of us. --HereToHelp 18:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Support, I am a fan. gren グレン 02:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 - It's a nice historic image. --Arad 20:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The photo is very good, but I'm not really sure if the guy pictured is a Gaucho or not. I'm from Chile, and there are no Gauchos here, the Gauchos are from Argentina, Uruguay and part of Brasil. I think that the guy from the photo may be a Chilean Huaso, considering the clothes and where the photograph was taken.--Hodur 01:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm.... judging from the wikipedia entries, it looks like you're right. I was just going by the photo caption, but perhaps the photographer was mistaken. Calliopejen1 13:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either edit. Beautiful image, and definitely something you'd expect to see in an encyclopedia. Amphy 16:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either edit. 23:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops that was me. I was thinking, I could have sworn I voted on this, but didn't see my sig. Heh. howcheng {chat} 00:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image Bewareofdog 02:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Promoted Image:Gauchowheat edit2.jpg --Debivort 01:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Looks good, is good... makes me want to go there, with a chick who appreciates aesthetics.

Articles this image appears in

Rideau Canal

Creator

User:Bobak

• Support as nominator — RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - not bad, but it looks like the photographer managed to find the one angle where you can't easily see that this set of locks is to negotiate a change in height. On first glance it looks horizontal. --YFB ¿ 02:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. It's a cool picture and well-balanced, but it is hard to tell that the canal drops with each lock. Amphy 18:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True but the Canal's drop is pretty gradual, and the angle is likely dictated by the surroundings. Please reconsider as the distance (and the buildings on the left and right) makes it fairly clear what is going on. Further thumbing this picture makes these issues worse, a larger implementation in an article (300px or so) would help mitigate these problems. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what you mean by "the angle is likely dictated by the surroundings" - it'd be much easier to get a sense of the height change if the photo had been taken from lower down, looking in the opposite direction. My comments were based on viewing the image at full size, but the manual of style dictates that thumbnail sizing (e.g. the 300px you suggest) shouldn't be used in articles as it overrides the settings in people's preferences (personally I think the standard 180px thumb is too small, but that's the policy). Sorry, but I'm not going to change my vote. --YFB ¿ 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well at that angle it could be less appealing compositionally. In protest, I've made it my desktop image! :"D RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support Rarely is a picture opposed for composition alone! While the slope may not be obvious at first, it is noticeable if you look, and it is otherwise flawless.--HereToHelp 21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, is that a positive or negative statement? After all the wrangling over whether we place too much emphasis on technical merit (this post does not constitute a statement of opinion either way) I would have thought people might find a different oppose reason refreshing :-) --YFB ¿ 21:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More ironic than "refreshing"…--HereToHelp 21:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If someone went back and took the picture from the bottom of the canal, it might look better. -- Sturgeonman 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If you look at the full size image I find it's slope obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by -Ozone- (talk • contribs)
• Weak Support per the above unsigned comment. A great, balanced pic, but I have to agree with Sturgeonman. --Gabycs 16:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I find the slope of the canal relatively easy to make out at full size. Personally, i doubt that an image from below would be any better, due to the lack of water in the shot. More like a long line of lock gates, and similar problems with perception of slope, if not worse. Would like to see an attempt though. - Supaluminal 03:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above. Wikipediarules2221 06:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I don't enjoy this process, but whatever, I released all rights so it's my bed and I'm not standing in the way. I just found out about it today. --Bobak 20:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Not promoted --Debivort 01:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution, encyclopedic, good contrast and details, current lack of anything non American in the Aeronautics and aviation section.

Articles this image appears in

Soyuz spacecraft

Creator

Expedition 12/NASA

• Support as nominator — Chris H 17:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The pictured looked underexposed, but since I have never been in space, I have no clue how it really is supposed to look. I adjusted the curves to brighten the background and darker portions of the Soyuz without blowing the whites. I also performed noise reduction and unsharp masking as well as downsampling it just enough to get rid of blur while retaining most of the details. J Are you green? 20:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks that does look better.Chris H 02:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I have to say, I'm flattered. This marks the first time I've gotten any "supports", even if they are for an edit. I'm happy to have helped. J Are you green? 16:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 I was going to weakly support the original…but the edit is by far superior, and I can get fully behind it. Great editing!--HereToHelp 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Your caption is a tad long. Try to be more succint. -- Sturgeonman 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey now - extended captions are a courtesy to the wikipedians who manage PotD, and should be encouraged. Debivort 01:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 1 a few blown highlights is better than contrastless blob. -Fcb981 02:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Much clearer and sharper now. Encyclopedic and unique. It almost looks fake...like a miniature hanging in front of a pic of the earth (probably due to the intense light from the sun)! Well, I guess it gives it a surreal feel to it. ;) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 12:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1 - Enc and beautiful. Alvesgaspar 11:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1 Nice! Less darker! ♠Tom@sBat 19:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1 Great adjustment, J! --Gabycs 16:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The original is too fuzzy in places, but the lightening of edit one makes it look overexposed. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Promoted Image:Soyuz TMA-7 spacecraft2edit1.jpg --Debivort 01:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very good animation, meets all the criteria, and contributes greatly to the articles.

Articles this image appears in

Self-similarity Scale invariance

Creator

Cuddlyable3

• Response by Creator I thank everyone who has commented on this animation. So much has been observed about other ways that this fractal object might be shown that I feel we could have a fruitful discussion about it on my Talk page. You are all cordially invited. :) Cuddlyable3 12:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator — Temperal^xy 19:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• very weak oppose On my display, the animation is a bit unsmooth, and I would love to see an antialiased versoin, as you get some roughly looking transitions during the scaling because it is un aliased. Debivort 19:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Nice idea, poor realization. The animation is smooth enough but too small and aliased. Alvesgaspar 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per above; not Wikipedia's best work. --Tewy 22:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No matter how much information is added to the description page, the image is still rough and on the small side, even for an animation. I just can't picture this appearing on the main page. And is it my computer, or does the animation speed up slightly at each loop? --Tewy 23:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above.--HereToHelp 01:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Personally, I have a lot less stringent size requirements than most here, but this is just too small. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The standard size requirement doesn't apply to animations... Debivort 15:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not very interesting...no "WOW" factor. Encyclopedic, but not FP status. Sorry. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 21:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. The image has technical issues, like jerky frame rate or something that makes it not flow as smooth as I would like. It is a bit small, and not that crisp.-Andrew c 00:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because I have no idea what that thing is, but I do know that it is uninteresting and unimpressive! Chickitychina`1`1 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd support a version with the above-mentioned technical issues resolved (aliasing, size, and also the rate of the animation does not seem to me to be constant.) Also, it could be cropped as there is nothing at all in the bottom half of the frame. Spebudmak 17:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral You should ask someone who's experienced with POV-Ray to redo this image.. it could be made rather interesting. You can find someone who contributes POV-Ray images frequently by checking uploaders over at the POV-Ray category at the Wikimedia Commons. -- drumguy8800 C T 06:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This precious and beautifully captured moment shows the gentle touch a mother comforting her children, as U.S. Army soldiers conduct a search through their home. I believe the composition and overall aesthetic quality is worthy of being nominated on Wikipedia. Additionally, this photograph has received First Place honors for the category of Portrait/Personality for the 2007 Military Photographer (MILPHOG) part of the Department of Defense's Visual Information Program (VIAP). The Visual Information Awards Program is designed to recognize, reward, and promote excellence among military photographers, videographers, journalists and graphic artists for their achievements in furthering the objectives of military photography, videography, and graphic arts as a command information and documentation media within the military. This program operates under the aegis of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs and is administered by the Commandant of the Defense Information School (DINFOS), with cooperation from national and local professional organizations.

Articles this image appears in

Iraq War

Creator

Russell l. Klika

• Support as nominator — Signaleer 09:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Neutral Blurry around the kids' faces, and the cloak is blown to black in many places.--HereToHelp 12:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How Judging is conducted... -Signaleer 13:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the bulk of the text as it had no relevance to the nomination. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not relavent to this nomination because the individuals who judge this contest are not professionals (do not have academic backgrounds nor working professional experience at the local, national or global level). Suffice to say, they are average people like you and me. -Signaleer 13:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. I will admit, however, that I was hasty in my judgement. There are blurry areas, to be sure, but they are not in the subject of the picture. I did not realize this at first because the subjects of most of the pictures found on this page are nouns, but the subject here is an emotion. The blurry areas (hair, for example) are akin to background: not in that they are behind the subject but in that it is only tangentially related to it. The composition and emotion are conveyed in the areas that are in focus; having all the hair in focus would be distracting. (Too much time looking at the individual feathers of birds, I think!) However, between the black cloak and the shadow, there is a large splotch of black in the middle-right of the image.--HereToHelp 13:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to technical problems: Too dark in places, and clearly unsharp in full size. Also, a very strange grain/noise pattern. Might support a better quality version, if one can be found. --Janke | Talk 14:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, sharpness/noise issues. The darkness on the right side throws off the balance for me. --Phoenix (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I have Klika's Flickr page among my favorites (see also http://russellklika.com/), he has some amazing pictures. This one has slight sharpness problems, but if someone finds good uses for some of the others and nominates them I will likely support. ~ trialsanderrors 18:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose (for now) - Difficult one to decide. Exceptional composition and enc value, poor image quality. Alvesgaspar 20:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose primarily because I don't think it's a particularly good illustration of the Iraq War. If it was illustrating a more specific article and I was more convinced of the image's importance then I would support even at the relatively low quality. gren グレン 03:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A photograph is a subjective piece of work, it is not meant to be a "good illustration of the Iraq War." -Signaleer 06:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it is supposed to be a good illustration for the article Iraq war. If it isn't, it probably shouldn't be in the article and therefore wouldn't quality for nomination here. It may be a good photograph - I'm not doubting that - but I think it is more appropriate for documentary photography than for an encyclopedia, where it struggles to find a home. Perhaps Criticism of the War on Terrorism is a better article, although even then it is difficult to claim NPOV on an image such as this. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering you have not voted, Diliff, therefore your comment is moot. -Signaleer 10:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely not true. I'm merely interpreting the criteria and explaining them to you. I reserve the right to vote at any point but candidacy is more than just a vote anyway- it is also about discussion. One valid point brought up during discussion may be more valuable to reaching consensus than five votes without justification. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Critera from what? I would also inform that your opinion is merely that, an opinion. -Signaleer 11:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Criteria from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria. Specifically criteria #5: "Adds value to an article". Wouldn't you agree that it has a pretty similar meaning to what I said above - "A good illustration for the article"? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Only because I don't find it very encyclopedic. It's a beautiful photo and I don't think technical quality needs to be scrutinized as closely on a photo like this. —Pengo 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Put it on Wikimedia Commons and I will cheerfully vote for it there, but I don't see how this image is illustrative of an encyclopedia subject. Spikebrennan 16:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it would work in compassion, if anyone wants to change their mind on enc. I really think I'm neutral on the quality though. Terri G 15:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, nice picture maybe, but not encyclopaedic.--Svetovid 20:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think it's a beautifully encyclopedic illustration of the impact of the Iraq War on civilian life. Every picture in the article is of either objects (vehicles, explosions, etc.) or of adult men, with the exception of one picture that shows soldiers and a child, and this nominee. The article would be sorely deficient if it didn't have a picture like this. Sometimes I think FPC needs more women voters :) Kla'quot 08:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful picture. That small child's eyes are amazing Booksworm Talk to me! 16:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lacks encyclopadeic value. There's no way I could deduce from this picture that the family is having their housed searched by the US Army. It's taken too out of context to be featured here. Centy 00:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 01:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Not so much a spectacular image as an informative one. Buc 22:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Back to the Future timeline

Creator

Breed3011

• Support as nominator — Buc 22:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It actually is kind of confusing, even though I've seen all three films multiple times. First, it should be an SVG. Second, he blue star thing seems rather arbitrary, and the entire thing is somehow…lacking. Too confusing, I think. Is there a better way to present this information?--HereToHelp 22:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose larger resolution, perhaps? Text is barely readable. --Phoenix (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about now. Buc 08:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, what was changed exactly? --Phoenix (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a parenthesis that was never closed in TL3, and capitalisation varies with Timeline, timeline, TL#, and Tl# all present. J Are you green? 23:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If it was an SVG, that's be easy to change. If someone is going to make an SVG, that needs to be worked out.--HereToHelp 02:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've not seen them multiple times and it's even more confusing. Why are there 8 timelines for 3 films? Is this something that's in the film itself? I agree that the blue star is very arbitrary, perhaps there should be an indication on the diagram of which character is traveling and living in the particular times? SVG would be nice too. So in its present form, I oppose. |→ Spaully^₪† 08:38, 6 May 2007 (GMT)

Ok, the article explains the timelines, perhaps there should be an indication of where each film starts and ends though? Also, information like "The blue stars represent the ensuing jumps by Doc’s DeLorean depicted in the trilogy." should be in the legend. |→ Spaully^₪† 08:42, 6 May 2007 (GMT)

• Oppose Interesting, but even though i know the films back to back it makes it very confusing. Also the resolution is too small (should be 1000px wide or tall at least). SVG would be good. The diagram itself seems to be a bit clunky with the thick lines. A better version would indicate who is travelling at that time (ie Doc, Marty, Einstein, Jennifer, or Biff), could just have different colours for each person. Chris_huh^talk 09:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just spoted a mistake. The 1985 in TL5 should be in TL4 and therefore there should only be 7 timelines. (incorrect see breed3011 below Breed3011 13:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Oppose From Time_travel#Mutable_timelines, "In film, the Back to the Future trilogy also seems to feature a single mutable timeline." This disagreement between articles is there for a reason: time travel is complicated, and you can't codify the films into a single be-all, end-all diagram without losing various interpretations of the films. I saw a diagram--it isn't there anymore though--in one of the article that had a single timeline, with forward jumps above the line and backward jumps below the line (or the other way around; oh well). I think this did a much better job of explaining it. (And oh, I also agree with everything that everyone has said.) Collectively, that's enough for me to oppose.--HereToHelp 12:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I am the author of the image - the image which was previously in its place contained many errors. This does not contain errors. Chris_huh, the 1985 in TL5 is correctly placed. It is the jump to 1985A by Marty, Doc and Jennifer from 2015, it differs from the 1985A in timeline 3 by virtue of the fact that Marty, Doc and Jennifer are now in it. This is not original research or a personal theory but a diagram according the rules set out in the film - read the article itself. Interpretations of the film constitutes orginal research and belongs on IMDB, not here - this is not Original Research though. However, if someone feels they can create an improved diagram then I really don't mind. That is what wiki is about.Breed3011 13:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't say there was a mistake, that was someone else. Do you have a larger version available, preferably in SVG, as at the moment it doesn't meet FP criteria. It is a good diagram, which has good potential to explain the timelines in BTTF but i don't think it is FP quality myself. Chris_huh^talk 13:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may still have it - will take a look through some old CD-Rs. I have invited some people who view the BTTF timeline page to vote as i feel strongly about multiple timelines in the film and any attempt to use a single timeline diagram is futile as the film isnt written that way - but i really dont mind if anybody wants to make a better version - just as longas it obeys the rules set out in the film Breed3011 14:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think that the image size guidelines apply to diagrams. Of course, this has more problems than just size. J Are you green? 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The word "lightning" is incorrectly spelled as "lightening", whether you are British or American. :) pinotgris 00:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the image toreflect some criticisms and converted it to a svg - i think i have done it right.

