Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/August-2006

Not promoted Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Central shot tower

Spectacular architectural picture of the

• Nominate and support. - - Jack (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. The subject looks great, but the image is slanted at an awkward angle. It seems that at a different time of day the image would be better. -- AJ24 16:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose quite small and there is something distracting in the top right hand corner. Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Image is too small to have much detail and resolution. A larger version of this would get my vote. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose too small and i find the dark object in the upper right very distracting--Vircabutar 19:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Ridiculously small and distracting thing in upper right corner. --Dschwen 20:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I like the composition that AJ called "slanted", but I have to agree that the distracting thingy in the corner and the lack of resolution kill the chances of this image. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Same as above, the resolution is very bad.--Enano275 05:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - regretfully, I wish it had more resolution. HighInBC 02:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- agree, object at top right is a distraction. - Longhair 05:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for what it's worth, the distracting thing is a balcony (see [2]). It's difficult ([3], [4]), but not impossible [5] to not get one in the shot. I had the same problem, but mine was at the bottom. Stevage 11:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in case anyone is curious, this [6] is a 3 part ultra-wide panorama that I took late last year showing just what it looks like. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Anyone who's lived in Melbourne will know how easy it is to take a photo like this... I'm sure I've got better ones myself but I wouldn't nom them for FP! 219.89.69.93

Not promoted Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dickens Statue

• Nominate and support. The only life-size statue of Charles Dickens in the world.- evrik 16:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Blown out upper right left area is distracting. Red glare from sun (presumably) is also unsettling the subject. If only the angle was slightly shifted to the right, it would not be an issue. -- AJ24 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Ack AJ, and it's also leaning. --Dschwen 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The camera is at a tilt with the subject. A fairly small error that could easily be adjusted in photoshop. However it still wouldn't get my support as I feel it doesn't show anything especially unique or special to WP.--WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Also, depending on when the statue was created, there may be a copyright problem on this (see
  chat} 00:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Per AJ24, blown out whites.--Enano275 05:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per all Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Hall

I think this is a great shot!

• Nominate and support. - South Philly 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the objects on the bottom are very distracting. should be taken at a different angle--Vircabutar 06:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Serious lack of contrast, wait for the sun to come out if possible - Adrian Pingstone 08:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per everyone else and also because of the all the grainyness.Imaninjapirate 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Handsome image, but it only illustrates the Cupola, not even an entire facade of the building. A shot that enabled the building to be recognized would be more encyclopedic.

  

  Spikebrennan 21:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think it is an excellent view of the cupola from the street level. It's what most people see from the street, and while it may be gray, it is not grainy.

I think it's better than shot2

--evrik 15:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It helps very little in illustrating the subject. I looks like any small-town church. And the wall on the bottom left is distracting or at least not well included in the composition of the image. --Dschwen 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. The sky is distracting and depressing, the image though of good quality and in focus needs some work done on the lighting especially around that top spire which is obscured in white. Resetting its contrast may help.--WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. not a good photo, the weather doesnt suit the scence, the ?wall? at the bottom is distracting and it doesnt show the whole building Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eiffel Tower, Night

Well kids, let's hope this one makes up for last time. Presently in the Paris article. Authour is myself. Made for Wiki.

• Nominate and support. - THEPROMENADER 15:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - I find the statues in the extreme forefront a bit 'busy' - but hesitate to clone them out. Let's hear some other opinions on this first before getting fancy. --ThePromenader 15:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - Do you have the necessary permission, so that this isn't a copyright violation of the lighting display? See Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright. The photo doesn't really 'encompass a larger area'. Davepape 15:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First and foremost, the picture is published here under a non-commercial license for non-commercial use, so already there are no profits or commercial gains to claim, and the SNTE states clearly that it is only commercial use they want to "control". That aside, the tower takes less than 25% of the image with lots of scenery and movement around. --ThePromenader 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The creative commons licence does say you are able "to make commercial use of the work" as long as the author is attributed and the licence is referenced. At least, thats how I read into it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then the person wishing to make commercial use of the image will have to seek permission to do so. This in no way concerns the image's presence here in Wikipedia. --ThePromenader 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. It was made quite clear to me when I inquired about licensing issues prior to posting my images here that Wiki use is considered commercial use, for the purposes of Wiki print editions and other 'future projects.' All images used on Wikipedia must be licensed for free commercial use. This one is not, despite what the image licensing section might say, and should be marked for fast deletion. --moondigger 19:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have licensed this photo for free commercial use. It is extremely doubtful that that any reglementations apply to this image because a) as noted above, the tower is not the only object in the photo, and b) in no way will Wiki be using this image as a keynote image of a profitable venture; at best it will be but one small photo among thousands. If it will make the disgruntled happy we can append a "please note that some rules may apply should it be used as a central element for large-scale profitable ends" note to the photo summary, and let it be the end of this. --ThePromenader 23:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You do not have the authority to commercially license nighttime images of the tower, even if you made the photograph, as the light display is copyrighted by another entity. It does not matter that there are things other than the tower in the photo, since it is obvious that the tower is the primary subject and dominates the image. It is unfortunate that this is the case, as yours is a very nice photo. But that is the way it is, and your insistence that copyright law does not apply to this image is without justification. It does not matter whether the image of the tower will be used for "large-scale profitable ends," -- only that Wiki requires free commercial licensing, and such licensing is not compatible with this image. The image should be removed lest it cause Wikipedia (and the foundation) legal problems. -- moondigger 23:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really think this is much ado about nothing. I'll get in touch with the SNTE myself tomorrow and see what they have to say on the matter. If they say no I will remove it myself. --ThePromenader 00:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I hope you are correct. However, I was told (when I inquired about licensing) that Wikipedia and the Wiki Foundation do not want any images that are licensed Wiki-only or no-derivs. Period. So even if you get permission form SNTE for publication on Wiki, Wiki may reject it anyway. Good luck. -- moondigger 00:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Getting permission for Wikipedia alone will be insufficent. The images must be free for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, by any person, in any medium, and at any size. --Gmaxwell 00:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Right on all counts except the size - rather, you forgot a detail: the photo will be never be any 'bigger', in any good quality, than the size it is published. Also, submitting
                fair use license and accompanied by the permission in that case. --ThePromenader 00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
                ]
                • This will almost certainly fail under Fair Use policy... it fails to meet several of
                  the criteria. -- moondigger 00:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
      • Look, I took this image for Wiki, but now it's just becoming a big headache. I don't have the time to debate on the mays or nays of the existence of perhaps infringements, so even before I contact anyone to ask anything, it would be kind if someone suggest a Wiki place where people more experienced with this sort of problem can examine this image and give concrete answers and conditions to meet. --ThePromenader 07:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can understand your frustration. It's a good picture, but unfortunately there's this controversial copyright situation in France concerning the illumination of the tower. See also
          Wikipedia:Public domain. Lupo 15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Thanks for the tip, sir. Not so much frustration as "unexpected annoyance" - was my gift to Wiki (and an aid to a 'featured article' drive) - no loss, but it spoils the fun for sure. --ThePromenader 15:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wait a sec, can someone please explain this to me:
            "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."
            ... this is the license appended to copyright-free pictures, with a clause allowing for 'maybe' circumstances. Is it this the simple answer to this question? Thanks for any advice. --ThePromenader 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe it refers to the fact that some legal scholars think that current copyright law makes it impossible for one to dedicate anything to the public domain any more (Jessica Litman has written about this - see http://www.law.wayne.edu/litman/papers/read.htm#FN106), rather than being about possible but unknown legal entanglements like SNTE claiming control of the image of the Eiffel Tower. Davepape 00:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay. All I can do is contact the SNTE about this. Most probably the best that will come out of this is their waivering by writ any 'rights' they may or may not have on this photo - and this, more than likely, on the condition of its present size, if use can't be controlled here. This would seem most logical, but I have yet to hear any professional advice on the intricicies of Wiki legislation. Isn't there a 'lawyer' page for questions like this? Again, I don't want to spend too much time on this, it's already gone overboard. --ThePromenader 09:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Update - after having spoken with the SNTE and shown them the image in question, they have absolutely no problem at all with the picture's presence here, nor with its eventual use in a printed version of Wikipedia. I have yet to have a written answer but this will soon be forthcoming. --ThePromenader 18:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I pointed out above, we will not accept the image if it is not permitted for any use or modification (commercial or otherwise), by any person (not just Wikipedia), at any time (the grant must be perpetual), without outside obligation beyond attribution, and in any form (i.e. I should be able to sell tshirts with the image). If these criteria are not met, then the image is not free content. Because they have been so aggressive in the past protecting images of the tower, we will need to be quite sure that they understand that they are agreeing to these terms. --Gmaxwell 18:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would love to know who 'we' is, so that 'we' may speak directly on this matter. Anyhow, they are quite up to date about the conditions imposed on all images published on Wiki. --ThePromenader 20:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your claim at the top "First and foremost, the picture is published here under a non-commercial license for non-commercial use" shows that you do not understand what we require on Wikipedia and what the license you've released your work under permits. I'm concerned that you may be misrepresenting Wikipedia to the SNTE. I love your photograph, but it seems very likely that you are confused. I see you also claim that we will permit this image as fair use, but that is incorrect as this image would not meet our fair use criteria and in any case we will never feature a fair use photograph. You've also claimed that permission for use exclusive to Wikipedia is good enough, but this is also not true[7]. I am not trying to be mean to you, so please do not respond with hostility. --Gmaxwell 20:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I most am certainly not confused, and I still would like to know what qualifies your use of 'we' - my questioning this is not hostility. I am most certainly not misrepresenting anything - I made it quite clear to the SNTE that they must waive all rights to this photo as it is published here, or I must ask that it be withdrawn from Wikipedia. --ThePromenader 21:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'We' as in the collective components of Wikipedia and Wikimedia that handle these matters on a frequent basis, and we as in the standing policy and practice on Wikipedia. In any case, on reconsideration, we probably could make a reasonable fair use claim, but it would preclude the image from being featured and would be the least desirable outcome. So, let me make sure I understand what you're saying... That I could take this image, print it on tshirts, open a shop in Paris selling them, not pay anyone for the privledge, and SNTE would not protest? --Gmaxwell 21:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry that I do not agree with your use of 'we'  : ) As for the t-shirt question, although it is off the mark for several reasons, I can only answer again that I have yet to have a written reply. The situation is simple, and this: there is a photo here on Wiki that the SNTE may claim rights to - should they decide not to, they must stipulate this in writing. This done, all can do what they may with the photo present here - but I severly doubt that, at its present size, that any t-shirts will be made. --ThePromenader 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think one can copyright a building under U.S. law (and thus on the Wikimedia servers). It boggles the mind that this is possible in other countries. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html - "an architectural work that is embodied in a building" is eligible for copyright. Not that that applies here - SNTE doesn't claim copyright on the building per se, but on the new lighting display, as a work of art. --Davepape 18:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The lighting is indeed copyrighted, but the biggest problem is that the SNTE gives no clear indication for what and how. They have given written permission to publish here, but this was not enough - by phone they were in complete agreement but I am still waiting for them to return the wiki "copyright permission" mail template I sent them last week. Wiki seems a little more concerned about this than they are : ) But rules is rules. --ThePromenader 18:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow, I didn't realise that. How can we have GFDL or PD pictures of recently constructed buildings or sculpture then? This makes things quite difficult. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case 't'aint the buiding, but the lights. Yes, very bothersome to leave such an obstructive rule in the middle of such a busy intersection without leaving any indication of how it is applied... it makes pedestrians like us run around it and wave our hands in the air to unanswered shouts of 'what? where? how? why?' --ThePromenader 13:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Update - I've spoken with the SNTE Monday and they looked at the photo. They have absolutely no problem with it appearing here or in any (Wiki) commercial publication, especially at the size it is, but are spending their sweet time sending the writ they agreed to send. I'm probably getting it and the other commercial documentation I asked for by land mail. Cheers. --ThePromenader 07:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. Stunning. I wish it was bigger, though technically it is within the guidelines. --Pharaoh Hound 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Beautiful!... Magnifique! Endroit 18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image, and oddly similar to the image I nominated below... Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful EamonnPKeane 11:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems to meet standards for FP. Alphachimp ^talk 07:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, if France doesn't mind then I don't. --Golbez 08:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think this is a great photograph Cab02 20:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support If copyright issues don't conflict, full support, a stunning image. However, if copyright conflicts, then it is changed to Oppose and Delete. However, reading the full argument above shows me that the picture will be legal in a matter of time, so once it is, I give FULL SUPPORT. --Chancellor Alt 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC).
• Update - Bad news, maybe. After not getting my template back, I gave the SNTE a call - they said they had "already given permission" but obviously misunderstood the conditions, as today they tell me (and insist) that a "copyright - SETE – illuminations Pierre Bideau" must appear under the photo. As I the authour have freed all rights, but a third-party hasn't, Wiki doesn't have much documentation on what sort of permission needed or available in these conditions. This is becoming a real headache so I am forwarding the matter to
  WP:CP - so this image may be deleted. You will see soon enough the results of any decision. --ThePromenader 09:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Hold it a second - aren't the above conditions the equiivilent of an {{cc-by-1.0}} attribution license? I would much appreciate any advice on this. --ThePromenader 11:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - it seems the above is true. I have sent a new letter to the SNTE, and again am awaiting a reply. --ThePromenader 07:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can certainly accept a requirement for attribution, so long as it isn't excessively strict. (I.e. it can't force us to credit in the article when our standard location for attribution is on the image pages). I'm very hopeful. Thank you for all your work. --Gmaxwell 13:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gmaxwell, thank you for your thank you, in fact it makes it all seem worthwhile, but I must ask again that you desist in your usage of 'we', as this denotes a superior kabal-esque position that you absolutely do not have! I would be only too pleased to base my respect on the wisdom you contribute, and already for that you have my thanks. --ThePromenader 18:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"We" = "the Wikipedia community". Get over yourself, TP. Nice pic! Stevage 09:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - I'm still in negociations with the SNTE. They don't seem to want to free the photo for commercal use. As a last-ditch effort I have asked them if there was a set of publication conditions they would set on the photo here - but this doesn't look promising. THEPROMENADER 05:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I'm getting a bit tired of these people witholding a yea or nay on the matter out of their doubt that this image will be used for some sort of commercial venture. At its present size this would be very difficult, but they don't seem to understand that. I'll give it the week for a reply, but my patience is pretty well at an end. I do have one last question though - since the entire purpose of this image here is for the free information/illustration for the greater public: what are the chances of this image being published as a "free use" pic ? THEPROMENADER 17:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It actually doesn't matter what the chances are, however small they might be. Licensing is not based on the odds of something happening. I chafed at the idea that my images would be available for commercial use by any entity just because I wanted to give them to Wikipedia for use there. But it was made quite clear to me that if I would have any problem whatsoever with finding any of them used for any purpose by any entity anywhere in the world, I should not bother uploading them. The SNTE will probably not grant such permission. -- Moondigger 21:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the reply. "The chances of" was just a reflection of my not having extensively researched the question. I'll try to find some time to have a look around for an answer this weekend. I don't have much hope for the SNTE either. If anyone has any advice on "free use" I'd much appreciate it. THEPROMENADER 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Update After asking for a copyright review of this image, I've just been informed on my Talk page that this is much ado about nothing. Any other views on this would be welcome. THEPROMENADER 22:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes, and there is commentary
    here as well. Goodnight all and thanks for the help. THEPROMENADER 23:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Your desire for the copyright issues to go away does not make them actually go away. The SNTE controls all commercial usage of the light display. Unless they grant permission to publish this image under a license acceptable to Wiki (meaning, free for everyone, anywhere, for any use) it can't be used. Just because somebody thinks it's too restrictive to be real does not mean it isn't real. -- Moondigger 01:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's stay rational in this - there are no dreams or desires at work here, so address the question directly please. One of the two contributors above say a such copyright would never stand (or doesn't exist) under US law (Wiki's publishing base). This does seem reasonable, but I have asked for some sort of solid evidence or other case example supporting this. Based on this logic, it does seem difficult for Wiki to hope to avoid copyrights for the laws of every country, on the content of all photos uploaded, especially when such copyrights don't apply in US law (see also the
        Template:Statue}}.
        Please also be reminded also that the above questions were asked where copyright questions are treated. All the same, I'm still looking for a clear, factual and referenced answer, and the above are the closest I've had so far. THEPROMENADER 09:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Son of Update - this is really looking to be much ado about nothing. Not only is the 'image content' copyright claim not applicable in US law, the same copyright claim where it is registered here in France may only be exercised if the use of the image "causes excess trouble" to the owner of the object photographed. Still waiting for a final word on this, and will post a conclusion with references when I do. THEPROMENADER 09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The image is fairly small and has lots of blown-out parts. Not worth all the thouble. Although I like the rays on the top of the tower this pic needs to have a) way higher res b) HDR/Exposure blending. Then we might start talking about copyright issues. --Dschwen 18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per Dschwen. Iolakana|^T 16:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the way I see this (and please correct me if I'm wrong) as it is the only way this iamge can be used on Wikipedia is as a fairuse image, which it unarguably qualifies as since the main subject of the image (which ironically disqualifies it from free licensing) is the tower and it's lighting display so if it can be agreed that this is the case then it's perfectly acceptable for use in an article but unacceptable under the FP Criteria. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're completely right - so far. If you've read around the discussions on this on this you'd see that the 'fair use' angle is just a speculative safeguard - to date no-one has found any stipulation at all in US copyright laws pertaining to a building's lighting, or even lighting as a visual work of art, but still looking. So to finalise: if we (myself and those kind enough to help clarify this) do find a protective clause, the photo is usable under 'fair use', but if not, a 'fair use' license will not be necessary. If anyone would like to help comb through this you can find the complete list (in all the site) of possible US copyright coverage here - the clause indicated is that covering pictures of architecture - this at least is quite clear. ThePromenader 07:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Copyright status is absolutely unkown and current status falls back to fair use which is unuseable for featured picture. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 23:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold it. First off, this picture was not even being judged until copyright issues are sorted out, so it isn't even question of declaring 'not accepted'. Secondly, I suggest a re-reading of my last comment - the 'fair use' license is needed only if there is a US copyright law protecting such lighting, and to date no such coverage nor clause or even definition of such coverage has been found. ThePromenader 23:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThePromenader, you can re-nominate any time. It pretty useless leaving this open until you get the copyright figured out. All if it's doing is wasting space. Thygard did the right thing. -Ravedave 00:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Removing it from 'suspended nominations' didn't seem the right thing to do, but true that this has taken up space long enough. At least I don't have to be so stressed out about it because it's here. All the same, please take into consideration my comments. ThePromenader 00:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasp morphology

Reasons for nominating;

I am self nominating my latest work which shows the basic morphology and anatomy of a female wasp. I created it for the wasp article which was extremely lacking in any kind of anatomical or even scientific detail. Its has accomponied my continuing efforts to make the article good article status. This includes adding many more sections on wasp reproduction, behaviour, biology etc. I believe it is up to wikipedias featured pictures for the following reasons:

• It was created exclusively for Wikipedia by me
• It is of high resolution and detail
• Aesthetically pleasing and simple to follow
• Anatomically correct and useful for all kinds of people researching wasps
• Common to all species of wasp

I can just imagine a child having to go and research wasps at school and coming back with this image and a report on them based on my work. And thats just the best feeling, that somewhere someone will learn something from this. Of that much I'm sure! So I hope you'll join me in wanting to give this featured picture status. Thanks!

• Nominate. - WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC) (please do not count this as a vote when tallying the results as I am self nominating.)[reply]
• oppose encyclopedic but doesn't have a "wow" factor--Vircabutar 19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. It's a good diagram but it's too small. I would definitely support an
  SVG version. Support. —Keenan Pepper 22:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose bitmap version. Would love to see an SVG version. --Dschwen 20:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now uploaded a 1900 x 1820 pixel version (this is the original size it was drawn at). --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please upload the original. Mediawiki has very efficient and high-quality image scaling algorithms, but the larger the original image, the better. —Keenan Pepper 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which Software did you use to create this image. I cannot believe you used a bitmap based program for this kind of work. --Dschwen 01:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn in adobe photoshop 7.0.1 using mostly the line tool (which is vector based) it then lays a raster stroke in place of the vector line. This creates a base lineart layer under which colour can be added (each on a seperate layer. If your interested in seeing how its composed your welcome to see the .psd file if you have a program which can read layer based raster formats? Let me know your msn and I'll send it to you. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 01:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm changing to support. This illustration is superb in terms of clarity and style and it is great to see that you have more of this kind. But I'm still doing this with a sad eye, because I cannot help but think that your talent is sort of wasted on using a bitmap based program. Please check out Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator, a vectorized verion would be a lot more valuable, think tack-sharp prints, next gen monitors, easy translation in other languages, clickable links and image parts, linking to wikipedia articles etc. --Dschwen 22:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think that the encyclopedicness overthrows the wow-factor in this case, and I'm not going to throw a fit over a 300 pixel difference. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: The terms oculomalar space, ocellus, vertex, tergum, etc don't appear in the wasp article; it would be helpful to explain them on the image page, as well as in the article. Looking at the "vertex" disambig page, I guess I know what it's pointing to now, but I don't know why it's important. For "ocelli", I wonder how much of the head it's meant to indicate. Some of the parts have numbers that I presume are counts, but not all (surely it doesn't have just 1 antenna!) - I would favor removing the counts. (In general, a nice diagram; I'd probably vote for a higher-res copy if the article & it were tied together better.) --Davepape 21:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dave. I only came across the article today. I'm in the process of having it entirely wewritten from a factual scientific point of view. It'll probably take me about a week. I think based on the subject matter it has a real possibility of being a front page article. This diagram is just a small part of it. Those are things I will be sure to include. When I upload a higher res version i will also remove the 'part counts' as suggested.--WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Support updated version. --Davepape 23:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent work. I am also impressed with the nominator's goals in creating the diagram. -- AJ24 01:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support - I hope you can upload the svg version so other languages could translete it for themselves. Also, I would think about removing the heading "Basic Morphology...", but that's just a comment/suggestion and does not influence support/oppose vote. Renata 01:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A vector based version of this and a similar piece of mine (File:Dragonfly morphology.png) are almost certainly to be converted (i.e. redrawn) in SVG format. Trouble I've had today is getting a good SVG program thats easy to install and works. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 01:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Informative and nicely drawn. --Bagginz 07:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent image. I'll support the dragonfly too, if you nominate it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. (I reiterate SVG comments; I think the title font could be more appealing (initial letters look over-boldened) and the white space between title and illustration reduced; and I suggest uploading your work to Wikicommons.) Nice job! Outriggr 01:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Nice design, but I'm not too sold on the color scheme - don't really like the gray, and it seems disproportionate to the yellow compared to something like this: Image:WaspBuildingNest wb.jpg. Also the labelling isn't really that clear. I'm refering in particular to "Ocelli" (is that the skull or the top of the head or what), and "vertex"/"gena" (they seem to be pointing to the same thing. --Fir0002 09:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid to say they are literally what they are pointing at. The back of the neck and the back of the head. Although this may not seem important enough in a diagram, it is immensely so. The vertex and gena are used to differentiate between different insect species. Telling the difference between say a big wasp and a small hornet can come down to those two regions as its where structurally almost all insects are different. I take on board comments on the colour scheme although I would say firstly: its a diagram not photography, but more over - some wasps are entirely grey, some are white suprisingly, when born they are pink. Thanks for the comments. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I actually like the color scheme a lot, it looks clean and professional. It is neat how the principal colors of the insects are used to tint the greyish background. To appreciate it you shoud check out Prolifics illustrations side by side. --Dschwen 17:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would also prefer it if "Basic Morphology of" were omitted (and of course, an SVG version would be nice).--ragesoss 14:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Golbez 23:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support: clear, informative. Wouldn't mind losing the title though. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Wasp_morphology.png -

Nematode and egg

High detail image of a soybean cyst nematode and its egg, magnified 1,000 times. Who's hungry?

• Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 00:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Its kinda sickening, but very encyclopedic, sharply focused and well qualified as a FP. SteveHopson 00:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support Beautiful image, plenty of detail and an enormous size. A little more information in the description would be nice like what its on (it looks like paper to me?) but otherwise a good candidate IMHO. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 00:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. Unextraordinary and insignificant; however, the quality is FP material. -- AJ24 01:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unextraordinary and insignificant? Can you elaborate? Does it not illustrate the article well? Which criteria at
    Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? do you believe it doesn't fit? — BRIAN0918
    • 2006-07-25 04:22

• Support Renata 01:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. —Keenan Pepper 01:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very detailed. --Enano275 04:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per AJ24. What's up with all the electron micrograph images lately? --Nebular110 06:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Umm, they look spectacular and ussually are very high res and encyclopedic... thats all. HighInBC 02:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support What an incredible image! By far the best EM so far. I really can't see how these are "insignificant". It is an entire phylum within the animal kingdom which is almost void of illustrations. This is also the best way you could illustrate them without an exploded diagram. --liquidGhoul 06:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Mmmm... banana. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support even though it makes me squeamish. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support FP's seem so small these days...Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent find.--
  * 23:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Very encyclopedic and striking HighInBC 02:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As above --Fir0002 09:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. I really like this image, but have been troubled about something since it was first nominated. The caption says "...nematode, and its egg", but there's no way (that I can see) that this egg belongs to this nematode. It doesn't really gel with what the article says about the life-cycle either. Now perhaps this is a recently hatched nematode alongside another unhatched egg, or something like that, though again I'm not sure how that fits with the described life-cycle. I tried to do some other research on the site it says the photo came from, but couldn't find the pic, much less any more details about it. Can you possibly clarify? Thanks. --jjron 09:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is the egg, there are two explanations I can think of. The article says the males are usually much smaller than the females, and they have a bent tail. This may be the case, as I can see a bend in the tail. Also, the egg may have been pretty old, and continued to grow since it was fertilised. However, I don't know the growth pattern of Nematodes. As they have an exoskelton, it wouldn't make sense that they continue to grow, it has to be stepped. --liquidGhoul 09:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This explains it in more detail, the juvenile undergoes two molts while in the egg, when the egg hatches the juvenile is at the second stage. So the edd must expand after it is laid.--
  Peta 10:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• To expand, the egg would have to feed in some way - I don't believe this is the case. It can moult in the egg without the egg growing (like a butterfly in a cocoon). Another possibility: this is the dead female that has become the cyst, with a live male (but the caption still seems to be wrong). --jjron 00:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Butterflies metamorphose in their cocoon, it is completely different to molting. They will actually die, and digest themselves into a few stem cells so they can be completely "re-built" as a butterfly. Molting, though it takes a lot of energy, takes much less energy than metamorphosis and the nematode either has a primitive yolk, or some way in passing its food through the egg wall (I think it says this on Peta's link). --liquidGhoul 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Simile. Eggs don't feed. The link was good (thanks Peta), but I didn't see anything about the egg feeding; if it was there please tell me where. The egg may continue to grow while in the female, but surely not thereafter. --jjron 02:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rightio, I read it wrong :?. I think you are right, it is probably a cyst which contains the eggs, but it should be good to ask someone who knows. --liquidGhoul 02:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason a high protion food reserve in the egg cannot let the egg gain volume. Of course it cannot gain mass without feeding, but it can get bigger, by getting less dense. (just a guess) HighInBC 14:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Theoretically perhaps, but unlikely. Yes, a gas could be produced inside the egg as part of the molting, which could then allow it to gain volume without feeding. But the eggshell would have to be very soft and flexible to allow it to expand this much (Peta's link suggests there is an eggshell), and unless it was very specially structured to retain this shape, it would tend to become spherical as it expanded (and why would it need to retain this shape?). --jjron 00:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This adds more to the article!--Pedit 03:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Another great one.--ragesoss 14:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Golbez 23:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Scientific. Iolakana|^T 16:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellent.
  sikander 21:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support – Awesome. Agree with WikipedianProlific about needing more info. – Morganfitzp 23:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Soybean cyst nematode and egg SEM.jpg -

Youth-soccer-indiana.jpg

Appeared in Soccer in the United States; taken by User:Tysto.

• Nominate and support. A bright, optimistic image. – Kaihsu 21:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on the technical side, there is a fair amount of purple fringing in the kids' hair. I like the composition of the shot, but technically it's not that strong. It would benefit from some artificial depth of field applied, to blur out the spectators in the background. Stevage 22:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Cute kids, but nothing spectacular, and the technical problems are too much.
  chat} 23:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question - What is that yellow rectangle at 630×680? --dm ^(talk) 00:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A potal into another world Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 09:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you mean
      Portal... Neutral —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • good point Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would bet that the box is a foul pole for a baseball field. YOu can see the metal screens for the field to its right. American Patriot 1776 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nothing to special for me. and what's up with the yellow box?Nnfolz 17:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As above, grass looks uncomfortably long too. --Fir0002 23:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not particularly eye-catching. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose nice composition, but not really too special. --Thelb⁴ 14:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar-eclipse-2004

I think this image is somewhat unique and beautiful. I've never seen one like it. I took it during the last full lunar eclipse of 2004.

• Nominate and support. - Mactographer 12:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose... no FP should have text like that on it. gren グレン 12:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's highly informative and just the kind of photo I'd love to see featured... except for the text at the bottom. Wikipedia gives attribution to photographers on the image page, not in captions or on the image itself. Also, FYI, Wiki requires you to license images freely worldwide for any use, commercial or otherwise -- just want to be sure you understand that. -- Moondigger 13:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yeah, as above. This would be pretty good if not for the self-advertising. --jjron 13:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As already said, writing on the bottom is not acceptable - Adrian Pingstone 13:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment its copyright is open, anyone can chop the text off and re-upload. -Ravedave 14:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose even with the text gone i dont like this photo, it looks to fake. Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There's definitely something not quite right about this - how, for example, did the photographer manage capture the moon in front of the clouds? --Yummifruitbat 18:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My guess he took one image containing the clouds and then pasted only the moon from the other pictures. --Dschwen 19:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it looks like a standard technique in which multiple exposures are made on a single frame from a fixed location. The clouds were probably present in the second exposure, forcing him to use a longer shutter speed to get the moon to shine through. For subsequent exposures the clouds had cleared, but since the clouds were already present in the frame from the second exposure, the moon appears to be in front of them. By the time the moon had risen much in the photo it was probably fully night time, but because the sky was exposed during twilight for the first few exposures it looks blue instead of black. -- Moondigger 19:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. neat idea, but the foreground is rather bad, plus there is that annoying copyright notice. Cropping will only worsen the pic since it'll lack a sense of scale then. --Dschwen 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Will support if the text is removed. --Neutrality^talk 19:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose The text is not something to have on a Featured Picture.--Canadianshoper 20:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment FYI, the photo is not a “fake”, however, it is a composite of many exposures with the moon spliced into the BG of the original exposure made shortly after dusk. The initiated may read about the process here. It's been received well everywhere else it's been shown ... but here. I withdraw the nomination. -Mactographer
  • Ah, I see. This kind of image is much easier to do on film, which is what I thought you did. I would suggest that you upload a version that doesn't contain the text at the bottom -- I would definitely support a version that complies with Wiki guidelines. -- Moondigger 21:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I might take you up on your suggestion, Moondigger. Your comments were the most constructive. But since I am giving up copyright in uploading to Wikipedia — which is anathema to most professional photographers who live and die by getting paid, and/or getting credit for their hard work — I wanted to make sure of attribute by using the standard convention of embedding such in the image when placed on the web. I suppose the Creative Commons licenses cover attribute, but in practice, images on the web get snapped up right and left, often without so much as a tip of the hat to the creator of the work. -Mactographer
      • Who says you have to give up copyright? That's a misconception! See
        Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#What_is_copyright.3F. --Dschwen 22:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • I didn't say the photo was faked, just that it didn't look right. I maintain that (particularly since it isn't a multiple exposure, and the moon has, as Dschwen said, effectively been pasted on top, albeit by a somewhat more elaborate method) the image looks artificial with the moon in front of the cloud. Aside from that, I don't find the image all that striking; there isn't enough detail in the moon itself to make this a particularly good illustration of a lunar eclipse. On the subject of the copyright notice, surely you've no greater guarantee of attribution with the notice, as anyone willing to rip off your image without giving you credit is unlikely to have any qualms about cropping the text? --Yummifruitbat 01:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sheesh, Fruitbat! Didn't the remaining eclipsed moons on the dark blue sky rather than black night sky clue you into the fact it was a composite? Of course all the separate moons were pasted over the remaining original photo of the early evening sky. Cuz the "point of the photo” was to show the progression of the moon as it came in and out of the eclipse, relative to the location it was in the sky at any given moment during the lunar event. The point was NOT to detail the moon in close up fashion. That kind of photograph has been recorded ad nauseam. Who hasn’t seen a close up shot of a red moon? However, I’ve never seen another lunar eclipse photo quite like this with the horizon as a reference point. In any case, it’s been highly rated in other forums. Only this forum has seen fit to shred it. So for the 3rd time, I withdraw my nomination for FP. I’m finished defending my position on it. (Note the time stamp on this message post-dates the one below. This is my last round on this subject.) --Mactographer 08:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Mactographer, could I also suggest you read about Wikipedia Spam. Not that this exactly fits into the guidelines given there, but I think it borders on it. --jjron 07:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jjron Can you explain? What kind of SPAMing are you suggesting I'm guilty of? The fact that as a photographer, I wish to have a little credit for my creations? Then clap me in irons and throw away the key, I'm guilty!! Besides, as I have mentioned above, I withdraw my nomination for FP. If that means I should delete all the messages here, then I'll do that if that's the wiki-protocol.Mactographer 07:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you read the Spam guidelines? What I'm saying is that the text in this photo directs users to an external website that does not further any user's understanding of this topic. The website (correct me if I'm wrong) is essentially a site which advertises your services. In Wikipedia (again, someone correct me if I'm wrong) this constitutes spamming. This is nothing about the FP nomination, any text added to a pic (unless for a pupose to add meaning to the pic) would result in opposes here, this is about the nature of the text itself. --jjron 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. It's the photographer's personal website which (in addition to advertising his services) is also a link to provide information about the photographer and contact information should someone seek to license the photograph in a different manner. I see no problem from a "spam" standpoint with the text, but agree that text of any sort that's not "informative" about the subject should not be there. The website info can go on the image description page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is necessary to visit an external site to get the required information about the author. Any information relevent to the licencing and attribution should be on the userpage. An external link to a personal site is almost always just a vanity link or an attempt to draw commercial work from wikipedia viewers, which is not what wikipedia is about. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It's a great idea, conceptually, but I think the implementation is flawed. While I understand, per Macto's explanation above, WHY the moon is in front of the cloud, I find that it distracts from the image. Add that to the text at the bottom and you've got an oppose. Now, without the text, I would probably change my vote to Neutral, but I doubt I could Support the image with the "cloud issue" unresolved. On a side-note, it's nice to see someone local on the FPC page (I'm from Fremont). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why not take off the text and resubmit the photo? – Morganfitzp 00:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Newborn

I think this is a great illustration of a human newborn, both in appearance and behavior, and it appears in the Infant article. I took the photo, and it is my daughter, just seconds after delivery.

