| Featured picture tools |
|---|
Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
Nice to see a moody monotone image of the London Millennium Bridge. It looks like this shot was taken before the bridge's novel latteral wobble was corrected. The picture's copyright status is a little odd, but looks more or less equivalent to Creative Commons by attribution. -- Solipsist 20:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Was actually taken post-damping (24 May 2004) -- PaulLomax 09:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I
standwobble corrected. What I should have said was 'It looks like this shot was taken after the bridge's novel latteral wobble was corrected.' Thanks for the better quality version. -- Solipsist 06:49, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I
- Was actually taken post-damping (24 May 2004) -- PaulLomax 09:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Solipsist 20:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I'm a big architecture fan so I gotta say yes. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. According to page refereced "Email me [email protected] for licensing/purchasing enquiries" This does not say that we can use it as the tag on picture states. Did someone email him and he gave permission maybe? Cavebear42 22:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Well Paul Lomax uploaded it. I doubt he emailed himself, but he did take the trouble to use a carefully chosen copyright tag. I think we are OK. -- Solipsist 23:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Nice, bit the image is compressed way too much to 41KB making JPEG artifacts clearly visible. Will support if a higher quality version is uploaded and the license is changed to something more standard.Janderk 08:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)- Support. I see that a much better image with a clear license has been uploaded. Janderk 11:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. nice shoot but a better quality of the picture would be better. Chmouel 10:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose -
really bad quality (and small) JPEG.(this has been fixed, I see) ed g2s • talk 19:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)- Much better quality now, but still looks a bit far too heavily photoshopped, there's a unnatural white-glow around the top of St. Paul's for example. ed g2s • talk 00:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Fixed now - well spotted. I didn't do a very good job with the dodging on the spire (to correct darkness from the grad) first time around. -- PaulLomax 23:55, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Much better quality now, but still looks a bit far too heavily photoshopped, there's a unnatural white-glow around the top of St. Paul's for example. ed g2s • talk 00:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Opposed - agree 100% with Janderk. -- ChrisO 18:51, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. I have uploaded a larger version of the JPEG, based on the full-size version found on Paul's website. I have also emailed the photographer to ask for permission to license it under the CC-BY-SA. Let's wait for his response so we can evaluate a proper quality image or none at all. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:21, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- License is now CC-BY-NC-SA - hope this helps. Thanks for the support -- PaulLomax 09:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. The picture is now licensed under CC-BY-SA, thank you Paul! I would like to note that the tally for the updated large high-quality photo is now 3-0, not counting oppose votes cast for the initial small version. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:14, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support, good work on the licensing issues. Lorax 22:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Alphax (talk) 07:14, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very clean lines, excellent contrast - a great opportunity to show what monochrome can do. Denni☯ 21:25, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
- Support. Lovely. James F. (talk) 11:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. ugen64 02:51, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(Self-nomination) Shocking, titillating, fascinating? Probably yes for most non-Japanese. It also add significantly to the understanding of the article about the Japanese toilet. -- Chris 73 Talk 15:10, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Humorous but still definitely no. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 21:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The Porcelain Strikes Back - I like it, but not as a featured picture. -- Solipsist 23:31, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Very funny (did you get sprayed at all?), definitely useful for the article, but the quality of the photo (grainy, flash indoors in a constrained space) isn't high enough, I think. Definitely more illustrative than the Japanese TV ads that show bidets spraying peaches in space to the sound of the music from 2001, though. -- Oarih 09:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:-/ -- ChrisO 18:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Too much Sake eh? PPGMD
- Oppose. Alphax (talk) 07:16, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose Funny pic, but not that great quality, now if we could get one with ChrisO getting his face wash... ;-) PPGMD 23:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
LOL Kirsty is really awesome!!!
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
I've just realised that we don't feature this picture of the Earth taken from Apollo 17 known as The Blue Marble. This view of the Earth has become an icon and is often used to illustrate the fragility of the environment. -- Solipsist 22:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Solipsist 22:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Definite support. I've actually had this in my profile for a while now. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:14, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Oh yes.-- Chris 73 Talk 22:41, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 22:44, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. BUT can't we get a higher res version. Obviously the 6.5 mb version is overkill, but someone should take it and resize it to a 1.5 or 2mb jpg. --Prisonblues 23:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. ed g2s • talk 19:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 00:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Poor quality, blurry. Better, higher-detailed images of Earth exist. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 00:52, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)- Comment - you can see the large square "pixels" that make up this image, instead of a smooth high-resolution quality image. The boundary of the globe is noticeably jagged. I guess it has historical interest, but I'm not convinced that excuses the lack of image quality. I may have to think about this before I make a decision. The successful photos of scenes of warfare from WW-I are not "picture perfect" either, yet certainly tell their tale spectacularly. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 03:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment - well I was going to upload the larger version mentioned by Prisonblues, but I see that ed g2s has already done it. Admittedly the full NASA .tiff shows some surprising problems with dust and scratches, but Ed's version looks pretty good to me - are these concerns over blurs and pixelation just a wiki-cache problem? Does a <CTRL>-Reload help -- Solipsist 06:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support - better than the original. Alphax (talk) 07:10, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support (the image quality of the recent version is so much better) - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 12:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Robin Patterson 05:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Promoted, +10/-0 -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 20:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Very professional image, great colors and focus, lovely clouds as well. Shot by fellow wikipedian Matt Crypto and featured in Canal lock.
- Support. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 17:54, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice colors, good shot -- Chris 73 Talk 22:46, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice picture, but doesn't do a good job of illustrating the canal lock article. All the interesting stuff (the canal, the sluices, the gates, the water in the lock chamber) is out of sight. Image:Canal-sequence.jpg is much better. Gdr 22:56, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
- Support, but it'd be nice to have the location noted on the description page, too. -- DrBob 22:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 00:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. This photo makes no sense to a viewer without the information in the article. Moreover, it does not provide the photographic essence of what a canal lock is. It's a fine technical shot, but put up your hand if you say "Wow!" Denni☯ 02:18, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
- Oppose, but I do like it. I agree with the idea that possibly, it's just not the right angle. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, although I'm really chuffed with the positive comments people have made about this photo! I've had a browse through the current Featured Pictures and I'm not convinced that this image is quite in the same league, either aesthetically or illustratively. (See [1] for some funkier photos of the same part of the world). — Matt 15:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A photograph that illustrates precisely what the Red Hat Society is. Dmgerman 11:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Adequate, but I don't like the composition. Distracting background. GWO 11:45, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose Ugly. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 13:45, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose While it is very representative of the society, I don't "believe it is one of the finest images on Wikipedia". Cavebear42 15:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. A photo of say, 1000 red hats would be better. Alphax (talk) 07:03, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Ugly, bad composition, hats blend together too much, yuck...Barfooz
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
Trust Schumacher, Small is Beautiful. A very well balanced USDA photograph of a Bonsai tree. -- Solipsist 23:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 23:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Definitely -- Chris 73 Talk 00:22, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. We need more non geeky images like this. Janderk 08:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Chmouel 10:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Striking. --Cantus 01:22, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice color, and composition. Mgm|(talk) 11:24, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose.Neutral. Changed my mind partly because of what i've been reading about the trees. I'd much rather see a picture in a natural setting than against the blue background though. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)- Support. Very nice. I love the rock in the middle, causing the roots to stretch over it. Looks great. --Might and power 22:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very elegant. Alphax (talk) 07:04, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Shows clearly what bonsai is about. — Bill 12:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- support -- sannse (talk) 11:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Object. According to the image page, this is not a bonsai tree: it's a penjing tree. The two are similar, but not identical. Therefore this image is a) misnamed, and b) used to illustrate the wrong article. Markalexander100 05:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert, but I don't think there is a problem here. In English, the adopted word for this art form is 'Bonsai', as it is in Japanese. In China the name is 'Penjing'. There are stylistic cultural divergences between Japanese and Chinese bonsai (and presumably Korean too). For example this tree is growing in a Chinese decorated pot, and is trained so that its outline represents a dragon. In Japan, plainer pots and a more naturalistic shapes are often prefered. Once the penjing article grows to describe the individual distinctions and history of the Chinese art, you could move the image, but for the moment the bonsai page describes both better. -- Solipsist 09:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Promoted, +10/-1 -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I really like this image. I got the idea to upload it after seeing references to it over the past few days. I also uploaded a closer up image (Image:Eagle nebula closeup.jpg) but I believe the wider image of the whole nebula is just as vibrant and amazing. Click on it to see it larger. Looks great. Someone is bound to bring up the fact that it's a little fuzzy. To that I say...you get a clearer picture of an object 7,000 light years away and we'll use that. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support closer image. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support image as shown on the right, better than the closeup -- Chris 73 Talk 00:23, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Support full image. James F. (talk) 00:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Love it. --Cantus 01:23, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Fuzzy and is missing a substantial portion of the nebula due to cropping. Better, less-fuzzy and more complete picture here: [2]. A better up-close picture is here: [3] and here: [4] - [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 01:05, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- I was debating whether or not to upload the closer picture of the "fingers," but decided not to because it did now show the entire image. Now that I see the other larger image of the complete nebula, I do admit that I like it, but I also like the one I submitted for this vote. Anyone else have any comments about this new image? --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support full image, don't like the closeup. Alphax (talk) 07:07, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support either/all but only one. I can't make my mind up which I prefer. The wide-angle shot has less detail, but has the advantage of being less familiar. The even wider shot that DAVODD points to is excellent too. -- Solipsist 07:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment The original image I submitted (Image:Eagle_nebula.gif) I picked because I think it is a lot more vivid and appealing than the whole nebula. Don't get me wrong, the whole nebula is amazing, but I think the closer image is what I was focusing on. I think the closer picture is much more colorful and nicer to look at. You also can not pick out the eagle head as easy in the later picture. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The picture, when nominated was never used used to illustrate any article. Wikipedia is not a collection of photographs, re: Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not. - [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 23:37, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose version 1 because it is a GIF image limiting the amount of colors to 256, making it look ugly and pixelated. I will support a full color PNG or JPG. Plus it can not be nominated because it is not (yet) in an article. I do support the full version (alternative) though. Janderk 11:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, well lets just go ahead with the full version then if that's what people like. It is in the Eagle Nebula article so it can be voted on. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:41, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Promoted the full version, +7/-0 -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Brilliant in its concise simpleness, elegant, easy to understand. Essential to fully understanding the article, European Union.
- Support. Particularly like how the user also created and posted a Blank Version that was used in other languages. A wonderful example of creating an open-source, collaboration-friendly illustration. - [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 01:33, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Would support a colored version. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:46, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Umm. What? Are you on a greyscale display device? It has colour.
