Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2011

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.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2011 at 08:23:19 (UTC)

Reason

The image is of high resolution and encyclopedic value, showing how the Japanese of the 1800s viewed both the God of the Sea Ryūjin and the legend of the Tide jewels. Work is by a notable artist. Note that the ama divers traditionally wore loin cloths when diving (no shirts), so the nudity would be accurate of a diver during the period.

Articles in which this image appears

Ryūjin, Tide jewels, Japanese dragon, Tentacle erotica, The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art

Creator

Utagawa Kuniyoshi, uploaded by User:Petrusbarbygere

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support It seems softer at full size than I'd expect for this sort of thing. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2011 at 20:59:20 (UTC)

Reason

Excellent, high resolution image that provides a timely portrayal of one of the most significant sports venues in the world

Articles in which this image appears

Michigan Stadium

FP category for this image

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

Creator

AndrewHorne

• Support as nominator --Jweiss11 (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As is. The saturation is considerably higher than what is natural. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per JJ Harrison. JFitch (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also yes i have too noticed the stitch error on second viewing. The lines on the field don't even match. Definitely opposing here. JFitch (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur that the excessive saturation made this image unrealistic. Thus reduced the saturation, no matter the FP review. Materialscientist (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The saturation is not to high it is a open stadium, this is what a sunny day looks like outsideMax ╦╩ (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Pretty big stitch error down the centre of the picture. Some men in white seem cut up :/ 109.155.42.250 (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I restitched the photograph, I know this changed it a little and I dont know how to do the saturation changes that were done by Materialscientist but the stitching has been changed, I think its better but its up to you all AndrewHorne (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still stitching errors at top of field unless mine's not refreshing properly but i feel it is. JFitch (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes you are correct there is still an error in the north east portion of the field, best I could do, better than the original but not perfect AndrewHorne (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2011 at 14:00:00 (UTC)

Reason

I think it is the most clear image with appropriate exposure, focus, contrast and have natural colors in the article "Durga Puja". This year the event starting from 2^nd October. It will end 6^th October. I think it is a good time to nominate this picture.

Articles in which this image appears

Durga Puja

FP category for this image

• Support as nominator -- JDP90
• Comment: Attempted to fix nomination. Countdown timer not included as I have no idea what to do with it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Blown highlights, seemingly overdone saturation, and the framing removes most of the body. (Is this a doll or a person?) Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's most likely somewhere between a statue and a mannequin. See murti. J Milburn (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a Murti of goddess Durga (meaning "the inaccessible"). See Durga Puja (meaning Worship of goddess Durga). Joydeep (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Crisco. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2011 at 16:30:15 (UTC)

Reason

The image is of high resolution and quality. While it may not have the "Wow" factor like some panoramas, it does have the "Awwwww" factor which makes it more interesting (to me) than images of lone prairie dogs. The uses of the image are to show animal affection, which it does well. The image is currently featured at commons. Side note: If featured, it would be a good POTD for Valentine's Day. (An unedited version was previously nominated unsuccessfully)

Articles in which this image appears

Prairie dog, Kiss, Black-tailed prairie dog

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Mila Zinkova

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice bit of behaviour, but I'm not sure it should be in kiss. Pity about the sawn off log behind suggesting an unnatural environment. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator. A very cute image. Broccolo (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question what is the furry thing behind the left animal in the original photo? Pine^talk 06:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like a log, methinks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support < 5 Makeemlighter (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Late, I will support alt 1. Is a re-nom required? Pine^talk 17:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I couldn't get here sooner to support. I'm busy IRL. Pine^talk 19:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2011 at 14:57:36 (UTC)

Reason

The image is of sufficiently high resolution and quality, as well as free to use (the label, although trademarked, is not copyrighted). The previous nomination closed as no consensus. It is the leading image in our article about the reaction, and is in several other related articles, showing the encyclopedic nature of the image.

Articles in which this image appears

Soda and candy eruption (lead image), List of Internet phenomena, Mentos, Steve Spangler

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others (chemistry)

Creator

Michael Murphy

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I had considered re-nominating this as well. Jujutacular ^talk 18:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't see aything special about this image at all. The background is horrific and very distracting. The focus is not perfect. This could easily be redone to a much higher standard. JFitch (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Something about this, be it the lighting, background or whatever, gives the false impression that this is a very old photograph. It just doesn't look right to me. J Milburn (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even if you don't like the background, I, personally, do, it's still quite good as it is (especially the shadows; the fantastic shadows.). Gekkey Mathews (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't find anything particularly well done about this picture. -- Diego_pmc ^Talk 19:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2011 at 08:10:35 (UTC)

File:Tako to ama retouched.jpg - Tako to Ama, or The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, an early forerunner of tentacle erotica

Reason

I believe that this image meets the FPC criteria as it is of fairly high resolution and high encyclopedic value. The woodcutting has its own article, and it has been cited as a major influence in shuga, tentacle erotica, and hentai. I am aware that the image, two octopi performing oral sex on a pearl diver, would probably not be allowed on the Main Page.

Articles in which this image appears

The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, Tentacle erotica, Zoophilia, Hentai, and four more

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art

Creator

Hokusai. Once it reached Wikipedia it had many editors working on it, including Crisco 1492 as uploader of this resolution and Quibik and Materialscientist who cleaned it up.

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have put the image as a plain wikilink to ensure that this page remains SFW. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Has the EV and quality in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Do we know how large the original is? I'd like to support, but I'm interested to know if this reproduction is much smaller than the original. J Milburn (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be on the Beate Uhse Erotic Museum website (http://www.erotikmuseum.de) but I cannot access it as I am behind the automatic anti-pornography censors the Indonesian government implemented a while ago. Suffice it to say that we may have the highest resolution / quality scan on the web. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This gives a size of 6.5 by 8.75 inches (165 by 222 mm) --Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good quality and EV. --Elekhh (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular ^talk 01:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tako to ama retouched.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2011 at 19:44:21 (UTC)

Reason

Struck me as a wonderfully nice and encyclopedic image of a mundane everyday object.

Articles in which this image appears

Nail clipper

FP category for this image

Other

Creator

Evan-Amos

• Support as nominator --JBarta (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Are we allowed to touch up the blown highlights? I know that this is common with metal objects, but the one to the far left is just a little too blown for my liking. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be ok prov. subject isn't misrepresented. However, you aren't actually adding information, so I don't really see the point. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just concerned as the huge white area on the one clipper is visible even at thumbnail view. A touch-up would be nice, to make it a bit less obvious. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blown highlights aren't a big deal imo. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great quality, agree with JJ that the blown highlights have a minimal effect. Jujutacular ^talk 18:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support, for reasons expressed above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per above. Lacks a bit of wow, not that concerned about blown highlights costing detail (what are we missing?), but on the other hand they are pretty substantial. --jjron (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how much "wow" we're going to get in a picture of nail clippers. Though, if you look at the image close up, the detail is definitely kinda cool. JBarta (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, but that's kind of my point - it's a bit a 'non-wow' topic. Perhaps we could get something like it actually clipping a nail with a piece of toenail flying or something. :) --jjron (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though not "beautiful", this is the difference between a Wikipedia and commons featured pic: we look for the encyclopedic value, and this image definitely has that. Outstanding quality. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Nail-clippers-variety.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2011 at 00:51:41 (UTC)

Reason

He looks so happy surrounded in guano (as is normal).

Articles in which this image appears

Brown fur seal, Hippolyte Rocks

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- High resolution, interesting composition... is that white stuff all guano? Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is, probably mostly from birds, particularly Black-faced Cormorant. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. Glad to see he's happy with the guano. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Muhammad(talk) 11:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is this a crop of 100% or a resize? If a resize i'd love to see a higher res but slightly tighter cropped version. JFitch (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's cropped quite a bit already, as many of my photos are. One can't zoom with a prime lens. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I understand that, my question was only that if what is left is of 100% resolution. I'm assuming it is. JFitch (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pretty much in this particular case. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Leads me to Support This then. JFitch (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Joydeep (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no objection. Pine^talk 06:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Arctocephalus pusillus - SE Tasmania.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2011 at 00:49:00 (UTC)

Reason

See the Cape Petrel nomination for general comments. I think this would be our first featured albatross in flight if passed.

Articles in which this image appears

Shy Albatross, List of birds of Tasmania

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support -- The bird looks a little weird with its feet completely hidden... like a very stern flying torpedo. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The feet are there, just tucked under the tail aerodynamically. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I see them, but they seem to be in the shadows so I'm not sure. Still iffy on the pose, but otherwise it is a great shot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Muhammad(talk) 11:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --JDP90 (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support perfect. Nice photo. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very good quality, good EV. I was going to say 'were you at sea', but the cape petrel nom answers that for me. --jjron (talk)
  • It is geocoded as well - I took a data point with my phone GPS periodically, and whenever we stopped, then linear interpolated between those points using the exif time. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Thalassarche cauta in flight - SE Tasmania.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2011 at 00:44:41 (UTC)

Reason

We only have a couple of deep ocean bird photos featured, and all of them to my knowledge are taken on land near breeding sites. I recently went on a pelagic trip about 25-30km off the coast of Tasmania to photograph some of them. Because of the 2-3 meter swell, which eased in the afternoon, it was often difficult just to keep the subjects in the viewfinder. Fortunately my camera's auto focus was up to the task! I think this is a good image of a Cape Petrel, and it meets the criteria.

