Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/November-2005

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

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

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

A graceful picture of soybeans in the pod. Crisply focused and artfully composed.

• Nominate and support. - Denni☯ 04:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixed nomination header. A {{NowCommons}} template won't work in a header. - 131.211.51.34 07:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Not too sure about this. It's nice, but a tad small for a still life. Colors/Balance tho are tweaked to give it a nice warm hue. Also, what's the liscencing information?~Cliffhanger407 03:08, October 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • USDA image. Hence, public domain. Denni☯ 22:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I don't think its necessarily tweaked. golden hour will do this to a photo. Sometimes this is distracting but I don't have a problem with this one. Diliff 23:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. It's a nice, clear image, but the colours are a little off-putting. Enochlau 02:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clear --Fir0002 07:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not ideally high res but not bad either. Very demonstrative of soybeans though. Diliff 09:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first off, it's probably bad featured pictures etiquette to add two of your own pictures at once, but I honestly couldn't decide. I love them both so much. Normally, I wouldn't do this unless someone else suggested it first (as in the Crepuscular Rays nomination.)

Anyway, these pictures appear in the article Morning glory. I believe they truly capure the stunning beauty of a morning glory flower. And the water drops (that's real rain, not water sprayed from a bottle!) only enhance the effect.

• Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 14:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry to start the comments with something negative, and I know you are a skilled photographer, but I don't like the loss of focus on the near edge of the flower, in both photos. So I could not support - Adrian Pingstone 19:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No problem. I wouldn't be phased even if every single person voted oppose. You can't win em all, no reason to get all down about it. Although I must say, stopping down to the maximum aperture in the 7:30AM light wasn't really an option, especially without a macro-tripod. ;( And I personally think the focus in the second picture draws the eye towards the white center, and the stripes running into it, but that's just me. =0PiccoloNamek 19:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, especially the second one. I just love the colour of these flowers, I should get some for my own garden. Raven4x4x 10:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support second one. Impressive. Glaurung 07:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support Second version only. I totallay agree with Piccolo in that the focus on the picture draws the eye towards the center. --Fir0002 07:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - because the forward parts of the flower are slightly blurrred - Adrian Pingstone 08:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral to first (out of focus bit not that bad, and the picture is ok), whereas oppose to second (out of focus bit in your face, uncomfortable crop). Enochlau 11:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. The tight crop is artistic and appealing. Rhobite 22:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, first picture only. The second picture does not show the entire flower and is too detailed, regardless of its artistic merit.Jeeb 04:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:BlueMorningGloryClose.jpg Raven4x4x 00:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was this ever a difficult image to get, especially considering my camera's less than steller autofocus ability in super macro mode. But I was determined. I set the shutter speed as high as it would go and put the camera into high speed shutter mode... and this is what I got. This picture appears in the article Flower-fly. It is the only picture of a non-bee-mimic flower fly, and the only picture of one in flight. If I only had access to a higher shutter speed, then the wings wouldn't have been blurred! Anyway, this bug-in-flight shot is a pretty good picture of a Flower-Fly, getting ready to feed from a flower. It's well-exposed, clear, and illustrates the subject very well.

• Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 00:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• You say 'well exposed', but the insect itself is over a rather dark background it places, it makes it hard to see properly. Other than that it's a very nice picture. Raven4x4x 09:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks fine on my monitor, although if enough people complain I suppose I could dodge it a little. The shot was exposed for the insect and the flower, and was taken facing directly into the woods, hence the darker background.PiccoloNamek 10:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Raven4x4x, it is a little dark on my 19 inch CRT monitor, I'd welcome a slightly lighter version - Adrian Pingstone 08:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not seeing it people. I'm afraid if I "fix" the image for people who think it's too dark, then it will appear far too light for people with properly calibrated monitors. I've spoken to several of my friends on AIM, and it doesn't appear dark to them. Maybe you should try this: [1]. But, because I'm such a nice guy, here is a version where I dodged the bug. There's nothing I can (or will) do for the background.

• Thanks for your response to my and Raven4x4x's comments. Don't worry, I still intend to Support the original or the lightened pic, I love both. The viewers impression of dark and light is not only a matter of calibration but of preference. Maybe I prefer lighter pics. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 19:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm. Both images look exactly identical to me on my laptop's LCD... Enochlau 23:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either, seeing as I can't tell the difference between the two. Stunning shot. Enochlau 11:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oy, I can't win can I? I can tell the difference even in the thumbnails. =/PiccoloNamek 01:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Well I can certainly tell the difference, and I do like the lighter one a lot. I suppose this goes to show that the difference between an image being too light, too dark or just right is in the computer you view it on, or person themselves, as much as it is in the image. Raven4x4x 01:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Orignal version. Lightened version looks somewhat washed out on my laptop, and fairly washed out on the calibrated monitor here. --Gmaxwell 05:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both. Raven4x4x 10:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both; very slightly prefering the original. Unschool 04:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support Second version. Lighter looks better on my LCD. I can appreciate the difficulty of such as shot (I took something similar - Image:Bee mid air.jpg) --Fir0002 07:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both. A great image - Adrian Pingstone 08:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great work! The Singing Badger 16:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I know I'm pretty late getting involved in this one but I've just added a second edit that I think is an improvement on both. I've lifted the shadows slightly (this is a subjective improvement). I did find that it looked as though the background was too dark and the bug disappeared into the shadows a little. You may disagree with me. :) Also, I ran the image through NeatImage to remove the noise (which was in the original, but accentuated when the shadows were lifted. This has made it look a lot smoother. Again, your tastes may vary. Some like the rough, raw look. And finally I gave it a very minor sharpening, as the original already seemed sharpened slightly. Personally I think this is the best of the three but feel free to disagree. Comments? Diliff 13:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've compared the second and third pic and think the change in brightness and sharpness is minor. So my vote remains as above - Adrian Pingstone 13:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The change was intended to be minor and subtle. However, the change that you didn't comment on was the noise reduction. My edit does not have nearly as much background noise. Anyway, I don't have a problem with any of them. I just thought mine was an improvement.Diliff 04:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is certainly an improvement but subtle like you say. Thanks for the effort you put in to change and upload the pic, I didn't intend to "put down" your changes - Adrian Pingstone 12:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:FlyingBugPollinating-Oct15-lighter-cleaner.jpg Raven4x4x 04:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Thumbnail size increased due to image's wide aspect ratio.)

A self-nomination. I created the final image by taking and combining three separate images. Taken just before the game on 9 October 2005 (see caption). Currently appears in Aussie Stadium, A-League and Sport in Australia.

• Nominate and support. - Chuq 05:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks good to me. The "Bay 35" sign is a little distracting, but it is a part of the Aussie Stadium. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-22 06:33
• I wonder whether people are going to complain about the fisheye lens ;) Enochlau 06:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the distortion is disturbing. However, on this picture, it isn't due to a fisheye lens, but to the combining of the 3 images. Globally the result is the same (distortion). Unfortunately the trick I normally use to fix fisheyed images does not work well on this picture (too large HFOV). I won't vote on this one ;-) Glaurung 07:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • I will! =) Seriously, I love the effect of the lens. Photography by nature tends to be rather "flat" when compared with 3-D reality, but the panorama gives an illusion of three dimensions. Support --Kerowyn 05:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Interesting and impressive, but a pity about that "35". Enochlau 07:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I'm a bit partial to panoramas and this is pretty good. Its a shame about the stitching issues in the crowd, but that is virtually impossible to avoid. Other than that, I can't see any stitching artifacts - Looks fine to me. Very clear view of the stadium. I don't think that the 35 is overly distracting and as mentioned previously, it is just part of the stadium. Diliff 12:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, it fits the articles well, but I just don't find it particularly interesting. It looks like any other sports stadium. Too much concrete and crowd, and not enough field. And the players aren't even playing. Stephen Turner 15:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose, mainly because it seems a bad choice for a pic to show what a stadium is. Halibutt 23:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it was ever intended to show what A stadium is - it was intended to show what that particular stadium is, or more appropriately, what the view is from that particular angle, and I think in that sense, it does a pretty good job. Diliff 04:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Halibutt does have a point though. We can't very well have featured pictures of every stadium out there. Our general unwritten policy has been that the featured picture candidate should not be of a topic for which we already have a featured picture. That is why we don't accept fractals or nebulas too easily anymore; they'd have to be pretty stunning to get past the fact that we already have such images as featured. So, when you pick an image, you can easily think of it in terms of "this will represent the topic of _____" (in this case, a stadium). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 13:50
    • Note: I'm the photographer/submitter so I may be biased here! Have you looked at the Stadium article? (Admittedly, I hadn't until I read these comments) There are few pictures there, but none of them are featured, and none of them show as much of the inside of a moderm stadium as this image does. When I took the pictures I only intended it to be an illustration for the Aussie Stadium aticle, but now that I have looked at the Stadium article I'm contemplating putting it there as well. I'd also like to clarify what Halibutt means by "seems a bad choice for a pic to show what a stadium is" - in what way? Doesn't it look enough like a stadium? -- Chuq 01:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would have to agree with Chuq - compared with the other pictures in Stadium, this one looks quite exceptional. However, it might not be appropriate as an illustration of what a stadium looks like because: a) it's distorted b) doesn't quite show the structure much (from an architectural point of view, you're missing a lot of the roof supports etc) c) it's not quite full (although few of the other ones at Stadium are either...). And in response to Brian, what pictures of stadiums do we currently have? A quick search reveals none - so the floodgate argument doesn't really apply yet like it does to fractals. Enochlau 11:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually in defense of the panorama, I have to say that it isn't really distorted at all. This is actually pretty much what it would look like if our eyes had such a wide field of view. The distance between the ends of the pitch and the centre where the photographer was sitting is quite large, and it is pure physics that dictates that it should look the way it does. If the viewer was much further way (which is in reality impossible) looking THROUGH the seating of the stadium, then yes, you would avoid most of the 'distortion', but from the angle of view that is realistic, the way it looks is unavaoidable, panorama or not. Diliff 03:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The image is too busy and just isn't that spectacular. Also, the stadium looks slightly tilted (Right higher than left) --Ironchef8000 02:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great image. Shows the entire field and parts of the crowd at near and far distances, plus the effect of the sun on the field is striking and it is not over/under exposed. Really like the wide angle. Jeeb 05:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 11:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taken in the Palmyra Atoll by the USCG. Very nice colors.

Wasn't previously listed. Re-added 14:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC). ed g2s • talk

• Nominate and support. - AllyUnion (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fluffy :) And a very nice picture as well. Raven4x4x 05:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. What a cute little birdy! —DO'Иeil 08:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice. Mstroeck 10:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support, it's stunning. Halibutt 11:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support Focus is a little out IMO (more focused on the branch end I think), but still a good shot. --Fir0002 12:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Rhobite 01:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Enochlau 07:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice to see some of our wonders. -- Thorpe ^talk 10:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - sorry, but it's just a little off-focus - Adrian Pingstone 15:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a good wikipic Brookie: A collector of little round things 19:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Hehe... you said booby. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sula sula nesting in Heliotropium foertherianum.jpg Raven4x4x 11:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this is my first nomination here and I hope I don't mess up things. I really like this picture. :)

• Nominate and support. - Alensha 21:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Good picture but I wish the bottom weren't cropped - it seems to be cutting something off. Rhobite 22:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I like it. Halibutt 11:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't like the old style building illuminated with harsh electric lights. Also the bottom seems cut off. Enochlau 08:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I like the photo but as far as a featured picture goes, its just a bit too obscure and doesn't really demonstrate the architecture or its setting very well. It looks like the sort of building best photographed from further away (if possible) and during the day. Diliff 12:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. What is this picture about? The object in the foreground, or the church? Also, the artificial lighting doesn't really add anything. I would probably support this if it was taken from an other angle and during day-time. Mstroeck 12:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This does not add significantly to the Veszprém article. It is not even on the page! --Dschwen 13:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not on the page because the article is still too short and there's no place for further images. Alensha 14:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's no excuse. Featured pictures need an article. If it's not in the article, exchange one of the current pictures for it, or submit this to the commons and vote on it there. Enochlau 20:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • done & thanks for pointing this out, I'm still a newbie to this :) Alensha 00:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's an easy way to add a pic to an article that has no room. Just start a gallery at the bottom of the article. Get the gallery code from the Hot air balloon article - Adrian Pingstone 21:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. However, the light in nthe middle-left is a little distracting. Could something be done about that? - JDH Owens ^{talk | Esperanza} 11:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good photo of popcorn, and have others: Image:Popcorn03.jpg, Image:Popcorn04.jpg, for choice.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, sharp and well-composed. I like Image:Popcorn03.jpg better but I would support 02 also. Rhobite 22:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- TomStar81 05:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral on this one. I prefer Image:Popcorn03.jpg actually - it seems a little sharper, and I feel more comfortable with images that aren't so zoomed in/closely cropped. Enochlau 07:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral too. Out of those three, I like Image:Popcorn03.jpg the most. The featured photo seems a bit underexposed in the foreground and being so close doesn't really add anything to the shot. Diliff 12:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I purposely added those options so that if people liked them better they could vote in favor of it. --Fir0002 22:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose - does nothing for me. Actually, not accurate: made me want to eat popcorn. Which is annoying as I have no easy way of procuring any right now. But I don't see it fitting as a featured picture. --bodnotbod 10:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Image:Popcorn03.jpg. It's unusual and that is why I like it. It looks like one of those impossable jigsaw puzzles that I see in games stores. Raven4x4x 03:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose. A mundane topic and mediocre photos.Jeeb 03:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make an effort to provide constructive criticism, or at a minimum, refrain from insulting other people's work without giving any reason. Rhobite 03:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I'll retract the "mediocre"; the pictures are OK, but they are of a completely un-noteworthy topic and do not contribute substantively to the article. Jeeb 04:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, for sadly I don't feel this adds anything to my current ideas about popcorn. The structure and focus aren't striking either. A nice picture, but I don't feel this is featured picture material. Arndisdunja 21:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melbourne war memorial03-02.jpg

Nice photo of the Shrine. Other versions: Image:melbourne_war_memorial02.jpg, Image:pillars_at_front_of_war_memorial.jpg

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It looks a little dark I think. Enochlau 11:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It's rather dark and you have dust on your sensor! Lots of it. Better clean it off. In the meantime, I think I will do some healing. Edit: Man, that picture was livid with dust spots! I don't want to sound negative, but I think you might want to have your camera's sensor cleaned off, or at least blow on it with some compressed air. Anyway, I think I got most of them. How's this?

Thanks for your work, but I think the photo has lost too much of the warm hues of sundown. The sensor itself won't have dust on it as there is filter in front of it; even so, I don't know about the photo being livid with dust! But dust is a problem I have noticed with the 20D, whenever you use high shutter speeds it tends to dislodge tiny dust specks. And of course dust for some reason perfers to settle on a nice clean lens face than on anything else! Its quite a common problem with DSLR's. Anyway I have cleaned it since that photo was taken (which was about 1/2 a year ago), but I prefer not to fiddle down if possible (much rather use the clone tool in Photoshop).