• Nominate and support. - Ernest F 15:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Congratulations on the birth of your daughter. The photo is of acceptable technical quality but it doesn't seem particularly feature-worthy to me. -- Moondigger 15:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very good picture indeed. And congratulations ! Ericd 16:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's a shame the head is slightly blurred but the pic illustrates the article so perfectly that I must support - Adrian Pingstone 17:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a fairly unique moment in a person's life captured nicely. And it would really be missing if it weren't in the infant article. --Dschwen 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. per Moondigger. However, Congrats! -- AJ24 20:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. per Moondigger. --Mad Max 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. congrats. but this picture is not feature-worthy to me either. If you have got another angle which illustrates what your caption says, with less distractions, it would be great.--Pedit 20:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has only 7 edits, 6 of which are on FPC --Fir0002 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Irrelevant how many edits I made. The essence of what I said is true according to the criteria for FPC

Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? . There is a great need of a proper group of photo editors to comment on photos which appears on the front page of such a great project as wikipedia!--Pedit 02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose. per Moondigger. say1988 21:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The foot/sock and the rest of the background is distracting. The doctor or nurse holding the baby seems robotic due to the composition of the picture (cropped head, holding position, visible portion of the hand looking more like a tentacle than a human body part) and the flapping, unnaturally colored protective gear (light blue and neon green -- the worst hospital colors!). Compare, for instance, this photo from Flickr where the staff is wearing form-fitting white or dark blue coats and more naturally colored gloves. For the subject of childbirth, I'd like to see a series of pictures or a movie rather than a single snapshot, though of course a nice snapshot might always qualify for FPC status. All that said, congratulations to bringing a new life into this world. Maybe you can make another baby for us and try shooting some more pictures. ;-) --
  * 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Green gloves and blue coat I like it ! At least we see the oposition between the newborn baby and the medical environement. Ericd 22:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there some rule that says medical environments have to look ugly and dehumanizing? ;-)
      * 22:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • No, but they often are. Seriously I think the use of unatural colors might contribute to security, for instance a green glove will make a surgeon's hand contrast with the patient body. Ericd 22:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose that's true -- the flesh-colored gloves in the example above may be a bit extreme. Neutral white would be a reasonable compromise.--
          * 23:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Not sure if the protocol for a FPC is to support what you nominate, and I guess I am slightly biased, but: The distractions - the foot, the doctors hand, and the extreme coloring of hospital garb are an integral part of the scene. Those first seconds of life are rather difficult to capture, and I think it would be impossible to frame the subject with some more esthetically pleasing surroundings in this case. Although, I will try again next time ;) Ernest F 13:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like it. My wife is due Dec 20th, so I'd give it a try, but unfortunatly my Cannon S500 doesn't provide good enough pics. -Ravedave 05:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The S500 is a perfectly capable point & shoot. You should be able to get decent quality photos out of it, if you work around its limitations (flash, mostly). -- Moondigger 13:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, flash, I think, is the biggest obstacle for most point and shoot cameras. This picture came out as well as (I think) it did because of the overhead hosptial light. --Ernest F 14:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The ambient light is often enough to get something without flash at 1/15s or 1/8s. Stop breathing and try not to shake camera. With some training you should be able to have an unblurred shot. Ericd 16:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like it. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Olegivvit 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - technically it is acceptable, despite the blurring... but to me it's not at all aesthetically pleasing - the opposite. No offence. Jono (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is blurred, except her right foot ? I like it ! Thanks God she's alive ! Ericd 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her right foot is blurred. Jono (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose.
  chat} 18:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong support - you just cannot get a realistic picture of an infant just seconds after delivery without mess. I like it because it's real, not artistic; it's real life, real blood, real flesh and not some photoshoped & spotless landscape photo. Renata 21:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I completely agree with Renata. It isn't a sterile or perfectly composed image but it does what it intends well. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A good illustration of the subject. That is just the way it looks like! My congratulations, Ernest_F! Mikeo 18:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The picture is only OK, and it doesn't add as much as it could to the article. Key parts of the body are obscured and half of the face is not even visible. --Hetar 05:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Vircabutar 07:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The only thing keeping me from supporting is that is not 'pleasing to the eye'. It's a photo that i would place on top of the TV if I were a relative or something, but not one i'd like to have as a FP (with all due respect, of course).Nnfolz 21:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being there, I can tell you that the event itself was not necessarily 'pleasing to the eye'! However, I don't believe a FPC needs to meet that criteria. For instance, the 'Warsaw Ghetto' candidate below is certainly not pleasing to the eye, however, it captures and illustrates the subject in a vivid manner.--Ernest F 18:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support As per comments re. real life situation --Newton2 12:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Alpine Road

Captures the warmth of the surrounding landscape in Autumn, set in the context of the Great Alpine road. I've nominated this version with the truck in it as trucking is a key characteristic of the road. I've uploaded a second version: Image:Great alpine rd outside omeo02.jpg which was taken after the truck passed by (no cloning - promise!).

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Technical merit as always with you. But the significance of the Mt. Hotham/Alpine Road/Swifts Creek region doesn't strike me high enough to to feature the twentieth (?) picture depicting it. And if this weren't a panoramic image would anyone consider featuring some truck on some road? --Dschwen 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lol, and here I am drooling over it - then again, I'm from Victoria but have been out of the country for the last year. I kind of have to agree - let's just all agree that yes, it's yet another stunning panorama of country Victoria by Fir0002, but we have enough for our collection. Actually, having said that, I just checked out Great Alpine Road, and it is everything we want in a FP - despite the fact only a small part of the road is visible (by necessity), the picture does a fantastic job of conveying the surrounding countryside. This is exactly what pictures about roads, rivers, regions etc should be. Stevage 22:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree with Dschwen. Photography is not only about technicalities. I do not find any way that this picture add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not.--Pedit 21:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has only 7 edits, 6 of which are on FPC --Fir0002 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

It is irrelevant how many edits I made, also my contribution may as well be more to this page for the future as well. The essence of what I said is true according to the criteria for FPC

Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? . There is a great need of a proper group of photo editors to comment on photos which appears on the front page of such a great project as wikipedia!!--Pedit 02:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

It is common practice here, on RFA, on AFD, etc, to alert users when a brand new account is placing a lot of votes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-28 04:24

Oh! I did not know. Sorry about that. I did not mean anything bad. Though I am new to contributing, I am have been using wikipedia for years, and I love this project. I thought starting with a newborn baby is a good idea! Thanks for guiding me.--Pedit 04:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

• OpposeYah, this is nice and it makes me want to go to Australia but I just think that maybe we need to give the whole Australian panoramic thing a break.--Henry A-W 04:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about that, but in the end, disagree. If we have 50 articles about fairly obscure topics, and we have 50 excellent, high quality images to illustrate them, we should count ourselves exceptionally lucky, not reject them. I wouldn't want to see more than two FP's per article, but two seems acceptable to me. Stevage 08:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose great photo, but its not special, the article already has one FP which i personaly believe is better
• Oppose The photo's subject isn't really the road. If anything, the road is the weak point of the photo.– Morganfitzp 00:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chocorua dam

The Image was taken by Hossen27 in the village of Chocorua near Tamworth, New Hampshire on May 19, 2006. The Picture does not appear in any article at the moment, though it could be placed on the Tamworth article.

• Nominate and Support. - Hossens27 09:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's a nice picture, but it has to be in an article before it can be considered. Also, you can't support photos you took yourself. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who says you can't support photos you took yourself? What's the reasoning? People support their own photos all the time. -- Moondigger 12:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have added the image to the article Tamworth, New Hampshire, were the dam is located. All the other images on the article are historic, making it the only recent image on the page and have removed my support because I took the image. Hossens27 09:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. Big ole tree on the left kinda spoils it for me, but otherwise I like it. If the tree can be cropped out in a pleasing way, I'd probably switch to Support. --Billpg 09:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I'll Support now. I like this one. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Beautiful image, good content, taken at a good place (its hardly his fauly where the trees grow.) And to my suprise there are very few if any compression artifacts which is rare for a wikipedia photo.--WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's okay... the blown sky bothers me a bit, and overall I don't find the scene particularly feature-worthy. However (as I indicated above), I'm pretty sure there's no prohibition against you supporting your own photo. Many nominations here are self-noms, and they almost always self-support as well. When I've closed nominations in the past I counted support votes cast by the photographer, as do the others AFAIK. -- Moondigger 13:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says at the top of the page "if an image is listed here for seven days with four or more supporting votes (including the nominator if it was not a self-nomination), and the consensus is in its favor...", which I always took to mean that the photographer couldn't vote. I suppose under a strict reading you could interpret it to mean "four excluding the photographer, and the consensus including the photographer" but I find that rather a bizarre rule. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's rather bizarre myself, but I don't take it the way you do. I think it's meant to address a particular unusual situation: one in which there are very few votes cast for a given image. In other words, if there are only four votes cast, then the photographer's vote doesn't count... but if there are more than four votes cast, the photographer's vote does count. Personally I don't think there should be any such limitation. If a photographer supports his/her own photo, I'm fine with that, even in the extremely unlikely case that there are only four votes for a particular nomination. -- Moondigger 15:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Parsing that statement now leads me to think more along the lines you are, that the photographer's vote doesn't count no matter how many votes are cast. However I think it's a pointless restriction with no rational justification, and is contrary to the de facto implementation. Photographers self-nominate and support their own work all the time, and photographers' votes sometimes carry even more weight than others -- I've seen nominations ended immediately when a photographer opposes his/her own photo. Can somebody explain the rationale for not counting a photographer's vote on his/her own image? -- Moondigger 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm going to move this discussion to the talk page, because it's of wider interest than just this nomination. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice photo. Could do with a better crop though. Nice looking senery.--VH-WAC 14:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral It doesnt really add to the article it in. It's not very encylopedic either. I like the pic though. -Ravedave 14:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Blown out sky, not the best angle with the tree on the left obscuring part of the subject matter, missing wow factor and no particularly outstanding addition to the article it is in. --Dschwen 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This picture does not add value to the article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not.--Pedit 21:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has only 7 edits, 6 of which are on FPC --Fir0002 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Irrelevant how many edits I made. The essence of what I said is true according to the criteria for FPC

Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? . There is a great need of a proper group of photo editors to comment on photos which appears on the front page of such a great project as wikipedia!--Pedit 02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

It is common practice here, on RFA, on AFD, etc, to alert users when a brand new account is placing a lot of votes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-28 04:24

• Oppose. Quite nice, but has blown sky (with a hint of what it could be in the top right corner) and a little busy; seems leaning slightly right to me. Outriggr 04:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have cropped the image to remove some of the blown sky. I dont know if its much better but the blown sky was the main issue. Hossens27 05:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the original, actually. I think this one is too cropped. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. i like it but the tree is distracting Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose per moondigger and ravedave --Vircabutar 07:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrthographicQuad

Unique depiction of the Stanford Main Quad, a key campus landmark. Created by me, composed of 166 separate photographs.

• Nominate and support. - Michael Connor 06:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose well constructed panaroma with consistant light, the central feature is where the photographic method is most apparant and are where my reasonings for opposing occur. What has happened is that the buildings behind have been multiplied and the perspective line are diverging instead on converging. This was caused by too frequently moving the camera position to subject. This area should have had very minimual camera repositioning. Gnangarra 06:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, regretfully. Interesting technique - you have moved sideways for each picture, so this picture is actually rectilinear. However, the ever changing viewpoint messed up the pattern of the roof tiles - I bet the roof doesn't look like that! Also, the floor line is a bit wavy. --Janke | Talk 06:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I liked it. Well constructed. The roof tiles occupy a small proportion of the pic - I only noticed the problem after reading the above comment and going back to check. (Now I know its there, its all I can see.) --Billpg 06:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Ack Janke, I've just been there last Weekend and the pic doesn't do justice to it. The verticah size is too small, there is strong moiree in the roof tiles. Also there are duplicates in the background. --Dschwen 07:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wow, 166 photos! That's like 3 per arch or something. A for Effort anyway. Stevage 08:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Hell of a lot of work in this, problem is it's just not informative (the other pics on the article show me much better how Stanford looks). But, as Stevage says, big congrats for effort - Adrian Pingstone 12:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Impressive effort, but besides the problems with the roof tiles, it's distractingly oversharpened. -- Moondigger 12:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This picture does not add value to the article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not. Besides this picture will not appear good on the front page of wikipedia as well. Within a propper context this will be a great image--

User has only 7 edits, 6 of which are on FPC --Fir0002 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

It is irrelevant how many edits I made, also my contribution may as well be more to this page for the future as well. The essence of what I said is true according to the criteria for FPC

Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? . There is a great need of a proper group of photo editors to comment on photos which appears on the front page of such a great project as wikipedia!!--Pedit 02:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland at night

It is a big, good quality picture showing downtown Oakland, a major American city. A different version is availble here

• Nominate and support. - Ted87 02:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I really don't like the fountain. I first saw it as a strange hole under the water before I could spotted the fountain sprays. Suggest either the fountain is made more prominant or removed from view entirely. (Aside from the fountain, I liked it and would support.) --Billpg 06:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, I just don't find it very interesting: it looks like any other city. And I think a photo taken during the day might be more encyclopaedic, because you could see the buildings better. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is difficult to really see the buildings. Picture seems tilted to the right a little bit. --Nebular110 21:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the lights are too bright causing a blur Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 09:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hummingbird Hawk-moth

Hummingbird Hawk-moth

(Macroglossum stellatarum), in Rhône, France.

Not a hummingbird

This is an excellent capture of this insect taken by IronChris. Admittedly, the fact that it hovers certainly makes it easier to take, but the clarity is quite impressive. The flowers are slightly blown but this is not the focus and can be excused IMO.

• Nominate and support for edit 2. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I realize the difficulties of capturing such fast moving wings, but I still want them to be sharp. Otherwise it's impressive. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support edit 2. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have said that the wings emphasize the fact that they move so fast. I'm not sure exactly how fast they are but I've been messing around with photography of bumblebees and I'm telling you, their virtually impossible to freeze (the exposures have been approximately 1/4000th of a second, which is at or near the shutter spped limit of almost all professional SLRs. The only way to beat that is with using an extra high speed flash which ends up in specialised and expensive macro photography territory. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a lot of modern DSLRs can do 1/8000s with the electronic shutter, but honestly, I have a hard time getting enough light at 1/500s, f/13... I can't imagine trying to do the same thing with 1/8000s. Eesh. --Marumari 00:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think this is an excellent photograph, and the fact that it shows motion wins out, for me, over any notions of sharpness and clarity. A picture of a fast-moving object that doesn't actually show that it's moving can be beautiful, but is often static and flat. The rest of the image is crystal clear, and I find that the blur of wings adds a lot to, rather than subtracts from, the overall composition. romarin [talk ] 16:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (edit 2) Look like 1/2500 to 1/3000 is needed and a lab is the only place its been done, see here and here-Ravedave 17:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2. Blurred wings are not a technical fault in this instance. Great shot. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. One of the most remarkable images I have seen of a hummingbird in flight. It's eyes are in my opinion the most stunning feature of the photograph. -- AJ24 18:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, its a moth, not a hummingbird. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be quite a feat, discovering a hummingbird with antennae :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-21 21:41
  • Despite what it looks like in the image, the moth's eyes aren't directional eyeballs like in birds and mammals; they're just the usual compound moth/fly eyes, but disguised as directional eyeballs. The black dot in the center is just coloring to give the appearance of an iris/pupil. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-21 21:44
• Support Support either, wonderful pic of this moth (and the blurred wings are entirely acceptable) - Adrian Pingstone 19:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2. Excellent photo. I've done some bird-watching, and repeatedly came across an entry for this moth in the hummingbird section of an identification guide... the real thing is much more impressive than the illustration. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-21 21:41
• Support excellent pic. love the purple.--Vircabutar 21:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautifully shot. As others have mentioned, blurred wings of an insect clearly in flight is not a technical defect. You would need specialized strobes to capture a sharp image in flight, but then you'd also need the camera to have the required sensitivity. --Wickerprints 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 2 The noise reduction is best in this particular edit, although all three versions seem to have a bit of oversharpening and slight JPEG artifacts going on. But these are minor issues. --Wickerprints 18:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic capture, even if it does look like a flying turd with an eyeball and three antennas. I guess if I had to pick, I would choose edit 2, although they all look pretty good. --Marumari 00:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have never seen such a good picture of a hummingbird in flight. Viva La Vie Boheme 17:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a hummingbird. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-22 18:37
• Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment either version is fine to me. The difference is so small that i only noticed it after looking at the image very closely. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2, but can it go to a more prominent place in the article than the gallery? --jjron 11:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 I love the picture, there is some background noise probably caused by a fast shutter speed without enough light. I made a version with a selective blur on the background only. Let me know what you think. HighInBC 15:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My image seems a bit lighter, I think this is the result of the jpg reencoding and the fact that a blurred image encodes much better than a noisy one. I still like my version. HighInBC 16:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent! I don't mind the wings. --Tim1988 ^talk 16:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. OK, anyone want to tell me how the heck 1/60 of a second managed to freeze the wings in this shot??? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Angle mabye, and luck. Alot of luck I would say, 1/60 is rather slow, mabye it was cold out and the moth was moving slower. Good question. HighInBC 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ohhhh, I bet it is a dead moth held up by a stick behind it's body. That would do it. HighInBC 18:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dead... with it's wings in a fluid shape like that? How do you instantly kill a moth while it's in flight? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-23 20:01

You kill it by suffucation, then use wire on the wings. Just a theory HighInBC 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its been taken with a flash, for sure. I recognise the 'look'. 1/60th of a second is 'standard' for flash photography but the actual burst of flash occurs for a MUCH smaller amount of time. This method can work well, but as in this case, you will get some blur as the subject will continue to expose for the full 1/60th of a second (although the flash burst will likely account for the majority of the total light). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you shot it at night, with a flash, it would come out much clearer, even at a slow shutter speed? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-24 00:44

Yes, but (and this is a pretty big but) the illumination from the flash would dissipate rapidly into the background and, as with most flash photography in low-light situations, the subject might be properly exposed but the background would be severely underexposed, possibly even black depending on the distance. And then theres the major problem of trying to get the camera to focus accurately in the dark! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the article: They fly during the day, especially in bright sunshine. --Dschwen 18:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From metadata Flash: 73. 73% power I think. The insect is frozen by the flash but the flower in the background are blurred because they probably received more sunlight. Ericd 20:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support That's pretty cool --Abdominator 02:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 impressive shot. --Dschwen 18:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 Better than my attempt, and having tried, I know how hard it is to get a shot like that! --Yummifruitbat 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 Good job. I'd like to have a go at one of those... --Fir0002 09:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 Amazing shot Lordwow 22:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2.
  chat} 21:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Absolutely no-one has commented on the edit! I'll have to move this to the 'requiring additional input' section. I can't believe no-one seems to have even noticed it... Raven4x4x 09:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your additional input.

Promoted Image:Macroglossum stellatarum1 NR.jpg Raven4x4x 05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley S1 Continental Fastback Coupe Mulliner

Self-nom. It illustrate the Bentley and Bentley S1. I like it and think its of good quality. - Ericd 15:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: the shadows on the car are distracting. Any way that con be corrected? TomStar81 00:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No hope IMHO. I don't think a B & W photography of a black car could render the volume without some shadows and reflections. Ericd 01:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, but as a FPC those shadows kill it. It is a good pic of the car, just a shame it wasn't in constant lighting. --jjron 09:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeSupport Tilted, needs a tiny bit of anticlockwise rotation then I'll support it - Adrian Pingstone 14:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adrian, I think it's not tilted. Its more a resizing issue on the white pillar IMO (See detail). Ericd 16:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, accepted. I change my vote to Support - Adrian Pingstone 17:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I will try why different resizing algorithms. Ericd 19:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What on earth is that picture of the building window doing below the voting picture? Viva La Vie Boheme 02:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's here to check if the picture is tilted. Ericd 08:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Ericd added this enlargement of the above image (just above the car's windshield). The black lines are perfectly vertical, and it shows that the window is also vertical. Hope that makes sense. Stevage 08:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, Oppose It is just too shadowy. If it were a sunny day that day, you would have immediate support from me... Viva La Vie Boheme
  • Well, it was a sunny afternoon. When there's no sun there's no shadow. Ericd 17:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poi

I would love to see a

poi picture reach featured status. This is a truely amazing art, and anyone who has seen it live will agree that no picture can come close to capturing the feeling of awe that a good performer will leave you in. The only drawback being that to produce a good picture, the subject has to undergo a long exposure at night, leading to the artist being extremely blurred. But as they're not the focus, does it matter? There are a million and one fantastic poi pictures out there (good examples using: glowsticks, fire & flags

), anyone of them is good enough for featured status - just for the "wow factor".

• Nominate and support. - - Jack (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I can understand the difficulty of capturing this subject. Although it has some problems, the picture is still quite good. The pattern is amazing. I would probably prefer this if it were availible in higher res. --Fir0002 09:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• [8]. It is full copyright though. --liquidGhoul 11:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (Fire). I just like the pic. --Billpg 10:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain (Green). Its not so bad, but doesn't light my fire. --Billpg 07:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain (Fire). I've just noticed how small the image is. Can it be rescanned? --Billpg 13:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By abstain do you mean you don't mind either way? Here is a link to the talk page of the guy who uploaded the fire one: [9], although he seems to have been inactive since Dec 05. If you can do a better job of contacting him than me (i.e. email him in french), feel free to request a re-scan - Jack (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly, neither supporting nor opposing. If emailing him in Friench didn't work, then I doubt I could do any better. --Billpg 21:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what's interesting is that on seeing the second picture, my first thought on the green and purple trees was "that looks like the
  Fête des lumières in Lyon, France". And sure enough, yep - December 10 last year, I may have even seen him. The lit-up trees in the background are good for the Fête des lumières article, not so good for demonstrating poi. The glowpoi image is nice, but too noisy. Stevage 11:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• CommentI love the fire one, but it is a little too small. Annoys me, because I want to see the shapes in the flame better. Does anyone who speaks French want to leave a message on the uploader's talk? --liquidGhoul 11:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I love the green one and I don't care what you say about resolution/quality. Renata 21:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both or either. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Very beautiful, but neither meets the resolution requirements. Also, the red dot in bottom right portion of the glowstick one is mildly distracting. I would support a higher resolution version of glowstick one. Not sure if I would support a higher res fire one, the background is kinda distracting. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a go at removing the red light. Frankly, I wish I hadn't bothered trying. --Billpg 21:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all (Whats up with the double nom anyway?) Resolution waaaaaaaay too low. --Dschwen 22:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I loved the original image, and was thinking about nominating it myself a few days ago. However, I think Bill's edit is even more beautiful. I think it looks really great. It would be nice if it were bigger, of course. —
  t • c • e • 05:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thank you. --Billpg 09:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome! By the way, talk about a small world... I was showing the image to a friend today, who is into Poi, who said that he is friends with the guy in the picture. Apparently the spinning community is "quite tight", as he puts it. Huh. —
      t • c • e • 13:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Oppose all the green one to me doesnt look real, i cant see the persons armes, it looks like a a person has been pasted on to a cool green back ground, the fire one looks awesome but it needs to be bigger to real get the feel from the flames so oppose. Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 09:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not fake, baby! See the comment above yours. Even though that sounds so much like "friend of a friend" that I shouldn't really be posting it at all... heh. —
    t • c • e • 13:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support first version – Wow! I've seen a lot of performance of this type, but the geometry in this shot is incredible! What an amazing pic of an amazing performer! A real treat! – Morganfitzp 23:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Extreme Support of the first version!
  FireSpike 03:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Promoted Image:Poi circles.jpg Raven4x4x 05:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Ghetto

The image speaks for itself.

• Nominate and support. - Vircabutar 04:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow, that's just pitiful. The expresssion on the boys face just sums it up so perfectly. Really touching. --Fir0002 09:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Olegivvit 10:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Historical significance overweighs any quality issue. --Janke | Talk 12:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support per Janke -Rangermike 13:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object – This image is far too small to be a featured picture. Great photo, it's a shame the resolution is so low. ♠ SG →Talk 14:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. Very famous image and of great historical significance. Usually, quality is not scrutinized so in images of such age and historical background. -- AJ24 15:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit - captures the moment, perfect - Jack (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Extremely famous image, reminiscent of the girl in Vietnam fleeing the napalm attack. This image is prominently featured in Martin Gilbert's book on the Holocaust. Powerful. Antandrus (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I assume you mean Image:TrangBang.jpg. That image is amazing, why is it copyrighted? Surely it was taken by the US military and is therefor PD? Seems such a loss, it would be a great addition to historical FAs - Jack (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was not taken by a U.S. government employee. It was taken by a press photographer, IIRC, and is copyrighted. -- Moondigger 18:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nick Ut, AP. If it had been taken by an US soldier it would probably have ended in the trash can. Ericd 20:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Ericd 20:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-26 19:39
• Oppose edit. Leave it as it is ! What else ? darkening the blown-out highlights and what about a color version ? Ericd 20:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the original version. TomStar81 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I like the pic, but it is small. I will switch to Support if it can be rescanned to at least 1000px wide. --Billpg 23:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support illustrates portions of the the article well!--Pedit 21:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has only 7 edits, 6 of which are on FPC --Fir0002 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

• Support either, preference for Edit 1 (if it's given a meaningful filename!). The emotion reaches out and grabs you. --jjron 09:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • filename corrected

Promoted Image:Warsaw Ghetto Josef Bloesche-edit1.jpg Raven4x4x 05:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naadam Horse Race

File:Naadam horse race.jpg

This is an image of a child and his horse participating in the yearly Naadam festival in Mongolia. Naadam is a huge celebration of sporting events which draws participants from throughout the country. Part of the festival involves long-distance horse races across the steppes. The jockeys are children age 5-13. Death among the horses is not uncommon, as seen in the picture. This child is leading his horse past another horse which had died minutes earlier. This picture appears in the Naadam article, which I plan on greatly expanding in the near future.

PONIES!!!!!!!! XD!!!! (*o*)!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meatballofdeath (talk • contribs) 21:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this picture illustrates the major components of the Naadam horse races: 1) its location on the wide-open grasslands of the Mongolian steppes, 2) the young age of its participants, and 3) the danger involved to the participants

This is my first attempt at a featured picture - I have been reading the page for a month and this picture seems to be relevant, large enough, etc. I don't see any blown-out highlights or jpeg artifacts, but I must admit that I'm a novice! I have cropped the original to limit the amount of sky and to increase the size of the horse/rider. I can provide the original in any format requested. I also have less illustrative pictures (without the dead horse) which offer closer views of the riders, etc. if that is desired.

This picture was taken by me earlier this month and has been released into the public domain.

• Nominate and support. - InvictaHOG 01:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Although the clouds are blurred (suffering from JPEG artifacting) and the young jockey's face and some of the horse's body are unclear, the image is of great intrinsic value. The significance greatly outweighs the faults of the image quality. Images such as this will bring insight and provoke further research. -- AJ24 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand the jpeg artifacting thing, even after looking at the examples provided. Is it something which is related to the camera that I can't change or is there something that I can do with photoshop, etc. to make sure that the images I submit are of higher quality? InvictaHOG 02:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a compressing algorithm is usually at fault in cases such as this, but im not completely certain. You may want to consult one of the users with greater knowledge on image quality. However, I strongly believe and hope that the image will be accepted as-is. -- AJ24 02:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On certain cameras, there's a difference between "medium quality" and "high quality" compression - the latter typically takes twice as much space for a pretty small gain in quality. I'm presuming you're already shooting on highest possible resolution. Other than that, some programs like Photoshop have a "remove JPEG artefacts" de-noisifier which may work a bit. I don't see a huge problem in this image. Note that *every* JPEG image has "JPEG artefacts" - the only question is, how much of a problem are they. Stevage 11:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded another edit after reading more about jpeg artifacts on photoshop. Hopefully this has improved - I was able to fix the tilt, but was not able to recreate the brightened shadows as in edit #1. InvictaHOG 20:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Wonderful. HighInBC 02:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The original is tilted, I uploaded an edit which also brightens the shadows very slightly. --Dschwen 06:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose An amazing subject (made me want to read more about it), the picture quality really lets it down. --Fir0002 09:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Fir --Glaurung 14:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Extremely moving (the things humans make animals do is sometimes horrendous), however there are to many picture quality issues. I would probably support a similar photo of better quality. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The Subject is quite good though. I could not find the article this phot is in.--Pedit 03:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Though I am leaning towards support, the subject is not quite big enough, but it is a good picture. Viva La Vie Boheme 22:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Support edit 3 (my edit) with better focus on the subject. -Ravedave 00:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Display standards comparison

This image compares the most common display resolutions at real size. Note how all the resolutions with the same ratios have the same color. And those resolutions that have a standard are captioned with the name of it. Resolutions like 1280x960 which don't have a standard name—but are popular—are simply left with the resolution numbers only. I believe it meets all the criteria. Originally made by Pdurland and modified several times by TheMattrix. Available under the GNU license.

