Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2008

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

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

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

Reason

Good quality, beautiful: I came by the article Iguazu falls from an article of The 100 most beautiful places in the world just to find a picture, and I was surprised why it wasn't featured.

Articles this image appears in

Iguazu Falls

Creator

Martin St-Amant S23678

• Support as nominator. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, after reading the responses below I can only agree to that it doesn't fully fulfill the criteria, no matter how enchanting it is, so I withdraw from the nomination. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The highlights are totally blown. Suggest speedy close - "snowball's chance"... --Janke | Talk 16:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose I wouldn't go so far as speedy close, but the highlights are a deal-breaker. I can tell that it must have been beautiful in real life, though...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment suboptimal perhaps, but I think it actually adds to the beauty of the picture with water shining as brightly as the sun. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have to agree with Janke, and I also see a bit of noise in the photo. Spencer^T♦C 18:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As the author of the picture, I overexposed the picture (pictures, it's a panorama) for artistic reasons, since I think that the dense, vivid green vegetation details creates a better effect than seeing every details in the water and steam (the far waterfalls are always covered in steam anyway). I really do appreciate that Mikael thought this picture is worth FP mention, but it clearly fails "rule" number 1, which is the reason why I did not nominated this picture in first, and also why I need to oppose it right now. However, I would like to mention that FP status, although interesting from an author POV, is just as interesting as when someone simply say that he is appreciating my work. I really thank you Mikael for your comments. --S23678 (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all above. It's a beautiful picture (double rainbow!), just doesn't fit the bill as an FPC. Amphy (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Stunning. I looked at the full res version and almost thought it was fake. It's beautiful, at least to my somewhat trained eye. Yet another HST image nom. by me, but its probably the best.

Articles this image appears in

Messier 43

Creator

Hubble Space Telescope

• Support as nominator --—Sunday • (Testify!) 12:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Though the nebula itself looks very good, noise issues in the area arround it prevent me from supporting. Spencer^T♦C 03:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is nothing but a crop of the existing Orion nebula FP. No reason it should be featured. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close Victorrocha (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close - I realized that I tried to do this before, and realized that the pic was a crop. Withdrawn. —Sunday · Speak 13:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A good composition showing a classical piece of British architecture, it adds substantially to the article.

Articles this image appears in

Burnley, Gawthorpe Hall, Sir Charles Barry

Creator

Childzy

• Support as nominator --Childzy ¤ Talk 17:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The bottom right quadrant is really soft, and the too-bright sky unbalances the whole image (not quite blown, but aesthetically not much different).--ragesoss (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sharpness and lighting particularly. Just not up to the FP benchmark for architecture. Mfield (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Really a shame that image quality is so poor. It looks like a haunted house! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose It seems a bit tilted. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

An image of good size and quality, the subject is well captured from both technical and creative angles. The image itself adds greatly to the article as it sets the scene better than words can.

Articles this image appears in

Jurassic Park River Adventure, Islands of Adventure

Creator

Childzy

• Support as nominator --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - There are some technical problems. I see some fuzziness and it is very unclear, the clarity of the people falling, where the true EV is, lacking. Sorry, —Sunday | Speak 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose perspective problems. Durova^Charge! 09:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - sorry Childzy, the composition is good and I like the subject, but as noted above it's not sharp and there are a few problems with perspective. At thumbnail it works fine, but that's not what we're judging. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I agree with the comments above. The shot was not fast enough, so there's apparently some camera shake. Also, many parts of the picture are not focused correctly. Nice image, but when seen in full resolution there are some unfortunate distortions. Luca (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm also going to have to oppose...the picture at first looked like a detailed sketch of the water ride, and sharpness and noise are definitely issues. Spencer^T♦C 00:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the reasons above. It does bring me back to when i was there years and years ago though. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is a superb night image of Melbourne with fantastic colour. The image is of high resolution, free of artefacts and is among the best photos of Melbourne.

Articles this image appears in

Melbourne

Creator

Jetsetkiwi

• Support as nominator --Mvjs (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would have liked to see it wider, there is visible colour fringing particularly on the left hand side. Blown highlights on lights aren't an issue imo, but a great deal of the clock face and the building on it's left is blown distorting colour. There are also sharpening artifacts on the top of many buildings, probably in an attempt to counter the softness probably discovered at f20, I'd suggest a lower fstop next time, 20 is overkill. That said, I love the colours and sky, the photo is only let down from the technical view point. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Finally, a skyline at night image that isn't HDR (at least not that I can tell)! Kaldari (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A bit dark and soft. Aperture completely inappropriate for this sort of scene. Composition a bit tight. Essentially I agree with Noodle Snacks. I'm admittedly biased as its my home town and I've taken many similar shots like this. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not a bad photo, but the compostition is kind of tight, as David said. —Sunday | Speak 22:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good spectrum of colors, interesting sky. The shot is well framed and does a good job of showing a part of the sky line. Needs a little more description, but it's a good picture. vote added by Bobshoe - Blieusong (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Tilted buildings and diffraction softness. Mfield (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Avala (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great painting that we all know and love. Nice size, quality reproduction. Lots of color and easy to look at.

Articles this image appears in

Bedroom in Arles

Creator

Blankfaze

• Support as nominator --Bobshoe (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A bit small (yes, it barely fulfills the minimum at 1024 px), but a larger scan should not be impossible to find. Also, there's a dark shade on top edge. --Janke | Talk 20:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, this page has a larger version. Spencer^T♦C 00:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I added a wikilink for "Articles" and fixed the red wikilink in the caption. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional oppose I would love to support this one, but 225k is just too low resolution to do it. Please upload a better version so I can change to support. Durova^Charge! 06:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small. Clegs (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A rather un-remarkable scan of a painting of a bedroom. As I do not know or love this painting, perhaps the nom could explain what is so exceptional about this that it warrants featuring. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Van Gogh is a first-rate artist and this is one of his better known works. Certainly worth featuring IMO if we get a good enough reproduction. Durova^Charge! 22:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this painting is definitely known in its own right, so whether or not it's exceptional to you doesn't really affect its encyclopedic status. Thegreenj 00:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that it appears only in the rather thin article about itself does, however affect its encyclopedic value. This is such a well known work, that it warrants only a passing mention in van Goghs rather lengthy article. It certainly does not accurately represent a bedroom. Yeah, I'm not convinced this is anything more than another crazy painting by a crazy dutch painter. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm... If you google "Bedroom in Arles", the two out of the top three non-Wikipedia hits mention that it's one of his best know. This (along with Starry Night) is the first picture that I think of when I think of van Gogh, but I suppose that's just as irrelevant as your belief that this is a "crazy painting by a crazy artist." FWIW, this is not one of my most-liked van Gogh's; I'm partial to Wheat Field with Crows, though that one is not particularly famous in its own right, save the mistaken belief that it were his last. Just trying to make a distinction between what you find interesting and what is encyclopedic. Thegreenj 22:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Truly shocking... Still, the top three non-wikipedia results for Vincent Van Gogh fail to mention the painting anywhere outside a detailed listing of his works. VanGoghMuseum.nl gives it only brief mention it in their biography section for the period of his life in Arles [1]. The nom, the article and preferably both are going to have to demonstrate the notoriety of this work. I'm just trying make the distinction between encyclopedic value and a fondness for an absurd painting. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, if you've realised that it's absurd, you're already on your way to understanding why it was influential. 87.165.198.178 (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Low resolution, but there's no incredible EV to back it up. —Sunday | Speak 22:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for the record: A higher-quality version of this image is now available at File:La Chambre à Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, from C2RMF frame cropped.jpg, if the nominator wishes to nominate it. Dcoetzee 19:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A very high quality image of a Long Nosed Weevil, which IMO is a better illustration of a weevil than the FPC proposed below since it has much better DOF and sharpness.

Articles this image appears in

Weevil and Belidae

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 09:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice macro. Spencer^T♦C 11:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This species does not belong to the Curculionidae family. You might consider removing the picture from the Curculionidae page. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Belidae it is --Fir0002 11:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please let me cite: "Belidae is a family of weevils, called belids or primitive weevils because they have straight antennae, unlike the "true weevils" or Curculionidae which have elbowed antennae." (bold is mine) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake, I confused "Curculionoidea" with "Curculionidae" --Fir0002 11:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support, preference for Edit 1. Nice, but comes across as slightly overexposed to me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Edit 1 is a bit better? Unfortunately the white bg isn't as clean as the reduction in exposure brings out the shadows more... --Fir0002 07:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I think Edit 1 improves it slightly. As Noodle snacks says, it does hurt my eyes a bit still. I think its the contrast of dark black on white. Is this a focus blend or just stopped down? Also, are you shooting RAW exclusively these days or a mix of JPEG/RAW? Just curious about the originals you're working with. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah it is a focus stack - from memory it's about 11 images. I pretty much shoot RAW these days and certainly this was shot in RAW. --Fir0002 06:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Oppose, Prefer Edit 1. Lots of detail but the white background is unnatural and makes my eyes bleed somewhat. Blown pixels all over the bug in both edits, but oh well, changed my mind again Noodle snacks (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support edit 1 - a lot of blown highlights but also a lot of detail. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-24 13:13Z
• Weak Support Edit 1 - My only pick — is that a shadow, or a speck on my computer? Blown highlights, annoying shadow underneath feet. —Sunday | Speak 22:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A white background, by definition, is pure white - so take it easy on the "blown highlights". Complaining about the white background being represented by 255,255,255 is like complaining that this is underexposed because it has blacks! --Fir0002 06:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick look around with an eye dropper on the bug itself reveals quite a large number of blown pixels on the bug itself, edit or not, hence i am changing my vote. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mind sharing some x,y co-ords and relevant offending RGB values? --Fir0002 09:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Attached is a map of the offending pixels in the edit verison which is the lower exposure of the two. The color indicates which channels are clipped. The map was generated by photoshop and poking around with an eyedropper gives identical results. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • It's worth noting how minor the clipping is (it's only happening in one channel) and that it's occurring on white hairs. And as I'm sure you'd agree, when dealing with white hairs, or for that matter white feathers very minor clipping such as this doesn't affect the image very much. Indeed in terms of photographic accuracy I would again argue that we should call white white and so white hairs (which have no resolvable detail anyway) should be pretty darn close to 255,255,255 --Fir0002 11:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think it's a very good bug picture. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit1 I don't think this is that easily improvable except maybe to fade the shadows under the head some more. Mfield (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. I don't think clipping is a significant problem. White backgrounds do sometimes make for uncomfortable viewing, but the level of detail and depth of focus is too good not to feature this.--ragesoss (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Long nosed weevil edit.jpg MER-C 10:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A child, a sunny day, a bright lawn, and a drinking fountain--a fine sight ruined by the sign on the tree and the courthouse in the background. Still it's an important subject and (I was surprised to discover) not an easy one to locate high resolution public domain photography for. So I'll have to ask leniency for the grain of the somewhat high speed film (it may have been necessary to get exposure in the shadows) and the soft focus on the boy who appears to be pushing away from the fountain and turning to leave at the sight of a strange photographer. The poignancy of this one does it for me. Restored version of Image:Segregation 1938.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Discrimination, Jim Crow laws, Separate but equal, State racism

Creator

John Vachon

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 07:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: This is the picture of hypocrisy. Good find, and a nice cleanup. Fletcher (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It is indeed hard to find such images, because Roy Stryker did not encourage his photographers to take them--his emphasis was always on poverty rather than race, a conscious choice which has greatly affected the image of the depression in the popular consciousness. Good work, Durova. Chick Bowen 00:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- This photo is powerful. Great find. (Giligone (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Support for symbolism alone. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - For incredible EV. Nice cleanup, too, durova. —Sunday | Speak 22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all above. Amphy (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Segregation 1938b.jpg MER-C 10:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Excellent print of the document signed (stamped) and later read by Emperor Hirohito which announced Japan's capitulation, effectively ending World War II.

Articles this image appears in

Surrender of Japan

Creator

Imperial Household Agency

• Support as nominator --Cla68 (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice one, Cla. ;) —Sunday | Speak 10:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Looks a bit too small for comfortable reading -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're on the english wikipedia, I don't think many people would be attempting to confortably read this. Just my opinion. Spencer^T♦C 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think it's fine. Really clean pic. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great historical importance and good image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, and per my comment above. Spencer^T♦C 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Perhaps not big enough for comfortable reading, but big enough to be legible.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's pretty legible; some of the kanji are jumbled, but calligraphy will cause that to happen at any size. The katakana are tiny, but still easily legible. High historical significance. --Golbez (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This copy is obviously much smaller than the original. And while the historical importance of the manuscript can't be denied, what we are evaluating here is a picture, i.e. the graphical component of the document, not its content or historical relevance. It's not enough to be legible, especially if we take into account this is a callygraphy work. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose would gladly support a better digital file of the same subject. Alvesgaspar raises good points. I was on the fence and reviewed this several times. What tipped the balance is text bleed through: it's soft but it's unmistakable and it runs throughout the entire image. This was scanned from a sheet that had printing in a Western script on the opposite side. Strongly suggest the nominator consult Shoemaker's Holiday's scanning guide on Commons and give this another try. Encyclopedic value is superb; the technical side needs a boost. Durova^Charge! 10:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar and Durova: technical shortcomings too serious for FP status.--ragesoss (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Oppose The image has EV, but the technical shortcomings are a problem. As per Durova. Jordan ^Contribs 08:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 10:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The image maches most of the FP criteria and it is very beautiful flower.

Articles this image appears in

Dahlia

Creator

Lestat

• Support as nominator --Lestath (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - I think there's a bit too much space of just leaves... maybe a crop? (Giligone (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Support I think the leaves are fine Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The DOF is much too big, so the background is very distracting. Additionally at full resolution the technical quality is rather poor, e.g. it's not very sharp. All in all a nice shot, but not an FP. —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a 10 megapixel image. It's perfectly sharp at any reasonable viewing resolution. Kaldari (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I disagree with aitias. DOF is certainly not too big, since some of the leaves are already slightly blurred (OOF). And it's certainly sharp enough. Just print this one and a < 2mpix FP at a same size and compare... Blieusong (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Shows less of the plant then the current taxobox picture: stem and lower leaves are missing. Narayanese (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support IMO a picture does not need to show the whole organism to have EV. Muhammad(talk) 13:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High detail. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-12 14:19Z

This pic is only used in a gallery, which doesn't really qualify as "being in an article". Please fix. MER-C 05:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. --Lestath (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support A nice image, but I do agree with some of Aitias' points. (Distracting background) Spencer^T♦C 00:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Lots of detail etc but a distracting background. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Plenty of technical virtue, but with flower shots, background is key to creating something better than ordinary. It's just too busy.--ragesoss (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The too-sharp background is indeed a problem. --Janke | Talk 08:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful picture, very clear, wonderful color. Depth of field makes the flower stand out nicely. tscolin (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has made a total of 4 edits, 3 to this page. Spencer^T♦C 19:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 10:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A large and detailed depiction of a beautiful species in its natural habitat, adding valure to the articles

Articles this image appears in

European beewolf, Philanthus

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Info - Let's give it a second try, after some smart editing (the new version may take some time to be shown). I still belive this is one my best macro shots, despite the less-than-optimal technical quality
• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Sharp, detailed, good composition, and appropriate angle on the subject. Nice caption, too.--ragesoss (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - It's a beautiful picture, very well composed and the bokeh is excellent. But I think the depth-of-field is a bit shallow, so parts of the wasp are out of focus. Maybe something like f/18 would have been more appropriate? Luca (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info - Taking macro photos of living (and nervous) insects is a difficult business. Yes, it would be nice to work with high shutter speeds (for sharpness) and low F numbers (for DOF) but that is typically not possibly to do in the wild. Working in the studio, with controlled lighting and motionless creatues (like in this photo) is another thing! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Yes, I entirely understand that taking macros in the wild is a difficult thing. And I think your picture is absolutely great, due to the hard conditions! :) But for an image to be chosen as a Featured Picture, in my opinion, it should be perfect (or very close to it). Question I saw in the EXIF info for that picture that you use a Nikon D80 for your photos and, for this specific one, you used 100mm focal length. What lenses did you use? Luca (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I used a Tokina AT-X 100 2.8 Macro (the old 1:2 model) with an extension ring -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support DOF, DOF, DOF! Still, it's pretty darn good. I also like the relevant flower and the lack of background clutter.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It has good EV and is aesthetic. Muhammad(talk) 21:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image, and definite EV. Jordan ^Contribs 08:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As far as I can tell nothing has changed from last nom - still motion blurred and lacking in sharpness and blown highlights. Doesn't seem to be any real mitigating reason for these technical flaws. --Fir0002 10:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info - There is something wrong with the system, as the new versions are taking a long time to show. Please open the second one (which is the same as the third), uploaded in 26 September. You will see the differences -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell you've only cloned over the highlights - the essential problem with sharpness and motion blur is not fixed. In fact I'd argue this edit has degraded the image as it now has unnecessary and somewhat poor cloning - see the leg for example --Fir0002 11:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks plenty sharp to me, if highlights are cloned over then they seem skillfully done. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a good attempt at a macro shot however the standard of macro work is pretty high here. From what I've done with my macro lens I usually try to shoot at the inverse of the focal length of my lens w/ crop factored in. You're shooting with a 100mm with a 1.5 crop(at least i think nikons have a 1.5) so, 1/150 would be the recommended minimum exposure. Any chance you should have a sharper one? I give you the credit this is a very good picture especially for the outdoors but I can't give it support for that reason. Victorrocha (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm well aware of that rule of thumb and use it ... whenever I can. Macrophotography in the wild is a struggle for sharp images (high shutter speeds), large dof (small apertures) and low noise (low ISO settings). If, on top of those constraints, we decide not to use the flash to avoid flat ligting, we quickly come to the conclusion that the light is just not enough and have to soften those requirements. We can, of course, mount a tripode and special lighting and wait for the critters. But that is not my method (for the moment). But you know all of that, of course. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Trust me, I do appreciate the difficulty of getting great macro shots, but it is a bit motion blurred, which is unfortunate. It looks great in the thumbnail but the full sized image is lacking slightly in sharpness. It is even fairly visible in the preview page. As for not using a fill flash because of the flat lighting, do you have a macro/ring flash? I'm not saying you need one just for FPC, but it would certainly help with shutter speed/DOF issues which seem to be fairly common on your macros, and would minimise the flatness you're refering to. Alternatively you could bounce the flash so that the light is more diffused? Just some ideas anyway. You don't need to set up a studio to get sharp macros. I know the bar is set fairly high, but Macrofreak and Fir0002 have shown what is possible. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair though, I think this is probably my favourite macro shot of yours so far. Just that niggling sharpness holds me back from a strong support. Keep up the good work. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Wasp August 2007-12.jpg MER-C 07:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A detailed and beautiful picture of a well-known European species shown in its natural habitat

Articles this image appears in

Speckled Wood, Satyrinae

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lovely; I like the background especially. One always wishes for more depth of field in insect macros, but this one ranges from plenty sharp to just sharp enough over the head and wings.--ragesoss (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The best image that could be reasonably produced.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support detailed, good composition and reasonably sharp Thisglad (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Butterfly April 2008-2a.jpg MER-C 07:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

An image of significant cultural and historic value.

Articles this image appears in

Wu Tingfang, List of premiers of China

Creator

Frances Benjamin Johnston

• Support as nominator --Jordan ^Contribs 18:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support. Interesting image, although it needs a better description on the image page and a better caption here.--ragesoss (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An old restoration of mine that I had been on the fence about nominating. Important minister from the last years of imperial China. Durova^Charge! 20:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I added to the caption, hope you don't mind. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Much appreciated. Jordan ^Contribs 06:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Though sharpness is minorly lacking, it's good for a pic from 1898. Spencer^T♦C 13:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. EV for Wu Tingfang is high, technical quality sufficient. A worthwhile nomination Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yet Another Support, per all above. Very cool photo -- love his facial expression! Nice restoration. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Wu Tingfang1.jpg MER-C 07:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Yellowstone National Park itself is important enough: the oldest and largest of the U.S. National Parks, also a World Heritage Site. So why this old map of it? This happens to be one year older than the park itself and it was based upon the work of the geologist who played an important role in convincing Congress to establish Yellowstone. It's a remarkable example of nineteenth century surveying and a piece of history. Restored version of Image:Yellowstone 1871.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Yellowstone National Park, Conservation movement, Surveying, Ferdinand Vandeveer Hayden

Creator

U.S. Geological Survey

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 10:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Definite value. It has my full support. Jordan ^Contribs 18:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wow, so this map was one of the reasons for the National Parks System? Can we put that in the caption, so that the info can make it on to the Main Page when this is promoted? Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Ha,ha. This is the earthquakes image, isn't it? ;) —Sunday • (Testify!) 12:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I concur with Intothewoods29's suggestion. Amphy (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, quite detailed. Spencer^T♦C 19:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, cool old map, nice restoration. Comment: if the map preceded the park, why does the title say "Yellowstone National Park"? --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably because it was in proposal stage. Durova^Charge! 05:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Yellowstone 1871b.jpg MER-C 07:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

No, this is not a joke (you may remember my "single pixel" April joke...) If you think about it, it is really a rather revealing image; every single pixel is of a different color, but still, the human eye is capable of distinguishing ten times as many colors! (Really not practical to create a ten times larger image, cannot be easily viewed in full... So this should fulfill all FPC requirements - even size. ;-)

Tech note: Incredibly, saving this as compressed but lossless PNG, the file size is only 11 Kb - saving in uncompressed TIFF, the same image is a whopping 3 Mb! Saving in "artifacty" JPG would of course change the value of some pixels, at the same time destroying the original intent of the image... Also note that most modern computers can display over 16 million colors (256 levels each of red, green & blue), here only 100 levels of each color are shown.

Articles this image appears in

Color, Color vision

Creator

Janke

• Support as nominator --Janke | Talk 07:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support fascinating. Durova^Charge! 07:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps a bit more commentary on what it actually mean? What are changed along the X- and Y-axis? I can work out the Y-axis but I don't know about the X-axis. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good question, answer follows: The value for red changes cyclically in the x-axis, 0-100% ten times in 1% increments, the value for green changes cyclically in the y-axis in the same way, while the value for blue changes by 1% in each "square". Imagine putting all the 100 by 100 pixel squares on top of each other - you would then have a cube, 100 px each side, with R,G and B along the x,y,and z coordinates, each changing 1% for every step. I have also added this info and image showing the R, G and B channels to the image description page. --Janke | Talk 09:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you use an arbitrary 1 million colours/1000x1000 as the size of the image? This means that it isn't using all 256 values for R, G and B. Also, the statement "The human eye can distinguish ten times as many different colors than are shown here" is a bit confusing/misleading, because it doesn't explain whether that means we should be able to distinguish ten steps between each colour change in this image, or not.. Obviously if you think about it, we can't, because this image is only a very small part of the gamut our eyes are capable of seeing and it is only in this wider gamut that we can fully distinguish that many colours. :-) Colour is such a complex subject and while I commend your attempt to show how RGB colours interact, I'm not sure it it will add enough value.. It may well confuse people more than it educates them! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you check the articles the image is in, there is a reference to the human eye being capable of resolving 10M colors - that sparked my interest, and made me generate this image, to give an idea of what 1M different colors look like. I think the EV is very good in that regard. (I fixed the caption re. "than shown here", thanks for the observation!) Also, this image is intended for those two articles, not to demonstrate the full 24-bit RGB space. A 16-million pixel image would be quite unwieldy (4096 by 4096 px) - this one will display in full on a modern, largish monitor... Hope this explains my reasons. --Janke | Talk 11:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood what I meant about distinguishing 10 million colours. I know that the human eye can distinguish that many colours, but what I meant was that it cannot distinguish 10 different colours within each 'step' of your image pixels (which is what may be interpreted from the caption) because the gamut of your image is a subset of the gamut our eyes are capable of seeing. To express it numerically, lets say for example that your image contains 20% of the colour gamut that our eyes are capable of seeing. Obviously, this could only be estimated because of course every monitor will have a different gamut and it will also depending on the settings of the monitor. Anyway, if our eyes are capable of seeing 10 million colours within their gamut capacity, that would mean only 2 million colours would be distinguishable within your image (20% of 10 million), no matter how many steps of colour it actually contained. In other words, our eyes could only see twice as many colours in your image, rather than 10 million that our eyes can theoretically distinguish. I know I haven't explained it particularly concisely, but I hope you understand what I mean now. This is why I think the caption is a bit confusing/misleading. Did you change the caption? It still reads the same to me? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the first time... ;-) Click "purge cache" if you don't see the changes. I'm very aware of gamuts etc, working in the film&video business. I just felt it's too much info to put in a caption - explaining that most of the 10M distinguishable colors lie outside this image, so to speak... That's why I chose 1% steps - to give an idea to the casual reader of the color articles of what 1M colors look like. And, most of these should be distinguishable! (Maybe not all in the top percentages of blue...) I furthermore added "most of which are outside the gamut of this image" to the caption. Satisfied? ;-) --Janke | Talk 12:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Weak Support for its enc value, but I think a better choice of illustrating colours would be to use a more natural colour space, like HSL or CIELAB. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Really great and original. Good choice! Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Interesting. Would it be better to make the image so each individual color is something like a 2x2 or 5x5 or 10x10 block at full resolution, so that viewers could appreciate the incremental differences Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, unless you'd want to load a 10,000 px wide image... but you can zoom into the image by loading it into photo software. --Janke | Talk 20:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Maybe I get this wrong, but I think this picture does not shpw 1 million different colours but only 100000. The pattern is repeated on the x-axis ten times, or do I miss something? 91.63.108.110 (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my god, I cannot believe no one noticed that before. Thanks for the great joke, Janke! (because you cannot be serious now, can you?) --Dschwen 14:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The blue value seems to depend on both x and y. Anyhow, if you guys think this thing is feature worthy, go ahead. This was probably my last visit here for now. --Dschwen 15:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the blue changes by 1% in every square, so there are indeed 1 million colors in the image, no joke. --Janke | Talk 15:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was a bit of a premature overreaction you had there Dschwen... All you have to do is look at the blue channel in the nomination to see it does change along the Y axis as well as the X. An apology to Janke, perhaps? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh, yes. Sorry Janke, you deserve better than my unfiltered bursts of frustration. In my defense: I spotted my mistake an hour later before any other comments were made. I could have chose to remove it entirely, but instead just struck it. So, it looks like this is getting promoted with 6:1 votes. Congratulations! Maybe I nominate the Gimp-Color-Chooser dialog, or the test image of our local TV station. What, copyright violation you say? Don't worry, below the threshold of originality... --Dschwen 20:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fascinating and informative. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This isn't the ideal way to view a colour gamut, as the perception of a colour is greatly affected by the surrounding colours, so you can't really just pack them all together like this. See this optical illusion for an example of the problem. —Pengo 04:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this isn't intended to illustrate a gamut (even though I was persuaded to include the word in the caption) - the intention is to give a "compact" idea of 1 M colors, in the articles it's in - as you may notice, I haven't included it in RGB or gamut articles, only in color and color vision... --Janke | Talk 06:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Janke on this, the only reason gamut should be mentioned is to clarify what this picture shows, and to avoid confusing people into thinking that a human could see all 10 million plus colours within the gamut of this image. Then again, someone that doesn't have a good understanding of colour in the first place would likely be confused by many of the concepts of colour, so it is a difficult case. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. Does do what it intends to do, but apart from being an interesting pattern of discrete colours, I do think it has somewhat limited educational value. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:1Mcolors.png MER-C 07:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Satisfies all of the FP criteria. It is a vector image, so no lossless compression and can be shown at high resolutions. There are no other diagrams (that I have seen) of any dynamite. The image shows what is inside and out of dynamite. It has a free license. Definitely benefits the article dynamite.