Breed3011 13:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spotted some problems with the new version - A: A huge portion is cut off; B: TL5 description says "The Doc," rather that simply "Doc" as he is referred to throughout the rest of the diagram; C: TL8 description has overlapping text. J Are you green? 20:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that two of these issues have been addressed. J Are you green? 02:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose original and SVG Switching to SVG should almost be required, with that amount of text, and because it is a vector diagram, so the small PNG gets my oppose. I also do not like the SVG version, for two big reasons. Because the amount of text, the thumbnail version isn't readable (while it is scalable, someone with a vision impairment or someone who has their browser font set to large still won't be able to see the SVG text without some work, so it isn't accessible). Having the text in an image file doesn't really serve a purpose, and it seems like that much text should be put in the image description and summarized if possible for the caption. The design isn't that good either. Aesthetically, it doesn't work for me (especially the time jumps and ripple effects). The information isn't presented in the best possible manner, and the whole thing seems amateurish to me, so it isn't wikipedia's best possible work from a graphic design standpoint. -Andrew c 00:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Please use the caption for that amount of text. --Dschwen 13:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Even it were SVG, I'd still oppose. The picture adds no real value to the article - it's the text that's important. Being able to draw a graph does not make this a FP. Otherwise why don't we start promoting some of those mathematical graphs of distributions? Centy 00:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 01:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Appealing and creative. It makes the reader want to click the picture to learn more.

Articles this image appears in

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

Creator

User:Wallrus

• Support as nominator — Wallrus 04:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* oppose and speedy close troll nomination. Debivort 05:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose an unappealing portrayal of a marginally unappealing subject. Composition is dull, there could be significantly more detail, particularly on the inside of the peel, and there is poor contrast against the table which has the same hue and detail as the peel. Debivort 05:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong oppose Fails almost all FPC and doesn't appear in an article, automatic disqualification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clh288 (talk • contribs).

• To be fair, it was recently added by the nominator to Bananadine. Obviously I otherwise agree with you. Debivort 06:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose Uh...No way. "It makes the reader want to click the picture to learn more." Hahaha, that was funny though. Wikipediarules2221 06:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose, horrible nomination.--Svetovid 08:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Doesn't have appealing (pardon the pun) composition and having it on a brown floor while the peel is browning itself, doesn't make for good contrast. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. It's just too ugly and poorly composed. On a white background maybe... Theonlyedge 12:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - troll. However, it does satisfy one criterion... it's high res! >.< The irony... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely Strong Oppose I don't think I need to explain my vote... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BeefRendang (talk • contribs) 12:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC). J Are you green? 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

• Or sign it apparently. Debivort 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose I'll be blunt - 4 MB of wasted space. At the very least, a poorly composed, poorly set, reflecting photograph of a half-decent peel would be better than this one. J Are you green? 05:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Strong Oppose - I quote Edna Mode (The Incredibles) This is a hobo suit, darling. You can't be seen in this. I won't allow it... Booksworm Talk to me! 17:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose! Gak! Maddiekate 03:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy closed, per WP:SNOW... no point wasting any more time on this. --YFB ¿ 08:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:300px-Ass tilted.jpg

Reason

I am nominating this photograph because it is stunning, sexy, and very important. It has high scientific importance because it accurately depicts a portion of human anatomy. All in all, this picture is aesthetically pleasing to the eye. It is definitely one of Wikipedia's best images.

Articles this image appears in

Buttocks, Gluteal cleft

Creator

Titus36

• Support as nominator — Chickitychina`1`1 00:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too small and seems kind of overexposed (in the photographic sense). howcheng {chat} 00:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Beautiful but I like them larger (the pics) - Alvesgaspar 01:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Painful Oppose - I would love to support this, but the pic is just too small.Chris H 01:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• And here I thought looking for comparables on Flickr might actually be a pleasurable task. Not so.... ~ trialsanderrors 01:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That buttocks is the perfect buttocks...what's up with all of the opposes? Chickitychina`1`1 03:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too small, art photo instead of more real (that color... is not natural). Possibly because it's atypical of buttocks. I think you may be mixing up encyclopedic and appealing. You may find this picture to be appealing but that does not mean it is the best representation of buttocks. I'd be more apt to vote for it if it was representing erotica. (but it's still too small). gren グレン 07:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, something tells me that the skin color is not natural.... I think it's too much of an art photo rather than representing buttocks well. It's too small. Rather unrelated... it could probably use a better title... gren グレン 06:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - people don't have skin the colour of clay or china Booksworm Talk to me! 16:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, but it is an excellent example of high key photography. So it's just in the wrong articles. --Dschwen 18:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even though Wikipedia is not censored, I don´t think this would be a good idea for a feautured article which could appear at the main-page. ♠Tom@sBat 21:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Quite true, but this picture is inferior otherwise. My concern is if we ever get a good nude picture…--HereToHelp 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Luckily that issue has been taken up many times and since not all FP's go to the front page opposing because it depicts adult content or nudity (two very different things in most cases FYI) will most likely just be ignored. Cat-five - talk 06:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too unnatural and gauzy; probably photoshopped; the vulva seems to have gone AWOL; I might vote for it in a "soft-focus white-bread erotica" article, but certainly not for buttocks. --TotoBaggins 23:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am sorry. I must have missed the guideline that states that a vulva that has gone AWOL immediately disqualifies the image from attaining featured status. Sometimes vulvas just up and leave, it happens. Chickitychina`1`1 07:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If this was billed as an artistic shot I would support wholeheartedly however since this is being presented as a scientific shot of the human buttocks the skin color alone somewhat disqualifies it, although most nominations should be based on the image itself and not the description in this case I think the context in which it's described is relevant. Cat-five - talk 06:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I agree with TotoBaggins, the vulva has gone AWOL. Wikipediarules2221 06:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose - tilted seriously though, oppose per enc issues outlined above. I'd support if it illustrated erotica. Debivort 19:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dude (I know you're not being serious but) that's human anatomy. She has her weight more on one foot. —Pengo 00:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - And in case this image has anyone else feeling that buttocks are tepid indeed, I submit for your consideration: BUTTOCKS. --TotoBaggins 02:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wrong colours, not natural. Also i don't think it is tilted, i thinks she's just got her left left forward, look at the waist. Chris_huh^talk 18:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy closed - obviously fails criteria #6 and #10, no chance of promotion. And no, this isn't censorship :-) --YFB ¿ 08:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very encyclopedic picture .

Articles this image appears in

Glossy Ibis

Creator

Aka

• Support as nominator — Bewareofdog 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Debivort 00:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a version with background blurred. Thoughts? Debivort 22:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose because of the second bird in bg - it totally spoils the thumbnail, and is distracting in full size. Who's gonna photoshop... no, just kidding! --Janke | Talk 06:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to weak support for alt. 1 - now the bird stands out. --Janke | Talk 08:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The other bird is distracting, but it's not too bad.--HereToHelp 15:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Support edit 1 Clearly superior.--HereToHelp 20:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose the whole background is distracting. Maybe it could be blurred by computer? --jacobolus (t) 17:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Background is distracting, crop is too tight. Alvesgaspar 07:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - Background looks better now. Alvesgaspar 07:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Excellent focus and color on the main subject, the bird. I agree, however, that the background is very distracting in the thumbnail, though not as bad in the full size. Some photoshop blurring may help, thought it's hard to say. --Asiir 12:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt 1 is better, though due to the low contrast between back- and foreground, my vote remains a weak support. --Asiir 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't find the background too much of a problem. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Only problem for me was the distracting background. ShadowHalo 12:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Good job with the blurring; it looks much better. · AndonicO ^Talk 18:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. It looks a little weird in the thumbnail (probably because it loses a lot of detail), but as a large image it works very well. Great colour on the bird in both images. Amphy 13:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, prefer original. I think the edit looks unreal - have you dulled the colours of the background also? The grass in the foreground is well lit and vibrant, as is the bird, but the background looks like its been bleached. The nearer rock also appears to blend too much into the background, particularly underneath the birds' tail feathers. Sorry to be so picky, but I feel that the original is good and so am predisposed to be tough on any edits. |→ Spaully^₪† 09:02, 6 May 2007 (GMT)
• Support original. There's nothing wrong with a bright background. Theonlyedge 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: I think that the background is distraction enough that some of the feather details of the bird is missing ... Kalyan 06:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Plegadis falcinellus (aka) background blurred.jpg --YFB ¿ 13:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution shot, made with a Maksutov 300mm telescope. Shows the female Blackbird appearence in contrast to the male specimen appearing in the taxobox.

Articles this image appears in

Blackbird

Creator

User:Dschwen

• Support Edit 2 as nominator — Dschwen 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lack of contrast. Try the Photoshop command Image/Adjust/Autolevels for a major improvement in contrast - Adrian Pingstone 12:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The OOF items in the foreground are mighty distracting. --Bridgecross 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, what can you expect from a 150 EUR russian mirror telescope? Circular bokeh! :-) Anyway, I tried to adress both points with an edit. --Dschwen 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tech question: Are you using the telescope as a prime lens, or in front of a prime? --Janke | Talk 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Prime lens on a 5D. I have an adapter from T2 to EOS mount. --Dschwen 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow 5D! Your own? --Fir0002 11:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've been contemplating that investment for quite some time, and I made it a combined ph.D. and wedding present to myself :-) --Dschwen 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Contrats on that mate. Getting the Camera that is ; ) -Fcb981 15:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to the fuzzy object in front of the bird. — The Storm Surfer 00:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 3 A little better. ^8thstar 01:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh, so I fix one thing and people come up with another reason? Come on, it's not like that straw is in front of the birds head. What is it obscuring? --Dschwen 07:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. To my eyes the photo looks a hundred times better at full size than in thumbnail. The straw in the foreground is basically transparent. Otherwise it looks great, with lovely detail. Pstuart84 Talk 09:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support (edit 2, edit 3 is also OK with me) per above. A natural habitat is bound to have some obscuring stuff... --Janke | Talk 09:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd support this - it's a very natural shot, well resolved etc - but you've overcooked the contrast on your revision and blown some subtle detail. It just needed a *small* adjustment to counteract the lack of contrast in your cheapo lens ;) mikaul^talk 16:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are completely right. Edit1 was over the top. I redid it with moderation and additionally put a lot more work into finetuning the mask separating the foreground from the blurred bg. --Dschwen 18:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• proposal I would support this with the yellow obstructing blade of grass cloned out. But I would only bother to spend the time to clone it out if people wouldn't vote against it because of that cloning. Anyone think that modification is a particularly good or bad idea?Debivort 19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I love the picture but that yellow straw kills me. Leave the rest of the blurred foreground, though. Enuja 22:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, doctoring the picture like that seems a little dirty to me. The Storm Surfer 23:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 2, for reasons stated above. I will also would probably support a decently cloned version, if it came to it, edit 3 but I really don't have a problem with the OOF grasses; they seem perfectly appropriate to the subject to me. mikaul^talk 23:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit2 or Edit3 - It was harder to do than I expected, but here is a version in which the most annoying grass blade has been cloned out. Debivort 09:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support edit 3 I do like this image with the alterations as noted --Newton2 12:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 3. I'm a huge fan. The bird looks like she is staring at you, the feathers are fantastically clear, and the remaining blurry stems and background give context. Enuja 00:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I just now looked at the page. You are absolutely and completely sure that this is Turdus merula, right? Enuja 00:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A request for an opinion was placed at WP:BIRD. I have to say it looks like a young Blackbird to me. Sexual dimorphism in plumage is fairly common in birds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The ID has been confirmed in triplicate, btw. Debivort 22:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original, edit2, edit3. Foreground grass is fine, adds to sense of depth, obscures nothing --AGoon 13:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment caption should be Turdus merula not Turdus Merula. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, changed. --Dschwen 14:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all but edit1. Very nice one I think ! Blieusong 09:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 3 --Arad 00:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. Great quality and clarity. What else can I say? -Powerfulmind ^please_talk^to_me! ^look_at^all_of^my_edits! 01:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support edit 3. Love the shot, the only thing is the bird looks like it has one leg because it has one tucked up into its feathers... Calliopejen1 15:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – uninteresting composition, blurry grass gets in the way. Could use a closer crop. --jacobolus (t) 05:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 3 The pic looks much better with the blurry grass blade removed. Encyclopedic and unique. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it unique? — The Storm Surfer 23:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I previously believed that all blackbirds were black...but this pic proves otherwise. Most pics are of the male blackbird, which are indeed black. There aren't that many pics of female blackbirds, which are not black. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this were the only blackbird that isn't black, then the photo might be unique, but in fact many (I'd even say most, since juvenile males are also apparently not black) blackbirds are not black. — The Storm Surfer 00:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 3 Per all above.--HereToHelp 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Distracting objects in front of the subject. ShadowHalo 12:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 3 The focus is centered on the wing of the bird, rather than the head (which I personally like better). However, this isn't a good enough reason to oppose, because it's not as if the head was fuzzy or anything major... · AndonicO ^Talk 18:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Compared to the numerous other shots of animals we have this is too busy. The blurred grass in the foreground in not pleasing to the eye and distracting. Centy 00:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Amsel_Weibchen_aufgeplustert_edit2_clone.jpg --YFB ¿ 13:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is definitely one of Wikipedia's finest images. It is crystal clear and it has excellent composition. Definitely has a "wow" effect. Simply exquisite.