I can upload the orignal file if you really want a crack at adjusting that - but I prefer not to upload the originals as it takes forever - and I like to keep the full size my own.

• Fir002 - Your sensor does indeed have a lot of dust on it. You're right though, there is a filter a couple of mm above the actually CMOS itself, and the filter has dust on it. The reason why you see it in higher shutter speeds is not a function of the shutter speed itself, but rather the fact that in program mode when photographing a brightly lit subject, which I am assuming you've used, it will generally use a balance of stopped down aperture and slower shutter speed. It is the stopped down aperture that increases the visibility of the dust on the sensor. When light passes through a a tight aperture, it hits the sensor at a much 'straighter' angle (because the light coming in at an angle is blocked by the aperture), and the specks of dust create a more visible shadow. When light passes through a wide open aperture, there is a greater chance of it coming in at an angle, and thereby hitting the sensor 'around' the speck of dust. Thats the basic explanation for it, anyway. I recommend you investigate cleaning solutions for the camera. It isn't essential but you will minimise the amount of dust that accumulates on the sensor if you clean occasionally. The longer you have the camera, the more dust you'll get. Its very unlikely to go away by itself. :) Diliff 02:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed comments Diliff, but I was aware of the issues you raised there. I read this website (which at the time of writing this comment seems to be down - hence the link to a google cached version) and it does a good job explaining the different options for cleaning the sensor (if you are using compressed air you'd want to be pretty carefull). I have obviously cleaned the sensor a few times, but as previously mentioned due to the difficulty and risk I do not clean often. Thanks again and sorry if I sound a bit tense. --Fir0002 09:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I misunderstood and thought you had not yet tried to clean it. But I don't think high shutter speeds will 'dislodge' dust. It just accumulates over time. Nothing more to it really. ;) Diliff 15:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The shadow is too distracting. New edit has visible quantization and artifacts. Also a minor nitpick, there's a faint USM halo around the tower. Rhobite 22:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps he could upload a less harshly compressed version? Also, you shouldn't vote support or oppose until the end of the second day when the bot moves the nomination into the voting section.
  • A less compressed version would be a step up, but I'm not sure that the shadow can be fixed. Please do not remove my vote again; I promise that I will change it myself if I feel the picture achieves featured quality in the future. Rhobite 23:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rhobite, the reason that your vote was removed is that you are not supposed to vote in the first two days of the nomination, only to comment. I do prefer the lighting of the edited version, but there are a lot of artifacts on the sky. Raven4x4x 05:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have uploaded another version --Fir0002 12:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a lot better. Raven4x4x 12:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Although its a high resolution image and quite sharp (albeit a little too sharp, I can see haloes), I just don't like the overall composition that much. It has the look of a tourist snapshot and although you can basically see what the shrine looks like, it isn't really something I would consider exceptional in any way. This applies to all versions I think. :) Adjusting levels/saturation can make it look 'prettier' but not a better photo. Diliff 02:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Regardless of the touching up, I would have to agree with Diliff and say that composition-wise, the photo lacks a little umph. It shows the shrine ok, but there's nothing special about it. Enochlau 07:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - don't like these Brookie: A collector of little round things 18:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great colors IMO.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The contrast between the light and dark sides is somewhat disconcerting, and it seems oddly cropped, but otherwise a nice photo.PiccoloNamek 17:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't mind the contrast but maybe there's a better way to crop this. Rhobite 22:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Not one of your better flower pics sorry. Enochlau 07:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose when you try to examine the flower that's in focus the busyness of the surrounding ones distracts you. --bodnotbod 10:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per bodnotbod. Thelb⁴ 07:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thought this picture was striking; it's a picture of a Flemish harpsichord with detailed decorations, and the blue background adds to it nicely. It's used in both harpsichord and the History of music articles, and was taken by fr:Utilisateur:Ratigan (uploaded by Gérard to en). A lower resolution version (that's the one actually linked to in articles) with description can be found at Image:Flemish harpsichord small.png.

• Nominate and support. - Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 00:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Several comments. Firstly, I don't see any need for a separate smaller version to go in articles, as the image can be shunk down to any size in the articles. Secondly, I think jpeg is the prefered file format for photos, not png. Thirdly, this is a very nice picture of a beautiful instrument. I don't remember any musical instruments being featured pictures before.

Raven4x4x 00:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well the lower resolution version would be useful if it were JPG since the png is going to be large shrunken down. My own comment is that the resolution is a rather low, rather than a PNG of a low res image, could we not get a higher resolution JPG? ... Though I might be somewhat biased in my thoughts on how large instrument photos should be... --Gmaxwell 07:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: fr:Utilisateur:Ratigan and Gérard are the same person. I could upload a larger image, if so wished. Gérard 09:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, didn't realize that Gérard and Ratigan were the same user! I'm not sure why the smaller version is linked to in the article, but I've asked Gérard. Judging from a previous post, I think he had some reason to use the smaller picture. I've also requested Gérard to upload a larger image if he has one so that's it's the same size as the life-size bassoon (:-), yes, I know it's not really life-sized...) Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for a higher resolution JPEG copy of this image. As a PNG file, it is not particularly suitable but it is an excellent photo and very worthy. Diliff 04:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. The brick wall and the tiles detract from the elegance of the harpsicord. Also, is the chair a little fuzzy? Enochlau 07:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Gérard 15:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

( + ) Support. Halibutt 23:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - pic is sloping badly, just have a look at the harpsichord's legs - Adrian Pingstone 15:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Too small. Very ugly wallpaper and bench cover are highly distracting.--Deglr6328 03:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could ask Gérard to upload a larger image if you want. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 15:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Neutrality^talk 20:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I like this image. It is clear and colorful. --Ironchef8000 16:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted but this was very close. A larger version would probably pass. Raven4x4x 04:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The instrument shows a mixture of 16th-17th c. Flemish features (the paper decorations) and 17th-18th c. French ones (the keyboard with black rather than white naturals). Something typically Flemish would be preferable. this is cool

I really like the warm colors in this photo.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, pictures of sheep are inherently amusing, this one exceptionally so. The flaws that others see in the picture are too subtle for me to see. The Singing Badger 22:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Did you apply a gaussian blur to certain parts of this photo? The bottom part of the beach looks oddly foggy. I like how the middle sheep is looking directly at the camera.PiccoloNamek 14:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the sheep looking at the camera is the key element of this photo but unfortunately it is overexposed. Rhobite 22:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it's over-exposed. Just well lit. Raven4x4x 06:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Technically speaking, the highlight is, in fact, blown. ;)PiccoloNamek 08:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't think it's overexposed (it's just the great Aussie sun); content-wise, it's very representative of rural areas. Enochlau 07:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like this a lot. Sometimes things are bright in real life. Raven4x4x 09:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment (please note I am not one of the photographic experts in this process, so it may be unwise to act on my pronouncements!) I think I'd enjoy it more if it were cropped differently. I find the top half of the picture dull, so maybe some of that could be lost, and perhaps some of the right side too, so that the star sheep and his immediate companions are more prominent. Anyone agree? --bodnotbod 11:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm quite convinced that this photo is cropped to the best effect in the current version because to me that burnt dry grass on top is not only a great "aussie" type grass, but it contrast so sharply with the green grass the sheep are eating in the foreground (which happens to be next to a road). As to the RHS sheep, I kind of like it. --Fir0002 09:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, its brilliant. Both the colours, the composition and the topic seem perfectly chosen for a wikipedia pic. Halibutt 23:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hal, there is no {{Support}} template, please don't try to use it again.PiccoloNamek 02:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support.PiccoloNamek 02:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I always like pictures of sheep but these are particularly amusing. I also, as above, like the contrast between the dry grass and the "alive" grass. --Celestianpower ^háblame 00:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:sheep_eating_grass_edit02.jpg Raven4x4x 07:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for nominating is simple: it's gorgeous. It's an entirely natural photograph, not an artificial montage. The black band on Saturn is the shadow cast by its rings. The picture as a whole gives a great indication of the relationships between Saturn, its rings and its moons.

Created by NASA.

• Nominate and support. - The Singing Badger 16:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, breathtaking image. Rhobite 22:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. indeed, awesome. Halibutt 11:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- TomStar81 05:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. It shows some interesting features, but I just find it a little uninspiring. Enochlau 07:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-26 22:27
• ( + ) Support Reality can be stunning sometimes... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support Out of this world! :-) A tad too compressed though (51KB) --Fir0002 09:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a tif on the source page if you want to recompress it yourself. I don't see any glaring artifacts, however. (Support.) —Cryptic (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea. I went ahead and recompressed it at a better level from the TIFF. It looks slightly better now. Rhobite 03:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Wow! RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Gotta love HQ space photos... :D Staxringold 21:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, seems artificial, but isn't, and that makes it beautiful. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Rogerd 03:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That is a really nice picture. --Ironchef8000 23:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Dione 2005 Oct 11 (PIA07744).jpg Raven4x4x 07:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Age.JPG

Self-nomination. I took this portrait of my great-grandmother for the Ageing-article, and I think it works fairly well.

• Support self-nomination. - Mstroeck 07:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It seems a little flat. Perhaps an increase in contrast would help? I uploaded an edited version. Personally, I think it does a much better job of capturing the oldness of her. I also added a very slight metallic blue duotone effect.PiccoloNamek 18:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks PiccoloNamek, that's great! You are of course right, it could use some more contrast. Sorry for being such a lazy ass and letting other people do the post-processing. I'm fairly new to digital photography and am not really firm with all the tools yet. Mstroeck 18:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmmm. Well, I feel like I'm the scrooge of featured pictures at the moment, but I don't feel like this is outstanding. It has a lot of potential, but I just don't like the angle. It is just begging to be rotated a little so you can see the face from the front, or even from a three-quarter angle. I think as human beings we desire to look at someone in the eye, to observe and feel what they feel and I just don't have that connection with this photo. I would support a photo like this if the angle is better but I don't think I would as it is. Sorry, just my opinion! Diliff 12:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to apologize. I don't want to get too philosophical here, but: "the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article." I specifically didn't want any of the pathos that often comes with pictures of old people, but something that can effectively visualize the effects of ageing in an encyclopedic article. This picture is not about a person, it's about a concept. After all, it's supposed to be used in articles, not in a photo competition. But that's just my opinion and of course open to debate. (By the way, I actually have pictures taken at other angles, but I wouldn't consider them worth adding here. The incredible way age can change a human face is not nearly as evident from the front.) Mstroeck 12:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't say that is necessarily true. It depends on the photograph. Raven4x4x 13:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. I probably didn't add enough emphasis on that point, but I also think in addition to it not being a photo that grabs me visually, that you would also have a better view of the effects of aging from the front or three-quarter angle view. And to elaborate on what I was saying originally, when I mentioned that I think humans seek eye contact, I was alluding to the fact that we would usually see the effects of aging from that angle too and it would be more relevent.. You're right though - for an image that seeks to show the effects of aging from that particular angle, it does do that, but whether it is as relevent (for reasons mentioned above) as it could be is debatable. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike the image. I just think the composition could be improved. Diliff 14:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I don't like the total side-on view, I'd want to see a little more of her face - Adrian Pingstone 21:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per my previous comments. Just not featured picture material to me. Diliff 08:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As above: showed on side of face, not exceptional, doesn't really show enough of the aging effects. Enochlau 10:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral There are some good elements with this photo, but it isn't quite worthy. --Fir0002 09:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. See above comments. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An informative diagram on the steps it takes to create a botnet; used in the Botnet article; created by User:Fubar Obfusco.

• Nominate and support. - Bash 01:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - I find the faces a little... different to the style I would ideally expect to see in Wikipedia. But that's hard to define, hence the weak. --bodnotbod 10:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the faces and the fact that it looks quite different are the reasons that made me put this up for FPC. --Bash 03:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Although it certainly is different as outlined above, and I agree that it's informative, I think that the flat 2D graphics and the colour scheme put together make for one uninspiring diagram. It's ok, but not exceptional. Enochlau 10:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Changed the colours around a bit. See if you like the 2nd one better. --Bash 18:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose It's interesting, but the picture would need to be bigger than the space limitations for POTD. It doesn't have much immediate effect. --Kerowyn 05:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose After reading the description at the bottom I got what you were showing, but a diagram really should contain all the data in itself and not require explanation (except intricate things like a motherboard). Also not too keen on the icons used to show spammer etc. --Fir0002 09:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This really made me laugh and I think we need to encourage creative diagrams like that. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A little flat and not very...can't think of the right word...professional looking? --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is a clear diagram, however I do not believe that it is a very high quality image. I dont think that this belongs on wikipedia featured pics, but it might be useful for an article. --Ironchef8000 02:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If it was recreated with a more modern graphic design then I would probably support it. It has potential. Diliff 03:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Passalidae. This is studio quality work here. ;)

• Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 03:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Pleasant to look at, but too much contrast, more ambient light could have helped. The shadow under the bug is too dark, which makes it hard to see the contours. Also I cannot make out any details on its head. Is that bug looking away from the camera? --Dschwen 17:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Well see, the problem was that the bug's shell absorbed all of the incident light that fell on it! I had a large flourescent light only inches away from him when I took the picture, and I dodged the photo in photoshop. I suppose I could try again.PiccoloNamek 18:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could try using a bounce card to direct some light under the bug. That would help make it stand out from the shadow. --Dschwen 18:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC). Fixed version is already much better! --Dschwen 18:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great picture. Personally I'd go for more DOF and keep the whole bug in focus but that's subjective. Rhobite 01:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - fine picture - Adrian Pingstone 21:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Clear and detailed, not that I really want to look at the details... Enochlau 10:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Pretty cool. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - a little crop from top and bottom? Too much of white space. Renata3 04:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second that. Cropping would also get rid of the vignetting, especially in the top corners. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Neutrality^talk 20:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Beetle-Bessbug.jpg Raven4x4x 07:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This image appears in the article Beaded Lizard and you won't find a more detailed picture of one anywhere. Which is why I'm nominating it.

• Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 02:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• That picture isn't in an article, but a copy of it is. What's up with that? Why do we need both? Broken S 05:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was a total accident that I meant to fix, but left undone in tiredness. The copy had an improper name, so I uploaded a new copy. The old copy will needs to be replaced and deleted, and I'm doing that right now.PiccoloNamek 08:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No contrast in the snout region (too dark). There is not even half a lizzard on this picture. The way it is dodged into the sand on this picture gives the the reader no impression for the figure of this critter. I would have a very hard time recognizing one in real life from this picture. --Dschwen 17:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The snout looks fine to me. Perhaps your monitor is too dark. I had the exact same problem with the Flower Fly nomination. Some people thought it was too light, others too dark, and some liked it the way it was. Anyway, as for the half a lizard comment, the lizard itself is so distinctive looking, it would be very difficult indeed to mistake it for anything else, even if the picture was nothing but a head. The only other lizard that looks remotely like this one is the Gila Monster, which has a very different looking face.PiccoloNamek 17:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Picolo - I agree with Dschwen that the snout was too dark.. It is difficult to see the detail. Unfortunately though, that is the problem with using a computer to display photos - nobody sees things exactly the same the way you do. I do have a pretty well calibrated monitor though, and it looks dark to me. The detail is there in the shadows but isn't very visible (some parts of the snout were only 3-6 steps from total black). I've created an edited copy that has the shadows brought out a little, revealing more detail that was difficult to see previously. The rest of the image is untouched. Hope you don't mind. I feel like I'm the edit fairy now with all the fixes I've made. :) Sorry! Diliff 09:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No problem. I think it does look better. Nothing wrong with a little editing, I've done my fair share here as well. :)PiccoloNamek 01:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support whichever version. Very detailed and nice picture. Raven4x4x 23:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any version. Very impressive. Incidentally, why would it matter we see only half a lizard, the closeup on his head is very valuable for recognition. - Adrian Pingstone 21:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Unique. Enochlau 10:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either version. —DO'Иeil 07:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support Original only. Good setting. --Fir0002 09:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not intending to start anything Fir, but what objections do you have towards the edit? As I said in my orignal comments regarding the original, parts of the snout are only 3-6 steps from total black and that is not something that is likely to be seen with the naked eye (the naked eye has far more dynamic range than a camera has), so while I'm not saying that my edit is definitively better, I'm curious why you see it as being the better of the two. Do you think that a snout that is almost perceptibly black in parts is realistic and the more accurate for the article? Diliff 15:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much - I think the shadow/highlight (I'm assuming this is what you used) doesn't really work. It's all very well to get more detail - but to me the black snout looks more realistic - especially when you compare them side by side.--Fir0002 10:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. My preference is obviously for the edit :) as I just think the snout is too dark in the original. Otherwise excellent photo. Diliff 15:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Just lacking something...I dont know. Maybe I'd like it if it were the whole lizard. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:BeadedLizard-AHPExotics.jpg I'll go with the original as no-one has any major problems with it, while there is one definate oppose for the edit. Raven4x4x 08:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This image isn't one of wikipedia's most visually stunning images; but it adds significantly to the Conway's Game of Life article. Visualizing Conway's rules in action is something text simply cannot do. Also it is, in it's own way, very interesting to look at. This image was created by User:Kieff and is released under the GFDL.

• Nominate and support. - --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination. — ceejayoz ^talk 00:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a little hesitant, solely because it's so tiny when you click on the image for more information. Compare Image:GameOfLife.GIF. —Cryptic (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, it really should be bigger; I can barely see it at its proper size. It could also use some explanation in the image page as to what is actually happening. Raven4x4x 05:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geez, don't let size be an issue. I expanded it 500%. I just thought that uploading a small, 1x1 version would let us expand it (using thumb|__px) at will. About a description, I think that's a great idea. ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 08:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that Featured Pictures were considered in the context of the page they are in. In that page it was already bigger as explained above. Regardless, it has been resized now. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Bevo 10:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - interesting and a nice change to have an animation. --bodnotbod 10:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. An excellent illustration of the subject. Stephen Turner 15:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —Cryptic (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, a glider gun is a notable phenomenon. — JIP | Talk 07:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Enochlau 10:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. And to think I used to play this game with pennies! Denni☯ 00:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You had pennies! We had to use pinto beans! <g> - Bevo 09:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great work! - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm still a little confused and I don't think that article is descriptive enough...but it still illustrates the subject pretty darn well. I agree that this just can't be looked at in any other way than a simple animation like this. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - absolutely brilliant. --tyomitch 10:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not the most interesting visualization. — David Remahl 11:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Gospers glider gun.gif Raven4x4x 11:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is a particularly bold and vibrant one. It is eye-catching, and encourages the viewer to read the attached article (Temple of Vesta). It is also very clear and striking, and perfectly illustrates what remains of the temple. It was created by me, Jdhowens90.

• Nominate and support. - JDH Owens ^{talk | Esperanza} 14:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose Back lit photo - doesn't work. --Fir0002 09:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To my mind, the bright sunlight from behind enhances this picture, providing sharp contrast, and making the focus stand out like a silhouette. However, the scene is also well enough lit from the front that no detail is lost from the bright light behind the remains. JDH Owens ^{talk | Esperanza} 11:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completely agree with you there JD. I don't have a problem with the back lighting, and it can enhance the photo by drawing your eye to the foreground. What I do find distracting, though, is the distortion that a really wide-angle portrait-framed shot gets when looking at something architectural like that. Unfortunately it can't be easily corrected, short of re-framing it from further back, anyway. Diliff 15:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your point about the foreground being detailed (normally, backlighting makes the subject go dark), although since it doesn't really look like a silhouette either with the focus completely dark, doesn't the end effect mean that it just looks like a picture with a washed out sky? Enochlau 11:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I would have to agree with Fir0002. Also, the framing is a bit odd. Enochlau 10:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unfortunately, this framing is the result of the dynamic angle. It's physically impossible to frame it as well as I might have liked yet still capture the ruins in an interesting and unique way. JDH Owens ^{talk | Esperanza} 11:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Has potential but as mentioned above, the framing and angle makes it interesting but not as encyclopedic and clear as it could be. Diliff 15:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for reasons above. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Odd perspective, bad lighting. We basically just see a collumn with the bottom cut off. What makes this thing stand out as a noteworthy temple? The picture doesn't tell me. --Dschwen 16:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - on the full size image the top of the temple has strange fringing where it meets the sky as if the temple has been added to the background afterwards. I doubt it has been, but it is distracting and unsightly nonetheless. --bodnotbod 16:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It looks like chromatic aberration to me. Most lenses exhibit that in areas of great contrast. I don't really think that it is that distracting or ugly. I've seen a lot worse. Diliff 21:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My first self nomination. ;) A photo I took on a lazy spring sunday afternoon. Its very high quality (originally 12 megapixels) image showing quite clearly the Melbourne skyline, the Yarra River, a charter passenger boat and one of many rowing crews that regularly use the waterway as recreation.

• Nominate and support. - Diliff 04:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - I know this gets said a lot and sometimes it's an illusion, but I think the buildings are off vertical, leaning to the left. Does it need to be rotated clockwise slightly? I confess I haven;t done a guideline check in a graphics program which is the sure way to test. --bodnotbod 10:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, well I hate to tell you, but its about as straight as it could possibly be. I just measured, and there is about 2-3 pixels of shift from the bottom of the largest building to the top. The easiest way to check is simply to view it full sized and scroll it across until the edge of the building is a couple of pixels from the edge of the screen. You'l see any lean quite clearly. In this case I honestly don't think it needs any rotation at all. Diliff 12:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a fusspot about leaning buildings, but this pic is vertical enough for me - Adrian Pingstone 17:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops! Well, I did say it might be an illusion. Looks like it's time to take my head in for its annual recalibration. --bodnotbod 17:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, brilliant and clear. Raven4x4x 02:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose I hope you don't take offence and think I'm trying to get my own back, but to quote yourself, it has the look of a tourist snapshot, and doesn't seem too expcetional to me. Clear, (Canon 5D!) and does it's job as far as illustrating the yarra, but that's about as far as it goes IMO. --Fir0002 09:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hehe, no offense taken, but composition-wise, can you offer a suggestion as for how it could be improved or point me to a photo that better displays the river in relation to the city? I guess in the end, judging a photo is extremely subjective. I hate to say it, but photography here tends to be sensationalised - if it doesn't shock or amaze, it isn't considered worthy. Can I ask, though, why have you nominated so many photos similar to this if you didn't think this one was worthy? :) Just wondering. Diliff 14:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Composition wise (and I know this is obviously asking a lot) maybe a shot from the top of one of the towers boardering the yarra would like pretty good. The night shots use took already work well - but to me broad daylight is too ordinary. More dramatic lighting I guess is the gist of what I'm saying. Something like this looks pretty good. As to your other question, well that's a pretty hard question to answer really. I guess you could say it's personal taste (I've seen some photos which I thought pathetic gain amazing admiration by others) - and I think it's pretty hard for the photographer not to be biased towards their photo. I mean it's for a layman to appreciate the trouble you go to get a photo - the fact you go out of your way and find time to visit somewhere for no other reason but to get a photo for wiki - it doesn't get counted by the general public. They want something that is visually stimulating. But I guess the real reason is that I think it is far better for a photo to be nominated and utterly rejected than to have it sitting around never being recognised. --Fir0002 10:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can understand your point, but are you submitting photos simply for recognition? :) I guess we all have a slightly vain side and the desire for someone to actually see the effort we've put in - you're right. I'm mainly just sticking them on wikipedia to do my bit to help out though. Some of them are a bit borderline professional and I'm a little wistful leaving them online with such a generous licence, but for the time being its just a hobby anyhow. Thanks for the reply. Diliff 14:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. It's so clear and high res! But it's a little ordinary, so overall, I'm not swayed either side... Enochlau 10:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. 5D... lucky. The picture is sharp and it does a great job of illustrating the river and the city. What more do you want from a featured pic? Rhobite 16:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree fully with Fir & Enochlau. Its a pretty picture, but quite ordinary. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for discussion. With no disrespect to Piccolo intended at all, and I'm really not even attempting to blow my own trumpet here, but why is it that landscapes seem to be more easily dismissed as 'ordinary' when a picture of a bug against a white background is considered great? I'm not saying the bug is not a good photo - it is - but given the same criteria, its just interesting that a (in my opinion anyway..!) well composed, exposed and illustrative landscape photo is considered ordinary. :) Diliff 03:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've all seen rivers, trees and highrises before. In their usual context everyday things do not seem special. But when you take them out of this context and allow for a more focussed closer look they seem spectacular (like the bug pic for example). --Dschwen 22:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I can accept that as a valid reason, but I do maintain a detailed, well composed and relevent photo of a boring subject could still be worthy. :) Just my opinion. I'll submit something a bit more 'out of the ordinary' next time. Diliff 14:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

High quality, detailed shot of the fort (which was suprisingly an empty article despite it's importance to the Battle of Groton Heights). Used in both Fort Griswold and New London.

• Nominate and support. - Staxringold 02:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't know... It is a pretty clear and detailed photo but there still has to be something outstanding about it to qualify as a featured photo, in my opinion. Diliff 03:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - On a strong assumption that you may not have done so, can I gently suggest you check out previous successful nominations for featured picture before making a nomination of your own. --bodnotbod 10:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Its a perfectly OK picture but I think it has little chance of success because, as a Featured Pic, I don't believe it will prove striking or interesting to most voters. It illustrates the article well, but a Featured Pic has to have something extra. Sorry! - Adrian Pingstone 08:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yeah, as with my comments above, it just isn't a striking picture in any way. Diliff 01:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - comment as above - Adrian Pingstone 08:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose Agree with Adrian. --Fir0002 09:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As above. Enochlau 10:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/ As above. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glacial lakes forming as glaciers rapidly recede from the Himalayas. This image clearly shows glacial retreat, and the trasition from ice to water along the way. Each of those long channels is a separate glacial valley. Used in: Geography of Bhutan, Glacier, Glacial motion, Glaciated valley, Himalayas, Global warming.

• Nominate and support. — BRIAN0918 • 01:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support Good image, but is there a higher res available? --Fir0002 09:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've uploaded a larger version. The problem with the original version is that it has vertical scan line that become very obvious if you try to sharpen the image at all. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 13:41
    • I just had a look at that original and to be honest I don't see a vertical scan line at all, and I gave it a once-over with unsharp mask... Looks good to me. But I don't think the higher res copy has much detail that the smaller one doesn't have. Diliff 15:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very cool. And it's high res enough for me! Enochlau 10:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High enough res for me too. Diliff 15:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I immediately thought no till I click and saw the larger image. Very cool. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very interesting and well taken. Raven4x4x 00:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The high res really captures the lakes. Very interesting! Uncke Herb 01:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Adds significantly to a number of pages. Just a great image. --Dschwen 22:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is one great image. Now I want a thousand times more pixels and a flyby of this region, it looks so interesting! — Sverdrup 01:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Glacial lakes, Bhutan.jpg Raven4x4x 06:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A nice, detailed 19th century painting illustrating an important event in the history of Poland. Uploaded to wiki by User:Emax.

• Nominate and support. - Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. We have enough cute and cuddly aminal pictures and nice nature landscapes. It is time to recognize art and history. I'm disappointed that I'm the only other vote. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Stop being disappointed, then :) I agree that we should try to aim for more variety in our FP's and this is a nice historic work of art. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. What Voldemort said... ;) Chelman 13:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Enochlau 12:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice picture, rich color, historically significant. --Ironchef8000 00:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Przysiega Kosciuszki.jpg Raven4x4x 09:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the duplex scaling in the interior of a piano, this striking image is used in our Piano and String instrument articles and was uploaded by Opus33.

• Nominate and support. - Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 15:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This image looks a little.. hot? There is also a small amount of motion blur. Anyway, I desaturated it a little, let's see how it works.PiccoloNamek 17:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The desatured version is much, much better. I'm going to support this one when voting begins. —DO'Иeil 05:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support Desaturated version (very good adjustment Piccolo) --Fir0002 09:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Why, thank you. I didn't actually desaturate the image, but rather, copied the bottom layer, desaturated that using a custom channel mixer layer (designed to mimic a green color filter), and then soft-lighted it over the bottom layer. But I digress. ;)Support that version.PiccoloNamek 10:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC) ;)[reply]
  • Just noticed the new version — looks great! Thanks, PiccoloNamek! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now that voting has opened. —DO'Иeil 10:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- TomStar81 00:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's horribly grainy and the bar running across the picture is out of focus towards the bottom left. Enochlau 03:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as Enochlau says: its too grainy. I know this seems fussy but we are talking Featured pic not "good" pic - Adrian Pingstone 11:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with all previous opposers. It has potential and could have been a very interesting photo but I think it suffers at the moment due to lack of clarity and to be honest, I can't really see how duplex scaling works from it. I think it would need a better explanation/caption. Diliff 01:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, either image, especially lower. It's eye catching; I agree it's still not clear how duplex scaling works from this, but it's much better than trying to imagine it without any picture at all, indeed impossible if you're not familiar with pianos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrbouldin (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 November 2005
• Support - though I like the saturated version more. Halibutt 16:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the unsaturated version a lot. --Ironchef8000 23:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Vanderdecken/Support first version - I like the warm effect of the lighting. Quite grainy, but at a lower res it would be great. Vanderdecken ^℘ζξ 12:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have to keep in mind that we are voting for the actual full-sized image, not the thumbnail previews. Enochlau 01:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with Enochlau. Mark¹ 02:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• support it's a good picture Borisblue 03:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like this picture. It's big, bright, and beautiful. Taken by SeanMack, who has given us may more beautiful images.