Articles this image appears in

Dynamite

Creator

Pbroks13

• Support as nominator ----pbroks13^talk? 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support Its an svg file, so its size is adjustable, but at the moment its about half of the 1000px size mandated for an FPC. Fix this, and I will support. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, it's now 1000x800. --pbroks13^talk? 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clear and informative. It would be difficult to obtain such an image of real dynamite (safety issues).--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You got me interested. I found and uploaded this and this, but perhaps you want them stacked up like the one above? Chick Bowen 04:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain until the consensus is that an accurate version has been produced. An FP will come of this, eventually...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; I like the concept, but I want the 'view inside' (which is what I'm guessing A is) to be better. Right now it just looks like a smudge on the dynamite stick; perhaps a full cutaway or a wireframe could be done to show that you're actually showing what's inside the stick. (I think.) Also, there's no label or explanation of the black band around the sticks; I figure this is the tape holding them together, but that probably needs a mention. (And, if it's tape, shouldn't it be going around the whole bundle, instead of around each one?) Or, is it just a standard color for the center of the covering? --Golbez (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Hm... can dynamite really be ignited with a fuse? I believed that was just a common myth. Besides, there's virtually no informative value in that drawing. What's that wrapper made of? What's that strap in the middle od the sticks? Looks more like a cartoon stereotype to me. --193.227.99.5 (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't really have any enc value - the blasting caps are not shown (no, you can't ignite with just a fuse). As said above, this is basically a cartoon, much like in a Road Runner movie... ;-) Besides, often dynamite is not packed in tubes, just wrapped in waxed paper (as seen here) so that the sticks can be easily cut into smaller pieces. We don't need seven in a bunch, either... --Janke | Talk 12:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Dynamite is sometimes used in bunches, but the straps go around the bunch rather than around the individual sticks. See this image for example.[2] Also, there only needs to be one fuse. Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As above - a bit too cartoony. Also the shadow is poor - a hard shadow will not fade away in a linear gradient. A soft shadow might fade away, but a hard shadow won't --Abdominator (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, reading the suggestions above, i did a bit to improve the image. I tried to make it the coating look more like paper, removed the wick with a blasting cap, made the cutaway part look less like a blotch, improved the shadow so it doesn't fade away, made only one fuse, used only three sticks, and added metal wires to hold the dynamite in place. --pbroks13^talk? 06:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose You got the blasting cap all wrong - it doesn't look like this, and it should be inside the stick... Careful research is in order to get good enc in a picture like this. --Janke | Talk 08:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In addition to what's already been said, I believe there is a spelling mistake. It should be GEFAEHRLICHER, not GEFAEBRLICHER (substitute an H for any B and you're good). Unless somehow this is not German? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it should be GEFÄHRLICHER - and what's "EXPLOEA..."? Also, the paper wrapper is wound in a wrong way, see the stump photo again. Research, research... :-)--Janke | Talk 09:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• EXPLOEA... is EXPLOEAVSTOFF. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 13:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Um I think that should be EXPLOSIVSTOFF. Why are we making a picture of WWII Dynamite though? SHouldn't this represent a modern image? Like these sticks here [3] It shows the insides in the next picture. pschemp | talk 22:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You're getting there. This version is much improved! You might want to work some more on the blasting cap, though. Here is an image that might be helpful. For a bundle of dynamite, they might even just stick the blasting cap in the center of the bundle, although I'm not sure on the typical method. Also modern blasting cap wires are usually thicker that the ones in your diagram (if the positive and negative wires are wrapped in one insulating sheath, otherwise it's a double wire). Keep up the work and I'll think you'll have a winner :) Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspending until a new version is made. --pbroks13^talk? 07:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn --pbroks13^talk? 08:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ----pbroks13^talk? 08:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Historic photochrom print showing the skyline and ferries of Toronto, Ontario at the outset of the twentieth century. Restored version of Image:Toronto 1901.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Lake Ontario, History of Toronto

Creator

Detroit Publishing Co.

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I realize this is an artifact of the original image, but the sky and water seem distractingly green to me. Would it be possible to adjust them more towards blue or do you think that would be inappropriate digital manipulation? Since I suppose there is no way to know exactly how the colors on this photo originally looked, I imagine it would be OK to use some artistic license, but I'm not sure what your opinion on this would be. Kaldari (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Although, the image is old and probably very high quality for its age, we must still take into account its usefulness to its article. I believe that it is of such poor quality that a sketch or painting from the time would be much better. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice as a thumbnail, but a very bad quality at full size. Age is not an excuse here. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I also have to oppose per usefulness to its article as mentioned above. M.K. (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It is a high resolution panoramic image of an important and largest structure in Kew Gardens, a world renown botanical garden/research facility.

Articles this image appears in

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the bowing outwards of the walls of the nearer building - a side effect of the projection method or are they actually like that? Mfield (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats the cylindrical projection, the building is pretty symmetrical. I tried rectilinear but it distorted the far right side too much. I know there is panoramic distortion in the image but it isn't too distracting IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I made an edit which I think is better. In case you want to edit the original TIFF file in this manner to prevent compression, I rotated the picture by 0,80 degrees and changed the horizontal perspective by -10 points. There are also four dust spots (2 large ones, 2 small ones) in the upper left corner, which should be removed. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the difference is subtle, but you've upset the vertical lines now, and the buildings are leaning to the left. :-) Other than that, I'm not fussy about which is better, so I'll leave it to the voters. I'll upload over the top of the original one without dust spots (when I find them, I didn't see them when editing originally). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've uploaded a new version minus the spots. For the record though, the two smaller spots were not dust, they were birds I think. Even in my original RAW files, I can't see exactly what they were, but they were far too small to be dust, and they moved between frames anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original minus birds. I haven't forgiven them since the seagull FPC. ;) Durova^Charge! 22:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any. Good job with the highlights, considering the bright sun and white building.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original despite a minute CW tilt (1 px on window frames). --Janke | Talk 07:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original as above. Good picture. Muhammad(talk) 09:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it is a panorama but the composition is stuffy.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by stuffy? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The photo does not look spacious like other panoramic photos.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both The composition is not “stuffy”, but nothing than great. Overall a very good panorama. Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both Forgot to support. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The picture looks fine-on the caption, can we have the size given in square feet as well? It would be helpful to have the imperial measurements given, especially as Kew Gardens is a British building Lemon martini (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can remember that a square meter is roughly 11 sq.ft, you don't need double measurements... ;-) --Janke | Talk 16:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Original Great detail and informative. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Original I notice, however, a fair amount of noise in the sky. Spencer^T♦C 20:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original forgot to do that with my original comment. Mfield (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both but prefer the original. Don't mind the noise in the sky at all. Amphy (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Kew Gardens Temperate House - Sept 2008.jpg MER-C 10:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A historic map not just because of who made it, but because it documents the beginning of the French and Indian War. Washington worked as a surveyor in his youth, so he was capable of producing this himself and the source attributes it directly to him. Restored version of Image:Washington Pennsylvania Map.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Battle of Jumonville Glen, George Washington in the French and Indian War, French and Indian War

Creator

George Washington

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 19:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question/Comment Presumably those are George Washingtons creases, which adds to the EV of the image, but they are also somewhat distracting. Whats the concensus on removing them in these old documents? --Uncle Bungle (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends on the document and the quality of the digitized file. Often (such as here) there are technical constraints to consider. If you'd like to try your hand I'd be glad to send you the interim .tif. Durova^Charge! 21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the original is better.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you support the unrestored version? Durova^Charge! 05:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not mean that the original is okay to be a Featured picture as it is. However it could be one if the tone and hue are adjusted and the folded line is removed by editing with photoshop. The current version looks like a printed by an old xerox photocopier.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I think that the crease is too distracting. -- mcshadypl ^TC 06:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I prefer original version on this one. M.K. (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The lighting and the camera angle are very interesting in the photo for one. Also, the picture shows details of the terra cotta exterior of this building which is one of the famous points of this building.

Articles this image appears in

Mid-Continent Tower

Creator

CPacker

• Support as nominator --Sogospelman (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for noise and purple fringing (more visible at the sides), and sky is overexposed. Also this type of perspective, while aesthetically impressive, prevents one from getting a sense of the building's shape and size relative to the surrounding city, which makes it less encyclopedic. Fletcher (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not very informative about the structure which detracts from its EV. 88.163.48.104 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - unsharp, blown sky. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the points mentioned by Vanderdecken above. Overall technical quality is very weak. Sorry. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There must be a view which gives a better overall view of the entire building and its environment. However, does this type of perspective have a specific name and article? If so, then I feel this would be much more appropriately used as an illustration for that Lemon martini (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

About a year ago, I nominated a very similar picture that was also inferior to this one in many ways. Now, the previous picture wasn't bad I would say but this one improves on it dramatically. This image is bigger, has more real resolution, has much less image noise, is technically sharper, has a better crop, was taken at a better time of day, has fewer ghosts and is free of stitching errors (not the case with the previous picture). I think the subject matter is good and the composition is the best that is available.

Articles this image appears in

Oregon Convention Center

Creator

User:Fcb981

• Support as nominator --Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support This is a huge improvement over the last version. The EV is there and it's very very sharp. I definitely enjoy the lighting and the blue cloudy skies. I have a problem with a 21mp picture being 13mb though I've made 40mp shots smaller sizes and the same detail. IMO at least it's a bit too big for the common user. Victorrocha (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd prefer a closer crop, removing the buildings on the left side and the cars at the bottom. Excellent picture otherwise. I don't really agree with Victorrocha's comment that the picture's file size is too big. FCs are not for the "common user" to see on a web page as such, so in 99% of the cases the user won't have to download the whole thing, but there will still be an option of making a very high-resolution print. Luca (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - I felt like the original had too much focus on the forground and not the background. The crop gives the image focus, in my view. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. Good EV and nice overall picture. I too disagree with Victorrocha's comments about the image size. Muhammad(talk) 14:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - Yeah, now the cropped version looks a lot better. Luca (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Noodle Snacks resolved what I didn't like in the foreground. Fletcher (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - The crop gets rid of the distracting foreground elements. Good job. Cacophony (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - The cropped photo impresses. 'Tis nice. Heat3000 (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, prefer crop Very nice. A shame about the ghosting, but it can't be helped. No drug deals going on this time...? Matt Deres (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the drug deals go down later at night. The previous picture was taken in the summer at (from memory) 10:30PM. This one isn't shrouded in enough darkness. ;-). BTW where's the ghosting that you see. I tried to minimize it this time by removing my UV filter and I don't see any. There is some exposure bleeding on the street lights on the LHS of the image but I don't think that is due to lens ghosting. FWIW. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Oregon Convention Center Dusk 1 (edit).jpg MER-C 10:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This one has been bouncing around for a while on my PC/Wikipedia. There is already a FP of this subject but I actually think the composition of this nomination is a bit better, and has the added interest of the marching guards. It meets all criteria as far as I can see. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Windsor Castle

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I certainly like the lighting in this one a lot better than the existing FP, however I'm not too keen on the tower on the RHS being partially cropped - seems like composition could be improved a bit --Fir0002 23:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I could never get the colour balance quite right in the old FP. Probably should have another go at it actually because the castle looks a bit too orange to my eyes now, especially compared to this FPC which I think is pretty close to what I remember seeing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The usual Diliff quality and touch plus a very nice composition and mood in my opinion. The room to the right of the guards is rightfully placed I believe and I don't think the crop on the rightmost tower kills it. Blieusong (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - I'm with Fir on this one. Quality is very good but looks like something is missing at right. If it were another author I would probably give a full support... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to argue with what is a subjective issue of composition, but is it fair to judge me more harshly than other authors? ;-) This is about featuring the picture, not the author. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the technical quality is great as always but this is such a small portion of the castle that it worries me a bit featuring it... 88.163.48.104 (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support quality is good enough in my opinion. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great Pic. Shows the Royalty very Rolally. There is a little life in the picture which just adds to the grandness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobshoe (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wonderfully detailed image, but I really miss the rest of the tower at right... Any chance of getting a version with it? --Janke | Talk 12:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd have to go back to the original files, but I suspect not. If you look at the other FP (refered to at the top of the nom), you can see what is missing. This nomination image was taken from the gate on the far right of the old FP, behind and to the right of the statue. There really isn't anything particular behind the far right of this image except a fairly plain wall. You can also look at the geocoding to compare the locations. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Complements the other Windsor Quadrangle FP (I can visualize the quad in 3D, matching up the same feature from different angles). Weak because I would like a wider frame on the right.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Windsor Castle Upper Ward Quadrangle 2 - Nov 2006.jpg MER-C 10:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Shows whole bird, good quality

Articles this image appears in

Eurasian Coot

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Doesn't stand out very well in the thumbnail but the full sized image is quite impressive and detailed. Encyclopaedic angle and composition. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great lighting and sharpness is very good - the 400 f/5.6 is definitely a wonderful lens! A shame about the blown highlights tho... :P --Fir0002 23:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good depth of field. Durova^Charge! 00:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The tumbnail doesn't do it justice.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I don't usually know much about what makes a great image technically, but I thought it was so good I went to the article, cleaned it up and cited it. So It must be fairly good. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Love the shot. 216.254.116.23 (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Very nice shot! But for EV I'd prefer a better posture which would show the size and proportions of the bird in a better way than this half-crouching position. Luca (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to EV, this shot is not supplying the profile shot (we already have one in the taxobox), it is showing the foraging behaviour, and coots forage by looking at the ground. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is very little detail on the bird's head, which appears to me to be very out of focus. (Am I crazy?) The angle also makes it very hard to tell what the bird's body plan is (per Luca). Furthermore, I don't care for the lighting and the bird's beak is blown. Technically and encyclopedically, this is a much better image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice picture. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow. Great image: I like the level of detail and the depth of field. Jordan ^Contribs 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Eurasian Coot.jpg MER-C 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A great facsimile of one of the most famous Japanese ukiyo-e prints depicting Mt. Fuji.

Articles this image appears in

36 Views of Mount Fuji (Hokusai)

Creator

Katsushika Hokusai

• Support as nominator ----Torsodog^Talk 04:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the original might have some EV, but a facsimilie made by an unknown person at an unknown time just doesn't qualify. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ukiyo-e prints are not like paintings. An "original" may or may not exist. The entire purpose of these prints were that they were able to be mass-produced. Furthermore, this would not be the first reproduction of a Ukiyo-e print that is a FP, so I don't really see the problem here. --Torsodog^Talk 02:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown creator + unknown date == unknown EV. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't know if this was made in 1930 or 2003, from the original blocks, recut blocks or a laserjet 3600, I challenge every aspect of the encyclopaedic value of this image. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a look at the image's page. If you had, you would notice that it states that the facsimile dates back to 1930. --Torsodog^Talk 00:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image page also indicates the the author is unknown, as stated in my original remarks. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because recording the author of a completely faithful reproduction is pointless. Obviously you aren't going to change your opinion, so I suggest we just leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torsodog (talk • contribs) 21:27, 1 October 2008

As pointless as the phrase "completely faithful" when the author is unknown. I am not confident my opinion is the one requiring change.`I feel obligated to continue defending it until I am adequately dissuaded or it is no longer challenged. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Take a look at this print. It is another ukiyo-e print by the same artist, Hokusai, from the same print series. Like this FAC, it is also a modern reproduction as stated by the LoC (though clearly older and of a lesser quality). The artist or company that reproduced the work is not mentioned by the LoC, nor is the year that the work was reproduced. Would you also deem this picture unencyclopedic because of this? --Torsodog^Talk 03:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is this print. It is, again, from the same series, same artist, except this time this is apparently an original print. Despite the horrible quality of the print, do you deem this one more encyclopedia than a more modern reproduction because it is an original? --Torsodog^Talk 04:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the second print can not be featured, but yes, it carries much more EV than the first, because it is an original. If I made a "faithful" reproduction in paint and put it up here, would you so eagerly support it? I think not. I see no difference. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really just compare this reproduction to you reproduction the print yourself? If you don't see difference between you painting a picture and a profession recreating a woodblock, then you are either grossly exaggerating in an attempt to make some sort of point or you obviously don't know what you are talking about. --Torsodog^Talk 06:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Microsoft Paint. I've grown very tired of your hostility. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that link is a temporary URL. You need to get the one from the bottom of LOC bibliography page (example: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3g04938). howcheng {chat} 06:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Let's try this again. --Torsodog^Talk 12:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support. This is truer to the original than a faded and degraded first edition print would be. It's a moderately big print, so a higher resolution would be an improvement, but visually this is how the print is generally presented in art books (rather than a photo of a surviving original), and from an EV perspective I think it's necessary, since new prints, either from original or recut blocks, were how Hokusai's work became widely known and studied. Unlike with paintings, ukiyo-e are probably more significant as designs than artifacts. (edit-conflicted with Torsodog's reply)--ragesoss (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. May I suggest to Uncle Bungle to read Ukiyo-e#Making of ukiyo-e. The value is in how the resulting print looks, regardless of the woodblock carver or the printer. So unlike in Western painting, where a forgery of a work of art is worthless and/or unwanted, Japanese woodblock printing encouraged the mass production of these works. howcheng {chat} 21:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- clean copy of a classic Hokusai masterwork. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: the picture has many white dots and lines when viewed at a higher resolution. Is that because of the paper used or the printing method? Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know about these prints, I would have to say it is because of both the paper and the method. Since these prints are basically the result of giant ink stamps, if the paper has deep enough crevices in some spots, the ink simply does not reach into those small pits when the image is stamped. --Torsodog^Talk 20:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think that this image from 1930 and a possibly old erone will look the sam, hence th same EV in both cases. To me it does not matter who made the image or when it was made but what it shows. -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I won't say that I'm supporting this just because of Uncle Bungles baseless and stubborn opposition because that would not be doing this picture justice and it is a very well done example and a very encyclopedic example of ukiyo-e and especially as the first of it's kind to be even nominated to my knowledge fits the criteria of a good FP. Cat-five - talk 23:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cat-five, you're a swell guy/gal. I didn't detect the slightest hint of sarcasm in your remarks. It just amazes me how a high resolution detailed image of a truly unique REAL event like Cyclone Catarina get thrown under the bus, and yet a grainy bit of art is fawned over on the basis of A great facsimile. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"a grainy bit of art" - This seems to be where you are a bit biased. If you think the woodblock printing process produces grainy images, you may be correct, but as one of the most important Japanese ukiyo-e prints in existence, the print is still very important and therefore has encyclopedic value. Also, I'm sorry that something you supported failed the nomination process, but it doesn't really have anything to do with this image's nomination. --Torsodog^Talk 14:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Red Fuji southern wind clear morning.jpg MER-C 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It has a high EV, since this is the first good picture of this famous part of Amsterdam available to Wikipedia. Further more, it possesses a good technical quality, a good composition and a very nice mood which expresses the scene.

Articles this image appears in

Amsterdam, Red-light district and De Wallen

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Tilted. Low enc. Looks like Xmas lighting. A better shot, showing the interior of the brothels (as much as they do show through the windows) would have better enc. --Janke | Talk 22:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is how large parts of the red-light district look like, which is the subject. I suggest you write a letter to the mayor of Amsterdam with the comment that you think it lookes like Xmas lighting. Further more, you will never get a picture of the inside of a brothel. You will probably never get a better shot than this one, since they aren't exactly keen on photographers there. I got in an argument even making this one. If you look through that door, you will see a girl in underwear inviting you to come in. Oh, and about the tilt..there is none. I tried to improve it just to be sure, but I couldn't a tilt since there is none. I also used a tripod (Manfrotto) with a build in water bubble to prevent tilts.--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The red light district De Wallen is the oldest part of Amsterdam and most houses there are tilted. The lighting is acccurate and typical. – Ilse@ 23:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Without taking into account the practical difficulties of taking the better photo, I think this image is not the best possible encyclopedic picture of De Wallen, since the composition shows only two prostitute windows from a big angle. I would like to get a better impression of this red light district from a featured image, also compare Image:Amsterdam red light district.jpg and Image:Amsterdam (189).jpg. – Ilse@ 23:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Well, in that case a better picture is out of the question. To take a picture with an encyclopedic value of the Wallen, it should be taken at night. The only way to get a technically good image at that time of day, is by using a tripod. And this is a problem, because you will stand too much out in a neighborhood were there are stickers on every door, advertising not to take a picture. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is one of those subjects that is very difficult to get a featured picture of. To take a photo of the girls in the brothel window, you need to be sly and take a photo with a P&S or camera phone, but to get a featured picture quality image, you need a DSLR and tripod. It seems to be a subject that is a bit difficult and incompatible with our FP standards. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support - I like the atmosphere and think the picture illustrates the article on the Red District vey well. The tilt is a bit disturbing and I'm not sure what is due to lens distortion and to the actual tilt of some façades. Yes, it could be better if we could see something through the windows. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The other, technically weak examples from the red light district show how much this one falls short content-wise. With the new generation of digital cameras with really improved low-light capabilities, it should soon be possible to get a more appropriate shot without a tripod. And in any case, the difficulty of getting a better shot can only go so far to make up for other shortcomings.--ragesoss (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For everybody who feels this picture lacks EV, but is otherwise a nice photograph, you can also support/oppose it on Wikimedia Commons as FP. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, but this really doesn't convey any useful information to the viewer in my view. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

NASA produced a series of experimental unmanned aircraft for use in atmospheric research. The most recent was the Helios Prototype. What I find fascinating is that this flew on solar power.

Articles this image appears in

NASA Pathfinder

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 18:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sure, it's an interesting aircraft and it can't be reshot due to the untimely ending of the Helios but in the era of DV and HD, I don't think this video at 352×240 with pretty poor contrast and color exemplifies the best that wikipedia or NASA can offer, there has to be some better footage of such a recent aircraft. The NASA link to the source is not working for me. Mfield (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Though I'm having some issues with my computer and cannot view the video, I have to note that the video is pretty low in the article in the See also section. I think it's current placement detracts from its use. (I'll comment on the video and !vote once I fix this issue). Spencer^T♦C 19:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just viewed the video. It looks pretty cool and definitely makes me want to know more, I have to agree with Mfield on this one, but weakly enough, so I vote neutral. Spencer^T♦C 01:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. We also have a high-res but very grainy image of the Gossamer Penguin. Given all the money that the US gov't has put into solar flight it seems like there ought to be a good-quality photo of a solar plane out there somewhere. Chick Bowen 22:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I quite like Image:Helios in flight.jpg --Fir0002 23:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mfield. The video piques my interest, but doesn't satisfy it. Matt Deres (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, rain clouds above, shows the surrounding rocks (important for an arch dam). 140m worth of ladder!

Articles this image appears in

Lake Gordon, Arch dam, Gordon Dam

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Spectacular composition/mood! Very enc as well. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It could always be bigger, but I think it's good enough. Dynamic composition still maintains inclusive framing.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 11:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Impressive composition and mood, a pity that the picture is so small -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Bellisimo (IT), heel erg mooi (NL), ganz schon (DE), tres beaux (FR), very beautiful (EN), etc. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's definitely got both the enc and the "wow" I'm looking for in a FP photo. --Janke | Talk 15:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunningly beautiful and technically perfect, while maintaining enc. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting viewpoint, high quality. Spencer^T♦C 18:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support joining the praise. Durova^Charge! 19:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd say that this has the much sought-after 'wow' factor so often talked about but so rarely found. Coupled with definite EV, this image has my full support. Jordan ^Contribs 19:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above, wow. Guest9999 (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I have to say it does have all the wow, is high in EV and the composition is very strong, but it is soft in the corners and the background is out of DOF and this is all due to the choice of f4 as an aperture, at 10mm f8 would probably have sharpened those corners right up and put the background within DOF. Mfield (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, unfortunately I only had seconds to take the shot and the camera was really set for the inside of the nearby Gordon Power Station (very dark). I did change the ISO from 1600 to 100 fortunately. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could have set it on auto for both inside and out rather than aperture priority/manual ;-) I know how it is though, time is always a factor in getting the 'perfect' shot. Appropriate weather/lighting is the other one, and you were lucky to get moody clouds. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had left the camera was on A-DEP (which sets the aperture to match as many focus points as possible). None of the focus points really laid on the deep foreground or background (so the camera picked F4) and I didn't notice and switch to aperture priority to compensate. A few minutes later those clouds started raining all over us so the camera was back in the bag. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to admit I don't ever use A-DEP as I find it a bit useless for the reason you just described. I guess I just know, intuitively, based on the focal length I'm using whether DOF is going to be an issue, and I try to stop down at least to f/5.6-f/8 for any daylight shot for reasons of sharpness as much as DOF. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I try to as well. A-DEP was actually pretty decent for the inside of the power plant though (bias towards F4 occasionally opening up if there was a big difference between foreground and background, obviously doesn't make the right decisions for landscapes though, which is ironic as its what its intended for. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • ADEP mode works completely the wrong way from the way it should IMHO really anyway. I would love a mode that let you focus once on the closet thing you wanted in focus and then on the furthest and the camera would then set the correct aperture to include both. I believe some other manufacturers have implemented this style of auto DEP on their bodies at some point. Alternately, a mode that would automatically focus the lens to the hyperfocal distance for a given aperture as the computer inside would be infinitely better at remembering such trivia for each lens and aperture combination I own than I am. It's sad that the manufacturers are so slow to implement trivial new helpful features that would be so easy with the processing power and firmware memory available. The virtual horizon on the latest Nikons is a welcome step in the right direction from that standpoint. Mfield (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great photo. Xclamation point 00:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very minor technical faults are negated by huge enc and the fact that it looks absolutely stunning. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Eh, it's a little soft around the edges, but that is GREATLY outweighed by the EV & excellent overall quality of the image. Amphy (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per all above. Nicely donde, great picture. We have a FP in front of us. Cheers ;) --201.212.140.93 (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the preceeding comment was mine, I'm sorry, I forgot to log in. --MakE ^shout! 06:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent use of HDR - a dramatic and enc image --Fir0002 23:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all above. I get mild vertigo just looking down! Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I came across a very similar scenery this summer, but gave up the idea to take the picture because of the weather (which was the same as well). Now I know I should have used 3 exposures blending. This, plus excellent use of wide angle lens for composition, give stunning results. - Blieusong (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile-on support Stunning. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image Diego_pmc ^Talk 18:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support have to admit image attracts your sight. Nice job. M.K. (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support hell yeah. Matt Deres (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is AWESOME! Purple Is Pretty (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because I didn't want to be left off of the highest supported FPC in wikihistory! Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good angle --T-rex 22:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Gordon Dam.jpg MER-C 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A high resolution historic lithograph of a town listed in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, created before an 1896s hurricane and fire destroyed many of the original structures. Every major building in town is identified.

