Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/May-2010

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

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

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

Reason

A strikingly beautiful fresco and an intriguing one encapsulated in a detailed well composed image

Articles in which this image appears

Apotheosis of Washington, United States Capitol, Apotheosis, Constantino Brumidi, Rotunda of the United States Capitol

Creator

Raul654

• Support as nominator --Thanks, Hadseys 23:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What is underneath that thing? isn't it possible to take a picture right from below? Abisharan (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I realize it was an attempt to limit the scope of the image to the center design but the cropping of the border throws the image off in my opinion since you can only see the outside design past the circular border on the sides and it is clipped off right at the edge of the circular design on the top and the bottom. Cat-five - talk 20:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • but this nomination is about the painting not the dome --Thanks, Hadseys 22:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine when judging encyclopedic value but the framing of the shot is relevant to the quality of the image and that's what's being nominated. Cat-five - talk 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not the most compelling composition - and I believe a better angle is possible. This was definitely not taken directly below. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For a 4,664 square foot painting, I would expect a SIGNIFICANTLY higher resolution image to be needed to be a FP of the subject. Multiple image mosaic of many megapixels probably to do it any justice. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It's of a brilliant standard and resolution, and is a free-use image. Above all I think it looks stunning, adding exceptional value to respective articles.

Articles in which this image appears

Freddie Mercury, British Asian, British Indian, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: M

FP category for this image

People

Creator

Carl Lender, derivative work: Lošmi.

• Support as nominator --TheStig_t·c 11:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is going to take quite a bit more Queen-up. Resizing possibly, but probably a host of noise reduction schemes that will ultimately result in an even softer image, but with less grain/noise/artefacts. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bad puns aside I agree with PLW that this really needs some more cleanup before being feature quality. Since I'm not active on FPC very often anymore permission is given to Papa Lima Whiskey to strike this comment when that has occurred to his satisfaction. Cat-five - talk 20:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm sure there are lots of much better pictures of Freddie Mercury available. The light in the background is very intrusive and the picture in general is way too noisy. It looks like it has been scanned from a magazine print or something. Luca (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

We need more images of something other than nature or late 19th century art. Besides encyclopedic value I think it's pretty, especially streaks left by the sparks. FFfiire!

Articles in which this image appears

Lighter

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others

Creator

Ben_pcc

• Support as nominator --Ben pcc (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice caption, but you can see neither the flint nor the textured metal drum. Overall the picture is a bit too dark, motion blurred and gimmicky overall to be encyclopedically usefull. Looks cool though. I must have a couple of old shots like this somewhere burried on my HD too. --Dschwen 17:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Due to light issues - as per Dschwen - you cannot see two of the main parts talked about in the caption... I do like the spark streaks though... Gazhiley (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that with more light the flint would be visible? Considering that it's covered in metal I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. And if I remove the metal, it's the source of spark so unless the photo is taken not when sparking you won't see much.

I redid this with an out of focus light color bath towel as background and really didn't like it. I was about to upload as alternate but when comparing to what's here now it's obviously poorer looking. I also had it clamped in a vise to lessen motion blur but that worsened the gimmicky-ness, this photo is more natural, only a cigarette is missing. Not that I smoke.

My main issue with my photo, and I'm surprised this didn't come up in response #1, is the overexposure. I tried many ways to reduce (my lens goes down to f/57 and stays pretty sharp :->) it but they all looked terrible. I haven't tried tone mapping though. -Ben pcc (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per Noodle below I still stand by my point - the lighther is so dark you cannot see the parts you refer to... It's a good picture, especially with the sparks - but not EV for the process you refer to... Gazhiley (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support: I hear what is being said above, but, looking at it, I'm learning something. J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but are you learning it from the picture or article? Gazhiley (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture. I've used lighters plenty of times, but I still went "wow, I didn't realise..." when I saw the picture. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It does look pretty cool... Benjamint 04:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose use some flash to make the lighter visable. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/liberato/2521884271/in/faves-26601890@N06/ for the type of result you might expect. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok, here's an alternate. I try to never use flash unless needed absolutely. In this photo it's clamped on a vise, and though the aperture is way, way shut you can see the business end of the lighter clearly. The textured metal drum kind of shows but like I said I don't think I can get flint in... -Ben pcc (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be trying to not use flash unless its needed absolutely. Throw a home made softbox (cardboard+tracing paper) on it and it will look fine in this situation. More generally, do some reading about lighting. this is a half decent start for the use of flash. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know about and have used paper tricks, and have access to a ring light. I prefer natural light though. It worked here, and though the photo in your link is gorgeous (as area all your favorites), if you look closely the sparks and the lighter don't line up. Eww. -Ben pcc (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alternative if it is available for voting... You can see the elements of the lighter better in this picture... Gazhiley (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Was hanging previously at the picture peer review and saw no objections. Fantasy colors and generally an interesting process

Articles in which this image appears

Fimmvörðuháls, 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull

FP category for this image

Natural phenomena

Creator

Henrik Thorburn

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister[t] 19:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was thinking of nominating this myself, actually - it's a phenomenal image. And it stays with you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. It has plenty of EV, but the composition is pretty lousy really. I suppose safety was a factor, but it seems like a much better vantage point would have been on the cliffs in the foreground. It's hard to get a sense of scale though, not sure if the cliffs are literally right in front of the eruption or quite some distance from it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer would have been better, but there is a ravine between where I took the photo, and the plateau in the foreground. The photo is taken with a 300mm lense and 1.6 crop factor sensor. I took other very similar photos like this and this showing a man walking on the snow just next to the smoke. But for some reason the first one spread, probably due to the explosion in the background. Boaworm (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm, yeah, the caption says overview, but that's not really what it is. I find it somewhat confusing and the steam does not help (not the photographers fault though). As an illustration of the newsworthy eruption event I'd prefer featuring one of the image showing the large ash plume.--Dschwen 21:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High EV for the combination of basaltic volcanism amid snow. The rarity outweighs compositional concerns for me. Ash plume photos are much more common than something like this. --Avenue (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this picture of essentially the same event is more visually impressive, though perhaps less informative. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That strikes me as a fairly standard Strombolian eruption pic. It's nice too, but very different, and not as interesting to me as the nominated one. --Avenue (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (Conditional) Support Impressive. However, as this is en.Wikipedia, the caption should provide a plain-English pronunciation (like “FIM ver loush” and not the cryptic IPA stuff Wikipedia often uses). I assume the above post from Fcb981 is a "support" vote and not a comment? Greg L (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Fimmvörðuháls article has an OGG recording of someone saying the name, so I don't see the need to include the pronunciation in the caption. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• My above post was indeed a comment. In the absence of a bold "support" or "oppose" tag, posts are just comments. I suppose I could have clarified that it was a comment by adding a bold "comment" tag, but I didn't think there would be any confusion since I was simply suggesting an alternative to the nominated image, not judging it. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 18:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I have seen the picture a number of times now and I can hardly make sense of what is happening. The picture Fcb linked to is much better IMO --Muhammad(talk) 13:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done photo, nice colors, high EV --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice atmosphere Hive001 contact 16:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could crank the whites up a bit. Hive001 contact 19:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Fimmvorduhals second fissure 2010 04 02.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Per the same of North and South America. This could perhaps even be be superior to those two.

Articles in which this image appears

Africa, Natural history of Africa, Geography of Africa

FP category for this image

Views of Earth from space and satellites

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The South America image is 7200 by 10000 pixels, quite a bit bigger than this. Can we get this in a higher resolution? --Avenue (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made another inquiry with Davepape, who produced the SA image. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's an existing image at full Blue Marble (first generation) resolution, uploaded a while ago by User:Dbenbenn - File:Africa satellite plane.jpg. It's a rectangular projection, rather than orthographic, but the difference is moderate. --dave pape (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Update Replaced with much higher definition version dave pape has linked to above. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular ^T · C 17:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose A wonderful image, but too tightly cropped for my liking. I would prefer to see all of Socotra included, for instance, not half of one island. I felt that seeing more of Europe helped convey the scale, too. The originally nominated picture was better in this respect.--Avenue (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've struck this because the image has changed. My new !vote is below. --Avenue (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support per Avenue, although with more of a bias towards the Arabian peninsula and Cape Verde. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Update I'm renominating the original version, which is what I'm sticking with. It's a better scope, as stated above, and meets all criteria in size. Sir Richardson (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Support for wow and high EV; weak because resolution not as good as South American one and could feasibly be higher. --Avenue (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "now with islands". Does anyone know which projection this uses?--Avenue (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's just a crop of the blue marble image, so to the best of my understanding, it would be a rectangular projection. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose original Okay, I think we should re-crop this from the Blue Marble image, making sure we include the islands mentioned above, as well as the Arabian peninsula (I think the latter just looks uncomfortable cropped). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "now with islands". Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Very confusing nom. Does not appear to have quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think this animation illustrates the subject well, looks interesting, and showcases the virtues of an electronic encyclopedia.

Like all animated GIFs, because of a bug in Safari, you will likely see smoother animation by using any other browser, such as Firefox.

Articles in which this image appears

3D modeling and Cobalt (CAD program)

FP category for this image

Engineering and technology animations, Science Animations and Diagrams & drawings animations

Creator

Greg L

• Support as nominator --Greg L (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: As per nom. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Gives a wonderful perspective. Can't wait for it to be applied to the Sports Illustrated models.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A nice image relating to an interesting topic. I'm not sure how many animated GIFs there are on Wikipedia, but they really add an "extra dimension" when describing such topics. Very nice work. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 21:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per previous nom. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice graphic. This looks much better with a lighter background. SteveB67 (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avenue (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Looks like a lot of work. Hive001 contact

Promoted File:Jack-in-cube solid model, light background.gif --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, EV, lighting. High resolution as well.

Articles in which this image appears

Karnataka High Court, Cubbon Park, History of Bangalore

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 19:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Attractive, colorful, and worldly. It seems the brightness could be punched up. In Photoshop, I tried +29 brightness, +9 contrast, and +12 saturation and seemed brighter and more inviting. If not, I still support. Greg L (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think it's bright enough as it is. Certainly the brightest orange building I've ever seen in my life. :-) Is there any reason why you didn't take the photo from precisely straight on? The slight dissymmetry is a shame. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that the central lamp post, the end lamp posts (relative to the columns behind), the flagpole, and other items such as the spires at the roof apex, are very slightly out of alignment. It appears the picture was taken perhaps about a 50 centimeters to the left of the centerline (for a one-meter ∆). This sort of thing often happens in aviation pictures where the photographer will do his best to get smack on the centerline off the plane’s nose. It’s not until they get back to the darkroom (or computer nowadays), that they discover they were off maybe 10 centimeters, which really stands out when it becomes a full-page glossy advertisement. A half-meter or so on a big building isn’t much; you must have an awfully sensitive eye, for when I take the left half and flip it over to the right, nothing appreciably changes except that there are much fewer shadows. Greg L (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I was not allowed to take pictures from inside the Cubbon Park where the building is situated. So I stood outside a metal fence and took pictures through the space between the bars. I tried to be as centrally placed as possible but If I remember correctly, a larger bar was in the middle of the fence and that probably led to the slight mis-alignment --Muhammad(talk) 02:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah I see, I sympathise then! There's usually a good reason. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I must withdraw a previous comment about neoclassic buildings having little wow effect... :) Good lighting and the birds add further dynamism. Elekhh (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why cut off? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is impossible to see the whole building from ground level. I have tried to include as much as possible and you can confirm this by comparing with other images of the court. --Muhammad(talk) 13:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take it this was done as a single exposure, and you cropped it where the trees start to conceal the rest of the building? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stitched image, otherwise yes --Muhammad(talk) 17:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, well I'll weak oppose for now since I generally don't agree with that kind of cropping - I think it's better to actually include one tree either side because that gives an idea of how the subject is framed in real life. It works for some subjects, not for others - difficult to decide without having seen the wider crop. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like the most ideal crop to me. File:Karnataka High Court.jpg gives a different perspective which may help others decide. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support despite some sympathy with PLW's view. Nice work, good subject. --Avenue (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice Hive001 contact 16:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore MMK.jpg —Maedin\^talk 06:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Isn't it gorgeous?!

Articles in which this image appears

chromium

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator: Sorry, I got a little carried away on the caption. Maedin\^talk 07:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, looks pretty good to me. I would be inclined to say the caption's a little non-neutral, though. A clear bias in favour of chromium :P J Milburn (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like a professional-grade picture from one of those posters offered by chemical-supply companies. Very nicely done. Greg L (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per Greg L --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice picture Hive001 contact 16:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support despite a few blown highlights. Caption needs to be trimmed. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Chromium is a highly reflective metal. All the crystals a small mirrors. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• @HereToHelp—The caption is not used for anything, I don't see why it couldn't stay as it was. "Needs to be trimmed"—why? Maedin\^talk 11:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It becomes the draft for the POTD on the Main Page. It has been trimmed since I was last here, to about a quarter of its original length. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as creator. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chromium crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 23:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High encyclopedic value, good quality, and eye-catching. Restored version of File:Great presidential puzzle.jpg.

Articles in which this image appears

1880 Republican National Convention

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

James Albert Wales (artist), Mayer, Merkel, & Ottmann (lithographers)

• Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^T · C 01:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note bonus points: artist is Jimmy Wales ;-) Jujutacular ^T · C 01:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mime’s reaction :·) Greg L (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. And as a political history junkie, I feel honor-bound to point out that a certain person is not even visible on the cartoon... :-)--Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- Funny pic Hive001 contact 16:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A quality, informative, and memorable picture. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avenue (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Fabulous scan. NauticaShades 18:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Great presidential puzzle2.jpg —Maedin\^talk 22:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Fairly high quality photograph with good EV for seaweed farming. Decent enough EV for Nusa Lembongan as well considering the island has a "seaweed farming micro-industry." See PPR nomination here.