• Nominate and support. - Coffee 17:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is cool and interesting...it'll have my support once the discussion period ends. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• That is indeed a spectacular structure, but I have to nit-pick again. From the picture it was not immediately clear to me what it actually does. I'd love to see this same picture just with the wheel rotated a tiny bit. Like this the structure still is spectacular but the photo just isn't. --Dschwen 16:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• support - I do think the picture would normally be regarded as a little bland, but the structure is remarkable enough. It looks a good encyclopedic type of subject matter: yeah, you can pick all sorts of holes in the worth of that statement, but it won't change my vote ;oP --bodnotbod 16:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except that this should be comments only ;-) --Dschwen 20:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• support. Great sense of depth, good color.Jeeb 03:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Weird beyond weird. One of those images that makes you wonder what else is out there that you never knew existed. It looks like it belongs about 30 years in the future.--Deglr6328 04:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll support. Very interesting object and I think this picture shows it well. I admit one showing it in action may be preferable but I'll still support this one. Raven4x4x 08:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support I really like this photo - very unusual. Perhaps Image:Falkirk wheel.jpg might be a better photo to demonstrate the effect. But will support this photo. --Fir0002 09:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - great picture Brookie: A collector of little round things 18:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very nice image. sikander 19:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice picture of an impressive engineering landmark Glaurung 19:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Sweet. TomStar81 00:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Enochlau 03:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - absolutely beautiful - Adrian Pingstone 11:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - people have shown a bit of interest in the rotation of the wheel, so I went back and found other shots that I took that day and have added them to Falkirk_Wheel hopefully illustrating the mechanism adequately and improving the article. Thanks everyone for the comments. SeanMack 16:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Seeing it in action impacts the article, not the quality of this individual image; who's exceptional lines and perspective would be ruined by the wheel being in use. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A better and detailed caption would definitely add to the image, although you would imagine that anyone who stumbles across the article in which this photo sits would already have some idea. Diliff 01:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Rogerd 03:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. While this doesn't really show what it does, I think it's striking enough to be an FP. Its workings can be shown by a more detailed caption and other images. The image linked above showed more of its workings, but was a little too bland for FP status IMO. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It is an amazing picture. Carioca 19:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Unusual. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 22:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: gorgeous ... I'd prefer an action shot from the same perspective... but this will do!  ALKIVAR™ 22:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Vanderdecken/Support - Woo. A bit grainy, better at lower res. Vanderdecken ^℘ζξ 13:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:FalkirkWheelSide 2004 SeanMcClean.jpg Raven4x4x 07:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:PortoVenere Pasta.jpg

Self nomination - just wanted to see how this works. I'm a very amateur photographer, but I'd like to contribute some more photographs to wikiepdia in the future. This is just a picture I took of a pasta shop in Porto Venere, Italy. It appears in the pasta article. Any thoughts on possible ways to improve it? I have Photoshop CS and have been playing around, but I think the original's color hues and such look the best.

• Self-Nominate and support. - Tejastheory 22:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I like this piccture. The pasta is sharp, and the image is nice to look at. --Ironchef8000 23:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Nice picture, quality and DOF are pleasant to look at. Yet to provide a significant contibution to the Pasta article I'd expect the picture to show a variety of different pasta styles. --Dschwen 17:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree with Dschwen's comment about the contribution to an article. Enochlau 03:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - good quality pic but not enough varieties, and not striking enough (please don't ask me to define striking!) - Adrian Pingstone 10:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Hrmm I suppose you guys are right - doesn't exactly contribute enough to the article to really be a feature article. Should I remove this, or does that automatically get done?
  • Just wait until this process finishes. It lasts 14 days, then pruning is done "automatically" — Sverdrup 00:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is probably the best picture of pasta I've ever seen. Or at least I've never seen pasta strung like that. I like the picture a lot and would rather pick on it's technical weak spots than composition or actual information content. I don't agree about your point of wanting the "most complete picture" to illustrate an article. A picture doesn't need to be all and everything there is to a subject to be really good. Just look at our best chess picture (IMO); it does not show a chess board set up for a game. — Sverdrup 00:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Sverdrup here. Image:Plums.jpg only shows one variety of plum and it is featured, as is Image:Grapes.jpg. I don't see any difference between them and this image: if they contribute to their articles well enough to be featured, this one surely does as well. Just because it doesn't show 10 or more varieties of pasta doesn't mean it doesn't show what pasta is. Raven4x4x 07:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It just means it shouldn't be featured. The grape pic is quite a bad example by the way, weird colors, low resolution. A pic that should rather be unfeatured than serve as an argument. As far as the plum pic goes, it shows the fruit as it is growing. Hard to put more than one variety on the same tree. And pasta wasn't growing on trees last time I checked ;-) --Dschwen 16:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see anything wrong with the grape pic, but that's another topic. My point is that I say this contributes perfectly well to the article. However, I'm neutral overall because I don't like the composition an awful lot. Raven4x4x 00:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like it, thats all i can say 24.34.188.211 02:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, anonymous editors cannot vote. Please register. Enochlau 00:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice image and angle. Rmpfu89 13:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Added an edited version (warmed, brightened), but still don't think either version worthy. --Fir0002 10:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Self-nomination. Neutrality^talk 20:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's an interested photo, but it's off-center in an odd way, half of the bird's face (the main content) is shadowed almost completely out, and the photo is pretty small. If you have a larger version and touch-up these couple of things, I'd be happy to support it. Staxringold 21:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose regardless of whether a larger version is uploaded. The background ruins it: it's got a strip of concrete and what looks like a manhole on the right. Enochlau 03:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the reasons above, plus I don't think this is a reasonable angle for this kind of bird, it's like taking a picture of a sheet of paper edge on ;-). --Dschwen 07:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the pic is striking enough but the bird occupies far too little of the frame. I think it should have been in a portrait format - Adrian Pingstone 10:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't think it is particularly striking, nor is it big or detailed enough, and I agree with previous comments that it should have been in portrait format and not head-on. Or, ideally, a photo of the whole bird. It just doesn't contribute enough to the article on sandhill cranes. Diliff 01:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Poor composition. I would prefer an image showing the whole bird. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the picture, the angle and the background! 24.34.188.211 02:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, anonymous editors cannot vote. Please register. Enochlau 00:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the picture, the angle and the background! Rmpfu89 13:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose}} Too small, drab colors, none to spectacular background. --Fir0002 10:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this could help the Sea Turtle article. I took this photograph at Sea Life Park in Hawaii.

• Nominate and support. - Tokugawapants 03:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Here is a fixed version. I did an auto levels, capture sharpening, local contrast enhancement, slight saturation boost in LAB mode, and some output sharpening. I also downsampled it by 50%. I think I looks much better.PiccoloNamek 14:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really like the new version. Red is too red and blue is too blue. Is it really the way it should look? --Bernard Helmstetter 04:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, especially considering the actual saturation boost I did was very minimal. Most of the apparent increase in color vividity is from the levels adjustment and contrast enhancement. But it's no big deal of you don't like it, it can always be desaturated. I still think the clarity and sharpness of the second version are superior. Here is a copy of the same picture with the same adjustments, sans saturation changes. As you can see, the difference is very subtle indeed.PiccoloNamek 05:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, if you think this could help the Sea Turtle article put it in the article, not on this page. Features pic candidates have to add significantly to their article (see top of this page). --Dschwen 22:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I went a head and did just that. It's much better than the pic that was there anyway.PiccoloNamek 22:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'll change to weak Oppose, if the pic gets featured anyhow, please use the second touch-up (levels, but no saturation). I still don't think this pic is stunning. The turtle is in a shabby pool, and what's that thing in the bottom left? --Dschwen 07:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the second version. The original seems quite washed out compared to the edit. The thing in the bottom left is the surely the edge of the pool. Anyway, that's not the important thing in this picture to me. The important thing is the wonderfully detailed picture of the turtle. That's why I'm supporting. Raven4x4x 08:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can I say something off-topic. I'm noticing the most excellent work PiccoloNamek is putting in on improving pictures. I know from my own picture work how time consuming it is to download, change the pic in a graphics program, re-upload and write the comments. Thanks for your work - Adrian Pingstone 11:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Reply:Heh! Now I'm embarrassed! But really, it's always a joy to edit an image in Photoshop, I don't even consider it work! And besides, why shouldn't each new nominee be at its most presentable? Sometimes, a simple "Auto Levels" command can mean the difference between Support and Oppose! :)PiccoloNamek 14:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes indeed, AutoLevels can do amazing things to an image at the click of the mouse - Adrian Pingstone 15:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One thing to add though - best not to rely TOO heavily on autolevels as it has the potential to well and truely overcook an image. ;) I'm more of a fan of a manual levels adjustment or at the least, doing a 'fade' after applying autolevels and using the slider to adjust it and see where the best middle ground is. Just a tip, anyway. While I agree that Piccolo is doing a great service, I do feel his first edit of the turtle was much too oversaturated. :) Diliff 01:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course, it isn't good to rely on auto levels, and I don't. But, I always do an auto levels first just to make sure that I can't get the same effect from that as I could from manual adjustments. Why do extra work when I might not have to? :)PiccoloNamek 01:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 3rd. - My initial thought was "meh.. a turtle". But opening the full res version reveals a very nice photo. Good enough in fact, that I'm willing to overlook that its chopped off at the back.--Deglr6328 00:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 3rd - First, I think this is a wonderful picture to begin with, and I'm willing to accept the side of the pool for that. Besides, one can't always get a perfect pose and placement of the object. I like the third best because the head isn't as different from the rest of the body as it is in the second picture. Overall, I think this is a great picture, very nice effects from the light in the water. --68.199.99.99 00:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, anonymous editors cannot vote. Please register. Enochlau 02:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. My vote is for the third image too. Not as good as a turtle in nature, but detailed enough to be explanatory. Diliff 01:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I prefer the original "Fixed" version (no. 2) but either of the touched up versions are fine. It is a really beautiful picture and has a lot of vivid color and detail. --Ironchef8000 02:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I initially had reservations about that bar on the lower left but the detail of the turtle blew that away. Enochlau 02:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:GreenSeaTurtle-2.jpg The third version gets it. Raven4x4x 03:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this image http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Image:Buzz_Aldrin_with_U.S._flag.jpg because it represents one of the greatest achievements of man: landing an astronaut on the moon. This image is (considering it was taken on the moon) clear, colorful, and in focus.

• Nominate and support. - --Ironchef8000 16:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg (shown below nominee) is already featured. It sports a much higher resolution (and is more striking IMHO). -Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 03:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Current FP is better. Enochlau 03:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Actually I like the picture a lot, especially the footprints in the foreground, but since there's already another one that is an FP, I oppose. Jeeb 04:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the reasons stated above. --Dschwen 07:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support. Never enough space. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why does it matter if we already have a space picture featured? Both pictures are very nice, but having one featured should not automatically exclude the other from being featured. The one I nominated is clear, colorful, and really says a lot about the acomplishments of the mission. --Ironchef8000 23:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it doesn't usually matter, but in this case, the current FP serves to highlight the deficiencies in the FPC. It's small and lacks detail. Enochlau 02:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like this image, one featured space image does not mean we should not allow others. I wonder if some of the oppose votes is because users are anti-us pov and dont want to see a non "universal" space image?  ALKIVAR™ 22:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does that work? Enochlau 00:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has nothing to do with it. There are over 0.8 million articles now; to feature two pics of the same thing is not fair, especially when the one featured is as good or better, not to mention that most people have seen plenty of moon shots. Jeeb 05:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way would featuring this picture be 'not fair'? There isn't a limit on the number of featured pictures we have, and featuring this would not stop any other picture from also being featured. I'm afraid I don't quite see your meaning here. Raven4x4x 13:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, there is a limit: one FP per day. Moreover, on only 2 of every 7 days does the FP appear on the main page, where it attracts immediate attention. Clearly, to feature >1 pic of the same basic thing means that other deserving pics will not make FP status. In addition, there has to be consideration given to the uniqueness of the image and the extent to which it adds to the article(s) it appears in, as already stated. Jeeb 17:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No there isn't a limit. Each picture is voted in on its own merits. However, my comments that this FPC doesn't stack up to the current one stands. And in any case, we're missing the point here - Alkivar's suggestion is that we are somehow anti-American, and we just don't like the US flag, am I right in my interpretation of "universal space image"? Enochlau 09:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) I am not saying you in particular are somehow anti-american, just that I know we have many users who would prefer to be so neutral as to avoid anything that appears pro-america. 2) yes you are correct in my interpretation of a "universal space image" at first glance there is no way to visibly identify which country is responsible (although anyone with half a brain should know it was the Americans who landed on the moon). I just wanted to bring some attention to this problem. My support follows because I see no reason why we cant have more than one man on the moon picture featured.  ALKIVAR™ 19:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If every FP becomes a Picture of the Day (POTD), and there is only one POTD allowed per day, and especially if the number of FPs is limited, as it appears to be, then there is a limit, and I see no way two images of the same thing can be justified. Jeeb 22:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why are you so adament that there cannot be two featured pictures from the same category? If you look on the list of FPs, you will notice that there are many that are similar. Under the Panorama category THERE ARE TWO OF THE SAME PICTURE TAKEN ONLY HOURS APART. Also, under the Ships category, there are multiple military vessals. Nobody interfeared with those nominations. I dont understand why you stand so firmly against this picture. It is a good picture and it should be voted on as an FP without interfearance from you due to some ridiculous notion that only one picture relating to an entire subject can be an FP. More than one picture can be an FP from a category. --Ironchef8000 22:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • • To quote the first lines of the FP page: "Featured pictures is a list of images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article...the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article". So please explain to me how another picture of Buzz Aldrin on the moon, linked to an article for which there are eight pictures of Aldrin or Armstrong on the moon, five of which are of Aldrin, one of which is already an FP; explain to me how that picture adds significantly to the article? It's not just two similar images, it's two images of the same person on the same mission from a page that is loaded with other such images. Why are you so fixated on this one picture? Go find something that really contributes to an article and is a good picture and I'll vote for it. Talk about ridiculous notions. Jeeb 06:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jeeb, note that the criteria for FP is not that is it somehow unique. That doesn't come into the equation. Also, note that we are promoting much less than one per day - eventually POTD will have to repeat sometime, and we'll have to see the same images again. What's the problem then with seeing a similar image? Of course you are most welcome to oppose for other grounds, but surely not because of that. Enochlau.
          • Then that policy needs to be changed. Are we going to have 50 astronaut pictures and none that illustrate the 1000s of other interesting and important topics out there that nobody knows about?? Jeeb 06:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your exageration is unnecessary. I am nominating a second picture, NOT a 50th. Honestly, there are multiples of many different topics, some multiple pictures of the same thing! Who cares? You need to realize that A) Supporting this nomination is not the end of the world, B) There is no limit for FPs on Wikipedia, and C) You are being rather rude when supporting your opinion. If you do not like the picture, vote to oppose and let it be. I, however, enjoy this picture. --Ironchef8000 23:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • The first four of us made our comments clearly. YOU made an issue out of our opposition. The picture does not meet FP criteria and that's all there is to it. Jeeb 04:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you really want to change the policy, here is not the place to do it. Start a thread on the Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates page. Enochlau 06:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Striking picture, and I think there will be plenty of weeks for all deserving featured pictures to have their chance on the Main Page. —Cleared as filed. 17:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate the image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Seawifs_global_biosphere.jpg. The image gives a global perspective on photosynthetic potential, and therefore contributes nicely to the article on primary production. It is also colorful and therefore eye-catching Subpage created for User:Jrbouldin by User:Raven4x4x. Raven4x4x 12:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - .Jeeb 04:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've uploaded a larger, newer version of the image. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-31 12:47
• Support. Interesting. Enochlau 03:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not only colourful, but informative as well. Raven4x4x 07:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Diliff 23:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great contribution to the article and looks great.--BrendanRyan 23:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose I don't really like the intense colors. I also generally associate such a biosphere with ozone levels etc, and it loses it specialness. --Fir0002 10:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those colors are intense so we can tell regions apart, something that helps it to be informative. The second sentence doesn't make sense, it's about global primary production, as the associated article shows, with it having nothing to do with the ozone layer. The information about what the colors mean is right there in the image under the scales. By the way, I happen to like bold colors in illustrations of data.--BrendanRyan 22:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Seawifs global biosphere.jpg Raven4x4x 04:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the picture is eye-catching and fits the section of the article it is in (Geography of Paraguay --> Drainage, about rivers in Paraguay, specifically Río Paraguay and Río Paraná). From at least an aesthetic point, it breaks the monotonous white background-black text that covers large swaths of the lower part of the page - dozens of lines; it also illustrates the river that the drainage section is talking about.