- Support. Clear and informative. James F. (talk) 01:52, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It is a map. Its information is claear, which any good map should offer. It is not scintillating, arresting, breathtaking, or in any other way noteworty as anything more than a map. Denni☯ 02:15, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
- Oppose. Informative indeed, but not featured picture worthy. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Just a map, not even a superb one at that. Too small to see the southern Slavic countries clearly.ed g2s • talk
[[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 00:49, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's just a map. Alphax (talk) 07:00, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. (1) Much too small; (2) The colours are hard to tell apart, especially the 2007 admission from the candidate country. (3) The italic serif font used for non-members is very hard to read, especially at small sizes. If I didn't already know the name of Serbia and Montenegro I wouldn't be able to learn it from this map. (4) The text is not always horizontal. (5)
Looks like it uses the Mercator Projection.(6) Inconsistent use of fonts: italic serif font means "neither member nor candidate" on the main map but something else on the inset. (7) Need a better caption for the inset than "Not on main map". Otherwise, nice. Gdr 11:14, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC) - Oppose, same reasons as Gdr, plus - GASP! - the font of Germany is smaller than the font of Poland! ;-) Chris 73 Talk 11:44, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I had a go. The map is so small that it's a real challenge to get all the names on and still have everything legible. What do you think? Gdr 18:01, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC) P.S. I'm pretty sure it's Guadeloupe, not "Guadalope". And I removed a spurious bit of border from near Moldova. (But should I have named Kaliningrad?)
- Support. It's not "just a map". it's a good map, and good public domain maps are very rare. (it is a bit small, and there are some strange antialiasing-effects however) dab 10:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support the second version, which I think is rather lovely. Markalexander100 01:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't think the non-member countries should be named on that map. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The named non-member countries are the neighbours of the European Union. These countries are important to the EU and deserve to be mentioned. Gdr 13:20, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC) P.S. What about Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Merino, the Vatican and Transnistria? Should they appear on the map?
- If any non-EU countries are included, they should have a color code that the legend clearly indicates as "non-EU countries" - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Done. Gdr 21:36, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
- Did you upload the new version? The last two revisions have the exact same byte count, and appear to be identical. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 23:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oops, I uploaded the old image again. How about now? Gdr 00:30, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
- Better! - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The named non-member countries are the neighbours of the European Union. These countries are important to the EU and deserve to be mentioned. Gdr 13:20, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC) P.S. What about Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Merino, the Vatican and Transnistria? Should they appear on the map?
- Support the revised version (European Union map.png) - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The colours are a bit dull and it can be hard to read some of the place names. Perhaps it would be better if if it was bigger. Tra 12:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Why are the non-contiguous parts of France, Spain and Portugal important enough to consume a large part of this map? I imagine that other countries have their own islands as well that are not represented. I propose that those be removed if there is no important reason that they should be retained. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The non-contiguous parts of France, Spain and Portugal are important enough for the same reason that Alaska and Hawai are important enough to include in a map of the USA. Aris Katsaris 03:06, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You might imagine that other countries have their own islands, but that doesn't make it true! (Places like Greenland, the Falkland Islands etc are dependent areas, not full subnational entities.) Gdr 21:08, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
- Interesting! At least I'm learning some things. The map as is makes it seem that French Guiana is an island, when it is actually a contiguous portion of South America (the part of the EU is actually in South America!) Why can't I get this information from that map? Maybe a footnote would help? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 13:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Personally, I rather preferred the versions which were only with hues of blue. Perhaps it could be enhanced to make the distinction between the blues clearer, but the way that the blues gradually merged into the grays -- that was aesthetically pleasing. On the other hand pink and green are quite quite arbitary, and don't by themselves indicate which group is closer to membership and which isn't... Also, Croatia shouldn't be labelled as a 2007 admission. That's a mere *hope* of Croatia. No such date has been officially set, unlike Romania and Bulgaria so please let's put it back as a mere candidate. And also you should color the *whole* of Croatia -- currently only a part of it is colored. Aris Katsaris 03:06, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Croatia now coloured as a candidate. (Which part of it is uncoloured?) I used pink and green because I couldn't find three shades of pale blue that I could easily distinguish. Remember that not everyone has the same acuteness of colour vision. Gdr 21:08, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
- Comment: I still find the color near-impossible to see on my (not high-contrast) LCD monitor. Would appreciate strengthening of hues. --Twinxor 21:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: As the original author I will be bold enough to say that this map (my version) is not without its faults. I would however suggest that it is good enough to be considered for featured picture candidates. As an aside, User:Gdr's upload to a separate location has caused a slight problem as regards image history (attribution and links to previous versions). I've added this information to the new image page, so that should be OK as long as the earlier versions at the other location are left intact. In any case, no widespread discussion has yet taken place as to whether the new version is preferable. zoney ♣ talk 11:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Why is Iceland included (with a label) on this map? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Because it's part of Europe. Gdr 21:27, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
- And so are Andorra, Armenia, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City. Why aren't they labeled on the map? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 22:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Because it's part of Europe. Gdr 21:27, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
Striking? Yes. Shocking? Yes. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:48, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. The picture really is well done, regardless of content. The depth (with the soldier in the foreground and the perspective going back), the bright colors of of the flags contrasted with the muted background colors. . . It's a nice piece. And it's historically important as well. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:10, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. What's shocking about it, except for the terrible choice of colours on the coffins? That said, I agree that it is a well-composed photograph, possibly so well-executed that it would be POV to feature it separately from an article that can balance it. — David Remahl 22:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. It's used on Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (contrasting with the photo of an Iraqi casualty), 2003 Invasion of Iraq (in the last 3rd of the article), and Dover test (where its a very useful illustration). I don't think it is POV anywhere. (Disclaimer: I uploaded the image). -- Chris 73 Talk 23:00, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. 630x381, with visible compression artefacts. Just not good enough for FP. ed g2s • talk 01:52, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I will contact the MemoryHole and ask for the High Res version. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:14, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose -- not brilliant, only adequate in execution. As ed said, it's quite small and it is blurred, both in the distance and at the front soldier's hand. ✏ Sverdrup 15:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose -- i feel it is POV in the articles meantioned above in its contrast of our dead vs. their's. The choice of colors on the coffins is standard for all fallen soldiers. the pic is blurry and i would like to be respectful of their wishes and not propagate it across the net.Cavebear42 15:52, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Whose wishes? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:03, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
- The pic's page has a link talking about the controversy.Cavebear42 03:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- To save everyone reading the article (terrible newspaper!), they are the US Defence Department. Markalexander100 03:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The pic's page has a link talking about the controversy.Cavebear42 03:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Whose wishes? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:03, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Purely as a picture its not great, and also I roughly agree with Cavebear -- William M. Connolley 18:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- support. Might make some people think. Dunc|☺ 19:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. It is one of those images that raises everybody's awareness and gets talked about a lot. It clearly shows the dark side of war, which many do not want to see or to be shown, but always exists. Janderk 09:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support, if you can get higher resolution version, that'd be good too. BrokenSegue 21:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support, because it is an exellent picture, and not for political reasons. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 01:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support Enochlau 10:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose: I think the idea of "featured images" is to encourage people to gdfl their work, and not as an award for government propaganda (Yes, it's a good image, as you should hope they can come up with, considering their resources). dab 14:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment - Can we confirm that these are actually casualties from Iraq? I'm seeing nasa saying that many of the pictures on that page are from the columbia. I continue to oppose the pic either way but if it goes through let's be sure its factually correct. Cavebear42 04:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: The memory hole did a freedom of information request for images of coffins returning from Iraq, especially excluding Space Shuttle Columbia images. When they got it they assumed that they all were from the War, but apparently some were from columbia. Meanwhile they have sorted the images and this image shows Iraq casualties. Also, columbia had a crew of only 7 people, and the image has 16+ coffins (see Space Shuttle Columbia disaster). -- Chris 73 Talk 07:37, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Pschemp 01:11, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - great picture, bad compression. ugen64 02:48, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. As mentioned before, the image quality is not good enough for a FP, if you can get a better version I will support. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:39, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
A featured image by Chepry on the Polish & English Wiki. Used to illustrate barrel organ, although perhaps it should be at organ grinder too. -- Solipsist 23:48, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 23:48, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:00, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Janderk 12:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Best Picture I have seen oon Wikipedia.
- Please sign your posts, especially when voting on something :-). --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- William M. Connolley 19:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- Support. I love it. Maybe I'm a little biased because of my Polish background. Still a great photo. Such a dignified organ player. --Fir0002 07:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 11:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Robin Patterson 05:03, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 21:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Brilliant. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 01:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. The organ player is worth featuring alone. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:26, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Wonderful instrument (Alt-Wiener Werklmann). Excellent attitude shown by the player. --M7it 00:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- From author: thank you very much for support! It’s most kind of you. Actually I must put set you right – this barrel organ player isn’t Polish, but Austrian. I had taken this photo in Vienna in 2002. Sincerely yours – Chepry (on English Wiki) or on [5] (Polish).
- Correction: please be advised that the depicted organ is in fact *not* an austrian instrument and the grinder most likely also not an austrian grinder. Every year there is a so called "organ rally" in Vienna (actually 2 per year now) which is internationally attended. The organ is clearly identifiable to have come from the organ manufacturer http://www.berliner-drehorgel.de/welcome.html Axel Stüber, Berlin, and therefor an original (replica) "Berliner Leierkasten". There are genuine viennese instruments called "Werkl", mainly by Familie Molzer (havn't found any pictures online; have a few in my personal collection but would need to clear copyrights first). Never the less: a good picture!
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
A featured image by Baba66 on the German Wiki. Illustration showing the elements used to construct a Turkish calligraphic seal, used on Tughra and Mahmud II. -- Solipsist 23:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 23:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Wow, excellent illustration! A pity it isn't a bit larger, though the current resolution is sufficient for screen use. However, it seems incomplete. When the animation completes, there are two strokes that are still gray. According to [6], they're part of the el-muzaffer word. I think it would be difficult to add colour to those strokes without access to the original files, though, because of anti-aliasing...I'll support anyway, with that minor reservation. — David Remahl 00:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I feel bad for opposing so many pictures lately, I just have high standards I suppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Was thinking of nominating this myself. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:02, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support (see below).
Oppose because of the missing strokes noted above. It should be easy enough to fix if the original contributor is still around.Markalexander100 09:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) - Strongly Support, this illustration helped me understand Arabic names.--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 10:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - the missing strokes are anoying - I want to know the rest - support if this is fixed - sannse (talk) 11:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)- Support with the new information (this should be mentioned in the caption though) -- sannse (talk) 15:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I put a request on the page of the german creator -- Chris 73 Talk 12:20, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Great, then hopefully we can get it in a higher resolution too. — David Remahl 04:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I put a request on the page of the german creator -- Chris 73 Talk 12:20, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I agree with the missing strokes thing though.