Articles in which this image appears

Seaweed farming, Seaweed, Nusa Lembongan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other

Creator

Jean-Marie Hullot

• Support as nominator --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great composition and great EV (I just wrote/added seaweed farming). It could be sharper, but the rest of it makes up for this. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interesting, encyclopedic, and well composed. It also adds to our understanding of Indonesia, which is underrepresented in Wikipedia and WP:FP. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is an unfortunate picture. The farmer is pictured from the shadow side, and with nothing impressive done with respect to DOF or compositional elements aiding the isolation of the subject, a good quality is not achieved. I find this picture fair but not feature quality. Abisharan (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very good picture. I like the composition and I think it has lots of EV, which is what matters most, IMHO. Luca (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A bit noisy and a bit out of focus, but the composition and the EV (I think it can't get more EV than this) easily compensate, as already mentioned above. Luca (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It might not be perfect. But I like it anyway. Hive001 contact 16:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. The edit improves some aspects, but makes the shadowing of the farmer's face worse. --Avenue (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on the edit, please: which do we prefer? Maedin\^talk 22:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Slightly prefer edit. Pretty small change, but marginally more appealing in my opinion. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, the edit is an improvement. NauticaShades 15:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Seaweed farming -Nusa Lembongan, Bali-16Aug2009 edit.jpg —Maedin\^talk 17:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Close-up, high-quality image of the newest training aircraft to enter United States Air Force service.

Articles in which this image appears

Diamond DA40

FP category for this image

Aeronautics and Aviation

Creator

Uploaded by The Bushranger.
U.S. Air Force photo by Mike Kaplan.

• Support as nominator --The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, I think if the photo is to illustrate the plane, it needs to show the whole subject and preferably with a bit of flair. This doesn't do either. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry. As per Diliff. Some aviation pictures make you stop and stare. This just isn’t one of those. Greg L (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is definitely not a good candidate for a FP. It's just dull and boring, and does not show the whole plane! Desiderius82 (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per Diliff - needs to be whole plane at least, let alone some form of wow... Gazhiley (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not to mention, the tailfin of another plane is "growing" out of the nose. I"d love to see an FP of this plane but it needs better composition. Fletcher (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have no real issue with a tarmac shot but it's not a great shot of the plane unless it shows the whole plane. Cat-five - talk 21:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Problems with composition and blown-out highlights. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 21:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed per WP:SNOW. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Not wowish, but high EV (the easternmost evidence of Roman military presence) and clearness.

Articles in which this image appears

Gobustan Rock Art Cultural Landscape, History of Azerbaijan

FP category for this image

History

Creator

Grandmaster

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister[t] 06:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The depicted object is of great importance, but the picture itself is simply poor.--Desiderius82 (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The subject itself is interesting, but I'd say this fails criterion 3b. NauticaShades 12:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion 3 says that "historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all", but looks like we are talking about tastes here. Brandmeister[t] 13:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, but 3b says that a picture should "illustrate the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more." I'm not saying that this picture should be beautiful, just that it is not particularly compelling. NauticaShades 14:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - In this case it is not about beauty, it's about depicting the subject in the best way possible. To start with, the angle at which the picture was taken, makes it more difficult to read than if it was taken with the camera sensor in parallel to it. This is not the kind of subject that is extremely difficult to photograph, so we can hope for a better FPC. I totally agree with Desiderius' and Nautica's comments above. Luca (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Shouldn't have been taken at such an oblique angle. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in which this image appears

Himalayan Griffon Vulture

Creator

Benjamint 03:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator (Identified by Shyamal) --Benjamint 03:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Quality is not that great and size is small considering that we will soon be upping the requirement --Muhammad(talk) 17:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, we are opposing noms now because of future guidelines that aren't even in effect yet? That strikes me as being wrong in quite a few ways. Cat-five - talk 21:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider the quality to be the reason for oppose and the size just a comment --Muhammad(talk) 00:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Muhammad. Greg L (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have issues with the quality on this too, a better shot is possible. Cat-five - talk 21:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The contrast seems a bit too low, and the image isn't very sharp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Found this while browsing. Thought it was a very good image.

Articles in which this image appears

Private library

FP category for this image

Places

Creator

Emgonzalez

• Support as nominator --Raul654 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful lighting. Interesting library. Makes one want to click on it for a closer look. Greg L (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a beautiful image, but bad technical quality: jpg artefacts and nothing realy sharp. Sorry, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm… I’m not seeing any jpeg artifacts. And I would hope that others who might vote here understand that the Nikon 5700’s 5 MP resolution, like nearly all digital cameras, look fuzzy when zoomed all the way to their native resolution. This is because of the way camera manufacturers count each R, G & B sub-pixel as a “pixel”, which is unlike computer monitors, where only three-color triads are considered as a pixel. All one need do is zoom out 50% to obtain pleasant sharpness in digital pictures. What contributors might consider doing is using Photoshop to reduce their native-resolution files by 50% (to 1280 in this case) and then people wouldn’t see fuzziness. But then, that would be pushing the lower limits of what is considered acceptable resolution for FP status. Give the industry another 18 months and the 5 MP cameras will largely be replaced by 10 and 12 MPs. Greg L (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Yes, it's not amazingly sharp, and yes, it has blown highlights, but it's still a fine image. The criterion is not perfection, "only" excellence. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - looks great! Airplaneman ✈ 02:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Sorry, I don't see the "amazing" sharpness. There's a bit of noise in the dark areas and the highlights are blown out. Also, the composition is not very good, unbalanced and not centered. Luca (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He wrote “Yes, it’s not amazingly sharp.” Greg L (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, yes, you're right. But still, nothing changes regarding my opinion and comment in general. Luca (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too blured at full res - a better camera would take a better pic so I cannot support this as can be re-taken with a better cam to obtain a better picture Gazhiley (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Maybe some sharpening could be useful? Brandmeister[t] 17:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment… So I did. I took the image, hit it with one shot of “Sharpen edges” in Photoshop, and reduced its dimensions by the square root of 0.5 (to 1810 pixels wide). The result is very sharp at 100%. Anyone can repeat this themselves, or can e-mail me via Wikipedia’s e-mail facility. I’ll e-mail back with the file. Greg L (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's nice, but the standard for architecture is high, and I don't think this is as sharp as we would expect; and it looks like it was supposed to be composed symmetrically, but isn't. Fletcher (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sharpness issues mainly, but also colour balance and lack of perspective correction. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Issues with sharpness, and visible noise. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This picture is of high quality, a good example of weightlessness and cohesion in space and an example for the STS-131 mission

Articles in which this image appears

Weightlessness, Clayton Anderson, STS-131

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Aeronautics and aviation

Creator

edited and uploaded by Hive001, Original created by NASA

• Support as nominator --Hive001 contact 16:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cool picture. Yes, the guy in the background is a bit out of focus. But the water ball (the focus point, both literally and figuratively) is tack sharp. As it is exceedingly hard to re-take the picture, I’d like to see it on Wikipedia’s Main Page for 24 hours. And, by the way; this picture works quite well upside down. Greg L (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Greg, acceptable but not amazing technicals outweighed by value and rarity. It works well on the side too - there is no up or down, it's space! HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The guy's face in the background is not the main focus of the shot, and as such is supposed to be out of focus. The floating ball of water with his image in it is the focus of the shot. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Barely meets size requirements and quality is not very good --Muhammad(talk) 06:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't know why the picture site on Wikipedia shows a lower quality ((1,024 × 768 pixels, file size: 67 KB) than the one on Commons. If you go the the site on Commons you'll see that it is bigger (1,322 × 780 pixels, file size: 354 KB). Maybe this problem came up when I uploaded a new version of this picture (my first upload was the wrong version). Has anyone an idea how to update the image page on Wikipedia? Hive001 contact 07:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And yes, the guy is supposed to be out of focus. As said above Hive001 contact 07:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have seen both versions. The one nominated here barely meets the requirements now(and we are in the process of upping those). --Muhammad(talk) 15:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Could you be more specific as to the source of the image for the image description page? I ask partially because the cropped version is a higher resolution than the uncropped version [3], which is a bit odd. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• is it cropped or just another image, I thought it was just another image zoomed in that someone replaced the zoomed out with...? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The original, which is a huge file, can be downloaded here [4]. I cropped it to the interesting stuff. As I said, my first upload was the wrong version (just a smaller version of the uncropped original) Hive001 contact 08:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see, thank you. I think it would be little bit better not so cropped, so I added an edit. Support edit 1. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mhm, I still prefer the cropped version. Only the bubble is in focus and Clayton Anderson has an ugly shadow on the chin. Hive001 contact 16:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's most interesting is the optics of the image produced, which isn't being explained. I take it the water ball is behaving as a completely spherical convex mirror, but it's amazing it can route the light all the way around it, if i'm seeing this right. Fletcher (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's scope for using it in some articles on optics, but it's not being used that way yet. --Avenue (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original cropped version, not the broader view per Hive001 (chin shadow, focus) and due to distracting background. --Avenue (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either --Avala (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. The image benefits from emphasized bubble I think. Brandmeister[t] 17:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. It just has a certain quality that grabs the viewer's interest. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Clayton Anderson zero g.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, composition and featured on commons. EV is particularly good because it is the only nymph picture on wiki. Unfortunately, it can not be identified any further because unless physically observed and dissected it is not possible to identify nymphs. Identifying expert mentioned on description page.

Articles in which this image appears

Coreidae

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 05:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I rarely vote on these types of pics as I don't know enough about insects but I will support this as I found it very high in EV as I didn't realise "baby" insects were called nymphs, and that they looked identical other than in size until adult... so for the EV alone I am supporting this... It's also good quality pic, no flaws that I can see, other than the rear legs (in the pic - in reality it's the front and rear left legs) are out of focus, but apparently this is ok... Gazhiley (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It's hard at first to see what's bug and what's plant, and the orange antennae are out of focus. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it may be difficult to to figure that out but I think that's one of the adaptations of the bug. Quoting from the article,"They are also called “leaf-footed bugs” due to the leaf-like expansions some species have on their hindlegs." --Muhammad(talk) 14:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good quality, resolution and obviously good EV. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 17:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avenue (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Very little encyclopedic value. We have dozens, maybe even hundreds of good photos of squash bugs on Commons (with genuine free licenses to boot). A photo of an unidentified nymph is relatively useless. I don't even think it should be in the article, honestly. Kaldari (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the expert, nymphs are almost impossible to identify. The image is used to illustrate a nymph, enlighten me as to how it is useless. I don't expect this picture to be the sole FP expected of a squash bug. We can have one showing the adult as well.--Muhammad(talk) 00:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per Kaldari, considering the article this picture is illustrating. This nymph does not represent all nymphys of the Coreidae family. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I am trying to say. If the experts can't place it any further than the family, then IMO it is representative of the family --Muhammad(talk) 17:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (lol) Nice try, Muhammad, but I can't believe you don't see the flaw in your reasoning... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then tell me where my flaw lies --Muhammad(talk) 18:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I didn't want to give the impression of patronizing you! The fact that nymphs are more difficult to identify is because they usually don't show in a clear way the features characteristic of each species or genus, not that all nymphs in this family of some 2k species are similar. As a matter of fact, they are not! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not following that. If one stumbles upon a nymph and wonders, "hmmm, I wonder what that is", then Wikipedia will tell one that it is a nymph of the Coreidae family. Where exactly is the problem with that? That sounds like EV to me? Maedin\^talk 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The lol had me there with the patronizing. The very fact that they do not show distinctive features and thus illustrate a general view is a reason why they can be used to illustrate the family article. Of course, not all nymphs are similar just as all monkeys are not similar. But a monkey article would do well with a picture of a monkey showing the general features the tail, ears etc. Similarly, IMO the family article benefits from the nymph picture. To add to the argument, would you propose removal of all images from all family and genus articles and keeping images only in the species articles because not all the members of the genus are similar? --Muhammad(talk) 19:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Who said that this particular nymph (or any nymph) illustrates a general view of the whole family? That is certainly not true. If this individual is difficult to identify is because there are (probably) several species sharing these same visible features, as nymphs. Not the whole family, as shape and colours vary a lot! I also didn't say that this image does not add value to the article, only that its EV do not justify the FP status. Well, do you really believe that all non-FP images should be removed from the articles? ;-) Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • This bug was difficult to identify further than family but till the family it was much easier. When I was photographing it, with my limited knowledge, I thought here's a Coreidae and when I sent it to the expert, he with all his resources came to the same conclusion. Now I am not saying that all nymphs of Coreidae are the same but they have many similar features which is why they have been gropued together. Secondly, I always thought adding value to the article = EV, was I wrong? I really don't undertsand your question about removing non-FPs from articles. I asked you a genuine question and now we are asking rhetorical ones? --Muhammad(talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • (clarify) This nymph certainly shares some of the distinctive features of the family, otherwise it wouldn't have been identified as a Coreidae! But the fact that the genus could not be identified doesn't qualify it automatically as a good representative of the family, like Muhammad pretends -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • And again you state your belief but don't explain why or provide any evidence. Why doesn't it qualify as a good representative of the family? --Muhammad(talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Last try (not a question of belief but logic):