Articles in which this image appears

Cape Petrel

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

User:JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although there seems to be a remnant from sharpening near the tail. Is the original like that too? Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't (a sharpening remnant) and is in the original. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Must be the contrast between tail feathers and sky then. Good shots, all 3. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks to me like it's just the coloring of the feathers. You can see the light edges are not just between feather and sky. The light edges continue up the side of the feather a bit. JBarta (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. No issue with oversharpening, but I get a feeling you were just a little too far away, and thus it's a bit short on the fine detail that (quite frankly) you've made us come to expect. ;) Still support though due to rareness/difficulty for WP. --jjron (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support agree with Jjron. Pine^talk 07:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fine details may be a bit lacking but I like the view of the wingspans in flight. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. After a CA correction I can give my support. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Think it is worth doing the CA correction alchemist mentioned and seeing what he says? JJ Harrison (talk) 06:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please mail me your CR2 file and I correct it for you, or do it simply self with DPP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've uploaded a new version, are you happy with it? JJ Harrison (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, much better now. My oppose is now Support! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Daption capense in flight - SE Tasmania.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2011 at 11:29:49 (UTC)

Reason

Compelling depiction of one of Jørn Utzon's most notable buildings, with high encyclopaedic value in depicting the vault and natural light.

Articles in which this image appears

Bagsværd Church, Jørn Utzon

FP category for this image

Interiors

Creator

seier+seier

• Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Oppose Seems very noisy for a shot that really doesn't have to be. Also a wider angle would be preferable to really show the room rathe than just the ceiling. I like the subject matter though. JFitch (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes is a bit noisy at full size. If you or anybody else would like to try a de-noise I would appreciate it. It is a 20Mpix image so there is lot to work with. Certainly I nominated the image mainly for its EV, not technical quality alone. --Elekhh (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Its noisy and a bit underexposed. In my view the crop either needs to be tighter (focussing on the organ), or the whole thing needs to be wider (focussing on the whole space). JJ Harrison (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree that there is something unbalanced in the composition and that the organ should be closer to the image center. Maybe cropping the ceiling a bit, coupled with some noise reduction, will help (can't do that on my current PC). Materialscientist (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if cleaned. No problems with exposure in my opinion. Samsara (FA • FP) 08:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2011 at 12:38:58 (UTC)

Reason

I think this is a good historical image of a highly significant event. The resolution just barely squeaks by, but I think the quality checks out. It was previously nominated, but failed after several editors disagreed with the quality of the scan. I disagree; I think it is good and clear.

Articles in which this image appears

Assassination of James A. Garfield, James A. Garfield, Charles J. Guiteau

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

A. Berghaus and C. Upham, uploaded by Mdd4696

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would expect a little higher resolution for this image. A better scan would also allow for restoration as well: the image shows what appear to be some crease marks. Here is a different depiction of the same event that may be more suitable for FP. Very high resolution. Jujutacular ^talk 02:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2011 at 14:16:03 (UTC)

Reason

Quality and value

Articles in which this image appears

Owl

FP category for this image

Birds

Creator

dariosanches

• Support as nominator --PERSIA ♠ 14:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose -- Low EV as currently used and seems to be overly saturated. Angle of the horizon seems odd too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Species is Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl, but not used in that article. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Over saturation and article placement leaves a bit to be desired. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think we can get a better picture of an owl for that article. Pine^talk 07:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support, it's a great photo, I love the composition and the colours of the background. But the colour balance on the owl and post is too yellow for me. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2011 at 14:04:13 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, very eye catching. Resolution is high, graininess is acceptable as the image is from 1935.

Articles in which this image appears

Anna May Wong

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Carl Van Vechten, with edits by Jbarta

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What's going on here? The source image is much smaller, and there are very strange artefacts on this version. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The original source (here) notes that there is (was?) also a 20mb TIFF. This seems to have been drawn from that file. Can't access it for some reason. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oddly I get the same error now, though it was available not too long ago. Maybe it's just a temporary issue at the LOC. JBarta (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hopefully. If you still have the original TIFF perhaps you could upload it separately? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The monochrome tones look mucky (especially the "shadows" behind AMW which I suspect may be a contemporary enhancement) and it just generally looks to have been rather carelessly processed. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The flowers all around Wong are rather distracting and detract from the image as a whole. I'm not exactly sure what their purpose is...? Spencer^T♦C 02:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2011 at 12:56:23 (UTC)

Reason

This self-portrait of Carl Van Vechten from 1936 is of high resolution, with a striking pose. It has high EV as it is our only picture of the artist.

Articles in which this image appears

Carl Van Vechten, Self-portrait

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Carl Van Vechten, uploaded by MarkSweep

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, I now prefer JJron's ALT1. Hopefully it can be cleaned up a bit. (This computer doesn't handle photoshop well :( )Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The image quality is a dealbreaker here. Good picture but not FP worthy imo. JFitch (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For a 70-year-old picture? This autochrome from roughly the same period is much grainier. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as is. It's a good find, but I just downloaded the original, and I think the editing 'improvements' here aren't ideal. The contrast has been bumped up and it has been sharpened significantly (as well as substantially downsized); those things have simply emphasised a number of the quality 'issues'. Personally I think the original should replace this, but prior to FPC I think it needs a dust and scratches touch up (which I don't have the time or inclination to do). --jjron (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uploaded Alt1. As I say above I think this should replace the 'original', but I think the scan has some dust and scratches that could be touched up before FPC. FWIW I'd probably Weak Support Alt1 as is. --jjron (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You had accidentally linked the one I nominated again. I've added the correct image. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops...when copy-pastes go bad. I had both images open in different tabs already so didn't realise I'd forgot to change the link. Cheers. --jjron (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've requested cleanup from the lab. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2011 at 09:39:06 (UTC)

Reason

I think it shows the danger from the volcano very well

Articles in which this image appears

Galeras - but strangely this article using the image is not reported on the image ?

FP category for this image

Places

Creator

Josecamilom

• Support as nominator --EdwardLane (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That black strip in the corner needs to get lost. Image is also used in Decade volcanoes Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment presume you mean top right? I hadn't spotted that, can someone please fix it - this machine is far too rubbish to handle photoshop or anything similar. EdwardLane (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The top right of the image is not a problem if fixing that would make it FP quality i'd do it in a second. I don't feel that the rest of the image is up to standard at all. JFitch (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose clouds obscure the middle of the volcano. Pine^talk 07:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2011 at 11:41:03 (UTC)

Reason

Image is of high resolution and very detailed. The image has high EV as it has its own article. Image is also of high historical value as it is considered one of the first maps the earliest extant map of Britain and Scotland. The phallic shape when rotated adds even more interest factor.

Articles in which this image appears

Gough Map

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps

Creator

Unknown. This version uploaded by Alexrk2

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- As far as know, this map is the earliest extant representation of England and Scotland, not "one of the first". As for the phalic shape, no need to rotate the thing to make it obvious... Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wording fixed. I did not rotate the nomination picture since that is only incidental; the link is for the curious. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support High EV, great scan. Love the little buildings throughout the map - very cool. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose, I think - check out the earlier version of the map. I'm not sure what processing has been done to the new version, or if it came from a different source, but I think the earlier version is superior. This one seems to have gotten a serious contrast boost, and the edges are somewhat strange. The original version should probably get a better cut-out and then be nominated itself. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Gerbrant upload? I'll ask at the lab. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as is The new upload describes digital enhancement, however it isn't documented anywhere exactly what has been done, and I think it is best practise to have the unenhanced version as a separate file to link to on commons. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've asked at the Graphics Lab for the original (Gerbrant) upload to be reuploaded as a separate file; my computer and connection can't handle the pixels. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2011 at 11:16:52 (UTC)

Reason

Because we can never have too many fine art featured pictures. The resolution on this one is fantastic, and there's even a puzzle about it to boot.

Articles in which this image appears

Self-portrait with a friend (Raphael), Giovanbattista Branconio dell'Aquila

FP category for this image

Artwork/Paintings (though it is a portrait, it derives its EV as a work of art)

Creator

Raphael

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- high resolution (too big for me to check the full size on an Indonesian connection), notable painting on its own so EV is assured. Image has a sense of mystery. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Extraordinary quality and detail in this picture of a beautiful painting. The color enhancing done from the original is superb. JBarta (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Problem I get a technical error message when I try to view this at full size. Pine^talk 07:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's probably because the picture is very large- there is a warning notice. J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First time I've seen that. Pine^talk 06:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose for this version Great image quality, but the touch-up has much higher contrast than the original, and in the case of classic art I think it's best to stay as close to the original as possible. Pine^talk 06:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One might also say that over the years the colors in the original have faded and the (minimal) enhancement brings it back to as it was. Also, viewing a painting in person and on a computer screen are two different things. We could say the enhancements optimize the image for the computer screen. Either way, I see no problem here. JBarta (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I generally prefer unedited photos of the primary subject. I agree that the original might have had stronger contrast, but I'm not qualified to judge how paint colors should have looked in the past. Another user might be. Pine^talk 19:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support < 5, worth re-nominating. Makeemlighter (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2011 at 10:46:33 (UTC)

Reason

Excellent quality image, a lot higher than some of our other studio FP's. Give's accurate representation and is lead image.