Articles this image appears in

Cedar Key, Florida

Creator

Stoner, J. J.

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 10:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice one --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A high quality scan, I like the detail. Question: How did J.J. Stoner get the view for the lithograph? Looking at the other images in the article, and on commons, there isn't a high view to get a vantage point like this. Spencer^T♦C 01:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lithographs of American cityscapes were fairly common during this era. I'm not certain of the techniques that were used--specualtion here, but possibly a composite of maps and sketches from an observation balloon. Durova^Charge! 06:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. That's interesting. Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 10:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice find; I like a detail of it. M.K. (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Interesting font used in the publisher note. Matt Deres (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If you zoom enough, in the middle, there's a building that looks like its floating in the water. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cedar Key 1884b small.jpg MER-C 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This image is a very high-resolution version of an image taken in 1933 of the Casselman River Bridge, which carried the National Road over the Casselman River in Grantsville, Maryland.

Articles this image appears in

U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keyser's Ridge–Cumberland, Maryland)

Creator

Historic American Buildings Survey (cropped by Algorerhythms)

• Support as nominator --Algorerhythms (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Usually the historic images of bridges and architecture that get featured are either truly exceptional for their era or have unique qualities that cannot be replicated. For instance, this bridge no longer exists and this lighthouse was dismantled and replaced with a different structure in a different location. I checked Google Images; the Casselman River Bridge and surrounding vista is basically unchanged since 1933.[4] Durova^Charge! 08:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is a fold present in the lower left corner. Further more, that same corner looks rather weird. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cropped the image on the left side to remove the fold and the weird corner. - Algorerhythms (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I really like this composition, and wouldn't have a problem featuring the black and white despite that the bridge is unchanged today. (Since it's notable in part as a National Historic Place, the older picture has some additional encyclopedic merit.) But I would rather see the problem corner restored, not cropped off along with a whole strip good image.--ragesoss (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better, but I'm not actually sure how to do that. - Algorerhythms (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak oppose edit 1 I'm a bit of a sucker for old photos, but this doesn't seem to show anything that isn't basically the same today (at least according to the pics in the external links section of the article), so I don't see a lot of historic value to the image itself - a hi-res picture taken today would serve just as well and be in colour. Note: I'd be happy to change my vote if there is indeed some significant historical value. Decent EV, but a different angle (such as the modern shot here) provides more info about the actual shape of the bridge. Matt Deres (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Clear, technically sound and enc image of an interesting spider

Articles this image appears in

Araneus

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Very nice macro. I do think that for animals such as this, it would be great (probably a bit much to ask?) if we could get a series of two or three images from different angles that we could feature together. For example, from above, from the side, and looking head on near ground level. I know this angle is ideal from a DOF perspective, but it is much harder to get a feel for what it looks like in three dimensions. As it is, though, I think it is still worthy of FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm that's an interesting idea and something I'll bear in mind for future studio work, but haven't got a front view of this spider - only got a side view (which I can add if you think it's worth it) --Fir0002 05:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support This image suggests it could be bigger and have a more inclusive DOF.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually this specimen (and quite possibly the entire species) didn't lend itself to focus bracketing as it moves to much. After taking it out of the freezer it's all curled up and not very photogenic, and once it warms up enough to stretch its legs it starts walking (this shot is taken mid stride). So this is as good as it gets. --Fir0002 05:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For some reason (probably the similarity to the image linked above) I thought it was a focus bracket of a dead/stunned specimen. For a single shot of a live one, this is excellent.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 05:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ewww you have spiders in your freezer? *checks chocolate ice cream for cobwebs* Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Avala (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, I do prefer natural backgrounds though. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support quality work that meets criteria Capital photographer (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I hate to sound like a raving fir fanboy but another great macro shot Fir. Great encyclopedic quality and a high quality shot. Cat-five - talk 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Heh, heh. I love your macros, or all of your photos, Fir. — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. < 2mpix really shows here (just look at how much of the picture is occupied by the body). I miss the taken away pixels and "instinctively" want to magnify the picture. I also find the lighting a bit harsh. Blieusong (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are confusing commons with en:fpc - you're looking at this pic from the wrong perspective. What you should be thinking is great, it's way above 1mpix - not that it is <2mpix as 2mpix is not a guideline at en:fpc. As for the lighting there's nothing I can say other than I'm surprised - the subject is well lit and the shadows are soft, what were you hoping for? --Fir0002 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know en:fpc hasn't the same rules. But I maintain the picture isn't big enough to me to show all the details the bug deserves. Maybe lighting isn't harsh. but flat ? (excuse my poor english). Blieusong (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with you on the lighting, harsh, but not flat. It's very high contrast, but it's not really directional at all; the purely top-down lighting makes it seem somehow sterile and untextured to me. It's not a big enough problem for me to oppose, but I do think it is there. Thegreenj 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose as Blieusong. Muhammad(talk) 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per Blieusong and after some thought. Two other things I don't like are the unnatural background and the top view. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just to straighten the record in terms of the "unnatural" background this spider was found in web in the corner of the inside of a building - photographing it there would have simply changed the background to cream rather than white and produced long, deep, shadows. 'Natural' backgrounds do not always entail lush greenery. --Fir0002 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question How big was it? Noodle snacks (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The distance between the the longest pair of legs is approx 4cm --Fir0002 06:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Cute spider. Spinach Dip 22:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Araneus heroine.jpg MER-C 10:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Beautiful example of Japanese calligraphy and an important historical document, as it shows the development of a Japanese style, transitioning away from the Chinese style that had heretofore dominated.

Articles this image appears in

Japanese calligraphy, Emperor Saga

Creator

Emperor Saga

• Support as nominator --howcheng {chat} 04:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a little obscure to Westerners, but definitely worth having as a featured picture. We don't do systemic bias here =) Any chance of a transcription? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could be a toughie. I might try at the Japanese Wikipedia, but I'm certainly not capable of it. howcheng {chat} 16:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked User:Laitche who is Japanese and he says that this is really old Japanese or possibly Chinese, but in either case it's beyond him. It may only be readable by scholars of this stuff. howcheng {chat} 21:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Transcription request, Sushiya passed along the following from the Japanese Wikipedia:

"釈文:（香煙は）像爐に（続く）　蒼生橋梁に少なく　緇侶（しりょ）律儀疎（うと）し　法軆何ぞ久しく住（とど）まらん　塵心傷みて餘り有り". So, the pictured text should be: "像爐蒼生橋梁 / 少緇侶律儀疎 / 法軆何久住塵 / 心傷有餘". --Sushiya (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Fg2 (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination. Everything a text FP ought to be. Durova^Charge! 07:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see several little dots and spots around-are these supposed to be part of the calligraphy or are they on the paper itself?-in which case would it be better to remove them? Lemon martini (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're not part of the calligraphy; they might be ink drops, or they might be scanning/printing artifacts, but I'd be hard pressed to determine which. howcheng {chat} 16:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. That's pretty crazy awesome to have a pic created by an emperor. My guess would be that the black dots are just ink drops like Howcheng said. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Koku Saitcho shounin.jpg MER-C 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Dorothea Lange knew how to capture the Great Depression.

Articles this image appears in

American Agricultural Economy in the 1920s-1940, Migrant worker, Working poor

Creator

Dorothea Lange

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 21:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Good picture, but I don't see a need for keeping the photo print border Thisglad (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support Would make a good picture for the front page as well Thisglad (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Question: it's a good pic, but I've never really liked borders. Is there a good reason to keep the border on this? Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Okay, I've removed the border. It's a minor enough change that I've uploaded over the previous image. Durova^Charge! 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now. Good EV. I like the look on the face of the kid with the comics. haha Intothewoods29 (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent EV and great retouching. Amphy (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Langechildren2.jpg MER-C 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, yeah this page sucks. No help at all.

Reason

highly pedagogic and funny geometrical illusion which doesn't call for any special mathematical or geometrical skills and motivates the reader to go through the detailed explanation in the article.

Articles this image appears in

Missing square puzzle

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Info - Also a second try (see here), with some minor improvements. I made this puzzle more than twenty years ago (in wood) and haven't found yet any written reference to it. However, and because its principle is quite simple, it might be hidden is some old puzzle book. The aim of the animation is to puzzle the reader and defy him to find the explanation, which is quite simple and doesn't call for any special mathematical or geometrical skills. For a full description see the article.
• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question According to the article, the apparent paradox is resolved because the 4 quadrilaterals + square combination is slightly larger than the four quadrilaterals alone. But the animation makes them the same size. Should the larger square be a pixel larger or something? Or does the documentation in the article need to be expanded and made more comprehensive? (I'm pretty sure it does.)--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The size of the big square in the animation does change slightly between the two arrangements.--ragesoss (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By golly it does! It's just undetectable in the thumbnail.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see it in the thumbnail. Pick a corner, stare for a moment, and it'll move a couple of pixels. Durova^Charge! 10:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh yes...I must have been blind when I wrote the first comment.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interesting. I fixed a small spelling error in the caption. Amphy (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it appeals to my inner geek. Durova^Charge! 03:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but is the graphic demonstrating the problem, or answering it. I think that if lines showing the size change are included, it would increase the image's value, especially because the size difference appears so minimal in the thumbnail. Spencer^T♦C 03:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, but the lines would be so close together they'd be hard to discern. By increasing the size of the orange square, we increase (exaggerate) the disparity between the two figure allowing the difference to be wider (clearer).--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Info -- Three small mistakes were corrected in frames 2, 11 and 12. Now I think it is pretty clear, in the transition from one frame to the next, that the area in being increased (or decreased) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I like the sense of questionability and mathematics behind this image. Matthuxtable (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent work. Spinach Dip 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Missing square edit.gif MER-C 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It has a high EV. There is not such a detailed and good picture currently available of this part of the Charles Bridge on Wikipedia. Further more it possesses a good technical quality. As for the composition; A restoration of this part of the Charles Bridge in currently underway. That's why it was hard to get a good picture of it. I hope the picture will be good enough. I even had to crop the picture (something I never do..).

Articles this image appears in

Prague, Malá Strana, Charles Bridge and Prague 1

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

Previous Votes before Restoration Work

* Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Too tight framing here, too - top of spires cut off. --Janke | Talk 13:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Support edit 1 fixes the main issue that I can see which is the tilt, although the antennas on top of the spires are slightly cut off I don't see that as a huge issue. Cat-five - talk 20:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Support Edit 1 also. The crop isn't that big of a deal Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per Janke 67.175.225.38 (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, but IP votes are usually disregarded here. I'd suggest getting a username; it's really easy and convenient! Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per Janke. Mfield (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oppose I was hesitating on that one. I think it's a good picture, but some odd looking highlights and cut off spires tipped the scale. Blieusong (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Weak Oppose I agree with Janke - the cut of spires are a problem --Abdominator (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oppose - bad crop.--Avala (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment I managed to create a better crop with spires! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I attached the spires, so restored the picture. This version is the current nomination. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- The lights in the walkway are too overexposed. They really get in the way. (Giligone (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

They are not overexposed..If you don't believe me, check the photograph's histogram. That does not lie. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very good picture. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't find the composition appealing; the fact that it's difficult to get a good picture of the bridge during the restoration may mean that an FP is just not possible. I also think the lighting detracts from it; a daylight shot would be more useful and provide better contrast on the details of the main subject. As for the walkway lights noted by Giligone, they are definitely overexposed according to my image program.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The composition..that's your opinion. How would a daylight shot be better? It doesn;t provide a better contrast and the details of the main subject couldn't be better. I can even see the cracks in the bricks of the tower. A daytime picture would only mean more people. Here is the histogram (Click on it to see it.):

File:HistogramPrague.jpg

None of the spikes go through the roof so to say.. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just upload a crop of the histogram; otherwise it's a copyright violation.

You're not interpereting the histogram correctly. The horizontal axis represents how light or dark pixels are. The far left is black, the far right, white. The bars themselves represent how many pixels are of that brightness. A spike that goes through the roof just means there are a lot of pixels that brightness; a landscapes, for example, usually have a spike or two because all the pixels in the sky are about the same brightness, though it's not necessarily overexposed. On the other hand, any pixels that are pure white (i.e., that are on the right-most part of the graph) are overexposed. If there is even a short bar there, you have overexposed pixels. Thegreenj 22:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. I guess I had a thing or two wrong in my head for all this time. So a small part is over- and a small part underexposed. Ok, it that case I said nothing. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good EV, nice shot. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 02:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 Oh come on, the criticisms (see the votes before restoration (full disclosure: I was one of them)) were all dealt with and now the criticisms just coming off as anal retentive coming up with new things to oppose this for, I'm happy to support the edit 2 version of this since it took care of the cropping and other issues. Cat-five - talk 21:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I'm generally not a fan of twilight shots for their own sake, and this would have been better under certain daylight conditions. Unfortunately, everything bathed in artificial light in this picture appears mildly to completely overexposed.Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only three lamps are overexposed..and the overexposure is slight. Further more nothing was bathed in artificial light, since all the lights were already out! This was taken at dawn. If this is the criticism I wonder how all night/dusk/dawn photo's could have become a FP. For example: User Dillif' shot of the Colosseum contains slightly less overexposure, but it is still there and even more underexposure!. The same goes for user BenH' of the Paris skyline. Again, the underexposure on Dillif' shot of the Palace of Westminster leaves whole parts of the building black, but somehow the all seem to have become FPs. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, granted in the strict technical sense they are not overexposed. But the concentration of very bright lights in that one spot of the photo draws your eye. And thats not what you want your eye to be drawn to. Perhaps because of those lights an FP of that location is not possible. (Giligone (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• The lamps are burnt out, and this is very distracting on this shot. The fix is very nicely done though so I'll remain neutral, but this still doesn't impress me. Having a look at it again, I'm now thinking that dusk doesn't suit the subject well. Notice that only three lamps lit the scene and no window has light behind. No lights to lit the buildings as well (even very basic flood lamps). The pictures you are referring to have plenty of light sources which give of much more enchanting atmosphere, and which is why dusk pictures can be so beautiful. This is just my opinion though. Blieusong (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're pictures by the way deserve to be FP's. I might try to lower the saturation, so that the light are less orange. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lighting was against you (I insist, only three lamps !!)... and I think it's very nice you managed to get something this good out of that. Other wikipedians like the picture, so wait and see :) Blieusong (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a less saturated version. Let me know if it is better than the current version. http://massimo.catarinella.nl/IMG_5328.jpg --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the less saturated version, but this isn't why I don't support it... The lighting of the scene is the issue to me. Blieusong (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Edit2 The mixed lighting is a little off putting - it would be better either shot a little later to reduce the contrast between sky and artificial or a little earlier to push the emphasis onto the sodium lighting. However my initial complaints have all been addressed. Mfield (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Edit 3 I've uploaded edit 3, which I think helps greatly with the disturbing lighting variation, though it's still a minor problem. Thegreenj 01:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any of them. The top of the tower is almost cropped, and the overall quality is not so "wow".--Caspian blue (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The top of the tower is far from being cropped and the quality couldn't be better unless I would have shot it with and 1D or some camera similar to that one.... --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (edit 3) - This one has obviously been improved over the original, the lights in the walkway most definitely do not look as bad. Matthuxtable (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any of them. And this is my opinion, the composition is uncomfortable, especially the tight crop. --Base64 (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is an image of the first instants of one of the most significant expeditions in the history of the world. The composition is visually impressive and imparts an impression of ponderous size yet violent motion. Its presence in the Saturn V article visually underlines the importance of that rocket in world history. It's not currently in the Apollo 11 article itself because the article is so loaded with images I didn't see a way of shoehorning it in without bumping something else out- requires talk page discussion I haven't started as of yet. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 11:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Saturn V

Creator

NASA (Uploaded by myself, Elipongo)

• Support as nominator --—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 11:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose and probably a candidate for speedy close. Spectacular scene obviously, but the technical quality is absolutely awful. Poor sharpness, low resolution (above the minimum requirements but only just), jpeg artifacting... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've never really understood the point of the "strong" modifier in debates like this- a person's rationale should be what backs up their opinion, not that they hold it "strongly"- but it is common practice anyway so whatever. However what is the point of bolding the speedy close comment? Something like that is usually better left to the regular typeface comments. To address your points though, firstly "spectacular scene" has nothing to do with it- every rocket launch is a pretty darn spectacular fireworks show- this is a photograph of one of the most important events in human history. The landing on the Moon part wasn't nearly the challenge that getting off the Earth was. This is equivalent to having a photograph of Columbus setting sail. As to the technical aspects of the photo- I am frankly surprised NASA was able to get one as good as this one is. When you consider that the camera is within tens of feet of the most powerful rocket ever produced (The Saturn V hasn't been surpassed in payload to this day) with all the vibration and lighting issues that implies as well as the pure speed of a rocket; and further considering the limitations of the technology in the late 1960s and the likelihood of poor archiving on NASA's part (heck they've lost all of Apollo 11's telemetry somehow!) this photo is pretty darn good, imho. It's much better than the closest other version we have Image:Apollo11-Launch-Tower-Camera.jpg. I suppose someone should check if I didn't introduce some artifacting when I cropped it with MS Paint (it's all I've got, sorry). Anyways, that's all I've got to say. I won't argue anymore and I'll let things stand on their merits. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Using 'strong' just allows readers that are scanning through to see that this person is particularly against (or for) the nomination. Obviously it does need to be backed up by relevant information in the comment too though. The same applies for the speedy close, having this bold means taht people quickly looking through can see the voters opinions easier. I'm guessing by 'spectacular scene' he is referring to it being the apollo 11 launch in particular, rather than just the view of a rocket launch in general. The quality of the image isn't really good enough for FP, and the encyclopaedic value doesn't quite warrant it either. There are other apollo 11 photos that might be FP worthy, or already are (eg Image:Ksc-69pc-442.jpg, Image:Apollo 11 launch.jpg, Image:Aldrin Apollo 11.jpg), so it's not as if the event is ignored in FPs. Chris_huh^talk 14:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thats right, Chris_huh has explained the reason behind a strong modifier nicely. It doesn't necessarily carry more weight unless it is backed up with strong arguments and, at least in my case, it isn't used often. As for NASA not having the ability or technology to take a better shot, I beg to differ. Obviously it would require a more complicated set up than is usually provided for a fixed camera, but you could easily rig the camera up to stabilisation system similar to what film cameramen use, and/or attach the camera to a simple gyroscopic system. Either of these would minimise vibration to the camera. This is NASA we're talking about here, and the technology was easily available at the time. The question is whether they could justify it for a single photo, I guess. As for the jpeg artifacts, they are actually present in the original you linked to on the NASA website, so you're not to blame - its NASA in this case. They're capable of producing much better images than this, and there are many others from this era to prove it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem isn't part of the original shot, it's the JPG compression - which can be solved by getting a higher quality conversion from the original. Oppose. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose NASA should really not be providing 'high resolution versions of anything exhibiting such terrible jpeg compression - handy in the 1980s when we were dialing up at 9600 baud, but they now need to update these files. Mfield (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in spite of superlative ev, just not up to the minimum technical standard. Durova^Charge! 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Snowball's chance... --Janke | Talk 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A veritable blizzard in fact. <sigh> It's a darn shame that none of our photos of this launch have the technical quality and the visual impact needed for FP status. We must have Wikimedians who work for NASA who can get us better scans, but I've been at a loss to find a userbox or a user category to find them as of yet (probably was nominated at WP:UCFD when I wasn't looking...) Anyways, I guess I'll withdraw this nom momentarily. Sorry for the trouble. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Image with high encyclopedic value consisting of good quality individual images illustrating the floral stages of the specie.

Articles this image appears in

Pancratium zeylanicum

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at least in this incarnation; some of the images appear unnecessary. What exactly are the "stages", and are there really a dozen of them? The stub article doesn't tell, and an inquiring mind wants to know... ;-) --Janke | Talk 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am afraid I am not qualified to answer the question about the stages. I will upload a version with fewer images once I know which images are considered redundant. Muhammad(talk) 12:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As Janke, I think there are too many frames. Maybe reducing its number to six and enlarging each picture. Two more points: the colour of the background should be similar in all images and the font type is a bit fancy. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The colours are different because the pictures were taken at different times, the openinf of the flowers being early morning. I can reduce the number of pictures but six seems too few. Which frames do you suggest removing? What font is the standard for such images? Muhammad(talk) 12:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I usually stick to a very simple sans serif font such as Arial. To answer the other question I think we'd need to be more clear on what is meant by floral stages. I'm not familiar with the term personally, but if we knew what the key stages were then we could be clearer on which frames, if any, were unnecessary (as a quick gut feeling without close analysis, if you wanted to cut it down to six frames, I'd probably say go 1,2,5,8,10,12). --jjron (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I may have misused the words floral stages. I have uploaded an edit of the original image which consists of 9 frames. I have not reduced the frames to six because I want to show the rate at which the flowers opens. Frames 2 and 3 are shots taken more than an hour apart but very little change has taken place, compared to frames 3 and 4 only 7 mins apart. I have changed the fonts to Arial and have cropped all the individual images to enlarge the subject. Muhammad(talk) 15:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been thinking about this and I can't help but feel that it's not really clear what this sequence is trying to achieve. Reading what you say above you talk about showing the rate at which the flower opens, but you also have it spread over 4 days showing I guess you could say the 'lifecycle' of the flower. In that sense it seems to be hedging its bets - is it showing the flower blooming and dying over four days, or is it showing how quickly the petals open out on that second day? To me, I'm not sure that trying to show both things in the one sequence is ideal, and I suspect that others are thinking along those lines too, not really being clear on what it's showing. I must also say that that second flower, which is particularly prominent on the first two days, really doesn't help things. I presume you took this sequence with its use here in mind, in which case it probably would have been a good idea to trim off that background flower before you started. FWIW the text alignment in the second version has also got out of whack. Sorry, this is turning into a real PPR response. --jjron (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with jjron about the sequence: to show the lifecycle of the flower, frames 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 would be enough. I really like the idea, but won't give false hopes on this nomination as there are other issues. First, the size and quality of each picture: I think they are not large enough and sharp enough. Forgive me for showing my own images but this is the level of quality I would expect of a FP. Second (and easier to solve), the size and alignment of the legends: they should be smaller, less conspicuous and perfectly aligned both in the horizontal and the vertical. Please gon on trying! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks you for commenting. I withdraw my nomination to fix the faults. Muhammad(talk) 11:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

a sharp high resolution geocoded panorama detailing a number of major geological features that adds value to a number of articles.

Articles this image appears in

San Andreas Fault, Joshua Tree National Park, Coachella Valley, Little San Bernardino Mountains

Creator

Mfield

• Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Weak Support (Prefer Newer Version) is the horizon tilted or is that just a function of the geography? Noodle snacks (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a function of the geography. The original component images, shot vertical, as well as a single frame of the entire scene, exhibit the same tilt of the valley floor from this vantagepoint. If you try it in Google Earth you will observe a tilt as well, maybe it is slightly exaggerated - either psychologically or physically - by the projection of a 150 degree panorama. Mfield (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed vote then. In my opinion the histogram could be tweaked a bit (to brighten the lighter part of the image and improve the contrast), and there a few dust splotches? to remove on the right hand sky. Would switch to Support if the edit was done (I may be able to do it after my electrical assignment is done). Noodle snacks (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed the remaining dust spots I missed and also performed slight NR on the sky. I will beg to disagree on the histogram front though. The image feels true to the scene here on both my (calibrated) monitors. Mfield (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That'll do for me then. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You missed a spot. It is directly left of the central vertical axis of the panorama between a cloud and mountaintop. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I prefer the newer version with the forground. Noodle snacks (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yup, that's what So-Cal looks like. Good picture, great EV :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great panorama original, Strong Support new version, beautiful! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Now that's what I call a panorama. Jordan ^Contribs 15:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Nice photo! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV and great WOW! Muhammad(talk) 19:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redux Even better with the rocks Muhammad(talk) 17:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.. One small concern (sorry, there's always one!), it looks like you've applied some strong local contrast enhancement to the mountains in the background as the top is significantly darker than the rest, and it just looks a bit funny. Not a deal breaker, but I would have softened it if it were me. It does make it look less hazy than I suspect it was. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no LCE, I think it is probably atmospheric haze in the valley that is not present at the level of the tops of the mountains. The ND grad I used is too soft to have caused that effect either. Mfield (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. So where are the windmills? Durova^Charge! 21:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention them, I didn't forget them, I took a 39 image panorama of the entire windfarm from the top of the mountains to the South which I am currently finishing up. Problem is the windfarm does not yet have an article Yes it does, it was just orphaned. I should be uploading the image tomorrowtodaydone. Mfield (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Prefer edit, btw. :) Great work. Durova^Charge! 05:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Amazing panorama. Spinach Dip 22:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Redux Good detail but I'm not keen on the strong vignette/polariser effects in the sky in the corners - the sky looks too unbalanced/unrealistic. Also the the image looks underexposed - the foreground in particularly looks too murky for a bright sunny day... --Fir0002 08:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting because no polarizer was used - it presumably is natural high altitude polarization - an effect of Rayleigh scattering which is especially visible in the 150 degree angle of the shot, which I guess makes it more natural rather than less. Mfield (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose original - I like the mood, the colours and the detail. But also found the symmetrical composition a bit boring. The sky is posterized, probably due to contrast enhancement or level adjustements -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1 - Much better now though the symmetry is reinforced with the new foreground - Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the symmetrical composition is kind of innevitable in a 150 degree panorama that has been shot specifically for enc rather than artistic reasons. As for the posterization that you see, I can't see it here, where do you see it? Per my above comments there was no contrast enhancement, the contrast was controlled with an ND grad used when shooting which would not cause posterization. Perhaps the sky graduation would be smoother if I went back and re rendered the TIFFs from RAW in 16 bit Adobe RGB though. I'll give that a go at some point. Mfield (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alvesgaspar for the symmetric composition, I remember I raised the point on a previous nom of yours (Los Angeles). I don't think it's inevitable. I can understand you shoot symmetrical because you actually try to ensure the level is horizontal, but then you can also shoot a second row below. Maybe something obstructed the view (?). Blieusong (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did crop some foreground out as I was having difficult persuading it to stitch (partially due to it being shot handheld). I have had a strong word or two with the software so....