• If the experts can't place it any further than the family, then IMO it is representative of the family . This is a fallacy. If something makes it representative of the family is the set of features it shares with the other members, not the dificulty in identifying the species;
• It is not me who has to prove that this nymph does not represent the whole familiy, it is you who has to convince the reviewers it does (which you were not able to do so far). The concept of type has been used by biologists to designate the genus that best represent a certain familiy. Can you show us (other than with a fallacy) that this is the typical genus of the Coreidae family? Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are partially right. Yes, the nymph shows characteristics of a squash bug nymph, but that is not particularly useful to an entomologist. If it showed diagnostic characteristics of a particular species or genus, it would have far more EV, but squash bugs typically don't show those characteristics until they are an adult. The same is true of most spiders. That's why I don't even bother uploading photos of immature spiders. They just don't have enough EV to be useful. Kaldari (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. Slight DOF issues with the antennae and hind legs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In such close-up macro work, getting the whole insect in focus is nearly impossible. The DOF is small and short of a focus stack, one would hardly ever see a an insect in complete focus. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's still out of focus... and that's frowned upon normally but for some reason this time it's ok... Gazhiley (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. If this is indeed representative of all nymphs in this family, I see no problem with the lack of specific identification. NauticaShades 22:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Squash bug Coreidae hz.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Amazing composition, good EV

Articles in which this image appears

Agama sinaita

Creator

ST

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well, aren’t you prolific? Very, very well done! Greg L (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)  P.S. My support vote may apply to either. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Unusual animals always make good FPs. upstateNYer 01:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning! TheStig_t·c 06:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Perfect photo, nice colors --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Head and shoulders are the only part of this animal in focus... Very unapealing at full res due to blur... Gazhiley (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limited depth of field happens (a lot) in close-ups; particularly macro close-ups. Physics and optics. While your observation is entirely true, it strikes me as a bit overcritical, like faulting this portrait of Einstein because his ears and the hair behind is ears aren’t in focus. The photograph of Einstein is still interesting because his face is the most important part; similarly, this lizard’s head and shoulders, IMO. Greg L (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but just because there's a reason for it doesn't mean we should ignore it... FP nom's often get picked up for DOF issues so it amazes me no-one else has mentioned this... Gazhiley (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can make a focus bracket, you just have to live with it. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, prefer edit. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the noise reduction pulled away a lot of the detail in the head, did you mask the head? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NR was done in sections - some parts of the head were least NR'ed, other areas more. Imo, noise is present all over the image. The human eye still does a better job of filtering it out, but FPC sometimes has low tolerance for acknowledging this fact. ^^ Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of that detail is minor artifacts. I prefer them smoothed out. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any Beautiful! Luca (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Elekhh (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the original. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both version are very beautiful and amazing. Hive001 contact 16:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, prefer edit Per all above, a stunning shot. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, prefer original as it has more detail and negligible noise IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenue (talk • contribs) 09:41, 3 May 2010
• Weak oppose. I find myself echoing the concerns of Gazhiley a little. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don´t see much difference between the original and edit 1. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 17:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Avala (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Cool lizard! I don't see a major difference between the edit and the original, so support either. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Hmm, looks like something from Avatar. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:AgamaSinaita01 ST 10.jpg —Maedin\^talk 16:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I acted too hastily in promoting the original. If you have a preference for either the original or the edit, would you please state it in the next couple of days. Thanks! Maedin\^talk 10:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies; it would appear that an almost identical edit uploaded over the original, after the alternative was produced, has confused the discussion (and me). I consider at least two preferences for the original null, then, and will alter the promotion accordingly. Maedin\^talk 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:AgamaSinaita01 ST 10 edit.jpg —Maedin\^talk 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very professionally-done picture showing hummingbird mother feeding her two chicks in a nest

Articles in which this image appears

Hummingbird, Bird, Parenting, Calliope Hummingbird

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

User:Wwcsig

• Support as nominator --Cumbiagermen (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit I agree - nice and unusual colours, great control of focal plane, no motion blur (not easy with a hummingbird, I imagine). Looking forward to more nominations from this photographer (check out his userpage - nice stuff!) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit The sharpness is up to (but not over) our standards, and the EV of three birds interacting in a nest is too good to pass up. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice and high EV. --Elekhh (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either per comments above. Fletcher (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I wish more of the nest could have been in focus, but the birds themselves are fine. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit. Great EV. NauticaShades 15:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Well-executed, good DOF. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Subject and composition is good, but frankly it is noisy and not sharp. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit High quality and good information value. And they're adorable, aren't they?-Link (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Calliope-nest edit.jpg —Maedin\^talk 16:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Stax has returned to FPC (briefly)! Johnny Evers, the midsection of Tinker to Evers to Chance. A Hall of Famer, though noted by Bill James as one of the worst Hall of Famers of all time, probably owes his infamy to that poem. Restoration of this (even this isn't a pure original, someone cropped that a bit).

Articles in which this image appears

Johnny Evers, Baseball's Sad Lexicon

FP category for this image

People

Creator

George Grantham Bain Collection, restored by Staxringold

• Support as nominator --Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. The guy doesn't look like a professional athlete. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Gotta love old school baseball. Ever seen Conan O'Brien's skit playing old-timey baseball? Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I love those old unusual-looking bats and gloves. -- mcshadypl ^TC 18:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Interesting historical photo, but the composition seems pretty uninspiring. Centred, with a tight crop under his foot but tons of space everywhere else. A crop on the left would improve it, but probably not enough to be an FP IMO. --Avenue (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• They aren't making any new photos of Johnny Evers. I would say historical value trumps style preferences. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, they're not making any more, but this isn't the only one either. A Google image search picks up some much nicer photos of him, IMO. Even if this was the only photo ever taken of him, it seems this isn't the best crop we could get. The uncropped version here doesn't cramp his toes, for one thing. It doesn't look as clean as your restored version (which is nicely done, by the way), but I think it's at least as good as the original version you linked to in your nomination above. --Avenue (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW I actually worked off the true original from LOC. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I didn't notice that. It's a shame the LOC image was cropped so haphazardly. On the issue of historical value, I don't know much about early baseball, but the galleries here and here make me think that the Evers picture doesn't stand out on that front either. On the positive side, there seems to be plenty of material out there to work with - good action shots,[5][6][7] and interesting posed ones [8][9][10] (or some combination).[11] --Avenue (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Historical image, quality not bad for the time. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks great, good work. High EV, good quality scan. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High EV, good quality. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hive001 contact 17:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Johnny Evers 1910 FINAL2sh.jpg —Maedin\^talk 16:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Highly encyclopaedic and good quality illustration of the plant

Articles in which this image appears

Opium Poppy

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Info - Difficult to be more enc than this. I hope that it will not be declined by some irrelevant technical details like this one. I'm adding a possible alternative, but really prefer the original. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An image not being in focus is an irrelevant technical detail now? --Dschwen 14:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, when the flaw is minimal and does not affect the illustration purpose. Anyway the alternative didn't have such problem -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not nominate this as a set? Lumping it together into a single image does not make it more usefull, but rather less useful. --Dschwen 14:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. It is more useful for illustration purposes if the images are kept together imo. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can always put them together using wiki markup, however you cannot re-layout them once they are lumped into one image. --Dschwen 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I can. They are all available as separate pictures. Just give me some time to refer to it in the image file. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, then please provide a vertically stacked series, a picture with the Flower on the bottom and the two other pictures on top, one with the flower on top and the two others on the bottom, one with the flower on the right and the two others vertically stacked on the left. Thanks. --Dschwen 16:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, what does that achieve? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The flexibility that separate images would have. ;-) --Dschwen 16:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • yes master, anything you say ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Info - I made a mistake and nominated the wrong image. It is fixed now. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added a box showing the multiple images displayed together, as opposed to combining them into a single file. This demonstrates why a single file is unnecessary. Therefore, I support these images as a set. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer set 1, per Avenue. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support only as a set, not as combined image. Kaldari (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, preferably as a set, but combined is also good.--ragesoss (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jujutacular, with a preference for a crop of the alt as the centre image (set 2) - better DOF and somewhat softer lighting (can be argued both ways, but I prefer the softer version in this case). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support set, with preference to set two. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support set, with preference for set one. The characteristic crinkles in the outer parts of the petals are clearer here. --Avenue (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as set, not combined image. I agree that combining into one file makes it less useful, as a set of 3 images it's much more flexible. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support set Hive001 contact 16:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which set? Makeemlighter (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I perfer the one with this flower, sharper, in the sun.. the other is less sharp and overcast... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I actually think that set 2 has the sharper image. In the original set, the outer fringes of the petals are out of focus. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I still prefer set 1. As I said above, I feel it represents the flower's nature more clearly, even if it is technically a bit out of focus in places. --Avenue (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support set 1. I'm with Avenue on this one. Set 2 may be slightly sharper, but that may just be because it's smaller. NauticaShades 18:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, if you can't defeat them ... join them. I prefer set 2. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support set 2. The set 1 flower looks a bit shriveled IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Most people found more adequate to promote a set instead of a poster. Now, how do you insert a set into a taxbox? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer Taxobox template needs an override parameter, here's an example of it working with a modified version of the template: [12] Alternatively, an image3 set of parameters could be added for a vertical arrangement. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Which Set? Looks like three people support set 1, and three people support set 2. Anyone else want to add their input? NauticaShades 14:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get four vs. four, but yes, we do need additional opinions. FWIW, this is my list (apologies for abbreviated names):
  • Juju 1
  • Papa 2
  • Mostly 2
  • Avenue 1
  • raeky 1
  • Nautica 1
  • Alves 2
  • King 2

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to leave a note on the talk pages of Kaldari, Rageoss, and Hive001, who have already voted on the nom, so they can express their preference. NauticaShades 11:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer set 2.--ragesoss (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Set 2. Looks better. Kaldari (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Set 2 Hive001 contact 11:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Papaver April 2010-8a.jpg, Promoted File:Papaver April 2010-13_crop.jpg, and Promoted File:Papaver April 2010-9.jpg —Maedin\^talk 20:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

shows behaviour, serves well as a portrait, not a zoo pic is a bonus

Articles in which this image appears

sloth, distal phalanges, list of mammals of Panama

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Christian Mehlführer

• Support as nominator --Maedin\^talk 12:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wonderful image. Great detail, and lots of EV on feeding habits. NauticaShades 15:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Love the expression on his face. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, even with the harsh lighting. --Avenue (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hive001 contact 16:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:MC Drei-Finger-Faultier.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 06:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Intriguing, technically superb image that draws attention to several high profile, general knowledge articles. Simple but strong detail and natural pastels. Critical to understanding concepts related to poppy use (both legal and illegal).

Articles in which this image appears

Opium, Opium poppy, Poppyseed oil, Poppy seed, Latex

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others

Creator

Den Haag

• Support as nominator New name for image wouldn't hurt though.--K10wnsta (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Good close-up, and nice bokeh, but the things (spikes? petals?) at the top are out of focus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The quality is not good.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not fully sharp. Sorry Hive001 contact 16:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 06:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Didn't get enough time to be fully considered in the first nomination. 31 megapixels of visible spectrum satellite imagery of Africa, via NASA. Similar images of North and South America are already featured.

Articles in which this image appears

Africa, Natural history of Africa, Geography of Africa

FP category for this image

Views of Earth from space and satellites

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What's with the filename? In any case, we JUST voted on this. Why would you re-nominate it immediately? -- mcshadypl ^TC 18:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous nom was closed as "confusing". If you prefer that we re-open it to allow additional feedback, I guess that's a possibility too. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Avenue (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • because I believe this crop has enough distinct encyclopedic value to be featured independently (as do the other crops mentioned above). --Avenue (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Qyestion I'm probably fighting precedent with this one, but after featuring File:Whole world - land and oceans 12000.jpg, is it acceptable to feature crops of it? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know for sure, but personally I'm leaning against featuring crops of current FPs. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I won't vote on them as I agree with this sentiment... Gazhiley (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think there is something wrong with requesting that the image be from a different source. How many satellites do we really need? Africa I think is just as entitled to being featured on the front page as those other two continents. Mediawiki just doesn't allow embedding cropped views of a larger source image in articles, so we're stuck with featuring them one by one. Btw, Australia, Antarctica, and the Sahara have also been done - see Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Views of Earth from space and satellites. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's kinda the point... In theory we could have a FP of the whole globe, and also then individual FP's of the same cropped picture which to me and apparently a couple of other people is a duplication... Gazhiley (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understood your point, and I'm trying to explain to you that there currently isn't another way of doing it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Doesn't mean that this is therefore the way to do it... Gazhiley (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Let's hear the alternative, then. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • You already said there isn't?! Gazhiley (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • How about a featured set, e.g. containing the image for the whole world and a crop for each of the continents? --Avenue (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Should FPs be judged on their EV? The world image clearly doesn't have the same EV in Africa as this image does. That creates a need for a new image, hence the possibility for this new image to be featured--standing on its own value. The Blue Marble image offers the possibility for derivative works to stand on their own legs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.163.110 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I dislike the featured set idea, because those are for when the images support and explain each other (i.e. different zoom levels of the Mandelbrot set, or pages of the U.S. Constitution). I guess the question is, is Africa (or North/South America) a subject distinct from the whole world, such that this image is superior to an image that contains it exactly, and then more? I would hazard that's a yes. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I am with PLW on this one. We need FPs of each continent and I so no other way of doing so. --Muhammad(talk) 15:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why need? Gazhiley (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need was probably the wrong word to use. But I believe the individual images also add significantly to the articles they illustrate and hence meet the criteria for FPs. And I wonder why this is being raised now, after some similar images have already been featured. --Muhammad(talk) 16:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why now? Who knows. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. This is an excellent-quality and extremely useful image. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: EV couldn't be better. The fact that it's a crop of a larger image seems irrelevant to me. The larger image couldn't really be used in the article to illustrate Africa or any other continent, and I don't see why we shouldn't be illustrating them if we have the perfect source for it. Maedin\^talk 22:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It isn't really a satellite picture, FWIW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Per the discussion above, I would support the creation of so-called "featured sets." But as for now, support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I know I'm probably on my own here, but frankly I just don't think a crop of an existing FP is feature-worthy. As Gazhiley has pointed out, there is no 'need' for FPs of continents. I'm not completely opposed to a featured set, however. NauticaShades 00:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Africa (satellite image).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A major catwalk model in her work environment.