Articles in which this image appears

Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II, List_of_Canon_products

FP category for this image

Photographic_techniques,_terms,_and_equipment

Creator

Charles Lanteigne

• Support as nominator --JFitch (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-- For details & quality. Joydeep (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Amazing quality, high resolution. I'm a little iffy on the crop, but not enough to make this a weak support. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer ALT now that it's up. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit1 uploaded - bigger canvas size. --jjron (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit1. Good photo spoiled by intolerably tight crop; edit corrects this issue. --jjron (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at in some context. Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II for example and It's clear why it's cropped so tight. It works for that page imo. JFitch (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. I edited it after checking it on the article page (it's pretty immaterial what it looks like here after all). It's too tight. You're free to oppose the edit, but Closer please note that my support is only for the Edit. --jjron (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can support both, the quality is still there and there is certainly no reason to oppose. Your perfectly right in that it looks better in thumbnail. My only point was that on the 5Dii page it looks fine filling the area as it does, and as that is the image's prime use, isn't that what's important? JFitch (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit I was thinking the same thing as jjron before. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit per image quality (have no idea about abundance of FPs on this topic). Yes, the crop of the original is too tight even for me (who crops too tight for thumbnail purposes :). Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit per other comments. Pine^talk 07:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit the crop for the original is way too tight, and it looked awful even in the infobox. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC) P.S. Support for the camera too ;-)[reply]
• Support edit --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Canon EOS 5D Mark II with 50mm 1.4 edit1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2011 at 18:58:26 (UTC)

Reason

A good representation of the comedian, hard to get a free image like this one, good quality, EV, res

Articles in which this image appears

Jeff Dunham, Jihad satire, Puppet

Creator

Richard Mclaren

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 18:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I'm correct in thinking that toys and models and such aren't free in the US, even if the actual photo is. What is the extent of the OTRS? Does it allow permission for using the photo, or is it from the puppet builder? Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The puppet is clearly included in context. The portrait is of Dunham doing what Dunham does; there are many such photos with him holding his puppets, and these do not infringe on the rights of the person who owns the puppet. See this Commons policy. This is clearly a very different photograph to, say, this one, where we would have to take into account the rights of the individual who owns the copyrights of the puppet's design (that said, most of the protection may well come from trademarks, as opposed to copyrights). Now, as I'm posting something like this, I would like to make it clear that I am not a lawyer, but it is worth mentioning that the email releasing the photo came from a firm of lawyers representing the subject, who made quite clear what the copyright status of the image was. J Milburn (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, good to know Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for reasons stated by nominator. Very nice photo. JBarta (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. I don't know who this is, but image is good and a quick check suggests it's informative. --jjron (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to check out some of his work. The man's a genius --Muhammad(talk) 12:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second that. [1] Walter is a treat. JBarta (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Loving the picture, just the kind of thing I like to see here. J Milburn (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support true photo art! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There are at least several little faults: Jeff could be looking a bit more straight to the camera, and his left wrist and back should be within the picture (i.e. no cropped). Otherwise the composition is remarkable, and on the yes/no scale I would lean to yes. Materialscientist (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If his left hand were in the photo, the subjects would be further off to the right. Then if you uncropped a little on the right, you would lose that "up close & personal" feeling the photo imparts. I think it's perfect just the way it is. JBarta (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I hear you, but adding 5% to the left and right to include the missing 4 fingers and that cropped half-inch of the jacket won't hurt that "up close & personal" feeling :-). I knew we can't expect this from an OTRS photo, and that wrist is tough to recreate, thus my vote. Materialscientist (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Copyright status seems clear, high resolution and detail. High EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support, it's great we've got this image ("I kill you!!!"), but the composition, as people above have mentioned, is not ideal. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great addition to the encyclopedia. upstateNYer 19:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jeff Dunham and Achmed.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2011 at 04:20:37 (UTC)

Reason

The best quality of any pictures in the same kind.

Articles in which this image appears

Xiangqi

FP category for this image

Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Entertainment

Creator

Trongphu

• Support as nominator --Trongphu (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose -- The SVG image of the board used in the article is, in my opinion, superior to the photo. In the article, the photo is somewhat redundant. A better photo would be a nice snap of two Chinese people playing the game. Further, the image is cropped a little tight, and the gameboard could be set a little straighter & flatter for the photo. For a shot of a static item, I think it's rather ho-hum. JBarta (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Dull lighting and framing. I think something far better could be produced. J Milburn (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's under exposed, the surface behind (concrete?) needs to be something plain, perhaps white paper, the crop is too tight, and the barrel distortion is a bit disconcerting. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Jbarta summed it up well, and I would add that this should have been a well-made board (wood, traditional scroll, or whatever is commonly used by respectable players), not a cheap plastic item. This also looks like a miniature version to me, and the "barrel distortion" is simply because such boards are not perfectly rectangular when unfolded - because of the (invisible here) hinge along the middle line. Materialscientist (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might point out that it is present on the vertical lines too. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i'm having no problem with people "oppose" or saying that this image is not good enough but you can't insult the chess board. Tell you what most if not all people that play this chess never use any expensive board nor do they care if it's well-made board. There is no such thing as traditional scroll or board that commonly used by respective players. And as far as i know many "good" chess players, usually are elder (we called them master). Those elder are the best but nobody knows about them because they didn't participate in any competition, some of them are advisers for talented young chess player. They are usually using paper as a chess board. So consider my chess board is already a good standard. I'm sure that you have little knowledge or nothing about this so don't assume or speak something you don't know about. You could have accidently insult some Chinese and Vietnamese chess players and they will laugh at you. I'm speaking on behalf of a culture that this chess has been traditional play for thousand years and me myself have been playing it ever since i was little.Trongphu (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get insulted. I know first-hand the attitude of professional chess players to the board and pieces, and this is by no means limited to chess. For example (and here we go back to this board), pieces shouldn't be too small for comfortable grabbing and viewing, they shouldn't be too light (or they get scattered around). Plastic has low friction coefficient, and this doesn't seem like magnetic board (those are painted metal plates) meaning an awkward move can remove the game. Look at the images in chess - they are mostly large wood pieces with felt bottoms on a wooden board. Some sets contain plastic, but are still not miniature folding sets - those are widely produced, but are not used in competitions and are not representative examples. Yes, we played with one pencil, one eraser and a piece of paper when nothing better was available, and this might be added to some WP article :-), but not as an FP and not as a primary example of chess equipment. Materialscientist (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Reasons stated above. Overall poor quality image. JFitch (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2011 at 21:37:31 (UTC)

Reason

Really good quality and looks really cool to me.

Articles in which this image appears

Photoshop

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Trongphu

• Support as nominator --Trongphu (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Am I missing something here? This is an image that has been randomly hit with a smattering of Photoshop filters, right? I'm failing to see the value of this image beyond some sort of cheap art and I don't see how it would enhance any article. And it seems that at least one editor over at the Photoshop article feels the same way. Also, it seems you just plugged that image into the article today.[2] If this is your first submission, don't be discouraged by my opposition. Keep trying... though maybe with another image. JBarta (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously describe how Photoshop works. That editor just try not to understand.Trongphu (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that editor does understand. I get it. "Am I missing something" is mostly a rhetorical question. I just don't think it's a useful image for describing how Photoshop works and definitely not FP worthy. My opinion. JBarta (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Image was removed from the article. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Statutory reasons are sufficient - it hasn't been stable in the article for a week. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per all reasons stated above. JFitch (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's not the kind of thing that gets nominated a lot, but it's got promise. I know my support won't make this image pass, so maybe think about a clearer way to illustrate the topic - piling 5 or 6 distortions in 1 image is probably not ideal. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. A MUCH better approach would be multiple images showing effects individually. (Or in small combinations) Not something you pile all in one image like some sort of digital acid trip. JBarta (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do have as an FP. JFitch (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Per above. Image no longer in the article. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It doesn't really show what adobe photoshop is capable of, it looks a like a mess. It really shouldn't have been nominated. Dusty777 (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2011 at 22:36:56 (UTC)

Reason

Photograph is in a high resolution, has good contrast, and is well focused on the subject.

Articles in which this image appears

Swakeleys House

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Harrison49

• Support as nominator --Harrison49 (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The lighting isn't so good. Looking at google maps, and the time the photo was taken, it should have been taken in the morning to get the sun on the front. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness to the photographer, sometimes picking a better time for a photo is not practical. I travel some, and while not much of a photographer, I do like taking pictures of things I visit. Sometimes the circumstances are not ideal... but that doesn't mean I'm going to hang around for a while just to wait for better lighting, etc. I take the picture and move on. The point is, while yours is a valid criticism, I believe the fair and wise thing to do is let that particular criticism slide. Personally, I think a better criticism would be that the photo was taken off-center. (and that is under the photographer's control). A building like this looks magnificent when the picture is taken dead-on. JBarta (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you are travelling around and have other priorities, then it might not be practical. However that isn't a mitigating argument. There is no reason that someone couldn't go take a better photograph tomorrow. I hope Harrison49 takes the criticism constructively, and given that he probably lives in London (based on other uploads), I don't think a bit of forethought and planning is too much to ask for. Taking photos and moving on is appreciated and useful, but it doesn't represent Wikipedia's best work. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per JJ. The subject is in shadow, all the light is on the grass. -Elekhh (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it's a little blurry. Pine^talk 07:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor lighting, Seems to be some focus issues and certainly not a sharp image. JFitch (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you all for your reviews. I'll try to catch the building at an earlier time. Harrison49 (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2011 at 18:22:41 (UTC)

Reason

Eye-catching, has historical significance as it is the only known existing photo of the Antonov A-40.