• Nominate and support. - Enano275 05:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak opposeWhilst its a brilliant idea and highly resolvable, I do not believe it is very clear to understand (yet). A few things that will probably help: aligning the ratios in a horizontal fashion so its clear what the diagonal lines are for, at the moment they seem, randomly positioned. I think it would be easier to read if the lines showing the screen sizes didn't have shadowing on them. The other small thing is 1280 by 960 doesn't have a code like the others, to an uninformed reader like myself I'm left asking why? can the diagram be adjusted to answer that question by adding a description like 'Popular Size'? With those few changes I'd happily support it. Nice work on the whole, great idea by the person who created it originally. IMHO. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 05:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with you in some point. I think that the ratios tags could be better aligned, but I don't see that preventing the image from being featured. I don't know what else could be placed in the 1280x960 oval, because there doesn't seem to be a standard for it, but it is quite a common resolution. As for the shadows, I don't find them obstructive, but let's see what others say, remember that I'm not the author, but if the image fails from minor things like these, I could make a request list for TheMattrix to change.--Enano275 06:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support. Excellent, amazing and clear. Illustrates all the common screen sizes well, including aspct ratios (very important), to scale. I'll be saving this image on my PC - always needed one of these. It's come a long way since its first incarnation and I believe it's thoroughly great. And informative and well thought out picture. Includes some of the less popular resolutions as well, from the very small videos (320x240), up to 1080i and beyond. Shadows are not a problem - they enhance it my making it look as if the resolutions are shown as different sized pieces of card (or flat screens) overlaid on each other. This is the first diagram I have voted on, and I'm giving it my all. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice idea but I find it a confusing mess of colors. The main problem is that the labels are much brighter and more prominent than the grid lines, when it should be the other way around. I actually think the first incarnation is superior (albeit not FP quality either, but it's at least readable). Redquark 13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why isn't this a SVG? If its an SVG then it can be very easily updated when new standards emerge. Also the chart is missing the WXGA on the HD720 tag, it is one of the most popular laptop sizes. -Ravedave 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it SVG because its 1:1 scale with the resolutions it represents. Its a unique diagramitcal situation with regards to format. Having a scalable version of this would eliminate it being to scale and thus hinder the purpose of the diagram. I agree with Redquark in saying the original incarnation was in many regards superior. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About WXGA, I think that the image only includes the "display resolutions" category, and according to the template in WXGA, that resolution would fall in the "widescreen variants" category, that's why it isn't included. Never mind, other widescreen resolution are included. As WikipedianProlific pointed out, a SVG would break the whole idea of it being "real-size". --Enano275 19:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, however I beleive the SVG source for the PNG should be available (as a seperate image linked form this one). -Ravedave 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• WikipedianProlific, you're wrong. Have any of you actually worked with SVGs? When you create an SVG, you must specify some sort of dimensions... you can specify them in pixels if you like. Just because you can resize the image without losing quality doesn't mean that you can't make the original the proper scale. ~MDD4696 14:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets for a moment analyse what you said. 'WikipedianProlific your wrong' well thats a pretty opinionated and personally aimed comment. How about "WikipedianProlific I disagree for the following reasons..." Please read

WP:FAITH. Now, that aside, when someone goes to full view an SVG they have to download it from WP. The benefit of this format is they don't have to download it. They can nativley view it in Internet Explorer or any other such browser at the appropriate size. Until IE supports SVG its generally accepted to avoid putting things like this into that format for obvious reasons. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 15:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not opinionated: you were wrong; that's fact. And yes, it was personally aimed, but so was your effort. Jono (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 1st time I have heard mention of SVG being avoided. Do you know of anyone else that shares your opinion? The user can still get the 800x600 larger view. -Ravedave 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't want to create the impression thats official policy. SVG is officially still the prefered format for block colour diagramatic pictures. But there are several of us users (graphic artists, illustrators and designers) who feel that until internet exporler nativley supports SVG without the need for a plugin that SVG formats should be avoided on diagrams like this which is being kept 'to scale'. It is my hope that the Vista release of net explorer will come with native support for SVG formats and that there will be very little place for raster diagrams in the future. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 18:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It is a fairly useful illustration, but come on, one of wikipedias best? I don't think so. It's just a few rectangles, how can that in any way compare with an illustration like the wasp below? --Dschwen 22:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support, it's elegant and usefull. It tells the viewer an entire article's worth in a single glance. The only thing I could imagine adding would be the years the standards were created (so we can see the progress). SVG isn't important because it is already huge. Well done. 00:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrokenSegue (talk • contribs)

Just a tiny remark. A picture being huge does not nullify the need for SVG in general. SVG resolution is infinite and it allows for easy translations.

• Thanks for fixing that for me and yes I understand the other advantages of svg. In reality, though, there isn't any translation needed for this image (I assume the standards have the same acronyms elsewhere) and I can't see someone wanting the image much bigger than it is already. BrokenSegue 02:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  New screen sizes come out every year. Having an SVG would make it easy to add them, that is the main reason I wanted it. -Ravedave 02:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose. I find it amazing that a user created it, but I also agree with Redquark's statements. -- AJ24 01:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very good diagram, but just not quite as good as some other diagrams. --Fir0002 09:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
  • Would it be possible to add the year that each standard came out?
  • I find the whole image a little bit artificial, as no one ever uses any of the terms XSGA, WSXGA, QXGA etc etc. Also, for example, CGA has two resolutions: 320x200 (pictured) and 640x200 (monochrome, bizarre, not pictured). Also, where is EGA (640x350 from memory)
  • There's also something distracting in the lines being used both to show the screen size and to connect the labels. For example it looks at first glance like SVGA and HD 720 are pointing to the 1280x720 position. It's not good that all the 4:3 labels have to cross the 5:4 line. Is it actually necessary to show the rectangle corresponding to each resolution? Perhaps you could just show the corner, like a backwards L shape? That would reduce the crossing problem.
  • Also, is there a reason why the purple lines (16:9) don't always have shadows?
  • I'm not sure what to make of the fact that the image is 1:1 to what it's describing (ie, it's 2560 pixels wide to describe "QXSGA"). Is that desirable? What would that be useful for? Probably an SVG (hence, not 1:1) would actually be more useful?
  • Definitely don't like the colours of the rectangles - it's just arbitrary which colour is used when they overlap. The rectangles (and their interior fill colours) should all be the same, or coloured some other way. Stevage 11:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bought a laptop lately? Resolution terms are almost always used to describe laptop screens. -Ravedave 13:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the set of comments, I will give these to the author so maybe the images is resubmitted.--Enano275 17:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Tells me everything I need to know in one concise diagram. I greatly appreciate the ratio lines, these are very useful. I wouldn't change a thing. Given that I see Wikipedia first and foremost as an informational tool, I support this graphic as a featured picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.188.92 (talk • contribs)
• Support Very useful to the article. --Pedit 03:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great picture. —Nightstallion (?) 09:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's a great diagram, but in smaller views (i.e., in the article), it is decidely unstriking. Even full size, it's informative but not aesthetically exceptional. Also, I would echo the calls for an SVG version to be provided in addition to the PNG.--ragesoss 14:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The request to have this in SVG format is strange at best--it seems to me to reflect a lack of understanding of the nature of the image. I see no problems with the diagram's readability; the data it presents is exceptionally clear, organized, and easily understood. Honestly, when I saw the the thumbnail, I wasn't particularly impressed; but upon viewing it in full it was obvious to me that this image is particularly well done. --Wickerprints 19:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very nice. --Golbez 23:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Informative, easy to interpret, and overall very well done. --Doctorcherokee 06:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unless there is an update to fix the above mentioned issues. Of course if the illustration was a SVG it would be fixed by now... -Ravedave 16:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very useful. Aren't we all confused by these display resolution jargon that these merchants throw at us? --Chochopk 08:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose yes it's very informative and was made by a wikipedian, but it isn't that special or "featured" worthy--Vircabutar 07:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{-}cyberhacker665 cool image

Versailles Chapel

I came across this image while browsing Wikipedia and, as many of these FPCs go, I was surprised it wasn't featured yet (probably because it's so new). So, I'm nominating it for it's size, detail, and overall impression. This picture is already a quality image on Wikimedia Commons; appears in Palace of Versailles, and Diliff created the image.

• Nominate and support. - Tewy 05:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Oh, and sorry about not being able to add the FPC template to the image's page, but I forgot how to do that when the image is on Commons. If someone knows how that would be great. Thanks --Tewy 05:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m all over it. TomStar81 09:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Impressive. Nice lighting (for a chapel), wonderful composition. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1 --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. Very nice, though I would have rather seen more of the mosiac on the roof - even if that meant sacrificing the pillars etc. --Fir0002 23:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A very nice image, though more of the mosaic would be nice, I like the pillars. Viva La Vie Boheme 02:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The most solid and worthy image to appear on this page in some time. I have attempted this same photo and I know how poor the lighting is. Quite an exceptional image and no doubt worthy of FP status -- Nilington 04:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The original. It seems rather bland to me, and I am looking at it on a glossy screen with an insane contrast ratio. mstroeck 15:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fir0002's edit, though. mstroeck 15:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit by Fir0002. Mikeo 17:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edited version. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 22:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The edited version is too saturated in the ceiling; does it really look like that when you're there? I don't know, but we seem to have gone from real life to movie set with this edit. Outriggr 05:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the age old question.. You're right, it didn't look like the second edit. The Chapel was brightly lit from the sides and the ceiling only received sparse reflected light. We went through a similar thing for another FPC image of mine here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree. Edits are nice to improve the look of a picture that didn't capture the image as best as it could, and I support them, but overdoing an edit can turn it to "movie set", as Outriggr said. --Tewy 17:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. Sharp, colourful, interesting, nicely centered, great work. Stevage 08:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Nicely framed, good colors, interesting subject. -Ravedave 18:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1Nnfolz 20:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 per Stevage. --Thelb⁴ 14:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Pinkstarmaci 05:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Versailles Chapel - July 2006 edit.jpg Raven4x4x 05:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayang Kulit Perfomance

Though small in size, this one-of-a-kind image is a "FP" - worthy image. Very interesting and unique!

• Nominate and support. - Vircabutar 08:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The image is grainy, the right side is blown out (especially at the top) probably due to catching part of lighting or the sun or someting while the left side is too dark to really see anything. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 08:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it just doesn't have enough context. Presumably we are looking at a puppet show? Unfortunately the cropping makes that hard to tell, and there's no sense of scale, or the details of the scene as a whole. Also, what is so "one-of-a-kind" about a performance at a museum? Sorry for my tone...Stevage 12:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Bad lighting, doesn't show the intricate detail of the puppets. —Keenan Pepper 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment to address stevage: yes, the image shows a wayang kulit performance, a traditional indonesian shadow puppet.

to address keenan pepper: it's impossible to capture the intricate detail of the puppets since it's a shadow puppet performance. --Vircabutar 04:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Intricate puppets cast intricate shadows, which we could see if the lighting were better. I've been to one of these things and they look really cool. This photo doesn't quite do it justice. —Keenan Pepper 04:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The image is too small and grainy. --Thelb⁴ 07:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Way too small, blurry, grainy. A higher resolution photo would show the details of the puppet's shadows better. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've seen a lot of wayang kulit and this just doen't do it justice. – Morganfitzp 00:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Just not significant enough to overcome its poor quality. --Tewy 07:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's rather boring looking.
  FireSpike 02:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Oppose grainy, and I utterly hate the top right. all I see when I look at it is the top right which is not the point of the photo Pinkstarmaci 04:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 08:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplex Scaling

Though a bit grainy, the image is very eye-catching and deserves a "FP" praise

• Nominate and support. - Vircabutar 08:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I like the display but on the negative side due to the way the light is hitting it along with the focus point being towards the top left the right side comes off as blurry and blown out. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 08:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For the record, this was a previously nominated image which failed. TomStar81 10:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've been playing piano for a long time, and I confess I can't make out from this image (or accompanying text - looked at both
  duplex scaling? Stevage 12:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per Stevage - not an especially good-quality image and not helping me (as a pianist of 15 years' experience) understand the concept of duplex scaling - but if someone does happen to know what that means, could they please write an article about it? This sounds like it could be ripe for a good diagram :-) --Yummifruitbat 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note there is some text on "duplex scaling" at Innovations in the piano. Strangely enough. Stevage 09:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. I have been a pianist for 5 years, but this does not help me in any way explain 'duplex scaling'. --Thelb⁴ 07:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per the pers above. And it's not the quality it could be. --Tewy 07:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 08:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Bullion

A small pile of Gold Bullion, something that I am sure we have all wished for at some point in our lives. Sadly, I do believe that this is as close to owning Bullion that I will ever come; however, that will not stop me from nominating it here in an effort to share it with other Wikipedians. This photo is from the commons, and is used on several pages here.

• Nominate and support. - -- TomStar81 08:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose image is copyrighted!--Vircabutar 08:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image is all rights released meaning that it can be used by anyone for any purpose, although it's not preferential it is in noways totally against the criteria. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 08:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The key thing to remember here is that the commons accepts freely licensed material only. As a general rule of thumb images from the commons are acceptably liscenced for FPC purposes here. TomStar81 08:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've learned not to implicitly accept things from commons as acceptably licensed for anything since like the system here the system for filtering out copyvios on commons isn't perfect and never will be. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 08:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing is ever perfect, which is why I used the word "general" in my commons comment. Life is like the english language: there are rules, and then there are acceptions to those rules. TomStar81 08:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's freely licenced, the objection is invalid. Stevage 12:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support So long as the copyright is valid. --Tewy 06:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support The background is distracting. --Thelb⁴ 08:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Horrible Vegas-style background. --Oldak Quill 01:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Works for me. --Fir0002 12:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose cheesy background and overall composition. – Morganfitzp 00:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good and illustrative. --GunnarRene 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 08:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrights Lake

Sierra Nevada

mountain range.

This appears in Wrights Lake. The image has great color, high resolution, and is of very high quality. It meets all the necessary licensing restrictions, and I am convinced it is one of Wikipedia's finest images.

• Nominate and support. - --Hetar 04:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral can't say I especially like the color shift but it's still a nice view, I'm still on the fence on this one. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 08:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Woodland dark and featureless, overall tone too blue, not interesting, and it needs clockwise rotation (look at the tree trunks on the left, on the biggest picture)- Adrian Pingstone
• Neutral I created this image and feel like many of my other works are much better...no detail in the trees...blue color caste...I just uploaded it because it was the only image i had of that lake...see my other photos - Phreakdigital 18:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Adrian Pingstone. —Keenan Pepper 20:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. --Thelb⁴ 08:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per above, as well as the fact that it's not nearly the resolution nor sharpness of some other panoramas/FPs. --Tewy 07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 08:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Hood

Here is a picture of Mt. Hood that I took from the Mt. Hood highway, I think it would make someone want to learn more about Mt. Hood and the cascade range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Hood

• Nominate and support. - Kkmd 15:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Due to quality. Grainy in some regions. Mikeo 17:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice but grainy and not that sharp. According to the EXIF datas it was taken at 1/160s at f/22. Obviously the exposure has been fooled by the white snow. According to the sunny f/16 rule this should be 1/100s at f/16. f/22 is also a mistake as it's not optimal for sharpness. Try to shoot it again by sunny weather with f/6.3 at 1/500s . Ericd 20:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Good composition, but poor quality; grainy. There is also already a very nice picture of Mt. Hood (seen here, in my gallery.) If it were better quality, It would be worth having two pictures. Viva La Vie Boheme
• Oppose Nice but grainy and thus not a good example of Wikipedia's best pictures. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 08:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - poor composition, it totally looks like someone was driving along, stopped, and took a snapshot. The positioning from the right emergency lane tends to support that hypothesis. Would be much more attractive with a lake, river, or even countryside in the foreground, rather than a highway with electricity poles. :) Stevage 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per Viva La Vie Boheme; Image:MtHood TrilliumLake.jpg is a much better picture. It would be unjust to have too many photos of something not particually that significant to a worldwide audience - Jack (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. --Thelb⁴ 08:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am not keen on the foreground --Newton2 12:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Sorry but the road in the foreground is distracting & takes focus away from the mountain. Jam01 09:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per the comments above. I like looking at it though. – Morganfitzp 00:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too grainy, and the road is a bit distracting (per Stevage). --Tewy 08:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- not that it matters at this point, but this is a great picture --T-rex 03:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- The road is too distracting and does not fit in with he rest of the picture. Besides that, it's a great photo. Try cropping it. --Jake 19:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 08:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dance fly Empis livida

This image shows an about 0.35 inch (9 mm) long dance fly of the species Empis livida. It's a male. The animal sat at my white-painted balcony balustrade for a few seconds.

• Self-Nominate and no vote. - Aka 14:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That is absolutely awesome, and it has been identified! That must be hard with over 3000 species in a family. Great work, I'm looking forward to future contributions. --liquidGhoul 14:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Woops, I didn't recognise your name. You have taken some of my favourite photos of Wikipedia. :) --liquidGhoul 15:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Agreee, awsome. -Ravedave 15:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High quality. Illustrative. Very interesting. - The ideal featured picture! Mikeo 17:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, amazing. —Keenan Pepper 20:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice pic.Nnfolz 20:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I would prefer a greater DOF, but this is a very insignificant complaint. Stunning photo, exemplifies the best that Wiki has to offer. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent.
  sikander 21:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Stunning, and highly encyclopaedic. --Yummifruitbat 21:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...although on a second viewing, it would be nice if the dark area in the background of the right hand side could be made properly white. --Yummifruitbat 21:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the darker area from the backround just several minutes ago (without compromising the quality of the picture). --
      -Majestic- 10:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Comment This I do not understand. I don't want to sound like someone whining, but how is it that when I nominated an image with a white bg (
  Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Huntsman spider), people thought the white background was not a good idea. Is it because mine lacked a shadow? I would appreciate any feedback as it would help me with future composition. --Fir0002 22:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Probably because it doesn't look like this was cut out from another background; the inclusion of the shadow makes it looks more real. Also, with such a small subject, any background will be very blurred, so it doesn't matter what is behind it, it would only be distracting. --liquidGhoul 22:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A photgrapher of your caliber should be able see the main difference between the two: shadows. Yours lacked any shadow making the picture look unnatural. Compare also the snail that is an FP, that also does not look like it is randomly floating. -Ravedave
• I have no problem with white backgrounds for images such as this, and I loved the detail in your spider photo, Fir, but the lack of shadows in your shot really looked very strange. Hopefully you'll spot another opportunity soon enough, and be able to produce a more 'realistic' looking shot with the appropriate shadows. Good luck! --Yummifruitbat 23:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This insect looks like it's in real space. Fir, your edits makes the subject look like it was cut out of a magazine. ~MDD4696 01:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright thanks, everyone, I see now that the shadow is the difference. But I think a lot of you are missing that this is not one of "my edits" but what the photo came out as. I did not cut that picture out as I pointed out in the original nom. Anyway thanks, --Fir0002 05:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. How did you manage to have it hold still long enough to focus and frame the shot? --Dschwen 06:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Brilliant. Superb. Awesome. --Thelb⁴ 07:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice work. --jjron 10:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sensational work as usual Aka! --Fir0002 12:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It is a perfect image. It almost looks to perfect, but I like that ;) Viva La Vie Boheme
• Strong support - Wow, what a shot. Good work. Support due to high image quality and encyclopedic content. HighInBC 20:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. It's good.

  ...too good. --Tewy 07:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:FILENAME.JPG --Fir0002 08:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC) OK, so this is admittedly an unconventional candidate nomination since I am not nominating a single picture, but here goes anyway. I have lived in Armenia for a number of years and have a number of pictures I think would be cool to feature, but the thing is, as I read the comments for the pictures nominated above, I can see that some of the more educated pedians take into account things I've never heard of. So I thought I'd post a list of some of my favorites, which are already on my own wiki - and ask if some of you could tell me which are your top 2 choices (if any). I would have done this on the talk page - only there isn't one... so anyway, here is the list of pics. If it seems one or two are well liked, I can upload them and make sure the WP page is decent as well. If this is all just too unconventional, I guess this nomination can be deleted... --RaffiKojian 10:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Noravank-DCP_0186.JPG
• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Yereruyk_church-dcp8520.jpg
• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Marmashen_monastery_afar-dcp4411.jpg
• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Saghmosavank-P1002025.JPG
• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Smbataberd-DCP_1708.JPG
• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Smbataberd_fortressside-dcp1578.jpg
• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Ughtasar_petroglyphs-dcp6263.jpg
• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Sanahin-DCP_1489.JPG
• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Sanahin_monastery_frombell-dcp4513.jpg
• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Goshavank_entire-dcp2446.jpg
• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Goshavank-P1005117.JPG
• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Tatev_monastery_complex-dcp3723.jpg
• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Haghpat-DCP_1410.JPG
• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Haghartsin_snow-dcp8159.jpg
• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Haghartsin_across-dcp2517.jpg
• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Kirants_monastery_flowers-dcp4586.jpg
• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Aruj_cathedral-dcp0804.jpg
• http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Khorvirap_ararat-dcp0556l.jpg

Canon 85mm f/1.8

A good technical image, something I believe Wikipedia needs more of. Although I probably could have used a polarizer to remove the burnt areas, I personally rather like the lighting as it is.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 12:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, this is just an "ad shot" - not material for a FP. IMHO. --Janke | Talk 17:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... Is it not pleasing to the eye? Or is it not of Wikipedia's best work? I'm just struggling to see how it fails

WP:WIAFP for being an "ad shot". Of course if it's just a personal dislike of that type of shot I can understand that too. --Fir0002 21:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

If that is the case then it's not really a valid objection, if it's something about the image or how it related to the article on it then it would be. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 23:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to clarify: IMO, FPCs need some kind of a "wow-factor" for me to support them. This is quite an OK shot as such, but rather mundane - similar can be found in most manuals and ads. This is just a picture of a lens (with some dust on it... ;-) So, I don't think it is WP's "best work" - you need something more to make it that. --Janke | Talk 05:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although i'm probably sticking my nose where it doesn't belong by saying this i have to point out that the picture does a great job illustrating a phtographic lens and with a good caption (like the one on the

Photographic lens article) it can really add a lot to the article. I agree with you that it's not a jaw-droping picture, but remember: that is not a requierement for FP. Still, the encyclopedic value far out-weights any wow factor needed.Nnfolz 14:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support Good informational shot considering the subject. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 23:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent image -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-03 01:48
• Oppose. Just doesn't do it for me. Aside from that, you could have done a better job cleaning that lens before you shot it. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice shot Fir!Nnfolz 05:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose i personally don't like it--Vircabutar 07:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with Janke -- Froggydarb ^croak 10:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support - not really "striking" but a whole different find of FP. Renata 10:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think I've mentioned this somewhere on commons, but I see one of these images is up for FPC right now, and it seems relevant (WP:WIAFP 4 and 9)... In regards to the image description page, there is a template with the message "If you are a (commercial) publisher and you want me to write you an email or paper mail giving you an authorization to use my works in your products or a license with the terms of your choice, please email me to negotiate terms." This seems to be a bit in conflict with the GFDL tag it has. It also contains a link to a website that offers paid services.. that just doesn't sit well with me. -- Ned Scott 10:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate your concerns, but I based that comment off Gmaxwell's commons page. It's actually not conflicting with the GFDL at all. What it is saying, is that under the terms of the GFDL and commercial publisher needs to include an entire copy of the GFDL with the publication. Not many publishers want to do this, so hence I offer to grant a more liberal permission. Another prominant user (Aka) has adopted the same basic template after seeing it on one of my images. If this has not allayed your worries, please contact me on my talk page and I can give you a more detailed/specific response --Fir0002 12:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's nothing wrong with making it clear that you MIGHT be willing to grant a more limited/liberal license in a specific set of circumstances. I've said just as much on my user page, albeit I don't have that info on each photo. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, that does make sense then. This also warrants your contact info, so I'm going to assume good faith. Thanks for clearing that up for me. -- Ned Scott 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose The shot is good technically but I don't think it should be a FP --Newton2 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The ad-shot argument has been uses previously to shoot down nominations. If this nomination would be technically perfect i might give it a weak support, but the stark glare on the lens (reflection of the light source) is a knock out for me. You won't find that in professional ad-shots, because it hides details of the product. Lighting must be much softer.

--Dschwen 16:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Question why is this picture a better illustration that the picture of the Nikon lens that is currently featured ? Ericd 16:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect this is not a valid argument. For a picture to be featured it doesn't have to be that another.Nnfolz 20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A featured picture should:

(...)

5. Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not.

(...)"

If you prefer : Does it add more value to an article that the picture of the Nikon lens that is currently featured ?

Or help complete readers' understanding of an article in a way that the picture of the Nikon lens does not ?

Ericd 23:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, your totally right technically on that point, but think about this: can an article have 2 FP? What if an article with a Fp gets another FP wich 'adds a lot more' to the article? should the other be delisted? Nnfolz 05:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO an article can have several FP. Ericd 07:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right; there's never been a limitation on the number of featured pictures an article can contain. We judge each picture on its contribution to the article, not on the other pictures in the article. Raven4x4x 10:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what's the use of two pictures of similar lenses ? A very different lens would add more to the article ? Ericd 16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Agree with Dschwen. Mikeo 19:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. curious perpective. Darkone 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to glare. HighInBC 21:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support The specs of dust and glare are the only problems. --Tewy 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dschwen and Dante Alighieri. --Yummifruitbat 12:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per User:HighInBC --Jam01 23:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Some specks of dust could perhaps have been removed? Otherwise very good. --GunnarRene 21:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Canon 85mm prime.jpg Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This closing was deemed not in line with consensus, and is accordingly revoked. The result is deemed Not Promoted. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipe-tan

moé anthropomorphization of Wikipedia

.

One of our mascot characters, our adorable Wikipe-tan :) Drawn by

Moé anthropomorphism

page.

Result: Promoted Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. -
  _dk 02:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I second and happily support. She's so adorable! n.n<3 ~Kylu (u|t) 02:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Featured content should not be self-referential. Outriggr 03:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The criteria does not forbid self-referential material.
    _dk 03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I think this is implicit. I recently saw a discussion somewhere about how the article "Wikipedia" could not fairly be a featured article on the front page. I believe similar values should apply to featured pictures. Outriggr 04:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is a featured article though. If you follow that reasoning, this should be made a featured picture, but it should never appear on the front page. —Keenan Pepper 04:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. And since all FP's eventually appear on the front page..... Outriggr 05:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wrong. All FP's don't necessarily need to appear on the front page, just as all FA's don't. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-02 19:23
            • Brian, you'll have to excuse me if I'm incorrect, but my statement was based on "Featured images are currently selected in the order they were promoted. See the featured pictures candidates archive for this order.", from the Picture of the Day page. Outriggr 21:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • How does that imply that all FP's should be on the main page? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-06 15:59
              • Ironically she's on the
                Main page right now, unrelated to this FPC. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
                ]
          • See my comment below about how her value is more than her Wiki name and theme. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:FAR. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • Interesting, but besides the point. -- Ned Scott 09:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oooh, this is a tricky one. She is adorable, and the image satisfies all the FP criteria except possibly #5 (adding value to an article). It does appear on
  SVG version.) —Keenan Pepper 03:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support nice illustration and fits most if not all of the criteria. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's very hard to find quality free license anime images, and often time such articles are forced to make a fair use claim. Thus her worth is more than just being a -tan for Wikipedia. With this in mind I think I'll look for some more appropriate articles for her to show up on, as I'm a bit surprised to see she's only on 2 actual articles right now. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Doesn't matter that it shows wikipedia. This is one of the VERY few examples of anime art in wikipedia that is not fair use. It also illustrates the very wierd concept of
  Moé anthropomorphism well. -Ravedave 05:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Hah I didn't notice Ned Scott's entry I was thinking in exactly the same line. -Ravedave 05:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Don't really find it that spectacular. Image suffers from a lack of antialiasing. Also I personally hate that kind of cartoon - they're degrading good old Bugs bunny and the like! (Eyebrows ontop of the hair! :-) --Fir0002 12:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing the image because you hate anime is just.. flawed. This isn't about your personal tastes here. The image suffices for all the criteria on

Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?. There are featured articles on subjects that I roll my eyes at, but that doesn't change the fact that the article itself is well written, has references, and everything else required to be a featured article. It's the same issue here, it's not about whether or not you like the art style or like the culture. -- Ned Scott 13:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

No I'm not opposing for that reason I simply added that as an extra part to my comment. I'm opposing because I don't find it a spectacular example of cartoons/anime and I think the image should have had antialiasing applied (note the jagged lines on the legs etc) --Fir0002 21:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I support the pic, Fir0002 has a right to disagree based on taste. See criteria #7 "Be pleasing to the eye." FP is and always will be subjective. -Ravedave 21:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I don't understand why it would have to be a "spectacular example" for anime. I always figured "impressive yet neutral" was more the Wikipedia way. -- Ned Scott 23:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You saying this images degrades "Bugs Bunny and the like" is extremely ignorant. You are obviously unfamiliar with the subject matter this illustrates, as if you'd watched some anime that isn't Pokemon or DragonBall Z, you'd know that many manga/anime artists draw eyebrows on top of the hair. Even if you were being tongue-in-cheek, it has no place here, and does not justify your oppose vote. - Phorque 08:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec, I know such comments can be frustrating for us anime fans, but I already made the mistake of snapping back at this comment (and for that, I apologies). You can see from Fir0002's comments that he has additional concerns besides that, and as Ravedave pointed out, he does have a right to oppose. -- Ned Scott 08:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not up to the standards of commercial anime/manga. The character design and pose are basic, and the hands in particular stand out as poorly drawn. I don't think I agree with the notion of promoting a second-rate image just because it's one of the only ones under a free license. Redquark 14:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very much disagree with this assertion. Anime style and quality has a huge range on the commercial market, being "simple" does not make something low quality in the anime world. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not horrible, but I know fanart when I see it. I'll bet the artist isn't able to draw characters in anything other than a 3/4 view. Redquark 13:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I didn't list her under

_dk 08:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

OK. How much do you bet, Redquark? --Kasuga 12:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I looked at the guy's work a little beforehand to see if I was claiming something false but managed to miss that one. Still, OK, sure you countered what I specifically said, but not the underlying point. Show me the character in a funny position with foreshortening and then I'll concede the artist has more ability than I thought. Redquark 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you use roundabout words like "the guy" and "the artist"? Though I am the artist himself. --Kasuga 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is a fullbody portrait, typical for portraying a character's attitude and dress.--Spyderchan 00:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - not high quality, does not add substantially to or help understanding of the article, self reference BigDT 19:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above, there's nothing wrong with self referential material. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 23:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be one of those users who just "has to" address every opposing comment, but I really don't understand how you can say that she doesn't help in articles such as

moé anthropomorphization. These totally visual concepts, and if you look, she's the only free use image we have for these articles. She's a perfect example of "typical anime", just as much if not more than the fair use examples that are also used. With this logic, Wikipe-tan and similar images do substantially add to an understanding of what anime looks like. I really don't see how anyone can make the argument that she doesn't show you what anime (or moé anthropomorphization) looks like, or that images aren't needed for these articles. -- Ned Scott 23:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Just because they are not explicitly prohibited doesn't mean there is "nothing wrong" with them. Featured pictures are supposed to showcase the best we have to offer ... and a self-referential picture is not it. BigDT 00:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this does get promoted, I do not think the POTD caption has to be a self-reference and mention anything about it being a moé anthropomorphism of Wikipedia, or it being a mascot of a WikiProject. It can just basically say it is an example of anime. Otherwise, there will be most likely be complaints posted on Talk:Main Page, etc. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/question In response to the "jagged lines" on Wikipie-tan when you see her at full size: in the case that Kasuga isn't able to provide a version that fixes that, couldn't we just scale the image down slightly and still meet requirement number 2 (which says "images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported")? Her image is large enough to do this, and it really wouldn't "sacrifice" anything. -- Ned Scott 00:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cute, free, and Wikipedia in one -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like it.Nnfolz 05:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Thygard. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 06:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite a good cartoon. Free use, even better. Large enough so that full-size pixelation doesn't matter. Self-reference no problem, a good example of an anime character. --Janke | Talk 06:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Ned Scott. —pfahlstrom 07:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose--Vircabutar 07:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm pretty sure this isn't a vote.. so maybe you'd like to actually say why you oppose? -- Ned Scott 08:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't fool yourself. It's a vote. Same with RFA, AFD, etc. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-03 14:39

  Wrong. It's not a vote, and neither is AFD. Quote The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. --69.204.179.124 17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, you're fooling yourself. You can quote anything you want; that doesn't change reality. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-06 16:01

• Support - I'm surprising myself here, but, really, this is a perfect illustration of a pretty bizarre concept. The fact that it's a Wikipedia anthropomorphisation detracts slightly for me, but not badly so. Stevage 10:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support. If the 'jaggies' can be fixed, I'll support. Otherwise, it's an oppose. I'm not bothered by the self-referential nature, because it illustrates moé very well, even without knowing that the image is an anthropomorphism (homomorphism, gynomorphism?) of the 'pedia. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good, free image, and it certainly contributes to wikipedia as a whole if not any specific article. Besides, she's cute. --
  tjstrf 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• oppose - I dunno, maybe I just have a case of Anthropomorphobia but this seems kinda dull. I don't get why she's dressed up as a maid. And I have to agree with some of the others that some areas are not especially well drawn. Is she sticking out her tounge? --Henry A-W 20:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See

Fanservice (and look, she's there too :D). Not sure what you mean about the tongue, the way the mouth is drawn is pretty typical for any animation, not just anime. -- Ned Scott 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Ultra Support. I've always wanted to see an anime-related thing on the front page. She's a great character, and this certainly meets the
  featured picture specifications. Heck, I may even make this image into a T-shirt. It would make a good conversation enhancer. Now all that's left is to make her official mascot of Wikipedia. :P --Ppk01 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. High-quality, user-created exemplar. --Oldak Quill 23:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just thought I'd point out that this image is currently on the Main Page accompanying some text in the "Did you know..." section! -- Ned Scott 23:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they changed it to a cropped version of her (they must have wanted to see her better :D), but none the less, same image Image:Wikipe-tan cropped.png -- Ned Scott 04:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the caption on DYK never ever mentioned the name "Wikipedia".[10] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the alt text on the image of that DYK read "The moé anthropomorphism of Wikipedia".