Articles in which this image appears

Alek Wek, Cosmetics

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Eduardo Sciammarella

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Low contrast, minimum resolution, and I don't see anything particularly striking about this image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Low contrast? I can't imagine what you could possibly mean, in relation to the nominated photograph. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't speak for King of Hearts but possibly he means there is not enough separation ("contrast") between the subject and background... which I would call a composition/depth of field issue. Certainly the camera seems to have recorded adequate contrast. Fletcher (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I meant was that the lighting was poor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This picture is not "among Wikipedia's best work". It does not "illustrate the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". It's neither "aesthetically pleasing", "impressive" or "highly informative". If we decide to illustrate the subject Alek Wek or maybe Model I'm sure we can find a better picture.--Desiderius82 (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The disembodied hand and crowd of people in the background make for a cluttered, awkward composition. Fletcher (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; not loving the crowded background, and, for me, the hand stands out more than the subject... J Milburn (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Want to bet PLW adds the image to hand?  ;-) Fletcher (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll take that bet, but I'll also offer you odds on crowd if ur willing?! Gazhiley (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2010 at 17:51:16 (UTC)

Reason

This is an eye-catching image with limited depth of field to illustrate the subject (the opium poppy and it's latex) well. It caught my eye and made me want to read an article that I was just clicking through

Articles in which this image appears

opium, opium poppy

FP category for this image

Plants

Creator

TeunSpaans

• Support as nominator --Mgcsinc (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Interesting subject, it was timed well (with that drip), good angle. But the lighting, contrast, and depth of field is poor. As such it is not among our best works, IMO. Greg L (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn Was already recently nominated and failed: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Scored poppy - Mgcsinc (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and EV. Much better composition and quality than any other picture of the species. High resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

Sambar (deer), Rusa (genus), Deer

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 06:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well-composed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Weak oppose Lighting not good enough. --Elekhh (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, what part? --Muhammad(talk) 13:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Patches of light and shadow on the head, make it less appealing at standard article size. --Elekhh (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well you have to understand that this is in the wild. Sometimes we have to work with what we get. And it's not like we get pictures of these very often. Compare with the former taxobox image File:Sambar walk.jpg --Muhammad(talk) 02:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I acknowledge that, and value that is in the wild. --Elekhh (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice. BTW were you able to ID the fly :)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hehe, so you noticed it? I think it's a housefly --Muhammad(talk) 02:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, mainly due to the patchy lighting. The pose also seems a bit awkward compared to other photos we have, e.g. File:Sambardeer2.jpg. --Avenue (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quality of that image is beyond FP standards and resolution is lesser than this picture. I really don't understand the lighting oppose. You supported the image above which has much worse lighting. And how do we know this pose is awkward? Maybe that one is. Maybe they are both normal poses. --Muhammad(talk) 14:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I think the lighting and pose are fine. From the stance and environment, the animal appears to have just scrambled an incline, which they probably do rather a lot. Maedin\^talk 16:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lighting and composition are not good. The location is obvious a kind of zoo, so there should be a place without patchy lighting. File:Sambardeer2.jpg is superior (though it could be a little sharper) and illustrates this species much better. By the way this one here is a youngster Hive001 contact 17:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the zillionth time, this is not a zoo shot. Really does anybody bother to read? It was taken in a national park and the animal just came out from somewhere inside and climbed over the slope. The patchy lighting is because it sun light unevenly diffused through the tree, something you would not see in a zoo. How can an image be superior if it is less sharper, and the composition is messier? This image has the added benefit(s) of showing the natural environment and food the deer eats as well as appearing in articles. If this is a youngster, then there is place for both the images in the articles --Muhammad(talk) 17:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've read the caption. Sometimes there are confined areas in a National Park and I have to admit that I thought the green stuff was hay that somebody put there to attract them (looks like that on first sight). OK, it's in the wild. But this is, in my opinion, no reason to be gentler. Some excellent pictures were made in the wild (for examples see National Geographic). This is not one of them. Sorry Hive001 contact 18:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FPC has always been about encyclopedic value first followed by aesthetics. So the patchy lighting may not be ideal but it does not detract from the image. The patches are not even over exposed that fur details are lost. It is just a tad brighter, a reflection of reality. And I wouldn't encourage comparing a freely available picture with one taken by NG especially considering the number of hours they (can) spend on jobs and the equipment they use. --Muhammad(talk) 18:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good EV and technical quality. The lighting and background are somewhat ordinary, but it is a wildlife shot and the animal is well illustrated. Fletcher (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think better images can be found. The subject can be better isolated. The colors and light are not helping this and the DOF can have a stronger role. Abisharan (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Fletcher. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

While this photograph is not of a high technical standard, its historic nature makes it one of the best public domain photographs of its subject: Douglas MacArthur with his family, in existence, and is the only photo of the MacArthur family on Wikipeda. I think it adds value to the encyclopedia, as the Douglas MacArthur article has no photos of his family, and not a single photo of MacArthur in a civilian context (i.e. as a "family man" rather than a "military man").

Articles in which this image appears

Douglas MacArthur Jean MacArthur

FP category for this image

People

Creator

Noraft

• Support as nominator --ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 03:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This was added to the FPC queue on May 14 at 20:08 UTC. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Can not support this without restoration... maybe contact one of our excellent restorers to see if they'd work on it? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who would they be? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first one that comes to my mind is Durova, and she would know plenty more, shes probably the most active restorers. I'd give her a shout see if she can bring this image up to FP quality. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even with restoration, I'm not at all sure that this picture would "significantly add" to its article. The general is only half seen, behind two of his family members that had no historical significance. IMHO, there's nothing historical, significant, or even interesting in the whole picture. --Desiderius82 (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'd say it adds to the article on Jean MacArthur, considering there was no picture of her on Wikipedia until this one was added. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true. But who was Jean McArthur - aside of the general's wife? Desiderius82 (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone with an article in Wikipedia and unless you think that article is risking being deleted, if that image is the only available of her, then that makes it important. 128.100.216.170 (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, awarded by Ronald Reagan, which is something you don't get for simply being someone's spouse. If you don't think the picture should be featured for whatever reason, that's fine, but I'm here to tell you that Jean MacArthur is notable in her own right. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 19:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Point taken. But i don't think we can chose a picture for FP only because it's the only available (here) of someone with an article. Unless that someone is Frederic Chopin or something. There are other criteria that need to be met, right? Desiderius82 (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly are, and most of them are waived for historic photographs. This photograph is special because it is the only known public domain photo of the family in existence. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 20:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree this picture probably qualifies as a special case for historic/irreplaceable images, but I don't think any of the regulars here would want to promote it until it's been given some restoration love. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a request in to Durova. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 03:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have received a request to restore this image. Normally I would note the technical shortcomings of the current version and inquire whether the nominator could obtain a better copy. This time--and this is no reflection on the nominator in particular--there are other objections. As noted on my user talk page, my wiki time is reduced these days. At the last two FPC related discussions where I participated, aggressive and very pointed attacks were made upon my motives and character yet no one called those attacks inappropriate. At one of those places the attacks were ongoing for days before I was even aware that the discussion existed. My mentions of hospice and a recent death in the family encountered utter silence. Fellow volunteers, it is hardly tenable to say "go ask Durova to work on this" when years of unpaid service is not even returned with basic human courtesy. Durova⁴¹² 17:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that you are considered the restoration expert is a sign of how much your work is considered valuable. WP is always a discussion playground. The key is not to take it personal. Even if they talk about you. After all, Durova is not really Lise, or at least it doesn't have to be. Also as all work in WP, you do it if you feel like doing it, if not is fine, maybe someone else will. Gnemetropos (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit screen at my user talk page has a FAQ.

4) I don't want to learn to restore images, but I want you to restore stuff for me.

Please supply an uncompressed TIFF or PNG file of 10 MB or larger. And offer to do something for me.
5) I thought you restored images in ten minutes with a couple of Photoshop plugins?
False assumption. The fastest good article writers turn out good articles at about the same speed as I restore images. Takes comparable effort. Actually, Juliancolton and Ottava Rima say they're faster.
6) What can I do in return?

I have written seven good articles; how about you improve one of them and we conominate at featured article candidates? Then you answer all the manual of style objections. ;)

This request seeks hours of labor which would not be able to correct the partially hidden face of the image's most famous subject or the soft focus. This is a mundane piece of photojournalism, slightly below average for its type. Nonetheless, the offer stands. Please follow up at my user talk when one of my GAs goes live at FAC. I will do the restoration then. Durova⁴¹² 21:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn Will renominate after I've restored it. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Featured on Commons, high quality, used in 8 articles in other national Wiki.

Articles in which this image appears

Cymatium lotorium

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others

Creator

George Chernilevsky

• Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Doesn't have a huge amount of 'wow' factor, but frankly you can't really get more encyclopedic than this. NauticaShades 14:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What an exageration! Of course there are always better options. You could have a cross section in the picture. Or it can be an animation showing both this and a 3D transparent model of it, plus the cross section and indications of size. :p Abisharan (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your expectations are unreasonably high --Muhammad(talk) 17:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I find this image fine. I even support the nomination. I was just making fun of the exaggeration "you can't really get more encyclopedic than this". I find interesting that in Wikipedia it is common that things are not just good or bad they are extremely good or terribly bad. People can't resists to add really intense adjectives and descriptions and I am curious of what are the mechanisms that make that happen. 128.100.216.170 (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. That was intentionally hyperbolic. Obviously I didn't mean that this could not possibly be more encyclopedic, just that it was pretty flawless in terms of EV. NauticaShades 20:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very nice!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Very technical, loads of EV. Luca (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice Hive001 contact 16:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avenue (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lots of potential for FPs in this area. J Milburn (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Nautica --Muhammad(talk) 17:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very professional looking. Well done! Greg L (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cymatium lotorium 2010 G1.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 17:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Well-composed image showing the animal in its natural range.

Articles in which this image appears

Plestiodon fasciatus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Thegreenj

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Could do with a de-noise though. Nice find --Muhammad(talk) 11:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- very nice composition as per nom, a bit noisy as per Muhammad. Luca (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice image. Why no EXIF data though? Kaldari (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, pretty interesting. Muhammad, I don't find it noisy, however, and NR would detract from its excellent detail. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Interesting composition. Maybe a little selective blur on the background would help without harming the detail on the animal.Fletcher (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hive001 contact 16:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a nice image. It should be featured. Avs_Dps (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd strike the in its natural range, there is a meshwire fence in the background and the animal is sitting on a sawed of piece of tree trunk. All man-made. --Dschwen 20:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's correct - natural geographic range. For an argument about habitats (different concept), see synanthrope. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Eumecesfasciatus.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 17:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in which this image appears

Nephila pilipes

Creator

Benjamint 23:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 23:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. This is a little on the small side, especially given all the empty space. I don't see any reason to oppose it, however. NauticaShades 00:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Well-executed shot; a bit low on resolution though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Too small, hardly any details can be seen. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - I like it, but the resolution could be higher Hive001 contact 16:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose resolution is insufficient for the subject. --Dschwen 19:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: I like it, and I love images of this sort, but I just don't think it's up to the same standard as some others. J Milburn (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It explains the circuits of the basal ganglia in an anatomically precise and almost artistic manner, facilitating the understanding of Parkinson's disease and other basal ganglia diseases

Articles in which this image appears

• Parkinson's disease
• Basal ganglia disease
• Striatum
• Substantia nigra
• Basal ganglia
• Globus pallidus
• Subthalamic nucleus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

User:Mikael Häggström, based on images by Andrew Gillies/User:Anaru and Life Science Databases

• Support as nominator - either .png or .svg --Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm a little hesitant about the imported raster; if no technical problems are found with the SVG, then that is where my vote lies; otherwise the PNG is also pretty good. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• That raster picture of the brain is only used to show a location. It can perfectly be replaced by a silhouette. The spongy shape of the brain will be still recognizable by all. Abisharan (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Or it can be replaced by an equivalent vector image, as demonstrated. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. These sort of drawings take a lot of time to make. For that reason alone, I would support FP status just to encourage the creation of more of this kind of fine work. Greg L (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this picture not promoted? Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the quorum of five votes needs to be met for a picture to be promoted. NauticaShades 20:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'm thinking of making a new nomination after making some improvements to the picture. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The near 200-year-old museum image is of high EV and cultural importance, illustrating an artistic facet of Krishna worship. It is of satisfactory clarity and resolution and is used in a few wikipedia articles globally.

Articles in which this image appears

Krishna, Themes in Avatar, Krishnaism

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

unknown

• Support as nominator --Cinosaur (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question regarding EV: Is there a better use for it than Themes in Avatar? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good point. Added the image to Krishna. Cinosaur (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.Gaura79 (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not convinced by this. Apart from the unfortunate museum notes and other annotations at the bottom, the company style is unappealing and cartoon-ish. Is that really supposed to be a flute? This image seems to do a better job of illustrating the Krishna incarnation of Vishnu. Please correct me if I'm missing something. Maedin\^talk 20:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment. The notes at the bottom are, of course, misplaced, but not uncommon for otherwise valuable pieces of art in general, and may be seen as adding to the image's authenticity. The image's simplistic appearance is arguably a feature, not a flaw — look, for instance, at traditional Oriyan Pattachitra painting some find even more grotesque. Yes, it is actually a flute. And as far as comparing the EV of the image in question with the one you referenced, the former gives a clearer overall idea of how Krishna is depicted and, in particular, displays his trademark tilak on the forehead much more distinctly, which was a significant advantage for the illustrative purposes in Themes in Avatar. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is hardly the best illustration of Krishna. Just because it's old, doesn't mean we should respect it as having sky-high EV. It's not even particularly artistically impressive. J Milburn (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for reasons in nomination and I find it impressive. gren グレン 17:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This not the best representation of Krishna. The popular iconography of Krishna represents him playing a flute. Also the the paint spreads out from the boundary at end of the left foot and near the left anklet. Not the best artist. The writing is not distracting. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great picture of the genre-spanning artist and activist performing.