Articles in which this image appears

Antonov A-40, Flying tank

FP category for this image

Vehicles

Creator

Soviet Tupolev plant employees

• Support as nominator --Hallows AG^(talk) 18:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This may be a valuable and unique image (and the child in me is telling me that it's an AWESOME image), but it is very small and low quality. This is the sort of image that the valued pictures project should have been recognising, but wasn't. I strongly suspect that a larger version of the image does or could exist- this particular version looks to have been scanned from a book or something, rather than reproduced from original prints. Larger versions have been dug up in the past- a small reproduction of an aged photograph was replaced with a far larger version after the small version was delisted (see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bison Skull Pile). However, if this genuinely is the largest possible image, I'm still not certain I'm convinced- the quality is just too low, short of extremely mitigating circumstances (if, for instance, historians knew of the project only because of this photo, or something). I'd also want to see far stronger sourcing information- who originally took this? When? Was it published? The current source link is dead, and so that provides no information, even if you can read Slovakian. J Milburn (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per J Milburn, and also because the subject is cut-off. Spencer^T♦C 01:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2011 at 11:00:07 (UTC)

Reason

Good image. Meets requirements at WP:WIAFP.

Articles in which this image appears

Ripple effect

FP category for this image

Natural phenomena

Creator

Sergiu Bacioiu from Romania. Uploaded by Avenue X at Cicero (talk · contribs).

• Support as nominator --Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Alternate captions are welcome. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why the colours? J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- The colors kill it. With the bright colors it's more "art" than a photo of water droplets. And I don't think it contributes anything to the article. Plus, it's only been in the article a few days... plugged on top of the other (arguably more useful & encyclopedic) image showing ripples on water. JBarta (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Very poor image quality, there are probably better depictions of the subject available. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there is at least this other picture -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For the resolution being so high, its hard to believe that the picture quality could be so low. That and the colors kill whatever value the picture had. Dusty777 (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2011 at 13:24:45 (UTC)

Reason

Beautiful image with high EV. High resolution, lighting seems good.

Articles in which this image appears

Himeiji Castle, National Treasures of Japan. Should probably replace File:Himeji Castle The Keep Towers.jpg universally.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Bgag

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Magnificent shot, truly. But unfortunately it suffers from excessive jpg compression leaving it lacking in fine, crisp detail and full of jpg artifacts. Imagine this shot at twice the resolution and perfectly sharp! JBarta (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be my wallpaper in about 5 seconds. I'll see if Bgag is still active, and if he still has a version with less compression. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, I've asked the uploader if he still has the original. If I ever go to Paris or return to Quebec, my French is liable to get me shot...Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at a few of his other images, they all seem to suffer in the same way. Pity, he's got some great shots. JBarta (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose this version but agree that the same angle with better clarity could work. Hopefully the uploader will respond. Pine^talk 19:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• He has (on my talk page) and he says that on his trip to Japan he did not know much about compression and had a small memory card; he also suggests that we look at some of his more recent pictures, like in Syria, Jordan, and Taiwan. Oh well. :-( Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2011 at 06:22:58 (UTC)

Reason

Works well with the article prose discussing the morphology of the beak, and nasal tubes.

Articles in which this image appears

Albatross

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Wing edge comes too close to foreground. Samsara (FA • FP) 08:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- As a person with no special interest in birds, I had to study this image for a few moments to understand exactly what I was looking at. At first glance it seemed like some sort of bird species with a big horn on it's head. This may a useful and valuable image for what it shows, but it doesn't strike me as Featured Picture worthy.
• Oppose as well. The wing looks like some seal is eating him (my first impression, at least). Understandably a hard shot, but it could have higher EV without the wing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Could the wing be edited out? Pine^talk 19:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say absolutely not. (FP candidate or not). Editing out bystanders or other extraneous subject is one thing. Editing out the wing of a bird in a clumsy attempt to make it a more preferrable shot of the bird? No. At least that's my thought on the matter. JBarta (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have to agree, image manipulation like that is not only not needed, but probably shouldn't be done in order to keep things accurate. JFitch (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it'd be appropriate. The problem largely goes away if you click on the thumbnail anyway. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I might also add, the albatrosses hold their wings like this for a bit after landing, presumably to keep them dry, before folding them up if they don't decide to take off again (a clumsy affair!).

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2011 at 06:28:50 (UTC)

Reason

High quality picture of this species at rest on the water. One can see the plumage which would distinguish it from the Northern Royal Albatross.

Articles in which this image appears

Southern Royal Albatross

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think you want to crop a bit from the right. Samsara (FA • FP) 08:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose the angle makes it hard to judge the bird's proportions. Pine^talk 19:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too many distractions in background with light, Angle is not ideal, clipped highlights losing a lot of detail on bird itself. JFitch (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clipped highlights aren't a problem here. You need to adjust your monitor properly, and check the image with an image editing program before making erroneous claims. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My monitor is calibrated perfectly, and looking at the image in CS5 some highlights certainly are clipped. And also there is generally too high a level of exposure towards the front of the bird to accurately see detail. JFitch (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good enuf for me, prefer crop --Muhammad(talk) 00:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support crop. upstateNYer 19:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2011 at 06:35:53 (UTC)

Reason

Best available picture of this species, and meets all criteria.

Articles in which this image appears

Black-browed Albatross

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Magnificent photo! Dusty777 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support excellent clarity. Highlights seem bright but not to the point of being blown. Good work. Pine^talk
• Question -- The water seems REALLY blue and the beak colors look a little washed out. Are these natural colors? How much have the colors been enhanced/altered from natural? JBarta (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't adjusted saturation or contrast. The sky is much bluer down here when compared to the terrestrial northern hemisphere in my (anecdotal) experience. I'd guess most of the world's population is in the northern hemisphere (~90%) and geostrophic winds tend to carry pollution east-west, but I don't really know. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgive me for being a stickler for precision, but to be clear, you have not made any enhancements that resulted in the water being more blue? That color was the color you saw as you peered through your camera? JBarta (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep. No adjustment, and it looks as I saw it. It is a bit less dark than some shots (like the southern royal below), because the swell had calmed down. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Beautiful shot. Support. JBarta (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We have gotten used to pictures take at the bird's level that, this one looks a bit awry, but you can't be expected to take a pic while swimming, so ok --Muhammad(talk) 00:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support perfect! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Thalassarche melanophrys - SE Tasmania.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2011 at 15:41:05 (UTC)

Reason

Image is startling (drew my attention right away), good quality for a 123-year-old photograph. Subject is notable.

Articles in which this image appears

Thomas Edison and 6 others

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Unknown. This version uploaded by User:Materialscientist with edits by User:Jbarta

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I wouldn't call this a good quality picture. It's age and notability isn't significant enough for me to see past the terrible quality flaws. JFitch (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I would be interested to see the unedited (high-resolution?) scan that this particular image was derived from.JBarta (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea where they got it. The LOC has a couple of pictures from the period (like this and this), but I think the pose here is superior. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The crop is too tight (can fix that), but the quality is not up to FP standards. My feeling is picturehistory.com got access to the archives of Brady and some other old studios. Most of them are not original photos but copies made from other photographs, mostly as sepia-colored cartes de visite. Those copies are often better than originals (some originals can be found in the Library of Congress or elsewhere), perhaps due to non-digital retouching, but they introduce "graininess" due to specific paper they used - this can be seen in their high-res scans. They are all watermarked (by a nasty method), and my watermark removal was not perfect in some photos. Materialscientist (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2011 at 07:33:24 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of the aircraft inflight

Articles in which this image appears

Airbus A330

FP category for this image

Vehicles

Creator

Sergey Kustov (commons:User:Bushman787)

• Support as nominator --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose While I enjoy the photo and I believe it's a good representation of an A330, it was just placed in the article yesterday, replacing an infobox image that I believe is a more representative photo. It shows the plane from an angle that allows the viewer to get a look at the underbelly, complete with landing gear. I admit the photo quality isn't as good, but frankly, it's good enough. I guess I could support this if it were in the article elsewhere, but still well-used. I see it's an FP at Commons, which I respect, but here we're looking for encyclopedic value. I think the other photo has more. upstateNYer 19:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now (suggest suspending). It needs to be in the article for a week per the nomination rules. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2011 at 12:01:53 (UTC)

Reason

This still image is of a very high standard and resolution. Whilst certainly not necessarily pleasing to the eye, it well illustrates the Featured Article on the film The Human Centipede (First Sequence), and adds a great deal of value to the article. The image has also been released under a free license by the copyright holder. The image is a little bit offensive, so I would not intend to nominate it for featured picture of the day or anything similar.