Articles this image appears in

Cannabis (drug)

Creator

Ryan Bushby

• Support as nominator — Chickitychina`1`1 07:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The lighting is too harsh. A light tent or white cardboard reflector on the right side would have improved the image quality considerably. I gonna go out on a limb here and assert that this shot is easily reproducible. I could go on about this nomination, but I'd be wikislapped with AGF wanyways... ;-) --Dschwen 08:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. JPEF artefacts in low-res versions and high-res version isn't fully in focus. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Harsh, dude, and easy to reproduce. Plus poor focus at full res. --TotoBaggins 11:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Thanks for the nom, but the image has many technical faults. It suffers from motion blur in several of the original images, and I did not take enough slices to do proper focus stacking. I intend to do this in the future when I have a proper macro sled, and of course better lighting. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and some guy leaves his stash unattented again, right? ;-) --Dschwen 15:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Not very sharp. Encyclopedic, but a better one can easily be taken. Question: Isn't it illegal to be in possession of cannabis?!? Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on things. See legal issues of cannabis. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. It's still illegal in Canada, unless HighINBC is using it for medical reasons. Isn't the pic then proving illegal possession of cannabis? Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 20:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I am breaking the law I assure you I am not doing it on Wikipedia, so it is not really a Wikipedia issue. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, suggesting I take another one may be a violation of some sort of Wikipedia policy(kidding). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 21:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, we don't even know it's his. He could be photographing it at the local sheriff's evidence room. Taking a picture of someone speeding doesn't mean you should get a ticket yourself. Debivort 00:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rather incriminating pic. I'm not suggesting that the police is gonna bust down your door because of it, but it's still not a good idea. But as HighInBC said, whether or not it is illegal doesn't really matter in Wikipedia. I'm sorry I brought it up in the first place. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above, slightly out of focus when expanded. --Phoenix 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't stand up to the near-fetishistic marijuana macros featured in High Times and the like. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (nomination created by banned user ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Back to Black (Video).jpg

Reason

Good quality. Illustrates article well.

Articles this image appears in

Back to Black (song)

Creator

User:Jonwood2

• Support as nominator — Wikibob123 17:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - sorry, this fails several criteria: it's not a free license (copyrighted screenshot of a music video), it's far too small, it's quite bad quality (JPG compression noticeable), there's no caption or description and some would argue that the subject is not pleasing to the eye ;). I'm sorry, but this will never pass. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This is a fair use image, hence ineligible for featured status. --dm ^(talk) 17:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The nominator appears not to understand WP:NONFREE. The image cannot be used in the userspace, and it can't be used here either, so I've removed the image and replaced it with a link to the image. The image also needs a fair use rationale, it doesn't state who the copyright holder is, and it needs to be scaled down to a lower resolution. I suggest speedy closing this. ShadowHalo 18:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Oppose per above.--HereToHelp 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (ineligible) --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

a terrific job of composition. 3 eras of architectural significance lined up to superimpose each in a direct row chronologically—the Gulf Building (1920s), Pennzoil Place, designed by Philip Johnson (1970s), and the Bank of America Center (1980s).

Articles this image appears in

Architecture of Houston

Creator

(by Tom Haymes, Flickr) slightly cropped by evb-wiki

• Support as nominator — Evb-wiki 04:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Interesting concept, but fails size requirements, and it's a little grainy. tiZom_(2¢) 05:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose it is blurry and doesn't meet the size requirement. Wikipediarules2221 08:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ineligible. The license is invalid. It is CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0, which isn't allowed on WP because it doesn't allow for commercial use. You may want to consider asking the creator to release it under {{CC-BY-SA-2.0}} or {{CC-BY-SA-2.5}}. If you want, I'll give you a few days to contact the author before we nuke it. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (non-com). Taken to WP:PUI. MER-C 09:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High res image, subjects not cut off, pleasing color scheme, illustrates the concept of fraternal twins nicely. On the whole, very cute.

Articles this image appears in

Twin

Creator

user:MultipleParent

• Support as nominator — MultipleParent 14:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose May be cute, but the lighting (flash) and the composition are turn-offs. No "wow" factor, unfortunately, just a snapshot. Try bounce flash, or shooting outside in cloudy weather, for better lighting. --Janke | Talk 16:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sadly there's nothing particularly impressive about this picture. There are many more of much better quality and clarity, and is this picture (if you don't mind me asking) realy special enough to be featured? Matt. P 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The image doesn't really illustrate the concept well. Why isn't there any images of identical twins in the twins article? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great details, very clear image.--Mbz1 | Talk
• Comment I'm somewhat mixed on it. It's pretty grey though, so I've uploaded a cropped version with the colors intensified some. ShadowHalo 01:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Nice bright colors, kind of ordinary. Maddiekate 03:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have to say it was an extraordinarily fortuitous shot. It's not like I directed my babies to look cute, you know? MultipleParent 03:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha, yes they are cute.
• Oppose. Cute, but not encyclopedic. If, perhaps, they were naked, and we could see them from head to toe (so that the similarity but not-quite-identicality of the fraternal twins could be compared), and the lighting was better, and the background was more neutral, then... maybe. Spikebrennan 13:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - cute, and a useful contribution to Wikipedia. But not quite encyclopaedic enough, nor is the composition strong enough to warrant being featured. Stevage 03:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Japanese bomb hits USS Enterprise (CV-6) flight deck during Battle of the Eastern Solomons, 24 August 1942 (80-G-17489).jpg

Reason

High resolution, Very large (looked good at full resolution but wikipedia wouldn't let me upload the 30mb version), very encyclopedic.

Articles this image appears in

Endurance (crater), Opportunity rover

Creator

NASA/JPL/Cornell

• Support as nominator — Chris H 05:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very interesting, highly encyclopedic and great resolution. Cacophony 06:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice, fits all criteria. |→ Spaully^₪† 08:30, 6 May 2007 (GMT)
• Support - Chris, I've found the full size (26.7Mb) version on NASA's page here (about half way down, 06-May-2004, or search for the words 'Buried Past'). I'll try to optimize and compress it for edit 01, but I still wholly support this version. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for editing use this tiff version [10].Chris H 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support for this or a higher rez version. Great pic, but it looks like a desolate place…--HereToHelp 12:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait a moment! Is that a stitching error in the bottom right corner, on the spacecraft itself?--HereToHelp 12:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the rover. MER-C 12:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? It's right in the middle of the crop I'm putting up.--HereToHelp 13:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is the rovers solar panel, this image shows a little more of them, it could be cropped out but I don't find it that distracting. Chris H 13:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the object, it's the way the lines of the quadrilaterals don't meet up exactly, and all of them along the same line. Further evidence is the black area at the bottom that seems to curl up in one place and is cut off along the same line that divides the lines of the solar cells.--HereToHelp 13:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that area is the same as a blank space, the fact that the rover is blocking the landscape at all is the defect, I thought of blacking out that area, but I think that might be worse.Chris H 15:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support original, oppose edit Per Debivort's explanation of the stitching error (much better on the rover than the ground!) and the color calibration.--HereToHelp 00:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. High resolution, high enc, and sharp. The stitching error is minor in the scope of things—this is just a great shot. --Tewy 17:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for reasons mentioned, beautiful. --Phoenix (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Encyclopedic, atmospheric and technically sound for photograph taken in space. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Added edit 01 by me. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• support orignal /oppose alt great! The stitching error arises because the geometric warping is calibrated to the distance of the ground, rather than the rover deck, I believe. As for the edit, NASA spends a lot of time and effort to calibrate the color in their images (because they are used for scientific analysis) - especially in natural color images such as this one. So, let's keep the view as close to real life as we know it. Debivort 20:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A simply gorgeous image that meets the criteria. Like Debivort, I'm not as big a fan of the edit as I am of the original, but I would not oppose making the edit featured (rather, I'd prefer the original receive that acclaim). -- Kicking222 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose edit/support original I see no reason to 'color correct'. The edit upped the contrast which most likely does not represent how the scene actually looked. The original meets the technical requirements, and is encyclopedic and a very difficult image to simply go out and re-shoot. -Andrew c 00:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excellent point and important distinction: normally, on this planet, arbitrary colour-correction and tonal tweaks to make images to look more "natural" are (encyclopedically) no big deal, even desirable. This is one of those exceptional instances where there's no such thing as "natural"; in these (rare) cases we need to perform the absolute minimum post-processing possible to stand the greatest chance of faithfully representing what is basically an unverifiable scene. mikaul^talk 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've already commented, but since there's an edit now, I'm commenting to oppose that edit. There is no need for color "correction". - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw edit - good point Andrew, MGM, Debivort - I hadn't thought of that argument, and now I have, I find myself opposing my own edit. I'll leave the edit on Commons for a few days, then delete it. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fascinating Image Support Booksworm Talk to me! 16:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support This is amazing. Definitely meets the criteria. Wikipediarules2221 06:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Will make an excellent Featured Image.—Gaff ^ταλκ 00:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:MarsEndurance.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is a high quality and perspective corrected panoramic view of the Colosseum of Rome. While it isn't quite postcard perfect, this view at dusk provides the ideal lighting to see the three dimensional structure of the ruins.

Articles this image appears in

Rome, Colosseum, Roman architecture, Amphitheatre and New Seven Wonders of the World.

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator — Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks pretty amazing to me, well done Diliff (as always). Terri G 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, not that it will need much :) Great work, timely capture, apart from the blurred fg figures and the UFO (exterme left)! Seems a tiny bit oversharpened on the high contrast margins... heheh, I love to nit-pick shots like this. Nice one. mikaul^talk 15:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks great. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Very pleasing to the eye, and is important to articles! ♠Tom@sBat 16:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Squisito! - Non solo deluso. --YFB ¿ 16:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What is that line and two dots (or UFO, as Mikaul called it) on the left? J Are you green? 20:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it a bird, is it a plane? It's a plane, I reckon: one constant light, one flashing light, one second exposure. Or something equally down-to-earth ;o) mikaul^talk 20:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect Mikaul is correct. You know what I think find interesting/amusing... You could safely remove the line from the image without violating the Wikipedia Photojournalism Code of Conduct because the plane doesn't actually show up in other overlapping frames. Therefore it wouldn't be manipulating reality to remove it (instead you'd merely be messing with quantum mechanics? Maybe both states exist until you observe or manipulate it....?!). In any case, I can't see how it is a significant issue in the photo. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just curious... Since it was actually there, I support. J Are you green? 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, despite "UFOs" and blurry tourists.--HereToHelp 20:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, perfect.--Svetovid 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Misa likes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickitychina`1`1 (talk • contribs)
• Support because of the four legged women where the outer wall ends at the ground. No, no, that's not what I meant.  ;-) Support in spite of the blurry tourists. I looked over at Wikimedia, and this is by far the best one (I'm sure Diliff checked to make sure it was needed before he took it, but I agree, this really high res evening shot was needed). Enuja 01:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've seen many good pictures of the Colosseum, but this one outranks them all. --Krm500 01:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Diliff mentioned something about a rome trip. I expect we'll see a few more featured pics coming out of that part of the world. -Fcb981 02:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, amazing image and the anomalies with the people really don't detract from its ability to represent the subject. gren グレン 07:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey, why doesn't anyone complain about the blown higlights? There are at least two half-inch sized overexposed patches in this slightly oversized image - I had to chop a hole in the side of my monitor to let the non-viewable part of the image load! And that :| in the sky just makes you frown... Seriously, I don't think anyone could do better. Big support for a great image! --Janke | Talk 07:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I love it as much as the next guy and the people don't distract me, but the blocky anomolies in the sky do. Perhaps someone can slightly downsample it. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, what blocky anomalies? Maybe you could crop an enlarge them so we can see? I just had a scan through the sky and didn't see anything out of the ordinary. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I added a crop with a heavy contrast boost. J Are you green? 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • ...Unless you're talking about the plane discussed earlier? Downsampling wouldn't help that. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are some sensor dust spots in the sky. chowells 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where? J Are you green? 16:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see them. They're very slightly darker 'blobs' in the sky - barely noticeable but there. That said, they're not blocky anomalies, and I don't see any posterisation in the sky that MgM may have been referring to. I'll go ahead and remove the dusk blobs and the plane streak on the left side of the frame but it is such a minor change I'll overwrite the original rather than upload an edit. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • My guess is that he's refering to the artifacts that are only viewable when I view my LCD from an angle. -Fcb981 01:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is that Mgm is talking about some slight posterisation in the sky, which appears blocky in some places. J Are you green? 00:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It appears my comment wasn't all that clear. I'm not technical with pictures, I think they're called jpeg artefects, but posterization sounds like the same. It has nothing to do with viewing an LCD screen from the side. I don't have LCD and I'm looking straight on. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is posterisation, I think, which is much more likely to be the result of colour correction in post-processing than jpeg compression. It's really common in subtle tone graduations, even at high resolution - except that, at the sort of high resolution you're viewing here, you will only see it if you're viewing the image at an unreasonably large magnification. For all practical purposes, including high-quality print, these are invisible artifacts. mikaul^talk 00:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Bellissima! My Support is offered Booksworm Talk to me! 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support, not that it seems necessary. One of Wikipedia's finest. Theonlyedge 03:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Blieusong 21:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Don't get me wrong, it's a technically very impressive picture, but for encyclopedic value, I think that twilight is not the best time of day for a photo like this. There is not enough contrast between the sky and the building. A daylight photo or later-night photo would be better for this, in my opinion. A separate matter, not related to my vote, is that perhaps the description in the caption could be changed from "severely ruined condition" to just "ruined condition" -- given the age and the size of the building, it seems to me to be in remarkably good shape (but then I'm not an archaelogist). Spebudmak 20:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support fantastic photo as usual. It would be nice if the sensor dust spots in the sky were cleaned however. chowells 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — The photo offers fantastic contrast between the white Colosseum and the dark blue sky. Photographs of the Colosseum tend to be rather dull most of the time, but this one definitely stands out. The focus also seems to be sharp, to the extend I can read the notice boards. The moving people, cars, and airplane are only noticeable in the full resolution picture, and takes nothing away of the subject. I also support the original photograph. (This is my first Featured picture review, I do not go to the trouble often. This one is the exception to the rule.) - G.A.S 16:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — One of the best online photo of the Colosseum, good job Diliff! - tlaw.eu
• Question. This is a very attractive picture, but it troubles me a little in that the Colosseum seems far more 'curved' than any other picture I've ever seen of it. Or to put it another way, the height to width ratio seems wrong. Now I'm not sure whether this is a consequence of the panorama creation method you've used, or whether you've taken the building from a different angle than usual, say at the pointy end or something. Wonder if you can clarify? --jjron 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to clarify. Basically I took this photo from close up as it provided the most direct view. If I had moved further back then the curvature toward the top would have been less pronounced but would have resulted in more aesthetically unpleasing elements in the foreground. This photo is the closest comparable image on Commons and has very similar curvature, but the vertical lines have not been corrected for perspective. Yes there might be some slightly curvier lines at the top due to this perspective correction but I don't think they're excessive. As you mentioned, the colosseum is oval shaped and yes I believe you are looking at the pointier end of it but I think you would find this is the most common view of the colosseum. Other views and angles would have resulted in different positives and negatives but I felt this was the best compromise. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is probably more the shape I was thinking of . It shows the almost identical 'pointy' part of the Colosseum, but is taken from further back. The maximum height to width ratio in this one is about 0.575, in yours it's 0.656. I think the main cause of this difference is that you've taken the picture from so close to the building, thus accentuating the height. I guess most photos/videos/drawings must be done from further back, thus putting that image in my mind. With these considerations in mind, I will Support. --jjron 05:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Colosseum in Rome, Italy - April 2007.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A clear representation of Goalkeeper glove, Displayed in a unique way and of high quality.