Articles in which this image appears

M.I.A. (artist), Outside Lands Music and Arts Festival, Music festival, List of festivals in the United States, Sunglasses

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Flickr user moses_namkung / Moses

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. Dynamic, captivating, I like it! The quality isn't bad, either. May I request some form of noise removal? Thanks. NauticaShades 14:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Noisy, with chromatic aberration, doesn't show the subject properly. Luca (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noise is subject to the downsampling argument - if downsampled to minimum requirements, the noise will be negligible. Besides that, it should be fairly easy to fix. As for the CA, I'm not sure there's any. I think those lights might actually be purple because there are properly white lights right next to them without the same phenomenon, if that's the place you're thinking of. Otherwise, if you can point out where the CA is, something might be done about it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - Noise reduction. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. The image does not appear to be very sharp. With NR necessarily comes a loss of detail. At just 95 mm, a slower speed (as opposed to 1/320) should have been chosen, allowing a lower ISO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't the lack of sharpness excusable, given the size of the image? NauticaShades 00:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lack of sharpness is noticeable even at low resolutions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's the 1000px resized version: [13]. Central subject is perfectly in focus. If you just want to suggest a different image from the same set, there are plenty of alternatives. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The encyclopedic value of this is as a lead illustration. For a living person (especially a high-profile entertainer), we'd expect a shot that shows her face more clearly. I'm sympathetic to the artistic intent here, but it isn't enough to overcome that problem. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added to Outside Lands Music and Arts Festival, Music festival, List of festivals in the United States where it has EV that is not restricted to the living person. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does this picture demonstrate those articles though? This could have been taken on any stage at any venue in any country... I oppose the picture per Mostlyharmless but also request that it is removed from the articles you have added this to... I for one don't look at that picture and immediately think "ooo music fesival" - I think "ooo artist on a stage"... To demonstrate those articles I would expect a picture of the venue to be used not a random artist in a picture taken at an angle that could be on any stage... Gazhiley (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • • EH? What you talking about "WP:BB"? I wouldn't have the first clue about editing articles - I struggle with talk pages! I was just annoyed that you have crowcared this into random articles that there's very little reason for it to be in and think you should reverse that... But it's just my opinion lets see if anyone else agrees... And please stop being so patronising - I wasn't trying to be funny... it appears your response was removed, so this response no longer is applicable Gazhiley (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Although I can tell some of you disagree, I'd argue that this image does depict the subject well. Rather than a standard portrait, this photograph shows M.I.A. in action, which in my opinion is far more valuable than a studio portrait. With this image, we get a sense of M.I.A.'s concerts, her style, etc. Is that not more important than making sure to have all her face clearly visible? NauticaShades 14:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The angle and sunglasses don't afford a very good view of her, IMO. And sharpness isn't great. Fletcher (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added to sunglasses. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sunglasses is already well illustrated - don't see what this adds to it. Fletcher (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose; I agree with those above. The EV is highest in MIA, but it's hardly the best illustration of the subject. J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for low EV. As per J Milburn, it's highest in MIA, although even that's not alot - we see more of her chin than her face, but not really at all in the others. Against the black backdrop of the stage, you can barely see the sunglasses, and we only really see one complete lens, and that's at a poor angle. We can assume that she's on stage outside somewhere, but it's impossible to tell from the image that it is a music festival, so doesn't really illustrate any of the three music festival pages. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very awkward portrait. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

a high resolution and good image

Articles in which this image appears

Iron and Group 8 element

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator and creator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, useful illustration with high EV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great quality, highly encyclopedic. NauticaShades 00:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - was considering nominating this myself. I think that every chemical element should have an image as good as this. Ephemeronium (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good one Hive001 contact 16:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avenue (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very nice. J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Iron_electrolytic_and_1cm3_cube.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think it is aesthetically pleasing, while also conveying important information.

Articles in which this image appears

Germinal center

FP category for this image

immunology

Creator

User:billy10drs

• Support as nominator --Billy10drs (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Notwithstanding the lack of sources on the image page for the diagram, I don't think that all diagrams are say, "artistically complex" enough to become FPs, and while getting the facts across, this diagram doesn't really strike me as artistically complex. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For examples of sourcing in the image page, as well as what I would call artistic complexity, see File:Respiratory system complete en.svg, a current biological diagram FP. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not loving this- it's a little too cartoony for me. J Milburn (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Anyone who's read a good immunology textbook has seen schematics like this that are much more complex, educational and beautiful to look at. --Desiderius82 (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Spencer. Fletcher (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

because he looks so grumpy, :)

Articles in which this image appears

American toad

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians

Creator

Cephas (user CephasE on en wiki)

• Support as nominator --Maedin\^talk 06:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, what a wonderfully regal little creature. Compelling composition. J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm happy with all the elements. Abisharan (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. No problems here. NauticaShades 16:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support DOF could be better but still good enough IMO, nice eyes :) --Muhammad(talk) 17:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hive001 contact 08:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bufo americanus PJC1.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 08:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

well...where could I start? Ticks all the boxes for me.

Articles in which this image appears

Pine siskin

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Cephas

• Support as nominator: —Maedin\^talk 07:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Nice photo with EV --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, wonderful shot. J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There is something nevertheless that I find unfortunate. The patterns of the leaves of the background look similar to those of some parts of the feathers. Is it allowed to add more blur to the background to break that down? Abisharan (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's "allowed"; after all, we've featured an image of a pomegranate with a washing basket (amongst other things) removed from the bg (here). Frankly, I don't think any alteration to the pine siskin image is necessary in the slightest, and I think the pine branches are informative, not confusing or distracting. But you're welcome to produce an edit if you wish. Maedin\^talk 11:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Sharp, detailed, and encyclopedic. NauticaShades 16:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this picture could benefit from a little cropping. Its right-hand one third contains nothing but blurry background, and this makes the picture rather 'unbalanced'. --Desiderius82 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, no, no, :) It's not "nothing but blurry background", it's compositional space! Free birds don't like cages; it doesn't suit them in 2-D, either. I see this as perfectly balanced because the bird has looking room on the right. Having said that, anyone is welcome to produce alternatives and add them here for consideration. Maedin\^talk 11:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think ~10% of the image could be cropped to the right (I'm too busy to do it myself right now), but I wouldn't mind the original either.--Desiderius82 (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with cropping, for what it's worth. The current composition looks great to me. J Milburn (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hive001 contact 08:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Carduelis pinus CT7.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 08:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality and good EV, especially because it exhibits a common chipmunk behavior. And besides, can you resist the cuteness?

Articles in which this image appears

Eastern chipmunk

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Cephas

• Support as nominator --NauticaShades 19:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image and great caption. upstateNYer 00:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nuff said... Looks odd without his red jumper on though... Gazhiley (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Extremely cute -- Hive001 contact 08:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, a highly valuable image. J Milburn (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tamias striatus CT.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 08:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Wonderful quality, with all of the body and wings entirely in focus. Great EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Heliconius melpomene

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator --NauticaShades 19:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think it fulfills FP criteria. Wish though the actual article had more information.Desiderius82 (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support what else. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hive001 contact 08:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Heliconius melpomene 2b Richard Bartz.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 08:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 May 2010 at 16:59:12 (UTC)

Reason

This is a great scan (over 40MP) of an iconic triptych. What detail!

Articles in which this image appears

The Garden of Earthly Delights, Hieronymus Bosch, Museo del Prado, 1504 in art, Afterlife, Western painting, History of painting, Bart Gets Hit by a Car

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Hieronymus Bosch

• Support as nominator --NauticaShades 16:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If it is going to have the black frame, could the width be equal on both sides? The one to the left is thinner than the one to the right. I prefer having the frame there, since it will be visible in between the triptych anyways (unless you do some cut-and-paste with the picture) but, I would either crop the excess of frame or clone what is missing. Abisharan (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean. I hope someone experienced in that sort of thing can do a quick edit. NauticaShades 00:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I felt the change was minor enough that I uploaded it over the original. Jujutacular ^T · C 10:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hekerui pointed out that I botched the crop - accidentally doubling the image size in the process. Unfortunately I'm not able to fix it right now so I've reverted back. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hive001 contact 11:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Detailed, high quality, amazing motive. Hekerui (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very high EV. --Elekhh (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Diego_pmc ^Talk 08:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch High Resolution.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 May 2010 at 23:22:42 (UTC)

Reason

Previous photos of Turku Castle have not been of sufficient quality. This new picture is of high quality and as it depicts one of the most famous buildings in Finland, it surely has a lot of EV. The picture was taken in the evening, thus the reddish lighting. In addition to the English wikipedia the picture also appears in Swedish, Finnish and Russian articles.

Articles in which this image appears

Turku, Turku Castle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

ottojula

• Support as nominator --Ottojula (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Great quality but can't help feeling that if this was taken at a better time of day ie around midday there would be less shadows and a more natural (less red) colour... But still good enough for a support even if slightly weak... Gazhiley (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Big resolution, fine quality, nice colors and good EV. And used in Russian Wiki too now. I like this photo -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose . This picture is not appealing to me. Sorry. Hive001 contact 11:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is customary to give a reason. Fletcher (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good detail and sharpness. Despite shadows, no detail is lost. Fletcher (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I agree that the time of day this picture was taken is unfortunate - it looks too pink. Moreover, it only shows one narrow facade and fails to give a genuine idea of the castle's size - as can be estimated by the rest of the pictures in the article - though this end "is iconic and is a symbol of the city". One can hardly believe it is one of Scandinavia's largest castles by this picture. Actually, it hardly looks like a castle - IMHO. Desiderius82 (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Turkucastle.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 08:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If an image is listed here for about seven days with four or more reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s)) and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support." Sorry, but... how and why is this picture promoted?Desiderius82 (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing... Jujutacular ^T · C 17:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undone. I've moved the nomination to "Older noms requiring more input" to hopefully undo any damage I've caused by the mistaken promotion. I'm very sorry. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I agree about it being hard to get excited about. I know the trees frame the photo a little but it is an odd proportion. I think that cropping it a bit more might help. Casliber (talk · contribs)

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 May 2010 at 19:56:28 (UTC)

Reason

Featured on commons, de, and es. Not incredible resolution, but high enough. EV is well-confirmed: has been stable in several articles (in at least two articles, image has been present since upload in 2007, and in two others, present for 2 years or so). By our very own FPCer Mick Stephenson, who unfortunately isn't around much anymore. (Caption nicked from image description page.)

Articles in which this image appears

Sotres, Picos de Europa, Cantabrian Mountains, Cabrales, Tourism in Spain

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Mick Stephenson

• Support as nominator --Maedin\^talk 19:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support seems fine to me. Abisharan (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Beautiful. NauticaShades 00:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I put a message on Mick Stephenson's page a while ago suggesting he nominate this, and then forgot about it. It's good in every way. Some things are just photogenic. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support So much detail. Hive001 contact 11:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a crop of this has been my wallpaper for ~ 2 years. Always liked this one. Benjamint 01:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very good composition, nice landscape. --Elekhh (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very nice. --Avenue (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Simply amazing. Definitely featured-picture worthy. Haljackey (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nice landscape, high quality --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:SotresPanorama.jpg Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2010 at 21:22:12 (UTC)

Reason

This meets all of the criteria, with glaring marks in most.

Articles in which this image appears

There are literally hundreds, here is the main one. Barack Obama

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People

Creator

Hoshie

• Support as nominator --Iankap99 (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous nominations: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Official portrait of Barack Obama and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Obama official portrait. Bear in mind however that consensus can change. Jujutacular ^T · C 06:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And existing FP. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Two nominations ago, mikaul said the following about this portrait. I think it still stands. NauticaShades 10:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“

<puts down pipe, strokes beard> I wasn't going to elaborate too much, just point out the formal reasons why this is a disaster of a formal portrait, but seeing as you ask... with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, almost any other US presidential portrait (given a suitable file) would be way preferable. The best comparison is probably the Reagan one, if only because the Obama one has obviously been based heavily on it. In Reagan's portrait, the President was photographed in time-honoured dignitary style. He's integrated with his surroundings, appears relaxed and assured, is positioned naturally with shoulders facing slightly into the frame, head slightly to one side, further "involving" him in the scene. Lighting is strong and direct (are you getting all these jaded art critic metaphors?) with backlighting to bring him forward, head close to the top of the frame to enhance apparent stature. Obama, by direct comparison, is a shrinking, isolated figure, with ordinary brolly-and-reflector lighting, facing front-on to the camera as if he were in a photo-booth, not the White House waiting room. Reagan was shot on film (of course) so it has grain at 100% (of course) so it would never impress those who equate high-resolution digital reproduction with technical expertise. But it's a vastly superior portrait from a photographic point of view and is much more deserving of FP status for the encyclopedia. You describe the ENC problem with this nomination exactly when you say within the bounds of what this photograph tries to be, it is a good portrait. That's not the point of FPC, surely, and actually not true, to boot. mikaultalk 21:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

”

There are issues with the Regan photograph, he has an uncomfortable forced smile, as well as other issues, but this is not the place to discuss an already featured picture is it? --Iankap99 (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was comparing Reagan's portrait to this one, to explain how this one is deficient. Fletcher (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose was my previous !vote. I still think we should insist on a better portrait of possibly the most photographed guy in the world. Fletcher (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Almost anything is better than the current Obama FP ().--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Provided () is delisted, I do agree that is a horrid portrait. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's such an awkward pose- both sides of his torso aren't shown. I'm sure that a better one will surface. I'd also vote to delist (), which I'm sure is not the best photo that we can come up with. -- mcshadypl ^TC 02:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Guys, guys, guys, can you please open a delist and replace nom for this? Interpreting the consensus when some people's votes are *conditional* on some other outcome that is not going to be contemporaneous is going to be a headache. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Just about everyone has seen this picture before. I think Featured Pictures are a great way to showcase photos that people do not normally look at. Haljackey (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low notability is not a condition of a Featured Picture. --Iankap99 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, utterly ridiculous. Are you saying we shouldn't be featuring images of famous artwork? Famous historical photos? Absolute nonsense. J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And your thoughts on the Portrait?--Iankap99 (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None at this time; I may well express an opinion later. J Milburn (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd almost never suggest that someone's comment or oppose "vote" be ignored but at least give a criticism of the image (per the FPC guidelines) otherwise you're just trolling. Cat-five - talk 03:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of the status of the other Obama FP, consensus does not exist here for promotion. No prejudice as to the opening of a delist nomination. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2010 at 22:36:04 (UTC)

Reason

I was photographing fungi when this guy popped out. I fortunate to be in the right position with camera attached to tripod (it was dark) so I could get the shot with minimal movement. According to the article pademelons spend daylight in thick vegetation - thus it is hard to photograph wild ones during the day. There are tame ones in some places, but the open environment isn't strictly natural during the daytime. The moss and fungi indicates that this is temperate rainforest.