Articles in which this image appears

The Human Centipede (First Sequence)

FP category for this image

Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle

Creator

Six Entertainment

• Support as nominator --Coolug (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- It's a really nice image of a house and a lawn and some artificial fog thrown in, but if you look carefully you'll also see three people on all fours who are apparently joined mouth to anus. I don't know what sort of a goofball would come up with such a thing, but if those people and that premise were removed, I might be able to support the image. JBarta (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your vote. The Featured Picture criteria states the requirement that a picture "Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." This picture helps people to understand the plot of the film The Human Centipede (Full Sequence) by showing what this awful creation looks like. This might seem unnecessary, but at the recent (successful) FAC there was concern from some editors that it wasn't clear what this 'human centipede' thing would look like. This picture helps solve this problem perfectly. I also note that the criteria states "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all." Regards Coolug (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of what the Featured Picture criteria is. I've quoted it more than a few times. In my oppose vote above I was being facetious. I was stating the obvious (at least obvious to me). If you'd prefer a more serious opposition, I would suggest that there is nothing remarkable about that image at all. It seems to be a quite ordinary screen capture of a little known movie. The "shocking" nature of the movie might sell a few tickets to a few curious dopes, but as far as I'm concerned, that juvenile shock doesn't leverage an ordinary image into anything Featured Picture worthy. Terribly sorry. JBarta (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better, thank you. cya! Coolug (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- Due to poor resolution and image quality, not mitigated by exceptional encyclopaedic value. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support -- I was going to oppose until I saw this was a screen capture and not just an on set picture. I think the fact that it is a screen capture from the film and that it's 720p is important. I'm sure part of my viewpoint is motivated because this is something we don't often have under free licenses but I think a screen capture illustrating a central part of a movie can qualify as an FP. gren グレン 16:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Have no idea about historical importance or value of this image, but the quality is too poor for an FP. Very dull colors, low sharpness, huge useless bush on the left and a tree crossing the center, all making an impression of a hastily paparazzi shot. Materialscientist (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose -- It's impressive that you've persuaded the producer to release a high-res still from the movie under a free license, and the image is extremely valuable for the THC article. However, I think the comments made above about the technical quality of the image are valid, and it can't really be fixed. The composition is a bit dodgy, the contrast and sharpness are poor around the subject, and there's quite a lot of noise. This might be better suited to COM:VI. Papa November (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to withdraw this nomination since it is clear that the consensus is against. It might as well be removed sooner rather than later so that this horrible image of three people joined mouth-to-anus is no longer at the top of this page. However, I don't want to just remove this from the nomination list lest I mess something up. Could someone who knows what they're doing archive this? Coolug (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn Coolug (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - withdrawn by nominator. --jjron (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2011 at 00:34:16 (UTC)

Reason

Good description, excellent photo, high resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

Triton (moon), Neptune, Moons of Neptune, List of natural satellites, Exploration of Neptune.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Dusty777 (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: This may be a stupid question, but I'm confused as to where the upper part of the moon is. Why does it suddenly end in blackness? Spencer^T♦C 03:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably it's simply the vantage point that Voyager had as it passed and took this image/s, the dark being a consequence of the phase of Triton that was observed (but I'm just hypothesising). --jjron (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I kinda thought that, but it's just the abruptness of the difference between the moon and the black that is surprising. Spencer^T♦C 13:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does look like a bad edit (performed at a different resolution to this image), but on closer inspection, the image appears to be composed of several strips of different resolution (which also don't match the resolution of the JPG), much like a Google Earth composite. In other words, it's not exactly a still photo, rather, a composite image constructed by a telescope which scans the scene as required. Maybe the hard black edge is simply the way the telescope was scanned at the shadow's edge? This would explain going from image-to-black in one pixel, rather than having a more gradual fade as one would expect... plus, there are curious little black pixels near the shadow's edge walkabout12 (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I generally agree, however I also suspect that the satellite got photos that extended into the dark sections of the moon (as well as the background of space on the lower edge) and because the photos didn't extend far enough to fill the final (as shown here) frame, they digitally removed all black content, making it a harsh edge. I personally think they could have done this better. The step pattern at the black edges really isn't necessary. I'd call more ... economical with respect to the time put into working on it. But it could have been better (and could still if the original photos were available). upstateNYer 18:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would guess that since taking and sending detailed imagery from a couple of billion miles away is not the easiest thing in the world to do, the probe only gathered image data from those sections which were bright enough to yield anything significant for study or analysis. I think trying to make a pretty picture that would pass muster with the chattering classes was a little further down on their to-do list. JBarta (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Tend to agree with Upstate's comment. Yes, I'd expect the penumbral region to be small at that distance from the sun, but you wouldn't get the jaggies present on the top left hand if some manipulation hadn't occured. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Keep in mind these are photographs made by Voyager 2, which was 1970's technology. It also appears to be BY FAR the best image we have of the object. That combined with that we're probably not going back to neptune anytime soon, means we can't expect to get anything better, at least not yet. The jaggies can be probably fixed, then again it shouldn't be such an abrupt line from light to dark, see this image which I think was taken the day before, at a much longer range. — raekyt 12:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The alt version i added does not have the best dimensions, but the black specks are greatly reduced if that helps. Dusty777 (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (original) -- As I go through the Featured Picture criteria, this image hits on every single point. JBarta (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I took the liberty of overwriting the original image. Upon closer inspection, what had been uploaded was a rather highly compressed JPG. (someone probably grabbed the JPG offered by NASA) High resolution, yes, but also highly compressed resulting in quite visible JPG artifacts in zoom. So, I grabbed the TIFF original and saved it as a minimally compressed JPG. The result is essentially the same image... only much higher quality. I also noticed that one uploader played with the colors. As NASA has already colored this image, I think it best to just leave the colors alone and present it as an unadulterated NASA image. I did however, expand the canvas to include the entire sphere. JBarta (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Too many technical problems with this for it to pass as featured for me. That harsh pixellated edge looks horrific. JFitch (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "harsh pixelated edge" is simply a feature of the method used to create the image. It's not like someone stepped back and took a picture of that moon. That image is made up of thousands of little images taken by a space probe all combined to give a composite image of the whole. All things considered, it's a remarkable image of a little moon somewhere around two and a half BILLION miles away. JBarta (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added a fade over the jaggies... I am undecided as to whether this reduces the integrity of the image, or whether it simply corrects an artifact. Plus I've reduced the image size such that the resolution is slightly more consistent throughout the image. walkabout12 (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It reduces the integrity of the image and doesn't correct anything. It's like removing those pesky stripes on a zebra because we think it looks better that way. Or smoothing out the image of the Arecibo message so it doesn't look so much like an 80's video game. JBarta (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the same thing... IMO, smoothing the fade simply adjusts for a (as many editors have remarked, very unattractive) feature of this particular method of image capture. The features of the moon haven't changed. Perhaps a better analogy would be removing a lens flare from a zebra's face, or smoothing out a bad shadow on a portrait. But, does the EV of this article relate more to the moon, or the method of image capture? If it is the latter, then yes, the edits absolutely reduce the integrity. However, it seems to me that the former is more likely... the articles which feature this image make no mention of how it was created. walkabout12 (talk)18:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, that the 2nd Alt is very impressive. It doesn't really reduce the integrity of the picture as it gives it a more, realistic appearance as our own Moon appears when waxing or waning. Very good edit Dusty777 (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I agree with the concerns raised about editing the photo is such a way. It's innaccurate. I certainly don't think it should be done simply for aesthetic value. The picture is as it is. We not here to try and see if we can ecit the picture in order to become an FP. We just judge if we feel we could support it. Sometimes small issus are corrected yes but your essentially adding a showdow that is very misrepresentative. JFitch (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your edit adds a lot of gradients to what was originally a plain black background. But even if those artifacts are removed, I agree with JFitch and Jbarta that the fade is deceptive and compromises a unique image. Fallingmasonry (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original As Raeky said, this is the best picture of Triton we will get for a long time. The rarity and high EV more than offset the quality issues. I would even argue that the pixelation contains EV about the Voyager 2 camera and the method by which the picture was created. The alternate edits remove this EV while adding nothing to the image. Fallingmasonry (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2011 at 13:28:41 (UTC)

Reason

really clearly illustrates the puzzle, intriguing, and svg format.

Articles in which this image appears

Missing square puzzle, List_of_optical_illusions, QI (G series)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams

Creator

Fibonacci

• Support as nominator --Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've certainly been shown this in a school maths class before. The raw svg rendering seems a bit dodgy in chrome unfortunately though. All rendered pngs look fine, and it looks fine at some sizes though, so I can't comment as to the cause and don't think its the file. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is strange, it looks fine in IE and firefox, I'll double check with chrome when I get home... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks fine in my Chrome. However, if I zoom the page, the image starts looking like the screen capture mentioned above. I also ran it through the W3C validator and it validates just fine. I zoomed a few other SVG images and they appeared to scale just fine. I don't know enough about SVG best practices to determine if something can be done differently in this image to prevent such a glitch. JBarta (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks fine in my chrome, as far as I can zoom in. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, specifically the for png renders at the moment. FF7 on Debian here (for shame!); the SVG is not rendering perfectly -- the grid is misaligned with the pieces. EnkiduEnkita (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Muhammad(talk) 06:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Looks okay to me. Got me to read the article to find the solution. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Same as the above - I'd seen this before yet still felt compelled to click through to the article. Nikthestoned 08:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Had fun finding the solution. What a wonderful "game". Anyway, the thing is, this is pretty well done, and has EV, and presents in a very clear way the whole point. - Paolo Costa 20:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Missing square puzzle.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2011 at 12:32:02 (UTC)

Reason

Previous nomination in April ended with four supports after there were a couple of stitching issues identified which took me a few days to fix and delayed things. Has been stable in articles since that time. Everything else as per original nom (high res, high quality, detailed and sharp ...). Thought it's worth another try with a 'clean run' this time.