_dk 10:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Which just goes to prove our point in that she is not always a self-reference, depending on context. In the context of her being an example of

moé anthropomorphization, Anime, or Fan service, just to name a few, would not require the mentioning of the word "Wikipedia" at all. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose: forget the artwork, where's the encyclopedic content? The image needs an extended caption describing in what ways it is meant to be an accurate representative of *-tans. This is especially important because it wasn't found "in the wild", as it were. Melchoir 23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An easy fix, but she's currently protected because she's on the main page, so it might be a little bit before that can be fixed. -- Ned Scott 23:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, hmm. Well, as long as people are watching, can't we (and by "we" I mean other people) hash out a description on this page? Melchoir 23:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She's back open, but anyways I have a question. There's a few images of Wikipe-tan, and she has a Wikipedia namespace page at Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan that seems to have the additional write up you are requesting. Would be pointing to this page be enough, or should I just cut and paste? Since there's more than one Wikipe image, wouldn't it be better to have an over-all page with the write up instead of repeating it on each image? Not that it would really be a big deal or anything, either way. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On that page the only encyclopedic information is about her name: "The "-tan" in her name is a hypocoristic suffix, in the form of a Japanese title." It says nothing about the image itself. And even though it's no longer protected, Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png is still devoid of content. Melchoir 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. See my comments below, hopefully that is more of what you are thinking? -- Ned Scott 08:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the comments of many, specifically that it isn't the best representation of anime we can have. Morgan695 01:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But she's also a representation on

moé anthropomorphization and fan service. Even if your personal opinion is that she doesn't reflect average anime, she's still a hell of a good example for moé anthropomorphization. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

She is an example of cell shading, an important feature of anime. She also displays many features non-anime watchers and non-manga readers attribute to the medium (large eyes, childish nature, etc.)--Spyderchan 00:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very nice.--Generalnonsensecomic 01:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support She was specially created for the Wikipedia --Taichi 04:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Picture isn't particularly eye-catching or amazing, but being the best free image we have for lots of situations, it's pretty good. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support She's Wikipe-tan, that's enough. L-Zwei 05:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um actually that's not. --Fir0002 06:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he was serious ;) -- Ned Scott 06:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support - Like many have said, this meets the criteria. Wikipe-tan is a well loved character and I would like to see her as a featured picture. Calicore 06:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I'm not sure exactly how to go about judging these "cartoons". I weak support it because it meets criteria, but I don't know how encyclopedic it is. It reminds me a lot of Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Pirate. --Tewy 06:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Creepy as hell, but the perfect example. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I love it! KAWAII. OMFG KAWAII ^____^ <3 :3 ^_^;;;;;; -=insert other fangirl sterotype here=-— Deckiller 07:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Some have said that she isn't a very good anime drawing, and perhaps that is the case, but she does demonstrate
  Moé anthropomorphism very well. —Cuiviénen 08:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support I find that I agree with the nom and most supports above and do not find most people's oppositions because of taste/opinion of the drawing style at all relevant. Anime/manga has a HUGE range of quality/styles, why should she reflect only your personal taste? Other criticisms such as the need for anti-aliasing etc, are easily addressed if it really holds this back from being FP. On a side note: I don't really think "OMFG KAWAII!!!^___^<3" is a reason to support, but hey. - Phorque 08:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem we'll actually need to "fix" the anti-aliasing issue. Even without Dante Alighieri's conditional support, she's sitting at 73% support.

Considering the size of the image, we could just scale her down and re-upload and she's still be huge and wouldn't have the aliasing issue. However, that seems a bit silly to me, because if we just keep her file the same but scale the image via the browser it will make the exact same effect, and preserve more of the image's quality. I doubt she'll ever be used at "full size", and thus it's not really an issue.. Like I said, any downscaling or filtering would actually reduce the over-all quality preserved and not really change what you see on articles. -- Ned Scott 09:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because more people aren't holding "hostage" their support votes, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to NOT fix the aliasing. Anyone who wants to use the image in print (or on, say, a t-shirt) will appreciate the highest fidelity image possible. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Please fix it. —Keenan Pepper 19:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, did you not read what I said? A "fix" would most likely be decreasing quality, via a filter or scaling the image down. -- Ned Scott 01:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there's more than one way to skin a cat. It sounds like your method of fixing it is a bust... are there truly NO other ways of fixing it? Such as (perhaps) asking the author to do something about it, going back to the original source? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a png. Image:Wikipe-tan_frontview.png Kasuga did a very nice job on this one. I like it better than the one nominated. --Kunzite 04:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Could the image be converted to an SVG? --Oldak Quill 11:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From ja:利用者‐会話:Kasuga#Image:Wikipe-tan.jpg, Kasuga, the creator, writes "Regrettably, I can't offer SVG version, because I drew it in raster format." -- Ned Scott 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Our very own -tan, and a very well done example of moe goodness. Kyaa the Catlord 13:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — I think it's important for Wikipedia to diversify its featured pictures, and this image displays numerous Anime subgenres extremely well. Moreover, it encourages our image policies and is also very nicely done. — Deckiller 17:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, excellently drawn. -
  Mailer Diablo 23:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per all above. Excellent choice. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 00:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — It's great!
  FireSpike 02:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, excellent image! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't see it as a good representation of Wikipedia. Cuteness is emphasized but it doesn't fit Wikipedia imho. And the image page is still devoid of explanations. --
  Bernard 03:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It's not about her being a representation of Wikipedia, it's about her being a representation of

moé anthropomorphization, anime, OS-tan, or Fan service. Also, I asked before and have yet to get a response on the image description page (I've noticed other FP pages with little to no extra-write-up, btw). That is, since she has more than one image and we'd basically be repeating ourselves, is the page Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan considered this extra write-up, or do we actually have to cut and paste it into the individual images, such as the one being nominated here? If so, no problem, it will take less than a minute. -- Ned Scott 07:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Err, correction, I guess I did receive a response but missed it. -- Ned Scott 08:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An anthropomorphization of Wikipedia is supposed to personify Wikipedia. This image doesn't do a very good job of that, so it isn't a very good example of an anthropomorphization.

• Support, Wikipedia, nice picture, and anime all in one. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Update I've added some additional text to the image description page, as requested. I'm not sure if this is what others had in mind, but I tried to cover as much as I could with the current info available. Does this suffice? -- Ned Scott 08:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipe-tan, drawn by moé qualities are given to non-human beings, objects, concepts, or phenomena; the subject of which often becomes a bishōjo. Wikipe-tan is shown here in a kind of cosplay of a maid . She is seen with two of the Wikipedia logo puzzle pieces as hair ties, with a third piece decorating the front of her maid outfit. Like many moé characters in anime, Wikipe-tan appears to be a young girl. In June 2006, this particular image surfaced as a mascot sample for the English Wikipedia's Wikiproject Anime and Manga, after the previous mascot (a fan-art image of the title character from Midori Days ) was removed from the commons due to copyright problems.

Do we really need the "born" - it's just sounds so tacky! Otherwise pretty good. --Fir0002 09:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I've changed it to say "first appeared" instead. -- Ned Scott 09:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx, much better --Fir0002 10:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Pretty high quality drawing. I don't think it HAS to be world-class to be featured. There are plenty of photos that are hardly world-class that are featured just because of the value that they bring, and I think this image does too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, if only to ensure that we don't make it seem like she's got some kind of official status with the project. I could very easily see someone misinterpreting her as being an officially endorsed representation of wikipedia. I'm looking at "the moé anthropomorphization of Wikipedia" here, which implies she's the proper one, and a drawing of, say, an adult, is incorrect. That kind of statement is against NPOV. Also, she makes me feel like a pedophile for looking at her. She's sexualized but has the body and face of a ten year old. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is she "sexualized"? She doesn't have breasts, or even lips! —Keenan Pepper 17:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. One would have to have a maid fetish for Wikipe-tan to be "sexualized" in these images, IMO. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the "body of a 10-year-old" comment. On the other hand, she's posed in a maid costume (a typical sexual outfit) and she's even cited as an example multiple times in the cosplay section of

fanservice, a subsection of sexual (since it's usually about indulging a cosplay fetish). The image on lolicon is bad enough, we don't need a featured picture of a 10-year-old drawn to be sexy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You must have some very weird sexual tastes if you think that a 10-year old with no breasts, no hourglass-shape, no lips, and no real skin showing at all is "sexy." — Dark Shikari;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ^talk/_contribs 19:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"drawn to be sexy" != "sexy to me" Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, this statement: "the moé anthropomorphization of Wikipedia", can be easily fixed. And that I did, look again. And, she's drawn to be cute, not sexy; you think too much.

_dk 00:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Fan service is about giving fans what they want, which is not always sex! Some fans get their kicks from seeing cute things, and don't get a hard-on in the process. -- Ned Scott 09:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose. While the image was created by a fellow Wikipedian, I strongly believe there are many images that could better represent the topic. But thats simply my opinion with FPC in mind, I personally just dont like it. -- AJ24 01:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What GFDL image do you suggest could represent the topic? Firefox-ko/Moezilla, OS-tan, and so on are all most definitely not GFDL. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the wide range of styles of anime and so on, I fail to see this view of "better". -- Ned Scott 05:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its purpose is not to illustrate "anime". I thought that after reading all the above comments you would know this. Its purpose is to illustrate

moé anthropomorphism, of which it is an absolutely perfect example. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 08:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, her purpose is to be cute. We use her on more than one article.. so.. you seem to be a bit confused here.. She IS an example of anime, used on Anime. I've been reading all the comments, and this has been mentioned a few times.. She's also on Meido (was gonna put her on maid, but then saw that a more specific article had been created) and fan service. -- Ned Scott 09:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Ned, I've brought up that she is not an example of anime. Of course we can use her in more than one article, but for the purpose of this FP nom...*EVERYONE PLEASE NOTE* This nom is about using the picture on

_dk 09:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose: Not that special/great. Also, the self-referrential thing makes me rather uncomfortable. --Hetar 05:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too self-referential for my blood -- Samir धर्म 09:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good example of a phenomenon that's becoming fairly commonplace in Japanese and anime-related Internet circles. -Seventh Holy Scripture 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on self-reference Ok, this whole self-reference thing just seems to totally miss the point, so I took another look at
  WP:SELF
  , and look what I found:

"Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important. If you read about Shakespeare's works, you are not interested in reading about Wikipedia's policies or conventions. If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia."

Avoid self references is far more about how you write an article and making sure you don't confuse the reader, or use an example that won't make sense if the text is reprinted under a different "brand", etc. Wikipe-tan's examples are none of these. WP:SELF is not about ignoring the existence of Wikipedia. Many times screenshots of Wikipedia are used for articles on Web browsers, such as Safari (web browser), but I wouldn't call that a self-reference issue. Wikipe-tan is less of a self-reference than an example such as that.

In addition, Wikipe-tan is used on other articles which do not require the mentioning of Wikipeida at all. She's an example of the style of anime artwork, the cosplay maid theme, and probably more that I haven't thought up of yet. -- Ned Scott 09:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments noted, but I haven't missed the point, as you suggest. Wasn't quoting policy; I just believe that we should be choosing featured pictures that aren't based around the theme of Wikipedia. -- Samir धर्म 09:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why? The reason we avoid self references is "they are inappropriate in articles for two reasons. The first is that self-references are often considered disruptive in an encyclopedia because they distract from the topic at hand. A secondary concern is that self-references limit the use of Wikipedia as an open source encyclopedia suitable for forking, as permitted by our license."

Something being inspired by Wikipedia is a totally different issue. She's a little girl in a maid outfit with puzzle pieces in her hair, in the world of anime I would not be surprised at something like that happening at random. This is simply not an issue. -- Ned Scott 09:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Wikipe-tan is being challenged for inclusion at all as a self-reference violation, see: Talk:Fan service#Moved from WP:ANI -- Ned Scott 10:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support.
  moé anthropomorphization and OS-tan. But the abstract above seems too self-referential. How about this:--GunnarRene 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A moé" characters are those designed to elicit a protective or loving response from the audience. Moé anthropomorphism is a form of anthropomorphism where moé qualities are given to non-human beings, objects, concepts, or phenomena. Like many moé characters, Wikipe-tan appears to be a cute young girl . Image credit: Kasuga

• • Comment Cuteness is POV. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • POV isn't a bad thing on Wikipedia. NPOV does not stand for no point of view, it stands for neutral point of view. Considering being cute is a part of the example, it would seem that being cute for this image is appropriate. -- Ned Scott 18:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, wait. I change it:

A moé" characters are those designed to elicit a protective or loving response from the audience. Moé anthropomorphism is a form of anthropomorphism where moé qualities are given to non-human beings, objects, concepts, or phenomena. Like many moé characters, Wikipe-tan is designed to be a cute young girl . Image credit: Kasuga

--GunnarRene 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. While some may disagree, I like her and, while I am no artist myself, I see no problems with drawing quality or style. At least one person has brought up that it is not "of commercial quality" - well, the images aren't commercial which is precisely why they are valuable since they are GDFL and commercial images are not. I could also find "commercial" images of lower quality with little effort. Shiroi Hane 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a quality image, and useful. Shame about the raster format, but that's not enough reason to object. Jkelly 16:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wikipe-tan may not be the highest quality anime out there, but she's such a cute mascot and I think it will draw readers in. --Marumari 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a mascot vote/discussion. That is here: Wikipedia mascot --GunnarRene 19:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe he was talking about point 7 when he says it will draw readers in: "Be pleasing to the eye. .... The picture should make a reader want to know more."? -- Ned Scott 19:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see.--GunnarRene 19:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Does not in any way enhance my understanding of
  moé anthropomorphism. MUSICAL 01:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If you mean "understand" as in "why do people come up with this", then no. If you mean "understand" as in "what is

moé anthropomorphism. Are there any free (as in liber) images of equal or higher quality that do that?--GunnarRene 01:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Probably the most well-known example of

moé anthropomorphism can and often does apply to all sorts of inanimate objects and concepts. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The moé anthro.-article allready did say that, except that it also includes animate non-humans. No update needed. I said "common household or transportation object" because I'm envisioning a situation where Wikipedia content is used in printed form or on a

$100 laptop in the countryside of Sierra Leone. If the content appears under a different brand than "Wikipedia", then Wikipe-tan might be a less suitable anthro. than, for example, an anthro. of a bicycle, book or laptop because it's an object that the reader is familiar with. On the other hand, the only guaranteed common denominator of readers is that they read (bicycles might be less common in mountain villages for example), and for non-blind readers an image of an anthro. of "text" or "an encyclopedia" would be a good object for anthro. Hence, Wikipe-tan.--GunnarRene 14:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

A grapefruit might make a good definition of "grapefruit", but it wouldn't make a good definition of "fruit" or "yellow". I mean understand as in "what is

moé anthropomorphism in the first place. MUSICAL 02:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Moé anthropomorphism is the act of drawing something as an anime-looking girl, essentially. And you're looking at one of Wikipedia, what do you think you are missing?

_dk 03:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You mean that it doesn't show any other characteristic than being "A cute girl"? The character is an anthropomorphization. Some images that show this are below. They show some Wikipedia-like behaviour beyond being decorated with puzzle pieces. It is, however, not a requirement that the character engages in the behaviour in the picture, just that the character is an anthropomorp character. (Perhaps the school girl picture is more kawaii illustrative? Too bad it has a flaw beneath one foot.)--GunnarRene 03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when Wikipe-tan is notable enough to have her own article this one picture will make more sense. Until then, it's really only one picture, and nothing in this picture seems to have anything to do with Wikipedia save a few puzzle pieces which happen to be in Wikipedia's logo. Maybe Wikipe-tan is a

moé anthropomorphism, but this picture doesn't illustrate it. MUSICAL 11:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

List of OS-tans to find out how they personalize their OS.--GunnarRene 12:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You've made a good argument why none of the OS-tans should be featured pictures either. Does this have any relevance to the current nomination? MUSICAL 11:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The OS-tans are not free images. Let me give you an analogy to illustrate my reasoning: There are many pictures on V-2 rocket that I think add significant value to the article. There are, however, no images of the V2 actually exploding in London, just grainy pictures of launches and one that blows up on the pad. The top picture of a V2 on display is perfectly illustrative in the defenition section, even if it's not actually hitting London in that picture.--GunnarRene 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support per nom and GunnarRene. There is no rule against self-referential items being featured. --
  talk. ^_^ 04:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. The nature of the voting on this nomination, compared to all other nominations on the page, is, let's say, unusual. It is really attracting a lot of notice. Interesting. --jjron 11:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the reason you are opposing then it's a violation of

WP:POINT... -- Ned Scott 11:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

FYI I agree with many of the reasons previously stated for opposing, and see no need to reiterate them. But I'm delighted that it took you all of 3 minutes to deride my vote. --jjron 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my intention, note that I said "If that's the reason...". When that's all you say then it's easy to see how someone could have made such an assumption. -- Ned Scott 20:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: The image satisfies all the featured picture criteria (
  moé anthropomorphism as a lot of people above had said and personifies Wikipedia well enough. It doesn't look bad or anything and it's certainly better than a lot of commercial artwork. Worthy of the title "featured picture". WikiSlasher 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Oppose -- ugly --T-rex 15:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you have right to express your feeling and taste. It's rude to said that with the artist being here. Be civil, Kasuga is Wikipedian as well.L-Zwei 18:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose Little enecyclopedic value. ~MDD4696 15:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such a statement means absolutely nothing without some sort of explanation. Please explain why it has "little encyclopedic value." I would like to request that the closing admin ignore all voters that refuse to give explanations for their opposition. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... or for their support for that matter. --GunnarRene 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really: the "reason" for support is stated in the original nomination: Wikipe-tan is a good example of

moé anthropomorphism. It can be assumed that all those supporting agree with it... otherwise why in the heck would they be supporting?  ;) — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 19:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

That does not address non-fulfillment of any of the

criteria. What, specificaly, do you think is wrong with it? --GunnarRene 19:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

It addresses criteria 5. MUSICAL 11:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, the war is already won. --Shiroi Hane 13:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support,the picture is as nice as other feature pictures.--Alltonight 08:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - She's so cute! --AAA! ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - Pure Manga, without humanity. A little Kuso. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GRetriever2mnth

I think this is a fine example photo of the breed and think it is appealing to the eye. The focus is on the head, showing the facial shape of the breed well. It appears in the Golden Retriever article. It is my dog, Floyd. I took the photo and uploaded it.

• Nominate and support. - Jam01 07:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose cute dog but the image is blurry, the dog is on a weird angle compared to the shot, and the fact that the picture cuts off right at the near top of the ears detracts from it. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - VERY blurry (you need to use a tripod, mate), would prefer more of the subject (i.e. whole puppy, for both educational reasons and to illustrate that most young puppies and kittens are noted for having very large paws, eyes and heads relative to the rest of the body), strange angle and would prefer a different background - you haven't got a white sheet you could plonk him on for a while, have you? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Vanderdecken, --Fir0002 12:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Badly blurred - Adrian Pingstone 14:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As above -- Froggydarb ^croak 10:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very blurry. Mikeo 19:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per all above comments. --Tewy 06:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to blur. also it's too cutesy I think to represent the breed in an encyclopedia, it looks more like it'd be a good ad for anti-animal cruelty. Pinkstarmaci 04:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very blurry, shows too little of the dog. --Marumari 18:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storks samarkand

I discovered this picture while writing Liberty ship articles. When I saw it, I was shocked to see how vibrant and beautiful it was. It was taken around 1912 by Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii, a man who dedicated his life to the advancement of photography. It appears in the Samarkand article as the first picture. I believe that it is featured material.

• Nominate and support. - American Patriot 1776 03:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bottom looks a little dodgy (due to age?), bit on the low side of resolution, seems to be suffering from over sharpening. --Fir0002 12:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The funky colors near the bottom are a byproduct of the technique Prokudin-Gorskii used.
    chat} 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Oppose. We've seen better (larger) color shots from this photographer before, I see no reason to accept such a small image this time. On a side note, I'd love to see a great frontal shot of this Ulugh Beg Madrasa place... looks lovely. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too small, for one thing.
  chat} 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Per Fir0002 --Tewy 06:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here's the original. This version has obviously been heavily processed, though, and my editing skills (and monitor) aren't good enough to get a high-res version up to the general quality of this one; someone else may like to have a go. Looking at the original also introduces a new problem: it isn't identified as "Stork nests on the Ulugh Beg Madrasa", merely as "Arched entranceway to a mosque with minaret"; so we may not even know what it's a picture of. TSP 14:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit

A large clear image of a rabbit. I think that it describes a rabbit's posture and size well. Appears in Rabbit. Created by Neutrality.

• Nominate and support. - Thelb⁴ 08:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose i don't like the shot. The whole object should be focused, and i find the grass a bit distracting --Vircabutar 08:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The shot seems a little dark and also the composition is quite poor since the bottom part of the rabbit is cut off --Newton2 12:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above. Viva La Vie Boheme
• Neutral Would support if it were in higher res --Fir0002 12:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak oppose - Only the face and some grass is in focus, I like it personally, but not as a FP. HighInBC 20:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. For such a common animal (unless this picture is of a particular species), I think the image could be better (larger and with the whole animal in focus). As for the grass, I don't think it's in the way too much, though the part that's in focus is a little distracting. --Tewy 07:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak oppose it seems to tilty (to the right) which is distracting and the bottom of the animal is cut off...not exactly a spectacular shot. Pinkstarmaci 04:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose appallingly tilty, to much grass in the way. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 11:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above Hein 17:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jet d'Eau

A pretty nice, clear, colourful image of the Jet d'Eau water fountain in Geneva, Switzerland.

• Nominate and support. -
  sikander 21:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose - Nice view but tilted, poorly focused and blurred. --Yummifruitbat 21:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Great thumbnail, but I have to agree with Yummifruitbat. --Thelb⁴ 07:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Has character and is colorful-- it does indeed catch the eye. The above issues with the photo are overshadowed by its beauty. The Photoplayer 10:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak opposse - Under and overexposed, and grain everywhere else. Night photography is tricky. HighInBC 20:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. The idea is good, but the picture is mediocre. It could be sharper and more exposed, and I think the blank top half is distracting overall (with only the fountain going to the top; if only there was more stuff up there...). A reshooting of the same picture would have potential as a FP though, as far as I can tell. --Tewy 07:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support tilt is easily fixed, if it IS fixed, I support this one, the colour and subject are worth the sligh unfocus IMO Pinkstarmaci 04:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Image is tilted and blurry making it difficult to really see any detail. Too much blackness. --Nebular110 05:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The blackness is hiding flaws. Can't anyone else see the railing across the bottom of the photo? Ydorb 21:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global tropical cyclone tracks

This is an informative and detailed map that shows the tracks of all the tropical cyclones to form in the last 55 years. Created by Nilfanion from PD data.

• Self-nominate and support, edit 2. - Nilfanion (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, awesome! —Keenan Pepper 22:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I really like it, and will support if someone can answer. I am worried about copyright. Who owns the map on which this was drawn? --liquidGhoul 22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Image:Whole world - land and oceans.jpg, made by NASA. —Keenan Pepper 23:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Great! Support Edit 2. --liquidGhoul 23:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Oh, you (yes you) know why. :P íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 00:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great job. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Impressive. --64.12.116.201 06:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Terribly sorry, I forgot to sign in as Tewy, but here you go:[reply]
• Support Impressive. --Tewy 06:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the newer version, both because it's indeed more accurate and aesthetically pleasing, but it is a shame that it doesn't cover quite as many possibilities of tropical cyclones in the past. --Tewy 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2. Very nice, a good overall edit that took everyone's opinions into consideration. I like the line thickness, the accuracy of the cyclone placement (post '85), and how nothing is cut off. Excellent work, Nilfanion. --Tewy 02:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support brilliantly informative, and amazing. --Thelb⁴ 07:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what on earth was the person thinking putting circles, triangles and squares on the image? It's informative really close up, but quite ugly from the normal resolution - a bit less information and a bit more effort on appearance would be nice? Stevage 09:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason for the 3 different shapes is mainly for consistency with the hundreds of individual storm tracks. The width of the lines and the size of the shapes could be increased, which would improve things in the normal view at the cost of some detail in close. It's a balancing act between the two I suppose.-Nilfanion (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can't be seen except at the highest resolution. Better to make the image just contain one type of storm (if the distinction is important) or blend them all together (if it's not). Stevage 07:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The newer version addresses that issue, all the points are circles. The distinction isn't that important and there is a technical issue too.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wait a minute. What cyclone went over mainland Australia and down into Tasmania? That seems extremely unlikely! --liquidGhoul 10:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a genuine storm (#28 of 1955-56) according to the JTWC data (Unisys's track of this storm). I agree it seems absurd, it actually strengthened overland? The JTWC admits (here) that its older tracks are not of high quality. However, to do anything about that would be OR.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How different would the 1985-2005 map look? If it is similar to this one, but more accurate I think it would probably be better. Also, it wouldn't be OR as it has already been stated in the article that old reports should be used with caution. --liquidGhoul 11:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess it will look significantly more sparse. I meant discounting that particular storm, while keeping other older storms would be OR. I'll have a go at generating it.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've uploaded a new version of the image. I think this one handles the comments raised by Stevage and liquidGhoul. Only circles have been used to plot points, and I have made the lines significantly wider and the circles larger, individual tracks are clearly visible in the "normal" view. Despite the fact the new version only shows half as many storms as the original, it gives the same overall appearance in the thumbnail. Its probably improved, in that more individual storms can be identified "in close".--Nilfanion (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thankyou for going to the effort. I hope it wasn't too hard! I like that it is more accurate, and it hasn't changed the density too much. However, aesthetically, it seems worse because of the think lines. The original looked wispy, like wind. Now it looks blockier. --liquidGhoul 22:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't that much effort actually, the program used to make them is efficient. I may have overthickened the lines that time, but we could tweak things all day…--Nilfanion (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is funny; you're making a FP by request. If it's really not that much of a problem, I like the thin lines too, because there's enough contrast in the colors to see them even when they're that small. --Tewy 23:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, thats not that unusual, photos get edits in response to their FPCs. I think I'll upload a third version later, to try and get it perfect.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If you do upload another version i'd rather have with all the full number of storms illustrated rather than with a reduced numer of cyclones. You can really see the diference around New Zeland.Nnfolz 05:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Either version. Great work. Good idea, and the result is fascinating. --Fir0002 12:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow! Agree with Fir. I'm starting to feel a litle sorry for Japan though.Nnfolz 05:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either Great work! -- Froggydarb ^croak 10:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either version; I loved this when I first saw it in an article. I would suggest including a key for the
  Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, however, as the colors could otherwise be a bit confusing. —Cuiviénen 01:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I just noticed that most of Africa and Europe are cut off. Even though they are never hit by tropical cyclones, they should still be included if it is to be a map of the world. (Also, I believe the 1991 Angola cyclone is cut out of the image.) —Cuiviénen 01:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know. Is it really necessary to have parts of the globe that never experienced tropical cyclones? It doesn't omit any tropical cyclone tracks, which the picture is. Also, the Angola cyclone, along with the January 2004 South Atlantic cyclone didn't have tracks, nor were they official storms. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like a few European cyclones are cut off on the upper right. --Tewy 03:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the most part tropical depressions do not have track data available; you only picked up on the S Atlantic ones as they are obvious. A copy of {{
        Saffir-Simpson small}} on the image description would suffice. The European cutoff can and will be fixed next one I upload.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Support Either*** - Awesome. --Iorek85 02:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I've uploaded another version, sorry to be a pain. This one uses only the more accurate post-85 data, has a line thickness somewhere intermediate between the first two, a key on the image description, fixes the European cut-off issue and all but a narrow strip of the globe is now shown.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 is awsome, great idea, great execution. -Ravedave 19:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 3, to cut off some cyclones just seems silly. CheekyMonkey 21:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either edit. Wow, that's just a spectacular image. Kudos to whoever came up with the idea. --Nebular110 05:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promoted Image:Global_tropical_cyclone_tracks-edit2.jpg (Edit 2) BrokenSegue 17:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louvre

I think this photograph adds different perspective to what people perceive the Louvre as, it is very different from other Louvre photographs (as seen in the article page), it has symmetry and is aesthetically pleasing. It appears in the article about the Louvre. I, Alex Buirds, created the photograph.

• Nominate and support. - Troubleshooter 23:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry. Kinda cool photo, but the pyramid obstructs it as a photo of the original building, and the angle is all wrong for a photo of the pyramid. Aerial is probably the best angle for something building sized like this. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if it weren't for Dan Brown I'd oppose this as per Staxringold but as recent public attention to the building include infatuation with the pyramid I find it fitting and I support it. Pinkstarmaci 04:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Looks like the building is in a cage. --Billpg 12:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Slightly blurry. Composition may be "artsy", but it isn't encyclopedic. It's actally the opposite: confusing (in my opinion). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason it might be blurry is because it is focused on the pyramid and not the building outside. Troubleshooter
• Oppose Agree with Staxringold --Fir0002 09:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 17:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walrus in Curacoa

This picture was made by the Royal Dutch Navy, and is completely free of copyrights as longs as the source is mention (The Royal Dutch Navy). I came across it when I did some some edits on the Dutch navy article and I just thought the dark submarine (Walrus class) made a nice contrast with the colourful houses.

• Nominate and support. - Rex 22:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This image is going to get opposed up the wazoo. Sorry. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-03 22:27
• Simply too small, I'm afraid - the
  criteria specify that, except in exceptional cases, images should be at least 1000 pixels in width or height. Other than that, quite nice, but the size is much too far off the minimum to become a featured picture. TSP 00:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Nice composition, but too small, not enough color contrast, and MAJOR tilt. Viva La Vie Boheme
• Oppose Per all the other reasons --Tewy 06:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeHopelessly too small (and leaning) - Adrian Pingstone 09:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Small, colors seem off, and not that different from many many high res free military shots. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too low res --Fir0002 09:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plume

Pulsed Laser Deposition

Pulsed Laser Deposition

(higher res)

The picture illustrates the physical process of laser-surface interaction. When a high power laser pulse strikes a surface, a plasma plume is ejected from the small spot where the focused beam hits the surface. The plume then expands into the vacuum surrounding the surface, inside a vacuum chamber. The process occurs during

Pulsed Laser Deposition

article recently.

From a technical standpoint, the shot is OK, not great. But a single pulse only lasts ~30 nanoseconds! So this picture is an average of many pulses striking a surface. It's a science-related picture and I think there should be more of that stuff here, especially if it is aesthetically pleasing.

• Nominate and support. - H.Perowne 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Low res, not striking, could be a blowtorch. Interesting though. HighInBC 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Higher res picture uploaded --H.Perowne 20:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because it isn't immediately apparent what's going on. Perhaps if it were vertically cropped and paired with a parallel schematic depicting the laser path and the target? Melchoir 23:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Melchoir, and also because the quality is so-so (unless of course that's the best picture that can be taken in those circumstances) --Tewy 06:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; there appears to be a large circular artifact in the way of the plume; is this a reflection of your camera lens, or part of the apparatus? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 19:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is in fact part of the appartus. There are many inlets and ports for pumping and injecting gases, etc...--H.Perowne 21:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Bridge, Sacramento

Amina skywalker

Hi-Res HDR Stitched image of the bridge at the best time of day with lights on. Appears in

Tower Bridge (California) and Sacramento, California

Created by User:Phreakdigital.