- Oppose, the animation is irritating -- William M. Connolley 19:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- Support! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:57, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Would be nice if the missing strokes could be added though. Janderk 11:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. If you're going to illustrate nice calligraphy, at least choose an elegant font to go with it. Garamond, perhaps. The colours aren't so good either (yellow on white is hard to read.) Gdr 13:50, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
- Garamond would be misleading, to say the least. Garamond is from the 16. and Mahmud II from the 19. century. During his reign the first sans-serif founts where designed in Britain so a sans-serif fits the time as well as Wikipedia's standard font settings. --217.185.10.207 21:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Sans-serif would be fine. All I'm asking is that it look nice! Gdr 13:16, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
- Garamond would be misleading, to say the least. Garamond is from the 16. and Mahmud II from the 19. century. During his reign the first sans-serif founts where designed in Britain so a sans-serif fits the time as well as Wikipedia's standard font settings. --217.185.10.207 21:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I loathe animated gifs. It would be just as useful without animation, just showing the coloured version. dab 14:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I beg to differ, I think it is a lot clearer with animation. — David Remahl 04:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Strong support. Pictures in an encyclopedia are meant to explain things, and this animation does a brillant job of showing the structure in what looks like a confusing mess, within just a few seconds. Gdr, I doubt you'll find many Ottoman sultans whose tughras were in Garamond. regards, High on a tree 03:59, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I believe Gdr was referring to the bit in roman script at the bottom. Markalexander100 06:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I received more info from the german creator of the image:
- Die Schweife an den Hasten hatten ursprünglich nur Zierfunktion und können später, je nach Name, auch als Buchstabe alif verwendet werden, wie im Beispiel ganz rechts. Auch der linke Teil des «Fußes» wird mit Verzierungen gefüllt, wenn der Zeichenbestand des jeweiligen Sultansnamens nicht ausreicht. Aus diesem Grund bleiben in der Animation einige Linien grau. --217.185.10.205 08:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- i.e. some of the lines had initially only a decorative function, and only later turned into part of the name. In this animation, a few of the grey-only lines fall in this group, and a few more were added only to fill up some space. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:15, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Did you ask wether he kept the original files? — David Remahl 08:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for that! Markalexander100 01:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very, very, very illustrative. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]]
- For those who like a non-animated image, and nicer Roman text, I made the picture on the right. Gdr 00:22, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have done this yesterday when I was discussing an upload of a much more usefull PDF-file with my favourite admin. Thanks for your work, hope you don't mind me overwriting it. --Baba65 11:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) (someone already created User:Baba66 here without using it)
- Yes, that's much nicer. Support Baba65's version. Gdr 12:15, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have done this yesterday when I was discussing an upload of a much more usefull PDF-file with my favourite admin. Thanks for your work, hope you don't mind me overwriting it. --Baba65 11:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) (someone already created User:Baba66 here without using it)
- Strong support on both versions. Very very well done, I can see this took a good amount of work. Very informative. Barfooz
- Support. PMcM 21:38, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A featured picture by Nova on the Polish Wiki. A clear and detailed photograph in the finest tradition of botanical illustration. Used in Manitoba maple. -- Solipsist 22:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 22:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose for same reason I opposed JPEG example flower.jpg. I cant stand the white backgrounds. And even still I think it's pretty boring. Maybe a picture of the leaf in a natural setting perhaps in autumn would be more appealing. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Professionally executed extraction. Clear. — David Remahl 00:14, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I like the white background since it makes the subject "pop" off the screen. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 01:10, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:03, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Image is too small for a featured picture. The 37 KB JPEG makes JPEG artifacts show up and you can't see that details. Plus I agree somewhat with ScottyBoy that it would be better in a natural setting.Janderk 12:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Agree with Solipsist's comments. fabiform | talk 16:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - as a botanical pic its good (though should be higher res); but as a featured its not good enough -- William M. Connolley 19:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- Oppose, agree with WMC. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:47, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Ditto. Chameleon 21:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too small, and not even interesting. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:28, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
corvettes are gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.224.187 (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
A featured by Softeis on the German Wiki. Predictably, I've added it to Chevrolet Corvette which is already rather picture heavy but mostly with unattributed or non-free photos. -- Solipsist 22:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Beautiful picture, beautiful scenery. beautiful car. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Agree with ScottyBoy900Q. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:04, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support Janderk 12:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support, great big pictureRustyCale 12:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:28, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Did I forget to support this one. -- Solipsist 21:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Its just a car. Pschemp 01:11, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Wow! Although I'm VERY biased towards anything showing fancy cars. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:30, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --Thomas G Graf 10:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. (It's not just a car! Geez.) --Barfooz 10:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose — Sorry, its not beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant. The car is nice but the photo itself is not. Let's remember the criteria for submission. (Actually, looking at the fullscale image, the Corvette is slightly overexposed.)-- NickP 15:47, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
A similar picture is featured on the Polish Wiki, but curiously for a smaller less detail shot. This one is by Raimond Spekking from the German Wiki and of course illustrates Deutsche Bank. -- Solipsist 21:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 21:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:10, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. — David Remahl 00:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Cool shot -- Chris 73 Talk 02:05, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The background is too messy and lacks contrast with the subject. Fine for an article, not for a featured image. Janderk 12:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose (ditto Janderk) -- William M. Connolley 19:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- Oppose (ditto) - more twin towers? Robin Patterson 05:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Background houses rather distracting to the eye. Enochlau 10:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- oppose. Cavebear42 16:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Building is worth featuring, this portrayel is not. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:31, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
A featured picture by Marcela on the German Wiki. Nice to capture the vanishing traditional methods of working the land -- Solipsist 21:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 21:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support Dunc|☺ 21:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. His clothes also match the old style -- Chris 73 Talk 02:07, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Janderk 12:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. fabiform | talk 16:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- William M. Connolley 19:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- Support. --Fir0002 05:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Pollinator 03:06, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC) It envelops me in waves of nostalgia.
- Support. A plowing RACE! -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:32, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. A nice old feel. Tra 12:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Let's not be nostalgic about other peoples' poverty. Ploughing by hand is back-breaking work and inefficient. I bet the farmer in picture uses a tractor when he's not in a competition. (Or maybe he uses genetically engineered crops that don't require ploughing at all...) Gdr 23:14, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
A featured picture by Richard Mayer on the German Wiki, where it is used as part of a series of photos on a rather interesting looking article on the Marginated Tortoise which could use translating. I've cropped it to be square and added it to egg, to redress the understandable avian bias (also on tortoise of course). -- Solipsist 21:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 21:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Hello World! -- Chris 73 Talk 02:09, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Poor turtle. The first thing it sees while getting out of the egg is a giant with a camera. Very nice picture. Janderk 09:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- sannse (talk) 11:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Mpolo 12:40, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) (I'm planning on working on translating Marginated tortoise...)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support, how wonderful! It would have been interesting to know the scale though. fabiform | talk 16:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- William M. Connolley 19:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:09, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm swimming against the current, but I dont think its quite feature worthy. Thumbnail looks good but full image isn't so good. Also the shell almost looks as if someone was helping it along - the othermose 'layer' of the shell is the part which as the most cracked from it. I dont know whether its natural or not, but my first reaction was a suspicion that someone peeled of some of the shell - no offense meant though. --Fir0002 06:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Based on extensive experience watching chickens hatch (though admittedly none watching tortoises), the uneven cracking of outer and inner layers does not look too unusual to me, and I think it is very reasonable to assume the tortoise was not receiving help (though of course this is a very general amateur opinion). Besides, I think it's a very good picture, and well worthy of featuring even if the tortoise was getting assistance. Jwrosenzweig 22:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Utterly cute, hope it wasn't "helped" to hatch though. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:33, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Support, Cute.--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 13:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
Awesome image sequence showing the testing of the Mark 48 torpedo by the Australian Navy. Great visualization for Mark 48 torpedo and Torpedo. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:24, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. It's pretty cool, but doesn't seem to fit in with the idea of being a FPSupport the closeup of the single frame. Very cool. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)- Support. A great image and adds well to mark 48 article.Cavebear42 15:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Although it beats Image:USS Port Royal CG-73.jpg. I quite like the 4th image (centre left) which more or less gives the whole story in one. It might be a better illustration for torpedo whilst keeping this sequence for Mark 48 torpedo. -- Solipsist 14:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)- Support the individual 4th image. -- Solipsist 19:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:14, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. Would like to see two things tried. 1. obtaining larger copy of one of the middle sequence, 2. using an animated gif to run through it. Dunc|☺ 18:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- (1) Uploaded the 4th image of the sequence separately Image:Mark 48 Torpedo breaking ship.jpg. (2) IMHO a GIF sequence would be less desirable because the shots are from many different angles and distances, confusing the user in a slide show. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:32, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 01:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support the original sequence, a single image has much less impact. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:35, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Support (Nominator, forgot to vote when nominated) -- Chris 73 Talk 07:37, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose both the sequence and the individual image. Each individual image is too small and mostly contains featureless ocean. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 20:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Huh? Featureless ocean? Did you want the ship to be blown up with the golden gate bridge in the background or so? -- Chris 73 Talk 01:11, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- I just don't see any detail in each frame. I understand that it is the sequence that is interesting, but this is not "Wikipedia:Featured picture sequence candidates". We need to consider pictures, not sequences of pictures. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 08:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Huh? Featureless ocean? Did you want the ship to be blown up with the golden gate bridge in the background or so? -- Chris 73 Talk 01:11, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Support sequence, may not be a typical FP, but very informative. ed g2s • talk 13:32, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
I am proposing and support the removal of this image from featured picture status. I came across this randomly and just couldn't figure out at all why it would be featured. Does anyone remember the votes for this? I see the point of the image, but for what reasons is it featured?? --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 06:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC
- Comment - promoted in June 2004: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_candidates/June-2004#Circlestrafing. -- Solipsist 14:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. Janderk 16:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:44, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose delisting. Like most, I read this image the wrong way round when I first saw it (perhaps it would help if the colours were swapped, the eye is drawn to red as well as the centre). Nor am I particularly interested in the subject. But this image does significantly add to the article and its well executed. I think we are being way to hard on diagrams and illustrations at the moment. -- Solipsist 17:49, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Pretty good actually. Agree with Solipsist -- Chris 73 Talk 12:15, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose delisting. Clear, informative, adds significantly to the subject. Why on Earth has it been listed at all? James F. (talk) 13:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose delisting (although the concept might be better illustrated with an animated GIF version) - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Would support an animated version. --Alphax (talk) 02:29, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment (I created this): I don't care much either way. If it helps, it is on my to-do list to redraw this in a higher image quality. Fredrik | talk 16:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Red's "miss" should indicate a slight miss to the right of a Blue target's greyed out image, indicating that the target moved away from the anticipated position as the shot was fired. Also, perhaps all lines suggesting the direction of movement should have arrow heads, so you can see the transition dynamics from Blue cartoon image to cartoon image. It's not quite right that the Red shooter seems to have attempted multiple shots, each on the exact trajectory path. Shouldn't the movement of the Red shooter be indicated somehow? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose delisting. This is an encyclopedia, and this is really helpful, though a visual upgrade would be cool. --Twinxor 21:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose delisting, same reason as twinor tooto 14:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delisting not approved, 3/6 -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 18:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
I'm proposing this image also be delisted for essentially the same reasons I listed the Media:Circlestrafing.png image. I just don't think it lives up to FP status at all. Most of the diagram-like images that have been submitted for FP lately have been shot down and I have a feeling if this was submitted today it would be also. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as featured picture. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:45, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting Enochlau 10:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. The criteria for featured drawings and diagrams should probably be distinct from the criteria for photographs. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. And this one was submitted lately. James F. (talk) 03:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. --Prisonblues 18:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. --Thomas G Graf 10:48, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delisting not approved, 2/4 -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 18:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Beautiful shot from PDphoto.org. Used in the golf article. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:56, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Comment - Can we have some reasons for nominating, a caption, and a link to the article which this image adds significant information. -- Solipsist 07:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)Thanks.- Object. It's just a bit so-so. Nothing special. Chameleon 21:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Object. Nice landscape but overcast day makes everything dull, especially the background and the sky -- Chris 73 Talk 22:54, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- You do realise it's Ireland? ;) porge 23:22, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree that is nice, but its a so-so picture. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I've played the course numerous times, and the scenery allows for truly fantastic photos. This, sadly, isn't one of them. If I got my hands on a good camera, I'd try to get one. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 16:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's too grey and boring, let's see what Ludraman can get us. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:22, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. A bit boring. Tra 12:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- NOT Promoted, +1/-6 -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 20:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I found this image. Great pic of what it is. Chameleon 16:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment — I've just realised that someone previously nominated one of my lion pics. It was 5 votes for, 5 against. The votes against were mainly due to the unnatural background. This photo has a natural one. more pix. Chameleon 18:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:34, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- A rather unfortunate combination of light and shade make the thumbnail look as though the lion is breathing fire. Maybe some attention in the GIMP is required. Gdr 19:24, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
- Hahahahah. Vivid imagination. I see it now that you have got the idea in my head. I don't think it really needs any editing. Chameleon 19:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Breathing fire ?!?. Realy bad halitosis maybe, but fire? -- Solipsist 21:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I noticed the "fire" look as well. It looks more like rays of light. You can only see it on thumbnail view. But I think the fire effect brings interest to the photo. A good shot. Pity it was taken at the zoo though. --Fir0002 07:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Alphax (talk) 03:03, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I yawn in bright sunshine too. Robin Patterson 05:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't know why, it just doesnt look appealing to me in the slightest. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Let's get one in the wild, anyone off for a safari soon? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:20, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice shot but it looks like a bored zoo lion to me. Janderk 13:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Tra 12:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. He looks stuffed. Denni☯ 21:49, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
- Comment. He does not look stuffed! He does not look bored! He is not yawning! He is not breathing fire! He is a lion roaring, in a natural-looking environment. Chameleon 12:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- NOT Promoted, +6/-5 -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This was a photograph I took to satisfy a request on Wikipedia:Requested_images for artifical poppies to go on Remembrance Day. 11 November is coming up. -- Solipsist 21:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support (Self nomination). -- Solipsist 21:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Not sure:
- These aren't the typical artificial poppies I have always seen for Remembrance Day.