Oh sorry, I thought you shot this with a tripod, set to horizontal level, hence the horizon being in the middle. Blieusong (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was definitely some posterisation in the sky in the original, but the redux fixed it for the most part. It was minor, but noticable if you look for it (which I did after it was mentioned). I find that my blender sometimes introduces this when blending 8 bit images, but to a much lesser degree when blending 16 bit, for obvious reasons. I don't think that Adobe RGB vs sRGB would make any difference though as I don't think that the wide gamut is needed here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A whole new redux. More foreground for Alves and Blieusong, less posterization in sky, slight contrast change. Mfield (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support new version. I think the foreground adds a lot to the picture. I like the colours and mood ! -- Blieusong (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Redux. Much improved. I like the context of the rocks in the foreground, and the sky is better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support redux. An excellent image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support redux I like the mood. --Base64 (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support redux much better context in edit. --Janke | Talk 15:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support redux Having some foreground gives a sense of scale, and shows some of the plants of the area that can only be barely seen on the more distant hills. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Joshua tree keys view pano more vertical.jpg MER-C 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting that nobody noticed the cloning artifacts / stitching errors in the foreground. The picture is currently under review on the german Wikipedia. --Dschwen 23:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how those slipped by either - I will fix them. Mfield (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Hope it works out. I'll notify the reviewers. --Dschwen 02:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message over there in the nom too just after yours. I'll replace it and leave a comment over there when it is done. Mfield (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, impressive german skills :-) --Dschwen 03:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Shows the Government House of an independent (but not known) country and I think it meets all requirements.

Articles this image appears in

Palau; Melekeok

Creator

User Binter from German Wikipedia

• Support as nominator --Maru-Spanish (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Heavily compressed file, lacks sharpness, and subject is cut off. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 02:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Interesting subject, and I'd almost say good composition, but poor quality image from a technical POV. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with the above and would also like to point out noise issues. Spencer^T♦C 19:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

an image that meets all the technical requirements and portrays the movie set/town that is Pioneertown in a manner that will encite reader/viewer interest

Articles this image appears in

Pioneertown, California

Creator

Mfield

• Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Unusual subject but undeniably high quality and enc. Only minor detraction is the distortion of the leaves in the top right corner of the frame. Did they catch the edge of the ultra-wide lens? I often shoot one extra frame on either side of where I plan to crop, because when stitching it avoids that sort of issue by using the centre of the frame rather than the corner. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is a single shot, not a stitch at all and it is slightly cropped so you aren't seeing the extreme corner anyway. I think the softness on that close branch is due to the extremely high winds that day (and that are a feature of the high desert) rather than the corner of the lens though as it is pretty consistently sharp at f11. Shame I couldn't get any rolling tumbleweed in shot. Mfield (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great image. I never saw an image of a town like this before. It's kinda funny how much the ones in cartoons look like the real ones. Diego_pmc ^Talk 07:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. per nom. Really unique pic. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good visual value & enc, indeed it looks like a movie set. (PS: houldn't it be UNihabited, or at least -inhabited? ;-) --Janke | Talk 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really is inhabited. Not these specific buildings but the rest of the town is a functioning town - you should read the article ;-p. Mfield (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Professional quality. The image isn't that big though, while it has been shot with a 5D. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Highly illustrative. Spinach Dip 22:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - There is something unrealistic about this place, maybe for being desert and too clean. But that does not affect the EV and high technical quality. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wonderful climate of this picture (It looks like the old good times). I appreciate high technical quality. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 21:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Pioneertown california saloon and bath house.jpg MER-C 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Sharp vibrant photo of rare animal with rare features

Articles this image appears in

Brown Spider Monkey

Creator

User:Tomfriedel

• Support as nominator --Tomfriedel (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit2 maybe could benefit from a saturation boost. The caption is a bit fluffy, and the phrase "shot in captivity" is unfortunate... de Bivort 17:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with preference for edit 2 the caption may need a bit of re-writing. Muhammad(talk) 18:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Caption shortened and speculation removed. Thegreenj 23:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice, very encyclopedic. Cat-five - talk 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportI like all, but edit two is best. Zginder 2008-10-05T00:14Z (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 The original was great, but there was unused space in the histogram, fixed that with a levels adjustment. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if cropped tighter Capital photographer (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 I support the last edited version, as the tighter crop is a definite improvement. Jordan ^Contribs 15:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (Edit 1) - I prefer Edit 1. The crop and subsequent zoom on Edit 2 makes the image look too daunting in my opinion. Matthuxtable (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any. Spinach Dip 22:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either version. The crop is an improvement. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:BrownSpiderMonkey (edit2).jpg MER-C 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The image has high encyclopedia, aesthetic and technical quality. I beleive the image is as good as or better than the present FP image of a tulip Image:Tulip - floriade canberra.jpg and is superior given that is depicts a single tulip in detail against a contrasting background rather than several similar tulips.

Articles this image appears in

Tulip

Creator

Capital photographer

• Support as nominator --Capital photographer (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nice picture but you may need to find another place for it since you removed a FP from the article to replace it with your image. BTW, Good to have you back. Consider uploading your pictures to wikimedia so that they may be available for other wiki projects as well. Muhammad(talk) 16:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The replacement was reverted. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops sorry, I didn't know FPs were treated specially with regards to replacement in articles. I have placed the image in the article again in a different place. Capital photographer (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • FPs are given priority in articles not because they are FPs but because they are superior, which the FP designation recognizes. Plus, FPs must be used in articles in order to gain and maintain their status. But don't worry, there's plenty of room.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Low encyclopedic value. It mainly just clutters the article, I think the article is better off without it. Narayanese (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a tulip in an article about tulips and isn't the worst shot in the article by far. Any chance you care to explain that a little more since it seems to me that Image:Pink_tulip2.jpg and Image:Konyatulip.jpg are much worse shots technically and the pink tulip in front of a building shot has absolutely 0 encyclopedic value. Cat-five - talk 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Konyatulip.jpg shows how you grow tulips. Technical quality does not help if the picture doesn't illustrate anything (and given the great lead picture, this one doesn't). Narayanese (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support While the current FP is sharper, with water droplets clearly visible and and more detail on the background tulips, this one devotes twice (eyeball guesstimate) the screen area to the primary tulip.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral This one is imo definately more useful at thumbnail size than the other image, and clearer, it is soft even when scaled down though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodle snacks (talk • contribs) 07:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Out of focus on petals nearest and furthest away. Appears to have an artificial outline - looks oversharpened at the edges, even if it may not be. The current FP wins, IMO. Easy to shoot a better one, so keep trying... ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak oppose - I just don't like flower-head shots that lack the context of the rest of the plant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Medium oppose - Not perfect background, too dark in the bottom. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 21:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Nice lighting, nice quality, typical posture for the bird.

Articles this image appears in

Tasmanian Native-hen, Rallidae

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Start timestamp. MER-C 13:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, sorry about that, the creation link seemed to be broken yesterday so copied from a different nomination. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support The focus on the subject is amazing and it is a great shot however only a weak support since as much as I love the shot of the subject (and the technical skill it must have required) I keep being drawn to how distracting the grass and the background are, unfortunately that sometimes can't be helped in photography but it does detract somewhat from the target and from the image in general. Cat-five - talk 00:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The grass is a principle component of the bird's diet, so having that bit in focus probably isn't a bad thing. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed from weak to full per the above. Cat-five - talk 01:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think that, even though the surroundings aren't the most pretty, they have good EV. The main subject is sharp, and that is much more important than a messy background. Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support another great image of a rail. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely image. Aviceda talk 06:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely image. now for the article...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. Spencer^T♦C 19:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tasmanian Native-hen.jpg MER-C 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[<joke image -'man.jpg' - deleted>|thumb|250px|Alternate 1 - An innocent man having his hat blown off. Huge, simply tremendous EV, very nice piece of art, illustrates the subject well. ]]

Reason

A beautiful image of cultural and historic value. Well known and pleasing to the eye. Good use in articles.

Articles this image appears in

Innocence

Creator

William-Adolphe Bouguereau

• Support as nominator, Oppose Alternative --Jordan ^Contribs 18:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not a large enough image, given the size and level of detail in the painting itself.--ragesoss (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question How big is the real painting?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 39 1/4 x 20 5/8 inches, according to the Art Renewal Center (which is probably the source of the image, as well, although it's marked as unknown source)--ragesoss (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support ...Which means that it has about a 1:2 ratio with the original. I'd like it to be bigger, but take it out of Good and Evil and it will do.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment--I'm wondering about the encyclopedic value of this image. It's use in Good and evil is kind of dubious, given that "good" and "innocence" are two distinct philosophical concepts and this is explicitly only one of them. Isn't there another image somewhere that illustrates "good" more directly? Chick Bowen 01:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I think I'll suggest Image:Good Samaritan (Watts).jpg at the talk page there. Chick Bowen 01:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per Chick Bowen. Art needs to stand on it's own, these abstract concepts of "innocence" and "good" can not be used to add EV to it. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I does add a lot of EV to the otherwise unillustratable (?) article Innocence (the painting is named L'Innocence, for crying out loud), but unfortunately there is a problem with its placement in Good and Evil. Might I suggest removing it from that article? It might have more of a chance only in Innocence. But that's just my opinion. Good picture nonetheless. You can even see some of the canvas fibers. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Response The image has been removed from the article Good and Evil, as per apparent consensus. Jordan ^Contribs 18:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think it has good EV in Innocence. We'd be hard-pressed to come up with another image that illustrates a philosophical concept like that so well. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see a frantic looking woman stealing a lamb and a child, far from innocent. Thats the cool thing about art and abstract concepts: anything can be accurate as it is all up to the interpretation of the reader. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rambling discussion on subjectivity and French grammar

::"Alas that such a travesty could be allowed to occurr unchecked. Oh, cruel fate!" That's the problem with subjectivity: it's all based on perception. However, allowing that the viewer believes that the picture represents innocence and not some jumped up kidnapper cum livestock thief, then it might indeed do a fair job of representing the concept of innocence. So, either the woman is running off with Mary's little lamb, or she's the anthropomorphic personification of a vaguely abstract virtue. But which? Now, that is the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.4.41.216 (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ha ha ha that was the funniest thing I've read at FPC in a long time! But really, I think the fact that it's named "L'Innocence" and not "Le Voleur de moutons" implies the meaning of the painting, but everyone's entitled to his or her own opinion. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Wouldn't that be "La Vouleuse d'un mouton et un enfant"?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Not if this "woman" is less innocent than even Uncle.Bungle suspected! Thegreenj 03:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oh! Scandalous! Maybe she's a cannibal!? LOL :P Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Forgive me my previous comment. I made it whilst logged out. I am glad to see that my fellow Wikipedians do possess what might be termed a sense of humour. I was starting to get worried. However, I doubt that cannibalism is her plan... I suspect that Innocence is far from what her name implies. I am sure that she has ulterior motives. Likely, the child will be sold to an Eastern sweatshop, where she will make Nike shoes for the rest of her existence, and the lamb will suffer the same fate as most delectable-looking livestock. Rather unfortunate, if you ask me. Even more unfortunate is the fact that this page is supposed to be the home of serious, image related discussion. I suspect that we might get told off for this. Well, it was worth the laugh. And now, off to more serious matters... Jordan Contribs 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Haha yeah. I think this has been the longest and most pointless FPC conversation ever. We should get "Idiot Wikipedian" barnstars. :P Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Isn't L'Innocence idiot in French? I'm not sure, this being the English wikipedia and all. In all seriousness, I apologize for kicking off such a disruption in the FPC process. I can say in my defense that the above banter demonstrates how there is too much room for interpretation to ever allow the image to fufill the accuracy requirement. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Not according to Babel Fish translator. Also, I don't think it was really your fault; I think the blame goes to certain idiot reviewers (i.e. me). Haha. Ok... This is getting a bit too far. I'm a native french speaker. "Innocence" in french as different meanings: "a female name", "somebody that can't do any evil", "the state of being non guilty", "to be pure, angel-like, white (in the sense of spotless, pure) naive and gullible". The latter definition is only very rarely used as "idiot", as "innocence" is a name, but the adjective "innocent(e)" is used frequently in any of those 3 latter definitions. BTW it's not "La Vouleuse d'un mouton et un enfant" it should be "La voleuse d'un agneau et d'un enfant". "vouleuse" doesn't existe, capital letters are never used for a common name in french unless it's the first word of a sentence (even in a title) and as far as I know, this woman is not carrying a full grown sheep (mouton), she's carrying a lamb (agneau). PYMontpetit (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oh dear. That does complicate things. Je parle francais aussi. Well, even if we can't decide whether the image represents a virtue or an act of vice, at least we know what the title would be in French, were the title actually related to theft. Which it isn't. Jordan Contribs 18:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure how voleuse became Vouleuse, but I suppose having a d' before each un makes sense. As for agneau and mouton, I just used the language from the previous comment. (J'ai étudié français depuis trois ans.)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ha, while we're at it, wouldn't that be "J'étudie français depuis trois ans", since depuis implies past action in the present tense? Thegreenj 03:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oh yeah....I'm going to stick to English now....--HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] It should be "J'étudie le français depuis trois ans" PYMontpetit (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Je déteste la langue français maintenant. Est-ce que vous êtes heureux?--IciPourAider (parlez à moi)20:44, 30 Septembre 2008 (UTC)

• Support. would make a nice FP PYMontpetit (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.94.54 (talk) [reply]
• Support. I think it meets the criteria Tokugawapants (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Just above the halfway mark (vertically) and immediately right of her left elbow, there's an odd paleness in the shadow that looks like a wear mark or something. Is this part of the painting or a problem in the reproduction or scan? Should it be fixed? Matt Deres (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm no expert on art, but based on other online copies of the painting, it seems that the white streak is part of the original. Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very good EV., and ofcourse oppose alternative. — Nvineeth ^talk 06:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Excellent encyclopaedic value for the article "Innocence", but I am concerned that the image is unsourced on its description page at commons. Oppose Alternate 1 - everyone knows that a man with a black hat is never innocent. Melburnian (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternate 1 as per caption :) Noodle snacks (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Any Alternative 1 is unfortunately on the small side... -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original - Excellent image and excellent EV, pedantic discussions of imagery and semiotics remind me of high schoolers in a basic ethics course (but kudos to those who use tongue-in-cheek humor!) — Noraad 19:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Jordan ^Contribs 18:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha now we can blame you next time we get off topic ;) Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I'd best watch out. If I'm not careful, this might devolve into a humorous conversation relation to various obscure and abstract ideas about art. I think that this should be avoided at all costs. Of course, if anyone wants to start up a similar conversation to the previous one, I'd be sure to oblige. Jordan ^Contribs 09:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you're such an expert in an intangible concept like "innocence" that you are qualified to evaluate the encyclopaedic value of this submission eh Noraad? --Uncle Bungle (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very pretty picture. The artist has captured the essence of innocence very well. Priyananda (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see "very pretty" on the list of requirements for FPC... --Uncle Bungle (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bouguereau-Linnocence.jpg MER-C 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Technically sound and good EV

Articles this image appears in

Australian painted lady, Insect mouthparts, Nectar, Nectarivore and Pollinator

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - An excellent and beautiful picture but with dubious EV. Butterflies are not, as far as I know, effective pollinators. Thus the insertion of the picture in Pollinator is questionable. Also, it doesn't seem that this is the best depiction of Insect mouthparts or of Nectar. An obvious candidate to Commons FP though -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice Muhammad(talk) 12:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Really good pic. I think it has plenty of EV for Insect mouthparts and for Nectar, particularly the Extrafloral nectaries section. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image shows floral nectaries, though. mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Do you have an ID on the flower? It's not particularly important, but since it's there in full, it might be worth identifying. Some sort of strawberry, perhaps? Thegreenj 20:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like some Viburnum sp. (V. tinus ?). But it is difficult to say with so little information -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is feeding on the flowers of Cotoneaster glaucophyllus --Fir0002 23:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. AshLin (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The only problem I have is that the pupil of the eye is a little blurry but that's probably just how the eye is, not a problem with the image. Amphy (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per my comments above. In none of the articles the picture has a relevant EV. It should be removed from Pollinator for being misleading: butterflies are not effective pollinators. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Nectar article talks about how predators feed on nectar, indeed describing it as the purpose of external nectar. In depicting this vital process the image might not be the best depiction of nectar itself but it still depicts the process very well and surely adds value to the article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The butterflies are not predators and they do not feed, as far as I know, on the extraforal nectaries (it is not doing that on the picture, for sure). In my opinion this picture should not be kept in the nectar artcicle, where it misleads the reader, less yet be promoted to FP for his extraordinary EV on the subject. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's illustrative of extraforal nectaries, but rather compliments the second sentence of the second paragraph. --Fir0002 23:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean this one: [...] so that pollinators are made to brush the flower's reproductive structures, the anthers and pistil, while accessing the nectar ? Well, the picture doesn't show the brushing, it is not mentioned in its caption and this is not the pollinator article. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No this one: It is also useful in agriculture and horticulture because the adult stages of many predatory insects, as well as hummingbirds and butterflies, feed on nectar. Also from the Butterfly article: Butterflies play an important ecological role as pollinators. --Fir0002 23:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's an unreferenced statement in the article. I've marked it as such. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for any inaccuracy in my above statement, it's been a while since I studied in the area and obviously I need to brush up on things before trying to inform others. Guest9999 (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No need to apologize!  :) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the efficacy of butterflies as pollinators the issue and its appropriateness for the wiki on Pollinator or whether the image has artistic merit to qualify as a Featured? AshLin (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The encyclopaedic value prevails over the artistic merit. Please check criterium 5 here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I mentioned above the butterfly article pretty clearly states that butterflies are important pollinators --Fir0002 00:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (reset indent) Yes, that is stated in the butterfly article, which is not illustrated by this picture. Anyway I still contest that butterflies are, in general, "important" pollinators. Due to their long legs and proboscis, they stay away from the anthers while feeding. That is why we never see a butterfly covered with pollen, like bees and hoverflies. This fact is clearly written in the pollinator article: Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) also pollinate to a small degree. They are not major pollinators of our food crops, but various moths are important for some wildflowers, or other commercial crops such as tobacco. Let me say it again: this is a beautiful picture but lacks enough EV for being featured, as it doesn't add significant value to the articles. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar. I think Fir's other painted lady photo shows virtually everything this one does, while also showing more of the insect itself. Matt Deres (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar and Matt Deres. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment I can't believe the "no EV" argument is picking up so much momentum - this image is a great illustration for five articles making EV on of it's strong points. It's clearly a pollinator: Pollinator, Pollination syndrome, [5] [6] [7] [8]. It clearly feeds on Nectar (fact 5) making it a good illustration for Nectarivore. Finally, and probably most significantly, the image shows a good close up of a butterfly's proboscis in action making it a perfect illustration of the relevant section of Insect mouthparts. Anyway I'll leave at that as I've got to concentrate on preparing for exams now and trust in MER-C's judgement on the matter --Fir0002 12:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we invoking the grand dictator again? I'm afraid that it is not MERC's role to go against community consensus (or perhaps, an absence thereof). The reason it doesn't have EV in insect mouthparts is that it shows only the proboscis, and even so, only partially (that is,one out of five mouthparts that insects have). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MWA HA HA HA HA HA. No consensus for now, but if someone can be bothered writing a section on Australian painted lady about it's feeding habits, then I'd say you have it. MER-C 05:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for featuring. Reason: the decisive impression made by those labial palps (labial palp, Britannica).

It just so happens I'm in the process of making a List of Australian butterflies. It will take a long time for me to get around to writing up each currently absent species. However, this image would be outstanding as an illustration for a glossary of anatomical names of features related to the head. The labial palps are wonderfully distinct, and the eye is outstanding (literally ;)—doesn't she follow you around the room?

Since Wiki would not lose the image by moving it to Commons, why not do that?

If the image is not relevant to pollinator etc., by all means discuss removing it from those articles. However, for Vanessa kershawi it is obviously an excellent close-up. If that article doesn't have text illustrated by the picture as yet, that is a deficiency of the text, not of the picture.

But why not leave the picture, it makes up for a thousand missing words. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution, beautiful, amazing colors and detail, and of encyclopedic value for the Julia set article

Articles this image appears in

Julia Set

Creator

User:Georg-Johann

• Support as nominator --AutoGyro (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What am I looking at? I thought the Julia set looked like this?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Answer What you linked to is a julia set with seed coordinates (-0.726895347709114071439, 0.188887129043845954792), the FPC is a Julia set for :${\displaystyle f:z\mapsto z-{\frac {g(z)}{g'(z)}}}$ with :${\displaystyle g:z\mapsto z^{3}-1}$ in the complex plane. As you can see here [9], there are many different visualizations :) --AutoGyro (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I'm assuming good faith that this is a valuable addition to the article, since I know diddly-squat about math stuff like this ;) Good picture though Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Maybe this is not the best realization of the Julia set for the purpose of clearly illustrationg the fractal replication of the patterns in smaller and smaller scales. In my opisnion the image lacks complexity and detail, and the colours are a bit sad thus affecting the expected Wow factor. Looking for example at this FP , which illustrates the Mandelbrot set, I wonder if something similar could be achieved. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Alvesgaspar. --Janke | Talk 13:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Very eye-catching, but I am not sure of its importance. Spinach Dip 22:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 08:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It's a beautiful illustration of the aerodynamics of the Space Shuttle. It has high technical quality and resolution.

Articles this image appears in

Space Shuttle, Electron

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Jonnyapple (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Grainy, dubious EV in my opinion. I'm not sure if it's very useful in either of the articles it is in. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Intothewoods. It's pretty, but it's not particularly illustrative of either electron or Space Shuttle, and it has some technical shortcomings as well.--ragesoss (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

An unusual find among historic city panoramas: the capital of Bermuda in 1911. Some of the landmarks have remained unchanged, such as the cathedral tower at right (the city article has a 2007 panorama from the same vantage). Restored version of Image:Hamilton, Bermuda 1911.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Hamilton, Bermuda, History of Bermuda

Creator

W.H. Wallace

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 07:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. It's sharp and detailed, but little on the thin side and the composition is good but not great. Also, there are vertical bands of lighter and darker exposure (warping of the scanned print? artifacts of the original creation process?)--ragesoss (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It's an historic image of one of Norway's most prominent tourist attractions. It depicts the waterfall beautifully in their context. The image has the necessary EV in my opinion. For an historic image, it possesses a good tachnical quality. The resolution is high and I've done my best to restore it to the best of my abilities.

Articles this image appears in

Geirangerfjord and Fjord

Creator

Unknown, restauration by Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - What would a historic image of the waterfall have over a newer photograph? I think that if a new photograph would depict exactly the same scene, then it would likely be superior. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Fascinating old photo, but the colors are totally unnatural (colored b/w print, hardly from an Autochrome?), and I see no real need for an imperfect old image of a subject that can be reshot today. Enc would be higher in a photo history article. --Janke | Talk 23:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was taken at sunset, so it's normal the colors are a little bit warmer. As for the old photograph versus new photographs.., Wikipedia first of all doesn't have a "new" picture which is superior to this one. Second this picture draws the most attention of all current pictures of this subject available and last but not least. Why have we featured old images in the past of structures which could currently be photographed again with modern equipment (example: Castle Neuschwanstein)? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it was taken at sunset - note shadows! It's just colored to look so - note that the very same image, with different colors, is in a galler on the G-fjord page! Also, this is most probably hand-colored, so it doesn't show the real colors. --Janke | Talk 09:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Yes, we could have a modern picture as well, but an older photo, this carefully hand-tinted, helps establish that it's been a tourist attraction a very long time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I'm generally sympathetic to arguments about historical significance but in this case I would think the date, the photographer, the circumstances of photography, or something else about the historical context would be needed. As for the tinting: I know that we've had hand-tinted photographs before, but usually when something stands out about the technique. In this case we actually have another, differently tinted version of the same photograph, suggesting that it was in wide circulation in the period and there's nothing all that special about this one. It definitely adds to the article and I'm glad it was uploaded, but I don't see it as a feature picture. Chick Bowen 04:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose I see a lot of archival photochroms and get the same impulse. It's a beautiful medium in its own right, in spite of the technical limitations. Wikipedia has featured photochrom images of historic subjects that have changed or disappeared over time, but old landscape photography generally needs to compete against modern technology. Two examples follow. Durova^Charge! 06:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, this image was not "carefully hand-tinted". The tinting was mass produced lithography; hence the weaknesses at high resolution. Durova^Charge! 08:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A definition of terms - a photochrom has to be hand-tinted at first, right? Even if that means you'll have to make 10 litho separation originals... --Janke | Talk 09:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Adding examples for comparison. Durova^Charge! 16:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  St. Alexander's Church, Warsaw. Destroyed in WWII and never rebuilt on the original scale
• 
  Canyon de Chelly, Arizona. A 1904 photograph that's brilliant by any standard.
• 
  Actual hand tinting on a photograph: an 1851 daguerrotype.
• 
  An 1890s photochrom before restoration. Note the imperfect alignment of coloration for the hillside pathway in the background at far right and large areas if red dye drips beneath the cart and surrounding the boy, also the mottled and blotchy tone of overall coloration. These are common flaws to the photochrom process.
• 
  After restoration.