I created the image.

• Nominate and support. - Zafiroblue05 23:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• severe vignetting and quite poor focus....--Deglr6328 00:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • though now that I've added the image to the vignetting article I just don't know how to vote :).--Deglr6328 00:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - definitely severe vignetting and poor focus... I'm not a professional photographer (I had no idea what vignetting was 10 minutes ago), and I took this picture with a disposable camera on a speeding bus on a bumpy bridge in a third world country which I just might never see again; because there are few Wikipedians from Paraguay, it's unlikely a comparable but technically superior photo will be uploaded any time soon. And be a little charitable, please - Soft focus, how about? :) Just kidding. Zafiroblue05 00:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note, I uploaded another image decreasing the vignetting as much as I can (and increasing saturation), if the vignetting is a big deal. Personally, I like the first better, and still would put up for contention the first, not the second. Zafiroblue05 06:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mean to be rude Zaf, but really, is it an image that is in any way impressive? :) Sure, the scene may be relatively impressive (although I haven't got that impression from looking at it..), but the actual execution of the image is equally important, if not more important than the subject matter itself. The rarity of the scene can't compensate for the fact that it really doesn't have anything going for it as a photo - breaking the monotony of a white background, black text is good for the article, but I just don't think it qualifies to be featured for that reason alone! I know it may come off a little hypocritical considering the criticisms of one of my images, but I think you just need to look at the others\ featured photos here and ask yourself whether it really belongs. :) Diliff 07:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, it could be a random river and for me the pic is too low quality to be featured. Halibutt 14:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for your comment. I understand your criticism, though I would say to the low quality, "However, exceptions can always be made for photographs taken under extenuating circumstances" - after all, this isn't an art competition, and I think that it adds to the article, which is why I nominated it. As to the "random river" comment - well, it is the river I say it is. Assume good faith - what reason would I have to lie? Zafiroblue05 19:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you got me wrong. I do believe you that it's the river. The problem is that neither the pic is astonishing, nor does it add too much informative value. You could as well use it in the article on Rio Grande and I doubt anyone would notice it's not right, as there is little detail there. Halibutt 02:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Sorry, the quality is off putting. Enochlau 04:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, but breaking the monotonous white background-black text of an article could also be achieved by inserting a big red rectangle, still I wouldn't feature it (Except if it were in the Big red rectangle article ;-) ) --Dschwen 07:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. bad quality - and the darkness around the edge seems to be like a fade in a TV show. Thelb⁴ 16:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - way out of focus, and the vignetting is terrible - Adrian Pingstone 23:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. That could be anywhere. --Yodakii 16:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I don't find the composition or color stunning and ity could be any river if you look at the pic. Nothing recognizable. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose No. Just no. It could be just any random piece of brown water. It doesn't add to the article any more than a picture of a purple frog would, just to provide some colour, and not even nice colour at that. Vanderdecken ^℘ζξ 10:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It simply is not a very nice picture. The image is blurred, the quality is low, and it is very dark around the images. Also, to agree with the above stated: it could be any river... --Ironchef8000 00:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose Vanderedecken says it well, but comments by Adrian Pingstone are also shared by me. --Fir0002 10:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Fir, too many e's in my name. I didn't choose it for ease of typing. You'll see my voting templates are working now. Also, i assume vignetting is the effect of it being a light circle in the middle with dark corners? Then if it is I agree with Adrian Pingstone too. 'I took this picture with a disposable camera on a speeding bus on a bumpy bridge in a third world country which I just might never see again' - Use your noggin, mate! Look at the featured pictures. I admire the photo being as good as it is taken in those conditions, but do you really think it equals the standard of some of those pictures? It's not exactly a work of art. If you'd taken it with a proper camera, possibly on the bank looking down with good lighting and some more interesting subject matter then yes, but this? No. Vanderdecken ^℘ζξ 16:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after some constructive criticism of my last nomination, I've tried to submit something a bit different, and high quality panoramas are something I find interesting to see and interesting to play with. Perspective is a fascinating thing. :)

• Nominate and support. - Diliff 14:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Very nice picture! I hope the slight fisheyeeffect doesn't get in the way of this pic getting featured. --Dschwen 15:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also hope that the fisheye lense doesn't get in the way of it being featured. TomStar81 23:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me just add a formal support here. --Dschwen 07:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel that the barrel distortion is disregardable here because it is in 'agreement' with the symmetry of the of the image of the room itself.--Deglr6328 00:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Really like the huge angle and the spaciousness it captures. Jeeb 03:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Extraordinary detail and yes, it does capture spaciousness quite well. Enochlau 05:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice indeed. Raven4x4x 08:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not even my Panoramas can compare. :( ;)PiccoloNamek 16:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I really like the symmetry. Nice picture!--Ironchef8000 23:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ô¿ô Amazing! (support) — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-4 18:53
• Support - nicely balanced. -- Solipsist 19:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - wow! the focus in 1500 pixel version is astonishing - Adrian Pingstone 23:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great subject, stunning detail in hi-res version. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I won't vote because I feel I'm somewhat biased on this, but I wanted to wish Diliff luck, because this room is my home-away-from-home at the moment. If you zoomed in, you'd probably see me somewhere ;-) --Cnwb 22:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Adz 00:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- wow very nice, love the symmetry Astrokey44 03:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Stunning. --bodnotbod 15:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, fantastic picture. It really captures the effect of the room. --bainer (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Vanderdecken/Support - Whoah! Nice. Vanderdecken ^℘ζξ 12:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fantastic clarity, great picture. —Cleared as filed. 17:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great clarity, slight chromatic aberration on the ceiling panels, but it is acceptable. --Fir0002 10:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Reminds me of the real thing! Great picture. Uncke Herb 04:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.Nice.--Dakota ^{t e} 02:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image: State_Library_of_Victoria_La_Trobe_Reading_room_5th_floor_view.jpg Raven4x4x 09:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A beatuful painting about an event important to the Polish history. Painted by Wojciech Kossak.

• Nominate and support. - Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• {{Support}}, a great painting, a decent reproduction and quite a nice climate. Halibutt 14:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is there any way we could get a larger image? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 02:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like this painting. Very rich colors, historically significant, nice to look at. --Ironchef8000 00:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I supported a great Polish painting the other day but somehow this one doesn't do quite as much for me. It's good, though, and we could certainly use a larger version. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . The guidelines require 4 supports unfortunately. Raven4x4x 08:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Found this while expanding History of Sudan. It's used at Mahdi and Khalifa, and will be used in other related articles once they're created. BRIAN0918 03:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. — BRIAN0918 03:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is eye-catching, will support. Really like the choice of black and white here. The image does not appear in Mahdi article though. Jeeb 05:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It did appear in the Mahdi article, but someone keeps removing it because he says the image it too "strange looking". — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-2 17:03
• Support for the reason stated by Jeeb. Halibutt 14:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Jeeb 03:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport. Enochlau 05:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Striking. —DO'Иeil 20:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Striking indeed! Neutrality^talk 04:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mahdist in the Khalifa's house, Omdurman, Sudan.png Raven4x4x 09:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what inspired me to nominate this image; Something about it just apealled to me, so I decided to put the picture through the system and see if anyone else thought the same thing. The photo is a NASA image uploaded by World Traveler and currently appears in the article Hubble Telescope and STS-61.

• Nominate and support. - TomStar81 00:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It looks kind of dull, and green too. How about this?PiccoloNamek 01:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impressive. I like your overhauled pictured; it definatly looks a lot better than the original. TomStar81 01:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

, though not strongly. IMO there is still something missing here. Colours? Halibutt 14:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I hate to be picky, but the first one is too dull (and a bit green) and the second one is unnaturally bright for outer space. What about making one somewhere in between the two??? --Ironchef8000 23:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious, but how do you know how bright outer space is supposed to be? :) In theory, there should be extremely bright highlights and virtually black shadows, as there is no air in space to disperse light beams. Brightness in photographs is the result of exposure. If you left the shutter open long enough, it would look very bright and conversely, if the shutter speed was fast enough, even a direct photo of the sun would look dull. Brightness is a very subjective thing! Diliff 01:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Well anyway, here is a third version that is a little less bright and maintains a little more detail in the highlight areas.PiccoloNamek 05:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with the third version... But there is a very noticable jpeg artifact on the top left corner of the sky :( I know its present in the original though, so there probably isn't much that can be done short of editing it out manually. Diliff 08:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all three in their current state. #1 is too green, #2 is too bright, #3 shows artifacts. I'm sure it can be a great picture, and I'm happy to look at another edit later. Enochlau 12:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm afraid I have to agree with enochlau with this one. It has potential but even the original contains significant artifacts that I hadn't seen until he mentioned it. It just isn't a high quality image and the subject matter doesn't compensate. Diliff 12:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is an outside chance that the artifact could be a solar panel or something of that nature. Any chance it could be cloned out? TomStar81 04:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• ( − ) Oppose I don't see it as anything particularly special. There are so many nice photos out in space of astronauts doing stuff, but they just aren't that spectacular to me. --Fir0002 10:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting image, used at Low pressure area and Iceland (and, someday, Climate of Iceland). For a much more detailed description, please read the caption on the Image page.

• Nominate and support. — BRIAN0918 19:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks absolutely stunning at full resolution but at the resolution used in the article it may not be as compelling. The climate of Iceland? Let's just say that I'm experiencing my first non-Icelandic winter here in London and it's a nice change :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Excellent. Jeeb 21:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Illustrates perfectly what all those concentric circles on the weather forecast mean. Great picture. —DO'Иeil 03:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Most interesting. Raven4x4x 04:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. >> 1000 words... Jeeb 04:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As above. Enochlau 09:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Likewise. vaeiou 14:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- agree with Raven4x4x --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support Awesome. Only thing missing is maybe a few lightning bolts ;-) --Fir0002 10:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support I don't think we could see lightning bolts from orbit... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Microsoft Word conveniently has a thunder-bolt AutoShape, I can glue some on if anyone wants me to :D
  • Well you can, but only at night [2].--Deglr6328 23:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enochlau 07:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image: Low pressure system over Iceland.jpg Raven4x4x 08:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice photo giving some idea about size of the animal. Photo by pl:Wikipedysta:Jojo, used in article about Eurasian Nuthatch.

• Nominate and support. - Jojo 1 09:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The fact that it is held in the hand is cool. If the bird could be brightened a bit I think it would be better. Jeeb 21:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• nice picture! I agree with the brightness statement, its fine in the large format version but in reduced size it darkens up something serious.  ALKIVAR™ 21:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lightened version is better, can we find a way to de-frame the black bar?  ALKIVAR™ 05:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - You asked, I delivered! PiccoloNamek 03:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice job! It's got my vote. Jeeb 04:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The background is somewhat distracting, especially the dark stripe running vertically. --vaeiou 04:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Jeeb 05:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...removing the black stripe might be an improvement though. Jeeb 05:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I find the black stripe rather unfortunate; I think it ruins the pleasure of looking at the photo. Also, I think that the image lacks clarity and sharpness somewhat. Enochlau 12:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I find the black bit on the right distracting. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose Agree with Enochlau --Fir0002 10:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Peace Tower, located on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario, is a major tourist destination in Canada, and there is still no high resolution picture of it on Wikipedia. I took this picture myself on March 3rd, 2005. It would make an excellent addition to the Peace Tower article, located at Peace_Tower. I am releasing it into the public domain to fulfill this purpose.

• Nominate and support. - R@Mo 08:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this tower straight? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The tower probably is, but the picture isn't. That detracts. It's also not great on detail or distinctiveness. Jeeb 21:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree...maybe a full tower shot that's vertically aligned? --vaeiou 04:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Leaning, not full tower. Enochlau 12:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, for reasons stated above. Jeeb 19:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The leaning's easy to photoshop away. What's more problematic is that the tower seems to be floating in the air - the rest of the building should be included. Denni☯ 03:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose s/b full tower. --Rogerd 03:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose As above --Fir0002 10:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photo adds one of only two photographs to the Tiberius article, only colorized image of him. Adds a very clear image to the article. Photo taken by Alkivar.

• Nominate and support. -  ALKIVAR™ 07:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The background seems a bit distracting to me. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 02:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. I've attempted to edit it out, though I'm not really satisfied with the result. —Cryptic (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also agree, the problem was, I was afraid to wash it out before getting a few other opinions first. Cryptic your version looks good imo.  ALKIVAR™ 22:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice picture, but with a distracting background. However, I can't support the edited image either, since it doesn't accurately reflect the reality at the time the photo was taken. — David Remahl 11:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't like either. Although I'm sure the figure is splendid in real life, the reproduction of the photo is a little bland, and suffers a little from a lack of clarity - focus is an issue. Enochlau 12:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's so grey. --bodnotbod 15:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok what color would you rather see behind it? I can wash it entirely out to white or something if that would improve it for you.  ALKIVAR™ 20:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't see why the gray background is an issue--in fact I think it helps highlight the statue, and anyway, what do you expect in a museum? I support it mainly, though, because it contributes to the article on Tiberius--what better image are you likely to find of the man? As for editing, many of the pictures entered here are edited. The editing helped this picture a lot. Jeeb 20:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Unremarkable.--Deglr6328 02:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely disagree from the top of WP:FPC:

    Featured pictures is a list of images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the common saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article.