Articles in which this image appears

Tasmanian Pademelon, Pademelon

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a pretty good illustration of the environment and animal. --Muhammad(talk) 01:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very good. --Elekhh (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very good Hive001 contact 08:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not your best technically, but it's got bags of personality. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Exotic subject matter and cute animals are a winning combination. Greg L (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic! Very good picture! Haljackey (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support not sure I can add anything that hasn't been said above, very nice shot. Cat-five - talk 03:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Thylogale billardierii.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 23:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2010 at 21:15:03 (UTC)

Reason

This is a featured picture on commons that is used in a couple of WP articles.

Articles in which this image appears

Gary Sinise, Lt. Dan Band

FP category for this image

People

Creator

Dschwen (Daniel Schwen)

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry Tony, his face is uncomfortable, and his hand is in an awkward spot, the image looks awkward altogether. --Iankap99 (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Far to harsh lighting to make the picture FP quality... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I find the lighting isn’t bad. However, the overall composition and the subject matter lends to a “snapshot-look” to it. Greg L (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support: I've got to say I disagree with the above. The lighting's not too bad, the pose isn't terrible and I like the composition. Not absolutely stunning, but I'm happy to weakly support. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral: I agree with the comments by J Milburn. It's a good picture, but is it good enough to be a featured picture? Haljackey (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the sharpness, colors, bokeh, off-center composition and EV of this. I agree the lighting is rather harsh and uneven on his face, but for this type of shot, the photographer has little control over it. And barring any kind of Wikipedian paparazzi that can follow Sinise around, replacements may be hard to come by. Fletcher (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support basically per Fletcher. The lighting is a bit harsh and the man himself looks a bit weary and ragged here, additionally I guess he's not really noted as a musician, which leads me to 'weak', but we don't have unlimited opportunities for images of this type either. --jjron (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 21:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Period sketch of an encampment on the California Trail created by a man who made the crossing in 1859.

Articles in which this image appears

California Trail, Wells, Nevada, Donner Party

Creator

Daniel A. Jenks

• Support as nominator --Durova⁴¹² 05:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Good illustration of historical record by someone who was there. Might be worth noting this doesn't show the infamous Donner Party even though it appears in that article (the Donner Party having taken place over 10 years earlier). Fletcher (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not the highest artistic value ever :), but a valuable encyclopedic item. Restored well. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Request: There's a line through some of the background trees that doesn't appear on the original file. Looks like a photoshop slip; I've annotated it at Commons. Could this be fixed, please? Maedin\^talk 09:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Conditional on line being fixed. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended while we wait for a response from Durova. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll fix the line, give me a couple hours. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 18:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strike that,the GIMP healing brush is being spastic with the green and brown, and I don't have enough skill with cloning to get it to look decent. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsuspended as new restoration from LoC original has become available, without the smudge. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Smudge is gone. Comparing the edit to Durova's restoration, it appears she added punchier contrast and saturation, while PLW stuck closer to the original LOC file (besides his adjustment to white balance). I have a slight preference for her version but am ok with either; updated support above to reflect edit. Fletcher (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original. I prefer its saturated colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The original has a Photoshop smudge and it would be unacceptable to promote it. Would you like to rethink your support? At present it is null. Maedin\^talk 06:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, I'll buy that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per User talk:King of Hearts#Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/California Trail at Humboldt River, what I meant by this statement was support edit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit. I'd also support a more saturated version of the edit. NauticaShades 12:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll make a slight saturation adjustment in a few hours and upload over the top, though will probably not boost it as much as the original. I think we need to consider how likely it is that the drawing was ever super-saturated, considering the paper and materials probably used. Maedin\^talk 12:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I've now bumped up the saturation a bit and uploaded over the top. It's not a big difference, but hopefully goes some way towards addressing the concerns. Maedin\^talk 17:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit Jujutacular ^T · C 17:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments on edit, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I notified everyone whose vote isn't so clear. We'll give this a few more days to see if we can get quorum for the edit. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. I also think that Mostlyharmless' support could be quite reasonably interpreted as applying to the edit, since it was fairly clear from Durova's other uploaded images, all of which carried the smudge, that only a complete rework would solve the problem in a way that maintained authenticity of the original work. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have now notified [14] NativeForeigner, not sure why he was missed out earlier. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because 7:55 is 3:55 AM where I live. Sorry! Makeemlighter (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Prefer original saturation, but second is featured quality as well because of lack of PS smudge. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my original support to support edit above...wasn't sure if I needed to add a new comment down here. Fletcher (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Promoted File:Humboldt River Papa 2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The picture shows a particular behavior of the species.

Articles in which this image appears

Red-winged Blackbird

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

CephasE

• Support as nominator --Cephas (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I really like the unconventional pose/angle. NauticaShades 00:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, illustrates the bird clearly and attractively. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hive001 contact 12:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Good resolution, but in my opinion not enough shadow detail. ottojula (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. At the moment, I'm not convinced about the EV. This behaviour is not mentioned in the article except in the image caption, and the image is being used to illustrate the behaviour, not the bird itself. J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC) For what it's worth, I have changed my oppose to strong oppose. We should not be in the business of promoting images that are not really being used to show anything of importance. Some of these supports would be valid only if this image was used as a lead, or as a "this is what the bird looks like", which it is not. In considering the EV of an image, we have to consider how it is used, and to what extent that use benefits the article and the project. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per ottojula. Additionally, it is not sufficiently cropped. Greg L (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There is every reason for this to be the lead image, and an FP - focus is on the head, blown highlights are fewer and resolution larger than the current lead image, and unless you're going to do something HDR-looking, you can't lift the dark greys without blowing the red patch even more. This is what the bird looks like, end of story. And you even get a bit of typical habitat in the background, quoting the article: inhabits open grassy areas. It generally prefers wetlands. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So... You're supporting because you think it should be the lead image/would make a good lead image, when it is not the lead image? J Milburn (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • On what grounds are you supporting? J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Read it again, or ask someone to read it to you, please. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll read it again, removing any references to the lead image- as you say, you're not claiming EV as the lead image, as it is not the lead image. I am left with- "There is every reason for this to be ... an FP - focus is on the head, blown highlights are fewer and resolution large ... and unless you're going to do something HDR-looking, you can't lift the dark greys without blowing the red patch even more. This is what the bird looks like, end of story. And you even get a bit of typical habitat in the background, quoting the article: inhabits open grassy areas. It generally prefers wetlands." It would be reasonable to remove the references to the habitat, as this is not currently being used to illustrate that either. As such, we are left with some justification as to the quality of the image. I am not challenging the quality of the image, I am challenging the EV. Does this behaviour need to be illustrated? J Milburn (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The image is sufficiently good on its own merit. It doesn't need to illustrate a unique behaviour. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • But the whole nom is predicated on the behaviour, to quote the sole reason given: "The picture shows a particular behavior of the species." The image caption furthers this theme. --jjron (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes. We have to base EV on how an image is used, otherwise we could have images not used in articles at all that are "sufficiently good" passing FPC. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This is featured pictures, not featured captions. Please change your votes accordingly. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I haven't been criticising the caption; I have been criticising how it is used in the article, which is how we should judge the EV. This is Wikipedia's featured picture process, not "look at this pretty picture I found". Please change your votes accordingly. J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like it, but as stated above, the left side could be cropped out a bit. Haljackey (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If someone ever crop it, please make an alternate and distinctive picture as this one already has an FP on Commons. Thanks, --Cephas (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It appears up to FP standards, noting that the bird is a high contrast animal. Cowtowner (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Milburn. I quite like the image itself, but the caption here and the similar one in the article is clumsy and seems to identify a behaviour which is not discussed in the article and seems unlikely (e.g., it doesn't appear to me that the wings are being held away from the body). Given this is being nominated based on the behaviour illustrated, I have to oppose on EV. If these EV issues are fixed (and I think they need to be addressed whether an FP or not), you can 'neutralise' my !vote. --jjron (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: This is on the border between consensus and no consensus. There are two main issues that need to be finalized: 1) the encyclopedic value (EV) of the image, and 2) the possible need to crop the image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think the image definitely has a good EV despite the caption being somewhat clumsy, I would not be opposed to doing some cropping especially the space on the left side which skews the image but neither do I think it's a huge enough issue to oppose if it isn't cropped. Cat-five - talk 03:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way does it have good EV? J Milburn (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I like the photo (and I supported it on Commons), but I agree that its EV is currently not evident in the article (including its caption there). If it's meant to illustrate this bird's well-studied "song spread display", I don't think it does this especially well. Compare it with the second image here, for instance. (Cropping the image would not change my !vote.) --Avenue (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 May 2010 at 05:45:03 (UTC)

Reason

Very high quality image, shows significant detail of the collector / express system on the busiest highway in North America (might be the busiest in the world).

• This picture puts the viewer right in the driver's seat, like they're actually on the highway. It is in this way that the scale of the highway overwhelms the average viewer, indicating to them that this is more than just a typical urban highway.

Articles in which this image appears

Highway 401, Local-express lanes, Interchange (road)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others

Creator

James Bancroft (Attribution)

• Support as nominator --Haljackey (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A nice and sharp image. However, the composition is lacking. I believe a shot taken from away from the highway rather than on it would make for a better photo. Also, the cutoff light post on the left is distracting. Jujutacular ^T · C 06:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by the composition is lacking? What can be done to improve this? The goal of this picture is to put the viewer in the driver's seat. As for the light post, would you support this picture if that was cropped out? Haljackey (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have uploaded a version with the left side cropped out to get rid of the light pole. Do you like this version better? Haljackey (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do like that version better. However, I feel an image from a higher vantage point would be superior. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The registration plates really should be blurred. J Milburn (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Just out of a safety interest, who took the picture? the position in the lane relative to the centre of the picture would seem to indicate this was taken by the person in the left hand seat - that would make it the driver no? If so this is not very safe... Just thought I'd point this out as it's not a good advert for road safety if it turns out the cameraman is also the driver... Gazhiley (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • God, you're right. Let's hope this was actually taken by someone stood in the middle of the lane, and not a driver. For safety's sake. J Milburn (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC) (This wasn't meant to be aggressive, your comment just made me giggle.)[reply]
    • Heh, given the highway that it is, I think standing in the road would be a thousand times more dangerous. I agree that though this is a nice sharp image, we have several better compositions with artistic quality to them. This image is just raw information. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the camera was mounted on the dashboard (in front of the steering wheel). The author took several pictures of this stretch, so I assume it was on an automatic shooting mode. I agree that the license plates will need to be blurred/edited if the image succeeds the nomination process. If you don't like that the light pole is cut-off, it can always be cropped out.
        • That's ok - I know its safer than standing in the road :P but still not a good idea to be promoting taking photos while driving as that's not safe unless using an automatic camera... Gazhiley (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As for other pictures, this one puts the viewer right in the driver's seat, like they're actually on the highway. It is in this way that the scale of the highway overwhelms the average viewer, indicating to them that this is more than just a typical urban highway. Haljackey (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've blurred the 4 or 5 licence plates that are legible in the photo. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I can still see them after the edit. Which ones did you blur? Haljackey (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tow truck, the silver Pontiac Montana, the black Acura, the white Ford Windstar and the Safari. You may need to purge your cache, the old image must be still showing for you. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, that did it. However the filesize of the image more than doubled when you blurred the plates. Not sure if this is a huge problem, however. Haljackey (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure what the policy is regarding that. I usually change jpg's to png files because jpgs can get weird digital distortion when resized. In this case however, I uncompressed the jpg. I'm hoping it will prevent that from happening, though it is less apparent in images like this. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit: A new version is now up that contains both the blurred license plates and crops out the cut-off light pole on the left. Does this look any better? Haljackey (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The driver’s viewpoint leads to a “snapshot” quality to the composition. The overcast day lends to a gloomy feeling. Greg L (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While this is an interesting and useful image (and a bit frightening to this resident of a small city!), I don't think that it meets the FP criteria. A photo taken from one of the bridges over the highway on a sunny day might lead to a better result. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Thanks a lot for your suggestions! I appreciate the constructive criticism. I might try again in the future taking your comments into account. Haljackey (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A new picture of the highway has been entered as a candidate for a featured picture. Haljackey (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2010 at 22:05:36 (UTC)

Reason

Second try, almost two years after. A long discussion took place here, after the first nomination failed on the ground that the picture did not represent sunset. The clear consensus of the discussion was that it was the best available picture illustrationg the subject.