Articles this image appears in

Goalkeeper glove

Creator

Self-nom

• Support as nominator — Fcb981 18:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Really uninteresting. ^8thstar 20:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you prepose I make it as interesting as this. just wondering -Fcb981 20:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice concept, but it is blurry in parts and strikes of advertising. Witty Lama 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, it's well done and I don't buy the advertising (I mean, it could be, but most goal keeper's gloves will have logos). The depth of field is off in some parts which makes for the blurriness. I just don't think it's quite up to FP standards, but it will still be useful on a page. gren グレン 23:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - Great idea, but the glove is out of focus in some places. Take it again, and I'll support. Iorek85 06:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Image is out of focus in places and it contains JPEG artefacts (especially in the background). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I kinda like the concept here, but the execution strikes me as a little haphazard. Why doesn't the glove rotate by consistent amount in each 'frame', say by 45 or 60 degrees? I would also prefer that they all line up along a consistent baseline, and be the same height. To me (and this is just a personal take on it, but it's a bit to do with the shape of the glove) a left-handed glove should rotate anticlockwise; this one is rotating the wrong way, clockwise. --jjron 14:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose only because of the depth of field/lack of focus issue. Also, a comment- if depicting this object from a range of angles is helpful, why not an animated GIF instead?

Spikebrennan 22:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose There's nothing interesting in that poor quality picture. Mbz1 02:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a different sort of image to what is usually posted here, and certainly quite different from what I usually put up for FPC! Created this abstract image of swirling blue lines recently in Apophysis and was quite pleased with the way it came out.

Appears in: Apophysis (software) Blue and Fractal flame

• Support Self Nom --Fir0002 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support My new desktop! If only Apophysis wprked on a Mac!--HereToHelp 03:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - I don't think it illustrates fractal flames very well, as it lacks the iterative/self-similar look you usually see (as in this paper or front page), and it doesn't illustrate Apophysis at all, since that software's controls aren't visible. I agree that it's blue. Even there, I think it makes more sense to have a real-world object that's inherently blue, as this image is just a prettier version of having a #0000FF rectangle. --TotoBaggins 05:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Beautiful image Booksworm Talk to me! 08:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC) - I also support the second image Booksworm Talk to me! 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, it is indeed beautiful if moderately un-encyclopedic. However, someone should crop out the thick black vertical line on the left of the picture. Theonlyedge 12:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose as per TotoBaggins. There are far better examples or fractal flames on the Apophysis. Centy 15:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support because it nicely illustrates the given article. --Phoenix 17:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, but rather boring, not an impressive fractal flame example, and putting this in blue... well lets just say a plain blue square would do a better job than this image... --Dschwen 18:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunate Oppose While nice I don't think it is very descriptive of blue and isn't the best fractal flame. -Fcb981 00:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OK I can understand if this particular flame isn't to everyone's taste - but the alternative, I'm sorry, but it's rubbish! That is the kind of flame you can get by just opening Apophysis and clicking on the randomize button - whereas this one actually took a significant amount of time to construct. Anyway for those who don't really like this one I've actually uploaded several to Stockxpert (don't ask why my user name there is marty8801 it's a long story) and if there are any there you particulalry like I might be willing to upload them to Wikipedia as well. Personally this one is my favourite --Fir0002 06:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is your username marty8801 there? ;-) --Dschwen 06:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm gonna pretend I didn't read that! :-) --Fir0002 06:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - (wet blanket warning) I think we should be pretty wary when considering submissions like this one that are generated from software programs. Unless we actually have expertise in the particular software, it's very hard to judge whether a particular image is good, excellent, mediocre etc. It's a bit embarrassing to showcase an image as being particularly fantastic, only to have some user of that software show up and point out how easy it is to produce. Stevage 06:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I'm not going to claim I'm an expert, but I've used it for a while now and the image I put up was quite difficult to produce and wasn't just a result of using the "randomize" button as the alternative is. So personally I'd be pretty happy to pit it against other fractal flames confident that it's not gonna be mocked as really easy and basic to produce. But that's just my thoughts on this --Fir0002 06:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Let me make another comment. This image is not a good chioce for the blue article at all. Everyone who can see color should know what blue is (for the few that don't a plain blue box will do the job). For people who are color blind some nonm arbitrary real life object (like a ocean and sky scene) should be used to provide an association. The fractal flame is in no way specific to the color blue. --Dschwen 09:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It looks great, to someone not familiar with fractals. But I know that it is very reproducible and can be far more interesting. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Looks like a screensaver ca. 1996 and – more to the point – explains absolutely nothing. ~ trialsanderrors 20:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose An ordinary-looking computer-generated image which doesn't add to the Blue article. Not a bad illustration of Fractal flame though. Kla'quot 00:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support First two are exceptional pictures although the third is just mildly irritating --St.daniel ^Talk 23:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You mean the 2nd is mildly :) annoying, correct? ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 01:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It is a very encyclopedic illustration of the coat of arms of Austria-Hungary

Articles this image appears in

Austria-Hungary

Creator

Hugo Gerhard Ströhl

• Support as nominator — Bewareofdog 05:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think I see moiré on the wings. Given the small image resolution, I really don't know what to expect. Can a higher resolution image be found? J Are you green? 03:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Low resolution, only 1000 on its longest edge. Aslo as thegreen pointed out there are is a Moiré pattern on the wing due to aliasing. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, a flawed digitization, so it's definitely not our best work. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Excellent Image, great quality. It's very colourful and pleasing to the eye. Shows a bubble in a very creative way while keeping its excellent quality.I think this is one of Wikipedia's greatest pictures.

Articles this image appears in

Soap bubble

Creator

brokenchopstick, uploader is Interiot.

• Support as nominator — Minibabu7 22:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Artifacts on left; reflection is distracting.--HereToHelp 00:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting, clear Maddiekate 03:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very strong Oppose -- Since this is an easier thing to photograph than, say, insects copulating on the wing, I'm going to oppose on the grounds that the busy background and reflection detract too much. --TotoBaggins 03:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the numerous pics in soap bubble superior to this one, I've increased my opposition. --TotoBaggins 20:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow! There are a lot of awesome images in the article soap bubble! --Gabycs 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per Toto. The background is distracting. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as it's quite spectacular. Theonlyedge 12:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Toto. The red splodge especially is distracting in the background. I doubt you could avoid reflections on the bubble altogether, but it should be possible to have something more appealing in the reflection. --jjron 14:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, background is too distracting. --Phoenix 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This photo is just an amazing piece of photography. The light and centering is too brilliant to be opposed to any small colours in the background. Producing a picture of the object this small and fragile with a camera is a great feat indeed. Try taking a picture of a small bubble like this with the same amount of clarity at home. Just by itself, this simple but spectacular image should be pointed out for it's perfections, not it's flaws. May I also point out: BUBBLES ARE SHINY. THEY HAVE REFLECTIONS. some enraged farm animal (UTC)
• Weak Support - It is a nice picture but that red spot is annoying... Booksworm Talk to me! 14:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong OpposeThere's nothing spectacular in that picture. Photographing soap bubbles like that is very easy. There are much better pictures in the same article-

Mbz1 | Talk

• Support clear detailed picture --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great photo, reflections in the surface (eg car) is really interesting Electricmoose- Electrifying ^talk 18:53, 5 May 2006 16:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too distracting. Reywas92^Talk_{How's my editing?} 18:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I was looking up Hubble images in google and came upon with this very fascinating image.It is pleasing to the eye and adds value to the article .

Articles this image appears in

Eskimo Nebula

Creator

NASA and ESA

• Support as nominator — Bewareofdog 00:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The image is not sharp and I, for one, am getting awfully tired of the astronomy pictures. Pretty soon we can just link directly to Space.com Image of the day. Cacophony 00:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for there being so many, the astronomy section has been neglected, I have uploaded at least 50 Hubble images myself, free images that have been available for years. A good picture is a good picture and it doesn't matter when it is nominated, or what category it falls under.Chris H 01:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• weak support Its a good image but there are a few "great" images of planetary nebulae.Chris H 01:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have just enough imagination to see how cool the subject is, but the image is inferior to many astronomy pics. I appreciate you uploading all of them, but the better ones have raised the bar well beyond this.--HereToHelp 02:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not a particularly astounding photograph. --Phoenix 03:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The nebula is clearly an amazing subject, but this image is not up there in quality with other featured pics on astronomy subjects. I'd be happy to support something sharp. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - fascinating image, but I have to say that the quality is A laisser désirer... --Booksworm Talk to me! 14:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Very Weak Oppose- Great image but just a little too blurry --St.daniel ^Talk 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Immense Electricmoose- Electrifying ^talk 18:53, 5 May 2006 16:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I personally like this imge, but technically I would say it isn't worthy of being featured. The resolution is quite low and it is very out of focus. SquareShot97 20:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great details, good lighting, encyclopedic.

Articles this image appears in

ISS, STS-88

Creator

STS-88/NASA

• Support as nominator — Chris H 17:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Certainly illustrative of the subject. The resolution is a bit small, but this is negligible. The image has a slight tilt. Jellocube27 21:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is another edit I made to maximize the the area of the spacecraft in the picture, remember the is no up or down in space, so theres no real definable level.Chris H 01:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose I have really been enjoying all these pictures from space, but I do not think this one quite levels up to the others' quality. The whites are blown, the image is (relative to the other space pics) small and not all that crisp at full size. I hate to oppose it, seeing that it is illustrative and that I and other viewers have a close to zero chance of every being able to see the subject in person, but there are just too many astounding pictures that this cannot rival in quality. J Are you green? 00:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, the image is not as sharp as it could be. I'm not sure how much it can be edited to rectify the problem. --Phoenix 03:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - interesting picture, but, sadly is of poor quality... Booksworm Talk to me! 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I find Bookworm's comment funny because I was about to say the opposite. The quality is not stunning, but I wouldn't call it poor and I wouldn't call the picture interesting while he does. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I say that it is Interesting as it is a view of the ISS that I have never seen... Booksworm Talk to me! 08:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very striking, well-composed shot. Lions are caught at attention over a brilliant mass of meat. Large size, very encyclopedic, original and artistic.

Articles this image appears in

Predation, and lion, of course

Creator

User:LucaGaluzzi

• Support as nominator — Theonlyedge 03:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral There is some ugly false-color grain on the Cape Buffalo—however, I feel like editing software could resolve this (i.e. Photoshop CS2 replace color). Besides this, it is an excellent and candid photograph that displays its subjects well as long as the concepts of social structure & predation. Once the image is cleaned, I will support. -- drumguy8800 C T 04:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a bit of noise, but most of it blends into the textures of the image. Since most of the noise appears to be in the red channel, it looks like (and might actually be) bits of blood.Debivort 04:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - fascinating image Booksworm Talk to me! 16:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, now that's some father-son relationship.--Svetovid 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support Oppose It's a great picture, but I don't think it's good enough to featured, I'm not in full support for or several reasons. 1) composition - I really don't like how the foreground lion cuts off the lower jaw of the background lion 2) grain in the background & foreground. Honestly, I think the inside of the Cape Buffalo looks like an opened up, dried out animal, (the color looks fine, and I don't see any grain) but I don't like the grain on the grass 3) the grass itself. Unless someone can convince me that unmowed grasslands actually look like that, I'm going to be suspicious that this was taken on a game farm, and therefore I'm going to be skeptical of the entire description. I went ahead and followed the link to the author's website, but the album there doesn't have any description to speak of, and I don't know Italian anyway. Enuja 19:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks Cody.Pope; you, along with the taller foliage on the left of the image, have convinced me that this picture, is, indeed, what it claims to be. And this kind of shot of lions in the wild is sufficiently difficult to get that I'll forgive the technical and slight composition problems. Enuja 21:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1, The picture illustrates what it's supposed to illustrate (lion with a cub feeding) without it. 2, This picture does have some technical issues, but it's rather unique. 3,Your original research based on guesses should not influence your opinion.--Svetovid 21:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure... but, I think you might be looking into the bloody carcass of the lawn mower. But that too is original research and should not influence your opinion :D --gren グレン 22:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism is not original research. Enuja 00:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it's skepticism based on original research/guesses.--Svetovid 11:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabi Sand is a private game reserve. Do they mow their lawns? I doubt it. ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I live in East Africa, and often eastern savannas look like that especially when there are large herbivores around (like the one being eaten), I'd bet that it occurs in SA too, but that is not even original research, just speculation. --Cody.Pope 09:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, at first I was very excited about this picture, until I saw that it's not so much better than our other lion pictures. Still, I think it's well done even though it's grainy and could possibly have captured more of the lions and carcass had it been taken from another angle or with the animals moved some. gren グレン 22:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Too bad about the technical flaws, but I still think it's FP-worthy. I haven't seen many pics where the male and a cub are sharing a meal, and I like how the explicitness of the entree's fate calls to mind the cruelty of reality; this pic could headline that article, too. :) --TotoBaggins 23:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Despite bit's technical issues it's a unique shot and considering how tough it must be to take such a shot they can be overlooked. Cat-five - talk 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support E9T7A9 ~ trialsanderrors 19:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great and unusual picture. Cubs most of the times stay with females. It is rare to see a cub and male lion eating together.

--Mbz1 | Talk05/12/07

Promoted Image:Male Lion and Cub Chitwa South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004.JPG --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Hight resolution, very encyclopedic, pleasing to the eye, doesn't suffer from the grain most astronomical images do (dots are stars). Demonstrates multiple points in one picture, Shows galaxy interactions, and two types of galaxies (spiral galaxy and dwarf galaxy).