• But the following picture is also a FP, but the building itself and its surroundings are still the same. This doesn't show much consistency in policy. But thanks for the comment Durova. In the future I will only put images like those up for FPC. As for the colors, they can be adjusted if you would like me to. --09:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• 

• Oppose - I think a recent, high quality photograph would give more information to the viewer. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The people in the boat make this a historical image, and the image clearly shows the falls as a longstanding object of interest. From there the image has enough for me to support. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A high quality illustration of a beautiful crochet handwork adding value to the article

Articles this image appears in

Crochet

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice work, high detail. Not, perhaps, widely usable in article, but certainly this or something like it is necessary for crochet. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support of course it's usable, Shoemaker (scold, scold). The textile arts is an underdeveloped area of the encyclopedia. Durova^Charge! 05:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I meant "usable in a variety of subjects". This is very much a textile-arts photo, and very useful as such, but probably wouldn't be useful in any non-textile-arts articles =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - There is a bit of a subjective tradeoff here, but i'd have prefered to have less of the repeating pattern in the frame in exchange for more fine detail Noodle snacks (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This image adds value to the crochet article, and, as Durova said, the textile-related articles on Wikipedia are sorely in need of expansion and illustration. Jordan ^Contribs 14:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Oh course. Possibly the first FP with a orange background! haha Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice crochet cloth! Reminds me of my late grandma who used to make lots of those. Very nice shot too, shows the pattern of the cloth very well. Though I'd like to see more details of the actual stitches, loops and knots, but that's probably a theme for another picture ;) Luca (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one was made by my mother and I still use it on special ocasions. For the detail on the stitches, please see "other versions" -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose it's very technical correct, but object is just a tablecloth, I do not see 'wow factor'. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 21:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as I said in the Commons FPC discussion, you can practically cut it out and use it. This looks like an excellent project box image for the textile arts project (Durova, you guys should think about it). It would make a great desktop image, too. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Absolutely no wow factor - a photo of someone creating a crochet would make a more interesting and encyclopedic image. --Abdominator (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with above, very little wow factor. --Leivick (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and Durova. The red fabric under the crochet is a bit wrinkled on the right edge of the image, which is a little distracting. Perhaps a crop would remove the distraction without detracting from the image. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - beautiful cloth, but not Featured Picture material composition.Oscar (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Table-cloth 2008-1.jpg MER-C 12:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

An .svg diagram of the V-2 Ballistic Missile which clearly labels each part of the missile. I think this image meets the FPC criteria, and definietly adds to the encyclopedia, and thus I am nominating the image for FPC status.

Articles this image appears in

Rocket, V-2 rocket, Wernher von Braun, Ballistic missile

Creator

Fastfission (talk · contribs)

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 23:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - fixed caption with lead from V-2 article. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I always forget something, this time it was the caption. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good picture, good EV in articles used, especially since it shows the inside of a rocket. Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A fine diagram.--ragesoss (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good diagram and needs the support. Diagrams do find it a lot harder to pass here as it is harder to find 'wow' in them, I suppose. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:V-2 rocket diagram (with English labels).svg MER-C 12:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A good quality (QI at commons}, high resolution, encyclopedic image of a remote part of the world. Neither commons nor wikipedia has any other images of the park and very few, if any commercial versions are available elsewhere. The picture in my opinion, does a good job of illustrating the landscape and vegetation and also shows the road which is used by tourists to explore the park. A close inspection of the image also shows a minivan of tourists. The image also shows a distinctive feature of this park, the Uluguru Mountains which appear in the mid-ground of the original image, adding more value to the image as this illustrates the geography of the park.

Articles this image appears in

Mikumi National Park, List of protected areas in Tanzania

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support just like at WP:PPR. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Good find.Durova^Charge! 23:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Not bad at all. In fact, great! — ceranthor ^(strike) 00:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, preference to original. Informative, good quality shot of that part of the world. While it's unfortunate that those trees are cut-off at the top in the original, it's not a huge issue that damages EV, and I feel the original with the road running up the left has stronger composition. Did you think the colours in Alves enhanced contrast version on PPR were unnatural looking, as it seemed to have a little more 'pop' to me? --jjron (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The colours in Alvesgaspar's version seem better but after careful examination of the pictures with other pictures I have, I believe the original version has the true colours. Muhammad(talk) 11:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks good in thumb, but you're right, when you look bigger the colours here do seem more natural. --jjron (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. We're definitely lacking in high quality images from Africa, and this one is excellent. Slightly soft/blurry to the left of the road, but not a major issue as the detail is there. Crop not as good as the original IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Nothing to be gained chopping half of it off. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support original - I really prefer this edited version as I believe that the washed-out colours of the original are the result of a slight overexposure. A full support if that version is nominated. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really think it looks very washed out or overexposed. I can't speak for how the scene actually looked, but I can imagine being there as it has a lot in common with the Australian outback scenery (and presumbly parts of Portugal/Spain too). The shadows look far too dark in your edit IMO and the grass is a bit too red-tinged. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose edit. I like the wide vista of the original. --Janke | Talk 14:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, weak oppose edit - I don't see any real reason to choose a lower-resolution, cropped version when the original is there. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original per nom. Kind of a pity that there isn't any wildlife visible in the picture, since that seems to be one of the things that this location is notable for. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted, it would be nice, but it is unrealistic to expect much in the way of wildlife in what is in essence a panoramic landscape. Wildlife is spread across a massive geographic area. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mikumi panorama.jpg MER-C 12:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Strong EV, sharp image with sound DOF. Compositionaly strong.

Articles this image appears in

Frederick Henry Bay

Creator

Flying Freddy

• Support as nominator --Flying Freddy (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, prefer edit one Per nom, lawl at tasmanian wikispam :P. The horizon probably needs a slight leveling though. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Two reasons. First, the point of view is not not the best and the bay is not clearly depicted; second, I don't like the symmetry and the central position of the horizon. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The colours are extremely unrealistic and have obviously being overtly altered. ASPimages (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This is the user's third contribution. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: have the colors been altered a lot? I wouldn't expect Noodle Snacks to miss something like that. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was an original, afaik unaltered version here. I know the person that took the photograph, as far as I am aware it was just a levels adjustment between them. It could probably do with a little bit of desaturation on the blue channel as a result though. Of course I am a bit biased being local etc :)Noodle snacks (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have uploaded an edit now.
• Weak support. Will change to full support if horizon is corrected. Colours look fairly real for that part of Australia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Colours are very unrealistic and gaudy. The original version shows that this has had quite a lot of saturation, and what looks to me to be poor application of the shadow/highlight tool in Photoshop. The grass on the RHS in particular has turned an awful shade of green --Fir0002 05:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree that the colours are just a little bit overcooked. Has potential and I could offer an edit but it would probably be best to go back to the original files for this. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. Accuracy is important and I'd give full support for toned down colours. I think I was a bit hasty in opposing outright though as the image is still very good. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose edit. The big portions of blown highlights in the clouds detract a lot, since the sky takes up so much of the composition, and although the colors look less gaudy in the edit, I still don't trust them to be very close to accurate, given the amount of color manipulation in the original.--ragesoss (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. The electric blue sky I complained about at Commons has been addressed, but the huge bite in the middle still bugs me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bite in the middle? Or do you mean bight? ;-) In which case, thats the point of the image! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution and detailed

Articles this image appears in

Sandstone, Arch bridge, Richmond, Tasmania, Richmond Bridge, Tasmania

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator, prefer restitch --Noodle snacks (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support restitched - Excellent picture -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm wondering about the colouring on the bridge, it appears a bit bright, particularly at the right. I have a number of images of this bridge taken from both sides and even through the spans, and it's consistently considerably darker in relation to the surroundings. I was wondering if you've done some selective brightening to make the bridge stand out? Of course there could be other 'natural' reasons - perhaps it's just the sunlight hitting it at that angle on a cloudy day, perhaps they've cleaned it, who knows. Maybe you've got some other images you could compare it to as a check? I was also wondering about your dates on the image page which should give the date the image was taken - is this really photographed, edited, uploaded and nominated all on the same day, replacing your March/April version? (Along with the image below for that matter; in fact going on the times in the metadata the two images were taken only 1/2 an hour apart, which I suppose may be physically possible, so just wondering whether that's accurate or whether something unusual is happening with the dates/times)? --jjron (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly the date and times are correct, take a look at the geocoding of the two images, they are within 15 minutes drive of each other. I did take a march version with a point and shoot but that was fairly crappy, the colours were wrong and it looked really oversharpened and too bright. I uploaded over the top as the vantage point is the same and it saved replacing the image in a bunch of articles. I deliberately waited until the sun came out before taking the shot (evident by the shadows under the arches) as it makes the sandstone look better. The contrast with this and the cloudy sky is probably what causes the brightness as I haven't done any selective brightening. I took another panorama in about july, but didn't upload it as part of the bridge was in shadow due to strong sunlight. The brightness and colours look realistic to me (and I believe my monitor is well calibrated). There are two reasons you may see the bridge looking darker if you search for images, either the sun wasn't out at the time of the shot, or the photograph was taken from the other side of the bridge, which is pretty much always in shadow. I could probably tweak the levels a little and upload an edit if you like. Noodle snacks (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough re the dates - must have been a busy day :-). The images I was referring to are my own unedited images, not ones I've randomly found on the net, which is why I was asking, and why I commented about the relative brightness compared to the surroundings. Admittedly lighting may not have been ideal when I took mine, but the colouring of the sandstone in them is consistent from both sides of the bridge, despite surrounding features being a similar brightness to yours - probably most similar to the colouring at the side of the lefthand arch. Perhaps they have cleaned the sandstone in the intervening three years. --jjron (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support restitch only. The colours, etc, seem far more true to life now. --jjron (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Left part is blurry. Maybe you can fix this ? Blieusong (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a similar fashion to the current Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pioneertown, California nomination, I think that the softness in those trees is a result of wind. I did take a shot centered at those trees then crop the left off so it isn't because I have caught the edge of my lens. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The extreme LHS looks like it's been stitched from an unfocused image - there is a very strong demarcation line between sharp and blurry. Hence Weak Oppose--Fir0002 05:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should be fixed now, took the time to do a restitch omitting the guilty frame and adjusting the levels in a different fashion. I also used a different projection and it looks more realistic now, addressing most concerns. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good job - Support --Fir0002 11:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support restitch - Beautiful. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice, pleasing composition and the image quality and detail is top notch. The main that could improve your shots is if those damn dark clouds would go away. It's sad that I lived in Melbourne for 26 years and never once visited Tasmania. That will have to change at some point. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, its pretty much just this time of year unfortunately, it makes bird photography difficult as well as there is often not enough light, or the light is too soft for a pleasing shot. Noodle snacks (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Richmond Bridge Panorama Restitch.jpg MER-C 12:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Clear view of the dish, reciever, rotation mechanism, counter weights etc. Good quality

Articles this image appears in

Mount Pleasant Radio Observatory, Very Long Baseline Interferometry, Radio telescope

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support any (prefer original) as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick note to point out that the shot is level, it just looks slightly off due to the angle of the hillside and the telescope. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow immediately came to mind. Very well composed and little distortion. Seems pretty good for a shot at 16mm. There is a small sign of noise but nothing major. What does concern me is the dead space to the left. I'll leave that for others to decide. 1/2000s and f/8 this is how pictures should be, I'm tired of seeing f/22. Possibly your best contribution yet! Victorrocha (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW it's taken at 1/640s. --jjron (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating the obvious errors many other people make when shooting static subjects.Victorrocha (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

• I don't know what you meant with "seems pretty good for a shot at 16mm" but if you were talking about low distorsion, this is 16mm on a 1.6 crop body, making it a 26mm in 35mm equiv. and hence the moderate distorsion. Blieusong (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support crop I'm not sure if it's because of the 16mm lens or because of the angle of the machinery behind the dish, but the the dish has a very flat almost 2D appearance. Because of that, and the LHS dead space, I think the composition could be improved --Fir0002 07:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have images further to the front of the dish, but you miss out on the view of the machinery at the back, so the enc is reduced in doing so. A crop is a possibility on the LHS. I would have thought that 16mm would exaggurate perspective, not flatten it (like a telephoto would), interesting though. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah not altogether sure but every time I look at I get the same impression - perhaps the lack of depth comes from the lack of shadows created by the HDR? But I think the main reason is the angle of the supporting machinery - the top and bottom truss work inside the dish align with the machinery behind the dish... Compare Image:KSC radio telescope.jpg which works a lot better in terms of conveying the shape of the dish IMO --Fir0002 05:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I feel that in this case, unlike your recent Gordon Dam image, the clouds are detrimental to the image, with the telescope slightly blending into them, as opposed to say a clear blue sky. And agree with Victorrocha and Fir0002 that it appears to have a little too much space at left. Nonetheless a good shot. --jjron (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was probably thinking of cropping off about half as much as has been done. In that respect the crop possibly loses as much as it gains. --jjron (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, i did fiddle around when i was trying the crop, i found that cutting a little bit made the composition feel off to me. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and EV. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Original I agree that the clouds are overcooked. High EV and I like the composition with the space on the left. That's where the telescope is aimed and where all the radio waves are flying into the image. IMO it would feel wrong cropped tighter. Mfield (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cropped tighter, but i'd probably agree with Mfield, prefering the non cropped version, though the cropped version does look better in thumbnails Noodle snacks (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Depends on the use. From a photographic/artistic point of view the composition of the original is far stronger. From an encyclopedic point of view, the crop wins. I still prefer the original. Mfield (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support cropped version more EV than the original. The original may do better at commons FPC. Muhammad(talk) 18:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either with preference for edit Muhammad(talk) 12:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original version I don't think that cropping adds EV. IMO the part of the image that was cropped is not distracting; if anything it adds context. Tokugawapants (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, weak oppose crop - I just find the cropped version not as interesting or dramatic, and as one of the purposes of a featured picture is to draw the person in and make them want to learn more, the loss of the dramatic background makes the crop much weaker in regards to that criterion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original - Considering that the EV is similar in both versions I prefer the aesthetics and dramatism of the first -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support crop technically good, visually appealing image that adds value to the article. I'd imagine that the crop would be the preferred by editors developing the article since the additional background doesn't really add anything in terms of value, just distracting from the subject of the article. Guest9999 (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mount Pleasant Radio Telescope.jpg MER-C 12:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Cropped a bit tight, but full of personality. Not just the expression on his face and the tag on the guitar--it's interesting to see that the man who wrote "This Land Is Your Land" played with dirt under his fingernails. Restored version of Image:Woody Guthrie.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Protest song, Woody Guthrie, List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees, Singer-songwriter, Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos), Mermaid's Avenue, This Land Is Your Land

Creator

Al Aumuller

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 20:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good restoration of a superb photo. The only thing that concerns me is that the new black point is not as conservative as I would have prefered, but it's trivial compared to this pic's sheer photographic quality. Worth 1000 words indeed. Thegreenj 04:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good restoration, but its more like 1004 words (there are four in the photograph). Noodle snacks (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Much better than the other pic of Guthrie on Woody Guthrie. Just out of curiosity, just how does his guitar kill fascists? :P Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Tom Lehrer is a reliable source, it's "ready, aim, sing!" Durova^Charge! 20:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or as Woody's kid said, "If you wanna end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud." Chick Bowen 04:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. What an expression. An excellent image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Such history. — ceranthor ^(strike) 00:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Agree with original concerns re tight crop, but overall a very good contribution for an influential performance artist. --jjron (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Woody Guthrie 2.jpg MER-C 12:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Beautiful image, I noticed while I was looking around on Commons

Articles this image appears in

Olivia Wilde

Creator

Tao Ruspoli

• Support as nominator ----Music26/11 13:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Low EV with the face being obscured by hair and the eyes closed. --Leivick (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - I believe it has EV just because it's currently the only image we have of the actress... but the hair and eye problems stop me from full support... :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose- The image is far too dark and this eliminates much of the detail. With this specific angle, it is a lot more difficult to identify this person. There is just nothing especially outstanding about this picture. -- mcshadypl ^TC 17:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I agree, it's dark but picture is also very sensual, what is a strong upside. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 21:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It was created as an artistic portrait rather than an illustration of the subject. Those aren't necessarily in opposition, but in this case, because of the angle, pose and lighting, detail and EV suffer for art's sake.--ragesoss (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the image is certainly interesting and visually appealing but it is not a particularly clear depiction of the actress nor is it a depiction of her doing what she is primarily known for (acting), the blur on the hand is also a bit distracting. Guest9999 (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above - encyclopedic value is suffering from the artsy lighting (which incidentally is a bit cliched) --Abdominator (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an aesthetically appealing portrait with lots of detail. I don't think a photo of an actor needs to look like a medical illustration in order to have high EV. de Bivort 03:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this photo is totally unhelpful for me to know what she looks like. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow, that is a great photo! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• fap fap fap --Piepie (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution, high quality stitched image detailing the layout of a large wind farm - a well known California landmark

Articles this image appears in

San Gorgonio Pass Wind Farm, Wind farm, Wind power in the United States

Creator

Mfield

• Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These are the windmills Durova was asking about in my Joshua Tree pano nom. For those that will notice, the small area of softness in the lower center is caused by heat rising off the mountain ridge just below the shot. This image is stitched from 39 shots at 300mm. Mfield (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very good enc, but none of the visual appeal as in the Joshua pic. As a thumb, it actually shows almost nothing, that unfortunately lowers it's value in articles, IMO. --Janke | Talk 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A well-known feature of the Southern California landscape used in films etc. for decades (including Less Than Zero (film)). For those who are less familiar, this large wind energy farm is adjacent to the main freeway heading east into the Mojave Desert from Los Angeles (which is a major artery for transportation to the Palm Springs resort communities, Las Vegas, and other eastward destinations). I would have supported for encyclopedic merit before the current energy crisis, and in light of events these last couple of years its ev has increased as an idea ahead of its time. Not a bad panorama, either. Durova^Charge! 22:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Impressive, but I have to agree with Janke in saying that its difficult to see the windmills in the thumb. Spencer^T♦C 14:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Impressive detail - but as mentioned at the thumbnail level there's not much to see. I suppose that's the sacrifice you've got to make so show the wind farm in full scope so it's not too much of a problem --Abdominator (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. I can't really think of a more effective way of capturing the sheer size of this facility. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I agree with Janke, the thumb is just not focused enough to provide any EV. Also, the gray haze really distracts from the image... Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support While the thumb provides little EV, the full size image provides great value illustrating the scope of the facility and the variety of wind mills. Very interesting with subtle but powerful wow factor. --Leivick (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Can't even interpret this without a magnifying glass. Dull and unremarkable. Oscar (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You do know your computer comes equipped with an easy to use magnifying glass? :) WP is lacking in this kind of aerial high detail photography. I know opinions are subjective but you really find this dull and unremarkable? Alternative energy is after all a key component one of the most pressing issues facing mankind. Mfield (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the fact that it shows Alternative energy should have any bearing on the matter.

Yes, I regard the photo, to be unremarkable. Nothing personal, mind you. It's just that I'm looking for WOW (along with the technical requirements of course) and this is dull brown. Oscar (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose Indeed it shows detail in full size, but IMO it conveys not much info to readers. Still an interesting subject. --Base64 (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my mind, Weak Support. --Base64 (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the thumbnail isn't the greatest but seeing a full size view looking down on a windfarm was incredibly useful for me in visualizing it especially with the ability to see each windmill. Ground level photos fails to be nearly this informative about layout. gren グレン 16:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:San gorgonio pass wind farm california pano.jpg MER-C 08:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Encyclopedic, attractive, some positive feedback on PPR

Articles this image appears in

Shiprock, U.S. Route 491

Creator

bowiesnodgrass (Flickr)

• Support as nominator --Spikebrennan (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This seems to be the week for landscapes of the American Southwest. I may have to get out my camera and (gasp) shoot something, rather than just restore. Durova^Charge! 23:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it just me or is this way off level? Noodle snacks (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, judging by the scree at the base this is quite a bit tilted. vlad§inger ^tlk 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the erosion patterns; they're consistent with a feature on rising ground. Durova^Charge! 06:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support Needs tilt correction. (Unless the consensus is that it doesn't.)--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Weak Support Oppose - Quite a bit of the sky is blown. Will support tilt corrected version Noodle snacks (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose 1) Shiprock is much darker than this IRL 2) It'd be more enc if it showed the dike, 3) blown sky, 4) purple fringing, 5) tilt. de Bivort 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I don't believe it is tilted. The fracture lines are pretty much vertical, and if the ground is slightly sloped - which is, of course, entirely possible - we would see what we see here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vertical lines in the rock lean to the right quite a bit, so probably it should be leveled such that they are vertical? Noodle snacks (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A quick Google image search brings up some lovely images and suggests that this is indeed tilted, though the ground may slope somewhat as well making things hard to judge; perhaps those suggesting it's not tilted could explain why the clouds tilt as well in sympathy with the 'apparent' tilt of the ground and rock. Unlike Debivort I can't comment on the real colours, but can only say that these colours look quite artificial - it seems to have undergone quite a lot of image processing, excessively lifting the shadows and probably fiddling with colours. Appears quite unsharp - I suspect the focus is somewhere on the ground in front of the rock. --jjron (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you jjron for paying attention here! It is definitely tilted. Shiprock sits in a giant wash valley that is very flat. It is not amidst hills or anything that could justify the horizon tilt. On the other hand, as an eroded lava tube, nothing says that the fissures on shiprock itself should be vertical (for those of you worrying about what a tilt correction would do to the rock's verticals). de Bivort 03:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know this particular valley. What caught my attention is the erosion pattern in the sand at the base. If the feature were upon level ground and the image were tilted, then I'd expect to see an even flow pattern spreading outward from the base. What I see instead is a smooth flow pattern on the right side and an uneven flow pattern on the left side. If the feature really sits upon sloping ground then I'd expect erosion on the 'high ground' side to drift downhill, and that's what it appears to be doing. Debivort is right to say that the orientation of rock in an eroded lava tube is meaningless as a way to intuit 'up'. But sand erosion is meaningful. I can't tell whether the degree of tilt here is correct, but I'm satisfied with the basic assumption that the left side of the image is higher ground. Durova^Charge! 09:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You may be satisfied with the assumption, but it's wrong. At what point do we trust people who've been there three or four times? Never, I suppose... But look at this satellite image. The erosion patterns at the base are radial, not biased. I think what you are seeing Durova is a foreshortening effect coupled with the scree fields not being circular. de Bivort 18:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Besides! It's too pale, has blown highlights and purple fringing! And, showing the dike would increase enc. de Bivort 19:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I might be misled by the effects of prevailing winds, but I doubt very much that foreshortening played any role. Durova^Charge! 06:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose tilted horizon as well as other issues. --Leivick (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above and the overall image quality isn't great. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good, large image of Saddam Hussein in an important part of his life. Indisputable EV.

Articles this image appears in

Saddam Hussein, Abu Nidal, Rumours of the death of Saddam Hussein, Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Trial of Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations timeline, Execution of Saddam Hussein

Creator

U.S. Military/Defense Department (Edited by jjron))

• Support as nominator --Fryslan0109 (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hi rez, sharp, and irreplaceable (he's dead). Still, it has the hand in front of the face and the color splotches.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not imperfect (it's a bit compressed for such large dimensions), but overall a good portrait and excellent ev. Durova^Charge! 04:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A good portrait with EV. Muhammad(talk) 07:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption may need to be lengthened, maybe add some of crimes he was charged with? Muhammad(talk) 10:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: original version, for which replacing is required. MER-C 06:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I expanded the caption with info from the Saddam Hussein lead. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose As mentioned above, the hand in front of his face is somewhat of a distraction and definitely hinders the overall composition. The fact that it is completely out of focus further impede's the overall quality. -- mcshadypl ^TC 17:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The hand a bit spoils this good portrait and I also think that image is a little too dark. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The hand doesn't bother me. A good historical portrait -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Thought it was good enough at PPR to inspire this minor edit, so will support here as per my comments there. The hand is a slight issue, but also adds some additional emotion - probably greatest EV for those articles dealing with the capture/trial. --jjron (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jjron, who makes the case quite well.--ragesoss (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. To me the hand in front of his face actually enhances this image. He was (at the time this was taken) once the all-powerful dictator of Iraq, then on trial for his crimes in power. Like most such strongmen, his face was on images all over the country, unobstructed, symbolizing absolute power. The fact that his slightly blurred hand is here in front of it is thus an excellent symbol for how he had fallen by that point. Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The unedited version of this file appears on a few of those pages as part of a Saddam Hussein profile on the bottom of the page. I am not sure how to edit this so that the version on which you are voting will appear there, so if someone could go ahead and do that, it would be handy.Fryslan0109 (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closer will do that if need be, but if you want to edit the template yourself an easy way is to click on the small e at the lefthand end of the Saddam Hussein title bar (direct link to the template here). That will then change it for every page that uses that template. --jjron (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This isn't a posed portrait (and we have those), but something that captures the expression of Hussein in his last days. If anything I think that the hand, which only obscures a small part of the beard, adds to the EV when used in articles relating to his capture and trial. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I doubt that we will have any better one in near future. Full support. M.K. (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per above. And "he-he" to the last comment. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The hand makes it more interesting Shii (tock) 04:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I always liked this picture, and add another hehe to M.K|M.K's comment. --Silvestra (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Saddam Hussein at trial, July 2004-edit1.JPEG MER-C 08:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good Quality, found it whilst in the shower so paper background

Articles this image appears in

Cercophonius squama, List of scorpions of Australia, Scorpion

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination. Good find, although I hope you don't meet them that way very often. Durova^Charge! 04:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good details and shadow. EV is definitely there but the article is too short. Could you add it to Scorpion as well? Muhammad(talk) 10:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added to scorpion. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Jeez, before long, Australian contributors will have about 90% of the user-created FPs. Nice capture, the highlight reflections could possibly be improved on with more diffuse lighting, but plenty of detail and a worthy FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is with that? I thought is was coincidental that both Cacophony and I are from Portland, Oregon, USA and are FP contributors and participants here. But the number of people from Australia! There are Fir0002, Diliff, Jjron, Benjamint444, Noodle snacks, and (everyones favorite) Capital Photographer. All (with the exception of Capital Photographer) are some of the more active participants here. The chances: Lets say there are 25 contributors here with a level of notability (within this small community) we would consider equivalent to Capital photographer (the least active of our Australian friends). 6 of 25 are austrailian, or 24%. The expected rate would be 21 million Australians to 6.5 billion global or 0.3%. A deviation of 7,900%...FWIW -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you allow for the statistical improbability of the 5 billion non-english speakers contributing here? ;-) But anyway, there are a few other minor Aussie contributors to FPC (although I haven't seen them much lately) - our frog photographers LiquidGhoul and Froggydarb! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about the statistical improbability that three of us from Aust live within about 30kms of each other. Not just 24% from Australia but 12% from one town - the deviation of that would be off the scale -- benjamint
• Weak support. The lighting and the overall hazy appearance, especially around the head, are modest problems, but it does enough right in terms of detail and composition overall.--ragesoss (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting subject and well executed photo --Abdominator (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice photo. Unpleasant shower. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support excellent image. --Leivick (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Benjamint 02:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How big is it? At the moment I'm imagining it about the size it appears in the thumbnail and that's more than big enough, I'm REALLY glad I don't live in Aus. TerriG 149.155.96.6 (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, depending on your monitor, its probably actually about thumbnail size. 25-40mm is typical, this one was pretty close to the 40mm (1.5in) mark with the tail stretched out. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cercophonius squama.jpg MER-C 08:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Early landscape of Havana, Cuba from the seventeenth century. High resolution historic file. Restored version of Image:Havana 1639.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

History of Cuba, Havana, Morro Castle (fortress)

Creator

Joan Vinckeboons (attr.) aka Johannes Vingboons[10]

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 12:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High resolution and great EV. Definite historic value. Jordan ^Contribs 16:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - there seems to be nothing to recommend it except its age. Oscar (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - age is important, but have to agree with Oscar O on this issue. M.K. (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In many instances, this artist's work has been the earliest surviving depiction of locations in the New World. Wikipedia has a shortage of Latin American FPs. This location became the capital of Cuba and one of the structures depicted here survives as a landmark after more than four centuries. I was fortunate to find a very high resolution file--and I must say it's disappointing to see the nomination reviewed as just another watercolor. Durova^Charge! 20:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I disagree with the age problem. It's a painting of Havana from the 17th century... reminds us that everything starts so small. If there were a photo (if there were photography, heh) I don't think this'd be an issue. <shrug> Xavexgoem (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Durova and Xavexgoem. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - although I would suggest that Durova's comment explaining the historic background be worked into the caption. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Havana 1639b.jpg MER-C 08:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

high quality depiction of an historical wind-rose, adding significant value to the articles

Articles this image appears in

Pedro Reinel, Compass rose, Fleur-de-lis

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No real wow factor and IMO a close up photo of the rose in the chart would have been more valuable as an illustration. Furthermore this svg doesn't seem particularly true to the original (in particular the fleur-de-lys is quite different at the base). --Abdominator (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with above. A close up of the actual rose would be better. --Leivick (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It is possible to that SVGifying too far, and this is one such case, I fear, though I must compliment Alvesgaspar on the high-quality of his SVG. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Clear and good resolution. Note there is some natural variation in how dark the back is.