• Nominate and support - Phreakdigital 21:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is a nice picture, but tilt... And I would like to see better quality. Change to Support Fir0002's edit. Viva La Vie Boheme
• Comment Uploaded an edit. I rotated it, sharpened it a tiny bit, and adjusted the contrast. «
  (¿Hábleme?) 22:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose in its current form. The problem I always have with HDR images is that there tends to be an obvious halo around areas of contrast. I'm not sure what method you've used to blend the exposures but perhaps you could adjust it for a much smaller radius. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 Great lighting. --Fir0002 12:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to let you know, your edit didn't correct the tilt and has washed out the contrast a bit... I really get the impression that either your monitor is not seeing the same thing that mine is (I admit that the 'fault' could be my displays rather than yours), or you just have a preference for lighter shadow detail. In the end, its just personal aesthetic preference, but I can't help but feel the original's contrast is more natural and just as viewable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah I forgot about the tilt, I'll fix that today. I wouldn't say that I always have a preference for lighter shadow detail, but I think it'd be fair to say I generally do. Particularly with this image, as what drawed me to it was the "soft" lighting. Sure it could be my monitor, but if that is so, chances are it's not just me with that kind of a monitor and an edit should be made so that it looks good on them. --Fir0002 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not convinced about the blending. There's some ghosting on the handrails at to the top of the foreground tower, and in between the crossmembers there's some odd lighter patches and artefacts. Also not a fan of the halos - might support a re-combination of the exposures if the above are corrected. --Yummifruitbat 17:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support IMO Edit 1 is the best. -- Froggydarb ^croak 10:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either edit as long as the tilt is fixed. --Tewy 06:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- unedited version, as it has the best colour --T-rex 03:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (either edit) - looks beautiful. - Cribananda 06:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks good indeed. There is some blurring on the top right tower railing though. --GunnarRene 21:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good Picture! --Inklein
• Support TomStar81 02:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2, nice colors and composition. -Ravedave 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2, by far the best. Original is tilted quite a bit. --Nebular110 22:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 is fabulous! InvictaHOG 17:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tower Bridge Sacramento edit.jpg Raven4x4x 00:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tambo Valley Horse Races

A good image of horse racing, particularly the Tambo Valley Races. Picture is sharp, and I believe captures the essence of a horse race.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Agree with Fir0002 - sharp picture and captures the essence perfectly. I can see this picture going far. --Thelb⁴ 07:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great. Stevage 08:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Fir0002, does the colour balance look a little crook to you? The foreground seems ok (ie horses and riders), but the hill looks very red-tinged. The whole scene has a 'Taken in the 1970s' vibe to it as a result of that colour issue - you know, back when colour balancing didn't seem to exist (or at least not for the typical corner store labs) and everyone was happy just to see a photo with colours at all. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly, but the 20D generally does a good job with white balance in daylight (I shoot in AWB). Maybe you aren't fimiliar with the color of the hills in the country during the hot dry summer months? Because to me it looks OK. I'll maybe have a shot and doing some color adjustments tommorrow --Fir0002 11:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty familiar with the colour of the hills, and they usually have a dry grass yellow-orange tinge, rather than red. I've had another look at it though, and it could be the soil which appears quite reddy-orange. The trees look a bit strange too though. Can't quite put my finger on it. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've uploaded an edit, see if you like it. --Fir0002 09:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered a bit about the colour of the hills too. I think the contrast with the green on the track, as well as the dust in the air contributes to the effect. If there's no wind the dust will tend to hang there and give a hazy effect. The edit improves the reddish tinge. --jjron 10:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I like the shot and the subject is very sharp --Newton2 12:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good resolution, nice detail, well composed, etc. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's a sharp image that rewards closer scrutiny at full size as you scroll across -the varying expressions on the jockeys faces, the minimal contact of the horses with the ground at the captured moment (No. 7 is in full flight), clods of earth being scooped up, the action contasting with the hazy sun-baked backdrop. --Melburnian 14:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful picture, especially impressive when the biggest version is opened. The parched hillside beyond looks OK to me - Adrian Pingstone 14:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I could tell right away this picture was by Fir0002 becuase of they wonderful sharpness and composition. Great job :)Imaninjapirate 17:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent shot. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-01 21:39
• Support. (Agree with Diliff that a little bit of red correction couldn't hurt. Even the straw just behind the horses seems a bit reddish--on this old monitor.) Outriggr 03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great picture. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 (or either). Nice shot of a country race meet. --jjron 10:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose For me this picture has oversaturated colors and is a little grainy especially in dark areas Olegivvit 10:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportNnfolz 05:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 looks great! -Rangermike 22:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yikes, almost missed this great nom. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, preferably edit 1. Well done. --Tewy 07:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Very sharp but doesn't give any feeling of speed. I definitely want some motion blur. Ericd 00:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's interesting. Have a look at this, I had originally intended to nominate Image:Tambo vallery races 2006 05.jpg which has significant motion blur. --Fir0002 08:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose something is very wrong about the colour, it looks very overdone. also on large view the back looks over edited (not saying it is but it looks very odd compared to the foreground) Pinkstarmaci 04:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The more I look at this every day the more I like it! The background does not look oddly colored to me. InvictaHOG 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tambo_valley_races_2006_edit.jpg Raven4x4x 00:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nosferatu shadow

File:NosferatuShadow-ENLARGED.jpg

Iconic still from Nosferatu. Low resolution, blurry, vignetted, monochromatic, and way too small. But in terms of film, this screenshot is the defining moment of the horror movie genre. Exactly why it was chosen for the {{HorrorWikiProject}} talkpage template.

• Nominate and support. - - Jack (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ironically per nom, it's a very historic shot but it does not a featured picture make so to speak. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support a defining shot indeed. -Ravedave 06:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose very defining, but the image is too small. --Thelb⁴ 07:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose per above --Vircabutar 08:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support Ericd 09:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment asking for high-resolution screenshots is, um, misguided. Stevage 13:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in this case. The film is PD. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I like the idea... but I'm not sure about the implementation. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you mean? - Jack (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if that's the "perfect" frame to use. Also, as much as I like the idea of using a screenshot of Nosferatu, the quality issues do irk me. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support iconic shot. Agree with Stevage re: rez ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this incredible still that captures the essence of a truly outstanding film. – Morganfitzp 00:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support resolution should not be the only criterion – JanSuchy 22:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It is an iconic shot, but it's a film - a featureable pic should be scanned from a good film print, not grabbed from video (which I'm assuming from the size and the term "screenshot"). License tag should also be corrected - Nosferatu wasn't "first published in the U.S."; 70 years p.m.a. may be more accurate. --Davepape 05:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Per
  exception of historical significance. --Tewy 07:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. This is a great image, and the quality is quite good enough.--ragesoss 15:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Davepaper. If it were from a better print (higher resolution without crude bicubic resizing) I'd probably support. As it is it is both too small and has what looks like JPEG artifacts on its edges (which may be just a side-effect of being from an old film, but without a higher res version it is impossible to tell). Also, the copyright information is wrong. It was, as the Nosferatu page says, first published in the US only in 1929. For things published outside the US the date is 1909, anyway. It is, however, 70 years after the deaths of the relevant authors (the director and the actor—yes, actors get copyright claims to scenes under US copyright law, amazingly enough) to be PD. Note that a restored edition may have created its own copyright, though, depending on what is meant by "restored" (if it is use cleaning, probably not, but if they have "enhanced" it in any way the enhancements are probably copyrighted). --Fastfission 20:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hacha Grande, Lanzarote

This is a panorama composed of 7 images which I took while staying in Lanzarote last month. I think it does a reasonable job of illustrating the mountainous desert landscape of south-eastern Lanzarote - an island mostly noted for its beach resorts and the vast area of volcanos and lava flows on its western side. The day had been intermittently cloudy but in the evening the low sun cast the mountains in striking relief. Image appears in

Yaiza, Las Palmas and Canary Islands

.

• Self-nominate and support. - Yummifruitbat 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I can't decide whether a tighter crop improves the image or if it's better to show more foreground to give an impression of the emptiness of the area (there was nothing but scrub for about 2km in front of me). I've uploaded a cropped version for comparison.

• Support first version it's amazing to see how the mountains appear suddenly out of the ground. The cropped version looks too, well, cropped. --Thelb⁴ 07:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose nice, but i don't particularly find it shockingly beautiful --Vircabutar 08:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no preference for edit or original. Why don't you make Hache Grande and put it in there? Stevage 08:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's on my to-do list (very busy offline at the mo) - I can't claim to be an expert on the mountain itself so whatever I do create is likely to be fairly cursory. --Yummifruitbat 23:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cursory? What, you mean, like, a stub? :) Stevage 07:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup! Done now :) --Yummifruitbat 18:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Interesting typo of mine: "hache grande" means "big axe" in French...same in Spanish? Stevage 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. I like the shot, but would prefer it if the top of the left mountain wasn't in shadow. The right mountain also lacks any depth, although a photograph in which both mountains have well-defined shadows may not be possible. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-01 21:45

• I'm not 100% sure, but I think it is unlikely that this would be possible. Firstly, the features of the smaller hills to the right are physically less pronounced, so any shadows will not be as dramatic as on the mountain, leading to a reduction in perceived 'depth'. Also, the hills are curving away from the camera (left to right). None of my shots from other times of day show any greater 'depth' on the hills. Not much I could do about the shaded peak of the mountain; by the time the clouds had moved on it was getting dark. --Yummifruitbat 23:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mountains aren't going anywhere :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-02 01:33

• Well no, but since I live 1650 miles away it's a little inconvenient to pop back for a re-shoot :) --Yummifruitbat 06:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Original. I like it. Nice lighting. No obvious stitching faults. --jjron 10:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. I'm not sure which I like better, because the uncropped version centers the mountain nicely in the middle, while the cropped version puts more focus on the mountain itself, while the uncropped version shows how the mountain comes out of nowhere, while...in either case, good picture (I'll let everyone else decide which version is best). --Tewy 07:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. My only objection to it was that the dark area at the bottom was a little distraction. But having heard everyone else's opinions, I see that the distraction is insignificant to a balanced photo. --Tewy 02:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original. --Mad Max 23:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support for the cropped version. Pinkstarmaci 04:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, the cropped version unbalances it. zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nothing spectcular. - Cribananda 06:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seamless, well done and high res and illiustrates the subject well. WikiSlasher 12:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support For either version. Having had close up experience of the subject matter recently, I can say the picture portrays it incredibly. The weather at the adds to this stunning effect. A great picture all in all.
  Archibald99 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Good Picture, and I like the contrast that the clouds provide. -Inklein 06:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support originalNnfolz 00:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cribananda. Portions of the picture are just too dark and featureless. --Nebular110 22:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Hacha_grande_from_papagayo_pano.jpg Raven4x4x 00:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bales of hay

I am trying out a new template from the polish wikipedia FPC to see if it works here. Please comment on if you like/dislike this style. Comments can be left here, thanks! -Ravedave 19:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creator: The

USDA [11]

Nominator: Ravedave

Date Submitted: 19:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Subject: I love boldness and contrast of the yellow/blue/ and red and the moon looks really cool. This picture appears in Iowa and Ames, Iowa, I belive it really conveys a feeling of the place.

Support Votes:

1. reason - user

Oppose Votes:

1. weak oppose: I think someone who'd never seen a hay bail before might be misled. But then if this photo illustrated that it wouldnt be as cool would it? --Henry A-W 10:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. Definitely a good composition (great colors and angle), but the picture itself isn't very sharp and the sky is really grainy. I would support it if it were the same picture of a higher quality. --Tewy 03:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   This is the highest rez available. -Ravedave 05:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose I love the "feel" of the pic, but unfortunately the quality isn't the best. --Fir0002 09:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   And isnt there already an image of bales of hay, an image self-nominated by you. Should there be two of the same subject? -- AJ24 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Nothing wrong with multiples of the same subject, although as per my vote, I don't think that THIS is the right one to "add" to our existing shot. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose. I don't think that this is the right representation of 'bales of hay'... also, I don't really like the framing of the shot. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose. I don't think the photo is an encyclopedic illustration of any of the articles to which it is attached. SteveHopson 15:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Questions:

1. lovely composition, but I wonder if it illustrates its subject really well.--K.C. Tang 00:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Aquarium

I took this image back in January and didn't immediately consider nominating it, but I thought I'd give it a go now. It isn't a spectacular image in terms of the 'wow factor' but it is high resolution, well framed and interesting looking. I corrected it for perspective and lifted the shadows a bit from the original RAW file (see previous versions on commons) for the nominations as I felt it could do with some assistance. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wonder if it would be permissible to retouch it to get rid of the tree branches at either side. They don't seem to contribute to the picture in any way, nor would it create a fake reality if we omitted them. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I certainly would prefer that the branches were not retouched - not because its my image but simply because I don't think it is necessary and I don't feel they detract from the image. I wouldn't go so far as to say that removing them would not create a 'fake reality' either, though. I strongly believe that any manipulation of the content of the image is manipulating the representation of reality and should not occur. There are many others here who feel the same way, as well as those who disagree. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A good solid image, but not IMO, a FP --Fir0002 09:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - with images like this, I ask myself, "would a professional photographer hired by the aquarium come up with much better than this?" I'm not sure, it's pretty good, if slightly lacking in "wow". Stevage 11:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The interior of the aquarium is what is most amazing and creates headlines. The largest single aquarium on Earth is housed there and is most recognizable. -- AJ24 16:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is true, but a single photo cannot encapsulate the entire aquarium as there are many exhibits and tanks. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that, but its largest aquarium (housing the world's only whale shark in captivity) is most famous. I have no idea if there are images already on Wikipedia that could represent what I am describing, but simply because it's the closest to the best, does not necessarily mean that it is. -- AJ24 20:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you could look at the article. This image is a panorama htat I took of the tank that contains the (four, by the way, and they're not the only whale sharks in captivity) whale sharks. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Alfred Daffodils

As one of the iconic flower types I think we could do with a daffodil FP. This lovely display of daffodils was captured at Floriade, Canberra, last year.

I think it is particularly encyclopaedic with the central flower front on, but also in good focus the one on the right displaying a side view, and the one on the left showing the rear of the flower. Leaves are also clearly displayed. It appears as the lead picture in

Narcissus (flower)

.

• Self-nominate and support. --jjron 11:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice piccy. --Billpg 12:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose over exposed, the yellow petals shouldn't be white. chowells 14:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as with lots of pics nominated here - good for the article, not quite good enough for FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice, but I take issue with the framing. A flower photo should either be of a single (maybe like 2-3) flower to display that singular flower fully, or if you're doing a group shot like this should be wider with a broader depth of field. This is sort of stuck oddly between the two. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - really don't like the composition. One flower dead on to the camera, the back of one, and just the front of another? It's awkward, and the balance of a tiny bit of scenery at the top with quite a lot of fairly dull stalkage at the bottom isn't terribly attractive either. Stevage 11:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - it's a pretty awful composition, with blown highlights, and a small digicam look. --Marumari 18:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Ciotat

This is a picture of the harbor at La Ciotat, France. My sister photographed it while in France as an exchange student. I am not sure if the picture needs editing; if so, I have an uncropped version.

• Nominate and Support LittleDan^talk 01:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very crowded. no central focus, what am I supposed to be looking at? to me it's too snap-shotty to be a feature. Pinkstarmaci 05:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Pinkstarmaci --Fir0002 09:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - pity she didn't stand on top of that blue building in the foreground, she could have had a much cleaner shot of the foreshore. Too much stuff in the way to actually be seeing anything. Stevage 11:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too chaotic because of the low angle of view - Adrian Pingstone 18:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Algonquin

St. Andrews-by-the-Sea, New Brunswick

I think that this photograph is a nice representation of the famous Algonquin, affectionately deemed "Canada's Seaside Castle." The building is in a small coastal resort town in New Brunswick, Canada called St. Andrew's. The structure was pretty eary and deserted on this particular overcast day during the off-season which makes for an interesting perspective as well. (If someone could compress the size of the photo to make it better in focus, it would be appreciated immensely.)

• Self-Nominate and support. - GarrettRock 01:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support
  FireSpike 02:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Nice pic. Jam01 04:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support the white balance is way off, if you did auto levels I think it'd help the image greatly, I find it distracting.Pinkstarmaci 04:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have posted the unedited picture if anyone wants to play around with it. - GarrettRock 14:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose First, I think the shot probably should have been taken from a few feet higher to be level with the ground floor. Beyond that, I see this as similar to my first nomination (this picture). It's a solid picture that displays the subject matter but it's not really... different or spectacular in a FP kind of way. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose doesn't strike me as exceptionally beatiful or amazing --Vircabutar 05:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Vircabutar --Fir0002 09:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it's clear, but not especially remarkable. You wonder, "where is the front of this building?"; "Does this hotel really not have a sign with its name on it?"; "Is this hotel in the middle of the suburbs or in the country?"; "What is the deal with that cannon?" - in other words, there's not a lot of context, and the cropping is *very* tight - uncomfortably so on the left hand side. There's also some kind of perspective distortion that makes the wall at the left look like it's leaning backwards (and ditto on the right). The foreground is also poorly chosen - a bit of driveway(?)/road(?), an unplanted garden, some grass. I get this huge feeling looking at the image that there's a massive bulldozer or three prostitutes or something hidden just out of sight that the photorgapher doesn't want us to see. Stevage 11:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whole world - land and oceans

Great image. I don't think i really need to say much.

• Nominate and support. - Nnfolz 06:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice and a very useful image, an important contrbution to WP Bjrobinson 10:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wow. Encyclopedic, high resolution, pleasing to the eye, sharp. This image meets every requirement from
  What is a featured picture?. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per Pharaoh Hound. Comment: Any description should note that the image uses the
  Plate carrée projection. (I think) --Billpg 12:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong support. A fine example of a featured pic.
  chat} 17:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong support - edit 1 Wonderfull, encyclopedic, and neat, not a map but a photograph. HighInBC 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Me gusta! Viva La Vie Boheme
• Oppose. All the landforms are surrounded by artefacts. --Oldak Quill 23:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The artifacts disappear when scaled down to any resonable resolution. A huge JPEG with artifacts is better than a small JPEG with no artifacts. I support. —Keenan Pepper 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The high resolution is excellent for this type of picture, and I agree with
  Plate carrée projection note should be included with it. --Tewy 06:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Support wow Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 12:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I cannot vote at this time as I'm unable to download the large version. Anyone else having problems? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took ages to download on my computer (with high-speed). But it loaded eventually. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support amazing resolution; I can almost see my house in this! (well... kind of...) smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 19:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done, this is really a very fine map!!!! nice work Jam01 23:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I would strongly support a different format, as there is some coastal artefacting. With that aside, this is a wonderful picture, and I think its the largest I've seen on Wikipedia! Very well done - Jack (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, there seems to be something wrong with the Severnaya Zemlya Islands just off the north coast of Russia - Jack (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Could it be the normal distortion that comes along with the projection?Nnfolz 05:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Possible, but then that would not explain the misterious black square coating the ocean around Enderby Land in Antarctica. While searching for a map for that article, I found Image:Antarctica satellite orthographic.jpg, which also has the black square. Is that really there, or is a a fault? - Jack (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That's interesting, it could just be from a lack of information, or an area that changes a lot, if anyone wants my opinion (I really can't say why that's there). --Tewy 20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Amazing. --Fir0002 09:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unbelieveable. -- Samir धर्म 10:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's impossible to fault NASA's photographic sense. --Marumari 18:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. - Darwinek 21:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support If this is not a Featured Picture, then what is a Featured Picture? This is an amazing photo made by NASA. It's just the perfect choice. Arad 04:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I notice this was scaled down for an 8meg limit from the original NASA tifs. I think the current limit is 20megs now right? I will see if I can make a new copy perhaps in png or a higher res, that is if my computer can even handle those huge tifs(640mb total). I am about to leave for Toronto so if I cannot do it today I won't be back for a week. HighInBC 15:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have added a version that is about 2.45x bigger than the previous, reflecting the new limit of 20megs compared to the old of 8megs. HighInBC 22:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - I noticed in the RAW version that since it is a photograph you can see through the water in shallow areas. This create a fuzzy boarder that looks like jpg artifacts. In the larger version it looks less like jpg artifacts and more like shallow water(imo). HighInBC 22:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - Darn it, I can't download the larger version. Anyone else have the same problem? - Jack (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Browsers are not meant to deal with huge images like this, save the link and view it in a proper image viewing program, GIMP is a good free one. HighInBC 03:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Whole world - land and oceans_12000.jpg. I'll leave the link to the smaller version in case the big one is too big for anyone's computers. Raven4x4x 00:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Legged Gull

A nice image by a respected Wikipedian photographer. Encyclopedic, meets all requirements... etc...

• Nominate and Support - Viva La Vie Boheme
• Conditional Support Oppose Per Diliff.Nnfolz 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It just doesn't really add much value to the articles as they are flooded with pretty good images of gulls, and I agree that there is some confusion about its species. It looks like a
  Yellow-legged Gull, it doesn't seem to exist (or at least feature in the article) in Australia so at the very least, the filename is not accurate as it alludes to a species that it doesn't represent. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per Diliff --Dschwen 05:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Kind of boring, and an awkward angle (can't really see the bird's neck).
  chat} 20:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not promoted

Fort Charles cannon

This picture I took of a cannon at Fort Charles, Nevis while I was on vacation is both highly historical in the area, and a good picture. The only flaw I see with it is that it may be a little dark, which can be fixed.

• nominate and Support. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 16:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small; out of focus; motion blur; no sense of context; poor composition; weeds in foreground distracting; not especially illustrative of a cannon or of Fort Charles; no useful information given in caption. --Yummifruitbat 17:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It is blurred and out of focus, but I dont know about the weeds being "distracting". But nevertheless, the Fort Charles article is severely lacking. -- AJ24 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Can't somebody sharpen it? 2) Why does the quality of an article affect whether the picture is an FP or not? íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 20:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a matter of
      chat} 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Re your question 2 please read the first sentence at the top of this page: "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." If the article has no content, as in this case, what content is it illustrating and what's the point of attracting readers to the article? --jjron 11:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Too small, blurry, and lacking context.
  chat} 19:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Per Yummifruitbat. --Tewy 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurred - Adrian Pingstone 20:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per everything Yummifruitbat said. And Howcheng was right about the sharpening. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This dosen't illustrate anything well. I could get a better pic of cannon by just driving to

El morro if I wanted.Nnfolz

14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Oppose Low res, soft focus, uninteresting subject. HighInBC 16:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not really special, blurred. -Inklein 23:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 06:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant plane comparison

This image is a great schematic size and shape comparison of four of the largest aircraft ever built. It is used on the articles of these aircraft and significantly helps to give an impression of the diferences in size and shape between the four aircraft. The schematic is well put-together, visually appealing, and is in the public domain.

• Nominate and support. - Cyde Weys 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose -- image is too busy --T-rex 15:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support - it is appealing, as for busy concerns, I'm not sure how you would show a comparision w/o a direct overlay -- Tawker 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per Tawker GarrettRock 15:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, this image should be in SVG format à la
  lo 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Neutral, leaning toward oppose: why these four planes? The
  C-5 Galaxy is larger than the 747; are there other large aircraft also omitted? --Davepape 15:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose for obvious reasons. --Dschwen 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I've seen this before, and found it vey useful. These are still the four largest planes ever, right? The SVG/PNG thing seems just so picky... Why does it matter? Why would you ever need an image size larger than the one provided? - Jack (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, my head is going to explode! This is unbelievable, did you not read my comment? What is so hard to understand about high-quality reproductions and easy translations for other wikis? --Dschwen 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Wikistress alert! Yeah, I read your comment you linked to, and it just seemed just as uneccessarily angry as the one you just gave now. I found this though, which was a bit more helpful. Still, if the image accuracy, usefulness, quality, and copyright are all awesome - like this one - I'm in. I just don't see why you're splitting hairs over the image format. Certainly not to the degree of totally rejecting the image outright, totally dismissing Cyde's efforts over what (to me) seems a trivial issue - Jack (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another plus of SVGS: If a larger plane comes out and this is a SVG and Cyde is no longer on wikipedia than the image can be updated. Agree that Dschwen might need to take a deep breath :) -Ravedave

IMHO the "easy translation" comment is spurious. Providing an image in raster format does not inhibit translations. *Failing* to *also* provide it in another format may inhibit translations. This is Featured Pictured Candidates for the *English *Wikipedia and there is absolutely nothing wrong with text in English for images here. Providing the images in easily-translatable format is nice, but not a necessity. Having said all that, SVG would be a more logical format for a diagram. Stevage 12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep breath taken. Two things, I'm not completely rejecting Cydes efforts, I just want to avoid setting yet another precedent of promoting an image with an suboptimal format. If Cyde uploads an SVG version I'm all on board for support. Secondly about the spuriousness of the translation argument, I disagree. This might be en:FPC but the argument transcends this page. FPC isn't the wiki-world. The main point is, there are no reasons for uploading a pic like this as PNG, but there are several reasons to upload as SVG (however little you might think they are). If anyone wants a PNG so badly, SVG->PNG conversion is easy, PNG->SVG conversion is not. From some of the comments I just get the feeling that people do not quite realize the difference. Take this as the wakeup call ;-) --Dschwen 15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you write an SVG vs PNG page with pros/cons of both? We probably also need a page on how to create images as SVG. -Ravedave 15:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. Feel free to join in at User:Dschwen/SVG_explanation. --Dschwen 18:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. What has happened to the outer engines of the 747? They are usually pointing alonside the axis, in flight direction. This really has to be corrected. SVG would really be nice, for the reasons mentioned above. Mikeo 06:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Another reason for it to be SVG - Wikipedia 1.0. Expandability. On Wikisource, a project is discussing printing small educational leaflets with Wikipedia material - this image would not be very good for print, but as an SVG can be infinitely scaled, the quality of an SVG in print would be impeccable. Oppose because: it's not SVG, it's a little small for a diagram of this type even if it is over 1000 pixels (but that would be fixed by SVG anyway), it's too blurry at full size, and as Mikeo mentioned, the 747's engines are wrong. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. It just makes FP in my opinion, and it's not bad for what it illustrates. (And in this case I am not taking into account the PNG/SVG format issue). --Tewy 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this type of image should be SVG. gren グレン 02:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, would support SVG version of this. HighInBC 16:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment since all the information is included on the captioned imgaes, why is it also included at the top of the image in columns, I think it makes the diagram crowded.--
  Peta 01:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, though I agree, an SVG version would be greatly preferable. --Golbez 18:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. For a diagram the resolution is too low. You could print this out only 3 inches wide at 300 DPI. It would be pretty hard to read the text. Would change my vote if it was an SVG, which would also make editing it (i.e. adding/removing a plane, re-using the plane outlines, translating it, etc.) trivial. Also, as it is two of the planes have very jagged edges on their diagonal surfaces (Boeing and Airbus) and there are some consistency issues (why is the Mriya the only one which has flaps visible in the last shot?) --Fastfission 01:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is a clever and interesting diagram that provides a high level of information in a clean, easy-to-read format. Madman 02:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
• support nice! --Vircabutar 02:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 06:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sark

A really nice good-quality picture, which adds a lot to the article Sark. The article is by itself interesting, and would make for a good Image of the Day entry.

There's a higher resolution version available here: [12].

Created by Philip Capper, uploaded by RMHED.

• Nominate and support. - Rain74 11:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - very interesting image, but the quality is just aweful. Renata 11:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with Renata3. Quality is just too poor. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per above, and it's at a funny tilt. The higher resolution version has jpeg artifacts. The subject is interesting, but the photograph isn't the best. --Tewy 20:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Cool pic, but the quality is a bit too low. --Nebular110 22:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Map pictures can be of amazing quality, this looks more like something I would find on a menu in a diner on the the island. No offense intended. HighInBC 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I like it. --Golbez 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's unfortunate the quality is poor, the image is otherwise very interesting. --Nebular110 04:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, Nebular110... I think you're only supposed to vote once. ;^) --Moondigger 17:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • • heh, heh, never done that before. Darn, I was hoping no one would notice;) --Nebular110 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Despite the quality concerns, the image keeps drawing my eye. -- Moondigger 17:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support because this image is just so great... the quality issues are obvious... but can we ever get another this good? gren グレン 21:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 17:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot metalwork

molten

glowing.

This image adds to its article by demonstrating how metal changes its physical properties when it is heated. It is also pleasing to the eye.

The image appears in the metal article. It was created by User:Fir0002.

• Nominate and support. - David McCabe 08:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - yeah, it's an ok image, but nothing stunning. It also doesn't really show how the physical properties change - the molten peg is exactly the same shape as the others. Stevage 09:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm neutral for now, but exactly how does this illustrate molten iron? The metal isn't even molten. If something is molten it has been melted, and melting is defined as the state change from solid to liquid, like here. This piece is glowing red hot, but still solid. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Seems noisey to me. -Ravedave 17:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with Stevage. The metal is not molten at all, just glowing. It also is not the best illustration for a blacksmiths' work. As Stevage pointed out the shape of the peg hasn't changed. I'd rather see it being worked. If it is just about the glowing, including the heat source in the pic would be an improvement. --Dschwen 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - a fairly good example of
  black body radiation (a better example here), but not molten, per Vanderdecken - Jack (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose as per others. Its also significantly out of focus/motion blurred. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per above, Diliff. --Tewy 20:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all of the above, the blur and the business of the photo though are my main reasons for opposing.
  Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 09:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - Incandescence would be a better place for this picture, but the article already has enough pictures. --Turanyuksel 13:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Low depth of focus, and uninteresting subject. HighInBC 16:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Lovely shot, but unfortunately misplaced focal point and shallow DoF make it problematic. Would support a "better" version of this shot on incandescence. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 17:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

st_peters_basilica

Bernini

's colonnade

This painting by Viviano Codazzi is most famous for depicting the two bell towers aside the cupola (later removed) and the intentional absence of the Colonnade of St. Peter's by Gian Lorenzo Bernini. Codazzi was a member of the close circle Bamboccianti, a defined group of Dutch baroque artists in Rome during the 17th Century. The painting both captures great detail of St. Peter's Square at the time, the facade of the Basilica, and the Vatican Apartments. The image is prominently featured in the St. Peter's Basilica article. Image is also in Wikipedia Commons.

• Nominate and support. - AJ24 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. if someone makes sure that the colors are right I might support, but then again its too small...Nnfolz 00:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All other images of the painting I have found (outside of Wikipedia) concur the color of this image. The size problem, in my opinion, is not drastic enough to weigh-in significantly. Thanks -- AJ24 03:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Tilted. Too small (there's no reason for images of paintings to be small like this). --jjron 09:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Due to small size. HighInBC 16:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Tilt, uncertainty about color (there are other images on the web with different hues) and this version is slightly cropped. Oh yes and size is a total knock-out. Especially in a painting like this I want to see details. --Dschwen 23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, especially if the image is cropped. Too small image, should be larger to discern details.--JyriL ^talk 15:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 17:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie the Riveter

File:We Can Do It (Hi-Res 1).jpg

File:We can do it (Hi-Res 2).jpg

I was pleasantly suprised to see that this image was in the public domain, since it is one of the most enduring WWII home front images ever made. With the men being sent overseas to fight in Europe and the Pacific there came a need to replace the US work force, so the U.S. began a campaign aimed at getting women to work in the factors in place of the men. They were known by the popular press of the time as "Rosies", and became the driving force behind the US war machine.

• Nominate and Support TomStar81 02:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I love the picture but the quality is a bit low, there has to be a better scan out there of this picture. Posters.com is selling a 39x54inch version so its defintly out there. [13] -Ravedave 03:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a little a digging for a higher resolution, and found three sites ([14]@[15] and [16] @ [17]) that have the image in hi-res, but it seems that the higher this images resolution is the lower the overall quality becomes. This is not the case with the this image, but the resoultion is still below 1000px. TomStar81 04:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It should be noted that as a historical image the largest size available should still be found but I think historical images where a 1000x1000px image can't be found are exempt from that FP guideline to a certain extent. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are. In rare cases the historical signifigance of an image takes precedent over Wikipedia’s usual minimum size requirements; however, that should not be an excuse to railroad a bunch a low quality FPs through the system. In this case I do believe that the size limitations could be set aside in lew of the overall historical integrity of the photo, but other can (and often do) take a different view. TomStar81 05:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if it is set aside that shouldn't be used as an excuse for us to put a low quality tiny image up I agree but noting the fact that the biggest possible image can and should be found if that is put up (which will hopefully be done in this case) then the size limitation can be waived. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 05:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The picutres you are find probably all came from the same source and are just resizes of it. This pic can be provided in much, much higher quality. The 'original' of this item is probably at least 24 inches tall. It's not like the ancient black and white photos that are 4x3. The historical waiver is for items that can't be made any bigger and this one ovbiously can. -Ravedave
    • I uploaded two of the color hi-res versions for show. Of these, version 1 falls somewhat short of size requirements, but is larger than the current photo we have onsite. Version 2 meets the size requirements, but does not capture the entire image (parts of the sides are cut out, as though it was zoomed in) and the entire image desperately needs a photoshop overhaul before being placed in the race. TomStar81 07:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose un til better quality found. Not only is it low resolution, there are glaring JPEG compression artifacts all over the image. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral One of the FP criteria goes: "It should represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet." I guess this image is not really "exclusive" on wikipedia.--K.C. Tang 07:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats true, this photo is not unique to the net, but some of our greatest FPs are photographs that have become legendary, to the point where they are litterly priceless. I believe that this is one such photo, a picture that has become a cultural icon. That, I do believe, makes this picture worthy of an FP star. TomStar81 07:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This picture... to me it's just ugly...Nnfolz 14:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose not because it's "ugly" but b/c of it resolution (per ravedave)--Vircabutar 22:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Ravedave and Night Gyr. --Tewy 04:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I like the picture, but the first 2 have terrible jpg artifacts(even the png) and the other is very blurred. HighInBC 16:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose exactly per HighInBC. First two are full of artifacts, third has serious motion blur (and needs color touchups at the least). Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 17:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facial Markings, Siberian Tiger

• Nominate and support. - Tewy 01:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying out the format of the Bales of hay nomination by Ravedave because I think it will make things a lot easier to tally, but others may think differently. Opinions are needed! Please leave a comment here on what you think. Thanks. --Tewy 02:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Creator: Crushinator
• Nominator: Tewy
• Date Submitted: 01:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Subject: I think this an excellent photograph (size, DOF, etc.) that illustrates the markings on a tiger's face.
• Support Votes:

1. Nice clear shot showing details of a tiger face; adds to article. (BTW, for those that have so far voted on 'Bales of Hay' - note that under this format I do not need to restate my support/oppose as it is covered by the subheading; I just need the reason) --jjron 10:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Preference for edit. --jjron 09:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC). Make that Edit 2 - even better; in fact, lots better. --jjron 11:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. A very exceptional image. The image is clear and well focused; I especially like how this rare Tiger is facing the camera. (Also: Can the voting format of this nomination be discontinued; its very busy) -- AJ24 15:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Does anyone else notice the overall red color cast? I uploaded an edit, which I support.
   chat} 20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Edit 2 only. Great photo, but lacking in sharpness. Fixed that in Edit 2. Dislike the cold colors of Edit 1 --Fir0002 00:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. In doubt about what it should look like, support original. Edit 2 looks oversharpened to me, and edit 1 too cold indeed. --Bernard 03:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Edit 2. Good DOF, encyclopedic, composition, and the edit has good sharpness. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Edit 2. --Vircabutar 02:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Edit 2. nice color and composition. -Ravedave 02:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Edit 2. Exceptional image. I also like the colors and composition. But how about a complete tiger? - anyway, this one is just good! Mikeo 19:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Edit 2. Sharpness, color and just plain beauty. I really like this picture.