Articles in which this image appears

The Arts Centre (Melbourne)
Culture of Australia

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- It's beautiful, but it's crooked. Maybe not a lot, but enough so that it jumps out and it's the first thing I notice. I think it should be gently rotated so that the Spire is perfectly vertical in the picture. Also, lose those trespassing clouds on the right. JBarta (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC) -- I took the liberty of making these minor changes and uploading over the original (I really hate having various edits scattered around.) I understand some would prefer separate edits, but I thought in this case it would be ok, plus the changes don't affect any of the others' criticisms thus far. JBarta (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW the 'edit' botched the image quality, making it soft and rather blurry. I've reverted back to my version (rather ironic that you degrade the quality with an edit, then oppose for that reason). --jjron (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, it's great resolution and lighting and all that, but I really don't like the composition. The building is already pretty unbalanced (which is fine!), but all the other stuff happening in the bottom 3rd of the image (tree, sculpture, flags, etc) really emphasises this and makes it look awkward. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all fairness to the photgrapher, I would be curious to hear how you might take this picture differently so as to address your concerns. Seems to me that if you're going to snap a picture of a building, you also get everything else that is normally in the shot. JBarta (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not claiming I could take a better photo, I'm judging this photo here which is what this little corner of wikipedia is for. But there are a lot of angles you can take a photo from (a half-sphere has 64800 degrees...). A quick google image search shows that aerial shots have promise [3], and that there are possibilities to get a much cleaner foreground [4] from ground level. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if it's the best we can get that doesn't mean it should be featured. If the best we can get isn't upto standard then we don't feature it. JFitch (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As mentioned above a lot of distraction, overall composition isn't aesthetically appealing, I don't feel it's upto standard. JFitch (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose -- It's a beautiful image without a doubt. And I don't share the criticisms concerning "composition". Personally, I think it's wonderful. However.... looking at it closer I think it's a somewhat flawed image from a technical point of view. First, it's been visibly sharpened. This is especially noticable as halos around some of the people in the image. Second, it appears to have been taken with an average quality camera as the detail is not very crisp. It's about the same quality that my camera phone takes. Bottom line, it's a beautiful image and perfect for the article, but I just don't think it's an outstanding image worthy of Featured Picture status. JBarta (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must have one hell of a camera phone. This is taken with a Canon EOS 7D with a $1500 L series lens, and stitched together from four originals to top it off. And, no it's not 'visibly sharpened' - it's simply sharp, ummm, because it's taken with a high quality camera with a high quality lens in good light, and for several other reasons to do with how it was taken. It's worth understanding the difference if you want to comment here. --jjron (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As last time. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2011 at 06:38:44 (UTC)

Reason

The image is of very high resolution, well detailed, and makes me hungry. It is capable of showing what many Americans and Canadians think of when they hear "taco" and explaining the food to those who are unfamiliar with it.

Articles in which this image appears

Taco

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink

Creator

Renee Comet, of the National Cancer Institute

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The lighting creates a rather dull colouration, and there's a white haze in the forground. I'm not quite sure what causes that, but I know it's happened on some of my own photots. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the white haze is quite strange and distracting, the details pretty unclear, and the white background inapropriate for a food shot. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- I'm sorry, but that is an awful, unappetizing picture of a taco. JBarta (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If that is the general opinion, I must really be in need of some Mexican food. It looks tasty enough to me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. No misrepresentation here, this is the Platonic taco. But in this case, encyclopaedic value isn't quite enough. The divine halo throws me off, for one. More generally, this taco is rather unappealing. EnkiduEnkita (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• UPDATED -- This image (as it was) was going nowhere fast as a Featured Picture candidate. It is used in taco articles all over the world and was relatively easy to improve. So I did. I still don't think it's featured picture worthy, and my guess is that this update won't change anyone else's mind either. But at least we got a slightly more appetizing picture of a taco out of the deal. JBarta (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Good composition, EV, etc, but it is too noisy, and I'm no so convinced about the cut out job from the background. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2011 at 06:45:16 (UTC)

Reason

The image is of high resolution and quality. While it may not have the "Wow" factor like some panoramas, it does have the "Awwwww" factor which makes it more interesting (to me) than images of lone prairie dogs. The uses of the image are to show animal affection, which it does well. The image is currently featured at commons. Side note: If featured, it would be a good POTD for Valentine's Day. (An unedited version was previously nominated unsuccessfully; this version was unsuccessful at its nomination because the fifth support vote came in about 2 hours too late)

Articles in which this image appears

Prairie dog, Kiss, Black-tailed prairie dog

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Mila Zinkova

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Is the colour balance right in this image? They appear a lot more brown than in any other image of this species on Wikipedia. (e.g., File:Cynomys_ludovicianus_-Paignton_Zoo,_Devon,_England-8a.jpg) Nikthestoned 16:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The image you have linked to actually seems rather pale. The original picture (seemingly unedited) has them a similar shade of brown as the current one but with horrible levels. the lead image is of a similar colouring to the one you point to, while this one is midways. Lighting is a possibility. Perhaps diet and environment as well, as many of the images are of captive animals (I'm not a biologist, so I can't be sure if this can affect prairie dogs or not). Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose both It is a great image but the pre-saturation image pretty much shows that the colours in the nominated images have been over saturated. Additionally, the alt does indeed have a random floating tail happening! I'd support a version with a more neutral colour balance. Nikthestoned 08:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Original, Strong Oppose Edit As last time for original, brown stuff has been cloned all over the left dog in the edit. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, although I prefer the edit (only because I find it less distracting overall). The photograph is well-composed, and moreover, could make a fun and interesting addition to numerous articles. EnkiduEnkita (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I rather think your proposed edits are severely oversaturated, and also your "edit 1" has one prairie dog turning transparent, and a tail that's looking for an owner. Not thinking much of your comparisons either - your "midways" image is rather doused in green. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• None of these are "mine"; the top picture was created by Mila, while the bottom was edited by Vassil and uploaded by Mila. Regarding the alt, I am not happy with it myself (I prefer the original), but I wanted to post it in case there were those who preferred it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support any as the last time. Looks like the edit was fixed. I agree if featured, it will make a great picture of the day for Valentine's Day. Looks like the edit was fixed. Broccolo (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Edit All the edit (the one that is being referred to as fixed) has indeed sorted out the terrible cloning for the outline, however it has introduced misalinged sections of the animal creating stitching errors. Compare the original with the edit at full res to clearly see but I noticed on looking at edit alone. JFitch (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not see this error. Could you please add a note to the stitching error you see? A note could be added in Commons. Broccolo (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all of these abominations. Cropping, cloning, saturating... personally I think the original image, before it went through the Photoshop meat grinder, is a sweet little picture. JBarta (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 2 added to deal with above worries. Edits by Mbz1. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 2 includes the previously criticised "laserpointer problem" - LHS prairie dog, armpit area. May not be the most balanced crop. Samsara (FA • FP) 09:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like "laserpointer problem" was fixed. Broccolo (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose all - the first two for the issues mentioned earlier and the latter as, while the saturation levels are better, I find the crop and other prairie dog distracting. Nikthestoned 10:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all and prefer original. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all for reasons above (original & edit1 - oversaturated, edit1 - poorly cloned, edit2 - unbalanced crop). Samsara (FA • FP) 22:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all prefer Alt 1. Pine^talk 06:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all. I'm not wild about the mad photoshopping, this is clearly a zoo-shot, the animals look to be fatter and prettier than the typical prarie dogs and the EV of this "kissing" seems limited (the EV in kiss is lacking severely). It's a very sweet picture, and portrays the animals in a wonderful light, but I really don't think it's FP material. J Milburn (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Sure does have the "Awwwww" factor. Suraj T 12:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2011 at 21:52:29 (UTC)

Reason

The image presents complete exterior view of the tomb of the first ruler of the so called Third Bulgarian Kingdom. Given its historical importance and meaningful and at same time beautiful architecture, the mausoleum is one of the landmarks in the city centre of the Bulgarian capital.

Articles in which this image appears

Battenberg Mausoleum, Alexander I of Bulgaria

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

MrPanyGoff

• Support as nominator --MrPanyGoff (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why did you choose to picture it in the afternoon, when the main facade with the entry is in shadow? --Elekhh (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are two reasons. Firstly, in the late afternoon there are more chances to take a photo with no people around. Secondly, the entrance is lit by the sun during the midday hours when is the worst time for photography. During this time, it is hard to have no parts overexposed.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see this same picture taken in the summer with the trees in full green. And if any are flowering trees... JBarta (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean something like this ? --Elekhh (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Gorgeous picture of a handsome structure. JBarta (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Although the main facade is not the one lit by the sun, there is no substantial difference in contrast or lack of detail in that section. The photo is encyclopaedic, illustrates the object perfectly and is aesthetically pleasing. — Toдor Boжinov — 14:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support: Crisp and sharp, alright. Large, yes. However, I'm not crazy on the lighting. The emblem (?) over the front door is barely discernible. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per comments above. Pine^talk 06:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Battenberg Mausoleum Sofia 7.jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 00:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2011 at 17:05:24 (UTC)

Reason

This image is of high quality and adds good encyclopedic value to the article. Also its of enough resolution. It is of a free licence from Picasa and is used in a GA.

Articles in which this image appears

Rambhadracharya

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Pawan Sharma

• Support as nominator --♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- It's a fine picture and I'm sure it's a very useful addition to the article. However, in my opinion it's quite average... doesn't strike me as exceptional in any way. Plus it's in need of a crop (there is excess white space on three sides) and has only been in the article for 1 day. JBarta (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you do crop it, just overwrite the original... no sense in a separate edit for a simple crop. JBarta (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That crop is an improvement, well done. JBarta (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The colors are too distracting (Not only that, they hurt your eyes). The flash from the camera gives the picture a ""fake light" look. Its not focused very well. Dusty777 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose General image quality problems, white balance, noise, CA, probably blown highlights, but I didn't check. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to fix it, kindly see it again. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Made it worse in my view. I've added an edit which fixes the white balance, but I still can't support because of the image quality. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close: This picture still fails points 1 and 3 of the FP criteria entirely (due to all of the reasons already mentioned above) and only just meets criteria 2... Nikthestoned 10:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Terrible image quality amongst many issues. JFitch (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2011 at 19:41:07 (UTC)

Reason

good EV, quality, light, composition, view.