Articles this image appears in

Brown Tree Frog, List of amphibians of Tasmania

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent image technically and aesthetically. I quite like the isolation of the frog on a white background that others seem to oppose. Ideally, this would complement another image of the animal 'in the field' in the article and this image does that, so I see no reason to oppose. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some others in the field, the one that stands out the most is the one on that rock, however in most cases they are pretty well camo'd. Noodle snacks (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent image, no issues whatsoever. --Leivick (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - duh. Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pleasing and encyclopedic. Muhammad(talk) 11:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Definitely Wadester16 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - fantastic. Wow. Stevage 03:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - v good and EV — Nvineeth ^talk 08:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Brown Tree Frog 2.jpg MER-C 08:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good technical standard, adds value to article.

Articles this image appears in

Tasman Bridge

Creator

Flying Freddy

• Support as nominator --Flying Freddy (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unfortunately doesn't seem to be a convincing HDR image. The luminosity of the image seems a bit mixed up. It is possible that I'm wrong and it was naturally lit this way, but I have my doubts. The clouds and land on the left are very dark, but the land/sky through the bridge is significantly brighter. Decent composition though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing that out, I revised the image and reposted as edit 1. Flying Freddy (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much better in the edit. Image quality still isn't great though. The detail is a bit soft and nothing looks critically sharp. Good for the article but I'm not convinced that it is FP quality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Sorry, it looks great at thumbnail size but the composition of the image doesn't make it very useful from an encyclopaedia point of view imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose composition give low EV, HDR effect too strong which overly bright foreground. --Leivick (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Way to much HDR. I also want to see a little more of the bridge, and lighting is definitely a concern. Spencer^T♦C 21:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The antique image is not only historically important as showing the shields of the member states by rank under the the Holy Roman Empire but also displays a stunning beauty and woodcut technique in the period.

Articles this image appears in

Holy Roman Empire, Counts of Celje, Double-headed eagle, Armorial of the Holy Roman Empire

Creator

It was printed by David de Negker (son of Jost de Negker) in Augsburg, based on a 1510 woodcut by Hans Burgkmair the elder Image:Hans Burgkmair quaternionenadler.jpg. It was uploaded by Commons:User:Michail (en:User:Michail)

• Support as nominator --Caspian blue (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Conditional Supportoutstanding image, meets all criteria. Just noticed what looks to be some kind of scanning artifact right down the middle, actually pretty obvious I am surprised that I didn't notice it until looking a second time. Could this be cropped out? --Leivick (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Your question is not clear to me. Are you referring to the artifact as "the erected image on the gutter of the book? I think it is a kind of small pop-up page.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the object at the center of the image. Is it really a pop up page? it looks like it has a similar image to the visible pages. Is it not possible that it is a distortion due to scanning. --Leivick (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the image is scanned nor folded by mistake. The image seems like to be taken by a photographer. You can check the fact as looking at the bottom edge of the book.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - would prefer a crop that got rid of some of the brown on the left side and the black on the top and bottom right side, but good pic all in all. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I considered to do so, but the mounted wood is also beautiful and cropping could lose the handwriting on the bottom edge.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support even with some artifacts this image deserves to be FP, and is above basic criteria. M.K. (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above. Bewareofdog 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice image, high quality -- RedCoat10 • talk 20:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Quaternion Eagle by Jost de Negker.jpg MER-C 08:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - caption was gibberish, now corrected. The father of David de Negker, the alleged artist, was about 25 in 1510. How come there is no source btw? Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I'll add for disclosure that this image is downsampled to 50% of it's original size for the sake of image quality. The full size image has some unfortunate artifacting in the fine detail of the buildings and noise as a result of the high dynamic range in the scene as I had to lift shadows and suppress highlights somewhat. In my opinion the image looks a bit ragged at 100%. The original is linked as an 'other version' on the image page and if you insist you can vote for that image as an alternative. ;-)

That said, I do think the composition and detail of this version is still excellent and is a view that not a lot of tourists are able to get, as I took it from the London City Hall viewing platform on the top floor which is not usually open to the public except on specific open days. For those interested, this is another image I took from the viewing platform with a random stranger for context! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

City of London

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks good in the article; another London article with a good image added. I wouldn't mind a bit more river in front of that bottom boat, it just looks a bit tight. Possibly not one of Diliff's very best, but we're judging against criteria, and this seems to meet them all. --jjron (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did consider including a bit more of the river, but I thought that it would make the left-side a bit unbalanced, and there were distracting objects to the bottom left like the HMS Belfast and its shadow on the river. The hard thing when doing a panorama with moving elements is guessing the framing correctly. I shot this handheld from left to right and I had to guess how much room I needed to allow at the bottom of the frame for the incoming boat. I could have zoomed out slightly but as usual, you can't always get everything right in one shot. As I mentioned, the dynamic range was a challenge too. I took a series of panoramas from this view with different exposures, framing, boats etc but I think this was probably the best overall. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good image. --Leivick (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The boats form an important part of the image. Do you know what they are? Ferries, tour boats, small cruise ship? Rmhermen (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe they are tour/cruise boats, not public ferries. The one on the left is chartered out apparently, but the one on the right is a regular tourist boat running up and down the Thames. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good Job Noodle snacks (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good composition Muhammad(talk) 11:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as encyclopedic, high quality image. Fletcher (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful picture of a fantastic subject. Great! Darth Newdar (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, well-shot, clear and encyclopedic. Might not be "Wow!" but that's not among the criteria :) Todor→Bozhinov 10:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you're right, it isn't in the criteria, but most people apply it anyway, whether its implicit or explicitly stated. I have always thought that "wow" certainly helps the composition, but sometimes a clear, detailed, straight-forward encyclopaedic image is of more value to Wikipedia than an awe-inspiring-but-of-limited-educational-value image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely true, we're building an encyclopedia after all :) Best, Todor→Bozhinov 10:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but the picture looks a little faded.--Caspian blue^Gwansim? 00:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how you could see it as faded. It was taken on a crisp, sunny day and the scene incorporates the entire luminance range available, from dark shadows to bordering on blown whites in the sunlight. Perhaps you wanted to see the colours artificially enhanced? This is about as bright and colourful as the city can look. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: You should see it on a dull, overcast day. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The picture has a bit of red cast, that's why the picture looks like a faded picture taken with a film. If you can adjust the tone, that would be great. We all know London's weather :), but well, the place in a smokey weather was also great (for me). --Caspian blue 04:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think you're right that it has a red cast. If that were the case, the whites in the scene (the boats, the building on the far right) would be red tinted too, but they're not, they're very close to neutral. Anyway, if anything the scene should lean slightly towards yellow-orange as it was taken about 2 hours from sunset and as winter approaches (we're 2 months from winter solstice now), the sun stays fairly low on the horizon where it warms the colours a bit. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Oh, no. Here is not a place for what is wrong or right. I don't think I'm wrong though. I only suggested the picture to be enhanced by editing with photoshop or others. Canon cameras are known for its susceptibility to red right and due to the little (I clearly said "a bit") red cast by the time of taking the picture as well, it really looks faded to me. I already tested the picture, and the white is indeed having a little pink tone.--Caspian blue 14:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, I also disagree that here is not the place for right and wrong... If you are questioning something subjective, then yes, perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, but when you question something objective, then you are either right or wrong about it. You say you 'tested the picture', but how did exactly you do it? The method needs to be correct for the result to be correct. I checked the RGB values for a random pixel of white on the boats and found it to be R=242, G=239 and B=234. This is a pale yellow (although practically indistinguishable as yellow) because R and G are slightly more dominant and R+G = yellow. For it to be a pink tone, the dominant colours would have to be R+B which creates pink, but nowhere on the whites can I find anywhere that has dominant R+B. As such, I think you are objectively wrong about the colour cast. ;-) If you still believe it to be red/pink, I think you need to look at your monitor's colour balance. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, since you're asserting your point of view so strongly, I have to say you're still wrong about your opinion. I am tired of not only talking with you for this but also your hostile attitude to my mere suggestion from good faith. Regarding evidence, I didn't want to steal your thunder as uploading the tested picture. I was playing your photo with color adjust function and adjusting the red cast of the picture produced good result. You can try it by yourself since you appear to be familiar with photography knowledge and do not assume good faith on me. Anyway, I can't really be sure about the random choice of yours. The white colored objects consist of various tones, and you "randomly picked a little portion". If you want to continue your argument, that is your business not mine from now. I retract my vote since I don't want to involve in this. Regards.--Caspian blue 16:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're retracting your vote because you don't like the discussion we've had? This is not an issue of good faith. I have good faith that you believe it has a red cast (as I said, your monitor's colour balance may be wrong), but as I said, the absolute RGB values for the colour of whites in the image is not a subjective thing and there is right and wrong in logical terms. Yes, I chose a random little portion and yes there is some variation in tone, but I made sure that it was representative of all the whites. I challenge you to find a single pixel amongst the whites in which there is RB dominance. There just isn't any - green is more dominant than blue everywhere, and that makes yellow, not pink. Anyway, if you won't discuss it in terms of logic, then we'll just continue going roung in circles, so I'll end it here too. But I think you should reinstate your vote unless you want to appear as though you've had a hissy fit because I disagreed with you. ;-) Obviously the nomination doesn't rely on your vote, but it comes across as a bit precious. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent paedogogical composition, putting the daikon in the center was a good choice. Shii (tock) 05:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the composition. Spencer^T♦C 21:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I love this picture. --Silvestra (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• User's 4th edit of 5. Spencer^T♦C 21:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if only as a log of the ever changing face of London. A wonderful quality and almost impossible to reshoot due to British Weather rarely being this nice! gazhiley (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• User's 2nd edit of 2. Spencer^T♦C 21:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Competent photographer + nice weather in London + City Hall open house day = an unlikely combination. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel like the composition is weighted out of balance. If there was just a smidge more empty sky, horizontally, on the left side of the photo, I'd like it better. zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:City of London skyline from London City Hall 2 - Oct 2008.jpg MER-C 08:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with Image:City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008.jpg, was duplicate. MER-C 01:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

In my opinion, great encyclopedic value and seems to meet all the criteria

Articles this image appears in

Onion

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 19:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose less than perfect focus on both images, particularly the first. Mediocre composition particularly the second. --Leivick (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I could swear that this's already been nominated, but I can't for the life of my find it. I'll keep looking... :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Never mind, it was a PPR: Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Onion Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Soft; perhaps trying focusing again and, if possible, use the sharpest aperture and focal length combination that works for your composition. Are you using the kit lens that came with the EOS 400D? Perhaps 35mm at f/4.5; see test results here. Also, unappealing, harsh shadows cast by the light source. Perhaps you could try bouncing the flash or light source off a ceiling and/or diffuse it. Check out the look of current FPs of similar subjects and composition, such as ones by User:Fir0002 like this Tokugawapants (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I am using the kit lens. The onion is currently n/a so thanks for the tips, I will try them on something else. Muhammad(talk) 16:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose F11 would be more appropriate, its soft all over. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution, good quality image (QI at commons), illustrating the flow of water from a waterfalls through a stream, and the waterfalls and tributary at the Uluguru Mountains. IMO, the image is thus very encyclopedic.

Articles this image appears in

Stream, Uluguru Mountains

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 20:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sorry, low EV, little wow factor, too little detail in large shadow areas. --Leivick (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think there's a lot of wow value (which isn't even in the Featured Picture Criteria) and EV in this picture. Good quality pictures like this are always useful in the articles they illustrate. Possibly the best picture in the Stream article. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with Leivick. Low enc for Ulguru - this could be practically anywhere. Too high contrast - water blown, murky shadows. --Janke | Talk 07:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a scene seen by almost all visitors to the Uluguru Mountains, since it is near the foot of the mount. It illustrates the presence of the waterfalls and streams at the mountains, the types of rocks present, the vegetation, the sun cover, transport of materials through streams (the branches). Uluguru is not the only article the image appears in. No contrast was added, and I don't see any blown water, the histogram seems fine. Muhammad(talk) 09:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I mean is that, at the first glance, this could well pass as a stream for instance in Finland, my home country, or anywhere else, in fact. And no, the histogram is not "fine", quite the contrary. It's all bunched towards the black, and there is a small spike at 255,255,255 - i.e. there are blown highlights. Understanding a histogram is a bit counter-intuitive... --Janke | Talk 16:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's a nice shot but I don't think it's extremely informative about the Uluguru mountains. And I do think the waterfall is blown somewhat at the top and bottom. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but because the image has large shaded areas, and the waterfall is a relatively small area, a blown highlight might not look like such in the histogram. I do see a small spike at the right; that it is small, points to the possibility the image is too dark in other areas. Fletcher (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, too dark in too many areas. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It shows how a stream looks well, and gives a little idea about the nature around the mountain. You could add more caption to the picture though: what altitude is it? and for the stream article you point out the different parts of the stream and how the bed has formed, why it does not meander. Atm it does not connect very well with the prose in the stream article. Narayanese (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Illustrative, but distracting shadows are everywhere. It's not about whether contrast was added, it is about how the light was captured. --Base64 (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Great technically, weak compositionally and encyclopaedically. The near centre of the image is some dark bushes. Cropping it about the half way mark and just keeping the right would be more interesting. Stevage 03:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's nice if you like water. But there is no reflection and it doesn't portray anything special. Shii (tock) 04:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: It's too dark for me. Can we adjust the contrast and brightness a little bit? Alexius08 (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeThis could just about be anywhere. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good portrait of the animal in a very common pose (see here, here, here, and here).

Articles this image appears in

California Sea Lion

Creator

Mike Baird (on Flickr)

• Support as nominator --howcheng {chat} 22:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The picture is too confined in composition and not sharp.--Caspian blue 22:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not very sharp even when scaled down, the eye looks like a black hole due to the lighting angle. Blown highlights on the waves (which are inoffensive) and clipped shadows. Could have really benefited from some fill flash. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose - We need more marine animal fps terribly - but the confinement is visible in the thumb form, somewhat. —Ceranthor^(Sing) 14:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per noodle snacks as well as some minor noise concerns. Spencer^T♦C 20:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I must like bridges? Good quality, large resolution, really clear day (haze wise) and a pretty sky. Mt Wellington in the background gives it's location good context.

Articles this image appears in

Bridgewater Bridge, Vertical lift bridge

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator (strong prefer original) --Noodle snacks (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Really great picture. --Silvestra (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• User's 3rd edit of 5. Spencer^T♦C 21:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yet another fine photograph of Australian infrastructure.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm starting to think I should buy that 10-20mm Sigma lens.--ragesoss (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Good composition with great background, but the the picture looks very retouched, unreal shadows contrast in the right and the aspect of grass in the bottom is not natural.--Jf268 (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the user's 5th edit, all of which have been to FPC. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See below for a comment on the grass. regarding the shadow on the right it actually looks pretty good. For the sake of discussion i have attached a crop from the middle exposure of the bushes, showing that the amount of shadow detail is actually pretty realistic. The HDR has done very little to the forground and bridge, just given a pretty blue sky instead of a pretty blew sky :P. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Great shot, and a wonderful subject, but have to oppose for the odd grass in the front - seems blurred. Stiching error maybe? At full res it sticks out too much .--gazhiley (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the user's 1st edit. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect it was more movement from wind causing trouble there, I could have cropped it out entirely but its not as if detail in that part of the shot matters imo, and i feel a bit of foreground adds some context to the camera location. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good composition and quality. Muhammad(talk) 17:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. I think the grass in the front provides a little context for the image as a whole. Spencer^T♦C 21:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose support cropped regretfully I have to oppose this beautiful image as it currently stands. There is some kind of blurring issue with the grass in the foreground, probably not a motion blur as the water is quite sharp. I would support the image if the bottom 10% or so was cropped removing the offending grass. I think this would still leave enough of the aforementioned context. --Leivick (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't motion blur in the traditional sense, I suspect it is movement between the three HDR frames of differing exposures. I have uploaded a crop, but I feel the crop detracts from the composition. I think an oppose on these grounds would be sensible if it was the subject, but i don't think some blurred grass in the forground does any damage. I have uploaded the crop but I think it detracts from the image Noodle snacks (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. People seem to forget that we're building an encyclopedia here - high enc. definitely wins over a few nitpickingly unsharpish blades of grass in an otherwise technically OK shot... --Janke | Talk 10:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not going to nitpick blades of grass, but what about the clouds around the middle of the bridge supports?? The clouds on either side of the image look fine, but in the middle, they suddenly go really soft and diffused, almost like you've applied a really strong, wide gaussian blur to them or something? I can also see movement between frames. Minor movement could be excused but they do look a bit funny. Have you tried to mask it by softening it? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only real PP there has been noise reduction, which may have had some effect on the clouds. I have attached a reference Noodle snacks (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the original version. looks good --T-rex 16:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Essentially per Janke, all the anal retentives really need to take a good look at whether they really should be here if they forget that we're actually building an encyclopedia. This is a very encyclopedic shot and is of generally good quality and I am beginning to think that people oppose good noms (not just this but many) solely so that they can feel good about the fact that they're opposing good noms. Cat-five - talk 01:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The crop is an improvement. The foreground grass is a distraction from the bridge, IMO. The focus should be squarely on the bridge; artistic composition should be secondary. Kaldari (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Prefer Cropped Nice image, and the crop further focuses the viewer's attention to the bridge. —Black and White 16:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bridgewater Causeway Crop.jpg MER-C 06:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I went out to take some bird photos only to have the birds scared off by a tree-felling crew clearing some (apparently) dangerous trees at a nearby picnic ground. So I turned the camera on them as well and got some decent images, and something a bit different for FPC. Overall I think this close-up's the best, though some may prefer this one from arboriculture. I particularly like the shower of sawdust which was a bit tricky to capture properly.

Articles this image appears in

Arborist, Chainsaw

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Just out of interest, do you downsample to 1600 pixels for the same reason as Fir0002 (to reserve higher res images for sale privately), or was it a sharpness issue? I noticed that even at this res, it looks a bit motion blurred. I can understand why it could be though, as forests can have pretty dull lighting. As with Fir0002's images, you've removed the EXIF data so I can't see what shutter speed or focal length was used. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you could say I've learnt from the master :-). There is definitely some motion blur there, particularly on the chainsaw and his arms, due the high frequency vibration of the saw - you'd have to be shooting pretty high speed to eliminate that, and I'm not sure if it's a negative anyway as it gives that feel of action, i.e., he's not just holding the saw, he's using it. I also wonder about putting up tech details as the occasional user opposes because they don't like your settings or your camera. Checking the details again though, they actually surprise me that it came out so well, I thought it was done at 1/60s. In the interests of disclosure, it was actually taken at 1/30s, 300mm (where my lens can unfortunately get a bit soft), F/5.6, and ISO400, and done hand-held as I wasn't expecting to be shooting at that length or time of day. As you suggest the forest was pretty murky; put it this way, it was around 4pm in early July, on an overcast day, under trees up the Dandenongs, so to say the least the lighting wasn't ideal, and at something like 40m away it's getting a bit out of reach of the flash! --jjron (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to think that nobody would oppose simply because they didn't like your camera. Its the result that matters. Camera settings generally just confirm suspicions already held (at least, for me). The issue I found was that the entire image is slightly motion blurred/soft (the tree included, which shouldn't be suffering from vibration enough to be that soft). I can appreciate the difficulty of the scene though. It is acceptably sharp, but not ideal. However, as you said, you were not shooting in ideal conditions, so I'll stick with a Weak Support. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • • It's sad but people will oppose an FPC because they don't like the phase of the moon outside their window or the time of day they see the nomination... sad really. Cat-five - talk 01:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it could probably do with a little colour noise reduction in places, but its other wise pretty decent considering the probable low light level of the scene (evidenced by the falling sawdust). I realise the reality that many people don't wear safety glasses when they are supposed to, but this guy wasn't. The composition is clear, though a little more chainsaw blade would have been nice. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very nice, quite unusual for FPC! I love the expression on the guys face! Intothewoods29 (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great angle, encyclopedic, interesting. As for sharpness, if you've used a gas saw before, it's impressive given the vibration those things put out. Theoretically it might be sharper (could a faster lens have been used, while maintaining acceptable DOF?), but really this is not the kind of shot you can easily prepare for, much less reshoot. Fletcher (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting subject, good enc and even a bit of "wow". ;-) Tech quality is not perfect, but we are building an encyclopedia, not a poster collection... --Janke | Talk 17:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The enc. definitely trumps the minor technical flaws in the pic. Spencer^T♦C 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, good but could you crop a little bit the right side to emphasize the worker? --Caspian blue 23:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't support such a crop, you loose the sawdust spray. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct, that's exactly why I left that room on the right. --jjron (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Only quibble is that I'd like to see more context of how high up he is...but then you lose the focus (artisticly and photographicly). HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you check the image page there's some 'other versions' that may give a bit more context to the height (not the third one where you can see the crew on the ground, where I'd estimate he's about 10m up, but he'd descended a long way by then). But as you say, to get more feel for the height, the man starts becoming less significant in the image, so it's a trade-off. --jjron (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV and I like the way the sawdust is given off. Muhammad(talk) 19:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good EV, very nice shot. Cat-five - talk 01:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Arborists-3,-Kallista,-VIC,-09.07.2008.jpg MER-C 06:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very interesting picture, which shows Bridgestone's green-striped tyres that were used at the 2008 Japanese Grand Prix.

Articles this image appears in

Formula One tyres, 2008 Japanese Grand Prix and Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Newsletter/Next NW

Creator

Morio

• Support as nominator --Darth Newdar (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as I don't see why it's that encyclopedic. Based on Formula One tyres there are two different tire compounds used, balancing durability against grip, and the choice of green stripes is some environmental PR campaign. These seem like fairly minor details. It's a useful image in the article but not a FP in my opinion. Fletcher (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the angles of the two shots are slightly different and the BMW (lower image) is slightly blurred. AlexJ (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Per Fletcher above. Although fairly well taken, edited and used, I don't see any long term importance to the image. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 14:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Fletcher says it best. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sorry, it's a good encyclopedic photo, but I simply don't think it can be an FP. Todor→Bozhinov 10:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Fuzzy pic, poor framing, unexciting subject, low interest longevity. Pyrope 16:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This picture is stunning. The area is renowned for its beauty, but it takes a nicely stitched and well-shot panorama to show it all. Well, this one is 9,565 × 2,877 pixels and captures all seven lakes as well as the background and the sky in great colour. None of the illustrated objects is cut off or anything, it's a smooth picture.

Indeed, at max zoom it isn't perfectly sharp, but it can be reduced in size to eliminate that concern completely, and it would still be big enough.

Note: the image on the right is the Wikipedia duplicate of the picture awaiting deletion, the Commons file has a proper description.