Articles this image appears in

Logarithmic spiral, H II region, Whirlpool Galaxy, NGC 5195, M51 Group, List of spiral galaxies

Creator

HST/NASA/ESA

• Support as nominator I cant' believe this hasn't been nominated before. — Chris H 15:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A "WOW" image, especially in full size. Top enc, too. --Janke | Talk 16:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. "Pristine" may come close to describing it. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-10 18:45Z
• Support, amazing indeed.--Svetovid 18:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wonderful Alvesgaspar 19:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderfull and amazing, certainly pleasing to the eye! ♠Tom@sBat 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A wonderful, pristine image that wows and amazes me... (per the above) J Are you green? 21:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support NASA's done it again…--HereToHelp 22:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good to go. Cla68 23:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - Since its nomination seems to be on the fence, I just want to say *amazing* and hopefully put it over the top. :) --TotoBaggins 01:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like agreeing with other users. =) Very encyclopedic. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Probably one of the best galaxy images I've seen. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Simply amazing. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not that it needs any more support. Wow. Chris_huh^talk 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Holy cow. Wonderful image. Thanks, Hubble! Amphy 18:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• So amazed by this picture's beauty that I give it a Strong Support Booksworm Talk to me! 17:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• WOW...Support Not much I can say that hasn't been said already. This image doesn't need my support vote but it is such a great picture that I felt compelled to vote. Wow. Wikipediarules2221 21:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That is a fantastic image. My only reservation would be that it really needs to be viewed at full resolution to appreciate it fully KASanderson 23:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Strong Support. Brilliant image. Mgiganteus1 18:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great image. Always nice to see how beautiful the Universe is. S0ulfire84 18:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A tremendous Hubble space telescope image of M51 one of the most beautiful galaxies that is approximately 23 million light-years away (or 135 Quintillion Miles!) This would make a great featured picture! ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 08:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice. -- Avenue 10:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is what I call my special AWESOME AWESOME Support. Not only great quality, it gives you a sense of how big our universe is. --Gabycs 20:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful picture --St.daniel ^Talk 23:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Messier51.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A colourful, detailed and encyclopedic photograph. Would look great on the main page, it has the appeal and qulity of a true FP.

Articles this image appears in

Firearm
Gatling gun
Firepower - The Royal Artillery Museum

Creator

Max Smith

• Support as nominator — Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the right side of the thing looks out of focus to me. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 22:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, crowded distracting museum environment doesn't let you get a good look at the gun. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. blurry, cut off subject, unnatural context (although I do realise you're not going to find one "in the wild" these days), odd composition, easily replicable. Witty Lama 02:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A little blurry and the background is not fun --St.daniel ^Talk 21:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Put the gun in the field instead of behind glass in a display case, and don't crop the back of the gun. Then, we might have something. Spikebrennan 15:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Encyclopedic, clear, photograph

Articles this image appears in

Mount St. Sepulchre Franciscan Monastery

Creator

User:MamaGeek

• Support as nominator — MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 18:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It has some weird perspective issues, with the verticals tilted in all different directions, as opposed to converging to one point (ideally somewhere in infinity ;-) ). There also is a slight abundance of forground (at the cost of lacking headroom above the cross), too much for my taste. --Dschwen 18:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhmm, and there are huge stitching faults anyways. Hence: Oppose. --Dschwen 18:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yeah, agree with Dschwen here. The view isn't ideal (better to get in front of those pots) and there are some major stitching problems that are probably resolvable with a good re-stitch. If you'd like, I can have a go with the originals to improve the stitching. Leave me a note if interested. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a re-stitch would fix the strong chromatic aberration of the left wall edge, and the unsharpness... Oppose because of all the tech faults. --Janke | Talk 06:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - There's a large piece of monastery floating in the sky, apparently attached to the tree just off-centre. We should have a banner at the top of this page saying "Do not nominate anything stitched using Photoshop's Photomerge function. It is not fit for purpose and will always introduce some sort of weird artifact". --YFB ¿ 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above; floating objects in the sky! -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 19:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not sharp enough to make up for ghosting problems. Image:Colosseum in Rome, Italy - April 2007.jpg had some similar problems but, they look more natural than the floating heads and it's also very sharp. gren グレン 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do object to you tarring the Colosseum image with the same brush. ;-) What ghosting problems do you see in that one? As far as I can see there are no stitching faults. Oh, unless you're referring to people moving during the exposure and creating a blur? Well, true, but there are very different reasons for that. It wouldn't happen in a daytime shot. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similar as in parts of people floating around. The lady in the foreground has 6 legs :O But, the reasons were legitimate because night shots need long exposures and I suppose you couldn't just kick the people out of the area and the airplane out of the sky. Which is why I supported it. But, just to show you how night shots are done, look at my stunning work :( gren グレン 12:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like how you accentuated the parked car with a fill flash and captured the outdoorish atmosphere with the raindrops on your lens ;-) --Dschwen 13:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm sure those decapitated people would agree. Maddiekate 02:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. The entire right side is severely discoloured and frightening anomalies are rampant. A good spot and subject, but technically a disaster.Theonlyedge 03:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very sharp and high res pic. But the horrible stitching ruined it. Sorry. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 21:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Slightly out of focus, and there are a few objects that came out of no where, like the one in the sky. Great for encyclopedic content, however I would say it's good enough for a FP SquareShot97 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if a re-stitch would save this photomerge. I unfortunately did not have a tripod on hand, and I also unfortunately used my camera on aperture priority, so that the photo on the far right has a different exposure than the others. I just wasn't thinking when I took it, I guess. I should have known it wouldn't have a chance of passing. I'll consider it a good lesson learned. I'm sorry to have wasted all of the reviewer's time in looking at it and posting your objections. Thanks for doing that! MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 01:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And thanks for nominating it, anyway. However, you'd be surprised what stitching software can do as it can compensate for different exposures somewhat. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't be too hard on yourself. I enjoy giving constructive criticism. Better luck next time. =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 09:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If we didn't have time to waste we probably shouldn't put FPC on our watchlists... --Dschwen 09:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Use "autostitch". Google it. It does a brilliant job, costs nothing, and requires no manual input. Stevage 00:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the tip! MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 13:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A nice illustration of various foods made from maize.

Articles this image appears in

Cornmeal

Creator

Scott Bauer (USDA)

• Support as nominator — ShadowHalo 02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Nice, but for something this reproducable, I don't think it is too much to ask for better exposure, better lighting, and fewer artifacts. J Are you green? 03:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Items listed clockwise from top, except the item in the upper left had corner, that doesn't have any cornmeal at all? How about american cornbread and the tons of other things listed in the article that come from cornmeal? Does the ground corn used to make masa even count as "cornmeal?" This picture is of Mexican food, illustrating an article about cornmeal, which is used in more than just mexican food. Oppose because not encyclopedic for cornmeal and grain/jpeg artifacts distracting. Enuja
• Oppose, I like these types of picture but... this one is not sharp enough and isn't the greatest just for cornmeal. gren グレン 10:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Crop is too tight. There's too many things in the picture missing a small edge here and there. Centy 16:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, too blurry; poor crop as well. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 19:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I agree with what others have said, it seems to be a good example and could be used well in the Maize article, but is too blurry and the crop isn't that good. Though the crop, maize itself, can be pretty tasty. omnijohn 20:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The blurriness is due to the scan being poorly sharpened. It looks like the original was a good, sharp chrome which was scanned and prepared for print, not monitor viewing. Although obviously not so enc as far as cornmeal is concerned, this is a competent food shot which would make a decent illustration for Mexican food: I'd be happy to have a go at sharpening it if people were able to forgive the enthusiastic cropping. Not totally convinced it would make FP material though, even then. mikaul^talk 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lighting is good, high resolution, good encyclopedic photo. SquareShot97 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

nice picture

Articles this image appears in

kereru

Creator

Justin Bell

• Support as nominator — Cryptophile 11:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - grainy background. MER-C 13:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Blurry and the angle is not especially encyclopedic. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 13:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - blurry background appears intentional, result of low aperture to draw attention to focused subject, this is a photographic technique, not a problem. As for the bird itself - beautiful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MamaGeek (talk • contribs)
• Oppose I don't have a problem with the blurry background, just the blurry foreground. Also, the bird is cut off, and cropping is a bit tight. J Are you green? 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per J, specifically the tight crop. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 04:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The subject is too blurry. --Ba'Gamnan | Talk 19:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is truly one of the best non-featured images I have seen on Wikipedia. The angle, shot, lighting, even the architecture is perfect in this shot (in my opinion). ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 00:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Politics of Germany, Reichstag building, Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank (he designed the dome on the top of the building).

Creator

User:BLueFiSH.as

• Support as nominator — ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 00:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose not much detail at full res, grainy, blown sky, and chromatic abberation. Debivort 00:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Debivort pretty much said it all. As a point of curiosity, what's with the big glass dome on top? It looks as out of place as the Louvre's glass pyramid.--HereToHelp 00:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The dome was on top of the building during the first Reich (that Reichstag was later burned by Hitler and was restored in 1999 with the design you see now. On a random note, it is actually called a cupola (go figure). ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original cupola. ~ trialsanderrors 03:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is designed by Sir Norman Foster and contains a spiral gangway to the top and a light reflection system to provide the plenary hall with natural sunlight. On a personal note: the cupola looks awesome (as does the rest of the refurbished reichstag), especially from inside, and it offers a great view over Berlin. Btw. it is half a capitol, the house of representatives half. For the Senate there is the Bundesrat which resides in a seperate building. --Dschwen 08:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah…thank you.--HereToHelp 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It just isn't one of Wikipedia's best. Wikipediarules2221 07:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Grainy, construction site on the left (and a terrible caption). Witty Lama 11:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, but is that Spiderman I see on the roof? MER-C 13:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol, I could've said the same thing about the london bridge pics :-). ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I like the pic, but would it be better if you could zoom in on the steps without any people on them? I don't really know much about pics; just a suggestion. --Gabycs 20:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you want such an untypical picture of this building? The steps are crowded all the time as the front entrance also is the entrance for the public to visit the cupola. --Dschwen 20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all--Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This panorama came out nicely. There are interesting things to look at (specific rock formations, rather than just "countryside"), and just the right amount of foreground to keep things in scale. The major defect in the image is that the fortress is not really in prime position. Perhaps someone knows the name of the other formation? The original image is 8400 pixels wide, but that seemed excessive here.

Articles this image appears in

Grampians National Park

Creator

Stevage

• Support as nominator — Stevage 04:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• question - I like the image, but do you have a slightly less compressed version? 600kB for a 3MP image is pretty tiny, and I can see a lot of jpeg artifacts along the edge of the rocks and the sky? Debivort 05:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral too much of the image is in shadow, also this version is too lossy. -- drumguy8800 C T 06:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral for now per Drumguy8800. Too much shadow, artifacts, and the sky is almost blown at the left-most horizon. The shadows might be too much to overcome, but if a larger, less compressed version is made available (always keep the unedited original!) I'll take another look at it.--HereToHelp 23:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose artifacts are pretty heavy. -Fcb981 05:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support full version Better -Fcb981 01:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support full version, oppose small version I like the full version just the way it is; less shadow, tons more detail, still a few jpeg artifacts, but tolerable for me. Some images just cannot be improved by editing. J Are you green? 16:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Another poorly-lit submission, with ugly shadows and burned-out highlights. Worse, the various frames seem to have been shot at different times of day, such that the RHS third is lit from the right/overhead, while the rest of the scene has the sun to the extreme left, making it uncomfortable and unconvincing to look at. The fact that this adversely affects the subject - the Fortress itself looks flat and marginalised even more than it might - is the real killer. There are other faults and flaws but the lighting is more than enough for me. mikaul^talk 16:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But as a wide angle panorama - the light on the left will appear to come from a different angle than the light on the right. Inevitable in all wide panos. Debivort 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of camera angle, the sun is in a different place. Look closer at the two main rock formations in the center: the large (nameless) one has some dark, shadowy detail on it's near-vertical face, while the Fortress is lit almost straight on, with no shadows in the (very similar) vertical faces. This is over about 5 degrees! More obviously, the left of the scene is clearly side-lit, while the right is lit from above; couldn't possibly be the same time of day. Or maybe I've had a glass too much wine... mikaul^talk 22:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. Honestly? Maybe it's the wine - the way I see it, on the left the rocks are shaded on their right side, on the left they are shaded on their right. If I had to guess, I would say the pano spans about 90°, throw in a 5-10° CCW rotation on the left outcrop compared to the right one, and their phase angles are off by about 30° which seems totally consistent with the shading. Moreover, if the images were taken at significantly different times of day - the color matching and stitching was done remarkably well. Debivort 04:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And on the left the rocks are shaded on their right side, yup, its the wine ;-). No seriously, why would anyone stake out a day at the same spot to shoot images for a single pano? Of course the pohotographer rotated around to shoot the succesive frames and that means the direction of the sun relative to his viewline changed. This can be seen in every wide angle pano. In many it's just not that obvious. --Dschwen 06:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would take a pretty interesting subject to make me want to return 4 times to exactly the same spot, just to achieve an unpleasant effect. I've thought of doing that, taking shots at dawn, midday, dusk and sunset, but I would make do so to get an interesting effect, like having two suns or something. If the lighting looks odd, it's just because of the wide angle - you often end up almost looking into the sun at one end, and looking away from the sun at the other end. And also because on the camera I used, you can't lock the exposure settings without also locking the focus. Incidentally, which "burned out highlights" do you see? The little patches of white rock in the sun? Are they really blown? I don't have access to software atm to tell. Stevage 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only because the sun is right overhead/behind the camera in some places, so to get any shadow detail at all they almost have to blow. For me, dramatic scenes like this are all but mis-represented if they aren't shot at the very best time of day, and they don't really get to be great photographs unless there's "something else" happening at the time of the capture, even if that only amounts to a nice cloud formation in the sky. This just seems a rather inopportune and not very well considered capture overall. Sorry! Oh, and I'm quite happy to accept the "shadows" explanation, which do seem more feasible in the <ahem> sober light of day.. mikaul^talk 22:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not bad comments, thanks for the point of view. I do have another panorama from a similar area which I took at dawn. You can see less of the landscape, but it's aesthetically more interesting so I might upload it. This picture here was taken during a hike, so I didn't have a huge amount of time to get the best possible composition, lighting etc. But compared to several others I took during the hike, the landscape itself is interesting. The problem with many landscape panoramas is there are no major features of interest, leaving the whole thing a bit flat. Even if it was breathtaking to be there, the composition comes out dull. Stevage 08:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose The camera is focused on the closer rock, but the photo is mostly illustrating the more distant trees, which are slighly noisy and out of focus. SquareShot97 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (less than four support votes despite extra week). MER-C 08:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution, stunning details, very encyclopedic.