- If we're going to feature a poppy, I'd prefer a real one.
- There is a spelling mistake in the title. Chameleon 21:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. A pretty ordinary photo. Well taken, but still not that interesting. --Fir0002 07:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Rather plain Enochlau 10:02, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- oppose. agree that it is rather plain. Cavebear42 22:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not interesting, also when featuring an image, please re-upload the image without the spelling error, then speedy the original. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:15, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Striking colours. Tra 12:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- NOT Promoted, +2/-4 -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The business end of one of the world's most venomous and aggressive spiders. The article that hosts it could use some work, but this image is gorgeous. Image uploaded by me, taken by wildlife photographer John Triffo, who gave me permission to use this image on Wikipedia. ClockworkTroll 22:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support, for what it's worth as nominator. ClockworkTroll 22:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The nominator vote counts fine, as it is not a self nomination. Its an excellent picture, but the image license status looks like a problem for FP. -- Solipsist 22:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Quite a lot of eyes looking at the viewer. Copyright status is completely OK for Wikipedia. -- Chris 73 Talk 22:51, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Alphax (talk) 01:58, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Brilliant shot. I'll now know to look out for them! Always wondered what the most deadliest spider in the world looked like. --Fir0002 07:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. License status is vague. Is this GFDL? Or non-commercial? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:16, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- It's not vague in the least. We can use it any way we want, but others cannot use it at all. →Raul654 01:20, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Object. While we might use a "with permission" image in the absence of a free one, I don't think we should feature one. Gdr 01:13, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with Gdr, we should not feature an image with a license like this. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:02, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Great picture. But the image size and license are unacceptable. Janderk 13:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, licence reasons. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:09, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
- Oppose, because of license restrityions - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 18:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- NOT Promoted, +5/-7 -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I frequently use Wikipedia for invaluable resource provision and I am the author of this photograph. I grant Wikipedia unrestricted permission to use this and any of my online published images. I can be contacted via NATUREFRONTIER.COM should any formality be addressed. Sincerely, John (Jon) Triffo
UPDATE (Jan 25,2009) for Wandering Spider image: a visitor to my former website has provided me with new Genus/specific opinions about this image. When I am able to find verifiable corroboration, I will update both the quality of this image, and relevant Genus/specific information about it. Sincerely, once again, John (Jon) Triffo
Great action shot. →Raul654 07:06, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Used in Battle of Okinawa.
- Suppport. What does "draws a bead" mean? -- Chris 73 Talk 07:27, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- It means to take aim at something. →Raul654 08:04, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not bad, but there are more telling war images. Janderk 12:27, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose -- William M. Connolley 19:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- Oppose Enochlau 10:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Action"? Robin Patterson 05:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. War shots are often dramatic, this alone doesn't make it worth featuring. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:25, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- NOT Promoted, +3/-5 -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Saw this on Hurricane Ivan, was amazed.
- Neutral: It was nominated last month. Evercat 12:38, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, as of last nomination -- Chris 73 Talk 14:30, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cool picture, but not that cool. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:25, 07 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I supported it last time, and still like it, but it shouldn't be re-nom'd yet -- William M. Connolley 20:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC).
Strikingly yukky rare creature. Chameleon 12:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Chameleon 12:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm surprised this didn't make the cut last time. Support. - RedWordSmith 12:47, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Isn't a bit too soon to renominate it? Oppose for this reason. ed g2s • talk 14:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The last nomination is archived at Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/September-2004 - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]]
- Ah, I didn't realise it had been proposed before. Chameleon 09:01, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I would like a more natural setting for an image to add significant value to the article Giant isopod. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:22, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, still too small. Darkone 16:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Bevo. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:27, 07 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose (as Ed g2s) -- William M. Connolley 20:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC).
Not particularly striking. There must be hundreds of US Navy photos better than this one, including Image:Uss iowa bb-61 pr.jpg
- Nominate and support delisting. ed g2s • talk 12:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 06:42, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 20:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. James F. (talk) 03:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. The image does not contain anything special that would make it featured Janderk 20:49, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting; there are far better U.S. Navy photographs. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:47, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. --Thomas G Graf 10:46, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. -- Chmouel 07:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. -- Solipsist 13:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
A nice shot of the Meadow Argus butterfly. I took this in my front yard. It is common to Australia. I perfer the first photo, but I though I'd put both up for a choice.
- Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support either but prefer second - feel like I'm getting vertigo from the first. -- Oarih 15:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support either, but with a slight preference for the second. — David Remahl 04:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support either; prefer second (more detail and less vertigo) Robin Patterson 04:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support second. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. ugen64 02:43, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Support, although I can only comment on the first version, as the second won't load in my browser. The first is a highly detailed photo, with excellent focus, color balance etc. Though I am not familiar with the species, it would seem to be a good representation. Pollinator 02:58, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)'
- Support. Prefer second. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:12, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Strong preference for the first, because wing shape is paramount to proper species identification, and the second image, while apparently more pleasing to some, is less informative because of distortion. Ailatan 21:18, 10/28/2004 (UTC)
- Support either one, I suppose. I added mutual links so users can flip back! And forth! --Twinxor 21:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose — Sorry, its not beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant. The butterfly is not sharp. The background should be black. -- NickP 15:56, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. With regards to your comment, I disagree. I think it is extremely beautiful, and the comments above I think verify this. Also in regards to the sharpness - take a look at Pollinator's comments. I know this is an area to voice your opinions but I think your comment was unjustified. --Fir0002 06:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I still stand by my comments. There already is a much better photo in featured pictures, a moth, Image:Emperor Gum Moth.jpg, by yourself, in fact! How about Image:Bald.eagle.closeup.arp-sh.750pix.jpg as an example of a sharp photo. The second photo here, is not fully in focus. Featured pictures is getting crowded. I don't think we need more than one Lepidoptera.
When judging photographs for artistic merit it is important to distinguish between a photo of a beautiful object (that one took) and a beautiful photograph. In these photos, the background is a distraction that takes one eye away from the subject. A butterfly is a form with color. That is what the photo should maximize. Be honest with yourself: Are these the best butterfly photos ever taken, or even amongst those on this site?
P.S. You also might try using a film camera and having the negatives or slides scanned. You'll be amazed how much more color you'd get out of this subject matter. — NickP 01:35, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks Nick for your comments, and I don't mean it sarcastically. Sorry I sort of attacked you, but taking photos of a live butterfly is frustrating as I think you can imagine. Anyway, thanks for your suggestion with film camera, I don't own one as such, but I'll borrow one and try out your idea. --Fir0002 10:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I still stand by my comments. There already is a much better photo in featured pictures, a moth, Image:Emperor Gum Moth.jpg, by yourself, in fact! How about Image:Bald.eagle.closeup.arp-sh.750pix.jpg as an example of a sharp photo. The second photo here, is not fully in focus. Featured pictures is getting crowded. I don't think we need more than one Lepidoptera.
- Comment. With regards to your comment, I disagree. I think it is extremely beautiful, and the comments above I think verify this. Also in regards to the sharpness - take a look at Pollinator's comments. I know this is an area to voice your opinions but I think your comment was unjustified. --Fir0002 06:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Vote tallys go here, ideally by the user who promoted this image
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
Self-nom. An excellent picture of beautifully-decorated sake barrels. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 01:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Looks too chaotic --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice picture, but the sake article could use a lead image which shows sake poured into sake-cups looking like a liquid, or possibly in a bottle. -- Solipsist 07:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I can do that for you always looking for a reason to drink. PPGMD 23:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice pic. Chameleon 21:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Good angle you've taken it at Enochlau 10:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Markalexander100 04:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very nice. — David Remahl 04:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Definitely very lovely, colors are great. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:23, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I like the theme, it's a simple but effective picture. PPGMD 23:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Janderk 13:15, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support; awesome. Twinxor 21:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice detail, nice angle.Jpo 16:15, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Vote tallys go here, ideally by the user who promoted this image
My father is a bee keeper, and bees swarm in spring (Australia) so naturally I took a shot. There is an incredible number of bees in this swarm.
- Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:53, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice and big chunk of bees -- Chris 73 Talk 09:01, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not clean or crisp enough to be feature-worthy. Nice photo, though. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:21, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Since when is a swarm clear? --Alphax (talk) 02:54, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. You're a brave man/woman, Fir! — David Remahl 04:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Thanks - my camera has no zoom currently (for some reason anything beyond maximum zoom out comes out very blue - I'm saving up for the 20D!)--Fir0002 05:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Neutrality. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. The top of the image is blurry because the bees were very active, and their wings move very quickly. --Fir0002 05:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support, although the purple hue is a bit of a put-off. ugen64 02:36, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, as it's not truly representative of a prime swarm. It's either an afterswarm (with virgin queen), or a swarm cast by sick bees (varroa or acarine infested), or bees that have absconded due to some kind of stress (such as hive beetles). Though a non-beekeeper might be impressed by the number of bees, it is really a tiny swarm with perhaps three or four thousand bees, as opposed to a true reproductive swarm which normally would run to twenty or thirty thousand bees. Nothing against the photographer. Sorry. Pollinator 02:51, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- On second look, I doubt that there are a thousand bees. No drones are seen either. Their presence is characteristic of a prime swarm. Pollinator 02:54, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- On a third look, you may notice that its is not an entire swarm. The edges of the image are characteristic of a crop of the whole image. The bee swarm is doing fine after a week in its new hive. I'm not sure how big the swarms in America are, but here in Australia they are generally slightly smaller than the one pictured. I chose this crop because the bees where in close detail. For the full image see Collection of the swarm--Fir0002 09:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- On second look, I doubt that there are a thousand bees. No drones are seen either. Their presence is characteristic of a prime swarm. Pollinator 02:54, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Support: Nice photo, I like the blurred moving bees, the colour of the green is a little sickly, but other than that good. Pdefer 00:24, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
- Support. Color is somewhat off, but its not distracting. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:11, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Image quality is not good enough for to be featured. Janderk 13:06, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice picture, but colors seem a bit off, and detail could be better. Jpo 16:20, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- NOT Promoted, +7/-5 -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 03:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(vote was closed and made a featured picture, making my comment here at the top for visibility only):
The picture Image:HookeFlea02.jpg is a poor JPEG version of the high-resolution original Image:flea.png, maybe you should replace the former with the latter but just a suggestion --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 16:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
An illustration of a flea from the first book to show what the microscopic world looks like. Used in Micrographia. -- Solipsist 21:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 21:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Alphax (talk) 01:59, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very good. --Fir0002 07:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:19, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- The "colorized" version looks like a negative image of the original black and white picture - dark areas are bright and bright areas are dark. What is the rationale for the process used?--Eloquence*
- I was following a similar treatment which I saw in Zembla magazine last year. Its purely for dramatic effect, with the link to the original BW for authenticity. -- Solipsist 08:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support the inverted version, I think it makes the picture clearer. Small point regarding copyright status...The {{PD-art}} tag is not completely appropriate, since the image has been post-processed in a way that requires creativity. Solipsist has two options: license the new version under GFDL, or release the updated version into the public domain again. If the first, the tag should be GFDL. If the other, I suppose {{PD-art}} is fine, but solipsist must still make the release of the changes clear. — David Remahl 04:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Good point on the copyright tag. I hadn't really thought about it, but then I guess the colourisation isn't that creative. I'll put a note on the page in any case.
- Slight support; but I love the original - could we have it instead? Robin Patterson 04:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. It always seemed cool to me how identical to cicada shells fleas appear. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think the original image is more dramatic and easier on the eyes, would support that one. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:19, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Would support the original Image:HookeFlea01.jpg without hesitation. The shadows and feature on the original are much clearer, whereas the "fudged" version looks like a negative, and reminds me of a squashed dried bug found in an old book. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:53, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Support the BW image HookeFlea01.jpg - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support Bw HookeFlea01 — Pdefer | !! 03:35, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
- Oppose the colorized version - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 01:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
All the details you ever wanted to see on a cockroach -- Chris 73 Talk 12:14, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support (Nominator) -- Chris 73 Talk 12:14, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Janderk 12:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. So cute. -- Solipsist 14:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support weakly. I just really hate those white background pictures, but the detail is great on this little bug. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:10, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support, and hope never to see one in real life. fabiform | talk 16:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:08, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I think that white background look is very good for an encyclopedia (as you may have noticed). A good macro shot as well. --Fir0002 07:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Viewers will "gulp" then enjoy. Robin Patterson 05:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. *YUCK* -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:24, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Support, ohyeah -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:09, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
I like this painting a lot. By By Gustave Doré (1855) →Raul654 04:46, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't think pictures of pictures should ever be featured pictures. Us sitting around deciding whether Doré deserves to rank alongside our dog photos is an excellent illustration of why. Markalexander100 07:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It is hard to have a single criteria to judge photos, drawings and works of art. Perhaps there could someday be a Wikipedia art gallery just for paintings and other works of art. Perhaps a "Wikipedia:Featured art" page in place of the subcategory we currently use. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 20:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I do think we should have pictures of pictures, otherwise we would exclude a significant subject area. But this one wouldn't be my choice. The Seurat last month would have been better. -- Solipsist 08:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support - very nice picture. ugen64 01:41, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose; there are much better paintings, even religious ones. Dunc|☺ 11:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not brilliant at all. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:10, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. A brilliant work. There are many more artworks in Category:Public domain art that could be featured. Gdr 13:17, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
- Oppose (don't much like as a pic; agree with MarkA) -- William M. Connolley 17:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:38, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A pretty good look at chocolate.
- Support. Self Nomination --Fir0002 07:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. The solid chocolate looks "beaten up" with light brown dents at the edges. The brown glob of melted chocolate looks not so appetizing. Finally, the angle of the solid chocolate sticking in the melted one looks not like it is melting in progress but rather like a molten piece with a solid chunk stuck in it afterwards. Still a good image, but not quite feature material -- Chris 73 Talk
- Ditto. Chameleon 14:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Strongly support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:13, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Weak support. Does look like the slab has been inserted into the melted glob --Alphax (talk) 02:59, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Um, that was what was intended. I guess the idea was wrong then. --Fir0002 05:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. — David Remahl 05:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The chocolate looks worn. Norman Rogers 12:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Good idea, but the result is far from perfect. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:13, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Weak support. This photo shows nicely, a lot about what chocolate is about. As such it is a great photo for its purpose. Visually, it is a nice strong image. It is perfect for the Chocolate article, but should it be featured? I ask others. NickP 09:02, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cribcage 22:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
JRTs are feisty little creatures, always on the move and difficult to photograph. It is unusual to be able to catch them with pricked ears like this. Self nomination by Moriori 20:02, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Support, if as nom I am permitted to. Moriori
- Oppose: Not a particularly interesting composition, and red-eye. Pdefer 21:52, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
- Oppose: The red-eye is what gets me; the composition is all right, methinks. ugen64 01:39, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose: It appears to be a picture of someone's dog. How is this one of our finest pictures? Cavebear42 17:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment -- I have no idea if this picture is any good....perhaps the red eye disqualifies it. But I want to note (if no one else yet has) that we all seemed pretty biased around here. Photos of amazing landscapes, architecture, astronomical objects, etc., seem to have an easier time here. But no matter how we shoot a dog's picture, everyone either thinks it's "posed" or "too cute" or "just someone's pet" or "not notable". Now, we may have excellent reasons for rejecting each one of these pictures on its individual merits, but I'm starting to suspect that what at least a few of us are saying is "I don't think a picture of someone's dog is featurable". And I don't like that much. I'm not a big dog fan, personally, and I know they're not as fascinating to most people who edit here as the Eagle Nebula, but I think we should probably figure out soon what we can reasonably expect from a featured picture of an everyday thing (like a dog or a screwdriver). I know, we'd rather have amazing photos, and maybe we should restrict photos of the day to the incredibly cool and unusual. But I think there is room on Wikipedia:Featured pictures for some good photos of ordinary, everyday life. I didn't know where else to say this, so pardon me for intruding on this vote. But I think it needs to be said. If this is better on the talk page, please move it there -- thanks. Jwrosenzweig 21:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Image:Spot Fetcher 2.jpg set the bar pretty high! - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 05:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:10, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. - The bar is pretty high for dog pictures, and this one doesn't quite get there. Jpo 16:23, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
A stunning image, contributing to Air Force One as well as Mount Rushmore National Memorial. A PNG version of the image was originally uploaded by User:Neutrality. This much larger JPG from www.af.mil is worth nominating.
- Support. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:04, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Background a bit dark, but still featureable -- Chris 73 Talk 09:25, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's a nice picture, but I don't see how it really adds all that much to Mount Rushmore National Memorial or Air Force One - there must be better (or more concise) pictures of those, individually, than this. -- Oarih 15:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Good picture. I thought of nominating it once myself but decided I just didn't like it. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Full support. It really does add to the Air Force One article. Thanks, Solitude! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 14:31, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Support - exceptional photo JoJan 19:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Great photo. Really good. --Fir0002 12:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Josh Lee 02:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I like how the dark background makes the subject stand out more clearly where appropriate, but is still detailed in the areas around the monument. PMcM 21:35, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Air Force One" and "Mount Rushmore" may have mystical patriotic significance to some, but to me they mean bugger all and that just leaves a very ordianry picture. Oska 23:58, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Hard to get moment. Great timing. Roscoe x 07:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If it is not a "photoshopped" composite. Do we have a pointer to the original? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It's a guberment photo from their website, I don't believe that they are allowed to release composites unless they are labeled. PPGMD
- Which website? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- www.af.mil - PaulLomax 10:13, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Thx! I actually like the one at http://www.af.mil/media/photodb/photos/021126-O-9999G-023.jpg better as it shows a view of Mount Rushmore that's seldom seen. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 14:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- www.af.mil - PaulLomax 10:13, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Which website? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It's a guberment photo from their website, I don't believe that they are allowed to release composites unless they are labeled. PPGMD
- If it is not a "photoshopped" composite. Do we have a pointer to the original? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support - PaulLomax 10:13, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Although this works better on the Air Force One page than it does on the Mount Rushmore page. Jpo 16:27, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
I noticed we don't have many sports images. Here is a rather nice action shot of the currect GB coxless pair by User:Johnteslade, used to illustrate rowing. I suspect these two didn't win the Olympics this year, but as far as I can tell they are still world medalists in other competitions. -- Solipsist 19:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 19:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I dunno. An eighties feel to it. A good pic, but not quite up to par. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 00:08, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sun coming from the back shows the shadowed side of the rower and also blinds a bit with the reflections on the water. Not bad, but not quite feature material -- Chris 73 Talk 00:46, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Their heads are cut in half by the tree line. Gpowers 01:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, lighting is not up to par, and also it doesn't show as much action as a good rowing picture can. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:18, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Don't think the pic is special enough to be given featured status Enochlau 14:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Enochlau. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:37, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And another excellent sports photograph from User:Rdikeman showing a Formula One car in action. Used to illustrate various Formula One relate pages, but I think it best represents the Formula One page. -- Solipsist 19:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 19:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support very much. I had intended to nominate it myself. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 21:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. How did you (User:Rdikeman) get such a good view?! Fantastic shot. But I think image:Webber usgp 2004.jpg is better :)--Fir0002 22:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Car very sharp, while background shows speed. Cool. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:44, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice but not special enough to be featured. Just a F1 car. We need more less geeky images. Janderk 13:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Added a rotated version. Unfortunately, a lot of the background had to be cropped. Support the first. — David Remahl 12:38, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support; more like this please! --Twinxor 21:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support the original one showing the car at an angle. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:36, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. This one's "OK", but Fir0002 is right, image:Webber usgp 2004.jpg is much better. We want the best of the best. Why doesn't someone nominate that one? NickP 09:21, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Well one reason would be that Jaguar is no longer racing in F1 (ironically Webber is moving into Ralf S's Williams car). Its a bit of a toss-up, the Jaguar has the advantage of being a little sharper, nicer colours and a less cluttered background. But to me, the Williams just looks like it is going faster and speed is a big part of illustrating Formula One. -- Solipsist 09:42, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, agree with NickP. image:Webber usgp 2004.jpg has better detail on the car/driver. ed g2s • talk 00:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, I think image:Webber usgp 2004.jpg should be nominated, I might support this image, but as there is a better one available, I oppose. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:55, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
Another photo, or series of photos, from User:Rdikeman. I understand that baseball is quite like cricket - I'm pretty sure I could figure out how to play it from this photo. I think it illustrates pitching a little better than it does baseball. -- Solipsist 19:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 19:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:46, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very informative -- Chris 73 Talk 23:32, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice series! – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 00:08, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Was thinking of nominating it myself reading the Baseball article yesterday, very illustrative. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:14, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Janderk 13:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Rick Dikeman has contributed many great sporting photos. GWO 14:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Just looks so boring. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:35, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. As someone who couldn't care less about baseball, this series bores me too -- but this is an encyclopedia and the series is excellent at illustrating its subject matter. -- Oarih 08:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cribcage 22:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Self-nom. A picture which, I believe, excellently captures the statue and the beautiful facade behind it. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 21:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 00:08, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The overcast day makes the features of the statue less visible, which is also optically cut in half by the background building -- Chris 73 Talk 00:43, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC).