• Oppose Votes:

1. What a shame, a lovely pic spoilt by the very slight blur - Adrian Pingstone 20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Weak oppose - Aperture too wide open. Due to this most of the facial features are not in focus. WB in edit 1 seems to be closest to the original. Other two are too warm IMO. Great subject and composition. - doniv 06:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral

1. reason - user

   comment

• Questions:
• question - user

  comment

Promoted Image:Siberischer tiger de edit02.jpg Mikeo 21:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valley of Mexico on the eve of the Spanish conquest of Mexico

Aztecs, Tenochtitlan

.

I am self-nominating this map as a featured picture of the day. This is a high-quality map, in relatively high resolution, that shows the major towns listed in the

Aztec

article, along with the outline of the five ancient lakes that formerly existed within the Valley.

Additional information includes the brackish/fresh water composition of the lakes, the chinampa beds (critical for an Aztec article), and the causeways constructed by the indigenous inhabitants. And all this is presented in a non-cluttered, easy-to-interpret, easy-on-the-eyes map that can actually be understood within the article itself (i.e. without having to click on the map &/or haul out the magnifying glass).

P.S. The colors are taken from the WikiProject Maps list of suggested colors..

• Nominate and support. - Madman 01:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. It's almost too simple to illustrate the concept (I don't mind clicking on a picture to see it full-sized), and I'd like to see more of where it's located i.e. surrounding areas/borders. Otherwise it's a nice size and not too complicated. --Tewy 01:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Dschwen (below) brings up a good point I didn't notice before about the PNG/SVG problem. I would much prefer the image be in SVG. --Tewy 02:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Uploading a pic like this as png is a waste of time. Sorry for the blunt words, but I'm starting to get rather annoyed by the ignorance toward SVG. update so that my vote doen't seem to be based on only the fileformat: looking at the map in full size it looks very blocky. I suspect it was drawn at even lower res and only upscaled before adding the text. --Dschwen 01:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the criteria says nothing about the SVG JPG PNG format, but it does say something about not flaming the newbies. Jeez, guys, gimme a break. Madman 03:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if my comment was offending. I'm pretty sure the main reason SVG is preferred is because you can make larger prints without pixelating the image. That's also a reason for the size requirements. And if partially basing my vote on the file type of the image isn't a valid reason, I'll gladly change my vote back to the original weak support. --Tewy

Thanks, Tewy. I am just not a format guru. I think I've only ever uploaded one photo to Wikipedia, and that was JPG, which (AFAIK) is the typical Internet format. Most of my uploads have been copies of 400 year old codices and the like, which are almost always JPG as well. This map was saved as a PNG 'cause a coworker said that it scaled better than JPG. I guess I'll have to look up SVG. Thanks, Madman 03:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JPEG should only be used for photographs and other images with smooth color gradients. It's not the "typical Internet format". —Keenan Pepper 04:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relatively high resolution is always lower than the infinite resolution you'll get with SVG, a vectoe based format. Madman, which program did you use to create the map? You might want to check out Inkscape. Another stron point for SVG are easy translations. There are Wikipedias in who knows how many languages. An SVG file can be loaded into a text editor and all strings can be replaced. This has all been said many times before, so sorry, but it gets really frustrating when people are on a weekly basis presenting drawings as PNG or worse JPG files. Anyways let's just put it in the FPS rules as well. Although I believe there already is an official policy page smoewhere... --Dschwen 05:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. I'd support an SVG version. —Keenan Pepper 04:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If SVG format is to be preferred in such cases, then the instructional procedures definitely need to give explicit indication of this, or at least point to some place where such a consensus was arrived at. There's nary a mention here or at
  WP:WIAFP or its talk page; there is a mention at WP:IUP but that is not linked to from here. Re the map/image itself, I think it's very well executed, but have a couple of suggestions. Firstly the map's focus is more on the lake itself rather than the entire valley, so the map's title could perhaps reflect this. Secondly there are some other localities in the region which could also be indicated. A third minor point, the legend boxes (for marshland and chinampas) should have the same background (A "North" pointer wouldn't go astray either, even if it is implied).--cjllw | TALK 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

No, they do not definitely need to give explicit indication of this! This is not something particular about FPC nor is it anything to debate about! It is a simple technical fact that SVG is the superior format for vector and line drawings. Full stop. And it is stated in the image upload instructions. --Dschwen 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Uploading Instructions cited state what the "preferred" format is. However, I just looked thru the 3 programs I used to create this map and none of them support SVG. I really don't understand why this is such a big deal and why it engenders such emotion.

In any case, CJLL has been kind enough to transform the present map into SVG here. and I'm sure that I can find someone somewhere to transform the final PNG file once I implement some of the changes suggested.

And speaking of that, I would like to respond to CJLL's suggestions:

1. Yes, the visual focus is more on the lakes and I originally named the file Lake Texcoco, but I was thinking that most casual readers would understand "Valley of Mexico" better than "Lake Texcoco". Titles such as "Ancient Lake System of the Valley of Mexico" or "Aztec Environs" seemed too much. I am definitely open to suggestions.
2. (This addresses Tewy's suggestion as well) I considered adding other important locales of the period, but I did want to limit the locales to those listed in the
   Aztec article (since this map was made just for the Aztec article and, too often in Wikipedia IMO, the maps are rather disconnected from the articles themselves). I see that Chapultepec
   is mentioned in the article, so I could/should add that to the next release.
3. You are correct here, the backgrounds of those two Legend boxes are different. Good catch. And I can add a North arrow too.

Anyone else have any suggestions?? Madman 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Lake Texcoco - Valley of Mexico (c.1519)", though this might be a bit much to fit into the map's title panel. It's just that for a map entitled "Valley of Mexico" It'd be good to have some indication of the terrain (as well as showing a larger area as the valley itself extends further than shown), whereas all non-settlement features indicated here are for the lake system.

As for the towns, without crowding it too much you could add also Coyoacan, Tlatelolco, Ayotzingo, and Atzacoalco; I think also that Teotihuacan should somehow be indicated differently, as by this period it had long been primarily a ceremonial rather than fully residential centre.

As for the format preferences, making mention here of what these may be is not to debate the point, but to clarify. Perhaps one of the main reasons that "people are on a weekly basis presenting drawings as PNG" is the lack of such a guideline here, whatever the upload instructions say. If appropriateness of file format is a criterion by which nominations are considered and judged, then it would seem reasonable to say so outright, just like for any other criteria.--cjllw | TALK 00:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ok, lets make this more constructive. Which program have you been using to create the map? Which 3 programs did you try to generate SVG. Your I'm sure that I can find someone somewhere to transform the final PNG shows some confusion. The PNG->SVG conversion is a non trivial step, involving an insane amount of manual work. Work that can be avoided if you work with a vector based drawing program like Inkscape from the start. Please understand that the difference between a PNG file and an SVG file is very fundamental. PNG means lots of pixels, SVG means lines,circles,text etc. --Dschwen 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just interested in creating nice, useful, pretty maps and not into the finer points of formats or into heavy graphics software. My software is MS Paint, MS Picture-it, and the Lexmark photo editor. I'm almost embarrased to admit how low-tech this is. And I'm tickled if you'd thought I used something more high-powered. I now understand the advantages of SVG and I'll look into Inkscape when I draw my next map. So, enough about formatting. I'll get an SVG if that's what's necessary. Over and out, Madman 04:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions, and welcome to wikistress! — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-09 15:23

• Support either this or the SVG version if it is uploaded. It currently meets the resolution requirements; easy translation, though nice, is really only necessary for Commons FP. This is the English project. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-09 15:24

• Oppose confusing more than anything else. EamonnPKeane 20:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you be able to elaborate please which aspects of the image you find confusing? It would be difficult to address your concern without further information. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 23:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose i don't see anything particularly special about this map--Vircabutar 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I found the map provides a good look not available form other sources. Nanahuatzin 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment maybe so, but is the map so amazingly encyclopedic or beautiful that it's worth to be a FP. I mean there are thousands of maps in wikipedia; why is this one so special?
• Question -- Who actually counts the votes here? I see that User:Joniscool98 posted the "not promoted" message below. Does he make the final "thumbs up/thumbs down" determination?? Curiously yours, Madman 02:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 21:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muybridgehorse

Not for replacement.

The "Animated Horse" image, the cartoon animation representing this photo animation. I nominated for delisting the Animated Horse image, but it was retained. Not only does the Muybridge animation show a real horse and its actual features, these animations actually settled the dispute as to whether all of the horse's hooves leave the ground when galloping. The images were taken in 1904, so I would like to expect no comments on the photo's quality. A series of cameras were set parallel the track with trip wires laid across the track, triggered by the horse's hooves. The image is prominently featured on Eadweard Muybridge's article.

• Nominate and support. - AJ24 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Was this the image that proved movement could be made by a series of pictures? I thought I remembered hearing something about that... In any case, this is a good example of what Muybridge did, so unless there's an even better one, I'll support this image. As for replacing the Animated Horse image, can you really do that? I thought everything had to be done independantly. Even if it's allowed, I don't support replacing one for the other. I think they should be seen as seperate images, and be delisted accordingly. --Tewy 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Concerning replacing images instead of delisting and then nominating, it has been done before. The monopoly board image was nominated for replacement and no complaint arose, so I suppose it is acceptable and time-saving. (Original nominator has been informed). -- AJ24 20:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense when one image is simply a one-for-one replacement of the previous image - a new photograph or diagram in exactly the same format illustrating exactly the same thing. That's not the case here - you're proposing a sequence of photographs to replace a hand-drawn animation; an entirely different presentation of the subject. The current Featured Picture illustrates the articles

Rotoscope and Traditional animation; the proposed image would not be suitable to illustrate any of these. I can't help feeling that you have missed the point of the original animation, which is not there to illustrate a horse or galloping, but rather to illustrate the concepts of rotoscoping and cartoon animation. TSP 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support the Edward Muybridgeanimation, but I do NOT support the replacement of the cartoon animation. They are not representing the same thing and are not even in the same articles. You seem commited to having it de-listed and it is bordering on obsession. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose concept The horse failed to be de-listed so now you are trying to replace it? If you hate it that much re-list it for de-listing. Don't try and work around how the system works. I move to have this changed to a pure nomination anyone agree? -Ravedave 21:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Concerns. This opposition to replacing images was not shown when the monopoly board image was nominated to be replaced by another. I have tried the delisting process and the animated horse was retained. I do not understand how you would oppose bettering FP. If one image of the same concept is greater than the other, then common sense would dictate to replace it with the better one; is that not applicable? I agree replacing is very rarely done, but it is not erratic or illegal (in FPCriteria). I havent even seen an unwritten rule about replacing images. But, if I were to nominate the two images (for FP status one and delisting the other), do you think that independent concept would work? Because you will always have the voters who automatically support the image just as there are so many supporters of the anime girl. I strongly believe an actual, real-life set of images of highly historic content outweigh an unrealistic cartoon. -- AJ24 00:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I wanted to view these two images independantly was because they're so different from each other. The nomination image is a series of photographs taken decades ago by a famous photographer. The current FP image is an animation made much more recently by a lesser-known creator. The two Monopoly board images are basically just different pictures of the same thing, so that's more of a replacement to achieve a better picture, not subject and picture. (I just noticed what TSP said above under my vote; basically what they said is what I mean). --Tewy 00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is, they are definitely not illustrating the same thing, so there is no need for just one of them to 'represent' a topic. Even if they were of the same topic, it should not replace an existing FP, unless the old FP is deemed unworthy, in which case, it should go through the process as a delisting candidate. Put simply, the approval of one FP should not affect the status of any other FP, no matter whether they're the of the same topic or not. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Muybridge, Nicely historically significant. --Billpg 21:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • but Abstain de-listing of cartoon. My support for one must not be taken as supporting or opposing the removal of another. --Billpg 21:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for all three pics. I'm withdrawing from this one discussion. --Billpg 09:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support listing of Muybridge, but oppose delisting of the animation. They illustrate two different things. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support new image - notable historical photos skillfully animated by Wikipedians to demonstrate their historical significance; Oppose removal of existing, entirely different, Featured Picture. TSP 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Brian0918 and User:Davepape - this is not in fact the set of images it purports to be. TSP 13:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sneaky and insulting circumvention of policy. Furthermore the animation is of low quality with strong Moiree patterns. Historically significant, but for this to be featured the quality of the animation must be improved (to a degree where it isn't a lot worse than the original b/w photos). --Dschwen 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky? One of the first words in bold letters is to Replace. Be civil. I informed the original nominator and did everything with policy in mind. Your comments are some of the most absurd things I have read on FPC. Concerning the quality, the set of photos were taken in 1906, in FPCriteria it is exempt. -- AJ24 00:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not necessarily exempt - merely given less importance. If the quality is due to poor a scan and not poor quality original photographs, then there is no reason why it cannot be improved. As for the sneakiness, you did suggest that the two animations represent the same idea, which is a little misleading to say the least. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It might also be worth considering the other Muybridge horse animation - though smaller, it is substantially better animated, and is a Wikimedia Commons featured picture. TSP 00:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Horse in Motion is of higher quality, and a famous set of images, hence its title "The Horse in Motion" (dubbed by Stanford University). -- AJ24 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I was hoping a better solution would be reached, but since a complete consensus has been reached concerning replacement, I will nominate the two independently 24 hours from now (giving ample time for a possible counter-solution). However, when I first nominated for delisting the animated horse, the animated horse and Muybridge's photos were being compared to eachother continually. The following is a statement made by User Moondigger on July 21, 2006: "The animation was rotoscoped from Edward Muybridge's galloping horse photos. Those photos were significant in the history of photography and the study of movement; there was disagreement in those days about whether all four of a horse's hooves were ever off the ground at the same time while galloping. His photos relied on what was then cutting-edge photographic technology and solved the mystery. I think this animation would catch less flack if only the horse weren't smiling. I know it works fine as a cartoon to have the horse smiling, but I believe the animation would be taken more seriously if it had a more realistic head/face." -- AJ24 00:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a new FAP and Oppose replacement. As Diliff has said cleary: "... they are definitely not illustrating the same thing... even if they were of the same topic, it should not replace an existing FP, unless the old FP is deemed unworthy, in which case, it should go through the process as a delisting candidate."--K.C. Tang 03:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support new FPC and Strongly oppose replacement Replacement would be both contrary to the spirit of FPC as the animation has been kept through the delisting process at least once, also they illustrate two entirely different things. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As the creator of the cartoon, I have only one comment re. this circus; incredible! You cannot compare apples and oranges: The old photos illustrate the Muybridge article, the cartoon illustrates several articles about animated cartoons, and how they are produced, and the specific process of using reference materials (such as Muybridge's photos) for creating the animation. AJ24, what is your reason for hating the cartoon so much that you try every conceivable way to get it delisted? Please make a better cartoon yourself, and we can start discussing things seriously. And I strongly suggest you read the
  rotoscope article - it seems you've never done that, despite earlier suggestions. --Janke | Talk 07:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

One more thing: AJ, this discussion makes me wonder if you have even read the Muybridge article carefully - did you notice the "Influences" section, which says: "Animators and artists still use Muybridge's work as a reference". Think about that. --Janke | Talk 07:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly appreciate it, Janke, if you would refrain from poorly guessing what I have and have not read. It is not difficult to entirely read a relatively short article, but you make it sound like it is. I completely understand that your animated horse represents and is used in a different genre of articles, but unless I am mistaken, you traced Muybridge's photos (I may be giving you too much credit) to create them into a cartoon animation. My point is, that the two photos (withouting considering the articles they are in) are two very similar images, one rotoscoped from the other. The cartoon version contains unrealistic features and does not allow you to see where its hooves touch or leave the ground. As for your belief that I "hate" your animation, why would I? If I originally saw your animation on one of the article's it is displayed in, I honestly wouldnt think twice about it either way. But when I noticed it was a Featured Picture, it seemed absent of all of the qualities the remainder of the FPs reveled in. Still to this day I think it unsuitable for FP status, but I do not even dislike the image, I dislike its status. All in all, I am just glad that the Muybridge image is widely accepted, it will further a distinguished quality or significance that the vast majority of FPs contain. -- AJ24 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support the Muybridge pic being promoted, Strongly Oppose the cartoon being delisted, for all the reasons above (especially those given by Diliff, TSP and Tewy). Strongly Suggest that AJ24 be checked into some sort of clinic to deal with his obsession with delisting that bloody cartoon. Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with the cartoon - they are not the same subject, so one cannot replace the other. The cartoon demonstrates animation and cartoon, as well as clearly (because it's a line drawing) showing the mechanics of a horse galloping. The Muybridge picture demonstrates early photography, stop motion, and a historical attempt at viewing how a horse runs. They are not in the same league, therefore one is not eligible to replace the other. This conversation over the horse cartoon is becoming such a sham it's not worth the amount of server space it takes up, nor the number of positioned electrons it takes to store it. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy remove delisting. After all, this isn't a nomination for delisting. There is no such thing as a nomination for replacement. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-09 15:08

  Both promotion and delisting are both within the scope of this page. Feel free to oppose the replacement, but the mere existence of this page shows there is such thing as a nominiation for replacement. Whether or not one will ever succeed is another matter. ed g2s • talk 13:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose both pics due to large moire patterns and skipping in the first, and small size and noise in the 2nd. The originals are on film, so we should be able to get a larger, much clearer version. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-09 15:12
• Support but not replace -- a classic series of photos --T-rex 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Future votes will solely be for supporting or opposing the Muybridge animation of photos. Thank you. -- AJ24 20:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not make such statements. If there is a consensus to remove the cartoon, then there's a consesnus, doesn't matter where it is gathered. This page is merely a useful way of organising the process of gathering a consensus. ed g2s • talk 12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice. Future replacements discussed on the FPC Discussion page. Please share your thoughts. -- AJ24 20:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nomination IF the nominatorr is correct about what this image is, historically. IF this image is not what it is supposed to be I Oppose as there is not much historicle value to overcome the faults. say1988 22:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support new pic&Strongly oppose replacement when will people understand that most of us like that animation? BTW: what criteria are you using for saying it ilustrates the same thing?Nnfolz 00:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is not Muybridge's 1878 "The Horse in Motion", the first, historic sequence he shot for Stanford; it's "Daisy galloping", from his 1887 collection Animal Locomotion. It's interesting, but it's just one of hundreds of human and animal studies, some of which are better photos than this. I also oppose the animated-gif form - the original form is more appropriate for featuring. (Note: a version of the 1878 "Horse in Motion" is here, which I just updated with a higher-res copy, but I wouldn't recommend it for FPC unless someone were to clean it up a bit.) --Davepape 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many versions of The Horse in Motion, the above is the 1904 series of photos. This is a famous set of images. -- AJ24 14:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Minor nitpick: the photos are from some time between 1878 and 1887, not 1904. "(d. 1904)" simply means that Muybridge died in 1904.)

Main point reiterated: I think some people are supporting on the belief that this is "the" sequence of photos that Muybridge shot in 1878 to (according to myth) settle a bet by Leland Stanford. Those first photos were more silhouette-like; it required later improvements in film technology to get better photos such as those in the above candidates [18]. Muybridge shot thousands of photographs at that point; flipping through my books of them, I'd say that there are some cleaner-looking ones than the candidates (though none are exactly perfect).

And to expand on my animated-gif complaint - one could argue that the animation represents Muybridge's Zoopraxiscope work, but these aren't exactly the pictures he used in that, and I'm feeling purist. --Davepape 16:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the photo that settled the bet (myth or not) was not from a continuous series. It was indeed one of the very first shots done in 1873, with a very short exposure time (in the order of a thousandth of a second), but they were random shots from a single camera, not a sequence with a dozen or more cameras. --Janke | Talk 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support replacement. It is up to the closing admin to decide to whether there is a consensus to promote/remove the image. Just because the removal votes are in the "wrong" section does not make the opinions of the voters any less valid. ed g2s • talk 12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Wrong. This image has been nominated for delisting multiple times before. People shouldn't be allowed to just keep nominating something for removal over and over again without any regard for the time between each vote. That is common sense, something which you ignored when nominating this image to be delisted twice in 10 days (2nd was 3 days after the 1st closed). — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-14 15:26

  There should not be a "replacement" process, because each image should be added/removed on its own merits, and placing two images together for comparison provides too great a temptation for people to vote on one image based on their like/dislike of another image. Someone who really doesn't like the animated horse image may simply vote support for the other image in order to get rid of the animated horse (since such an opportunity to get rid of it is not likely to come up again soon), and not vote for the other image on its own merits.

  This nomination is a great example of this, as the proposed nomination has numerous avoidable problems, such as noise, blur, and moire patterns--something that can be avoided since these photos are on film. And yet, here we have you, who has nominated the animated horse for delisting twice in a 10-day period, voting support on an extremely poor rendering of a set of old photographs. If we let this "replacement" nonsense continue, there is the possibility that the collection of FPs will become degraded over time.

  Every image should be considered on its own merits — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-14 15:32

• Oppose image and "replacement". The animation is very jerky at the end of the stride, the one that's featured on the commons is much better. I don't like this replacement stuff, but that's not the reason I'm opposing. The cartoon illustrates a cartoon, it doesn't have to be totaly realistic. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Agree with Brian0918 -- each image should be judged on its own merits. A so-called 'nomination for replacement' violates that basic principle. That said, I would support making one of Muybridge's galloping horse animations a FP, despite minor quality concerns. (Not necessarily one of these, though I don't think they're all that bad considering the source). I am going to abstain from voting on this particular nomination, as it's clearly a giant mess that cannot be reasonably resolved. -- Moondigger 20:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion: Suspend this nomination of the galloping Muybridge photos. I own the book "Animals in Motion", and I will be doing a scan of the very same series for a Finnish TV documentary, about to be produced this fall. I'm pretty certain I can get a better result than the moireed example that is nominated here. The other one, the Commons FP, suffers from bad compression artifacts (especially noticeable in the larger version). The cartoon has a consensus to be kept as FP (and cannot be replaced by any photos, anyway), so if you can wait a few months, we may have a better version of "Daisy with rider". Greetings, --Janke | Talk 08:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted I didn't bother tallying votes. "Nomination for replacement" violates the principle that each image should be judged on its own merits, and also runs counter to the delisting procedure which requires a consensus (or the kind of supermajority we usually end up with) to delist. As for promoting one of the Muybridge animations... taking all the comments into account, it appears it would be best to nominate one of them separately at a time when one with better quality comes available. If somebody would rather nominate one of the current animations now, they are (obviously) free to do so, letting it stand or fall on its own merits. If anybody takes issue with the way this nomination was closed, let's discuss it on the FPC talk page. -- Moondigger 01:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a new version of Annie G. galloping: Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Muybridge galloping horse. --Waugsberg 22:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric inversion

Purdy, and a striking demonstration of inversion (meteorology). Created and uploaded by Johantheghost.

• Nominate and support. - Father Goose 21:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, I guess it might need to be transferred to en from commons first; I apologize, I'm not sure how to do that.--Father Goose 21:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to transfer it, and I've added the FPC template for you.

• Oppose. The image itself is too grainy for FP, and there are a few distractions that have nothing to do with inversion. I guess if the picture was of higher quality and some things (like the contrail, or the houses) weren't in the picture, I would support it. --Tewy 21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose per above--Vircabutar 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The phenomenon being demonstrated is interesting but otherwise I agree with the above comments. --Nebular110 22:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Illustrates the article outstandingly well and I don't see it as particularly grainy - Adrian Pingstone 07:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks pretty good to me too. --jjron 11:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. I like the compisition as it gives perspective on the phenomenom. I don't see much grain at all, very minor. The image is encyclopedic and well exposed. HighInBC 16:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per others. --Bernard 20:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just doesn't strike me as FP quality. It's hazy (I guess it has to be), not sharp, and blown in areas. --Fir0002 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not the best example of an inversion but good picture. --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 02:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not promoted (+5/-4.5) -- Moondigger 01:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Bison

Other than the graininess and the hooves being hidden, I think this is an excellent picture of an American bison, showing both a frontal view of the head and a side view of the body; appears in

Bovid (all about the same thing), and the USDA created the image, with an upload by QuartierLatin1968/QuartierLatin1968

.

• Please note. This is not the only version. There is also an exact copy located here. The alternate version is located in several different articles in different langauges, so a speedy delete would be difficult at this time (it would need to be replaced in each article). I chose to nominate the version that was already a FP in Wikimedia Commons.

• Nominate and support original. The edit is oversaturated. - Tewy 02:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good colors, nice composition. -Ravedave 04:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1. The color is *much* better. A nice job as usual Fir. -Ravedave 01:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support despite the fact that the grass makes it somewhat busy I like the composition and I like the shot layout, it is definitely a well done photo and has the wow factor, it also shows the bison well.
  Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 10:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - Edit 1 I like it, and it is mostly in focus from front to back. I like the new edit, nothing seems overexposed that was not before. HighInBC 15:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice shot, looks well-enoughed focused for me. InvictaHOG 17:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportNnfolz 20:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - bizzarrely, I was looking at bison like 3 days and thinking it was a pity there wasn't a decent image there. Either I missed this, or it's been added since. Stevage 22:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose edit. Sorry but like the waterfall this edit is over the top again. Way oversaturated. --Dschwen 00:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good detail and color. Better than the two I just uploaded to the
  American Bison article IMHO.--MONGO 08:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Very natural, great colour contrast. Kingfisherswift 10:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. -
  lo 18:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Either with preference for Edit 1. Very nice. --Fir0002 00:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per above. --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 18:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support edit 1. Per Jtkiefer. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose edit. Fir's Everyone's colorspace must be way different from mine, because I just see artificial saturation. Outriggr 21:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Darwinek 23:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - good picture, meets all criteria. --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 02:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support original. Maybe slightly lacking contrast, but not disturbingly. Oppose edit, too saturated.--JyriL ^talk 15:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. -- Looks fine on my monitor; Fir's looks a bit oversaturated. -- Moondigger 23:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either.
  chat} 20:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support edit 2 fine image--Vircabutar 01:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 good image--Neo139 15:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:American bison k5680-1.jpg It appears there's more support for/less opposition to the original. -- Moondigger 01:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horsetail Falls (California)

Image appears in Horsetail Falls (California) and in Desolation Wilderness

• Nominate and support. - Phreakdigital 22:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport. Great photo. Love the water. Iorek85 03:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - nice place. unfortunately seems a little blown out in areas. edit? Henry A-W 08:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice scenery but not the ideal view of the falls. Too obscured. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - lovely shot, obviously adds a huge amount to the article at this point. It'd be good to see some other photos of the waterfall for comparison though, to see how much we're missing out on? I don't see any blown out highlights except possibly a tiny patch right in the upper right? Stevage 10:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Diliff; we seem to be missing a lot of the falls, and I want to know what's there. I wonder do these falls need their own article? The current article is so insubstantial, can't it just be included in the Desolation Wilderness article? --jjron 12:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - ok so i do have another shoot of these falls, but its very difficult to get to a better place to shoot these falls because there are cliffs surrounding the falls...the reason i made its own stub is for a couple reasons...so it can be included in the category Waterfalls of California(help my link) and so it doesn't make up a disproportionate amount of the Desolation Wilderness article as it is just one waterfall...I also am adding many other stubs in the Desolation Wilderness...falls, mountains, Trailheads, and Lakes...Phreakdigital 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - beautiful pictures --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 02:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak oppose. They're both excellent pictures, but as Diliff said, more of the actual falls need to be seen (unless there is no possible way to get a better shot). --Tewy 03:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose for now. Yes, it would be nice to see more of the falls but in many cases it can be difficult to get such a shot without risking falling of the edge of a steep precipice and personally, I don't think any featured picture is worth that kind of risk :-) I agree with Henry A-W, picture quality could probably be improved by some editing. --Nebular110 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - just so everyone knows these are a mosiac...a stitching of 18 images...two rows of 9 images...these falls are very difficult to photograph...I dont think the judging of the final image should be effected by the process needed to create it, but its also hard to see people judging the images without knowing the process - Phreakdigital 06:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the fact that it is a mosaic shouldn't really affect the judgement of it. You should be able to get an angle of view similar to this with an ultra wide angle zoom lens, and the resolution isn't really significantly better than a single image. In addition, I can see some stitching faults in the second photo - there is a ghost of the trees at the top right, and more ghosting on the rock on the bottom left. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I like the composition on both, with a slight preference for the second. However the technical problems mentioned by others are distracting. If it's possible to re-shoot, you might try using an ultra-wide lens rather than stitching together a mosaic. -- Moondigger 20:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (+4.5/-3.5) -- Moondigger 02:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the swan goose is not white it is black with brown

Swan Goose shows the unique beak

knob.

This

Swan Goose photograph illustrates avian anatomical structures in detail. Photo credit appears on the image page. Currently used in Beak

, and will be used in the eponymous bird article.

• Nominate and support. - Outriggr 05:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support. - Although it would be better if the light were coming from the this side illuminating the birds face and of course the beak knob - Phreakdigital 19:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, the lighting would be better that way, but aesthetically, I think it's better this way. The crests of light seem to give the picture a certain reality. Outriggr 09:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely, keep them coming outrigger! I might upload a few myself. Have you tried convincing the photographer to join wikipedia? --Fir0002 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't asked him, but have explained the WP project. I hate to keep bugging him for higher-res versions, but apparently he receives many requests. Outriggr 09:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great, technically and the subject. --Dschwen 06:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - great photo. I'm not exceptionally fond of the lighting, but the detail is great. Stevage 10:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, largely because it is hard to believe this bird belongs to the
  Swan Goose species (Anser cygnoides) as named and described in the article. Perhaps it is just that the article is lacking a lot of detail on variations. As an illustration purely of 'beak' I find it a little misleading as the 'knob' structure is highly unusual. Now, if there was an article about that knob, or it was well described in the Swan Goose article, it would be great (i.e., what's it for? Is it for vocalisation, sexual display, just a weird mutation, etc? Why do some have it, and some such as in the existing photo, not have it?)... --jjron 16:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This confused me too; this species is highly domesticated and while I have found references to domesticated white varieties, the photog said this goose was in the wild. At any rate, it's included in "Beak" because the knob is part of the rhamphotheca, which redirected to Beak, and is mentioned in the article. Here is one quick photographic confirmation of the species issue. Outriggr 16:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I also found other images suggesting that this is the bird you say before opposing, but it still doesn't gel with the article. For a while I thought maybe the existing photo in the article was a misidentified Anser anser, but possibly not. Oh, and I don't oppose it being in beak, I just don't think it is a typical representation of beak; and yes, the knob is mentioned in the beak article, but nowhere is the purpose (if any) of it described. It looks like this is going to get promoted, but to me it's weird to have a FP that is totally at odds with the species description in its article. --jjron 12:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per nom --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 02:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak support. I'd prefer to see just a bit more of the beak (the tip) in focus. Otherwise it's a good representation of "the knob". --Tewy 03:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, I'm beginning to wish "the knob" had a technical name, but I haven't found one. :-) Outriggr 03:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I enjoy the "the knob" as the technical name for this anatomical feature - Phreakdigital 06:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Anser cygnoides.jpg (+6.5/-1) -- Moondigger 02:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interplanetary Superhighway

Lagrange points

, while constricted areas represent locations where objects linger in temporary orbit around a point before continuing on.