Articles in which this image appears

Sunset

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Atmospheric optics

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Is that possible? the existence of the best available picture of a sunset. I find that it could be better. The cone of shadow to the sides of the sun is not a good feature (I mean, not that it is there, but that it is so dark). The sun is also not centered. Although this, depending on the rest of the picture, can be used satisfactorily, in this case it just seems accidental. I guess that with such a common subject as sunsets I can ask for a god's designed picture for FP, can I? Abisharan (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Do we not have a FP already of a sunset? I find that hard to believe. Theres also a zillion sunset images on Commons too... Is this the best one out of _all of those_ that the editors of Sunset agree is the best? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is unquestionably a very fine sunset picture. The long lens instantly leaves most hobbyists in the dust. However, the category of sunsets is extraordinarily competitive with many, truly astounding pictures freely available on the Web. Wikipedia would not be well served unless we featured something on the main page for 24 hours that truly stood out from your basic “Travel to the Bahamas and get laid”-poster, like this one, and this one too. Greg L (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Let me try to clarify. This is not for sure the most astounding picture depicting the sunset available in Wikimedia (or in the web). Nor it is the intent of the nomination to enchant the reviewers with its marvelous colors and composition, or to convince anyone to travel with me to the Bahamas and get laid. But it is one of the best available pictures (the best, according to the outcome of the discussion above) showing the sun during sunset. That is what makes its encyclopaedic value relevant and justifies this nomination. As for the suggestion to center the sun in the image (why not the horizon too?), well, it would ruin the composition (yes, the composition is also important :-) ) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. It is a fine picture. I suppose I voted ‘oppose’ based upon a broader criteria than whether it is the finest Wikipedia has to offer. Rather, I think it is in Wikipedia’s best interests to view a picture of a sunset more broadly and consider how it is an extraordinarily ubiquitous subject that readers have literally seen thousands of. There is a lot of truly stunning work out there; like this picture showing the sun, which makes one stop and look. I’m thinking readers shouldn’t have a reaction of “been there – done that.” I hope other wikipedians feel otherwise for your benefit. But I hope others will agree with me for Wikipedia’s benefit.

      Sunsets are a bit like that classic picture of a newly wedded couple at their reception playfully smashing cake into the others’ pie-hole: one would have to have truly stunning quality and composition to set it apart from the millions of others on the same topic we’ve all seen—even if it is the best one that happens to be on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Well, if that is the best example you can show of a stunning work... I would rather call it small, poor quality, kitschy and of none encyclopaedic value. If you are looking for truly extraordinary images in Wikipedia, the discussion linked to above has a couple of them to offer. May I say again that the purpose of this picture in the article (and the purpose of this nomination) is not to impress the readers with beauty but showing a natural phenomenon in the best possible way? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • “Kitschy”

          1 : something that appeals to popular or lowbrow taste and is often of poor quality
          2 : a tacky or lowbrow quality or condition <teetering on the brink of kitsch>

          Uhm… Okay. Well, I learn a new word every once in a while on Wikipedia. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, and you can also learn that that image is not kitschy at all. It is very well orchestrated although not the original high resolution file. In any case. It is not a point that image or comparing this one to any other. I don't understand what kind of syllogism leads from centering the sun to centering the horizon. The horizon is a strong horizontal line that is placed there to enhance the importance of the sky as what is being shown is a celestial phenomenon. The sun to the left would be nice if there were strong vertical or diagonal lines emanating from the sun to the right. That is not the case. Also, it is not even too much to the left to say that the are using rule of thirds. It is clearly accidental. Just to the crop from the right (that would beg for a little crop from above too) and you will see that looks, in fact, better. It is just that with this subject we can ask for excellence and this picture is not really excellent. Abisharan (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• To Alvesgaspar: I think it is safe to say we have to agree to disagree on this one. I do hope that is OK with you? I’ve stated that it is clearly a very fine picture. But I appear to be having a reaction similar to that which raeky and Abisharan seem to be having here: Given the gazillion other pictures of sunsets (some of which make many a reader stop and stare for a moment, like this one), our readership has been inculcated with pretty high expecations. Though I find yours to be a “fine” picture, I also find the composition (telephoto view of a half-set sun over the ocean) to be almost a cliché. So I’m just not seeing this one as being FP material. So sorry.

  BTW, I suppose I should also add, for future reference, that it is sort of a mistake to uhm… rigorously defend one’s self-nomination here on FPC; you just sort of go with the flow and really listen to what others are saying. Not all of the opinions you’ll see will seem to have much validity (garbage like “it was saved as .jpg rather than a .png”), but it is pretty much self-defeating for the self-nominator to get in there and argue with those who vote oppose. Whether you want to take that bit of advise to heart or not is up to you. In any case, goodbye; there is nothing more to say I haven’t already said. Happy editing and keep up the good work with your photography. And good luck; you have only one oppose vote so far. :-) Greg L (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, Greg L, for your nice words. Yes, it is safe to say we agree to disagree. But on this one only! Cheers. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS - Here in WP:FPC we have indeed the tradition of discussing the reviewers' assessments. Very often this practise sheds significant light on the relevant issues and helps to improve the pictures, with obvious benefict for the articles and the project. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 May 2010 at 17:04:26 (UTC)

Reason

Besides being both an excellent composition and technically flawless photo, the image offers a unique perspective on the highway, and showcases the brilliance of it in contrast to the sea of apartment buildings surrounding it. I felt this photo would be more FP worthy than the other 401 image nominated earlier, and wanted to give it a shot.

Articles in which this image appears

Ontario Highway 401

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others

Creator

Kennymatic (Flickr user, CC-2.0-attribution)

• Support as nominator Withdrawn --ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Very good. Shows how busy the route actually is and the collector / express system in detail. The high mast lighting and buildings also add a lot to this otherwise dark image. I tweaked it just a bit and got some internal links in the caption. Haljackey (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose EV is rather dubious in most of the articles it's in (especially Street light and Lighting, where you have to look for the lighting system because it's not at all the focus of the image). upstateNYer 21:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The position of the image in articles can always be changed, as well as adding or removing it from articles. Haljackey (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to further add that I didn't add it to those articles. It's primary purpose is the Highway 401 article - I was simply listing the others in which it appears. I've removed them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to the criteria, the picture needs to be a major component in at least two articles. You might want to add some back. Haljackey (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it has to just be in one article - see Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I saw this one when looking over the other Highway 401 nom, and liked it - much more compelling than the first nom. But it seems too noisy to me. Why not bring it down to base ISO and take a longer exposure? Fletcher (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no access to the angle it was taken from, probably the roof of the photographers apartment. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support due to glare from the street lights and other non-car lights, but otherwise lovely photograph... Gazhiley (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. I like night photography, especially long exposures, but I don't think that it's the best way to illustrate a highway. Not that I'm suggesting it's FP quality, but I think this old image of mine is more appropriate in style, as it shows the lanes better and the density of traffic. It's impossible to get a true sense of the density in long exposures like this. You can view the image details to learn that it was an 8 second exposure, but you still can't pick out individual car head/tail lights. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - IMHO this is of high aesthetic but no educational value. Desiderius82 (talk) 06:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have to disagree. This picture shows North America's busiest highway, which is busy at all hours of the day. In addition, it shows its rather unique collector / express system in detail which is designed to eliminate crazy lane changes along the wide highway, and the high mast lighting system which you don't see too often in the rest of the world. All this could be added to the caption, perhaps, to give it a more educational value. Haljackey (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Very few pictures are educational without context. In the context of Ontario Highway 401, this image is very informative, but also artistic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant oppose The picture is clearly well done and the photographer is deserving of peer accolade. However, it has more of a “decorative” nature to it; suitable only for the lead of an article. IMO, it isn’t sufficiently encyclopedic to merit FP status. Greg L (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I find the image to be appealing and encyclopedic. It provides context of the area and works well in its current use in the article. I'm not sure how else one would demonstrate that there is heavy traffic all day on the 401. Visually, this image is a quality demonstration of this fact. Cowtowner (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How does this picture demonstrate how busy this highway is? I mean, the density of light streaks is just proportional to exposure length, and any highway could appear busy at night if the camera lens remains open for long enough, right? --Desiderius82 (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that's true. That's the point. The photographer chose a lengthy exposure to fit an appropriate number of cars flowing by and thus show the highway was busy. If you're looking for exact values or a way to formally measure this it should be addressed directly in the body of the article. Expecting the picture to do that is unreasonable, rather it strikes me as a quality supplement. Cowtowner (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to poke at what Desiderius said. While the exposure could theoretically be of any length, it would still take a consistent volume of traffic to produce the arcs across the entire image The density is not proportionate to the exposure length, the length of each light arc is proportionate to the exposure length, and the density proportionate to the number of light trails overlapping. I also believe that longer exposures would add increasing amounts of glare from the stationary lights. The photo summary shows the exposure length as well. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment / Suggestion I have an idea where this article might work splendidly and have high encyclopedic value rather than just decorative value. I suggest that it be added to Long exposure photography. As of this writing, the top-most picture there shows light smears. Though that current picture is arguably attractive, I think it would be unnecessarily difficult for many readers to discern what is going on in that image. Substituting that picture with this one would give that article more encyclopedic value and make it much, much easier for the reader to understand the effect of long shutter speeds. If this photograph were instead used in Long exposure photography, I would vote “Support.” Greg L (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and added it to the article. Cowtowner (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I suggest this nomination be withdrawn and a new one with a caption referencing its use at Long exposure photography be used. In that context, it will have more encyclopedic value in addition to its aesthetic qualities. Greg L (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Something like this Greg? [15] Haljackey (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm… Interesting. I think your point (if I take your post correctly) is that just by making the picture sterile as hell and removing all artistic flourish, doesn’t necessarily suddenly make it able to convey the subject in a more encyclopedic fashion. Maybe it’s the combination of night-time and long exposure that detracts from this particular nomination’s ability to add encyclopedic value to the subject of Highway 401. Like that Supreme Court justice once said (taking a bit of literary license here): “Pornography is hard to define, but I know it when I see it.” Greg L (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this still adds some value to the 401 article as well. Perhaps withdrawing and restarting the nominations with Long exposure photography first and Highway 401 second as the articles it is used within. Do you still feel it adds no value to the 401 article?
            • I definitely think it adds value to the Ontario Highway 401 article. However, I don’t think it warrants FP status based on its use in that article because, although its highly decorative and stylized nature certainly gives it high marks for “purdy”, I think it merits low marks for adding encyclopedic value (EV) to ‘401.’ However, in the context of Long exposure photography, it speaks straight to the heart of that subject and therefore has plenty of EV in that context. And due to it also having its many artistic and aesthetic virtues, I would wholeheartedly support it for a Featured Picture. What a wonderful and well done picture to illustrate what can be done with an 8-second-long exposure. It would be nice if the Long exposure photography article was a bit bigger, because Elakala Waterfalls would also enhance that article, IMO.

              P.S. Well… that was easy. The waterfall picture is also now on Long exposure photography. There was a section on “Water and long exposure” that was just begging for an associated picture. Greg L (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 22:38:51 (UTC)

Reason

One of the few high-res images of Ophelia, drawn as specific illustration. Shows interesting similarities to Mignon Nevada's role.

Articles in which this image appears

Book illustration

FP category for this image

Artwork

Creator

uncredited

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister[t] 22:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In its current usage, I'm not seeing a lot of EV. References to Ophelia more or less amounts to a gallery. I would be happy to change my vote to a support pending a better use of the image. Cowtowner (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refined now. Brandmeister[t]
    • Its being in Book illustration doesn't vastly improve upon it's EV in my view. The article is a stub and would benefit more from an image being shown in the context of a book (e.g. the full page instead of just the picture). Cowtowner (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 May 2010 at 23:16:41 (UTC)

Reason

Shows the details of the bird clearly. Uses a point and shoot, but the bird was standing about less than 1 foot from the lens so the picture looks nice. Lighting was fairly bright. Points for difficulty...you decide?

Articles in which this image appears

Irena puella

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

chhe

• Support as nominator --Chhe (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good focus, nice image. Haljackey (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not a bad image. I realise this is by no means your fault, but the article is currently somewhat over-illustrated. Could it perhaps be cut down? J Milburn (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. NauticaShades 12:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even if it isn't of perfect technical quality, it has great colors and a perfect composition. Despite the noise and lack of per-pixel sharpness it's a great shot. Ottojula (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it would be better to feature a picture which does not bear marking of being taken in a zoo especially since this is n least concern specie --Muhammad(talk) 01:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Do you know what the faint diagonal lines on the picture are? They are most noticeable above the bird's head. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Behind the bird in the distance was a metal wire netting leading to another giant bird enclosure. The faint diagonal lines are from that.Chhe (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 May 2010 at 06:19:14 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and resolution. EV: show running animal in wild. It is small and very fast crab.