- On the other hand, I find full sunlight tends to be a problem with most statues, the contrasts end up too strong and you loose the shading. A diffuse light and key light is often best (and pretty much impossible outside). -- Solipsist 17:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with Chris. Gpowers 01:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Janderk 12:59, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. There are much better pics of the thinker out there (inc. the one on The Thinker)Cavebear42 16:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Nice though it is, that Thinker looks like its copyright status isn't right — the photographer would also have copyright and without source and attribution we don't know who that is. -- Solipsist 17:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 22:03, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cluttered -- William M. Connolley 22:48, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:34, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Great panorama created by Dori. Used on University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Warning: huge image, but that's the point - do not scale down, please.--Eloquence* 03:27, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very nice! Is there a high-res version available? ;-) — David Remahl 14:36, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Panoramas are hard to do effectively, and this one hits the mark. Too bad about the lawn construction at the hit of the photo, otherwise it would have been nearly perfect. PPGMD 02:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 20:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose (a) as a picture, its boring (b) its absurdly large to feature (c) its technically imperfect (1. red building mid-right; 4th window from right: ripples; 2. red building with grey roof & 5 windows 1/2-left: ripples along gutterline; 3. pinky building at R, main face, R window has got a shadow and join is faintly visible; 4. tape is "broken" in foreground by join).
- oppose -- boring. Dunc|☺ 08:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Technically well constructed, but jeez, what dull subject matter. GWO 15:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - Give me a panorama of the view from the summit of Mount Everest, not someone's college. It's well-done, but subject matter has some role in this decision. Barfooz
- Oppose for the same reasons as above. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:33, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Thomas G Graf 18:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nice pano, but the subject is not too compelling Jpo 16:31, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cribcage 22:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- NOT promoted, +5/-7. -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Self-nom. The vibrant colors of the dome, trees, mountains, and water more than compensate for the washed-out sky. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 01:55, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, sorry the overexposed sky is simply too distracting to me. IMO it would be a better shot if you concentrated on the building because I feel that it would be striking to see the building as it is today. But the way the picture is at the moment, the overexposed sky simply over powers the building in my eye, distracting the viewer. PPGMD 02:00, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The vast amount of irrelevant image overpowers what is important here. Get closer. Denni☯ 21:44, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
- Oppose (as Denni) -- William M. Connolley 22:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- oppose. but i'd like to see a pic of the building close up. Cavebear42 23:57, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I love shots like this, it just doesnt look together. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:32, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cribcage 22:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- NOT promoted, +1/-6. -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
Lots and lots of nice hazelnuts.
- Support! I almost went and nominated this the moment I saw it in RC. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 00:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 22:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice shot! – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 00:08, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Good one -- Chris 73 Talk 00:42, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Tasty, and I don't even eat nuts. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:12, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 17:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Mmm...hazelnuts. Neutralitytalk 22:01, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very tasty. Tra 12:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:33, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- you'd be nuts not too! (sorry...)-- PaulLomax 09:42, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Promoted, +10/-02. -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A good illustration of that optic phenomena.
- Support. Self nom.--Fir0002 21:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- oppose (we should have only one of these two anyway) good concept but it came out messy; Dunc|☺ 21:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- We should _have_ both, but only feature one. I hope that's what you meant? — David Remahl 16:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- oppose, looks washed out. should have used longer exposure (I think, I'm not a photographer). — David Remahl 16:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Ok idea, but not visually appealing. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:31, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cribcage 21:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Light breaking into the visible spectrum. The photo doesn't look spectacular as a thumbnail, but as a full image it looks pretty good.
- Support. Self nom. --Fir0002 21:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think light effects like this are a shoo-in for featured pics, but I'd like something a little more dramatic. This is a cool effect, but it looks kind of messy and washed-out in this shot. --Twinxor 21:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose as above; better examples at [7] Dunc|☺ 21:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:31, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cribcage 21:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It just JUMPS at you! An excellent example of how to create action shots, too bad it's not by a Wikipedian, but this picture deserves a nomination. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:26, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
Comment. It appears the rotated version I uploaded is not showing properly, WP is incredibly slow at the moment so I can't really fix or verify it right now.
- Support! -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:26, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
- oppose. Decent pic but I'm sure that there are surfing wikipedians that can easily show us a better pic. also, why am i having trouble buying that this is a marine taken or made during the course of the person's official duties?Cavebear42 17:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- This is not your average snapshot, if you can find one of this quality made by a Wikipedia by all means bring it on. Do you really feel that it makes any difference whether this guy is on duty or not? This is an image contest, not a job review! -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 19:35, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
- The issue is whether the image really is in the public domain. It is not a work of the US government if it was taken off duty. Fredrik | talk 19:55, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, as the image is in the official U.S. Marine photo gallery, I believe it is. It also makes perfect sense for Marines to train at surfing, they do not spend all their time at shooting ranges. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:32, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Besides, have you not seen Apocalypse Now? :) -- GWO 08:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I have but it's probably too long ago, refresh my memory please, how exactly does it relate to my comment? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 12:46, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Colonel Kilgore's helicopter cavalry choose Willard's landing spot simply because it has the best waves in Vietnam, and its wasted on the Vietnamese because Charlie Don't Surf. As the colonel says, in his platoon "you either surf, or fight" -- GWO
- I have but it's probably too long ago, refresh my memory please, how exactly does it relate to my comment? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 12:46, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Besides, have you not seen Apocalypse Now? :) -- GWO 08:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, as the image is in the official U.S. Marine photo gallery, I believe it is. It also makes perfect sense for Marines to train at surfing, they do not spend all their time at shooting ranges. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:32, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
- The issue is whether the image really is in the public domain. It is not a work of the US government if it was taken off duty. Fredrik | talk 19:55, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support, nice colours, nice action shot. "I'm sure that there are surfing wikipedians that can easily show us a better pic", well they haven't yet, besides this picture should be judged on its own merits. Only quibble is that the JPEG compression really takes it toll on the fine detail of the white water. ed g2s • talk 13:27, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Pretty good image -- Chris 73 Talk 14:05, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I like it, except for that ugly sky. Maybe some clipping could improve this one a lot. See the alternative image. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Supoort. Look how clear the water looks under the board. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:28, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --Fir0002 06:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose (weakly). The water is excellent and its a good action shot, so I am persuadable, but for me the problem is the surfer. He's fine in the thumbnail, but in the full view he looks less like a surfer dude and more like a heavy-set jock. The puffy cheeks, angry expression and hair cut are also a little offputting. I don't much mind the greyish sky in the original and think it is better to see the horizon. -- Solipsist 07:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose (weakly). Water good, but our surfer's features are totally in shadow. I appreciate that its tricky to do fill-in flash on guy that far away, but that means its not quite there for me. -- GWO 10:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Janderk 15:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support, Not technically brilliant, but adequate and a good shot. Dunc|☺ 19:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose
the originalall - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) - I have added a version with more color and a brighter surfer. Fredrik | talk 21:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, very good work, I definitely prefer this version now. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:33, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Support second version. Colors in third seem too artificial. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:28, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is good but not "brilliant". -- Jpo 16:36, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cribcage 21:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wow, I saw this image and really liked it. The shot is taken from a kind of low angle, but it actually enhances the image in a way because it makes the phoenix look so proud. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 12:52, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 12:52, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Busy background, low angle and poor lighting means you can't really see the features -- GWO 13:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- oppose. i dont mind the background but the angle makes to hard to see what the scupture is of.Cavebear42 17:52, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with Cavebear. -Hapsiainen 19:52, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose for same reasons as listed above. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:29, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Odd angle detracts - Jpo 16:35, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- support very good jobPixeltoo 00:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Granted, it's a bit smaller than the others, but it looks good. AlbinoMonkey 11:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
good picture, but too small. I'd support the original.Dunc|☺ 21:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)A bit smaller! Oppose. Can't see any detail, would support a much larger version. ed g2s • talk 18:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)- Neutral. I'm leaning towards support. Its a good image, but we could use a source link so that the PD status can be verified. There is a larger version here, but its a bit grainy. -- Solipsist 20:08, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support, now that the larger version is uploaded -- Chris 73 Talk 01:06, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Impressive. -Hapsiainen 19:52, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very Cool! --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:29, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose until public domain status can be independently verified.--Eloquence*
- Support if license is confirmed. Janderk 15:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- comment it appears that this is from http://www.batcon.org/ so is maybe copyvio see [8] claims it's copyrighted by them. We should probably be nice and ask permission Dunc|☺ 21:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That looks like a completely different image to me. ed g2s • talk 01:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I was having trouble spotting the connection myself. I guess we are talking about the thumbnail next to 'New Mexico Bat Survey and Acoustic Library' on the second link. Its not the same photo, but I managed to find larger versions on Batcon at [9] & [10] which are sufficiently similar to suggest it was from the same roll of film. The photo credit is for Dr. Merlin D. Tuttle, so if we can
find the university he works for it might turn out to be the University of Tokyo and a PD photo as originally suggested. I don't think Batcon holds the copyright.-- Solipsist 08:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)- It looks like Dr Merlin Tuttle is the founder and president of Bat Conservation International (BCI), ie. www.batcon.org. -- Solipsist 09:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure its the same roll of film. Either way we can't promote an image until we know what its copyright status is. ed g2s • talk 01:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose until public domain status can be verified. Mark1 06:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Self nom. --Fir0002 05:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too much blurry foreground (especially the yellow candle), also background is distracting. Sure it was delicious, though -- Chris 73 Talk 06:08, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
- oppose. agree, hard to look at Cavebear42 17:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It looks clumsy. -Hapsiainen 19:52, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:30, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. -- PaulLomax 10:03, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cribcage 21:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --Thomas G Graf 19:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This image is already a featured picture but is being renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process. If you believe this image's featured picture status has been voted on before, please provide evidence below. See talk