  • This clearly adds significantly to the article, I think people seem to forget that is the primary requirement. Its not just "Pictures that are striking" but more images that add significantly to an article. This certainly does that, as there is very little in the way of likenesses of Tiberius.  ALKIVAR™ 02:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Does it? The bust was made in the 19th century, meaning that the sculptor has never seen Tiberius alive. As he had to rely on ancient statues, I'd much rather see a good image of an ancient statue. Therefore, I don't think the image of this bust is that much of an enhancement for the article. I would say it's even misleading. Esthurin 03:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose Great job on removing background, but a bust isn't that special to me. And Esthurin makes a good point about the value it has in an article. --Fir0002 10:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, for the reasons stated above by Esthurin and Fir0002. --Dschwen 08:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting overhead shot of the fjords of Greenland. Make sure to look at the bottommost section of coastline. Also see the Image page for further observations.

• Nominate and support. — BRIAN0918 14:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I like it, but all the action is in the center, where the glacial tongues end and the land and sea are visisble. There is a lot of white on the left side that I don't think helps. If it were up to me I would keep the middle and middle right and crop out the rest. Jeeb 19:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a 2nd version that rotates and crops. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-7 19:33
• Comment I think there are other images at the Greenland article (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Image:Sermeqkujadtlek.jpg) that give one a better feel for the place than this one, even with your edits; also, the image seems to be huge and slow to load, at least for me. Jeeb 04:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We like them to be huge! Slow is probably due to wikimedia servers being slow these days. Enochlau 12:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support second and first, in that order Broken S 02:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support Good image. --Fir0002 10:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Amazing! Enochlau 07:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. Prefer first, but not strongly. —Cryptic (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both versions. Raven4x4x 08:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Greenland.A2003233.1340.250m.jpg I'll go with the cropped version, although it was very close. If anyone has a problem with it feel free to tell me. Raven4x4x 08:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Captures the desolation and waste of the area. Adds a human dimension to the environmental disaster of the Aral Sea. Notice the old beach on the top of the hill in the distance, and scrub trying to live in the salt-saturated soil. Taken by me.

• Nominate and support. - Staecker 20:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Comment. It's a stunning image, reminds me of Half-Life 2, probably this Aral Sea disaster has inspired the developers to put a deserted sea level in the game. The photo may need some more contrast, a bit of sharpening and a few other corrections, but I find it very powerful and certainly deserving a featured picture status. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov _{→ Talk} 09:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that voting has opened, I officially state my support. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov _{→ Talk} 22:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Comment. Good stuff, again reminds me of HL2. I might try to touch it up a bit if you want. It's a shame that the end is cut off, and the person in the middle is a bit inconvenient. Vanderdecken ^℘ζξ 12:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I always kind of liked the end being cut off, but I see what you mean. You are very welcome to try to touch it up- I'm not expert about that. I'm not sure if it's appropriate for the FPC procedure, but I'll upload another of my Aral pictures- similar feel, but striking in a different way. Also with a person, but I think he adds something. Do you like that one better? Staecker 13:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed the second one, so people aren't confused on what's being voted. Staecker 22:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've added a slightly fixed version, let's see if anyone likes it.PiccoloNamek 21:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Rogerd 03:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The composition doesn't quite do it for me. The ship is cut not only on the right edge of the image, but also the mast is cut off. Again the subject is stunning, but the picture is not. --Dschwen 09:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose As above --Fir0002 10:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above. Enochlau 07:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image is the 3-D structure of an enzyme, Neuraminidase, that occurs on the surface of flu viruses, like the H5N1 strain of avian flu. This is timely given the great concern over this strain right now. A similar diagram illustrates the enzyme article, but it's not as good as this one, IMO. Ribbon diagrams are 3-D depictions of protein structure.

• Nominate and support. - Jeeb 05:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment can we change the background color to something a bit lighter? It's awful dark.  ALKIVAR™ 06:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree with Alkivar on the background. It's not particularly dark, I've seen such images on a black background, but blue/green is too distracting. Also, while we're at it, can't this image be animated to better show the enzyme's structure. I can see it's deep and channel-like but have very little feeling for its length based on the image. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is a good illustration. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose I really dislike the green background color --Fir0002 10:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I dislike the background colour as well; also, it doesn't adequately convey a sense of length or depth well. Enochlau 07:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What color would work better--ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something lighter maybe? The current green looks a little too... medical and hard. A gradient fill might be nicer to look at as well. Enochlau 22:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure a gradient would look the best for this. maybe a white, or black? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I can see it has a channel like structure but as both I and Enochlou said before, this image doesn't adequately convey the structure (length, width and depth) of the enzyme. Our POV mainly focusses on its depth. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is an accurate and stunning version of a beautiful veriety of daylily. Appears in the Daylily article, and was created by LiquidGhoul

• Nominate and support. - liquidGhoul 01:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would much more prefer 1) a more orange hued daylily ... and 2) a full flower with stem as opposed to just the opened buds.  ALKIVAR™ 06:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A friendly reminder that you should not vote until the 2 day commenting period is over. Enochlau 09:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) I do not understand this request. The photo that represents a plant, should not be rejected for the personal preference of someone who like more orange flowers. 2) The stem of a daylily, is small and insignificant. The lower part usually covered by the foliage, and the upper part by the flower. This is also inconsistent with many of the featured pictures of flowers. Image:Clivia miniata1.jpg (clivias have a very prominant stalk) Image:Close up yellow rose.jpg and Image:Single lavendar flower02.jpg, all show just the open flower. The foliage is illustrated lower in the article, this photo is for the flower (which is arguably the more important part for most people). --liquidGhoul 11:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I think of a day lily I picture the bright orange variety that I see daily when I walk out of my house. To the best of my knowledge the bright orange Hemerocallis fulva varietal is much more common, as such it is the one I would rather see represented rather than the less common Tom Collins hybrid variety. Even our article daylily states as fact that the more Orange "Tawny Daylily" is more common:

      Hemerocallis fulva, the Tawny Daylily and the sweet-smelling H. flava, the Lemon Lily, were early imports from England to 17th century American gardens that soon established themselves along roadsides. The Tawny Daylily especially is so widely feral that it is often mistaken for a native American wildflower.

    • Does this help clarify my reasonings? As for the flower bud only, I still would prefer to see a portion of the stem w/ leaf as can be seen in this illustration from commons. And as Enochlau points out a higher resolution image would be better also.  ALKIVAR™ 21:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Do you have a higher resolution version? We generally like our featured pics to be a little bigger. Also, my two cents: it's a little ordinary, and the weeds in the bottom right are annoying. Enochlau 12:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have uploaded a revision. It is much higher resolution, and I cropped it differently to include the flower buds. I also got rid of the weeds at the bottom. --liquidGhoul 22:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose I think because all flowers are naturally beautiful, it takes an exceptional photo to be the pick of the bunch, and sorry, but I don't think this is the one. --Fir0002 10:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Although the problems I initially raised have been addressed (mostly - I can still see a few weeds), I will oppose. It's not terribly exceptional. Enochlau 07:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I agree with User:Fir0002 on this one. --Dschwen 08:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier (August 26, 1743 – May 8, 1794) was a French nobleman is considered The "father of modern chemistry", he stated the first version of the Law of Conservation of Matter, recognized and named oxygen (1778), disproved the phlogiston theory, and helped to reform chemical nomenclature and one of France's prominent scientists among Pasteur and Marie Curie. Due to his prominence in the pre-revolutionary government in France, he was beheaded at the height of the French Revolution.

• The image is courtesy of Chemical Heritage.

• Nominate and support. - HappyApple 03:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is he wearing sunglasses? how funny.--Deglr6328 07:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think you can amplify sunlight but you can focus it. Is this what's meant and so should the caption be changed? - Adrian Pingstone 15:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caption now changed.HappyApple 20:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose It isn't very representative of Lavoisier 195.186.159.132 11:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is my vote. I forgot to login- Glaurung 11:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Hard to see what the image is illustrating. Enochlau 03:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this picture just now, and it struck a cord with me. The photo is credited as a U.S. Census Bureau image uploaded by User:Petaholmes and currently appearing in the article Veterans Day.

Note this page only appeared today. Raven4x4x 03:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - TomStar81 00:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Rogerd 03:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 100%.-Dakota ^{t e} 09:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Far too small - it's barely larger than the thumbnail. —Cryptic (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. JDH Owens ^{talk | Esperanza} 20:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• {{Support}}, astonishing. Halibutt 02:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Halibutt, I know you hate us doing this, but I had to put nowiki tags around your thing otherwise it doesn't show. Enochlau 05:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Waaaay too small!!!! Enochlau 05:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • and hence oppose. Enochlau 07:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Far too small. —DO'Иeil 10:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Image is too small for FP, and frankly, I have trouble supporting a image when we dont know for sure what war he is a veteran of. -Lanoitarus 19:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do know, if the metadata on the image page is correct:

    Joseph Ambrose, an 86-year-old World War I veteran, attends the dedication day parade for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. He is holding the flag that covered the casket of his son, who was killed in the Korean War. —Cryptic (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ah, I didnt see that the first time, and the original nomination said the war was unknown. My mistake. I rescind that part of my objection, however i still object based on image size. - Lanoitarus 22:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good picture, even if small. Borisblue 07:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very poignant; would be preferable if the image was bigger, though. SoLando (Talk) 10:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: so striking and poignant, it doesn't matter that it is small. CDThieme 00:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aware that some of you wish to have an enlarged version of this picture, so I have been searching for one for the past few days; however, as the fall finals aproach more and more of my time has been spent studying so that I can aviod another semester of academic probation. I, too, would like to see a larger version of the picture, but right now I can't spare the hours needed to roam the web in search of a bigger photo. TomStar81 00:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Absurdly small.--Deglr6328 03:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had some free time today, and went looking for a larger version of the picture. I stumbled across this site, which has the picture credited as a USAF photo by Mickey Sanborn taken in 1982, but I can't find a hi-res version. Did we even have high resolution images in 1982? TomStar81 20:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the Thanksgiving weekend break upon us I took the time to do a really thourgh search fo a larger version of this picture; however, having spent most of today looking I can now say with some certinty that this is most likely as large as it is going to get. Sorry. TomStar81 06:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh well, thanks for searching anyway. Enochlau 23:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This image appears in the article Cirrus cloud. Obviously, it is very representative of what Cirrus clouds look like. I also believe that it perfectly captures the "feel" of a sky full of cirrus clouds, the whispy streams suspended in time forever. I believe it is striking in an Ansel Adams-esque sort of way. Although it looks like it, the image was not heavily edited. Basically all I did was desaturate it and use an 81 warming filter. I have the original full color version, should you wish to see it.

• Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 05:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Please share the color image. What color a cloud has seems to be crucial information to describe a cloud to me. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Well, they're all, uh, white, if you couldn't tell. ;) Anyway, here's a color version.PiccoloNamek 10:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I like both. The black and white version is quite dramatic, but the colour version probably better illustrates the clouds. Raven4x4x 11:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I dislike the black and white version, not as a picture but as an encyclopedia illustration.The colour of the clouds and the colour of the background are important to understanding what it shows. I will support the colour one - Adrian Pingstone 15:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't know, but something in the bottom portion seems distracting. Maybe the dip in the forest in the left-hand side? Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 00:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• As soon as I can I will support the color image. The black and white one makes it appear like a thunder cloud. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As promised support color image. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support colour image, and I would also suggest that you nominate the black and white image as an FPC on commons. Raven4x4x 04:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:I don't know man, I get the feeling they don't like edited photographs there. Somebody nominated my sakura picture there and it only got one support vote and a whole bunch of opposes. Over there, they seem to have very different standards. Even my Energy Arc, which was unanimously supported here with something like 18 votes, got 2 or 3 opposes!PiccoloNamek 06:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Added an edited version with a bit of extra detail in clouds. --Fir0002 10:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply - No offense, (really) but I don't like that at all. :)PiccoloNamek 00:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support. Black and white is more artistic, but color is more useful. Either way, I support all versions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose b&w versions, support colour version. I quite like the original b&w one (Fir0002's edit is ok, but looks a little too messy with the extra contrast), but doesn't quite fit my idea of an encyclopedic image; the colour one is attractive and potentially more useful. Enochlau 07:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support The color version is sharp and almost perfect for this kind of illustration. — Sverdrup 14:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose B&W, Support color The color version has a greater allure to it - I think the color contrast between the blue and green is better than the contrast in the B&W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaeiou (talk • contribs) 13:14, 17 November 2005
• Oppose- very poor placement in the article (it isn't even the primary picture on the page). It's just stuck into the article in a large gallery section with the somewhat cryptic caption, "Cirrus Clouds, mixed sky". How is this picture adding somthing that the others (all 5 of them) are not? Try Commons or try giving it a better caption and improving its positioning. Broken S. I'm Neutral about it now after the new placement and caption. Broken S 20:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - How about now? I changed the article's pictur to the color version too.PiccoloNamek 05:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Considering that you also took the pic that was on top of the article before your last edit I think I can safely say that I liked that one much better. Artistically the new one is better. But the old one conveys the concept of cirrus clouds better as an encyclopaedic image. Hence Oppose to all versions of this image. --Dschwen 09:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:CirrusField-color.jpg Raven4x4x 05:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:RipenLemonFix.jpg

File:UnripeLemon3.jpg

This is a good picture and helps illustrate the ripening article. By Jon Sullivan at pdphoto.org. Edit It is now also being used to illustrate green.