Articles in which this image appears

Eder; Edersee Dam; Waldeck, Hesse

FP category for this image

Places/Panorama

Creator

Carschten

• Support as nominator --kaʁstn 19:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Glorious image of the dam. Better than any others I've seen. Two oddities though... why are all the roof tiles slanted? Instead of being parallel with the eaves, they all slant downwards making the roof lines seem out of whack. I see that in other pictures of the dam as well. Is that a German thing? Also, the gray roof structure just left of center. There is a bold black line between the roof and the dam on top & left side of the roof. It seems odd, and the only thing I can think of is that the slates/tiles are overhanging by a few inches? To be clear, these questions don't detract from my judgement of the photo... just idle curiosity about what's in the photo. JBarta (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support: I'm not crazy about the guardrail, which takes up a good portion of the picture. Not enough for me to oppose, but it does cut back on the aesthetics a bit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Very nice image; great quality, composition and aesthetics. The captions for a couple of the articles could probably use a few more words but that's my only (minor) gripe. Nikthestoned 09:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The particular crop feels a little awkward though, More space to the right and a little less to the left would have been good I think. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very informative photo with good quality. Perfect for an encyclopedia.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support large, clear, notable subject. Pine^talk 07:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets all the requirements and criteria, and plus it looks really good. High quality shows the engineering of the dam structure. It's like you're actually there when you view it. BlowingTopHat (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Edersee, Staumauer, 2011-08 CN-01.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2011 at 23:50:28 (UTC)

Reason

The best of its kind

Articles in which this image appears

Xiangqi

FP category for this image

Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Entertainment

Creator

Trongphu

• Support as nominator --Trongphu (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I have nominated this before. Now after I took advices from last time and with the help of someone else. The image has been fixed and now I think it deserves feature. And about the concrete, I don’t think anything is wrong with it. It wouldn’t look so good if I put it on white paper. To me concrete looks more nature.

For many people this is just a simple chess board so what is special about it? This is not simply chess. It is consider as a sport in China, there is even international competition. If someone knows enough about China they can’t talk about Chinese culture without mention about this chess. This chess is strongly representing the culture of China. This chess is just as popular as football to America as it is to China. This chess used to be the most popular activity to do in common people before the merged of new kind of entertainment. It’s hard to believe that a Chinese person doesn’t know how to play this. There are about at least 1/5 of all population in the world know how to play this chess (this is only considered the population of China only). It could be even be ¼ if consider other countries beside China that play this chess. This is the most famous kind of chess in Asia or Eastern world. According to the amount of people in the world know how to play this I believe this is the most popular chess in the world because it has the most players. Even though it doesn’t attract that many fans or attention on TV today but it is still widely play by most people in their free time. Before 20th century it used to attract local wide like people in village come to watch respective players play a match when there is one, it even gathered nation attention sometimes like people talk about it when there are the best two players play a match but not many can watch it because there is no TV. It was the only sport that can achieve that accomplishment at that time. For all the meaningful of this chess, it deserves some kind of special recognition. I’m not sure if there is any better image to represent the chess.Trongphu (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- It's the same image as before, just with the edges of the board digitally straightened. I suppose we could call that one criticism more or less bedded down, but there's still the hurdle of it being a very ordinary image... definitely not Featured Picture worthy (IMO). Plus, now it's cropped even tighter. Last time I gave it a "weak oppose". This time I'm opposing it fully because you're attempting to push through basically the same image. Last time you got ZERO supports... if it were me, I would take that as a hint that this particular image just isn't gonna fly and try with something else or retake the picture in a different way. Apparently you arrived at a different conclusion. And one more thing, while it's obvious that you have an appreciation for and knowlege of the game, that has no bearing on whether or not this image should be a featured picture. JBarta (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well i guess some people can't see the beauty of something that people really enjoy doing, something that mean a lot to a lot of people in this Earth. It's the same image yea but did you look it it carefully before you oppose? I can bet anything that this image has changed to a lot to a better version compare to last time. To you how the image, of this chess, become worthy of feature. I'm not going to argue with you, each person has different perspective. You can't see it worthy, it's your own opinion and i respect that. I'm going to see what the majority people sees and if they saw the same thing as you do then it's fine, not a big deal to me. I will take my chance.Trongphu (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose The subject may be noteworthy, and I can be convinced that a photo of a game board is worthy of FP, but this photo seems to have some slight blurring. I think this deserves the Quality Image award that it got, but probably not FP. Pine^talk 07:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As before. Changes are minimal and certainly not close to FP standard. JFitch (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Xiangqi is obviously a notable topic, but that's irrelevant here. The photograph is uninteresting, and any EV it might have is made redundant by the svg diagram at the top of the article. Instead of nominating the same drab image again, you might consider following the suggestions in the previous discussion for taking a more informative, more visually interesting photograph. Fallingmasonry (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2011 at 14:09:25 (UTC)

Reason

restored iconic image with high historic value, used in various media

Articles in which this image appears

please see: http://commons.wikimedia.orgview_image.php?q=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/October-2011&sq=Qlik&lang=&file=File:1944_NormandyLST.jpg#File%20usage%20on%20other%20wikis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/World_War_II

Creator

Robert F. Sargent

• Support as nominator --Peter Weis (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The one you're linking to is a radically different image from the transcluded one. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They look pretty similar to me... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's the very same image. The processing was different, resulting in lighter skies and a darker foreground. Both versions were used as cover images for the TIME magazine. The link was intended to show were this image could be used. See the further reading note in the image description. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually much prefer the original. JFitch (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Although certainly of great value, this image is not currently used in any articles. The nomination should be closed until WP:FP? #5 is met. Fallingmasonry (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Peter, if you believe (and can argue convincingly) that the version above is an improvement over the currently featured version of the image, the proper procedure is to nominate the current featured image for delisting and replacement. The image you nominate above appears to more closely resemble the TIF file from the NARA, which I assume is the original scan. Personally I think a better edit of the photo is this version, which is featured on Commons. Fallingmasonry (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fallingmasonry, as indicated in the file description of my restoration the TIFF is the original I used for this restoration. Here are the reasons why the current featured picture is inferior: The overall quality regarding sharpness, level of detail and contrast of this NARA sourced restoration is better than the current commons featured picture. The current featured picture was developed differently, resulting in lighter skies, and a darker foreground. Please be sure you see the heavy posterisation in the right bottom corner. An indicator for an insufficient workover of the current featured picture. However, if you are unable to identify this posterisation please try to access this image with a calibrated display. Moreover it suffers from jpg compression artifacts, a darkish veil at the left side and numerous scratches, filaments and dust. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the point of my remark. You have nominated your picture incorrectly because (1) It is not included in any articles, and (2) Another version of the image is already featured. If you would like to have your version of the image replace the one that is currently featured, you need to nominate 1944_NormandyLST.jpg for delisting and replacement. All I am talking about is the correct procedure, I do not mean to make a judgment on the photo.Fallingmasonry (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this to mean two versions of an image cannot be a Featured Picture at the same time? Even if they are dissimilar as these are? I don't see this in the criteria. Can you point to where you're getting these procedures? JBarta (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not written explicitly in the procedures, but it's strongly implied by criterion #5. The purpose of FPs is to illustrate articles; if multiple versions of a photo exist, featured status lets us know which version is the best. If you ask yourself "In which articles would we put the above picture?", the answer is probably, "In the same articles that the featured version is located". Even though they are edited differently, they are the same photo. If we tried to make the above photo eligible for promotion by adding it to an article, we would have to remove the Featured version of the photo. Chances are this edit would be reverted quickly, since FP status is used to determine the preferred version of a photo.