Articles in which this image appears

Pachygrapsus marmoratus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others

Creator

George Chernilevsky

• Support as nominator and creator --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I like the crab, but the algae in the picture makes it look kind of "icky". Haljackey (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is natural background: a rock with algae in surf zone --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support Please identify the algae in the caption. upstateNYer 21:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • why do you need the alga? Abisharan (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspect doing so would actually be very difficult. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, and I'm not really seeing why it is all that necessary. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I didn't mean ID genus species, I just meant mention it: "Icky green stuff in background is in fact just regular sea algae" or something of the sort. upstateNYer 22:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have added the information about algae in the file description --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not very engaging at thumbnail but good EV --Muhammad(talk)
• Support but a slightly oblique angle would have probably looked better and shown a bit more. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'll be honest, I think I prefer this one- the lighting's a little better, the focus is a tad better and the background is a little more compelling. J Milburn (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• :) This one is my work too (My first FP on Commons). Taken with old 5Mp compact camera. Happy shot, but slightly overexplosed IMO. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, that's the only thing I thought as a possible problem- I'm not sure it detracts from the image much. I'd be happy to full support that one, I'm neutral on this one. J Milburn (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good quality. Slightly out of focus on the very edge of some of the appendages, but too slight to really detract. I would consider the 'icky' moss a positive thing :) Jujutacular ^T · C 04:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pachygrapsus_marmoratus_2009_G4.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 07:09:32 (UTC)

Reason

A jarring poster. Supports the article well, demonstrating the Nazi party's use of of propaganda to create external enemies for the German people. Warning: High resolution image. Use the courtesy file if you're just glancing at it. Unrestored version: File:Bolschewismus ohne Maske.jpg.

Articles in which this image appears

Nazi propaganda

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II

Creator

Herbert Agricola, restored by Jujutacular

• Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^T · C 07:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Thanks to Hekerui for the translation. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. Superb scan, great restoration. NauticaShades 20:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The original was in pretty bad shape; this looks good to me. Great EV. And many thanks to the nazis for pointing out the cruelty of the Bolsheviks. :-P Fletcher (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for historical value. According to the declassified Soviet archives, during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD USSR detained 1,548,367 victims. (it is minimal official quantity) --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I hope that everyone is joking and no one is so naive to think that that "cruelty" is a feature of Bolsheviks, or at least, if you want, not to ignore it is a feature of every single important and powerful regime that ever existed or currently exists on earth. This is propaganda. It contains part of the truth but as all propaganda the part convenient for the one producing it. The is the same kind of propaganda (containing analogous partial truths) about any other regime:(I was going to put examples but that way probably people can get offended. Just pick your random one.). Gnemetropos (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's just stick to the point here. It's impossible to reach a conclusion here on what the true face of Bolshevism was that we'll all agree upon. The question is whether this picture has enough quality and encyclopedic value to qualify as an FP. In my opinion, it has: its technical and artistic quality are obvious and I think it provides a typical example of Nazi propaganda and its illustrations, so I'll simply support. --Desiderius82 (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Echoing the above, very nice scan, very good restoration, incredible EV. Thanks btw for the courtesy version, holy file sizes Batman. Cat-five - talk 03:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per NauticaShades and others. Nice work. --Avenue (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bolschewismus ohne Maske2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 May 2010 at 09:24:53 (UTC)

Reason

A high-quality lithograph that catches the scene of the 19th century lion taming sport. It has been stable in all three articles, that demonstrate its EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Lion taming (infobox), FA Lion and Circus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment

Creator

Gibson & Co., 1873. uploader and retouched by: commons:user:Trialsanderrors

• Support as nominator --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I always wanted to be... a lion tamer! NauticaShades 13:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support It seems to be encyclopedic and looks good even though I am reluctant to support a retouched image without a full size original (the only other version appears to be significantly smaller) so that we can see exactly how much this was touched up. Cat-five - talk 03:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose -Artistically this picture is nice, but I cannot see any EV. It's totally unrealistic and doesn't show what lion taming is about. Moreover, I don't feel it can urge anyone to read the article. This topic would call for a more realistic illustration. --Desiderius82 (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 11:33:33 (UTC)

Reason

Feaured on Commons, has excellent quality and high EV. Used in more national Wikis

Articles in which this image appears

Inachis io

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Korall (user on Commons)

• Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and composition. --Muhammad(talk) 17:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lovely and crisp. Background nice and subdued and not detracting from lepidopteran. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An easy decision, in my view. Cowtowner (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice; the subject stands out beautifully. Perhaps a pity about the chunk missing from the right wing, but still excellent. --Avenue (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Inachis_io_Lill-Jansskogen.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 04:00:50 (UTC)

Reason

I came across this .svg by Zoofari a while ago. I think it has great EV in the two heart articles, and it could conceivably be used in quite a few more articles. It's a good image: a very clear depiction of the parts of the heart. It's accurate as well, with references on the image page.

Articles in which this image appears

Human heart, Heart, Chordae tendineae

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

ZooFari

• Support as nominator --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral at the moment. I like it, but my main complaint would be that the wall of the left ventricle is no thicker than the wall of the right ventricle; in a real heart it is significantly thicker. We then get the appearance of the left ventricle being a lot smaller than the right, which could be to do with the perspective here, but is typically at least partly due to the thick muscle wall; without the thick wall it looks a bit odd (I realise some of the references, especially the second one, show this same thing, but to me they share these same issues). I'd also look at the text alignment - on the righthand side it is quite strongly left-aligned, but on the left it's all over the place, but looks like it wants to be right-aligned. Text aligning with the pointer-lines is a bit lose too. Also mitral/bicuspid valve; eh, spose I can live with that. --jjron (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see if ZooFari will change text alignment, but it sounds like the ventricle wall might be a deal-breaker. Good to see you again, btw. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixed the text and tweaked the muscles a bit. Thanks for the nomination, Makeemlighter. --ZooFari 18:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This is more of a minor thing, but I think "Brachiocephalic trunk" should be switched to "Brachiocephalic artery." My anatomy book uses "Brachiocephalic artery", as well as on Wikipedia, "Brachiocephalic trunk" redirects to "Brachiocephalic artery." Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 22:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --ZooFari 00:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'm not an expert in anatomy, but assuming that the issues raised above have been addressed satisfactorily, I will support this. Should someone more qualified than me point out new errors, I'll likely change to neutral or oppose. Cowtowner (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm no anatomist, but the divide between the pulmonary arteries and the aorta looks a little... odd. J Milburn (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 07:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No quorum. Jujutacular ^T · C 07:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 17:16:18 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of an emerging young rider on the world scene at the start of a professional race, Howard has already won two World Track Cycling Championships in two different events. It is a quite relaxed portrait of him in his 'natural setting' and also shows his team kit well. Added well to his previously unillustrated article.

Articles in which this image appears

Leigh Howard, Team HTC-Columbia

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems to have artefacting, particularly noticeable on the forehead; JPEG quality is 93%, might be contributing. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I don't think skin tones are the best place to look for artefacting - FWIW comparing to the original I can't notice anything significantly different on the forehead (BTW, just wondering, where do you get the 93% from?). --jjron (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - A nice photo. Fairly sharp, nice size, good lighting. Composition is lacking a little bit though. I would've liked to see the bike he is sitting on, actually riding the bike would be optimal. Jujutacular ^T · C 07:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A picture of an athlete with a quite brief article, which doesn't show his legs, hands, half head or bike, with nothing especially interesting about its composition, and a bodiless arm protruding on the right. Aside of the sunglasses there's nothing particularly annoying about it, but do we really need to chose this as an FP? --Desiderius82 (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the subject is notable enough for an article, he is notable enough for a FP, if the quality is high enough. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I honestly don't think this shows the best WP has to offer even in the category of photos of athletes, it's a crowded picture with a lot of distracting elements, while cutting off everything below his wrists might have been unavoidable it makes it look akward, and the disembodied elbow on the right of the shot totally throws off where the eye is drawn in my view. Cat-five - talk 02:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as per Cat-five. This is just too crowded. J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Cat five. Fletcher (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 19:00:55 (UTC)

Reason

This is a featured picture on commons and has high encyclopedic value here on wikipedia.

Articles in which this image appears

Chicago Loop
Urban canyon
The Loop (CTA)
Chicago 'L'
Chicago Transit Authority
Orange Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Brown Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Green Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Purple Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Pink Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)
Urban rail transit
Adams/Wabash (CTA)
Rapid transit
Passenger rail terminology

FP category for this image

Not sure, but likely Places

Creator

Daniel Schwen (User:Dschwen)

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a nice HDR image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What is a HDR? Abisharan (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See simple here: HDR. We have Wikipedia :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is an HDR. I think Dschwen would have indicated it in the image description. NauticaShades 13:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a HDR image. Please look: here. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is exposure blended with enfuse. It is neither HDR, nor tonemapped (what is probably what Alchemist-hp means when he says HDR ;-) ). --Dschwen 20:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) NauticaShades 20:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very captivating. Greg L (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the natural lines of perspective make for a dramatic and enticing picture. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm sold on this nom. I doubt it is an HDR though. Cowtowner (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; the photo draws the viewer into it, and curiosity begs that the viewer learn more. --Leahtwosaints --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope you guys all voted for this at the Commons PotY.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support And now my desktop wallpaper, unless User:Dschwen has any probs with that! :-) Gazhiley (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amazing, and I echo Gaz on this one, this one's going as my wallpaper as well. Cat-five - talk 02:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Conveys the feeling of depth well. Nicely lit. --Avenue (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Certainly a pretty picture, but I don't really see the EV. Can someone explain? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is how the Chicago elevated looks like in the "loop" in general, and at the Adams and Wabash station in particular. Also shows a typical Chicago street canyon. --Dschwen 01:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, thanks. I think that might be WR response time, btw. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic -- mcshadypl ^TC 06:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Dschwen 14:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great photo. Not sure it needs to be in so many articles though. EV is good enough for the loop. Fletcher (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it is very optional visual support in a few cases, I don't think there are any articles where it is an inappropriate inclusion, but am open to discourse on the matter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize, I just added it to Urban canyon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile on support. J Milburn (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:CTA Night.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 19:11:19 (UTC)

Reason

This is a featured picture at commons and has high encyclopedic value.

Articles in which this image appears

Chicago
Shedd Aquarium
Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)
One Museum Park

FP category for this image

Places

Creator

Daniel Schwen (User:Dschwen)

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have a feeling this is slightly tilted. Is it just an illusion? NauticaShades 00:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• You could compare it to others. See right.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't immediately strike me as being tilted - the shoreline appears to bend away from the camera, which could perhaps make it look tilted? --jjron (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is more of a slant and kink (zoom out 3 levels) than a bend, actually. I am not a student of lines of perspective and do not know what the correct technical appearance of a slanted line should be.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, upon further inspection, I should detail what you are looking at. The majority of the image is the western "streetwall" of Grant Park, known as the Historic Michigan Boulevard District, which ends at the Smurfit Stone Building. Then the skyline veers because you are mostly looking at the northern "streetwall" which is Randolph Street, taking you eastward to Harbor Point. Then, you see a north south portion of the skyline along Lake Shore Drive. The issue is a non-linear skyline. See the map linked to the word slant above along with this explanation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the colours make it more interesting visually than the others below. Great use of natural and artificial light. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You respond as if only one of these should be featured at a time. Is that the case?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, you guys at FP probably see this skyline shot a couple of times a year as new buildings are built. I think you can see differences in the skylines below architecturally.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Should I nominate the other commons FP now. I was going to wait until one of my current noms finishes since I have two others.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Chicago_sunrise_1.jpg, delist Chicago_Skyline_Hi-Res.jpg, replace with Chicago.jpg. As with Tower Bridge, I feel we should have two FPs: one that's more aesthetically pleasing (preferably when the sky is changing, namely at sunrise or sunset), and one that's at a higher resolution with more detail (when the sky is contant, like midday or night). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very good nom, on the topic above of the slant, I think it's just an optical illusion. Cat-five - talk 02:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, without prejudice to any of the existing FPs of this same subject. I particularly like the water reflection in this image. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One of the better city panoramas that I've seen -- mcshadypl ^TC 06:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. --Avenue (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, for-the-record-support. I can only recommend watching a sunrise at the lakefront in Chicago. Totally worth getting up at 5am! --Dschwen 13:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support wow! --TheMandarin (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chicago sunrise 1.jpg. No consensus to replace other FP, so it's just going to be promoted alongside it. NauticaShades 09:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 04:31:57 (UTC)

Reason

visually vivid and striking. Nice deep blue Australian desert sky contrasts with yellow flowerspike. Depicts some pollinators (ants) as well as progression of anthesis (bottom 1/4 of flowers opened) Background is comparatively free from detracting details.

Articles in which this image appears

Banksia lindleyana

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

Casliber

• Support as nominator --Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the crop, the uncropped version in the history shows more of the plant's structure, and might be able to support that, but I don't like the crop. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, wasn't sure whether to focus on the flowerhead or include more of the plant. Do you think the plant detail would help? If so how would you crop original? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the original doesn't really follow the rule of thirds very well, do you have anymore shots? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but none as clear as this one. Most others have flowers at least partly obscured by foliage. I just thought the colours and detail of this were great when I took it. I am a novice at photo composition and FPC. If there is no way this can be cropped from the original a different way should I withdraw it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the original, it's technically good and although not ideally shot (due to the subject in the center and to much sky to the right side of the frame), it does provide lots of EV to the article, is the best illustrative photo we have of the flower. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than completely uncropped, would it be worth removing just some sky only on the RHS? Or do you think that would unbalance the composition unduly? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could remove some of the bottom to keep the prospective right, the dead flower thing in the upper part adds to the EV. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do that when I get a chance on my computer with my editing program etc. Back soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK how's that? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, probably should restart the nomination time for that, and put the nomination for the better composition. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Shall I withdraw the first and have it archived then, and restart with the second one afresh? Casliber (talk · contribs)

Just write "I withdraw" and let the closers do their job. As soon as it's closed (it doesn't even have to be archived), you can start a new nomination. Make sure to link back to this discussion in the new nom. NauticaShades 08:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) okay, I withdraw (looks at watch and taps fingers) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn --— raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]