Articles this image appears in

lake, glacial lake, Seven Rila Lakes, Bulgaria, Rila

Creator

Anthony Ganev

• Support as nominator --Todor→Bozhinov 20:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both Stunning picture, well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral for now. Granted, it is very high res, but the image quality is fairly poor. It is still a bit soft even if downsampled to half its current size. Another problem is that the sky contains cloned clouds at the very top, and there is a minor stitching error on the land between the first two lakes. I'm not sure why it wasn't just cropped a bit lower as it wouldn't have affected the composition that much. And finally, too much of the image is in shadow (bottom half of the histogram) and just looks a bit dark. The shadows could be lifted a bit. I do like the view/composition but the technical details are slightly lacking. I've uploaded an edit to 'correct' some of the flaws. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both - Serious quality issues in both versions which I don't believe can be solved: white fringing due to oversharpening and artifacts/pixelation, among others. The edited version smoothed some of the flaws but the colours came out washed out. A shame, because this is a fine composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional weak support for edit 1, provided the washed-out look is fixed (halfway toward original, or so). Magnificent vista anyway, would love a higher quality stitch. --Janke | Talk 08:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Changed to full support for edit 1. Edit 2 is too light. --Janke | Talk 19:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose edits I think the original is fine, and, IMO, the edits do too much. I think that we shouldn't meddle with the contrast subce that's what the landscape looks like when clouds are above. I don't believe that details in the shade are particularly hard to make out. Tokugawapants (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but I don't think the shadows are the result of clouds. The shadows are due to taller mountains behind the camera. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is why I watch FPC...to see beautiful places beautifully photographed.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 - the most exciting photo on Featured Picture Candidates today. Oscar (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - Edit 2 looks too bright to my eyes. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 1 per Noodle snacks. Matt Deres (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • As nominator I approve both edits, but I think I prefer the milder looks of Edit 1. Todor→Bozhinov 20:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear support - fantastic composition, great subject, nice detail, interesting foreground on the right, very encyclopaedic - uhh, what more do we want exactly? I don't see obviously cloned clouds ("obviously" being key here), nor glaring purple fringing. My only complaint is I only see six lakes. Prefer edit 1, #2 is over the top for my taste. Stevage 03:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look on the top middle-right of the clouds. A strip of about 10-20 pixels, at a guess, is cloned from directly below. I don't know if it is a stitching error (no stitcher I work with would do that, but I've seen some old nasty ones that could) or a deliberate clone job, but when viewing the image at 100% they are pretty obvious. I agree though that there isn't any purple fringing in the image, not sure where Alves saw that. The white fringing he was referring to is sharpening, which is a bit obvious in the original but not significant in the edits. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yep, I see the cloning now. Kind of confirms my point - it's not easy to see, and it's not offensive. Cloning/ghosting is a standard part of panoramic photo taking (well, unless you have specialised equipment) - the question is whether it's distracting or particularly harsh on the eye. A small strip of clouds in one corner is about as inoffensive as you get. (My guess is a stitching error caused by moving clouds that the creator has softened by using the clone tool...) Stevage 13:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree though, I could see it in the thumbnail, and I also disagree that cloning is a standard and necessary part of panoramic photo taking, especially with landscapes where parallax is a non-issue. Only if you have a crappy stitcher, which is something that I wouldn't call specialised equipment. Sometimes, if the sun is ducking in and out from behind the clouds, it can mess significantly with consistent illumination of the scene, but clouds almost never move that fast within the scene itself that the blender cannot cope with, as long as you take each frame within a second or two. Sure, it requires a bit of skill, but nothing out of the ordinary. And as I asid originally, rather than clone the sky, why didn't the author just crop that strip of sky out?? And even if they had to use the clone tool, it could really have been done a lot more skilfully. It just makes no sense to me. Nor does your Britney Spears obsession. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • As for the seventh lake, it's a bit hard to spot at first, as it appears quite small and blends with the stones on the hill a bit. It's to the right, in the bottom right corner of the lower group of lakes, appearing just below the rightmost lake. Todor→Bozhinov 11:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, I see it now :) Stevage 13:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there any way to try get in touch with the original creator User:Anthony.ganev to let him voice his opinion as to which version he would prefer? I know I would be mildly upset if this were my photo and an edit I did not approve of became the FP while I was out of the loop. Obviously, this sort of thing can't be possible with every FPC, but since he might be a Wikipedia user... Tokugawapants (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a message on the user's talk page, but to be honest I doubt we'll be able to track him: doesn't seem to be an active contributor and probably doesn't check his talk page often if at all :S In my opinion, the promotion shouldn't be stalled because of that, and Edit 1 seems to be the preferred image version. Todor→Bozhinov 17:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know as a fellow photographer that it can be a bit annoying when someone 'improves' your photo but makes it worse (in your opinion), but wikipedia is a communal project and the image has been released under a Creative Commons license which allows that sort of change, so I don't think the author's approval is needed (not to say his opinion wouldn't be considered though). Ultimately if the image is more viewable as a result, then I think it is a good thing. If I were to guess, I'd say the photographer underexposed the image so that the clouds would not be blown. As a result, the foreground was too dark, but unlike blown clouds, shadows can be rescued and that is all I did. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support any with a strong preference for edit 1 and weak preference for edit 2 and the original. Spencer^T♦C 01:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Rila 7 lakes circus panorama edit1.jpg MER-C 06:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad this was already closed. An inacceptable amount of cloning de:Bild:Rila_7_lakes_circus_panorama_edit3.jpg was performed here, reducing its enc value. --Dschwen 12:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're absolutely right, I spotted some of it in the clouds but didn't scour it to the extent needed to find them all (as I said, I could see some of it just from the thumbnail!). Now that I'm looking at it, I can see a couple more areas that weren't circled that have evidence of poor stitching/cloning, too. As I said above, I'm not entirely sure if it was delibrate or just a poor stitcher that caused them. Some areas of the land show classical stitching 'echos' at the seams, but the clouds are a bit more dubious, as whole cloudmasses/formations look like they've been duplicated. Out of principle I would like to see a re-evaluation of this one. I guess we'd have to see the original segment images to know for sure how authentic the scene is. At the very least I think I could do a better job of the stitching. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Some of those (particularly purple circles 1 and 3, from the left) are pretty annoying, as they distort reality. If you follow purple circle #1 down and left there are more artefacts - a duplicated clearing, then in the immediate foreground (just to the left of the cairn), there are huge chunks of cloning - identical patches of pebbles, clumps of grass etc, like a whole big horizontal strip has been cloned beneath itself. It looks like this image was composed of very few shots (3?), leaving big gaps in the rendered pano which have been "repaired" fairly clumsily. It would be nice to see a better job of stitching. Still not fussed by the clouds - they don't contribute much to the encyclopaedic value anyway. Stevage 21:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality depiction of a very important historical document, of a kind poorly represented in Wikipedia

Articles this image appears in

Pedro Reinel, History of cartography

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Two questions: could this be added to History of cartography or Map or a similar article? It's a good picture. Also, why is part of it missing? Did it burn or something? I had to ask :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer - It was added to History of cartography. Only a small fragment in the left lower side is missing from the animal skin, hiding part of the authors name, "Pedro". -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems to be underexposed... --Abdominator (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Info - I don't think so. This is a professional work and the original picture (from which the present one was downsampled)contains callibration colour stripes (please see here). Anyway this brownish tone is usual in very old parchments and the chart details are not affected by it. Finally, please remember that the technical merits of the photograph are not the main issue here. The EV is. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, technical merits do matter, sometimes more than EV, if the EV is okay but the technical situation is horrible. --Golbez (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is probably the first FPC that I've spent significant time looking at all the fascinating details. The details of the map are so interesting. Really interesting pic. I guess I should have realized that it was on animal skin. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support encyclopedic one + has good res. M.K. (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Sufficient quality, high EV. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite interesting and informative. Spencer^T♦C 20:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support The only map so far that made me want to zoom in and look at it. I am generally against maps being featured pictures, but there is something different about this one. I was, however, a little disappointed once I did zoom in, however. LCpl Stephen Bolin, USMC (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Pedro Reinel 1504.jpg MER-C 06:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Already a FP on Commons and WP:es. I believe it illustrates its subject well, and it also is visually pleasant.

Articles this image appears in

Segovia, Arch bridge, Roman art, Revolt of the Comuneros, Aqueduct of Segovia

Creator

Manuel González Olaechea y Franco

• Support as nominator --Diego_pmc ^Talk 07:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - The only part letting this one down, in my opinion, is the side of a building on the right. Perhaps if this was edited out I wouldn't have any problems with this image.Matthuxtable (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit one. I like how the picture has both old and new (or at least, newer) buildings. I don't really see any problem with the building on the side. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I agree with intothewoods, the building on the right does not cause problems. Spinach Dip 22:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support, Though small issues with noise and sharpness, I enjoy the contrast of the old and new architectural features. Spencer^T♦C 00:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1. A little better. Spencer^T♦C 01:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose until the tilting is fixed. If the aquaduct were really leaning to the left this much, the water would all be falling off the other side. I thought it might be an optical illusion caused by the base being wider, but the verticals on the house in the center are leaning left too, so I think the whole thing just needs slight perspective correction. However the entire image is also too soft. Mfield (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original - As above, until the tilt is fixed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 -- OK. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Tilted, not the best quality and I dislike the ridge at the bottom of the picture. The composition itself is good though. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have uploaded the edited version. Diego_pmc ^Talk 18:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support edit 1 - I think this is a great image, but perhaps slightly more interesting lighting might have improved it even more, as it looks a teensy bit washed out in this light. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral even after edit 1. Frankly I think the picture would be stronger if the houses on the right were removed entirely, or at least lightened so they aren't so distracting. I understand what the picture is currently trying to do, but I don't think they balance the aqueduct enough as is. This picture is about the scale of the aqueduct ... it doesn't need that symmetry, and when you put your hand over the houses you get that massive aqueduct dwarfing the buildings below, which is what I think the photographer wants to show us.
• Done - I have removed the building on the right as well. Diego_pmc ^Talk 17:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In the future, will you not save an edit over an already uploaded picture? It looks like we all support edit one, when in reality we actually supported your first edit which is not displayed here anymore. I support any of the pictures, but just FYI :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. I thought it wasn't necessary to upload it separately. Diego_pmc ^Talk 20:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the angle doesn't really help the enc value etc. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support: Great picture shows exactly what a aqueduct is. Support either one, but edit 1 more. Epson291 (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:AcueductoSegovia edit1.jpg MER-C 06:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wild cherries brown county indiana.jpg

Reason

Best available picture of a church of significative importance in Greece, by its size, style and location.

Articles this image appears in

Patras#Religion

Creator

Eusebius

• Support as nominator --Eusebius (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This image is not sharp anywhere and it has lots of noise. Nice shot, but definitely not FP quality, IMO. Luca (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sorry, it's a nice cathedral and a very decent shot, but it falls short of FP in my opinion. Technically, it's noisy and the composition is a bit tight, I'd like some more space in the bottom and probably on the sides as well. The bricks and slates (?) in the bottom right corner and the metal fence are a bit distracting an unnecessary, maybe the shot should be retaken after those (re-)construction works are over. Oh, and the guy (beggar?) at the doorstep should be asked to find another spot ;) Todor→Bozhinov 12:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I would not bother people in order to take a shot, but thanks for the remarks anyway (I thought the main issue would have been geometry). Hum, is there a way to withdraw the nomination? --Eusebius (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Too much noise, affecting the detail. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I really like the lighting and colour of this one, even if it is a bit small (1.4mp). I believe it does show the limited size dimorphism between male and female pelicans as well.

Articles this image appears in

Australian Pelican

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak opposeSupport The lighting and mood is great. What bothers me is the artifacting around the legs of the outer birds and under the chest of the center one. It looks like a masking issue on a noise reduction? If that's fixable by a re-edit then all good. Mfield (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix uploaded over the top as it should be uncontroversial. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I would prefer an unobstructed view of all three, but the multiple subjects present--while still retaining a focus on one--makes for very good enc.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Loove it! Hate those birds, though. —Ceranthor^(Sing) 14:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great EV. Excellent sharpness: a really good image. Elucidate (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Sharp, colorful, encyclopedic, but the different textures at each level of the composition give it an artistic quality as well. Fletcher (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice picture, good composition, the blown out patch on the elder bird doesn't reduce its value too much. Too bad it's so small. Was that cropped (my guess) or downsampled? --Dschwen 14:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cropped, I was hiding in the mud/grass nearby and they were completely wild birds, so there was no getting closer than I was, A pity I didn't have my 400mm when it was taken. It is only blown right at the edge, the forehead itself isn't fortunately. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Australian Pelicans.jpg MER-C 07:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and resolution, nice side light with filled shadows.

Articles this image appears in

Embden Goose, Domestic Goose, List of goose breeds

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Seems pretty nice. Great quality, btw. —Ceranthor^(Sing) 14:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. Spencer^T♦C 01:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Execellent picture, very sharp, with lots of EV. I'd prefer a bit more space around the bird, especially on the right side, but who am I to judge it? ;) Luca (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The photo is undoubtedly of the highest quality. This, coupled with the undeniably comical stance of the waterfowl, makes me give this a two paws up! –Yasuna (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is an outstanding photograph in all regards. The photographer must have been very talented to capture such a creature in this way. It's so crisp, detailed, and elegant. I'm sure this will yield the golden egg, if I say so myself!. –Whompacats (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I would have preferred if the crop wasn't so tight and also if it was a bit more even on both sides, but nonetheless, pretty good. —Black and White 16:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support very well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but... a wild domestic goose? Does anyone else have a problem with that phrasing? —Pengo 21:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should probably change it to feral technically... Noodle snacks (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It would be more like a character in a fairy tale if the goose wears a tiny crown on his/her head. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspian blue (talk • contribs)

Promoted Image:Domestic Goose.jpg MER-C 07:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very detailed, high-definition panorama

Articles this image appears in

Nuuk

Creator

Pcziko

• Support as nominator --♪TempoDiValse♪ 23:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Periodic splodges from something on the top left corner of each frame, very visible stitching lines. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In addition to stitching errors, sharpness and blown highlights are also concerns. Spencer^T♦C 01:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Top of Mtn in center is cropped, piss poor stitching and bad exposure. FAIL. --75.69.60.172 (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note - votes of anonymous IPs are 'generally disregarded' (as probably those of anyone using the term 'FAIL') please login to vote. Mfield (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although to be honest, I'm glad someone who can't be hauled up for AGF used the phrase 'piss-poor' to describe the stitching. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its probably the user's first nomination. Give the guy a break. Muhammad(talk) 16:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Its a nice location, so its a shame about the technical problems. The stitching errors could probably be fixed but the clipped mountains at top are a problem and the exposure is off. It would be worth reshooting. Mfield (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's a pity that this is a disaster in several technical aspects (the stitching, most notably) because I think it could have made for a fascinating and beautiful photograph. -- mcshadypl ^TC 07:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - awful stitching, cut off mountains, visual defect top left of every frame, overexposed, blown highlights, heavy JPG compression. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfortunate stitching problems ruin the image. Exposure is off as well. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} _{Ici pour humor} 13:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No need to pile on opposes, this image has top enc but fails terribly in other aspects. Would definitely support a similar panorama without the tech problems. --Janke | Talk 16:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Interesting picture with possibility to be enhanced by a little bit of editing. --Caspian blue 23:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Unfortunately the stitching, the difference in WB among the separate shots and the dirty spot on the top left of each shot spoil this panorama. Luca (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that this has potential to be improved with some editing, although some problems like the cropped mountain are incapable of being fixed. Dar-Ape 22:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily. Note the position of the blotch in the the mountain frames - I'd guess the whole mountain is ion the original frames. Has anybody contacted the photographer - we could get one of our "panogurus" to re-stich and de-blob this from the originals. As a subject, it's definitely FP worthy... --Janke | Talk 08:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC) PS: I see Mfield contacted - any luck?[reply]
    • A reply is unlikely; The user's last contribution was in January. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No reply. If iI get an answer then I'll restitch it and fix all the issues. Until then though we're out of luck. Mfield (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It's quite large, informative and interesting, this is the best map of Prussia I have ever seen. It was made in 1576

Articles this image appears in

Prussia (region)

Creator

Ulamm

• Support as nominator --サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 17:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: I'm seeing stray, multicoloured pixels throughout the map. Is that how the map is? Spencer^T♦C 01:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like it was saved with an inadequate color palate. Either that, or someone did a poor job cleaning up the image. Kaldari (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It appears the restoration of this image was not entirely successful, per Spencer's comment above. Kaldari (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the multi coloured pixels. Where are they? The image looks suitable, and stunning. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 17:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pixels are all over the image. When viewed full, look in any white space and you can see single yellow, green, blue, etc. pixels randomly there. Spencer^T♦C 01:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is over-restored, in my view. The colors are brighter than I suspect was the cartographer's intent, particularly the green that indicates standing forest, which is so bright in the restoration as to nearly match the green that indicates the borders of Samogitia. Chick Bowen 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - A reason for the oppose, providing adequate feedback for the nominator. --Dschwen 22:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The original is way better (although it also needs some work) in terms of photo retouching technique. The restoration is very poor to erase middle tones. --Caspian blue 23:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, but I prefer the original. The restored version just seems too fake. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} _{Ici pour humor} 10:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Elucidate... we should use the original unless we get a better restored version which doesn't remove parts of the map's depth. gren グレン 19:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Stunning image, great DOF. Currently featured on the Turkish Wikipedia. Failed one previous FP nom here on the English Wikipedia.

Articles this image appears in

Rose, Hybrid tea, Hanakotoba

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Elucidate (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - quite possibly the best picture on Rose. I esp. like the dew drops on the petals and the leaves. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very well done shot as always by Fir. Cat-five - talk 01:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous nomination. MER-C 08:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose then, oppose now. Nothing has changed. --Janke | Talk 09:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nothing special and the composition is not good.--Caspian blue 14:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Seems a bit unsharp tbh and the rose has partially wilted. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's tack sharp - the original just hasn't been sharpened after downsampling. Check out the edit --Fir0002 22:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. Very good picture! Clegs (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good EV Muhammad(talk) 06:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 11:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It's a high quality and relevent image of both Joe Biden and Barack Obama early on in their campaign with good expression and clarity. I recall seeing a very different image of the two of them nominated in the past and I liked that one, but I think this one has a bit more context.

Articles this image appears in

Joe Biden and Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2008

Creator

User:Dschwen

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The stand (i'm not 100% sure what that is), is too distracting. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm. Its just a dark, wooden, innocuous stand/podium, how does it distract you? Its an important part of the stage where Joe Biden is speaking and is relevent to the composition. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think s/he's referring to the white thing between them, which I agree is unfortunate. Good picture but I need to think a bit more about it before supporting. Sidenote: Obama looks a bit like a doofus here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it a teleprompter? This one that Bush is using looks pretty advanced (no doubt our best tech is needed to make him barely coherent). Biden seems to be looking its way. I agree it's a little distracting, but it's a shot of a public speech, not a portrait, so it's to be expected there is some junk in the frame... ditto with the water bottle. Fletcher (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes it is. The transparent teleprompters don't work so well in bright sunshine. --Dschwen 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Diego_pmc ^Talk 18:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Strong Support Obama is a little bit blurred. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but if you look at the FPC title, and the articles that it is in, the image is not about Obama. It is more about Joe Biden in relation to the presidential campaign, so in this sense, it is probably preferable for Obama to be slightly out of focus as he is present, but not speaking. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support despite teleprompter, blurry Obama, and color-splotched wood.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Intothewoods29 (below) had a good point: It depicts an event, rather than a face, and the teleprompter has to be there because Biden is "not entitled to look more authentic than he is" (Fletcher). Removing the teleprompter is unrealistic and POV.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support encyclopedic value and decent technical quality Thisglad (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Has EV, but lacks the photographic merit of the Obama FP we already have. Durova^Charge! 05:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet the Obama FP we already have shows a stunning lack of Joe Biden and his first speach on the campaign. --Dschwen 12:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The photo is in the Biden presidential campaign article, not the Obama campaign article. EV seems lacking in that respect. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-10-03 15:43Z
      • What does this comment refer to? It makes no sense to me. --Dschwen 20:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think he was replying to my comment below. It still makes no sense even then, though. I think the fact that the image is in the Joe Biden article makes it perfectly encyclopaedic for that article. Just because it also exists in other articles as a major or minor image, it does not discount the image as a FP. It only needs one article in which it provides enc. The rest is just a bonus. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Obama FP we already have is a fine piece of photography by any standard. As important as this photograph is (and yes I'm glad we have it), the two principal figures are divided by a teleprompter. If the photographer had been standing to the left so the background were more consistent and the teleprompter less intrusive, and if the photo had been taking while the two men were smiling at each other (or better still, shaking hands) then I would probably support. I realize it is very difficult to get this type of shot at all, much less get it to order. But (at least theoretically) there are four more weeks for Wikipedians to get photographs of the presidential campaigns. Durova^Charge! 23:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • four more weeks for Wikipedians to get photographs of the the announcment event of his vicepresidency and their first joint appearance in the campaign. Sure. --Dschwen 23:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • And what you didn't realize: there is a second teleprompter off to the left (check Image:Obama_Biden_rally_4.jpg), getting a picture without a teleprompter without a tight closeup is just not possible, they are always there. --Dschwen 12:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am all too aware of the limitations when one tries to get featured material out of political events. Several months back I nominated Abraham Lincoln's first inauguration after having spent about 15 hours restoring it. It lost out on technical merits too. Durova^Charge! 23:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Durova -- mcshadypl ^TC 06:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Its an encyclopedic image but I prefer this image as it shows better details about Biden with a background Obama illustrating their partnership. Muhammad(talk) 15:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose EV not really there. Note that it's used in the Biden presidential campaign article. White stand is also pretty distracting. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-10-03 15:43Z
  • Yes, it is in the presidential campaign article, and while the image itself is not of his campaign for presidentcy, it is still relevent as it is in the Aftermath section where it relates to his vice-presidency. And it is also in the Joe Biden article, where it has plenty of EV IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry but this one just doesn't do it for me. Oppose as per above. Jordan ^Contribs 17:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think this "action shot" provides a valuable example of what these guys do, something a pic of their heads would not have. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the supposed main subject is not the actual main focus of the photo.--Avala (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• There are pretty much no pictures related to the democratic ticket of even comparable quality used in article and made by Wikipedians. (The current Obama FP is only half an exception, as it it a) only used in a subarticle now and b) the uploader didn't ever contribute anything else). So, yes, you guessed it, I find it very frustrating how people stack on one made up reason after another. Supposed main subject is not the actual main focus of the photo, what?! Explain please. this one just doesn't do it for me, can this be qualified in terms of the criteria? EV not really there, huh?! It is first event in their joint campaign. I think this is a pretty important moment for Joe Biden, hence it is in his article. lacks the photographic merit of the Obama FP we already have, how would an existing Obama FP be relevant here? The honorable nominator has also produced numerous high resolution panos which exceed the photographic merit of most images on this page (including pretty much every single Durova-nomination), does this mean we cannot promote those?! Geez, it wasn't like I could set up a tripod in that dense crowd! I was standing in the scorching sun for 5 hours at that time. People were fainting left and right of me. So pardon that my hand wasn't all that steady anymore. I shot about 500 pictures that day. Most of them with the camera held high above my head. It seems like some people here don't realize what it took to get this (and the other pic in the series) --Dschwen 21:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally sympathize with you Daniel. I complained about this earlier on commons, since I kept hitting the same wall. The same is currently the case with my picture of the red-light district. I completely understand why it is being opposed here by the way(good arguments are given), but it will probably not make on commons, due to vague arguments like 'not interesting' (though it is a very good picture except for the EV). But don't let it get to you, or else you will lose fun in being on Wikipedia. There will always be people judging your work negatively based on the wrong arguments, but so what..it isn't a matter of life and death. As long as you know that it is a good picture, which you can be proud of partly due to the effort you put in to it. P.S. Diliff nominated it, so that has got to count for something. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is crazy. It's not about how much effort Dschwen put into it, or about who nominated it. It's about the picture, people! Fletcher (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point I think he meant to make, this picture is easily as good as most professional photographers sell to stock photography agencies but he released it on wikipedia, some people are judging the image quite harshly considering it's considerable encyclopedic value and acceptable technical quality (who expects every face in an image to be in sharp focus?) Thisglad (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I thought I might oppose for the teleprompter, which lessens the authenticity of Biden's oration, but I realized he's not entitled to look more authentic than he is. The teleprompter simply depicts reality. Some viewers are evidently confused or distracted by it, so it might be noted in the caption somehow. And although I prefer the close-up shot Muhammad pointed to, the subject photo is still among Wikipedia's best work. Surprised it doesn't have more competition.. Fletcher (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'd crop a bit off the right side though. de Bivort 05:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Despite what the nitpickers say about the teleprompter being in the image overall I think it's still a good shot and still meets the criteria. Cat-five - talk 00:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The teleprompter detracts from the picture's enc., there are also some focus issues (especially looking at Obama) and noise (look at the Obama/Biden sign for some of it). Changed to Weak support Spencer^T♦C 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO IT DOESN'T. I've just about had it! There are teleprompters at public speeches. If you don't believe it, go to one your self. it is not Wikipedias mission to beautify reality, and create the illusion that these people can speak freely for hours. Geez! This is an encyclopedia, if don't wan images that depict reality as it is, then go to flicker, or deviant art or where ever. --Dschwen 20:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Dschwen has tackled the issue of the teleprompter, let me clarify a few more points. This image depicts Joe Biden giving the speech and is in articles relating to Joe Biden and as such, the focus is on Joe Biden. Therefore it is completely unrealistic to expect the background to be tack-sharp, particularly Obama who is incidental, but a bonus to the composition. Also, the amount of noise visible on the sign is absolutely insignificant. We've featured hundreds of photos with more noise (including many of mine). Yes, the criteria mentions technical quality such as noise, but be fair. You should compare it to existing FPs rather than a theoretical ideal of zero noise. Sorry to come down hard on you but to be honest, you have more than come down hard on this image without due justification IMO! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, thanks for clarifying. Also per the comment below: "The teleprompter is a crucial device and omitting it would distort the account of the event." by Dschwen. Changing vote to weak support. (Question though: Could the teleprompter not have separated Biden and Obama, or have been in the center? i.e., if it could have been taken from an angle where it was on the side, or a bit lower.) Spencer^T♦C 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very illustrative, high enc, well done. As for the teleprompter, that's part of a politician giving a speech in his natural environment. Mfield (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - could do without the big white square in the middle of the image --T-rex 21:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but do people read the previous course of discussion before they cast their vote?! --Dschwen 22:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So go retake the picture without the big white square in the middle. As long as it is there this is not featured picture quality --T-rex 22:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As he already explained, there are two teleprompters very near the stage that Joe Biden used during the speech. No angle could possibly avoid the teleprompter while providing any significant environmental context to the speech. It is of complete relevance to the composition. Why do you insist it must be absent??? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd go even further, even if there would have been a way to take this without the teleprompter, I'd still include it. The teleprompter is a crucial device and omitting it would distort the account of the event. The suggestion to go retake the picture without the big white square isn't really helpful and makes me wonder if the user is even remotely interested in a serious discussion. --Dschwen 23:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am completely serious. We don't need a picture of a white square. I am sure there are better times and better angles from which to get a picture of Obama and Biden together. However due to the junk in the middle of the picture this is clearly not featured quality. --T-rex 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • T-Rex, please explain if you would what brought you here today to place such vehement opposition to this image, on what from not recognizing your username and from a quick glance back though your contributions appears to be your first day of contributions at FP? Did you just happen upon this or was it brought to your attention somehow. I am interested. If it is your first time contributing here you would do well to familiarize yourself with the criteria and procedures before throwing such explanations and language like 'junk' around. Mfield (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, no, not... dare I say (and even then not in regards to the image): "Junk". Wow, even my the profanity filters at my schools computers didn't allow that one! I had to manually hack J-U-N and K together. ;-) Look, guys, he's opposing due to composition. Leave it at that. He isn't a new user (New to FPC perhaps but not new) he wasn't calling the image "j*nk". Only the teleprompter. If this image doesn't stand up to the spirit and/or the letter of the criteria for this voter. Leave it at that. This has gone beyond the usual "perhaps you didn't consider this technical limitation" dialogue. Relax. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • No this is not my first time with featured picture candidates, but it has been a long while since I last was here. My opinions on the pictures also are different from the majority here, as I focus on angle and extreamness, rather than technical aspects. And if you are accusing me of having a political motivation for this, then you really haven't looked at my contributions. You really don't think I couldn't find a better venue to push political ideas? I just think that the white square takes away from the subject of the image, and therefore leaves it at less then featured quality. --T-rex 01:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry if imy comment seemed a touch accusatory, it just seemed that this particular image had attracted a bunch of voting from new or non regular contributors which seemed a bit unusual. Mfield (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, none of us can argue persuasively about composition since it is a subjective element of every photo but to be honest it just sounds like he is opposing a fundamental and necessary part of the scene. It is a bit like opposing an image of a cat because the cat has whiskers and they're distracting/ugly/whatever. Thats just what cats have, and it would be unfair to oppose on those grounds. If it were even possible to take a photo of a cat that avoided showing its whiskers, would that be appropriate to do? I would argue that no, a good FP shows all elements relevant to the composition clearly. Anyway, regarding the issue of new, I would say that while everyone that shows some thoughtfulness deserves equal suffrage, we should still make sure they're doing so within the bounds of the criteria and not creating their own criteria to support their position. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So whenever Joe Biden and Barack Obama get together a white square always just magically appears between them? --T-rex 13:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • This image doesn't depict Biden and Obama 'getting together'. This is Biden's and the Democratic Party ticket's first election run speech and as such, the composition contains speech related items such as a teleprompter. You're being obtuse. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's a well known fact that Obama is incapable of giving a coherent speech without a teleprompter anyway, so having it within the shot is completely encyclopedic. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree with you that it is encyclopaedic, I do note that it isn't actually Obama giving the speech here... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. It is actually nice that a support vote is the first that shows clearly how the discussion is not just about the picture, but obviously tainted by party politics. People editing Wikipedia should know better than this. --Dschwen 00:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately they don't. MER-C 08:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Geez, some people just can't take a joke can they? (PS: I'm well aware of the fact that Obama wasn't speaking at that exact moment, but given the fact that it is his campaign rally I don't see how that would make a difference in regard to the teleprompter) -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I should support this as well. As an eyewitness to the event I can testify to the pictures authenticity and (as far as possible) NPOVness. As I iterated above, getting this quality under the circumstances was already quite a challenge, and in fact of the several hundred pictures I took, only a handful came out this well. In terms of quality and encyclopedic value/relevance this image fulfills the criteria in my opinion. Yes, I took the picture, but I'm quite aware of that, and certainly would not argue this strongly for any arbitrary pic of mine. --Dschwen 16:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I appreciate the work that went into this, and acknowledge that it is a good shot of this particular event. However, the EV of having the two on stage at this particular event is not high enough for me to support this as a Featured Picture, given how offputting the visual clutter of the pillars is for me. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to point out, that these are not the paper-mâché columns from the democratic national convention, but the authentic columns from the Old State House in Springfield, where Obama (and incidently Abraham Lincoln) announced his bid for the Presidency. It doesn't look cluttered to me in the enlarged version. The thumb doesn't do it justice. --Dschwen 21:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nice picture. When I looked on them I saw peculiar situation. It's not easy to take interesting picture during politcal speech - but this time it has been done. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 21:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Composition-wise, this just doesn't meet FP standards in my view.--ragesoss (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mostlyharmless and Ragesoss. In my view, the composition is just not up to FP snuff, and the event isn't important enough to mitigate that. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based solely on the lack of photographic merit (composition, sharpness, etc.) expected from featured images. As spectacular and unique as Barack Obama is, this photo is not. As an aside- and not at all affecting my !vote in the matter- I find some of the behavior of Dschwen and Difill in this discussion completely unacceptable. To assume someone is making their decision based on politics- with no proof whatsoever- is deplorable, and the photographer and nominator are both attempting to claim that encyclopedic value is simply a fact (as if it was just conferred on the image based on who's in it and when it was taken) as opposed to a matter of opinion. Regardless of their actions, and regardless of my extremely liberal political values (I work for a local Democratic committee, for god's sake), I still don't think this image is worthy of being featured. -- Mike (Kicking222) 18:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm surprised this nomination is still active actually, given that the recent votes have pushed consensus away from a promotion and it is well overdue for closure. Firstly, I accept genuine compositional reasons as grounds for opposition. I only protested against unjustifiable votes that completely misinterpreted the point of the nomination. Many people were arguing (and it appears you have too), for example, that this image is about Barack Obama. It isn't, it is in articles relating to Joe Biden. Also, I never assumed that someone made their decisions based on politics. I suspected it on occasion, but never involved that in the discussion, given the obvious lack of proof and it was never a factor in my arguments. However, given that numerous opposing votes were cast by people with poor justification and a distinct lack of prior involvement in FPC, I don't think it is wrong to at least be aware of the possibility of political bias being a factor. We can assume good faith to an extent, but it is counterproductive when the odds suggest otherwise, even when absolute proof is unattainable. As for the technical photographic merit of the image, the sharpness is absolutely top notch when compared to the vast majority of existing FPs (remember, Obama is not the focus of the shot, so the sharpness of him is not critical). Composition, as I have always argued here, is subjective and cannot be discussed in absolute terms, so I won't even attempt to disagree on that one. I just think you should read carefully what I've said before you call my actions deplorable. I deny that I did what you're accusing me of! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Opposition I oppose only because of the controversy. I could very well be wrong, but I think a featured pictures should be a picture that can be universally(more or less) appreciated. However, I could be persuaded that this much controversy makes a good featured picture. Unfortunately, the controversy seems to be on the pictures merits(composition, focus, etc.) rather than on politics. LCpl Stephen Bolin, USMC (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think you are somewhat wrong about featured pictures being universally appreciated. What we're looking for is images that are of great value to articles and are of high technical standard, as per the criteria. It doesn't say anything about being universally appreciated by viewers. It seems like you're only politicising the nomination/image more (not in the US election sense of political but wikipedia political sense) by opposing 'because of the controversy'. I think it should be the case that either you believe the image meets the criteria set, or you don't. Your opinion on the discussion should not be a factor in your vote at all! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, ok, now I've seen it all! An oppose that is only based on the fact that some other people opposed. In light of this so called controversy being a complete farce (let me just say floating white square), this makes this vote... ...ah well, I better stop typing here. --Dschwen 14:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Due to the distracting teleprompter. Great images get tossed all the time because of some distracting element, I see no reason to make an exception. It also looks a lot like a snapshot, which also get tossed all the time. The most interesting thing to note here IMHO is the label removed from the water bottle. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added Edit1 just to see if that removes any of the teleprompter objections and leaves only the political opposes in place ;) Also croped a little background out. Mfield (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the effort, but the teleprompter was not transparent, as I explained above. --Dschwen 04:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, i missed that bit in the long winded and often irrelevant discussion. Although that would be the first non transparent teleprompter I have ever seen so I just assumed it was a reflection of the sky. Unless the monitor they are using is incredibly dim there should be no reason not to use a transparent one so that's quite unusual in itself. They obviously didn't get the memo from FP voters that non use of a transparent one would risk them not being featured ;) Mfield (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice photoshop work though, but I agree with Dschwen. We can't just change what existed in the scene because we don't like the aesthetics. If people can't accept the scene as it is, so be it. Shame though, as it helps to describe the event IMO, not detract from it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was mostly as a matter of interest thing to see what the reaction would be, after all people have been arguing that it is distracting and not important and shouldn't be there. Plenty of FPs have had distracting background elements removed before they were passed, so I was interested to see whether it would change any votes/remove any of the objections that were solely based on the teleprompter. I happen to agree with you and Dschwen and have no problem with the original myself. Mfield (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very cool Mfield! What did you use to fill in the white space? --Uncle Bungle (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically some layer masking tricks and the miracle of the clone tool. Mfield (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The column behind the teleprompter looks a little shifted to the right (intentional?) but it looks good. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can has feedback on edit 1 plz. MER-C 05:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose It still looks like a rather unremarkable snapshot, though the translucent teleprompter is a big improvement. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose edit - distorts reality... Nicely done, though! ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The distracting telepromoter was the main sticking point, but the attempt to fix this was opposed. I'm not sure whether the event was important enough to offset this, so No consensus seems the obvious outcome. MER-C 11:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange isn't it. I think it may just have become too buried down the page, or the discussion may have become too political and long winded for it to attract any further attention from previous voters. Mfield (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh, sweet, it's Nov 5th, official results are in, and I'm sitting on the Florida Keys. IN YOUR FACE!!! ;-) --Dschwen 02:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And did you happen to be drinking a few pina coladas at the time you wrote this? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for that matter, why weren't you in Chicago taking photos for FPC on the night of the election??? They had transparent teleprompters there!! How could you miss that opportunity!?! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I swear I was at most chewing a Pina Colada Starburst.. ..wait, no matter how I answer it doesn't make me look good. Well the vacation was tied to a conference, and in retrospect I much preffered sunny Florida over waiting in chilling Chicago. --Dschwen 21:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a photo of a nice blue sky. If only the teleprompter hadn't been there... --Para (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fantastic photography. It's quite humbling seeing what the pro's shoot. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it is. I'll keep those angles in mind for the next campaign. --Dschwen 21:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A good quality, high resolution (20.4mp) panorama, showing the infrastructure, vegetation and landscape of Dar es Salaam. A unique image, with no other free or commercially available alternatives.