This is one of the very best examples I have found that fulfills the dual requirements of adding significantly to an article while also catching the eye. Linked to Interplanetary Transport Network.

• Nominate and support. - Jeeb 18:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Resolution is on the low side, sure you can't find a better one on NASA's site? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Eye catching, yes. But otherwise this image is unencyclopaedic and confusing at best. An actual diagram of orbits would be far more valuable. This is like many of those Artsists impressions, pretty, but not related to the physics of the subject. Wiggely tubes, planets completely out of scale, no concept of orbits whatsoever in the image. Not featureworthy. --Dschwen 01:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with Dschwen. Not useful, accurate or insightful enough to add significantly to the article as a featured picture should do. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose To be really honest the image is really cool, but I don't think the average person can undesrtand what it is trying to illustrate. I tried reading the article, but all it talks about is about a bunch of points, and coordinates. All I see is a drawing of the solar system in a really artistic fashion and not something that adds to my understanding of anything.Nnfolz 14:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm totally confused by this and the article doesn't help. I can't tell where the center of the system is supposed to be and the planets don't seem to be arranged in the standard order. Visually it isn't bad (it is as good as most of the NASA "artist renditions" are in terms of its artistic qualities) but conceptually it is very confused and very confusing. I suspect it was drawn by someone who did not understand it either, and was trying to just maximize the "cool" effect. --Fastfission 01:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not notable and will be hard for people viewing the front page to understand. --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 02:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Even besides the encyclopedic value, the image is too small (per above). --Tewy 02:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not a bit informative, planets look horrible and inaccurate (I'm ready to oppose any illustration that shows Saturn as a perfect sphere). Cheap render look hurts.--JyriL ^talk 14:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not sure how Jyril can determine that Saturn is being depicted as a perfect sphere at that resolution -- it's less than 10% oblate in reality, which makes for only a few pixel difference in this image, easily masked by the rings and ribbon/tubes. I also disagree that it isn't "a bit" informative -- in fact, it helps illustrate a difficult concept somewhat. The problem is the "somewhat." It's more artistic than technical, and (as others have mentioned) the accuracy of the depiction suffers -- the orbits don't have to be absolutely to scale (imagine the image size if they were), but some reference should be made to clarify that point. -- Moondigger 21:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dschwen Jam01 07:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not encyclopedic. Nice pic though HighInBC 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Very Interesting Rendition but needs a lot of work Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 07:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I understand that the image and its associated article were not particularly clear. To address this, I have significantly revised the picture caption along with the Interplanetary Transport Network article, and will resubmit the revised version. Please have a look at the revised article/caption to see if the concept is clear. Also, comments such as "not a bit informative" are out of line and indicate that no effort was made to understand the concept involved. Jeeb 18:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Moondigger 02:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water drops on spider web

Stunning image of water drops on spider web, found in several articles like adhesion, dew, water

• Nominate and support. -
  vineeth 05:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose: Image is blurry, background is less than spectacular, and overall the image just isn't that great. --Hetar 05:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, seriously lacking in sharpness. --Dschwen 06:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurred - Adrian Pingstone 07:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Wonderful subject, but the picture is blurred and it doesn't meet size requirements (at least 1000x1000). --Tewy 02:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per Arpingstone --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 02:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per above. -- Moondigger 05:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Subject is cut off, blur, limited background. Good idea for an FP though, it just lacks technical excellence. HighInBC 12:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support EXCELLENT PHOTO should be used for this:
  Interplanetary Superhighway Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 07:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Very much illustrates the concept of water adhesion, although the picture of droplets on grass leaves serves the purpose much better IMO. Jeeb 02:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is a nice picture, but it is blurry, unencyclopedic and could be sharper. Also, Zena, you say this could be on Interplanetary Superhighway: How so? This does not depict an interplanetary superhighway. This depicts drops of water on a spider web. Sorry. Viva La Vie Boheme!

Oh, I'm sorry. The 'artistic' redering of the

Interplanetary Superhighway has curves and stuff. Zena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 11:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)(UTC)[reply

]

Not promoted -- Moondigger 02:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panthera Leo

• Nominate and support cele4 17:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - some serious bluriness. Renata 17:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too cropped (lioness cut off), blurry, not in any article. --Janke | Talk 17:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If you check out the full size you see everything doubled. It is like the picture is superimposed with a copy of itself but shifted a few pixels. Very irritating. Plus the lighting of the lion makes him look washed out. --Dschwen 18:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per above. --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 18:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Per above. --Tewy 02:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. -- Moondigger 05:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Village House

This is a high-resolution picture showing the typical house in a Russian Village. This picture is well-shot and neutral, and is well used in articles. It will also tell people about the Russian culture if it becomes a featured picture.

• Nominate and support. -
  GoOdCoNtEnT 18:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - and the car is also typical? ;P if seriously, nothing special, bad composition... Renata 18:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - how is the car not typical?
• oppose i personally don't like the presence of that car--Vircabutar 02:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not very sharp. Not a bad picture, but not a featured picture either. --Tewy 02:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It is very common to park a car next to your house, and it's presence helps strengthen the picture's representation of the typical Russian rural home. I do not think that the prescene of the car should disqualify this picture from becoming featured. --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 02:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. A bit unsharp at full resolution, though this could be remedied by downsampling slightly and some judicious sharpening. It looks like it's tilted to the left as well, though it's difficult to determine whether that's due to the camera actually being tilted, the position the photo was taken from, or the house being a bit off-square. I like that it isn't oversaturated, but overall it comes across as a typical snapshot rather than FP material. -- Moondigger 05:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not too fond of the composition - dead in front, including the fence and car. Would be more interesting from the side, rear...something! Also I'm always a little wary of these "typical" shots - who says it's typical? Where is it? Russia being the largest country on earth, "Russian village" isn't telling us a lot. Maybe just a better caption would help, like "A house in the Russian Village of x, built in the 1920s style of y, as evidenced by the z. The Mitsubishi whatever is typical of many Russians' new affluence" or whatever. So it's not just "some house somewhere" but actually has encyclopaedic value, so we could put it in articles about Russian architecture alongside other photos of houses from other eras or whatever. Stevage 11:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The subject is obscured by trees, the image is tilted and not sharp.--JyriL ^talk 15:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Shadow on/over subject, tilted horizon, doesnt contirbute anything to the article Village Gnangarra 09:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Moondigger 02:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Rosa vineyard

Santa Rosa is the largest city in California's Wine Country. While the most expansive vineyards in both Sonoma and Napa Counties lie on unincorporated county land or within outlying cities, away from U.S. Route 101, this image of a smaller vineyard in Santa Rosa illustrates the City's continuing ties to the wine industry.

Self-taken in July, when the plants and berries are in early bloom (before the width of the vines nearly obliterates the planting pattern) while the hillsides demonstrate the effects of the summer sun.

• Nominate and support. - RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - good picture but not the best of Wikipedia. --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 03:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak oppose. Weak support Per
  GoOdCoNtEnT, and size requirements. --Tewy 03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I missed something; size reqs were 1000px min, right? This is 1024 wide.

  WP:WIAFP says "Generally, images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height", not and. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Oh thank you thank you thank you. I might've continued with my misreading of the key word "or" for a long time. Now I need to go back and correct a few of my previous votes before it's too late!... --Tewy 03:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  My thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A nice image, but I don't feel it is the best Wikipedia has to offer. --Fir0002 06:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's just a little on the ordinary side. It's sharp, it's clear...but at the end of the day I'm looking at a bunch of grapevines. A higher shot of the whole vineyard (or even several vineyards) might be more impressive? Don't take offence, it's almost there :) Stevage 11:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  None taken. :) I did, though, intentionally take a low shot and then crop it to give the viewer the feel of standing in a vineyard. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting. For me there is *such* a fine line between "viewer feeling like he's standing in the photo" and "happy snap". I usually consider any photo where I can readily identify with the photographer ("oh, he's standing on the side of the road", "he's at the lookout", "he must have climbed on top of the railing") to be a "happy snap" and it's quite distracting. Putting the viewer in the shot can be good though...no idea how you do that effectively without it becoming cheap. Stevage 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if "ooh, he's actually standing in a vineyard" is a "happy snap"... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As others have already said, this is not the best Wikipedia has to offer. Mikeo 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not spectacular, colors are a bit dull. Good image, not FP. HighInBC 12:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple notes. This picture is looking east from Old Redwood Hwy at the Siebert Vineyard. The address is 4120 Old Redwood Hwy. The location is outside (but close to) the city limits. The grapes are pinot noir. The appellation is Russian River Valley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmslogos (talk • contribs) 19:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Moondigger 02:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Havasu Falls

File:Havasu Falls 1 md.jpg

I love the colors and composition, it looks like a postcard. This is in the articles

Waterfalls of the Havasupai Indian Reservation, water and waterfall. Info about the subject: Havasu Falls (Havasupai Falls meaning People-Of-The-Blue-Green-Waters) are waterfalls located on the Havasupai Indian Reservation near the village of Supai, Arizona. Created by our own User:Moondigger

.

Note: In an attempt to address some of the comments below, I started from scratch with the original RAW camera file and re-processed the image without referring to my previous edit(s). The result is Edit 2, which does look better on uncalibrated displays, and is closer to the original RAW file (less processed). -- Moondigger 18:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support edit 2. - Ravedave 03:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I also like the composition and how everything is sharp. I guess my only question is whether it meets size requirements? --Tewy 03:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - low resolution, blurry, poor exposure. --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 03:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Low resolution? It's 821x1231 which is above the minimum, of course we can always beg Moondigger to upload the higher res as usual :) -Ravedave 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to get into a debate about likes and dislikes. But your criticisms are questions of fact, not opinion. As Ravedave mentioned, the photo exceeds the stated resolution requirements. At full resolution, it is not 'blurry,' though the Wiki scaling algorithms do cause the thumbnail here and on the initial image page to look somewhat soft. Click here for a direct link to the full-resolution photo: [19] The exposure is correct for the difficult (mixed full sun/shadow) lighting. If it looks too dark in the shadow areas, make sure your display is at least calibrated for brightness/gamma based on this test image: . You should be able to see the three brightest circles, though the third should be only just visible. Oppose if you don't like it, but at least make sure you're viewing the full-res photo on a semi-calibrated display. Thanks -- Moondigger 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Size is within the accepted limits, the photo is sharp on everything except the water, which is meant to be bluured. I think it's a great photo. PPGMD 03:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Resolution is a little low. A higher resolution image would be preferable. I'm not sure I really like the position the photo was taken from, I've seen better photos of the falls taken from different angles. However, I would still be willing to support if a higher res image is uploaded. --Nebular110 04:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to checkout google images to see what else there is on these falls. Results here [20], pretty interesting, especially the dude on a toilet. Hows that for random? Not sure if that helps or hurts this nomination. -Ravedave 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who knows? I don't think googling for images would help most nominations, as then people get to comparing the nominated images with anything and everything available on the web, many of which are not free-licensed or available for use on Wikipedia. FPs are supposed to be Wikipedia's best work. I like this image (it's mine, afterall) but opinions vary. -- Moondigger 04:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've seen better photos of Havasu Falls here on Wikipedia? My primary motivation for uploading this one was because the others I found here fell far short of my memory of the place. As for resolution... I don't know what to say. There are 600 and 800 pixel images in the current featured picture listings that don't seem to bother anybody... despite the fact that they're well short of the stated requirements. Yet when a 1200 pixel image is nominated, exceeding the stated 1000 pixel requirement, people oppose it for reasons of resolution? -- Moondigger 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting indeed. No not better ones here on Wikipedia, but in other places. That's why I said I would support if a higher resolution image is uploaded. I know it meets the requirements but when I download the full resolution file and view it, the image still seems somewhat grainy and blurry to me (and my monitor is calibrated correctly). There's no doubt that its a great picture, but for me it's not a featured one unless the resolution is improved. Personally, I prefer the photos taken from below looking back up at the falls rather than the pics taken from the top of the falls. But that's just my opinion. There is one image of the falls taken from below that I saw a few years ago that really sticks in my mind. I think it was published in Arizona Highways. I'm trying to find a link to it somewhere on the web but no luck so far. --Nebular110 04:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, if I had an image that I had a reasonable belief could be sold to Arizona Highways, I'd sell it (which would make it ineligible for Wikipedia's required licensing). Of course as of the last time I checked, Arizona Highways was still refusing digital files... if it ain't on Velvia, they ain't buying it. Composition's a funny thing. I have images of Havasu Falls taken from lots of different angles, including from water level, and I liked this one best. The resolution thing is a pet peeve of mine, so don't take my comments harshly. I just think if 1200 pixel FPCs are going to be shot down as too low-res, then the stated requirement should be for 1400 pixels or more. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that if the requirements were changed to 1400 pixels, then people would vote against 1400 pixel images because they only just met the requirements. :) -- Moondigger 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can still sell your photo, and still license it Wikipedia, there is nothing in copywrite law that prohibits releasing your photo under different licenses, there is also nothing that prohibits Arizona Highways from using your GFDL photo that is here if it's big enough for their uses, but if they want a full resolution version, they should come to the photographer. Under Wikipedia's backward copyright rules the only way to retain commercial paid usage of your photos is to give a lower resolution version to Wikipedia, and keep the full resolution version for your commercial clients. PPGMD 13:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. -- Moondigger 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fulfills resolution requirement (still, larger is always better... ;-) You really need to look at this in full size, not just the downsampled half-large version on the image page. Very crisp, very sharp. If only someone would photoshop out those people... (just kidding!) --Janke | Talk 05:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The colors/lighting look kinda funky on my monitor. Looks like it's had some pretty extreme shadow/highlight applied to it. I too have seen some really great photos of havasu falls: [21] [22] [23]. Admittedly they are done by professionals and certainly not free, but even a quick search on flickr comes up with some free content which I think are more aesthetic: [24] [25] [26] - they are of course not technically as good as your shot, but then again they were taken with a Kodak LS443. I uploaded an edit, but I'm not particularly happy with it. --Fir0002 07:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the free shots you linked to are Havasu Falls. They're Mooney Falls, I believe. This demonstrates one of the problems with comparing FPCs to googled images -- the risk that the googled images might not even be the same thing. The photoshop shadow/highlight routines were not applied to mine, though I did toy with the shadow exposure using layer masks and selective burning/dodging... otherwise the shadow areas are totally lost. As for color... my edit is pretty close to reality, not oversaturated or with unnaturally boosted contrast. It looks like my memory of the place, not an artificially-enhanced version of it. The non-free Havasu images you linked to have various other problems: blown sky and water; obvious misuse of graduated ND filters; the water too blue/not green enough, or a combination of these. (The water really is turquoise there.) I'll say this: it's going to be pretty annoying and tedious if people have to start defending their FPC candidates against comparisons to photos googled from all over the web. I think this sets a bad precedent. FWIW, for the reasons I mentioned above, I think mine is better than the ones you linked to anyway. But certainly people can find photos somewhere that are better -- maybe one taken in different lighting would have a true black tone somewhere without blowing out the water or totally losing the shadow areas. I just don't think doing so is fair or useful here. The vast majority of currently-featured images have counterparts somewhere on the web that are better. -- Moondigger 12:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I share your pain there. It has been pretty common for images of mine to be 'improved' by others here but (in my opinion) they have only taken away from the realism and authenticity of the image. The trouble is, not everyone shares the author's goal of accurate reproduction of the scene - they want images that scream "vivid!" at the viewer. That said, I feel like the shadow area has been lifted a little too much and appears a bit strange and lacking contrast to my eye. That said, I have to admit that I'm not sure whether that's merely my preconceived expectation of the limits of film, as I can imagine that the human eye would see shadow and highlights in a similar way to as it is represented here. In any case, I would certainly prefer to see the falls when the lighting was less harsh but obviously that is what separates a pro and an inspired amateur like you and I - we'll chase the shot but won't follow it to the ends of the earth. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Diliff, this is about the tenth or eleventh attempt. When I left the right side wall darker, it looked strange to my eye, and made the water in shadow too dark. I masked the 'shadow water' and only adjusted the wall, but then the water and wall didn't match and looked obviously wrong. I have noticed that my current version looks great (to my eye) on my primary, calibrated monitor -- but does look semi-low contrast on some randomly-selected (and mostly uncalibrated) displays I have access to. That's why I put up the calibration target next to the images -- this one (in particular) seems more sensitive to display calibration than most of my other images. (Of course this target only gives a rough estimate of proper brightness, leaving other things like gamma, contrast, and color balance unaddressed. But it's better than nothing.) FWIW, I've done pro work before on assignment -- but when I took this picture I didn't have time to "chase the shot" to better lighting conditions; I was chasing my children around, trying to make sure they didn't fall into the canyon or get stung by a scorpion ;^) -- Moondigger 04:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Edit2. Higher res would be nice, but the picture is pretty sharp. The edit is a bit over the top (it blows out parts of the waterfall) and it makes the colors look like an old technicolor-movie. --Dschwen 08:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Edit 2. Beautiful picture, high quality, nice colors, good composition. I prefer the non-edited version. Mikeo 20:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, or one that is somewhere between the original and Edit 1. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-15 00:04
• Support original Edit 2 - Lovely photo, contrast looks fine on my (properly calibrated) Mitsubishi DiamondPro 930SB, highly illustrative. Edit 2 is even better. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the
  Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial ShareAlike license only permit reuse for non-commercial purposes? I've released all my images (not that they approach the standard of most of yours, Moondigger) under CC-BY-SA 2.5 for that reason. I should have thought that you could reasonably upload full-resolution images under that license for use in such projects as Wikipedia without worrying about not being able to sell them, as you could sell the rights for commercial use instead?--Yummifruitbat 12:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Nope, CC-BY-SA 2.5 specifically allows commercial use. See this link, specifically the third bullet: [27]. As others have mentioned, you are not prohibited from selling copies of the work, but there would be little reason for somebody to buy a copy when one is licensed for free here. -- Moondigger 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies, that didn't make a lot of sense. I meant that you could use the non-commercial license: [28]. I'm not too worried about people making commercial use of my work at the moment, and doubt they would anyway, so I've been using just the by-sa license. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's position on non-commercial-only licenses is though... --Yummifruitbat 20:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Non-commercial licenses such as the one you pointed out are unacceptable for use on Wikipedia or Commons. Ditto for no-derivs licenses: unacceptable. -- Moondigger 20:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict, oops) Sorry, I'm talking a spectacular amount of rubbish today, please ignore me... --Yummifruitbat 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No need to apologize. Wiki-required licensing is a point of confusion for many people, judging by the comments I've seen around here. This discussion might help make things clearer for some folks. -- Moondigger 20:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks :) - On that note, for reference:
              Wikipedia:Image copyright tags... which I've read several times before today, so I should definitely have known better than the above. --Yummifruitbat 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
              ]
• weak support - I like it, but a larger copy would turn my support to strong — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighInBC (talk • contribs)
• Neutral Technically nice shot, but am I the only one who thinks that there is a weird figure/ground effect in the background cliffs? The lighter, less saturated colors of the cliffs in the distance against the deeper colors of the foreground make it seem like the background is closer to the viewer. The absence of a sky to provide depth cues contributes to this effect. Wickerprints 20:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why you're perceiving it that way. Typically one would expect more haze in the distance, since you're seeing distant objects through more air than close objects. Consequently, one normally perceives less saturation/contrast in distant objects when compared with something closer. That's what's shown here. In any case, the background looks like the background to me... I'm not seeing the effect you describe. Does it appear that way in both edits, or just the original? -- Moondigger 21:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I went back and processed from the original RAW file again, without referring to any of my previous edits. Not sure how others will react, but this one has a bit more contrast and other subtle differences. Sorry to confuse the issue like this, but those of you who are on the fence might like this one better... -- Moondigger 01:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked, and it does look better on my old laptop screen, and on uncalibrated displays. I'm going to make Edit 2 the default image on the articles I placed the original on. -- Moondigger 01:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a weird trip load the original and Edit2 in two browser tabs and alternet between them rapidly. I don't know what Voodoo-magic you used to cook up the edit, but the two versions look like they have been taken at different days now. --Dschwen 07:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No voodoo magic... just the fact that I started from scratch and didn't re-use the layer masks I created for Edit 0 when I re-processed Edit 2 from RAW. I prefer to do manual burning/dodging over Photoshop's automated shadow/highlight routines. FWIW, I 'monkeyed' with Edit 2 a lot less than I did with Edit 0; Edit 2 is closer to the original RAW file by far. Also, I now notice that I somehow screwed up one of the layer masks on Edit 0... a skip of the mousing hand, so to speak. Right where the main falls plunges into the pool of water, in the froth near the shadow line, it looks like there's a dark smudge. That's not in the RAW file out of the camera, and it's not in Edit 2. -- Moondigger 13:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll happily take you word for it, and change my support to Edit2. Maybe a few words about the editing process should be put into the nomination paragraph (in general). --Dschwen 15:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - Lovely composition and image but the light conditions are less than ideal. The shadows are too dark. doniv 05:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice composition, exposure and colour. Newton2 22:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Some P. Erson 00:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support edit 2 --Vircabutar 00:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2, stunningly beautiful. Not having this listed at
  WP:FPV would be a tragedy. --Cyde Weys 04:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support consensus version. This cathces the eye, though those pesky swimmers under the falls are a bit annoying. --jjron 12:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2. This one has the most realistic 'look' (to my eyes). The differences are subtle but important. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, any version Beautiful. Really contributes to the sense of beauty of the place, which you would not otherwise have. Jeeb 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 I really like this picture. Shame there's a couple of people in it, otherwise, excellent. Barnas 00:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Havasu_Falls_1a_md.jpg (+17.5/-2.5) I wouldn't close a nom for one of my own pictures if it was a closer call, but this one should be safe. Edit 2 is the clear favorite. -- Moondigger 02:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Rainier

I took this picture in a visit to Mt. Rainier national park, I think this picture really shows the beauty of this mountain.

• Nominate and support. - Kkmd 04:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Snow on peak totally overexposed. Did you bracket exposures, i.e. can you upload a darker version? --Janke | Talk 06:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with Janke - usually midday shots don't really turn out that well. --Fir0002 07:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Top half of frame is overexposed, you need a one stop Grad ND, or one more stop of Grad ND if you are already using such a filter. PPGMD 17:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per above, along with the picture being slightly out of focus and there being too much wind on the lake for a good reflection. --Tewy 18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per above. Composition is rather boring, too. Mikeo 19:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. For a good "mountain reflecting in lake" FP, see
  chat} 21:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak oppose This is getting more opposition than I would have expected. The composition is alright; I like how you incorporated the foreground flowers. Aiming the camera a bit more to the left, so the mountain isn't dead center might have helped, and would have partially eliminated the bushy tree in the right foreground. Color, contrast and saturation are all pleasing. But as others have mentioned, the blown highlights hurt the image. If the image was shot in RAW format, and you still have the original RAW file, it might be salvaged. -- Moondigger 23:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Beautiful picture, but the subject (the mountain) is too small, and a little overexposure. Viva La Vie Boheme! 01:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I disagree. The picture does a good job of showing both the lake and mountain. The picture is beautiful, not blurry, and sharp. Will look good on front page. I think that you are all underrating it as a
  GoOdCoNtEnT 07:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Oppose - Not a bad shot, and a lovely scene, but the composition is a bit ordinary, and the mountain just isn't clear enough for the subject of an FP, IMO. There's also some chromatic aberration which Photoshop might be able to take care of. --Yummifruitbat 12:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Picture looks like it has been taken with a low end digital camera. 6MP, but inadequate optics. Colorfringeing and lack of sharpness (seriously, there is no bandwagon, just blur). Rainier has a purple tint in the new version. I cannot scold you for the blown out snow, that stuff is just too darn bright (I'm having te same problem with this image, which makes me reluctant to nominate it). --Dschwen 01:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (new edition) per GoOdCoNtEnT. The vivid contrasting colors are particularly what attracted me to this image. I even made this my new desktop wallpaper. --(mcshadypl) 04:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Moondigger 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apatani Tribals

The Wikipedia article on the Apatani tribals of Arunachal Pradesh, India was lacking a picture. And in this case, a picture is worth millions of words. They tattoo their faces and wear nose ornaments made of bamboo. Originally, this practise started because the women wanted to look unattractive to males from other tribes. Apatani women were considered to be the most beautiful among all the Arunachal tribes.

I took this photograph at a wedding celebration in Hija village, Ziro

• Nominate and support. - doniv 16:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good composition. --Tewy 18:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Would support a larger version, once uploaded. Mikeo 20:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Full size version uploaded. doniv 08:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Good quality, cropping is OK. Some post-processing might even improve this picture. I'm going to give it a try tomorrow. Mikeo 21:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I think the cropping is just a bit too tight. Also, what was the motivation for uploading 1024px? Just to be above the pseudo-requirement? Don't you have a higher resolution? Or do you just prefer not to shere a high quality version under a free license? If it should be space concerns with the wikimedia servers, don't worry. It is highly recommended to upload the highest possible resolution (somerestrictionsaplyvoidwhereprohibitedseepolicypagefordetails). --Dschwen 20:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dschwen, I can't speak for Doniv79, but I would be more than happy to share higher-resolution images for use on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation projects. However Wiki doesn't allow Wiki-only licensing, so I have to decide what resolution to post for each of my images, with the understanding that they could be used commercially by anybody for any purpose. Some images are higher res, some are lower. -- Moondigger 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Unfortunately, this is the full frame. No cropping done on image. In that crowd, I was fortunate to get a composition like this :) doniv 08:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. (Darn, edit conflict with Dschwen.) Cropped a bit too tightly. Blown highlights in hair tie and on background woman's forehead, though these aren't too objectionable. Just short of FP for me. -- Moondigger 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Agree that there are blown highlights, but only on the hair scarf. The background woman's forehead is fine. doniv 08:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her forehead has a hot spot -- whether it's technically blown (255,255,255) is irrelevant; it's a hot spot (lacking image information) even if it isn't 255,255,255. Ditto on the tight cropping comments -- whether it was actually cropped or not is irrelevant; if it wasn't, then it's framed too tightly. I'm sure the crowded conditions did make it difficult to get ideal lighting and framing. My comments are not attacks on your ability as a photographer - they are the reasons I'm not supporting this particular photograph for FP status. -- Moondigger 14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re the "hot spot", the best thing would be to just paint it in brown. Not always possible, but in this case, since the area is out of focus anyway, you'd get away with it. No such solution to framing though...:) Stevage 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - meets all criteria. --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 07:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - Nice subject, well composed, technically acceptable. HighInBC 12:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per moondigger --Vircabutar 00:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ashibaka tock 04:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in the end, the photo is about the nose ornaments, cropping makes sense. And it's a good, clear photo of something quite interesting. Lastly, look at
  Apa Tani - can you possibly argue that this image does not add a massive amount to that article? Stevage 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, image adds significantly to the relevant article.--
  Peta 00:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Promoted Image:Apatani_tribal_women.jpg

Spice Piles

This is an interesting and eye-catching image and is a good illustration of spices used in Morocco; it appears in the articles

Cuisine of Morocco, and it was taken by Bertrand Devouard and uploaded by User:Anthere

.

• Nominate and support. - Dekkanar 22:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Tilted, nothing speciall. it all looks like a bunch of piles of colored sand. You can't really tell they are spices.Nnfolz 03:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. It's a good picture, but it's difficult to tell what the spices are and why they're there (is it a market, pre-holiday, etc.?) (for the image's encyclopedic value). --Tewy 05:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No wow factor; not interesting Jam01 07:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just a typical snapshot. There is nothing significant nor eye-catching about this photo. Also, it is very poorly photographed. --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 07:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak oppose It has a few technical faults, and could be composed better. Nice idea for a photo but the layout of the spices is not conducive to a good FP. HighInBC 12:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Moondigger 00:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freak Out, Oblivion, night

I really like this picture; it's sharp, interesting, and a good example of motion blur; appears in

Freak Out (ride), and Solipsist

created the image.

• Nominate and support. - Tewy 23:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. My only problem with it is that the edges are clipped off, but it still illustrates those articles well. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-14 23:59
• Strong support - clipped off edges aren't going to be a major problem. meets all Featured picture criteria and very eye catching. --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 07:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak support Good image, meets criteria, weak support due to clipped edges, and it would be better if the ride was the only thing that moved(refering to blurred people at bottom).
• Oppose. The composition is bothering me. a) cut of the main subject b) too much crop at the lower edge of the frame. Also it is a bit on the small side. --Dschwen 16:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Brilliant!
  FireSpike 20:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Neutral. Good color and a useful demonstration of long shutter speeds, but I can't help thinking a similar image that doesn't cut off the main subject would be fairly easy to obtain. -- Moondigger 21:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The top being cut off bothers me since it is the main subject. -Ravedave ^{help name my baby} 19:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great example of the differences of shutter speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalnonsensecomic (talk • contribs)

Not promoted (+5/-3) -- Moondigger 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pi

Factual and interesting representation of how pi helps figure out the circumcfrence of a circle.

• Nominate and Support -- Viva La Vie Boheme! 01:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Informative, but badly needs antialiasing and a better choice of colors. Redquark 01:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what's wrong with the colors?Nnfolz 03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I wish i had this animation back when I was learning this. it would have helped me understand the whole concept (and relations between them) so much better. very valuable contribution, nice addittion to wikipedia.Nnfolz 03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. It does need some antialiasing, but it is so useful for those trying to grasp the concept that I think that overrides the ultimately-unimportant aesthetic factor. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-15 03:35
• Oppose per Redquark. --Hetar 03:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. It's a useful teaching tool, but its pedagogical value would be greater if the circle had only a single, thin spoke -- which would make the fact that it's turning exactly once more obvious. (I realize the bold red line achieves the same purpose, but the viewer has to realize that the red line is what's important, and pay attention to it rather than the spokes.) Also, I don't like that the arrowhead is shaped like a heart (and red, too) - a stylistic choice that adds nothing to the pedagogical value, but might make one wonder "Why a heart?" -- Moondigger 03:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for several reasons, the main being that this gives an impression that pi somehow represents the red-shaded area. Other reasons: Aliasing, strange-looking arrow point, red circumference too close in color to red-brown wheel, animation is a little too fast. --Janke | Talk 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It actualy is the area as well. --Dschwen 06:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope - the area of that rectangle is much larger than the area of the wheel - or there's something far more wrong with my eyes than just myopia... It's πr² vs. π, and since r is 0.5, the rectangle has four times the area of the wheel! --Janke | Talk 08:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct, π is four times the area of that wheel... I'm not sure where your problem is? Note that this image is concerned primarily with the circumference of the wheel, not its area. I guess your confusion arises from the illustration of π as an area in the first place; for consistency, it might be better to represent it as a one-dimensional length. Redquark 13:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. Just a red line, length π. --Janke | Talk 18:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dschwen never said the area of the rectangle was less than that of the wheel. Reread the comments. The length of the rectangle is pi, and the area of it is also pi, because the height is 1. That's all Dschwen was saying. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-17 15:10
      • And the rectangle has sides with length π and length 1. That makes the area 1*π (which is π last time I checked ;-) )--Dschwen 16:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well still not quite right ;-). The diagram above shows a circle/wheel with a diameter of 1 unit (it could be centimeters, feet, light years, etc.). Each mark of 1, 2, 3 and 4 represent 1, 2, 3 and 4 units, respectively. We'll call this unknown unit "u". Now, if you "roll" out the circumference of this wheel, you get π units. You just said that 1*π = π, but you're forgetting your units. It's really 1 unit * π units, which equals π units squared (1 u * π u = π u²). As an example, you could replace units (u) with centimeters (cm). That would give you 1 cm * π cm = π cm². ...So if anyone wants my opinion, I think the way the diagram displays the shaded region as π could be misleading to someone who didn't understand what π exactly was. I should just be left as a red line to clarify that π was a length, not an area. --Tewy 19:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, it's π cm², not π² cm. The diagram is accurate in its depiction of area. I do agree that it would be simpler to ignore the area question completely for the purposes of this demonstration. -- Moondigger 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • still not quite right? Sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. π is unitless and neither a length nor an area. Nowhere is a unit u mentionend in the diagram. So whether you are looking at the line or the area it is π in any case. Full stop. --Dschwen 23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ha ha, ok, you're right, I made the mistake of calling the rolled-out length π, when it was really the circumference of length π. I meant to say that if you were looking at the diagram and seeing the rolled-out length (the circumference), you would have to deal with units...but yes, π is unitless, and I agree this is getting out of hand, so I'll stop. I think I can safely conclude that this diagram is confusing though, as it only shows that a circle of diameter 1 has a circumference of π, and not that π is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter. --Tewy 23:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Per all above (Both positive and negative comments). It explains the concept well, but not well enough, and could use some simplification in colors, spokes, etc. --Tewy 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. After reading and participating in these vast discussions on what π is and how the diagram represents it, it is extremely clear that this diagram is highly confusing to voters, let alone new learners of the subject. The idea is a good one, but was executed in the wrong way, i.e., the rectangle, only showing that a circle with a diameter of 1 has a circumference of π (but how would new learners apply that to a circle of diameter 2?), and the minor details of the spokes, colors, etc. that I mentioned above. I will support this diagram if it is recreated to address all the comments that have been added to this page. --Tewy 18:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - poor resolution, hard to understand for average viewer, poor graphics, not that eye-catching. --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 07:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose this version, but would support a rehashing to address the concerns above. --Yummifruitbat 12:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would support this if it was antialiased, larger, and perhaps less bright primary colors. HighInBC 12:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. per Janke and others. say1988 21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support personally, i think it's very interesting and encyclopedic, and that these qualities overrides the color and the heart-shaped arrow issue. --Vircabutar 23:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Good idea, but a FP should look slick and professional. This doesn't. —Keenan Pepper 01:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Good idea but flawed execution per above. Perhaps the original artist will try to improve it, taking these comments into account -- if not, it's still a good addition to the article, but not quite up to FP standards.--
  * 10:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose until Pi ceases to be shown as an area - Adrian Pingstone 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be trickly so long as we use pixels. --Billpg 14:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously I meant that the box should be removed and the unrolling red line left there - Adrian Pingstone 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Yummifruitbat. --Billpg 14:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. The heart and color scheme say 'Pi is for Girls!', which is rather amusing. But it isn't clear that the red line is more important then the spokes on the wheel, and the line turning into a big rectangle could be misunderstood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algr (talk • contribs)
• Oppose. The notion of an area in this diagram is apperently confusing and misleading. Nice idea though. --Dschwen 23:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support First off, the area *is* Pi, we should strike all votes claiming otherwise because they are factually inaccurate. Secondly, the complaints about the point being heart shaped are unreasonable:
  Plumb-bob's often have heart shaped cross sections and are often illustrated as such in patent drawings, for example. Thirdly, because this is an animated GIF the resolution can't be greater because our scaling for animated gifs is almost totally broken... And finally, because of the limited colors in GIF the possibilities of anti-aliasing without introducing additional artifacts are pretty limited. --Gmaxwell 04:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Just because the area is numerically equivalent to the value of Pi, does not mean the area is Pi; as some were getting at above, Pi is a constant with no units and no dimensions. To represent it as an area is clearly misleading. I'm not even convinced the author intended this, but it has caused enough confusion here to lead me to oppose. --jjron 12:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: jjron, the area you describe is Pi (units²). That's like saying 2 isn't a number because it doesn't have units or dimensions. 1+1=2. 1x2=2. Or, we can specify units. 1 unit + 1 unit = 2 units. A rectangle with a long side of 2 units and a short side of 1 unit has an area of 2 units². A rectangle with a long side equivalent in length to the circumference of a circle and a short side equivalent in length to the same circle's diameter has an area of Pi units².