Articles this image appears in

NGC 6357

Creator

HST/NASA/ESA/Digitized Sky Survey 2/Davide De Martin (ESA/Hubble)

• Support as nominator — One of the few wonderful works Davide De Martin did under contract for the ESA. More of his work (non PD) can be seen at skyfactory.org. Chris H 16:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Another breathtaking star field.--HereToHelp 17:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A great shot. --Ba'Gamnan | Talk 20:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An astonishing image of a both haunting and vibrant nebula and star field, a good choice ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 02:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amazing picture --St.daniel ^Talk 12:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-23 13:07Z

Nomination withdrawn - It looks like is was a mislabel by the ESA, I don't believe it was taken by the Hubble's WFPC2 if it was then it would be PD, but on Davids website he says it was taken by UK Schmidt Observatory.Chris H 16:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

One of the best panaroma images i've seen, it is very large and captures both the size and scope of London.

Articles this image appears in

London
Architecture in London

Creator

Thomas Wesenberg

• Support as nominator — Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. There are minor stitching faults (most visible on the horizon) across the entire image. Minor, but a bit irritating. Image quality isn't amazing considering the vertical resolution. I wasn't aware that you were able to access the outside of the dome. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fog on skyground in mildly annoying but us a good picture--St.daniel ^Talk 20:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, what? Do you want to have another attempt at that sentence? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support It is a nice picture, but there are a few stitching errors, as stated above.Maddiekate 21:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Big, but not especially good-quality. The stitching errors are easily avoidable and since London's not going anywhere, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect better control of the highlights and more appealing weather (the sun does occasionally come out in London). Not very inspiring. --YFB ¿ 21:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff, since apparently you can get out on top of the building, any chance you might be able to make a brief trip up there before you head off to the States? --YFB ¿ 21:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its possible, sure. I'll be in London for another four weekends and I work about 10 minutes away near Bank station so it might be possible to pay it a visit on my lunch break. Pending good weather though. As it appears you have to move around the outside of the dome for the 360, I'm hoping that parallax isn't a problem, but even that doesn't explain stitching errors on the horizon. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been up there--it'll be tough, because there's very little room and it's always very crowded. Chick Bowen 21:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Especially mid-day. If you had time to wait until closing you can be up there by yourself... it's also a great experience. I staid up there for a few hours, but only being able to fit it in at lunch suggests you don't have much free time. gren グレン 01:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unfortunately, due to stitching errors. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 22:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, there is a really bad stitching error on the brick building in the foreground... and, the resolution isn't that impressive. Good job... just not featured picture job. gren グレン 01:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Untill another pic can be taken/found to improve on the small faults listed above, this definately counts as a very encyclopaedic pic of London in our time. Yes, boring weather etc. But it's a good pic that would be difficult to beat for encyclopaedic-ness. Witty Lama 03:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The stitching errors are too bad, specially if the image is to be printed and observed in detail. There is a huge one in a grey roof close to the lower right corner. Alvesgaspar 14:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - it's ok, but the glare makes it pretty unappealing to look at. Would you make this image your desktop wallpaper? So, it's a useful image, but not a beautiful one. Also I found the POV a pity, because St Pauls is one of the major landmarks you'd like to be looking *at*, not *from*. Stevage 10:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - would be "weak support" if stitching errors were fixed, support if it had been even a slightly nicer day! Halsteadk 09:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Meets the critera and adds significant value to all of the articles in which it appears

Articles this image appears in

Mandrill
Mandrillus
Cercopithecinae
Papionini

Creator

Malene Thyssen

• Support as nominator — Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Striking photogenic image of the colorful Mandrill in seemingly contemplation, It would make for a nice featured picture. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, looks to be sharp enough. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sharp, but too dark on the right. Reywas92^Talk_{How's my editing?} 18:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment though the right is slightly shadowed, what does the picture lose because of this? --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Encyclopedic value, I'd assume. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 15:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though the shading is a bit different, I think there is enough there to identify the species based on the photo. In addition, it's a great shot, with wonderful aesthetics. --Cody.Pope 19:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sharp enough --St.daniel ^Talk 20:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Love the lighting and subject, but it's just too over sharpened for my liking --Fir0002 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A great picture, very artistic, but I feel it is a poor depiction of the subject and not very encyclopedic. 00:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The former of your oppositions may be true, but certainly not the latter. I suppose it's questionable what qualifies as "encyclopedic". -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be more "encyclopedic" if it were a full-body shot in better lighting, to better help the reader grasp the animal's size and shape. Jellocube27 16:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - weak, only due to the effects of downsampling or oversharpening artefacts in the fur - a great image otherwise. Artistic and encyclopedic are NOT mutually exclusive! --Janke | Talk 07:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Nice picture --Ba'Gamnan | Talk 12:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To mediate for the concerns of over-sharpening, we might ask the up-loader to resize the original using bicubic smoother, or another setting. I mean only resize it to it's present size, not smaller which is why we'd need the original to do it. --Cody.Pope 11:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – It's a lovely composition, but the right crop is too tight. Centy 14:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to excessive oversharpening. I would support a version that's properly post-processed. -- Moondigger 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose whoa that's a lot of sharpening. No thanks. --YFB ¿ 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per comments above and issues that image isn't sharp enough. 'Tis sad, it is a fascinating image.... Booksworm ^{Talk to me!} 05:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Nice closeup. Great contrast between sunlit "lilac" colored flowers and very dark background.

Articles this image appears in

lilacs

Creator

Mshallx

• Support as nominator — Mshallx 23:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blown headlights, very harsh lighting, chromatic abberation, not very fine detail, so-so composition (unclear subject). J Are you green? 19:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice subject, but major technical problems. The shallow DOF kind of ruined it. Sorry. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 04:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It could be much better technically and is higly reproducable. Cacophony 22:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Historical Significance

Articles this image appears in

USS Cole bombing

Creator

Sgt. Don L. Maes, U.S. Marine Corps

• Support as nominator — TomStar81 (Talk) 09:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Blown out sky and ship is not sharp at full resolution. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Ship is not at full resolution but is a very good picture --St.daniel ^Talk 12:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose seriously blown out sky, grainy --gren グレン 16:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose , poor quality and not really historically that significant.--Svetovid 00:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:White House Front Twilight.jpg

Reason

High encyclopedic value.

Articles this image appears in

Washington DC

Creator

User:Noclip

• Support as nominator — Noclip 02:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Sorry, although no big technical flaws, I would've supported it if you had took this picture like 20 or so minutes an hour or so (When there's still enough sun to give it a slight yellow cast, probably winter time (northern hemisphere) when the sun is more south and gives it some majestic glow) earlier when the sky is nicely balanced with the white house, now it's just too dark. Also it looks unusually soft for some reason, maybe slight camera shake? --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I can live with the minor jpg artefacts, but the motion blur is a killer. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is motion blur? Noclip 13:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Slightly weak support Would be full support excecpt for the tiny blurring of the flag. Sorry --St.daniel ^Talk 16:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per antilived, it's just not as good as it could be; should be a relatively easy photograph to compose. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 18:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Too dark, too tightly cropped on sides, blurry, easy to reproduce. --TotoBaggins 21:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I could overlook everything except the motion blur on the flag. It sticks out like a sore thumb.--HereToHelp 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several current FPs with blurry flags (US Capitol Dome, Washington Monument come to mind). Noclip 00:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It looks great to me, but even I noticed the motion blur on the flag (which I'm not sure is really avoidable), and I'm no expert. Terri G 09:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good image quality and I can appreciate the difficulty of taking a good shot of the White house, particularly at night. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either with preference for the edit. The difference in lighting doesn't bother me at all but I do agree that the slightly wider perspective helps with context. Noclip, is this a stitched mosaic image as with others you have taken in DC? If so, I think it would be a good thing to correct the inward lean of the building as part of the stitch, but it isn't that significant so I'm not going to hold back support over it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both images are single shots. I tried altering the perspective on the second one but the ground ended up looking awkward. Noclip 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, I'm not yet convinced. Both shots look a bit flat. Plus in the second one the vantage point is extremely low, almost as if you rested the camera on the pavement. The surroundings offer little contrast and the blurred fountain obscures part of the building. Due to the low vantage point the hedge is also fairly obstrusive (yeah yeah, I'm not suggesting you cut it down before a reshoot, just bring a tall tripod ;-) ). --Dschwen 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're kidding, right? You can't set up a tripod in a 2-block radius of the White House. Noclip 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, thats news to me. Any other way of getting a higher perspective? If not, then I guess the solution is more light. --Dschwen 22:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment- is it just me or are the flags REALLY blurry? Tenio 03:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears in : Hummingbird Hawk-moth

• Support Self Nom. --Ba'Gamnan 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - We already have a Featured Picture of this species: Image:IC Macroglossum stellatarum1 NR.jpg, which IMO is more appealing. The composition of this one leaves too much dead space on the 'wrong' side of the subject. It's a reasonable shot, but not featured-quality. --YFB ¿ 16:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, beautiful image of course, but I agree with YFB's opinion of the other featured image. I don't think we need two for the same species, and the composition of the other is probably superior. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 18:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't think it should matter whether there is another featured picture of this species or not, personally I think this is more encyclopedic than the other one as it is a clear profile shot. I also prefer the colours in this shot. Terri G 09:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great shot. Not only does this image offer a great profile shot with better flower colors, nowhere do the FP requirements say we can't have multiple FPs on the same subject. In fact we have multiple FPs of sunsets for example. I'm sure someone else can come up with a better example to compare to. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Mgm Bewareofdog 23:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Over-sharpened or something, strong halos around feet & antennae. Also too loosely cropped for good enc. --Janke | Talk 05:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Considered the "crown jewel" of the famous ship, unique, relatively poor quality photo I know but considering the period it's good. If anyone want to go and take a new pic they're welcome.

Articles this image appears in

RMS Titanic

Creator

unknown. uploaded by User:Daniel Chiswick

• Support as nominator — Witty Lama 14:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I wouldn't say it was good for the period - probably just average for this type of staged photography (ie non-action documentary). To me, it is an interesting subject but a fairly lifeless photograph. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be silly its a fantastic photo. The reason you can't see the cherub is because it was made out of bronze, I can make out the gorgeous detail on the clock and see the pinecones on the edge of the railings; I heartedly Support, even though this picture was taken from the Olympic and not the Titanic but the staircases were both identical, and its not like the picture can be reproduced. And its the crown jewel of all ships, I've never seen anything more beautiful on a passenger vessel, or the best hotels for that matter. OK ramble over --Brent Ward 20:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Mediocre picture of a fascinating subject (although the caption needs updating if it really was taken on the Olympic). Maybe it cannot be not retaken, but at least rescanned. I see no reason why an inferior reproduction should even be considered for FP status. --Dschwen 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Diliff. Even though historical photographs are not applicable under the guidelines under which images are normally placed, featured should still be reserved for the most valuable historical photographs. Just because it is old and cannot be taken again is not enough of an excuse for me. J Are you green? 22:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The historical value of this one does not pass the poor quality --St.daniel ^Talk 12:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment doesn't anybody else think it's a hell of a shame that that dam ship had to sink :-( it was beautiful; anyone else think that --82.36.182.217 13:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At least it's not a reproduction. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As per supports above Booksworm ^{Talk to me!} 05:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Perfect example of a rainbow clearly showing all 7 colours, dramatic and eye catching, well framed and people provide scale

Articles this image appears in

History of scientific method, Rainbow

Creator

Ericrolph

• Support as nominator — McKDandy 17:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't notice the stitch. While I stand by the merit of the picture, this does make it unsuitable for Featured Picture --McKDandy 11:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support A little on the small side, but otherwise acceptable.--HereToHelp 18:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Very nice pic, but the photographer's shadow and the random people in the pic kind of ruined it for me. Nevertheless, a very impressive shot...is there a version without the people? Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 02:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email from Ericrolph...so you can hear his thoughts about the pic:

Hey Jumping Cheese!

Wonderful to have been nominated. Thank you for your email. I'm disappointed that you find the people a distraction. They are the reason the rainbow has so much meaning for me. I believe people in images provide scale which helps others relate to the size of the object. I think most peoples experience with a rainbow is viewed at a distance and not nearly as close-up and many people have expressed sentiments along those lines. I can understand that others neither know nor want to relate to people in a photograph. Obviously, I can and would photoshop them out of the image if they made for a better picture, but my feelings are so inexorably wrapped up with the people in the image, I would be emotionally hurt to see them removed from the image. If you'd like to know more about the image, please visit the comments on this image here:

http://flickr.com/photos/ericrolph/54393600/

I was asked by the maintainer of the rainbow article to provide the photo. I was thrilled that he or she asked. I'm equally thrilled that the photo has been nominated. Thanks again for pointing out that the photo was nominated. Your concerns are valid. I'm honored that you took the time to provided an opinion. Thank you again for making wikipedia a treasure to the world. You may share this email message with whomever you see fit.

Warm regards, Eric

On May 24, 2007, at 2:52 AM, Jumping cheese wrote:

Hey Ericrolph!

A pic (http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Image:Double-alaskan-rainbow.jpg) you uploaded is currently being nominated for Featured Picture status (http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Double-alaskan-rainbow).