- Oppose. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:21, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Support alternative. I did not like the original image as it only showed a small part of the Sistine Chapel. We do need more art and less geeky images, which is why I added an alternative showing the Sistine Chapel almost in full. Janderk 08:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support second of the two (Janderk's Alternative). GWO 11:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Note the alternative has been taken from artchive.com and is marked as GFDL, but I wonder if it really is. Janderk 12:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The first is nothing special, the second is off centre. ed g2s • talk 14:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Image delisted. It is only available under a non-commercial license, and thus can not be a Featured image. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:23, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Self-nomination. I originally took this picture back in 2001 as part of a class project along with 200 others. This one, I think, best captures the feeling of being surrounded by a field of grass taller than you are in the middle of nowhere - it just feels like the wall of grass is going to jump forth and swallow you. Used in the Prairie article. - RedWordSmith 18:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Object. Maybe you had to be there... Denni☯ 21:59, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)
- Oppose. Looks a little washed out to me. I tried playing with the colors but just couldn't get a vibrent pic outta it. Cavebear42 22:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Cavebear42. Also, for somebody who is not used to high prairie grass (i.e. me), it is difficult to tell how high it really is, and appears as if the camera was placed low to the ground. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:26, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Colours are washed out and it's not in focus - Adrian Pingstone 15:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. washed. Darkone 16:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not very interesting, visually appealing or technically competent, sorry! -- PaulLomax 09:44, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. More salt in the wound I'm afraid. I cant tell the grass is tall, but the picture is drab, full of jpeg compression, and just not quite up there. --Fir0002 11:17, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I live on the prairies and this picture just doesn't have enough color constrast to make it visually appealing. Picture of such on a bright sunny day would probably have turned out a lot better. RedWolf 06:39, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Self-nom. The UMass Amherst campus taken at dusk. The campus library is to the right, and the Old Chapel spire to the left. 8/10 second exposure. I like the deep blue and the lamp reflections. If it's too dark I have RAW images with a lot of dynamic range to work with, I can also provide higher resolution, a different crop, or different curves. - Rhobite 01:07, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. UMASS is a nice campus, but the image does not show the campus very well. The image has maybe artistic value, but it is not informative -- Chris 73 Talk 01:09, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- If you're familiar with the campus, do you have a suggestion for a better location? Or is it just the underexposed buildings? I tried taking wide shots from the 23rd floor of the library but the angle was poor and the windows are pretty dirty. Rhobite 01:21, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. The gradient in the sky is very clear and free from artifacts. It has a nice charm to it I think. Enochlau 14:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC
- Comment. I would definitely start with providing a larger resolution image. It is hard to see much detail on this version, and also, why upload a low resolution image for starters, the image can be included in the appropriate article whether is gets featured or not. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 14:55, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm a little reluctant to release hi-res images under the GFDL, but since I took this one for Wikipedia I will do that when I get home tonight. Rhobite 15:20, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Well if you are just aiming to get your pictures into articles as illustration that is fine (although of course we really prefer higher resolution images). But for a featured picture candidate you really need to give us something to work with. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:51, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm a little reluctant to release hi-res images under the GFDL, but since I took this one for Wikipedia I will do that when I get home tonight. Rhobite 15:20, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose.--Thomas G Graf 17:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Thanks for the input. I uploaded a high-res version of the original image, as well as a new edit with higher levels. I don't like the new one as much. Rhobite 23:01, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:27, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cribcage 21:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A great image to illustrate the article about the Oresund Bridge, showing the full extent of the bridge and the artificial islet, missing only the tunnel (which is underwater, and hard to capture from the air! :). I think the composition is perfect, and illustrates the article completely. I can't judge the technicalities, and leave that up to you. Licenses GFDL and cc-by-sa-2.0.
- Nominated by: ✏ Sverdrup 16:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. Looks lovely in hires, but I find the detail is totally lost in the thumbnail. Which should we be voting on here? -- GWO
- IMHO, only on the full image. The license is confusing though, needs clarification first. -- 130.89.169.11 19:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. we should be voting on hi-res. I'm confused on the licence. Is it GNU/CC or is the orig photographer reserving rights? Who is original photographer and how would i contact him? Cavebear42 17:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Clarifications via the swedish image description page; The description implies that the uploader took the picture. He asserts that he retains his copyright (which is correct), and that the picture uploaded is available for use under either GFDL or cc-by-sa-2.0 license. He also says that for other licenses and a higher resolution image, please contact the photographer. ✏ Sverdrup 01:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I've put in the links to the Swedish source - please correct if I have it wrong. -- Solipsist 08:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Clarifications via the swedish image description page; The description implies that the uploader took the picture. He asserts that he retains his copyright (which is correct), and that the picture uploaded is available for use under either GFDL or cc-by-sa-2.0 license. He also says that for other licenses and a higher resolution image, please contact the photographer. ✏ Sverdrup 01:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. A bit murky on the horizon, but surprisingly clear if it was taken through the windows of an a plane. Rather a good illustration of this sort of bridge. The low angle sunlight really helps to define the bridge. -- Solipsist 08:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Odd color balance and visible JPEG artifacts. If you're the photographer, I think a corrected version would look great. Rhobite 21:47, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Rhobite. Also dont like the scummy black stuff in the lower left of the image. Cant see how you could have gotten rid of them, but they mar the picture. --Fir0002 11:17, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comments
- Sverdrup, thanks for nominating my contribution. The image is dual-licensed under both the GFDL and the cc-by-sa-2.0 license. :I am reserving rights - I assert ownership of the copyright, but give broad rights under the licenses that the image is licensed under. Keeping ownership of the copyright and licensing a work under licenses such as the GFDL is not a ontradiction; indeed, if the image was released into the public domain, giving licensing terms would be largely meaningless. :I would appreciate feedback on how to make this clearer, as to not cause unnecessary confusion.
- As to Cavebear42's comments: I have a user account on Wikipedia, and it's easy to contact me through Wikipedia. I could, of course, publish my full name and e-mail address, but would prefer not to as I receive plenty of spam already. I could, when assigning copyright, publish my full name, but fail to see that this is necessary. Comments?
- Rhobite: the contrast has been stretched, but the artifacts you see are mostly the work of NeatImage.
- Fir0002: the "black stuff" in the lower-left corner is actually the islet Saltholm - the artificial islet Pepparholm was named in reference to this islet. I agree that it doesn't look particularly appealing, and could, if desired, work on smoothing it out.
-
- Thanks for the comments! -- dpol 05:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:32, 07 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice shot -- Jpo 18:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Even in the full picture, I find it hard to discern the details of the bridge. Enochlau 09:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. May support a larger version. ed g2s • talk 14:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I quite like the ugly island- looks like a Scottish one. Mark1 00:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- NOT promoted, +5/-5. -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I got this out of the German Wikipedia, and did the translation myself. I think it adds a lot of the HIV article. →Raul654 21:33, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Enthusiastically support. -- Oarih 04:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I almost nominated this a couple of weeks ago when looking through the German featured pics, but I wasn't confident enough to translate. Then I found that Raul654 had already done an excellent job of bringing it over to the English wiki. -- Solipsist 08:36, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose; I think it could do with being in colour. Dunc|☺ 13:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. A featured pic should be largely or entirely self-explanatory. This is far from. Denni☯ 17:09, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:31, 07 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice graphic, but doesn't really meet the criteria of a featured picture. -- Jpo 18:23, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cribcage 21:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- NOT promoted, +3/-5. -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
Not your usual Mandelbrot set. Note added later: I guess I've messed this vote up by actually writing the Buddhabrot page and not even including the image... :-/ Evercat 00:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Self-nominated by Evercat 02:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support if rotated 90 degrees. -- Oarih 04:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Mmm. In the Mandelbrot set article it wouldn't be right to rotate it... Evercat 13:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Sure it would be. The assignment of x and y in that order is completely arbitrary, and given that it's named after its supposed likeness to the Buddha when rotated, I think it should be in that orientation. -- Oarih 15:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- But then it would be at a different orientation from the other images of the set... Evercat 18:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- True, though I don't see the problem. I guess the thing is that I think the Mandlebrot article already has a picture which illustrates the conventional Mandlebrot set rendering reasonably well. If the point with the Buddhabrot is that it looks like the Buddha, then the picture should be oriented correctly so that people don't have to tilt their heads to check for themselves. Anyway, I'm but one person. Others may well disagree. -- Oarih 18:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the Buddha thing is not the only point. :-) It also indicates areas of travel for points escaping the set... Evercat 18:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Mmm. In the Mandelbrot set article it wouldn't be right to rotate it... Evercat 13:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Spiffy. Support. - RedWordSmith 09:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Interesting, not sure I understand all the maths behind it, but still visually appealing with a deeper meaning behind it. --Fir0002 11:17, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Chris 73 Talk 14:32, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. Don't care for it, but don't want to prevent it from moving up if everyone else likes it. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:29, 07 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. Surely the Buddhabrot should be somewhere in the article, not just an orphaned reference in the caption... GWO 17:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Great graphic. -- Jpo 18:26, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 18:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I took one look at it and said wow. Enochlau 09:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Weak support. Its a bit geeky and we already have a good Mandlebrot set featured so I feel I should oppose. On the other hand I think its got a high 'click through' factor, because its a Mandlebrot set, but not as we know it. -- Solipsist 08:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. And I take it we are supposed to be mentally rotating this 90° clockwise. If I rotate the other way, I get a smaller rocket-man Buddha. -- Solipsist 08:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:12, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Promoted, +8/-1. -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 22:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
One of the more famous views of London. Perhaps better known as the 'Houses of Parliament' but they are actually inside the Palace. Illustrates Palace of Westminster. -- Solipsist 19:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Self nomination -- Solipsist 19:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Fantastic photo. --Fir0002 21:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- beautiful shot. Jwrosenzweig 21:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Ericd 21:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Cribcage 21:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Can't find much wrong with it, apart from perhaps the JPEG artifacts. ed g2s • talk 00:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 01:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Great shot of a classic view - PaulLomax 01:20, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Good exposure and a classic composition. The use of high-speed film (high ISO) has introduced noise, which would be recoverable in The GIMP (mask out the sky and blur it) or even better, a program such as NeatImage. -- dpol 05:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'll do it, if I can get the original image (it is probably of a higher resolution than the current version). — David Remahl 10:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. As the sky seems to be troubling people, I'll probably have a go at smoothing it. -- Solipsist 15:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: The Sky is fine, it's to be expected for a high ISO image. PPGMD 17:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: while a grainy sky is indeed to be expected from a high ISO image, I don't see why we should leave it that way. I post-process all my images extensively, as do professionals.
- It depends. If there is grain visible in the rest of the image, it can look odd if the sky is too smooth. In this case, the problem was mostly a doubling of jpg artifacts following a minor retouch on the original upload. I hadn't noticed the increase in noise. -- Solipsist 19:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: while a grainy sky is indeed to be expected from a high ISO image, I don't see why we should leave it that way. I post-process all my images extensively, as do professionals.
- Comment: The Sky is fine, it's to be expected for a high ISO image. PPGMD 17:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. As the sky seems to be troubling people, I'll probably have a go at smoothing it. -- Solipsist 15:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'll do it, if I can get the original image (it is probably of a higher resolution than the current version). — David Remahl 10:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Chris 73 Talk 12:50, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Support --Darkone 13:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC), but it needs some work to reduce the noise.