• Nominate and support. —jiy (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, odd angle, fruit partially covered by a leaf. A fruit at a later stage of ripening would more clearly illustrate the transition. A pretty good picture with some illustrative value, but not striking or brilliant. — David Remahl 00:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I like the middle section, but the front of the photo is way too dark. I fixed it best I could, but I am still pretty neutral on this. I like the way the drips accentuate the pores in the skin. --liquidGhoul 07:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I prefer the top one, strangely, I think the lighting looks better with the large shadows. I think it's a very nice photo (especially the water droplets, pores, and the soft focus on the background), and well taken, but it doesn't illustrate the article that well. Maybe half ripened would look better. At the moment that could be mistaken for a lime. My vote might change to a support after this has entered the voting period. Vanderdecken ^℘ζξ 14:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Vanderdecken/Support 4th image. —Vanderdecken^∫ξφ 15:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A very nice image. Enochlau 03:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like the top image better. Very nice. --Bash 05:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose first and second. The combination of the shadows and glean on the top, cover up way too much for an informative image. I don't like my edit, as some of the sheen on the skin is removed, and the leaf on the left looks weird (needs cropping?). If someone could fix that, I would consider supporting. --liquidGhoul 05:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 4th image --liquidGhoul 13:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Using some extremely advanced techniques, I was able to somewhat remedy the lighting issue. I hope some people will find this acceptable. Please view the full images while making comparisons, some of the edits aren't readily noticable in the thumbnails.PiccoloNamek 07:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I like your edit Piccolo, but it seems to have lost some sharpness in the background (which is good when it is caused by aperture, but when done im Photoshop it doesn't look that good IMO). So I have created yet another edit. --Fir0002 09:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• After a bit of comparison, I feel the fourth picture is the better one. The first is a little dark, the second looks quite unnatural with the shadows removed, the third is good but the fourth just brings out more detail in the background. I will support the fourth image. Raven4x4x 10:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:MeyerLemon.jpg Raven4x4x 06:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good example of the colour variations available in this species of frog, with both the common colours in one frog. Appears in Eastern dwarf tree frog, created and nominated by liquidGhoul

• Nominate and support. - liquidGhoul 11:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Vibrant color.--Dakota ^{t e} 01:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The legs especially are a little too out of focus for my liking. Enochlau 03:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Woops, I had a choice of two photos, and accidentally uploaded the wrong one. The more in focus photo is below. --liquidGhoul 05:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to neutral. I'm perhaps being a bit too pedantic, but the head is out of focus now. Enochlau 10:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • How's this liquidGhoul 07:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't quite know - is it just me or are the markings on the skin near the head still not very clear? Enochlau 23:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Looks like very slight motion blur to me, actually. No part of the image is particularly sharp which is a shame as the image is otherwise pretty good. Diliff 20:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Vanderdecken/Support 3rd pic. Nicely done, needed the sharpening. —Vanderdecken^∫ξφ 19:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Just not quite sharp/large enough. Some motion blurring (I think). What was the shutter speed? The EXIF data is hard to interpret sometimes. Diliff 20:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth forces (probably 16th-17th century) singing the Bogurodzica hymn before the battle. Painting by Józef Brandt. Nice image of a fairly unique military force.

• Nominate and support. - Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It doesn't seem to be used in any articles, though. Perhaps it can be added to Bogurodzica? Kirill Lokshin 19:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Linked there, and also to Polish army article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, then. Kirill Lokshin 19:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Appleseed 19:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Standard picture. Nothing in particular. If you like battle images, you may want to check the pictures I added to the Battle of Gangut, Tale of Igor's Campaign, Slavic dragon, etc, although many of these were reduced in size and imported to Commons since then. --Ghirlandajo 13:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. While nice and I love Brandt's line, I think this image does not belong to any article on wikipedia but the painter's bio. Neither at bogurodzica nor at Polish Army it seems related. And the articles it could be placed in could be the one on Żółkiewski (the bearded guy in the centre is Żółkiewski, isn't he?) and on Winged Hussars, but the figures on the painting seem too small to illustrate anything. Halibutt 16:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stanisław Żółkiewski? Maybe - do you have a better caption? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 07:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic painting. The army looks as from a myth, yet it was a real army. Nikola 08:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The painting does not add to the afore mentioned articles. On the contrary, it is not a historic document, but an idealistic fantasy. Solid artwork, but not particulary inspiring. --Dschwen 21:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't majority of paintings, including ones by Rubens or da Vinci classify as idealistic fantasies?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--SylwiaS 20:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This image is highly compressed and smallish. If the nominator could provide a High-Res Image i would support.--Ewok Slayer 21:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This picture appears in poverty, taken by Jonathon McIntosh in 2004, and liscensed under Creative Commons. It proves how Americans have helped those impoverished (the clean shirts, especially the one that says "California"), but still shows that the people need your help (the trash all around, and the joy a soiled doll brings to everyone). I've never done this before, so if you can fix this up, please do so. imutopia 20:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC-8)

• Nominate and support. - imutopia 20:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC-8)
• I fixed it for you. Broken S 04:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A fabulous photo that captures its subject matter well. Enochlau 03:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I wish the boy was more centered in the frame... but this is still quite good.  ALKIVAR™ 08:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I feel that the framing is perfect, as it reveals the conditions that the boys are in. Raven4x4x 11:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue with framing as I see it (since we disagree), is that the center of focus is on the barbie doll, not the slums, not the trash, and not the boy. Plus having the boy's headless friends in frame is rather distracting IMO.  ALKIVAR™ 23:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good composition. But I'd be very careful as to what the picture seems to proove... --Dschwen 20:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a great photo' - it's a stark illustration of the impoverishment that blights the lives of these kids, yet shows that despite the deprivation, they are still kids and still experience happiness (however brief). The focus on the doll isn't (imo) detrimental to the quality of the photo; I believe that it simply emphasises why these kids are in a rubbish dump - to try and find things to sell that could help them survive the day. SoLando (Talk) 10:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I'm slightly ambivalent because the three half-faces bother me. But the garbage dump is great, the doll is great and the boy holding it is great. The picture invites people to think - no less because not everyone will reach the same conclusions. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a great photo with a message. --Rogerd 03:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Jakarta_slumlife65.JPG Raven4x4x 06:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A fanblade from a General Electric GE90-115B turbofan engine, on display in the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.

This photo exemplifies the technological and artistic beauty of an otherwise unknown or ugly object - the turbofan blade in a jet engine, specifically the General Electric GE90, the largest and most powerful jet engine in the world.

I find this image is visually stunning, and quite beautiful. The blade itself is on display at the Museum of Modern Art in New York.

• Nominate and support. - vaeiou 22:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image has a copyright notice about it...apparently it showed up in a press release and qualifies for fair use. I'm not familiar with this, so can anyone clarify this?
• It is uploaded as fairuse. Fairuse images cannot be FPs. After you read this message (someone) should speedily archive this nomination Broken S 22:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination removed – invalid licence Raven4x4x 05:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Positron emission tomography is surprisingly well illustrated, and this diagram by User:Damato does a nice job of explaining the simultaneous detection of the pairs of photons that the process relies on. It might be better to have a larger version and with numbered labels for the benefit of Commons users, but it is still rather good as it is.

• Nominate and support. - Solipsist 08:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object until the image description page has a less technical explanation. As of yet the image is pretty, but not really as informative as I hoped it to be. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not supposed to vote yet!--Deglr6328 18:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this is a very nice depiction of PET but is FAR too small to become featured. --Deglr6328 18:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed. Any change we could get a bigger one? Enochlau 10:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Also agreed... its quite nice but not good or big enough just yet for featured IMO. -Lanoitarus 19:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if available with a higher resolution or a vector format and with a more informative description. For now, oppose. — — David Remahl 19:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the higher resolution, a new issue arises. What is the copyright status of the components of the image, specifically the Sun workstation and processing unit/mainframe-type thing? Even if the author created the 3D model from scratch, Sun could claim copyright / design patents for the design. There is also the issue of the Sun logo/trademark. Even if we were sure Sun would not go after us for using their trademark, there is the question of whether we should promote a certain brand in a supposedly neutral/informative image. — David Remahl 13:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've fixed the links in the image description so they point to WP rather than commons. I will also support this larger version, I think it's very attractive and informative. Raven4x4x 05:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not a bad diagram. Enochlau 02:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course, I do support this diagram myself as I have put additional time into it after those comments to make it look more pretty and consistent for a featured picture. Damato 08:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose Maybe a small thing, but I don't like the rendering of the patient. --Fir0002 08:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A good illustration for the article, and as a diagram it is nice, but the balance in the layout is a little awkward, so it's not stunningly good. And, that wrinkled patient looks really sick... Sorry, have to oppose. --Janke | Talk 13:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like this picture, it's in the Lake Monowai article.

• Nominate and support. - Swollib 07:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the above is a self-nomination, so the above vote should not be counted towards the four-support minimum.-Lanoitarus 05:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, i think this picture is beatifully detailed and provides a striking view of the park. I am aware that this vote is before the two day period, but I do not agree with that policy. - Lanoitarus 05:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While the the scenery is quite nice, I don't think this picture is terribly distinctive or has significant artistic merit. It's a good picture, I'm not sure if it's that particularly different from other photos. Does anyone else have anything to say? --vaeiou 03:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per vaeiou. Well-done picture, but nothing that sets it apart from other scenery photos. Borisblue 07:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just moved it up. --vaeiou 21:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice but ordinary. Enochlau 02:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose As above --Fir0002 08:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This picture appears in the article Orb Weaver.

This is just about the most detailed picture of this type of spider you will ever see. I spent a considerable amount of type using Photokit Sharpener to extract every last bit of detail I could, especially in the face area. This picture was considerd good enough to be moved from the ID request section of Bugguide.net to the actual bug guide section, so I thought to myself, "If that's the case, it should be good enough for Wikipedia!". I hope you can forgive the asphalt background; that's where I found him, and I certainly wasn't going to pick it up and move it.

• Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 20:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I couldn't support this pic simply because of (as you remark ) the horrible background. It's a shame, but this is Featured Pic so I've got to be extra critical. I love the spider, though! - Adrian Pingstone 22:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What! Why I'll... I mean, I understand. If it bothers enough people, I'll just withdrawl my nomination.PiccoloNamek 22:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be angry with me ;-) I'm really a very nice person. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 22:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really mind the asphalt at all. The spider stands out sufficiently for it not to be a big deal for me. Raven4x4x 23:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the asphalt makes the contrast with the spider even better. Please bold my support once the voting period starts. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have done. I also will support. Raven4x4x 06:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wonderful detail. The asphalt is, if anything, a plus. It makes the spider stand out more than most natural backgrounds would and it gives the image an interesting desolate touch - making it stand out a bit from the typical perfect animal shot. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I like this picture, I like the background too, i think it looks good Swollib 09:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swollib, I moved your above support line, it was previously below the section break. I will also Support this image, i think the ashphalt background actually gives a great sense of depth to the whole thing. Great shot! -Lanoitarus 19:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Enochlau 02:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the background does not bother me at all in larger version, only in thumbnail. And I never knew that spiders have faces :) Renata3 18:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The use of sharpening software doesn't make up for the lack of real resolution, for this image I'd expect something bigger than 1024 pixels in the widest dimension. Wikipedia content should be print worthy, not just screen worthy.--Gmaxwell 05:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Ridiculous. This isn't the commons, and being print-worthy isn't a criterion for becoming a featured picture. That being said, the original was a 5 megapixel image, but I nearly always downsample by 50% because it improves quality of the image drastically.PiccoloNamek 05:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Don't do that. Downsampling improves the quality at 100%, but it does not improve the quality at any given size: Quality will be the same at thumbnail size, but at sizes over what you downsample to it reduces the quality (i.e. if I attempt to make your image full screen on a 1600x1200 display). It doesn't matter what it looks like at 100%, it matters what it looks like at the use resolution. When we talk about 100% our goal should be providing the finest and most accurate real deatil to a viewer interested at studying our images at a large size, downsampling kills this. Generally I encourage people to use images *at least* 1200px on their largest dimension based on the emails that Wikimedia gets about illustrations in our articles. I don't complain when I don't think we can do better, but that isn't the case here. --Gmaxwell 07:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It still seems kind of irrelevant here, because more than enough detail is visible in the picture as it is. Every hair on his legs, all eight of his eyes, and the pattern on his back. Every detail that was captured is still visible, I made very sure of that. As for the use resolution, that should be fine for use on Wikipedia. It's fine for use as a thumbnail, obviously, and anyone who is interested can view it at 100% and full quality. I don't think many people are going to go to the trouble to upsample any given image. I don't buy that argument. Anyway, until I get a better camera, I will have to downsample, because the images my camera puts out are actually quite noisy and soft, and downsampling fixes both of those problems in an instant.

PiccoloNamek 08:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - You missed my point, downsampling does not fix the problems. If I take your image and view it at any given size it will look the same downsampled or not as long as my viewing resolution is less than your downsampling resolution. As soon as my viewing resolution becomes higher than your downsampling resolution the non-downsampled version will look better. For bayer pattern sensors there is a fundimentally good reason to downsample due to the anti-alias filter: you can actually subsample to some degree without losing actual resolution. However the modern interpolation routines are pretty good, and 50% reduction is lossy. The for the images that I've put up that are >6 megapixels I tend to downsample some to better match the apparent with the actual resolution but when you're getting below the size that is even fullscreen for many users, you should not be downsampling. And come on, what sort of featured picture is it if you can't set it for your desktop wallpaper? :) --Gmaxwell 08:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd have to agree with Gmaxwell on the above discussion --Fir0002 08:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Clearly, word-sounds are not being linked up here in the normal manner. The thing is, I have an old camera with a noisy sensor, among other problems. Downsampling the image does reduce the noise and increase the apparent sharpness, regardless of what resolution I'm viewing the image at. In some ways, downsampling the image by half can actually simulate the effects of a foveon sensor, because you're using several pixels to create a single pixel in the downsampled image.PiccoloNamek 08:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't bag out your camera so much, it seems to be pretty good. To quote steve from steves digicams It's a "state-of-the-art" digital camera for today's photographers --Fir0002 08:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should upload the original so we can see what you mean? Raven4x4x 13:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I seem to have lost the original RAW file, but I can show you an even better example. Take a look at these two images: http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/9262/resample18qz.jpg

And http://img308.imageshack.us/img308/1455/resample27wj.jpg

They're the same image, and no editing other than bicubic downsampling(normal, not bicubic smoother or sharper) has been performed. Now, which one has the greater percieved clarity and sharpness? the 2560 or the 1280 version? To me, the downsampled version is smoother, slightly sharper, and has less image noise, although I've trained myself to be sensitive to those kinds of things. Most people probably wouldn't notice.PiccoloNamek 21:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, that is a somewhat bogus example and it still doesn't show what you're trying to show. By linking externally to the image files directly you cause most users browsers to scale the image. As far as I'm aware none of the popular browsers resize images correctly, rather than downsampling they just drop pixels. So actually, the non-resized one should look sharper because the additional poor resampling done by the browser creates false detail... it's hard to say because the difference is so small (mean pixel difference 0.78% from screen grabs of my browser). In any case, that is irrelvent here because mediawiki does correct bicubic resampling. What is relevent is the actual resolution of the image. You can claim all you want about your impressive self training or your extremely advanced techniques, but when it comes down to it you are asking us to accept that the left example is better looking than the right. The emperor has no clothes. --Gmaxwell 00:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dude, mediawiki already uses ImageMagick to do downsampling. Doing downsampling twice is comparable the well known effect you get when you make a copy of a copy in analogue. That and downsampling *IS* a quality loss. That's what it does, reduces pixel density of the picture in such a way that it'll fit in a certain space on an inferior display and still look fairly good. Kim Bruning 00:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Of course, I was assuming that both examples would be being viewed at 100%, at which the smaller picture does look better. I wish I had better language skills, because it seems you're really not understanding what I'm trying to say. In the example on the left, you've made it so both pictures are the same size again, which pretty much destroys the positive effects of the downsample. The smaller image, when viewed at acutual size, will simply look better than the bigger image, when viewed at actual size. What is so hard to understand about that? Oh, and the "extremely advanced techniques" quip I made in the unrip lemon nomination page was a joke, in case you didn't know. I suppose all I'm trying to say is: Downsampling reduces the file size, the visibility of demosaicing artifacts and noise, and increases image sharpness. I don't see how anyone can argue against those points.