Articles this image appears in

Dar es Salaam

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 18:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Is that undulating horizon a real, geographical feature, or an artifact of a less-than-perfect stitching? There's a difference of around 100 px on the sea level height at the extreme left & right... --Janke | Talk 19:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the same question was asked and answered at the PPR nom. --jjron (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but the level error wasn't addressed - so, this picture is tilted quite a bit, right? --Janke | Talk 07:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not a vote as I obviously am not logged in, but I think that the caption needs some work. "With an annual population increase of 4.39%, the city has become the 3rd fastest growing in Africa and the 9th fastest in the world." What does that mean? Is that for just one year? Which year? Compounded over a period of time? I think that it is ambihuous and or misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.40 (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems pretty self explanatory to me - it's evidently a compound growth at an average of 4.39%, making it 3rd and 9th fastest growing respectively. A reference is provided in the article, right above where this image is - see here. --jjron (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the IP means its a fragmented sentence. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 14:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If it is a 360 deg panorama it should be stitched as that. The ends do not seem to line up. By stitching across the wrap around you can remove some of the tilt. By adding vertical guides to the buildings you will be able to romove all undulations from the horizon. Until it is properly stitched I can only say oppose. --Dschwen 14:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw Nomination Muhammad(talk) 19:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A very sharp panoramic and one of the ones I am more proud of from a stitching perspective. The scene was very wide and keeping straight lines straight was tricky along with avoiding stitching errors in the overhead wires and avoiding duplicates and partials of the people walking around. That and keeping the tram in the image which adds ENC value IMO. Anyway, very informative as well as being large.

Articles this image appears in

Basel, Rail transport in Switzerland

Creator

User:Fcb981

• Support as nominator --Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• My initial impulse was to oppose based on the noise from the overhead wires, but it's clear they're part of both the scene and the city. A question, though; I don't look at many panoramas, but the man on the far right and the woman on the far left look much more flattened than they should. Is this common and/or fixable? --Golbez (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I think you may be referring too is the aliasing on the overhead wires. Certainly not noise, that is fairly correctable and admittedly I wasn't looking for it nor did I notice it. Due to the fairly intense perspective of the panorama it is either correctly proportioned people and wavy building lines or straight building lines and stretched people. There isn't any way around it. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By "noise" I meant nothing so technical, I just meant they jumbled and detracted from the image, but then my brain realized they were fundamental to it. --Golbez (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Excessive noise, distracting foreground that detracts from the image, distortion. Looks like a 'no-go'.
  Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} _{Ici pour humor} 07:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you talking about aliasing on the wires or something else when you say noise. There should be almost no perceivable noise considering it was taken in daylight, noise reduced then downsampled from 13000 px. As for distortion, yeah, the scene demands it. I could stitch cylindrical but then the train station would look like it was melting. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is such a nice variety of people in that picture: from the lady taking a bite off her snack and the people waiting for the tram on the left through the guys eyeing another guy in the middle to the Middle Eastern-looking men in the right; all that makes a lovely picture. However, besides the issues outlined above, there's something terribly wrong with the green bus on the right: it's some kind of big editing error. Not sure what caused it exactly, possibly movement, but it's been overlooked. Overall, it's a great and very informative image, but there's apparent distortion on the sides, which doesn't help. I'll abstain from opposing or supporting for now, but I'm leading towards oppose. Todor→Bozhinov 12:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am not a fan of this projection method for a panorama that is centrally depicting a building. It results in a bowed building which lowers the enc value dramatically for me. Also, I think a better time of day or a more cloudy day maybe could be chosen that doesn't have the face of the building in deep shadow. Mfield (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per stitching errors (mainly the green bus). I don't necessarily mind the bowing of the building because of the perspective... but when you use this style you have to take more effort to avoid people in the foreground because they look very distorted... still, this is a great picture... I'd mark it as a quality image... just not faultless like FPs should be. gren グレン 19:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Clear, Aphids add some enc (but are only a secondary subject)

Articles this image appears in

Hybrid Tea, Rose, Aphid

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Enc, good technicals. Perhaps it could illustrate the cohesiveness of water or something like that, too?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose' due to the tight crop on the bottom and the bugs on the petals.(I didn't know that they are also subject in the picture.-.-)-Caspian blue 03:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I am impressed by the beauty of the picture along with the interesting secondary subject. LCpl Stephen Bolin, USMC (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too messy for a rose, not close enough for the aphids... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The pervasive water droplets take away from the EV, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I disagree that the water takes away from the EV; it shows under what conditions some roses live. Same thing with the aphids. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, nice Hallmark picture, but little enc value. Plants are more than just their flowers, and this is just too common (substitute boring if you are not easily offended) of a subject. --Dschwen 14:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd actually like to see a hallmark card with bugs all over it... Plants are more than just their flowers, but it is one of the more important differentiating factors for roses I think. Not easily offended so boring will do fine :) Noodle snacks (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Beautiful shot, but regarding EV it is not good for a picture of the flower because of the aphids and not good for a picture of the aphids, because it's not a close-up on the bugs. Besides, the flower is looking very nice, which doesn't really represent the damage that aphids actually cause (I guess this is an early stage of infestation). Luca (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I enjoy the detail shown in the shot, although the background doesn't quite appeal to me. Almost too distracting... Nonetheless, it has my support.
  Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} _{Ici pour humor} 19:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Symbolic meeting of the Red Army of the Soviet Union and the United States Army outside Torgua, Germany, on Elbe Day

Articles this image appears in

Battle of Berlin, Elbe Day, Timeline of World War II (1945)

Creator

Pfc. William E. Poulson

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 20:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a pretty low quality reproduction to me. --Dschwen 22:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I've seen much better reproductions of this pic before. Sorry. Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bad reproduction, clearly of poor quality. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} _{Ici pour humor} 07:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The big black splotch in the middle majorly detracts from enc. and quality. Spencer^T♦C 20:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose regretfully. Superb EV, just not up to the minimum on the technical side. Durova^Charge! 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great EV, excellent image with good depth of field, illustrating the subject well, and used in a variety of articles. Currently Featured on Commons.

Articles this image appears in

Vitamin C, Orange (colour), Citrus, Sphere packing, Orange (fruit)

Creator

Thoken

Previous nomination

April 2005

• Support as nominator --Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} _{Ici pour humor} 14:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous nomination. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} _{Ici pour humor} 14:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unbalanced composition, cut off. Very easy to stage & shoot a better pic. --Janke | Talk 16:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with Janke, and also the image lacks a clear focal point. Is it trying to be an encyclopedic display of an orange's interior, or is it a beautiful still life? I don't think it can be both; and it comes off looking unnatural despite its good quality. Fletcher (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unnatural stage, and composition, and little bit dark.--Caspian blue 23:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose I don't mind the still-life composition except that it's cut off at the right. Move the camera a little and I'd support, but it's probably too late for these oranges. Oh, wait, it's by the USDA. Good enough for government work, but not for us...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL we have higher standards than one of the world's largest governments? Cool ;) Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Take that, Agricultural Research Service! My faith in the United States government is severely shaken. I will have to revise my opinion of the United States Department of Agriculture. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} _{Ici pour humor} 07:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe this was nominated before and failed. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-10-24 17:15Z
  • Ahh, that's why I remember it - I nominated it 3 1/2 years ago here. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-10-24 17:16Z
    • Indeed. I did notify editors at the top of the nomination. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} _{Ici pour humor} 18:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, I closed my own nomination... ahhh, those were the days! ;) — BRIAN0918 • 2008-10-24 20:26Z

Yeah, it's amazing how things change. Doubt you'd get away with that now, not unless it were a WP:SNOW case. (Which it just might be.) Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 20:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - personally, I think it's a good image, and I don't really get the nitpicking. But I also don't really see the point of taking third party images and labelling them "featured" anyway. Stevage 00:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The nit picking about "cut off" subjects is not warrented for Orange (fruit), Citrus or Orange (Colour) as there are a number of full oranges in the picture, however an image of one or two oranges would be more detailed and hence more useful. For sphere packing the composition is cut off and it isn't made clear what sort of sphere packing this is (probably closest to hexagonal close-packed), and more spheres would make the arrangement clearer. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Stunning image, great DOF, as well as EV. Currently Featured on Commons.

Articles this image appears in

Monarch (butterfly)

Creator

Ram-Man

• Support as nominator --Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} _{Ici pour humor} 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The colors are a bit muddy (wrong angle of light). BTW, why are the antennae hidden, tucked under the head? Lessens enc, IMO. --Janke | Talk 16:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The reason to have this a Wikipedia FP is much stronger than that of the Commons: it is highly encyclopedic. This is a female butterfly with its wings open, made difficult because they are usually closed at rest. Also, it is on its host plant, something many butterfly photos lack. This is not a common shot and it is of high quality. -- RM 17:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per RM.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good capture, composition, EV and others. :) --Caspian blue 23:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support excellent image, the fact that the host plant is part of the picture is just icing on the cake. --Leivick (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Indeed a very nice picture! Luca (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Narayanese (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus on Milkweed Hybrid 2800px.jpg MER-C 05:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is an evocative and illustrative image of this musician. While the quality isn't perfect (it is a little out of focus and this is visible at higher resolutions), I think this is outweighted by the encylopedic value and how it invites the reader in.

Articles this image appears in

Harri Stojka

Creator

Tsui

• Support as nominator --Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose out of focus Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose bad cropping. --Caspian blue 12:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Focus doesn't bother me. Good portrait. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's a very powerful portrait, and the focus is pretty close to right.--ragesoss (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As mentioned before, the focus is not good enough for FP. Same deal with the composition. Luca (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, but FP is about perfection. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 21:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High res, good amount of EV, and for high detail. Another beautiful bird with that black plumage which has the nice gleam to it.

Articles this image appears in

Common Grackle, List of birds of Ontario

Creator

Mdf

• Support as nominator --—Ceran^(Sing) 00:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose There is a fair amount of noise in the belly, and the tail is somewhat out of focus. I'm also having issues with the background, and would prefer a larger picture. Spencer^T♦C 01:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spencer, this issue you have with noise has got to stop here. There is almost no noise to speak of in this image. All images have some 'noise', though. Its a fact of photography with current technology. Sometimes it is simply the texture of the object, too. This image is well within the bounds of realistic noise levels. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, what magnification are you using to look for this noise? There is nothing visible at 100% and that's as far as you should be going to judge it. Mfield (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm viewing it 100%. Now looking at it closer, I suppose some of that is texture. Sorry, Spencer^T♦C 01:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Unfortunate background, crop too tight (as usual, with mdf photos) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support I think the crop is okay. The detail is a wee bit soft and the BG is less than ideal, but acceptable. Matt Deres (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A great news photo of an important event in the American civil rights movement. I did a rotation/perspective correction (to get the crazy leaning walls vertical) and cropped it. I'm including the original for comparison, and if others like that better or want to have a shot at fixing it themselves, have at it!

Articles this image appears in

African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) (just added, hope it sticks), Racial segregation in the United States, George Wallace, Nicholas Katzenbach, University of Alabama, History of the University of Alabama, Foster Auditorium

Creator

Warren K. Leffler, U.S. News & World Report Magazine

• Support as nominator --Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer edit 1 btw. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Wow to think this was only 45 years ago. Exceptional EV and a quality photo. Definitely support. Wadester16 (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good choice, great EV. Crazy guy. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent restoration.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment please adjust the histogram. Durova^Charge! 22:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support if the tone is adjusted more. --Caspian blue^Gwansim? 00:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  So I support Edit 1.--Caspian blue 01:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - cleaned up well --T-rex
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 06:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Edit 1, please. MER-C 05:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I like edit 1. Durova^Charge! 22:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Wallace at University of Alabama edit2.jpg MER-C 05:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good enc. Sharp detailed image.

Articles this image appears in

Cultivar, Leucospermum

Creator

User:Flying Freddy

• Support as nominator --Flying Freddy (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I like the image, but I don't think the encyclopedic value is strong enough, since no information is given about what cultivar this is which natural species it is derived from.--ragesoss (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note in the image description "Leucospermum glabrum x L. tottum". This means it is a cross between Leucospermum glabrum and Leucospermum tottum. I have updated the cultivar article to reflect this. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I didn't notice that on the image page, because I was looking at the edited version (which was never updated with the cultivar). Support, prefer edit.--ragesoss (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Prefer edit 1, good sharpness and low noise. The black point could have been adjusted differently as the shadows are

clipped in places, but I don't think it really matters. The depth of field isn't perfect, but no detail is missing and a narrower aperture would make the background more distracting. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 1 per Noodle Snacks. Good picture. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest to make edit 2 I like the original image, but prefer the brighter background of Edit 1. So could you please make an additional image with the brighter background and the original tone of the flower?--Caspian blue 00:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What? I only see the Original and Edit one... ??? Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I fix my writing. --Caspian blue 02:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have neither the skills nor time to oblige with this proposed edit sorry. Flying Freddy (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, you are not obliged to make an additional edit by my suggestion. However, you adjusted the level of the original, so adjusting the background only is not that hard for you.--Caspian blue 11:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you would be willing to link me to information on how to selectively adjust part of the image easily then I would be happy to oblige -- Flying Freddy (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, photoshop lesson 1, you may understand "layer" function, and have Photoshop CS3. You just go to the "layer" on the topbar, and then choose "new adjustment layer". After then, you pick the green from the color bar, and adjust "black". The amount of blackness would be adjusted by sliding the tiny knot.[11] If you need more help, just let me know.--Caspian blue 22:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Leucospermum cultivar Edit.jpg MER-C 05:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Action shot of a rocket in preparation for competition. I particularly like the optical effects produced by the extreme heat and airflow.

Articles this image appears in

Lunar Lander Challenge

Creator

Matthew C. Ross, Armadillo Aerospace

• Support as nominator --Wronkiew (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Peer Review Discussion - Noodle snacks (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd really like to see the top of the unit; the image does not clearly show that it is hovering (it could be attatched to a crane or something like that).--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It is attached to a crane, and the entire vehicle is visible in the photo. There are other images which show more of the harness, but, with a wider view, the emphasis on the rocket engine is lost. Wronkiew (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  But then it's not hovering, is it? This image is much more enc for that purpose.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 15:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a captive hover. Perhaps a title change would help to clear things up. How about "Armadillo Aerospace Pixel captive flight test"? Wronkiew (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps, but I was hoping for a real hover...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Not as sharp as I'd like but good encyclopedic value for this experimental engine. Fletcher (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Great EV, although, as stated previously, lacking minorly in sharpness. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} _{Ici pour humor} 15:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Out of all of the nominations I have seen before this picture, by far the best. Action packed, intersting and visually stunning. A picture that makes you stop and stare at it a second. LCpl Stephen Bolin, USMC (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support This is a picture that makes you want to sit there and pick out all the minor details.Wikiman53195 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki53195 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• User's first edit. MER-C 03:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Armadillo Aerospace Pixel Hover.jpg MER-C 05:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High res, good restoration.

Articles this image appears in

Empire State Building, Manhattan, History of New York City (1898–1945) (if promoted)

Creator

Lewis Hine (edited by Durova)

• Support as nominator --—Ceranthor^(Sing) 14:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This was on peer review a long time ago. Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Image:Old timer structural worker.jpg. The question to balance is whether its uniqueness (it really can't be retaken) overcomes the technical shortcomings. Thanks for thinking of this, Durova^Charge! 18:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Needs a better description on the image page... it doesn't even link to the original.--ragesoss (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it was one of my earliest restorations. Durova^Charge! 00:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Interesting image but I think the lack of detail on the man's face is a bit of a deal-breaker. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, I knew that would be only a subtraction. Oh well, I suppose that we can perhaps fix it? —Ceran^(Sing) 10:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect not. There just isn't detail there. You can't create detail where it doesn't exist. Also, it doesn't appear to be in any articles anymore. I haven't visited them to see why though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't replace the unrestored version. Thegreenj 21:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Nevermind the lack of detail specifically on the subject's face. The picture is still quite informative in terms of showing some fundamental innerworkings of how constructing the framework for skyscrapers was done. The background is particularly breathtaking. My only issue is the graininess near the top of the image, but this facet of the image really is irreparable. Nevertheless, it is still one of the best images that I have seen on here.-- mcshadypl ^TC 07:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is an image that is stunning and breathtaking. It is an image that immeaditlly captures your eye, and it is an image that gets even better when you zoom in. LCpl Stephen Bolin, USMC (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I agree with the comments made by the other supporters. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The high historical value and good composition of the picture, I believe, surpass than the mentioned weakness.--Caspian blue 23:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support This is history. Right here in front of us. Now this has my full support.Incredible EV to boot. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 21:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Old timer structural worker2.jpg MER-C 05:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The image is high resolution, depicting in good detail the cells found in human blood, adding much to the topics using it

Articles this image appears in

Immune system, Scanning electron microscope, White blood cell, Complete blood count, Lymphocyte, Monocyte, Innate immune system

Creator

User:DO11.10

• Support as nominator --J6kyll (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose much more detailed images of cells are possible. [12]. de Bivort 04:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - far too unsharp for what an SEM is capable of. To note, it was created in 1982 - technology in this area has improved since then. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and speedy close as per WP:SNOW. The image is lacking in sharpness: the detail present just isn't enough. I say speedy close. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 20:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think three opposes is enough for a speedy close tbh. The nominator might get scared that we're speedily removing it as if we think it's obvious to anyone that it's not up to standard and it's not worth our time - they might not have realised how much better than this SEM pics can be. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree with Vanderdecken, SEM pics can be much better. Spencer^T♦C 21:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 12:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]