- Support. Great shot -- Jpo 16:14, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Sky now cleaned on the eco-wash cycle. As usual, refresh if you need to. -- Solipsist 19:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Great work! -- dpol 23:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Beautiful. zoney ♣ talk 01:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Definite Support --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just a mouth-watering picture of peaches, from our friends at the USDA. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 15:16, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice colors, but underexposure makes details around the pit hard to discern. -- Jpo 18:45, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Cribcage 21:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Looks dry -- Chris 73 Talk 12:49, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support (weakly). Nice colours, nice composition, but oddly looks a little dated. I think there might be a higher res version available from the source. -- Solipsist 08:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, not up to featured picture quality - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It looks too dry. --Fir0002 05:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
A close up of a yellow/orange rose. I don't know whether this means it (the roses color)symbolises passionate undying love or if it doesn't mean anything because its a cross. But that isn't really all that important. Whats important is that it's a good close up.
- Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 11:17, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:24, 07 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. A little fuzzy on the edges but very pretty hues. A higher-res image would be nice. Barfooz 22:38, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice colors. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:25, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Support Cavebear42 18:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 01:08, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice macro shot. Could maybe do with a touch-up in GIMP or something. -- PaulLomax 09:14, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, unless further information (what cultivar is it?) can be provided. It may be a nice pic, but it doesn't carry any useful information. - MPF 10:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Cool looking. - RedWordSmith 13:21, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Though I agree that it doesn't necessarily add much to the rose article and could use a little more background information.
- Suuport, great photograph. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:05, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
Neat picture of icicles from Ice page. Picture is self-taken, I have larger resolution.
- Support. Self-nomination. Barfooz 22:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The right side background is a bit confusing, but the colors on the left are really pretty. Support. - RedWordSmith 04:03, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Cool, the branches being iced over as well is awesome. --Fir0002 10:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Unusual perspective -- Chris 73 Talk 14:31, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. I think it's cool, but too confusing. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:26, 07 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Rhobite 21:37, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice shot, but a bit busy. -- Jpo 18:27, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Cribcage 21:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 01:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support.--80.108.59.135 19:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Clearer hanging icicles would be nicer, but the transparency of the ice coating the branches is remarkable. -- Solipsist 08:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice color and atmosphere. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:47, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. - thomas g graf ~ talk 14:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:11, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed its mildly interesting that is bears such a resemblence to a modern day cartoon character, but it doesn't meet FP standards. It adds little if anything to the article it's in (Mickey Mouse), it's neither striking, stunning or beautiful, and it weighs in at a less than acceptable 243x263px. (NB it was promoted before voting was introduced). ed g2s • talk 12:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. ed g2s • talk 12:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support, good catch. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 14:30, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. It doesn't add significant value to Mickey Mouse, the only article it is associated with at this time. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. Janderk 09:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. Definitely not up to specs. -- Barfooz 06:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Cavebear42 brought this image to my attention, it was likely promoted to FP before we had a voting system, further more it is not up to FP standards, the image is very grainy. Finally, it does not even have a license, let alone a free one. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 18:28, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 18:28, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. I was about to nominate this one but then I started the batch-renomination process on the talk page. ed g2s • talk 01:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. Janderk 09:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. What is this? It's not good, whatever it is. -- Barfooz 06:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. - thomas g graf ~ talk 14:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I found this image striking when I first came upon it on Chicago 'L'. Perhaps could use some color enhancement. Picture by Rick Dikeman. —User:Mulad (talk) 21:56, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Support —User:Mulad (talk) 21:56, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Boring. Sorry. Mark1 00:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Fairly mundane snapshot. -- GWO 11:22, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. agree with above comments. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well illustrates dew, and at the same time makes a spiders web visible.
- Support. Self Nom.--Fir0002 10:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Weak support. Background distracts a bit -- Chris 73 Talk 11:18, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Slightly stronger support, though still not full-fledged. The background isn't as bad on the full pic, because it is out of focus but the dew drops aren't. Have you got a version with a better camera angle? Also: seeing the background upside-down in the drops is cute: a very-close-up on one or a few drops might have been good -- William M. Connolley 19:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC).
- Oppose. The sky-at-an-angle is distracting. Enochlau 00:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice shot -- Jpo 17:53, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Its nice, and the inverted image of the background in each drop would please Descartes, but this sort of picture should show the structure of the web better. -- Solipsist 08:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think it's another beautiful example of the great images in the U.S. Marine's photo archive, let's see what you think. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:27, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:27, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The colour treatment is pretty tacky. Mark1 08:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The grey parts esp top left are unacceptably blotchy. I know size is not a criterion, but if it gets accepted, could someone please make it a bit smaller and use a bit more jpeg compression? Enochlau 09:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oeff, my apologies for adding it without compression, I must have forgotten. I've downsized the image slightly and reuploaded a Q85 jpeg version. About the top left, isn't the blotchiness we're seeing actually a camouflage suit? I doesn't look like an image artifact to me at least. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:26, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not very sharp, bit grainy. Moire effect on the bands of the strap. ed g2s • talk 14:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support That is clearly camo in the background. I like the concept and the picture was well done. the birthmark? on the left palm is discolored but still an excellent pic. Cavebear42 17:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Dislike the hands and the colour treatment has a whiff of propaganda to it. -- GWO
- Oppose. More than a whiff. Matthewcieplak 02:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Even if it has a bit of a propagand-ish feel to it, it is still a pretty picture. JWall.
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:09, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Johnleemk | Talk 06:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.
- support It's a nice pic Cavebear42 18:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support, in spite of the slight distraction of the people in the image. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not great composition: too much white water and dull grey sky. A closeup from the other side might have made a more interesting photo. ed g2s • talk 02:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, because this is quite a small eruption (as shown by the size of the person at the right), the horizon is sloping to the right, and the grey skies (while typically Icelandic) don't help to show the phenomenon at its best. The sequence suffers from the same slopy horizon and grey skies, and the final frame cuts off the top of the eruption. You may find it interesting to compare this shot with ones of mine here and here. Worldtraveller 08:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I've seen better geyser pictures before. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 18:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Nomination delisted by author. 22:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
As the Williams F1 image didn't make it, and this was suggested to be a better image, I'd like to nominate it. I agree that it has more detail in car and driver, and therefore is a better illustration. Photo by Rick Dikeman (as was the Williams). -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:05, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:05, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Support, much nicer. ed g2s • talk 11:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support very cool shot. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support, nicely done. James F. (talk) 21:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I like this one too. -- Solipsist 07:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Obviously. An altogether better photo and better subject (Go Aussie! :-)) --Fir0002 10:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support very much. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 03:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Object. They don't have steep slopes like this in Formula 1. Gdr 14:38, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's one of those pictures that geeks, like me, love. "Look a F1 car". But does it really deserve to be featured? If the unnatural slope is taken out, it is good for an article, but a featured image should offer something special for the non geeky population too. Janderk 08:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Used on meme, it's just...so...cute!. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 23:47, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 23:47, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Cute indeed! But I'm afraid Fair use images do not qualify for Featured Pictures: Images listed here should be either in the public domain or covered by the GNU Free Documentation License or a similar license. Since an image gallery is of limited educational value (a requirement for fair use) fair use images are not appropriate candidates for inclusion in the featured pictures gallery. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 00:05, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I remember adding it to meme, but I agree with Solitude - it wouldn't be fair-use in a picture gallery. It would be easy enough to draw something similar and release it in the Public Domain though. -- Solipsist 01:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Self-nom. The colors and the sense of action make it quite attractive. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 04:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not overly impressive to me. Also, could you compress the file a bit more? 700+kB is a hefty chunk for that resolution -- Chris 73 Talk 04:14, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Don't compress unnecessarily. If it is too large, upload a compressed version but keep the high-quality version too. — David Remahl 10:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice shot but not a FP. -- Jpo 13:30, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- It's a photo of a room. Colour me unamazed. GWO
- Oppose. Havta agree with GWO, as far as shots of large relatively open rooms go, it great but not impressive otherwise. Cavebear42 17:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Might just possibly work without the clutter at the sides, but not very striking -- William M. Connolley 23:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC).
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
PD image, doesn't really need any explanation, just very cool. ed g2s • talk 20:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Nominate and support - ed g2s • talk 20:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 23:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 03:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. But can the 900kB be compressed a bit? -- Chris 73 Talk 04:15, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Support only after a bit of cropping is done in order to reduce the file size. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 09:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support, but Oppose if compressed or cropped and recompressed (note that JPEGs can be cropped losslessly), already grainy enough. — David Remahl 12:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support if cropped. Denni☯ 16:57, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
- support, but it really should be centered. Cavebear42 17:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very interesting and the off centre isn't at all bad. I like the background alot. --Fir0002 22:44, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very different than the stuff we ususally see nominated. Very cool. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support, only if not cropped. Should not be shrunk either. zoney ♣ talk 13:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. At the moment we should be voting on the original, when it has gone through if people think its too large for en., we can move it to commons and have a scaled down version here. I've added a half size render for dialups. ed g2s • talk 14:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support if it is not cropped or centered. Looks great as it is.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:03, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Don't change a thing, it's perfect. --Barfooz 06:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 08:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support as-is. - RedWordSmith 03:48, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I especially like the off-center composition, also nice colors. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:31, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support, no changes. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:10, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Do not crop. --MarkSweep 21:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support! But do not modify, leave as-is. --Jcmaco | Talk 05:17, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
An FP image doesn't always have to be perfect - this is one I find fascinating. Its not often you get the chance to take a contemporary photograph of an 18th century philosopher. Bentham, father of utilitarianism and co-founder of University College London, left his body to medicine with explicit instructions for how his remains should be preserved and put on display for the benefit of future students. Photo by Michael Reeve. - Solipsist 10:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support - Solipsist 10:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Fascinating indeed, but can't go through on that alone. ed g2s • talk 16:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. A poor photo of a good subject. Asymmetry of the doors is ugly, as is the weird perspective (how much wider than the bottom is the top?) The composition looks hurried. Did you have a problem getting him to sit still? -- GWO 14:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. A delightfully weird subject, but this is an egregious snapshot. Denni☯ 16:59, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
- Oppose. photo is off centre and doors distract. On an unrelated note, why? Cavebear42 17:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, nice subject, but composition lacks. Maybe a close up would be better. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:35, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - thomas g graf ~ talk
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
Two good shots clearly illustrating the characteristic of the damselfly - namely to fold its wings vertically to its body when at rest as opposed to a dragonfly's horizontly orientated wings. The images show that the wings don't necessarily fold ontop of the body, but can stick out on top of the body aswell (common blue damselfy02).
- Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support! (topmost one (*02) especially) - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support bottom photo. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 02:45, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Support top photo. (there's always trouble with two pics to consider). -- Solipsist 10:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support top, very nice. I should note that the article on the damselfly could really use some work, the picture needs to illustrate an article, but currently there's just a substub. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:05, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Top picture has better composition. ed g2s • talk 20:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Top one is indeed better. James F. (talk) 23:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support top one -- Chris 73 Talk 04:17, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Support top image, though would crop ULH corner out and adjust saturation and contrast just a hair. Denni☯ 17:02, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
- Support Top photo. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support top one. It's got a bit better contrast and light. The second damselfly is shy and looks away from the camera ;) Janderk 12:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support top one, better colors balance. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:33, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Wow. Matthewcieplak 02:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)