I just thought of something else. Why exactly are we arguing? The image is going to be promoted either way.PiccoloNamek 01:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Mediawiki is quite able to correctly downsample images to any size. If I were to put up two images, one you've downsampled and one not downsampled, and ask mediawiki to display them at 250px wide they will look almost exactly the same (the only difference will be the quality lost from multiple downsample and jpeg steps in your downsampled copy). You can see this on the right, I used ImageMagick (same code as mediawiki) to reduce both to 300px wide, cropped them, and have mediawiki display them at 2x here for comparison. You can't tell the difference. However, as demonstrated above, the non-downsampled image will always look better when viewed at any size greater than size of the downsampled image. I said this above, but you've continued arguing about how the pictures look at 100%, even though no one looks at them at 100% (or rather they would look at one at 100% and scale the other one up or down to match)... I *do* understand what you're saying, but you're comparing apples and oranges when you compare two images of differing resolutions at the same resolution but differing sizes. For all the metrics that count, it's better not to downsample. As for as your quip, I really couldn't tell... in many of your comments it seems that you try to put on an air of expertise which is, frankly, not justified by your level of skill. I find that attitude offensive, and it has caused me feel justified in responding rather harshly to you after you continued to insist that downsampling helps after I pointed out your error. I am sorry if I've hurt your feelings, I really do enjoy your contributions. (edit conflict) We work very hard to convince people to upload the highest resolution they have available, file size is *not* a consideration for us: we'd rather have the increased flexibility. As for the rest, downsampling does not reduce any of what you claim it reduces, because people will view the images at the same size no matter what the source resolution is... When compared as the same size the nondownsampled version always looks as good or better. As for why are we arguing? Well I presume you're arguing because you're trying to defend your public image by proving your correctness, and I'm arguing because I know you're wrongheaded about this and I don't want you encouraging people to downsample or, worse, running around FPC downsampling images! As for how anyone can argue those points, the examples I've posted speak for themselves. --Gmaxwell 02:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment. Guys, I just have to add my two cents here... I can see both of your points. Basically, Gmaxwell, you're right. Uploading the highest possible resolution (original 100% res) is ideal since it alleviates the artifacts introduced by upsampling previously-downsampled images, but I can also see Picc's point of view. Besides, I think the majority of people viewing images on wiki judge them on perceived sharpness at 100% and lets face it, bayer sensor images do not appear critically sharp when they're not downsampled. I also disagree with Gmaxwell that file size is of no consideration. It should only be as large as it needs to be to retain the required detail without the introduction of jpeg artifacts. There is plenty of room for compromise. I have never uploaded any of my images at 100% resolution simply because I don't feel it is necessary. Then again, my old camera was 6 megapixel and the new one is now 13mp, so there is plenty left after downsampling :). I can see why occasionally, a higher resolution would be nice, but as long as it is not excessively downsized (no more than 50% downsampling), I don't see a problem at all - Gmaxwell is obviously far pickier than the majority of wikipediers. :) Diliff 19:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree, Diliff has basically said what I wanted to say. Also, a printable-size requirement is ridiculous. Enochlau 23:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excerpts from wikipedia are printed all the time (I have a wikireader on frankfurt on my desk at home :-) ). There's also been plans to have all of wikipedia printed, at some future date. Optimisations for screen do not carry well in print. Finally, Wikipedia will be around for quite a while, so whatever pre-optimisations you do now may well turn out to be detrimental in the long run. It's best to retain as much data as possible. Kim Bruning 23:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great picture, wonderful colour and pattern. The background is fine: an interesting pattern in itself and quite distinct from the spider. William M. Connolley 16:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
• Support I think it's a great picture, with really nice detail and color. The background really emphasizes the spider, so the fact that it's asphault doesn't bother me. And as far as the image resolution goes, upload the highest resolution you can -- it's easy to go from higher to lower resolutions, but you can't go the other way! Images can look really good at their original resolution, for example, the most recent featured picture. I like the "noise" that you see looking at it at its original resolution; looks more authentic and detailed, like film grain. I would say that if you're resizing images, don't resize them smaller than 1600x1200, otherwise the images start becoming too small for people's monitors or for printing. But then again, that's just my opinion. --mdd4696 18:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support Edited version. Ideally, the ashpalt wouldn't be there and the image was slightly larger, but still a good photo. --Fir0002 08:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Marbled_Orb_Weaver.jpg Raven4x4x 05:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We had something a bit like this a while ago (the image server is running too slowly for me to find it at the mo), but there were some minor concerns over jpeg artifacts. This one by User:Haloeffect looks a little bit better and similarly illustrates a nicely dynamic subject at Fire-twirling.

• Nominate and support. - Solipsist 19:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It seems to be rather washed out, and the image noise and JPEG artifacting are noticable, so I've uploaded this edit.PiccoloNamek 22:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Blurry. Enochlau 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course it's blurry. To get that size of trail you have to have a relatively long exposure, and in that time the man and probably the camera too will have moved slightly. I think the fact that the twirler isn't so well defined adds to it, because if he was sharp it would draw your attention towards him and away from the fire. —Vanderdecken^∫ξφ

• Support - you can't get perfect clarity and show those fire rings. Renata3 19:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support Looks fine to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 07:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the edited version. The blurring actually contributes to the pic, me thinks. --anetode╔╝ 08:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TomStar81 20:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Vanderdecken/Support. I agree with Anetode, very nice and adds to article. It's the second version for me. —Vanderdecken^∫ξφ 12:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The fire could be sharper, and there's quite a lot of noise. I've taken better [3]. ed g2s • talk 20:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support version 2. Comment: "I've taken better" - why don't you upload one, then? ;-) Seriously, a picture like this is often a lucky shot. This one could have been a little better by using a tripod, but is quite nice as is. --Janke | Talk 14:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:AnnanStaff2-2.jpg Raven4x4x 06:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really nice picture (self nom). It was taken in the French Pyrenees (near Lescun). On the thumbnail it looks as if they blur into the background, but because its sharp they don't on the full size version. The only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't appear in any article, so I put it here in the hope that someone might recognise the species. Or it might go in symmetry I suppose... [update: its now on Coprophagia :-) and symmetry in nature: thanks! William M. Connolley 19:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)][reply]

• Nominate and support. - William M. Connolley 17:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the picture does not appear in any article. Should be nominated for featured pic on WM Commons, would have my full support there. - Lanoitarus 18:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that my objection is only because of the article issue, I would support the image fully if it was in an appropriate article. -Lanoitarus 18:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am reiterating my opposition now that this has moved to the voting stage. Although it now appears in articles, in my personal opinion, it is not a ideal representation of either Coprophagia or Symmetry in nature (the symmetry because i dont feel TWO butterflies illustrate a naturally occuring symmetry, it is more coincidence. As before if this was part of a artcile which is illustrated well (such as its own species, for example), i would support the image, and i would have my full support on wikimedia commons as a free-standing image. - Lanoitarus 04:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm in the process of sorting this. Thanks for the learned suggestion of User:Guettarda, it looks like this is a good illustration of Coprophagia. Though I would still like to identify the species of butterfly. -- Solipsist 19:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely astonishing, I can't take my eyes off it. Support, if an appropriate article can be found, and to the cat with the two days commenting period. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice composition. Support. The JPEG artifacts, especially around the antennae, in the large version are unfortunate. You didn't happen to keep the original file/photo did you? Could you export it at a much higher quality (~500-1000 KB)? — David Remahl 18:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry: it was only ever a JPG and its at its std rez, and I didn't even keep the original 1600x1200 version - I had a small disk in those days :-( William M. Connolley 19:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• There. It's now at symmetry in nature, greatly improving that article. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, I don't actually think this picture illustrates symmetry in nature. The symmetry here is accidental (two seperate butterflies). Symmetry in nature would be better illustrated by a view of both of one butterfly's wings. -Lanoitarus 20:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A friendly reminder to all that voting should not begin until 2 days have elapsed. Enochlau 02:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There doesn't seem to be much of a consensus about that rule. I've updated the procedure again to reflect that. I understand your intentions are honorable (encourage consensus-building about nominations) but that doesn't mean you can set unilateral policy for a whole page. — David Remahl 11:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll make a comment on talk page some time later today. Enochlau 23:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• In that case I ask anyone to bold my support for the original image once voting starts. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have bolded your support as per your request. - Lanoitarus 04:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's nice, but I don't know about how well a lump of faeces will go on the Main Page. And I don't think it's symmetry in nature. Enochlau 02:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Coprophagia in action. —jiy (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This exemplifies Wikipedia too, sharing the... Just joking, very nice picture! --Janke | Talk 13:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image: Adonis Blue butterflies.jpg Raven4x4x 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This image appears in London Heathrow Airport, where it serves to illustrate some of the unique security concerns at LHR. It is also a very striking picture taken alone, and is of quite good quality. It is flagged as created and released into PD by User:Arpingstone. Its description page reads "An unusual road at London Heathrow Airport, England. A British Airways Boeing 777-200 is being towed across a public road on its way to the maintenance hangars. Photographed by Adrian Pingstone in April 2005 and released to the public domain."

• Nominate and support. This picture is quite striking and illustrates a very unusual security concern at LHR. - Lanoitarus 17:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's different and interesting.--Dakota ^{t e} 01:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Can I support my own pic? if not, disregard this vote! - Adrian Pingstone 22:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it's a devious conspiracy between you and Lanoitarus to get an extra vote ;) Enochlau 15:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't think anyone would find us out! What's your vote? - Adrian Pingstone 16:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An interesting intersection (ha!) of two popular modes of transport. I wonder if this can be at all symbolic of any David-Goliath dichotomy? :) E Pluribus Anthony 21:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I just don't think it's horribly striking; it's rather ordinary. Although the situation may be unusual, I had to read the description to find out that it was unusual... maybe I'm just stupid. Enochlau 02:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose First impression: "Some cars on the road. I don't see anything striking or interesting in this." Second, after reading a caption: "Oh, so it is a plane, not a building". If the plane was more distinct, I'd support, but as it stands, it's just not striking enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Its not immediatly striking. Only after Zooming in and looking at do I realise what is going on.--Ewok Slayer 07:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose Agree with Ewok Slayer. --Fir0002 08:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Looks too ordinary, even though the situation perhaps isn't. --Janke | Talk 13:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of increasing the variety of our featured pictures I'm nominating this one. It's an illustration from an 18th century Icelandic manuscript of the Prose Edda. You can see that even though the manuscript is relatively young the artistic style is quite primitive, medieval even. The god Thor, wielding his hammer, wants to catch the Midgard Serpent. The giant Hymir is afraid. The image appears in a couple of Norse mythology articles, including the one on the Midgard Serpent.

• Nominate and support. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Image page would benefit from a translation of the text in the upper right. —Cryptic (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'll do it tomorrow. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - Haukur Þorgeirsson

• I originally obtained the image here: [4] (zoom in). I think I did a decent job of cropping and enhancing the raw original but I know that many of you are much better at this than I am so there's the source if anyone wants to experiment. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose Has no appeal to me whatsoever. --Fir0002 08:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It may illustrate the article and Nordic mythology very well, but as an image by iself, it is not very remarkable.
• Comment - Photoshoped this to hell and back. I think I over did it a little. If anyone wants my psd, just ask.-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 17:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  "Thor visits Photoshop." LOL :D It's really keen what you people can do with that tool. It's certainly much cleaner, sharper and more colourful. On the other hand I think the somewhat shabby original look has its appeal too. Interesting contribution, thank you. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC) - readded for a short time.[reply]

Nice photo showing hard man in Montana countryside. You can almost imagine this shepherd's freedom and pride. Photographed by Russell Lee. PD photo from Library of Congress.

• Nominate and support. - Darwinek 19:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a particularly bad scratch in the sky and some overall dust; also compression artifacts (especially around the horse's nose, between the horse and the sky, and between rider and the sky). The scratch and dust can be cleaned up, but I wouldn't want to try fixing the artifacts. Is there a less-compressed scan? —Cryptic (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't found it yet. - Darwinek 09:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the sky is a funny colour 202.74.223.90 03:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the sky is in no way a "funny colour" on my screen - Adrian Pingstone 22:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Washed out. Enochlau 02:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel that this is washed out at all. I will, unfortunately, have to oppose for the low image quality that Cryptic mentioned. Raven4x4x 04:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still oppose the new ones, the artifacts as mentioned. Enochlau 06:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - could you crop it from the left to balance it out? And it's also a shame the guys eyes are in shadow. Renata3 18:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is a fixed version. I removed the color cast and clarified it a bit. I also tried to smooth over the sky as much as possible while maintaining the integrity of the clouds. Oh, and I also healed out all of the scratches and dust spots. I feel the rest of the artifacting is negligible, so I will Support this version. It really is a beautiful photo.PiccoloNamek 07:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Uploaded another edit. In my version, I have enhanced the warmness of the photo (which I prefer over the slightly cold colors of Piccolo's edit) and have kept the file size small without too much quality loss. But a still don't think it is worthy of FP status because of the small size of the pic --Fir0002 06:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Cold? It looks perfectly neutral on my calibrated monitor, and is probably closest to what was actually shot. The second edit looks very orange, and slightly hazy. Anyway, working in CMYK mode, I managed to "warmen" the picture in what I think is a more faithful manner.PiccoloNamek 06:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support & Comment. Guys, you've both managed to wash out the highlights on the horse's snout as far as I can see (not on my usual calibrated monitor but highlights are usually not lost on bad monitors, its usually the shadow detail that is lost). I do agree that the colour cast is a little cold in Picc's version, and probably slightly more accurate in Fir's considering the shadows and therefore time of day, but excuse me for being picky. ;) My pick is probably the 3rd edit. Diliff 21:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't think there was any real image information in the horse's snout to begin with. Judging the two pictures side by side, the difference is minimal. The main problem with Fir0002's edit is that the horse has a very heavy and distinct orange cast, which I am positive did not appear in the original scene, or in the original print, unless it was a horse that had orange fur.PiccoloNamek 23:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, when I look at your edits, all I see is a washout on the snout. I haven't got an image editing program in front of me right now, but I suggest you use an eyedropper on the highlights of both the original and your edits and see whether they correspond. I know you increased the contrast so the actual values will have changed in your edit, but I suspect that if the original was just as washed out, you will see patches where the RGB values will be constant. It just doesn't appear that way to my eyes though. Of course, they could be lying but I don't think so. :) I agree about Fir's edit - it was way too warm, but I don't think the horse was quite as white as in your edit, either. You've overcompensated with the colour balance. Diliff 03:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all four (so far); artifacts. —Cryptic (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Isn't 640x800-ish too small for a FPC? --Janke | Talk 13:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]