I "weak opposed" it since there are rather distracting people in the pic. Do you perchance have a version without the people in it? A high-res version wouldn't hurt either. Thanxs. =D Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 19:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Ericrolph that, for me, the people really add to the value of this picture. They make something as distant and unobtainable as a rainbow seem much more reachable and therefore relevant. They exemplify the interaction of the rainbow with the earth, rather than just the sky. I think it could really spark the interest of a reader (especially a child) to learn more about them, which is why I think it adds such value to the article. The shadow of the photographer could easily be cropped. However, I agree the resolution is a little poor, especially compared with some of the other images up for nomination. -- McKDandy 20:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, the resolution is right on the edge of acceptable for me; perhaps with an image of a different nature such a resolution would squeak through. I also agree with JC's comments. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 03:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to nominator - please remember the User: prefix for the Creator field. It's User:Ericrolph not Ericrolph. The last one points to an article entitled Ericrolph, but the first (User:Ericrolph) points to the user page. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the tip. I'm a bit new at this! -McKDandy 20:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The image looks unnatural due to oversaturation (?). Also, it is too small for this subject and I don't like the symmetrical composition. Alvesgaspar 08:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't think it really illustrates History of scientific method whatsoever. I had a look and there is only a fleeting reference to a rainbow in the body the article. The caption of the image is simply 'Rainbow' and therefore does not have any connection to the content of the article. As for the Rainbow article, it does add value, but so do all the other images. It isn't a bad image, but it has too many little faults such as low resolution, oversaturation (perhaps), a distracting person in the middle, photographer's shadow at the bottom and non-centred subject and not enough impact on the undertanding of the subject. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the image from that article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-24 15:31Z
• Oppose. Ahhrgh! Scale?! So the height of an average rainbow is what, approx ten meters? The Rainbow up close (see email)? Whats up with that? A rainbow has no fixed location in space, you cannot get up close, neither can you find a pot of gold where it touches the ground by the way. Sorry, the pic is pretty and I don't see the people as a distraction, but the show how jacked up the saturation is, and sadly the secondary rainbow is cut off plus the image size is to small for my liking. --Dschwen 06:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, There is a horrible stitching error to the top left of the person-with-red-jacket, about halfway between them and the rainbow, slightly higher than where they're pointing. And just to the right of the photographers shadow it looks like some black background showing through, it could just be more shadow but it is very perfect in the middle where it ends at the same height most of the way across to the very pixel. --Benjamint444 08:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, you're absolutely right. Well spotted. I didn't even think that it was a stitch at first glance. I see the tell-tale signs of a bad stitch on both the left and right hand sides in the grass. It hass obviously been hidden somewhat by significant downsampling. I suspect that would also make it likely that the black strip at the bottom is also because of the stitching projection. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you take a look at the high-res version, you can see like three sticking errors. I don't believe that the photographer intentionally down-sampled the pic to hide the flaws, since the high-res version is easily available. But good catch guys! Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Too small and does not add much to the rainbow article. Cacophony 22:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — Why was such a small version uploaded? Anyhow, I've gone ahead and replaced the image with its original 1919x1008 photo. ♠ SG →Talk 17:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I like the image, but not for FP. Main problems: excessive sharpening, grain/noise, the photographer's shadow, and the person. IMHO it would be fine if there were people being normal, like hiking or whatever. But not facing the camera being silly. The test: would you ever see an image like this in a print encyclopaedia? No. Never. Stevage 00:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears in : Koi

A great shot of a nishikoi.

• Support Self Nom. --Ba'Gamnan 09:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The blurred rock is a litte bit of a problem and is kind of distracting but otherwise is of excellent quality --St.daniel ^Talk 12:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Blurred, subject cut off, lense flare, murky water obscured rest of subject, abnormal position of subject (?). Witty Lama 14:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I agree with the points made above, but I think it still is alright.--HereToHelp 18:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, poor crop; a touch blurry. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 03:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nasty composition, maybe result of crop. -Fcb981 04:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Subject cut off. It's that simple. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Wow Factor

Articles this image appears in

Aircraft Carrier

Creator

Anynobody

• Support as nominator — TomStar81 (Talk) 00:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the caption mentions an arresting wire…which I don't see.--HereToHelp 00:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not in the picture, thats why. The emphasis here is more on the angled flight deck allowing aircraft to become airborne again without colliding with other planes on the carrier's flight deck than the it is about the wire; however, if enough people voice concern over the absence of the wire I suppose I could ask Anynobody and see if he would be willing to add it to the picture; IMHO though, I think the animation looks fine without it. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the animation seems like unnecessary and distracting flash that doesn't add anything. I'd rather have a more detailed diagram of deck operations without animation. Plus, the image was only just added to the article, in a place where it doesn't seem to add very much. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I don't understand why this needs to be in animation either. Only one thing is happening... which looks like an airplane flying over the runway on an aircraft carrier. If multiple things were happening maybe it would need an animation. gren グレン 21:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support does a good job of illistrating how an angled flight deck works, although it should be placed either in angled flight deck or modified to show the differnce between carriers with angled flight decks and those without angled flight decks. 75.41.164.147 03:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, we don't count the anon votes here, but thanks for the support anyway. FYI: it doesn't appear in the article angled deck cause there is no room there for it, and I have no idea how to make Gif's that would show a camparison. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, animation not needed as the others have mentioned; is that why the resolution then suffers? -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 03:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Nothing special about this animation. Not FP standard. Sorry. Centy – reply• contribs – 17:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A detailed, clear, high resolution mosaic image of St Peter's Square showing the Vatican and its position within the city of Rome. Although it appears that the image is tilted, I have spent a lot of time studying reference points such as the horizon and corresponding points in the square and it is near enough to exactly level. However, it seems that St Peter's Basilica is not facing exactly straight toward the square and the avenue behind it, but I haven't been able to find a high enough resolution to confirm it. This is an example I did find though showing the same angled roofline.

Articles this image appears in

Rome, Vatican City, St. Peter's Basilica and Saint Peter's Square.

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator — Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Soo many details, I wish there was a 100MP version though ;-) --Dschwen 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As above. How do you focus each segment? do you auto focus, use a tiny apature and the same focal setting. Basicly, what is the best stratagy for focusing a stitched panorama and how did you keep both the statues in the extream forground and the square in focus. thanks -Fcb981 14:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question.. From memory I focused on something in the middle (ie around the distance of the obelisk) of the frame and set the lens to manual focus, stopped the lens down significantly (around f/8 or so) and just scanned from bottom left to bottom right with around 25-50% overlap between frames, then up a row and repeated the process. As it was a 5x6 segment panorama (30 frames at 13mp each) with up to 50% overlap, I suppose it should be around the 200mp range, but I downsampled it substantially which would obviously have some impact on perceived sharpness. There might be more DOF issues at original 100% res. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which lens did you use? Did you perform the stitching at a high res version (that would need insane amounts of RAM, wouldn't it?). Do you have a 100% crop lying around, I'd be interested to see it. --Dschwen 16:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You didn't read the image description, did you? ;-) It was a 70-200mm f/2.8L. I think each segment was at around 70mm. And yes, it does use an insane amount of ram. By default I usually do my big stitches with a factor of 4 downsample (ie reducing width to 50%) in order to speed it up. The quality is basically the same as stitching at 100% and downsampling afterwards. When I really want to maximise image quality I'll export every frame to 16 bit uncompressed TIFF files but stitching that sort of image grinds my computer to an absolute halt (usually an overnight job even with 2gb ram) with some serious pagefile shuffling. This is mainly useful when the blender doesn't do a good job of sky gradation as processing the images in 16 bit tends to avoid posterization. I'm moving to the US in about a month and will be looking to splurge on a new PC and 30" 2560x1600 monitor... I'm looking at 4gb ram - maybe 8gb ram. With any luck that'll help to resolve the memory issues with stitching. Anyway, I'm digressing... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoops, sorry. Don't you carry your 85mm prime around anymore? Well, I guess at that amount of downsampling it doesn't matter... --Dschwen 18:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do, but stopped down that much the 85mm prime probably doesn't look any different to the 70-200mm f/2.8L anyway - they're both excellent lenses. I checked the EXIF and it was 135mm focal length anyway, not 70mm. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you used so many segments, then with all these people and cars moving around, how come we don't see any shadows anywhere on this photo? And I liked to know what program you used to stitch the photos. Thanks a lot! Amazing photo again from David. --Arad 21:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, there are shadows but because of the angle of the sun they're almost directly behind the people. I use PTGui to stitch the images and smartblend to blend them. It is pretty good at removing duplicates. I tried to take all the segments as fast as possible so that people/cars didn't have the chance to move far. When they're nearby the blending software will usually only keep one version of them! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks again! Which one removes the people? Smartblend? I'll get that program! But didn't you said you won't give Wikipedia high res images anymore? ;-) --Arad 23:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, technically compared to the 200MP original this is just a lowres thumbnail ;-). j/k. --Dschwen 07:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and at least according to Google Maps' satellite image, there is a slight angle. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, perfect detail and you can see many famous sights.--Svetovid 18:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - "Excellent" Booksworm Talk to me! 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - An awesome shot! Great detail! Nothing to criticize! In short, this should be FP. --Gabycs 19:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, you make Wikipedia prettier. And you remind me of how little I know about photography. gren グレン 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning and flawless. As for the tilt, bear in mind that your instrument(s) are probably more precise than the ones they had when the built the plaza.--HereToHelp 20:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Crystal clear even if full zoom. Most amazing picture I've seen on Wikipedia so far. How are there no stitching errors due to all those people? Centy 21:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very sharp and detailed. -- RM 12:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportExcellent picture --St.daniel ^Talk 23:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can't fault this for sheer clarity and definition and for this and other reasons I'm not opposing it, but the apparent off-centre and almost-front-on lighting really ruin it for me. mikaul^talk 23:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeThis is a perfect picture from a perfect photographer and because it is otherwise so perfect that shadow in the lower middle bothers me.

Mbz1 00:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

• Support, sensational. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 01:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Talk about a super high-res pic! I can actually see the faces on the ant sized people. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 04:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support , perfect example of an encyclopedic photograph.--McKDandy 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Another amazing pic Diliff. Cacophony 23:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It does have some problems but I still think that it is a great picture --TrentpnGB 03:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:St Peter's Square, Vatican City - April 2007.jpg MER-C 12:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

What she said: [11]

Articles this image appears in

Io (moon), Volcano, Tvashtar Paterae, New Horizons

Creator

NASA / JHUAPL / SwRI

• Support as nominator — Spikebrennan 17:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - It could be blurry and maybe out of focus, yet that animation brings much more educational and encyclopedic value than many other "sharp" pictures. It looks to me that Wikipedia POD should be more concern about bringing up unique and educational pictures instead of maybe beautiful but very common ones. After all Wikipedia is not a photo contest. It is Encyclopedia. Mbz1 | Talk
• Support per above - yay geologically active bodies other than earth! The ejecta get so far out there too... Debivort 05:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support possibly the only image of its kind Jellocube27 06:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• support per nom Cryptophile 11:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Support. I would love to support this, but the image description page currently lacks a caption. The blurb here probably isn't public domain, as it's on a Johns Hopkins University website, otherwise I'd paste that in. -- Avenue 12:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added blurb. Serendipodous 14:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I now support it. I'd also like to see a strip (per Pengo below), but I think the current version is good enough to be featured as is. -- Avenue 22:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is it possible to have these 5 images laid out as a strip too, so they can be studied more closely? Animation is good but it's nice to have an alternative (and non-moving) way to view the images too. —Pengo 14:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The caption should mention that the ejecta gets up to 350km in altitude (the space shuttle would have to dodge it)! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TotoBaggins (talk • contribs) 15:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've added the height to the caption here (it's already on the image description page). -- Avenue 09:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Of all GIF animations I've seen, this one is the most "spaced-out"... ;-) --Janke | Talk 17:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very interesting and unique. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-17 18:17Z
• Comment While I recognize the uniqueness of the animation, I also feel that it has very poor quality, even given the circumstances. I imagine this was compressed to make it work as an animation? If the uncompressed, larger files could be uploaded as a strip, per Pengo, I might support.--HereToHelp 20:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support, I so want to support this on encyclopaedic grounds, but the poor quality may be just too much. It's hard to discern what's exactly going on without the blurb. Centy 22:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Even if its 500 million miles away.Bewareofdog 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Mbz1 --St.daniel ^Talk 23:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tvashtarvideo.gif MER-C 11:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution, stunning contrast, very encyclopedic, the man in the lower right side gives the image scale. Heat from the rocket causes distortion of the launch apparatus, helps demonstrate the large amount of heat that is generated a launch. It is also some what ironic, that a rocket that was originally designed to deliver nuclear warheads to the USA, has the American flag on it.

Articles this image appears in

Soyuz TMA-9, Soyuz 2 rocket, Soyuz FG

Creator

NASA/Expedition 14

• Support as nominator — Chris H 16:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The only thing I find wrong is that the bottom is somewhat unclear; other than that, an amazing pic! --Gabycs 16:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment the man cannot give scale, because in order to do so, he would have to be as far from the camera as the rocket is. I don't think a person would want to be in that position. Debivort 19:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, give the guy some credit, he's risking this life for Wikipedia. I think if that rocket were to blow, he would be a siscobob.Chris H 19:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be one of the few times he gets to get warm during the year. Let me put it this way. If I lived in russia, I'd take a flaming rocket over a burning oil drum any day. -Fcb981 05:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want to say Shish Kebab right?

• comment on the question of scale, remember that within the nose of the rocket there's a Soyuz spacecraft that carries a crew of 3! thomasfly 5 Feb 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• support a bit grainy, but clealy a short exposure time is required. The middle/top third of the rocket sure looks jury rigged - I expect to see some duct tape in there. Debivort 19:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice picture... as for scale and the man, it is hard to judge in the thumbnail as by Debivort's comment, but my brain seems to fill in the missing information for scaling given the full sized picture with grass visible. J Are you green? 20:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Jumping cheese's picture completely threw me off. That shuttle is about 1.5 times as big as I had though!. Still a great picture, though. J Are you green? 20:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Isn't Soyuz Russian? then why does it have the American flag here? wierd. --Arad 01:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is that this is a launch for the International Space Station. If you look to the left of the American flag you will see white over blue over red which is the flag of the Russian Federation. So, there are probably flags from all of the constituent elements around the tip. gren グレン 03:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • you're right ;-) --Arad 03:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Contrast with Image:Space Shuttle Columbia launching.jpg: the launch site is out in the middle of nowhere, the launch vehicle is smaller and, as someone mentioned above, much more haphazard looking, and there's a guy right there, which would be unheard of at an American launch.--HereToHelp 01:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice, and cool location... and, I'd like to stand that close to a rocket launch too. gren グレン 03:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Ooooo...pretty. However, the man standing near the launch does not give an accurate sense of scale (I know Debivort already touch upon the subject of scale, but I'll elaborate on it). The person actually distorts the sense of scale. From what I can see, the pic was taken from a hill over looking the launch. The person is also standing on the hill, rather far from the launch pad. He will probably still be toast if the rocket explodes, but he's much father than perceived. With the person as a sense of scale, the rocket looks no higher than 50 feet tall (the rocket is only about as tall as the person stacked seven times), when in fact it's over 150 feet tall. That's one-third the actual size. The caption should note that, so the pic doesn't distort the actual size of the rocket. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at the pic on the right for an accurate sense of scale. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 07:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although this is not the most important article on Wikipedia, the picture is stunning and very high quality. It is a very good picture in my opinion, worthy of a featured article. Matt. P 21:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Nay Chickitychina`1`1 00:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please elaborate opposes. J Are you green? 01:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Support for the pic that isn't for votingChickitychina`1`1 00:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Irrelevant Comment Striked unless User wants to change his comments... Booksworm Talk to me! 16:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ummm... That's not up for voting... J Are you green? 01:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amazing picture Booksworm Talk to me! 16:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because of misleading perspective, giving the wrong impression of scale. Crop out the person at right, and I'll gladly support. --Janke | Talk 11:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if he doesn't give a good since of scale, he does demonstrate how Russian launches are different from American and shouldn't be edited.Chris H 14:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support because it so clearly shows the distinct exhaust plumes from the smaller, "vernier" combustion chambers located to the left and right of the main exhaust plume. (See image at right showing the combustion chamber nozzles.) (Sdsds - Talk) 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Oh come on, it's beautiful. Huge image, great contrast and an exellent example of space age technology. Thanks, Bogdan 03:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom et al. Witty Lama 14:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom et al.—Gaff ^ταλκ 00:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Just noticed: the caption mentions launches from Guiana Space Centre. Those are planned, but haven't yet happened. (Sdsds - Talk) 04:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful --St.daniel ^Talk 12:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Soyuz TMA-9 launch.jpg MER-C 11:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The image uses the colours recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps for consistency. It is drawn to scale and is an example of a good looking, functional map.