You can see this idea in practice elsewhere on the FPC page. It's why, in nominations with alternative edits, we select only one version for promotion. It's why, for wildlife photos in particular, we occasionally vote to delist a high quality photo in favor of a slightly better photo of the same subject. Fallingmasonry (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- I think this is an inferior alteration of an iconic photo. The dark swath in the sky kills it in my opinion. I don't think it's just a development difference. I believe this version of the photo was deliberately altered to make it more foreboding. Now it's art. On the issue of its historical significance, I tend to believe that an unedited (or much less heavily edited) version of the photo has the real historical significance. I happened across a Time Magazine cover using the unedited version. Even our own Wikipedia article on the image uses the unedited version. I'm not convinced this particular version of the image is significant in any way, other than to sit in the giant shadow of the original photograph. And then there's the matter of it not being used in any articles... JBarta (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: The TIME magazine cover you refer to is in no way "unedited". It was at least cropped and rotated in order to achieve a straight horizon. Despite blatantly ignoring the further reading notice, here you go again: another TIME magazine cover. Your use of the terms "edited" and "unedited" suggest that we have deeper knowledge about which version was first. As noted above and on the Commons, I assume that both images are based on the same negative and were proceeded with a different developer resulting in dark skies. The decision for the dark skies version has to do with the availibity amongst high resolution NARA files. Sadly neither the current en:wiki nor the current commons featured picture can deliver the quality required for a thorough digital restoration. Therefore I was using the original provided by NARA. We are not able to verify which version was first with the current state of the art. Based on the TIME magazine covers, the dark sky version is the earlier version. It's a pity to see several dozens hours of work debased as "inferior alteration". As for the article use: I did not intend to replace the current images from the articles, without community consenst in form of a successful nomination. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we assume the landings took place during daylight hours (albiet in the early morning), and we assume the sky at that time was gray or lighter, and given that other developments of this image show the expected gray sky, is it then reasonable to suggest that the black sky in this image was at some point added for effect rather than simply being an innocent result of the developing process? JBarta (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of either the dark or light skies version is no accurate indicator for the actual situation and therefore an invalid argument. We don't know about the image's processing, time the image was taken and actual intensity of the sky colour while the shot was taken. Unless there's any proof to this, any discussion on these issues remain mere speculation. "Adding for effect" and the "developing process" are not two different things. Both representations of the negative underwent a decision for a certain developement and therefore: yes of course, both images were developed "for effect". Based on what we can see on the image - the remains of a Sherman tank for instance - we may say that this image was taken after the first wave and therefore after 0630AM (GMT+2). Your preference for the lighter skies version has been noticed. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it may be worth to you, I'll take back the word "inferior". JBarta (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this, the level & quality of some detail is greater in this dark sky version than either the English language FP or the Commons FP. I would hate to think that the only version in existance with the higher quality detail is the one with the black sky. Are there no gray sky versions out there with the same level of detail as this black sky version? JBarta (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The very fact that we're in the dark over the particular manipulative history of any of these versions suggests to me that this nomination is premature. Samsara (FA • FP) 04:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Aside from the controversial dark sky, the actual quality of the nominated version is unarguably better. It's clean, sharp and has an impressive dynamic range. Just compare the shadow details to the currently featured version. On the other hand, this discussion should be held at the "delist and replace" section and not here. Otto Jula (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2011 at 20:34:22 (UTC)

Reason

This is a quality photo of Turku Castle as seen from the harbour side. A previous version of the same photo was nominated here. Since the nomination last year the photo has been cropped and the color balance tweaked. The photo appears as lead image on the English, German, French, Swedish and Russian language articles.

Articles in which this image appears

Turku Castle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Ottojula

• Support as nominator --Ottojula (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Your forthrightness in presenting your image is admirable and appreciated. JBarta (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Problem Thank you for your submission. However, the FP criteria say that an image generally should be in an article for a seven days before its FPC nomination. I suggest suspending this nomination for a week. Pine^talk 05:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the previously nominated version of this photo was used as lead image in the article from May 2010 to August 2011. Ottojula (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice lead image, stable, clear EV, pleasing to the eye. Jumping out as better than most of the other stuff at FPC right now- why's no one supporting? J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support You are correct J Milburn, excellent image. JBarta (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Baaaaah. Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The lighting makes it look quite cosy. Fallingmasonry (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Turkucastle edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2011 at 01:21:44 (UTC)

Reason

This is considered the most famous signal to have been sent in the Royal Navy. It was hoisted aboard HMS Victory on orders from Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson at the onset of the Battle of Trafalgar, and has become a culturally significant part of British history. As a rallying cry, the signal has been copied in some way shape or form by various other naval groups spanning both time and continent. This is a vectorized version of the flag signal, as such while not ostensibly at the 1000px minimum needed it should not be an issue given the ability of vectorized images to be re-sized as needed.

Articles in which this image appears

Battle of Trafalgar, War of the Third Coalition, John Pasco, England expects that every man will do his duty

FP category for this image

History

Creator

Original created by John Pasco, this version created by Commons User:Ipankonin

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 01:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. While this has some historical significance, I don't see how this is an example of Wikipedia's best work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Very well done, adds value to an article, very encyclopedic and quite interesting. I think this definitely is an example of Wikipedia's best work. In this Featured Picture corner I think we get a little caught up with "visually stunning". In the end, this is an encyclopedia. Its job is to teach, inform and enlighten in a clear and interesting way. This image does that perfectly. JBarta (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support significant especially to the article England expects that every man will do his duty. Pine^talk 05:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but how do these flags work? There was a dictionary which translated words into 3-flag combinations or what? Why do you need 3 flags for the 2 letter "do", and why is "duty" split into its letters? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia. I hear they got articles on just about everything.... JBarta (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Excellent EV, good quality, and definitely an example of Wikipedia's best work. —mc10 (t/c) 18:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Impressive SVG, high EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:England Expects Signal.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2011 at 13:27:45 (UTC)

Reason

good EV, quality, composition

Articles in which this image appears

Hakaniemi metro station

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors

Creator

kallerna

• Support as nominator —kallerna™ 13:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ....It's a photo of an escalator!...everything else is out of focus. JFitch (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose escalators are blurred, and the caption gives little explanation of what exactly the photo shows that's significant. Pine^talk 05:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Quality aside, this photo is supposed to illustrate the station, but it mostly shows the entry of an escalator (I first thought it is meant for an escalator article :). I would make a few steps ahead, to get rid (or reduce the coverage, try several shots) of the escalator, and see what comes out. Materialscientist (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice picture, good view (of part) of the station. None of it seems to be in full focus. It doesn't have that clean, sharp look that it should have. Dusty777 (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2011 at 09:20:07 (UTC)

Reason

This is an extremely high quality image of a 747-400 overflying Moscow at 11,000m. The photo was taken from the ground. Note that the contrails are only visible on aircraft at an extreme altitude, so to have a planform view of an aircraft, in such resolution, and with contrails showing, is an extraordinary feat.

Articles in which this image appears

Boeing 747, Contrail

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

Commons:User:Bushman787

• Support as nominator --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 09:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question -- Awesome image, but I'm wondering about the black "sky". Am I correct in assuming this photo was taken during the day and the black sky was added later? Also, I think it could use a small bit of touchup, most notably... 1) You missed a tiny bit of something on the leftmost engine. 2) The leading edge of the left wing near the fuselage has a bit of discoloration. 3) There are a few glowing pixels on the trail ends of the flap track fairings that jump out at you. JBarta (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The black sky is probably as a result of colour balancing; at high altitiude the large amount of air between the observer and the plane makes the plane appear blueish. Adjusting this blue to white has the side effect of making the sky very low saturation. In this case the white reflections on the plane make it far brighter than the background sky so the plane appears white and the sky appears black. - Zephyris _Talk 09:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my photo, but is rather one I have gotten permission to use and the photographer has provided larger resolution pics, etc. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 02:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Re: EV, I think this image would have far more EV in articles like contrail rather than the article on the plane itself. - Zephyris _Talk 09:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the photo to the contrail article as well as leaving it in the aircraft article. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 02:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added Contrail to the list of articles in which this image appears. Pine^talk 05:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have some concern about the black sky, but the subject is supposed to be the contrails and this photo illustrates them impressively. Pine^talk 05:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- While I think this is a very nice image, I'm opposing because I'm not satisfied that the black sky is a natural effect of simple color balancing. Looking at various images of contrails, they invariably show a blue sky. In that regard, this image is (IMO) not entirely encyclopedic and a better contrail image should be sought. As a photo of the plane, I suppose it shows the underside nicely, but again, I'd prefer it were shown in a more realistic setting (blue sky). This is an encyclopedia, not an art show. JBarta (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I think about it, I would be very interested to see a copy of this image before anything was done to it, just as it was taken. JBarta (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2011 at 08:32:17 (UTC)

Reason

I think it's a pretty nice shot and useful in many articles. Is of sufficient resolution etc and has had very little manipulation (crop & slight curve tweak).

Articles in which this image appears

Thermite, Chemical reaction, Exothermic reaction, Aluminothermic reaction, Exothermic

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others

Creator

Nikthestoned

• Support as nominator --Nikthestoned 08:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It has quite a bit of blown highlights, but I believe the exposure is right, communicating sheer brightness and heat of this reaction. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It may be accurately correct, and exposed properly, but the image itself is not upto FP standard for me. The floor is very distracting not to mention the huge brick on the left hand side. Not the clean precise image I would expect us to be featuring for a scientific image like this. JFitch (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how the floor is distracting given the relative brightness when compared to everything else in the image; the brick also supplies scale. Not that that's the reason it was there, which was purely for our safety given the ferocity of this reaction (along with many of it's brethren)! Nikthestoned 15:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rather impressive photo. Dusty777 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is really impressive close up, but thumbnail really doesn't do it justice. Can we make the crop a bit tighter to get it a bit more visible? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Crop added. Nikthestoned 08:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, Support. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, support either, prefer crop. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either version. Pine^talk 05:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- It's a fine image, but not exceptionally useful (especially since there seem to be quite a few such images lying around). What would be really cool and useful and encyclopedic for the article is a high quality video clip of one of these reactions. Then you'd really have something. JBarta (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki's video support really sucks though at the moment. They don't support h264 as they should. 1080p ogg video needs pretty ridiculous bit rates to get decent quality. This lowers the value in articles hugely in my view - no one will sit around waiting for them to load. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Makeemlighter (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I mildly prefer the original since the crop feels a little tight on the right. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I prefer the original. The alt has too tight a crop... reduces the impressiveness of the picture in my opinion. I would go for the original. Dusty777 (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I prefer the original too, should clarification for my auto-vote be required also! Nikthestoned 10:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:ThermiteReaction.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]