Articles this image appears in

Kaziranga National Park

Creator

User:Nichalp, modifications by User:Pradiptaray

• Support as nominator — =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Strongly - a very good map. Although there are no official colours yet specified by WP:MAPS, the list on the talk page is near enough completion, and this conforms. The detail is superb, with no jagged edges/sharp corners or faults as far as I can see. Well done, this is an exemplary candidate for a map nom. And by the way, the current Best. Map. EVAR. is Holy Roman Empire 1648.svg - incredibly detailed, large, and the description page is the best I've ever see for any image. Well done. E8T10A9 —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - Sorry, but I don't agree. Although the map pleases the eye, its technical quality is far from enough to reach FP status. Here are some drawbacks: i) No idea where the place is. The "framing" is quite tight and there is no insert to help locating the park inside India (such insert exists in the original map); ii) The density of information is very poor: only some roads, tracks and villages are shown. No information on the surface relief or land cover; iii) The orientation of the labels in the map is not the best: almost all are horizontal. Question - What are the red dots? - Alvesgaspar 11:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Could I modify it in someway? 1. For example, an inset map is not a requirement of a map at all, the criteria says that it should be pertinent to the article it is in. The article already has a locator map, so having one in would be redundant, and bloated. 2. I can make the necessary adjustments to reduce the tight crop. Is that what you are looking for? 3. What sort of density information are you looking for? The map is of a forest, and specific named locations in it. There are no villages in the forest, so nothing else to add. Major lakes, and rivers are depicted in the map. 4. Surface relief and land cover would be physical map. The elevation hardly varies by 20 metres, so I'm not convinced that this would be a helpful addition. 5. Are you looking for any other sort of orientation in the map? Labels are usually always horizontal in maps. 6. Those red dots are locations. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Well, you could try to put a little more detail. The level of generalization is excessive even at thumbnail size. Note that this topographic map of the area, whose scale is only 1:250 000, has more detail per unit area, especially hydrography and relief information. For example, the mountains which exist south of the park and the lakes inside. Also, I think the area depicted should be much larger, to better contextualize the park in its geographic region. Of course, no improvement can guarantee that the final product will be good enough to be featured, even if the final result is technically impeccable. After all there are regions “cartographically” more interesting than others and the “wow” factor is really relevant here. Alvesgaspar 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what detail I could put in. I feel having the relief information would be excessive, and the two other comments for this FPC seem to be supporting on the basis of its simplicity. If more people can comment on this issue, I could accede to this suggestion. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support informative and clean --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Although I do agree with Alvesgaspar's point 1, the picture could use an insert, also it should be pretty easy to acheie that. Good luck! --Spundun 08:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've changed my vote to Strong oppose because it is hard for me to accept that this map will soon be taken as an example of an exceptional cartographic work. Which is not, for the reasons explained above. It is clean and good looking, but quite far from excelence in cartographic terms. Alvesgaspar 22:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I'd prefer to see the map incorporate a locator insert, but that's not essential. The big problem for me is with the labels. Many appear badly aligned; some are difficult to read, and in some cases it's not immediately clear what they refer to. While it is common on maps for most labels to be horizontal, river names are often placed to fit the feature, and that would be of real benefit here. Also - where is the "Panbari Reserve Forest", which is mentioned in the bottom right of the picture? It should either be shown as a point if it is small, or as an area if it is larger. Warofdreams talk 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Agree with Alvesgaspar on this one. Lycaon 19:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar. See the Falkands map for an example of featured quality. ~ trialsanderrors 07:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

I'm offline at the moment, without access to my PC. Please allow me some more time to respond. Regards, Nichalp 08:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll move this down for the time being. MER-C 10:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please add an inlay to specify the area being covered. other than that, pic looks good. Kalyan 06:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the inlay really required? Doesn't the lat and longs suffice? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Anwar 12:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Anwar do you have a statement to make? You oppose every single India-related FAC and FPC when you check it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think it is technically brilliant, incredibly comprehensive, very professional looking and has encyclopedic value beyond belief. E10T10A9

Articles this image appears in

Holy Roman Empire, Peace of Westphalia, although many more should use it.

Creator

User:Astrokey44

• Support as nominator —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - southernmost tip cut off!!! --Janke | Talk 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support Per Janke, I'd like the southern tip added. As it's an SVG, it shouldn't be too hard.--HereToHelp 20:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been added :) --Astrokey44 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Can someone with expert knowedge of the topic confirm that this is factually correct? Can someone email an academic they know who's into this area of history to confirm it? Witty lama 22:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Probably e-mail the PNG facsimile... unless you know they can view SVG images) gren グレン 22:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or create a PDF, retains the detail, and is even safer (compatibilitywise). --Dschwen 07:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, sometimes labels overlap each other.... which, is bad, right? I am not sure if you can avoid it on such a detailed map... which is why I just want others to weigh in on this and maybe help me decide. gren グレン 22:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the text overlapping is mostly due to Firefox's SVG generation I think, because the PNG version looks perfect, so I'm guessing wikimedia's SVG handler is better? --Golbez 12:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some of the text layers which are supposed to be transparent come out looking opaque --Astrokey44 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The main reason for opposing is the "tight framing" of the map. In my opinion, a larger part of Europe should be shown to give the necessary geographic (and historical) context. Also, the lettering is too big, resulting in a cluttered map. Finally, I don't like the strong colours. Alvesgaspar 16:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the size of some of the text and changed the colours to a lighter scheme from colour brewer. Not sure about a europe inset as there is already a separate map of this. --Astrokey44 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per all. Another thing though, im not being funny but that picture nearly crashed my pc... and i have a decent pc, so god only knows what it would do to an average computer (or have a got a dodgy setting that made it freeze?) --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should leave a warning that it is a huge file and to view as png instead. --Astrokey44 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• strong support despite svg format. Debivort 10:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could the "Holy Roman Empire" faded text in the background be removed? I find it distracting and it would seem superflous if the picture is well captioned. The O in Roman lands in the middle and at first I thought it was a smudged copyright logo. Unless this is my issue as I am viewing it on a flat panel in svg.Pedro |  Chat  13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't see the reason why this is an svg. It's unreadable in image page resolution, it's ginormous, and I can't open it to look at the details. Unrelated, the font color is too light and the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE is distracting. ~ trialsanderrors 18:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One reason is so that you can hide different layers and make things like locator maps. removed HRE text and darkened labels now --Astrokey44 02:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's useful as a master map to create all those submaps. For display purposes it's not useful. ~ trialsanderrors 03:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm with the two last users, for cartographic reasons. But my fight against svg maps didn't have any success till now. On the contrary, most users oppose any map which isn't svg (mainly in Commons). Alvesgaspar 19:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Contains factual errors. The Old Swiss Confederacy did include neither the Valais nor the Grisons nor the full territory of the modern Canton of Geneva at that time. The city of Basel is shown at the wrong location, it is on the Rhine knee. The blueish blot labelled "BASEL" between the "Swiss Confederation" and the Franche Compté is actually the "Prince-Bishopric of Basel". The borders shown in that area are highly approximative and of sketch quality only. Compare with Image:Historische Karte CH 18 Jh.png, which is much more accurate. Lupo 07:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is a much increased scale. Most other maps of Europe I have seen show the Swiss confederation in this area as Valais, Grisons and Geneva are 'allied and protected districts' [12] or associates [13]. There wasnt much room to write the full title - Ive added "B. of" to Basel. Sorry I had the city of Basel mixed up with Rheinfelden - removed it as it is not in the empire --Astrokey44 04:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to have a scale in kilometers too, next too the scale in miles, and perhaps some extra tickmarks on the scale would be helpful. Berteun 11:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Is this accurate? I'd hate to see this go to waste. Also, it'll be a good idea to create a high-res rasterized version, for those whose computers balk at the large vector image. Perhaps we could feature that instead? Moving it down. MER-C 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The map is technically quite an achievement, however I too feel that it shouldn't be SVG. At high resolutions, the text is hard to read and the map is too resource consuming on most computers. Scrolling is too laggy and it's annoying to use. Maybe there should be a medium size version which is say 50-75% of the base size? Centy 12:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think the format change will be enough. I've heard that PNG is faster than JPEG when loading, and is certainly much faster than SVG. MER-C 04:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, there already is a PNG version. Support PNG Version. Centy 21:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Historical Signifigance; This is one of the more widely recognized photographs taken during the air raid at Pearl Harbor 7 December 1941. Interestingly, a lot of people I know incorrectly believe that the photograph shows the explosion of the battleship USS Arizona, so I hope if this gets featured that the correct information regarding the ship in the photograph will get out to the general public.

Articles this image appears in

USS Shaw (DD-373), Attack on Pearl Harbor

Creator

United States Navy

• Support as nominator — TomStar81 (Talk) 02:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Grrrrrrrr. I was planning to nominated that pic...that's why I added it to the pearl harbor page. But you beat me to it! =) Very encyclopedic and clearer than the other FPC with a similar theme. The only problem I had with the pic was that the palm tree in the foreground is blurry...but I like how it kinds of frames the pic so there there isn't empty space in the sky. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 03:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I didn't mean to beat you to the punch (although I do believe that this proves the age old theroy that he who hesitates is lost :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're bumming me out. ;) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great shot. Extrodenary really, it must have been taken a second at most after the explotion started and yet it has foreground framing and is exposed well. Either a very luck shot or someone who took a morning stroll to maybe snap a few shots of a massive supprise military attack. -Fcb981 04:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Unique. Some dust and scratch removal would be nice, but not too much! --Janke | Talk 11:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic picture --St.daniel ^Talk 11:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, fantastic. --Golbez 15:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Spikebrennan 17:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The pic caught my eye some time ago. A good caption of explosion. --Brand спойт 18:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, so good that I thought I'd chime in. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning capture of an unrepeatable moment. Aye Carumba Fajita Pizza 14:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Overall a good photograph; exceedingly eyecatching too. Chris Buttigieg^talk 22:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An irreplaceable moment in history. ^(H) 17:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:USS Shaw Exploding.jpg MER-C 08:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It shows a side of Ensay that the other images on the page do not, grassy hills and cool mornings with mist

Articles this image appears in

Ensay, Victoria
mist

Creator

--Benjamint444 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator — Benjamint444 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This image does not appear in any articles; it cannot be considered unless it is in at least one.--ragesoss 03:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It is in the town page, at the bottom. Not a brilliant place for it but it but it would be in the way anywhere else. --Benjamint444 09:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it isn't, the photo in the article is Image:Mist - Ensay region2.jpg whereas the photo nominated is Image:Mist - Ensay region3.jpg. The difference appears to be the brightness level, but this would still need to be corrected for it to be considered for FPC. I also notice that the one in the article is 299kb and absolutely awful quality due to the compression level used. I've replaced it with Image:Mist - Ensay region3.jpg so it is now the correct image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support – Technically and aesthetically wonderful image. Maybe you should add this to an article about mist as it shows it wonderfully. Centy 01:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - like it, high resolution, very sharp. Halsteadk 09:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well, we certain have a glut of Gippsland region featured pictures! You're not a cousin/brother/etc of Fir0002 are you?? Ensay is only 20kms from Swifts Creek! And we all know how everyone is related in those parts ;-). Anyway, back to the image. Very reminiscent of Fir0002's landscape work, and that is no bad thing. Good work, but you should really have made you sure you had the right image in the article before submitting it for FPC. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I wasn't the only one thinking along those lines... I already asked this at Benjamint's Commons talk page. He's a schoolfriend of Fir's. --YFB ¿ 17:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Must be something in the water. ;) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for supporting, I have added it to the mist page, surprisingly (considering the photogenic nature of mist) there was only one other image there already. The Image:Mist - Ensay region2.jpg image was compressed to much, that's why I re-uploaded, thanks for fixing it. --Benjamint444 10:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The best photo of this author so far. Alvesgaspar 14:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very encyclopedic pic in terms of "mist". Very sharp and aesthetically pleasing. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mist - Ensay region3.jpg MER-C 08:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A full body shot of this amazing insect. Excellent sharpness and nice natural posture, perched in the shade of a carrot flowerhead cleaning itself; giving it a high enc value.

Appears in: Mantodea

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 04:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support (with preference for the edit) I don't like too much the composition but it is great picture (the subject is very nice). --Ba'Gamnan | Talk 12:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment needs better caption. gren グレン 12:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Gren, but as per very lengthy discussions on the FPC talk page, the caption detail in this image is easily sufficient. --Fir0002 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Support Edit – Technically brilliant and beautifully in focus. However I would have preferred the grass stalk was cropped on the bottom edge rather than from the right. Centy 14:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though I agree with the above opinion of a poor crop. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 15:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't think the composition is that poor, and certainly not bad enough to oppose over — the detail more than makes up for it. Though I might have to change my vote to strong oppose; one antenna isn't fully in focus. =D -Panser Born- (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Same as Panser born--St.daniel ^Talk 21:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Why don't we just have automatic FP status for Fir's work? Iorek85 07:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I would've loved to see the insect walk upwards along the stalk, but the image is still brilliant. Does Fir have an image with an uncropped plant? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Didn't we just see a macro of the head a little while ago? (Not that we can't have two FPs of the same subject, and the composition is very different--a head on a black background vs. the entire thing in the wild.)--HereToHelp 19:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Iorek85. One 00:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Uploaded an edit with some magic cloning - no just kidding! But that's all I've got in the picture, hope it is a bit better. Didn't have time to match the processing of the original, hopefully it's not too far out for most people. --Fir0002 08:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 2nd image. Both images are fantastic, but my preference is for the updated version. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The genitals being obscured spoils it for me. There is intense research interest in insect genitals, and they have major importance in taxonomy, to the extent that some species can only be distinguished by their genitals. You probably weren't to know, but for me, it's a major defect. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll withdraw that comment. Looks like the vast majority of it is there. Support version 2 only (v1 is a bit dark). Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Large brown mantid07 edit.jpg MER-C 08:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]