Pi is more than just the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter -- though that is the most famous definition and the one first taught. But just as "2" is more than just 1+1 (it's also the square root of 4; 18 divided by 9; etc), Pi can also be described other ways. For example, it is the ratio of the area of a circle to the area outside the same circle but within a square with sides of one circle diameter length. (This would be easier to imagine with a picture -- draw a square on a piece of paper, and then draw a circle within it that touches all four sides. The ratio of the area within the circle to the area outside the circle but within the square is Pi.)

Area in circle: пr^2. Area in square: 4r^2. Area outside circle but in square: 4r^2 - пr^2. How do you get п from any ratio?? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-17 19:03

Hazy and apparently incorrect recollection of a programming project I did in college 17 years ago. Whoops. It's the ratio of a circle's area to the area of a square with sides the same length as the circle's radius. My first example was bad, but the point stands... Pi can be defined by methods other than the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. -- Moondigger 19:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the animation we've been discussing. If the point is to demonstrate the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, specifying the area of the rectangle laid out in the animation is superfluous and potentially confusing. That it lacks the units² designation is potentially even more confusing, though it's no more 'incorrect' than if somebody made an animation showing a rectangle twice as long on one side as the other, and calling the area "2." (The units² is understood.) In any case, I agree this animation shouldn't even bother specifying the area. -- Moondigger 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I didn't think it did specify the area.. though I suppose we'd have to ask the author. But the area is as much Pi as it could be 3 if the box ended a bit earlier. --Gmaxwell 19:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if the box 'ended earlier,' it wouldn't have a side that's equivalent to the circumference of the circle, with the circle's diameter as its height. -- Moondigger 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That comment of mine was to address the complaint that unitlessness was a problem, I wasn't suggesting a change. I wouldn't change anything about the image. --Gmaxwell 19:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand now -- I agree that unitlessness is not a problem from a technical perspective, since the "units²" is generally understood. But I do think demonstrating the area in the 'growing pink rectangle' is ill-advised from a pedagogical perspective. -- Moondigger 20:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Firstly, Moondigger, that stuff you were saying about 2 was the strangest thing I've ever read from you - if it made any sense it could only be that you totally misinterpreted my comment.

Now, an analogy for those who think π and π units² are the same thing. I ask you to do a job and say I'll pay you $100 for it. After you've done the job I give you a scrap of paper with the number 100 written on it. Now are you going to be happy with my payment? Unlikely. But when you argue that π and π units² are the same thing, you are making the same mistake. π is not the same as π units² (just as the $100 is different from the number 100). You see, the units do make a difference. The number is the same, but the thing is not.

When you also say that "the units² is generally understood", that is also not valid. Let's be realistic; is this graphic aimed at people that understand the concept of Pi intimately, or those learning the concept? It might be fine for you and me, who can conceptualise it, but what about the 13yo kid this is presumably aimed at as a learning aid? If you don't think it will be a problem for 99.9% of them then I'd say you've obviously never tried to teach this sort of thing. And if you're happy to teach the concept of area without reference to units, then please don't ever try teaching it as that would be an unfortunate experience for any hypothetical students.

If this is so confusing for people who presumably already understand π, then it would surely be even moreso for students who would henceforth associate π with an area. In fact what I'm getting from a number of the comments is that there are several voters that don't understand this fully, and probably don't understand one or more of that (i) π is a constant and not an area, (ii) the area of the rectangle shown is not same as the area of the circle shown, and therefore (iii) that the area of a circle is not π (or π units²), i.e., to simplify, using this many students could interpret that π is the area of a circle (and most likely any circle). And if you knocked that out of them, then they'd still think π was some sort of area, so then you'd have to unteach that, and so on - doesn't seem very effective.

I'm not totally convinced the author even intended to equate π with the area, and I'm sure they didn't intend this confusion. And all because of that darn rectangle. --jjron 08:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think it's clear based on the way the pink box "grows" that the author did intend to show that the area of a rectangle with length equivalent to the circumference of a circle and height equivalent to the diameter of the circle is Pi, and that the units² is understood but unstated. Nevertheless, I agree that it is potentially confusing and shouldn't be a part of this animation, and have agreed on that point from the start.

As for the rest of it, I'm not sure why you didn't follow what I was saying. The basic gist of it is that like 2, Pi is a number. 2 can be defined many ways - 1+1, 18/9, etc. Ditto for Pi. One definition is "the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter." That's the classic definition. Another is "the ratio of the area of a circle to the area of a square with sides the same length as the circle's radius." There are other definitions as well.

I don't think your analogy about being paid $100 for a job was directed at me, but I will say this. Dollars, like units², are often unstated but understood. To wit:

"How much are you paying for this job?" asked Harold.

"A hundred," replied Jim.

Now if Harold does the job and Jim attempts to hand him a piece of paper with the number "100" written on it for payment, Jim risks getting a punch in the nose. The units, dollars, were understood from the start even though they were not stated. I believe that's the same thing going on in this animation.

When children are taught the formulae for finding area, at least at the school I attended and the one my children are now attending, the units are seldom mentioned, because they are understood even if they're not stated. For example, they are taught that the area of a rectangle is length x width. The area of a circle is Pi times r². Nobody says the area of a rectangle is length units times height units, or that the area of a circle is Pi units times radius units squared. Yet you can't get units² in the answer unless the units were understood from the start to be attached to the length, width, radius, or Pi. They are present but unstated. This is all a side issue anyway, since it relates to the pink rectangle and we both agree that it shouldn't be in the animation in the first place. Given that we agree it should be eliminated, I see little point in discussing units² further.-- Moondigger 12:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose due to the rectangle. The graphic attempts to communicate too much, and the rectangle is the culprit. If the rectangle is removed, leaving the line of length pi, count me in Support because it'll be a superlative animation. The same graphic can be repackaged to make a second animation demonstrating area (using the rectangle instead of the line), although since it's aimed at beginners, it would be much easier to make the radius 1 for the area demonstration. Fg2 00:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. That is to say, this could become two featured pictures. 00:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It clearly demonstrates in pictures the idea that circumference is just a bit greater than 3 diameters, a quantity we call Pi. Very nice. Jeeb 03:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is another, somewhat similar animation on the Pi article, shown here:

But the article is screwed up. The text description next to this animation is the correct description for what happens in the wagon-wheel demonstration nominated above. Somebody must have moved the images around without updating the text. In any case, neither animation is a worthy FP, IMO. The wagon-wheel suffers from trying to depict too much; this one doesn't show enough (like a horizontal scale). -- Moondigger 18:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To reiterate, this animation might become two featured pictures if they separately illustrated circumference and area. Kudos to User:John Reid for excellent illustration. Fg2 02:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted But it's clear from the comments that a similar animation addressing the concerns raised above would likely pass FP muster. -- Moondigger 01:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isometric projection flaw example

Image created by User:Algr. I really like it because besides looking nice, it also strongly contributes to the Isometric projection article, clearly pointing out a potential problem with the use of isometric projection pseudo-perspective, as well as the basis of some of M.C.Escher's artistic works.

• Nominate and support. - AnonMoos 06:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - per nom --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 07:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support this Escherian image. Even though PNG, no more information would be available if SVG (which, of course, would be better). --Janke | Talk 08:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not striking, a fine image, but not an FP. HighInBC 12:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - would prefer SVG.
  chat} 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Support SVG edit 2. Nice job.

  chat} 21:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • Comment: I have no idea whether the author's software would allow him to easily save to SVG, but if it becomes an issue, I could ask him... AnonMoos 19:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not the author, but I created an SVG version. Suggestions and feedback are welcome. Icey 19:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tidy up the corners please? Here's a blown-up screenshot showing what I'm talking about. —Keenan Pepper 02:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I am going to be ultra picky, but the edges should be cleaned too, there are some very slight misalignments. I believe it should not happen if done properly. --Bernard 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Icey: a good start, but a few things should be better:

1. Your projection is not isometric. Measure the different lengths and you will see a difference. This holds for the original too, in a different way.
2. The shading on the narrow parts is not perfect, some are more in shadow than they should be.
3. The base of the red and blue pieces should not be a random curve but a half ellipse, and the lengths of both axis should be in the same ratio as the diagonals of the face (same is true for the original). Oh, they should be centered too.
4. The shading on the conical parts of the pieces should be a conical gradient, and should go in both directions (I must admit I have seen no way to do that in Inkscape. Well, at least it should pass through the top and be symmetric).

And also I think it would be better with a similar background gradient as in the original. In conclusion, oppose the svg for now, weak oppose the original (even this one should be fixed for the ellipse arcs and the isometry). --Bernard 02:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC). Support svg edit 2 --Bernard 22:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I'll get those things sorted when I get home (12+ hours). Icey 07:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose both per Bernard. Hmm, maybe I'll make something for this with POV-Ray... —Keenan Pepper 02:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Am I allowed to support my own picture? The hex measurements are off by less then one pixel at the size above - theoretically no image on a video screen could ever be perfectly isometric, so it is a question of under what context does the image fail? It turns out to be surprisingly difficult to make perfect hexagons on a program that doesn't directly support such geometry. Using a 3D image program definitely won't work unless it specifically supports isometric rendering. Any thoughts on how to calculate the right curve for the base? Flash gives me only X and Y pixel measurements, and no way to measure angles. Someone asked a while ago for SVG, but the software I tried downloading didn't work. Icey, If I send you the flash file, will that help? Algr
  • You can do it in POV-Ray. It's just orthographic projection along the long diagonal of a cube. —Keenan Pepper 05:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that the pieces are cones (with horizontal cross-sections in the shape of a circle), the theoretical shape of the appearance of the bottom of the piece should be half of an ellipse which has its major axis and minor axis in a ratio of the square root of three to one.
    • Actually, it should be a bit longer than half of an ellipse: because of the conical shape, we can see a little behind. --Bernard 12:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My measurements on the original thumbnail are 28.7 upper right and 26.9 upper left, more than one pixel. It is about 172-167-164 on the large size. Not that serious, but you can't deny the problem Algr. --Bernard 12:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not denying the problem, I'm questioning it's relevance. Few photos would ever survive such scrutiny, nor would anyone expect them too. Algr
• Alrighty, I've spent the last few hours completely remaking the image. I believe all the problems mentioned are now fixed. The only problem I have is that my knowledge of Inkscape is somewhat limited, so I don't know how to do the suggested shading on the pieces. I've just gone for some sphere's instead. As before, suggestions and feedback are welcome. Icey 20:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support SVG edit 2. —Keenan Pepper 23:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Contributes greatly to the linked article, and image quality great. There's no way you could understand the description of the limits discussed without an image like this. Prefer SVG edit 2. Jeeb 02:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support SVG edit 2. Good diagram, in SVG, and pleasing to the eye. --Tewy 20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There's one thing that bothers me, which I've illustrated here: http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dontgetitqf5.gif 71.124.216.138 16:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoever you are, you bring up a good point. Can we please keep the boxes consistent, or is it meant to be like that? --Tewy 18:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Aye, there's a perfectly logical explanation for that. *pauses* *looks round* Which, err, Algr will explain to you.
  Essentially, I'm not sure, but if someone knows what it should be, I'll modify it to be correct. Icey

• I think it's almost as consistent as it can be -- the thin layer is used when there is not a cube-thickness at hand, because having an abstract zero-height 2D plane instead of a thin 3D layer would look less real. So there's no need to insert a thin layer at the diagonal junction between the two cubes. The only possible real "inconsistency" is that the lower cube is placed on top of a thin layer, but the upper cube has an adjoining thin layer. However, doing it this way makes sure that the upper thin layer is exactly two cube-heights above the lower thin layer, so there's a good reason for it... AnonMoos 19:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Cool. Thanks for explaining that. Icey 14:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:IsometricFlaw_2.svg (+8/-2) Clear preference for edit 2 -- Moondigger 02:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Banksia quercifolia 01 gnangarra.jpg

This is the flower spike of a Banksia quercifolia and is the Information box image for this article. I took this in Kings Park, Western Australia on the 14 August 2006. The plant is part of a garden bed collection of Banksia species native to Western Australia.

• Self Nominate and support. - Gnangarra 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I like the picture. I think the color use is very good, and it's appealing to look at. However, I think you could crop it a little, because the tree and background, while a little should be there, is a bit distracting. It's also not centered perfectly. If the picture is edited a little, I'll change my vote to support. Joniscool98 16:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Weak Oppose per Tewy...much better, but still a bit grainy.Joniscool98 11:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per Joniscool98, needs a bit of cropping, and it's nothing special (looks like a typical photograph). --Tewy 00:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both. The second is better, but the graininess really becomes apparent after the cropping. It was also tilted too much. --Tewy 18:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - non-notable, poorly taken picture, not eye catching at all. --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 04:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - how's this then? I cropped and tilted it. The natural colour of these flowers is brownish orange.Cas Liber 11:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-notable? What, you just threw in every Wikipedia phrase you could think of that meant "I don't like it" and ran with it? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That appears to be the case. Therefore, I will vote: Delete, NN vanity puff piece, original research, unverifiable, does not satisfy A7,
      Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ;) — BRIAN0918
      • 2006-08-17 18:55
• Comment The article it points to is a very short stub and should be expanded significantly. The picture of the inflorescence is fine, but a whole plant picture would be more informative. Jeeb 01:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Befuddled and bewildered, by earlier comments. The last review the flower spike is the most unique feature and most recognisable feature of the species and genus as such its what is used in the taxo box --Gnangarra 02:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment was a joke. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-24 04:23
• Oppose Dull and lacks sufficient detail/resolution. Perhaps even a bit artifacted? Rtcpenguin 21:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Moondigger 01:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nagasaki destruction

Jizo remain standing in this Japanese Buddhist temple six weeks after after the atomic bombing of Nagasaki

(September 24, 1945).

This image depicts the city of Nagasaki, Japan, on September 24, 1945, six weeks after the atomic bomb was dropped. Two Three statues, an Amida Buddha and a two of Jizo, are all that remains of a destroyed temple. Photo by Cpl. Lynn P. Walker, Jr., USMC. Appears in Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

• Nominate and support. -
  chat} 16:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I count 3 statues. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the description.
    chat} 21:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Oppose - not very clear, hard to understand. --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Sorry, what do you mean by "hard to understand"? It's a picture of devastation.
    chat} 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Oppose. I'm sure it sounds pretty cynical to complain about cluttered composition. But despite some historical significance (I emphasize some since it isn't really a widely known iconic picture) the quality concerns dominate for my vote. --Dschwen 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The quality is too poor for FP, I know it has important significance, but it is not an example of our best work. HighInBC 22:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Contributes significantly--unless you somehow have first hand experience of what an atomic-bombed metropolis looks like--to a very important article. Technical merit completely irrelevant here--what do you expect from a devastated area with 1940s technology? Jeeb 02:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• what I you expect from a devastated area with 1940s technology? Not a FP. HighInBC 23:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Moondigger 01:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothea Lange

Portrait of Dorothea Lange in 1936 by her husband, Paul Schuster Taylor. This is technically well done and shows photographic equipment of the era. Also used in Ford Model B and Farm Security Administration.

• Nominate and support edit 1.
  chat} 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That cleaned up real nice. Good job.
    chat} 15:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Weak support: Seems strange to be picking apart a picture that can't possibly be re-shot, but perhaps it could be improved. It looks like the image has a left-leaning tilt. The full-resolution image is far larger than the level of detail present in the negative requires; a lot of wasted pixels and a lot of wasted bandwidth to no benefit. Contrast is a bit low, and the sky is blown. (I only mention the blown sky because it almost certainly isn't blown in the original negative; unlike with digital sensors or slide film, it's nearly impossible to blow highlights with black & white negative film.) I'd love to have the original negative to scan on my own, but since that's an impossibility I might see what can be done with the original TIFF file (linked on the image page). The sky might be blown in the TIFF, but perhaps the other concerns could be addressed. -- Moondigger 17:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 -- Moondigger 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - per Moondigger --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 04:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Edit 1 --Janke | Talk 07:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Why are you thinking the original has as left tilt? Just because there is no perfectly vertical line in the pic? The car is parked with two wheels off the pavement. I seems pretty obvious to me that the car is tilted, not the picture. --Dschwen 21:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the signpost (or what looks like a signpost) in the background (right side of pic) was tilted about 2 degrees to the left. When I rotated clockwise, the signpost was vertical but the car was still tilted, as would be expected with two wheels off the pavement. (Driver's side tires are higher in the frame than the passenger side tires, even after I rotated the image.) It's possible the signpost was off-vertical -- but even if it was, there's no way to know which direction it was off-vertical. In the end it comes down to judgement, and my edit looks more natural to my eye than the original. But it wouldn't bother me if somebody wanted to put together an alternate edit without the rotation. -- Moondigger 02:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - Also displays cool sneakers. Henry A-W 03:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I dont know why but I like it. I think its the sneakers :) -Ravedave 02:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Dorothea Lange atop automobile in California.jpg Edit 1 is the clear favorite. -- Moondigger 01:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Alice collision

This drawing of the colliding ships appeared in Harper's Weekly on October 12, 1878. It depicted one of the great tragedies of those times.

• Nominate and support. - Ydorb 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak object - not sharp, needs some sort of photoshoping, and not very eye-catching. --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 04:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak oppose Low contrast, not sharp, not an example of our best work. HighInBC 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Interesting content, but image needs further processing.

Not promoted -- Moondigger 01:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian tiger

How's this for a close call? Despite the size, I think this is another wonderful tiger photograph. I found it on the Siberian tiger article after nominating Image:Siberischer tiger de edit02.jpg, and thought this too would make an excellent addition to featured pictures; appears in Siberian tiger, and Malene created the image.

Comment. The image now appears in the stretching article as well. --Tewy 00:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Tewy 00:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - meets all criteria. --
  GoOdCoNtEnT 04:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - Lovely photograph, excellent light conditions and DOF. Would strongly support a high-res version - doniv 06:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Im lovin' that pic. Looks good. AFL45 10:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I like the other FPC of a siberian tiger better than this one. This has a poor background, and area of the tigers coat looks strange (is it wet?) and it's really pushing the size limit. Perhaps if it were in higher res I would support. --Fir0002 12:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - nothing is hugely in favour of this image. It shows the whole body but in an atypical position. Its eyes are closed. It's the bare minimum for resolution. It's a zoo shot rather than a nature shot. The lighting is pretty flat. Does it add a lot to Siberian tiger? Not really. It's not a very compelling case. Stevage 14:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't like the apparent lack of any eyes (I suppose they're closed) and the pose is awkward - Adrian Pingstone 14:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - Wonderful picture, but is there a higher res version? I would strongly support that. HighInBC 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per the general feel of other opposes. Also, it may be relatively minor, but I find that bit of log obscuring his leg offputting. --jjron 12:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Does not contribute significantly to article by showing its differences from other tigers. Jeeb 01:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Doesn't illustrate a tiger in the wild, doesn't seem to show anything significant about tigers in captivity. --Davepape 01:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suport is an exelent picture. It would be cool a higher verison.--Neo139 15:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It would probably add more to the stretching article, where it could replace this image, which seems to have a colour problem. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the image to the stretching article, but I couldn't bring myself to replace the current image, so I just moved it down. --Tewy 00:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My problem with that is that the article seems to be basically about human stretching (for sports). The text doesn't mention cats; I have the impression (from our vet) that stretching is an important activity for cats, so the article should discuss that, for the image to be appropriate. --Davepape 18:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Artistic and encyclopedic merit. Rtcpenguin 21:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. —Aiden 05:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (+7.5/-5.5) -- Moondigger 01:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peterhof

Peterhof cascade is one of the greatest of St.Petersburg's landmarks, and is very important part of Russian history. The picture is well taken. It is not blurry, sharp, and high resolution.

• Nominate and support. -
  GoOdCoNtEnT 05:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Blown-out sky. Mikeo 06:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, same reason. It's a nice image apart from that, but it's probably safe to say that this nomination should be aborted now - no image with pure white sky like that would ever be promoted. Stevage 14:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As Steveage says, overexposed sky. The piece of very pale blue sky on the left proves that it was not actually a pure white sky - Adrian Pingstone 14:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Also, the trees on the left exhibit some purple fringing. -- Moondigger 19:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, great image otherwise, but per above. --Tewy 04:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Completely overexposed sky, too bad nice subject. HighInBC 22:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A blue sky would really set the building out. I know it's not always possible. Also taken at a time of day when the sun is not really intense, but a blue sky is still visible is good. --Kalmia 20:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Moondigger 01:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minimalism

File:Dan Flavin, ohne Titel (to Bob and Pat Rohm), 1970.jpg

This image shows a famous example of minimalism, an art style where the work is stripped down to its most fundamental features and core self expression. The picture features a famous example of the style by Dan Flavin, a 20th century American artist. This should be a featured picture because it is sharp, clear, eye-catching, good resolution, and appealing to viewers with interest in art.

• Nominate and support. -
  GoOdCoNtEnT 05:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment ARe we cleared on copyrights on this image? Lots of artists have claimed that photographs of their works are considered derivative works of the original artistic work, requiring permission from the copyright holder or else falling into fair use. We can't have fair use for a FP, so we need permission from the artist or whoever holds the copyright in the work. Also, the picture itself isn't that hot: kind of blurry at full res. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The artist is dead and this file is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Therefore, it is ok to use it as a Featured Picture. And the picture is not blurry at 1000px which is a requirement for featured pictures. --
    GoOdCoNtEnT 05:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The artist being dead doesn't means much. Different countries have different regulations, but a good rule of thumb seems to be that copyright expires 70 years after the death of the artist. The license of the photo does not supersede the copyright of the installation, I suspect it is thus wrongly licensed. --Dschwen 07:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A better rule of thumb is that copyright expires X years after the death of the artist, where X is the number of years since Walt Disney died. Stevage 14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hahaha, would be even funnier if it weren't so true. But I guess in this case you mean copyright expires after X+1 years ;-) --Dschwen 15:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - Not interesting, wierd for the sake of wierd. I know it illustrates a real form of art, but this is not an example of wikipedia's best work. HighInBC 23:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per lisencing and picture quality comments above. --Tewy 04:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Moondigger 01:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Panorama

Before you all go "Aaargh! Not another sunset!" I really feel this one is quite exceptional, and certainly at least as good if not better than the currently featured sunsets. And yes, it is not currently on the sunset article, but if the consensus thinks this is a good image I'll put it on.

• Support --Fir0002 11:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why not add it to the sunset article, and see if consensus *there* says it's good? It's kind of hard to work out whether it "adds significantly" to that article until we see it there. Stevage 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. So what is the deal with the sharp wavy transition line to the left of the tree (that got menioned on tne commons FPC page)? --Dschwen 15:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S.: that sunset article is starting to overflow with pics again, so please throw one out if you insert this one.--Dschwen 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have doubts this is the original sky that existed when this photo was originally taken. If you look at the difference between the original image and the edited image, you can see a seam existed in the middle of the original that is no longer there in the edit. Definitely two separate images composited together to create one. Is an image that has been manipulated to this extent even ok to be submitted as a "Featured picture"? Roguegeek 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The colors of the sky can be seen bleeding through the tree branches, this is very hard to fake and leads me to believe that the ground and sky are from one picture. HighInBC 23:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was, I'm not sure what the wavy line was - either a stitching fault or it looks like a polygonal lasso with no feather. I don't actually recall doing that, but I might have selectively lightened the RHS of the image and forgot to put some feather on the lasso. But I can definetly vouch that this was the original sky. --Fir0002 22:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it by a matter of seconds there Fir ;). Well, what I was going to say was this: The image is a stitched panorama. What you're seeing in the original is the stitch line, which in that case was not blended very well. That does not mean it isn't the original sky. It is more likely to just be due to vignetting of the individual frames, or different colour balance between frames or something along those lines. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly the seam is just an adjustment layer with a bad mask that needed to be cleaned up. Undecided on what it is. In either case, I'm a little tired of seeing sunset images. Second the idea of sending it over to the sunset article to see what they say. Roguegeek 21:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is they at the sunset article isn't a very active crowd. Most edits are just shifting around images, reverting vandalism and adding links/interwikilinks. The most contributions to this article sadly come from photguys. For a mundane topic like this it isn't very surprising. I gues what I'm trying to say is that there is a huge asymmetry between how much attention this article gets FPC-wise vs. its relevance in WP as an article. It might actually be the worst case of asymmetry (next to the clouds article). So why bother waiting for their response? --Dschwen 23:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - perhaps the peice of house to the left can be cropped out, as it draws you from the horizon. HighInBC 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Before I forget it: Aaargh! Not another sunset. Not mindblowingly spectacular enough to be yet another sunset FP. --Dschwen 23:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose--per Dschwen; Also...one thing I like to see in sunsets is--a SUN! After all, that's what it's all about. Anyway, just something I like in sunset pictures (personal opinion, and if you don't accept that argument, just look at Dschwen's)Joniscool98 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. If this wasn't an image of such a photographed subject, I would support it, considering it is a technically good shot (with cropping out the house), but since these pictures are literally everywhere, I'm not sure what makes this one special (and I really don't know what kind of plain sunset picture would be special enough for FP). --Tewy 04:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Obvious signs of manipulation around the crown of the tree (unless the tree happens to be glowing)--130.132.80.26 17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a halo, a common artifact of certain sharpening routines or certain kinds of contrast enhancement. It's not evidence of gross manipulation (i.e., content changes). -- Moondigger 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral -- It's a pretty scene, one of the better sunsets I've seen on Wikipedia. However it looks a bit oversaturated and high-contrast on my monitor. Maybe dialing them down a bit would eliminate the halo on the tree too? -- Moondigger 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I see that all *three* sunset photos at Sunset are by Fir0002, of which two are labelled as Swifts Creek. A little variety could help a lot here - often the most dramatic sunsets include water, a recognisable skyline, silhouetted objects etc. There are *hundreds* available at Commons - I can't, in good faith, support this as being the most remarkable of the lot. Being so similar to the two others in the article it doesn't even "add" a great deal. Stevage 09:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Moondigger 01:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earwax on swab

I believe that it is a striking and somewhat unusual illustration. It was created by Wikimedian Greg Maxwell specifically for the purpose of illustrating Earwax where it is currently in use.

• Nominate and support. - Gmaxwell 17:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Interesting, high res photo, but it really doesn't display earwax all that well. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would your suggestion be? I consulted with several other editors before shooting this series and took a large number of photographs. The swab photos were the clear winner, since the swab itself gives the picture context and avoids visual confusion. For an example see the UV earwax on swab image on the article, without the swab clearly visable (And without comparison to the normal light image) the image appears somewhat confusing.--Gmaxwell 04:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure there can be a featured PHOTOGRAPH of earwax other than maybe (ewwww) a comparison of different people's waxes with some explanation for whatever differences you see. Much more likely I could see a featured picture that's more like a diagram of wax generation, wax structure, something like that.
  WP:WIAFP which you yourself referenced requires the pic be pleasing to the eye and be WP's best work. While this is fantastic work technically and definetly should remain in the article, a high res photo of a cotton swab is not a featured picture. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support, delightfully disgusting! —Keenan Pepper 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Technically excellent, but as per Staxringold the earwax is not prominent. Also it does not look that impressive to me. HighInBC 23:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what would be a featured picture of earwax to you? Would it have to be a lone lump of earwax on a plain white surface? I'm not sure I understand your objections. —Keenan Pepper 23:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My objection to this picture is mostly based on lack of impressivness(it is just a waxy q-tip I see those on my bathroom floor), I personally don't see how a picture of earwax can be an FP, unless mabye a nice picture inside of an ear(ya, that would be cool). HighInBC 23:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OpposeI don't think this picture represents one of the finest pictures on the internet--an image can be technically great but I don't think that the subject matter is FP quality (I'll reconsider if someone can show me that an FP is only based on technical merit, rather than subject matter.Joniscool98 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no rule (for lack of a better word that I can think of) on the
    What is a featured picture page that says subject matter should decied whether or not a picture should become featured. The third rule may be considered as judging on subject matter, but I think it just means that it should be of high technical quality and unique in some way. A high quality photograph of earwax is definetly unique in my books. :) Imaninjapirate 04:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support. looks gooey. Henry A-W 03:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support"... The picture should make a reader want to know more." I guess people would want to know more about earwax when they see this pic on the Main Page. And the pic is technically great. And I think we need this sort of pic. We love grand landscape pics, but we also want to see something really different... at least from time to time.--K.C. Tang 03:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Doesn't that person know that you should never use
  Q-tips to clean out ears! I had to learn that the hard way (barely being able to hear out of my right ear for several days after using a q-tip). But seriously, technically everything is great in this picture. Imaninjapirate 04:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Well they are perfectly safe to use to clean the outer ear, just don't go poking around inside! :) --Gmaxwell 04:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Staxringold. This is excellent quality, but I keep thinking, what is it telling me about earwax? Re what would I support - perhaps earwax in situ, though I'm not sure exactly how one would go about getting a great photo of it. --jjron 12:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Illustrates the subject as well as possible - Adrian Pingstone 13:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I'm sorry, Greg... I've given this a day to see if my initial reaction to the image would fade... but no matter how many times I've looked at it I still can't get over the feeling that this isn't something that should be featured or a front-page image. I just can't reconcile it to criteria 3 or (especially) 7 in the
  featured picture criteria. To be honest, at first I thought this was a joke nom, in part due to the caption describing the earwax as "wet-type," which I find unintentionally humorous. Also, the earwax depicted here is far wetter than any I have ever seen in real life, looking more like oxidized honey than earwax. -- Moondigger 19:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Perhaps you have dry-type earwax? I'd describe this as 'oxidized honey' in comparison to my earwax, but I have dry-type. The image is representative of wet-type earwax. I find your interpretation of (7) odd when comparing your position on this image (which has been described to me as 'intriguing' and 'utterly disgusting but cool') to your views on your own images. --Gmaxwell 19:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, mine is wet-type, according to the description in the earwax article. (i.e., It's not "grey and flaky.") It's just not actually as wet as the earwax in the picture appears to be. Regarding the disparity between my opinion on this image and on my own images w/r/t criterion #7. It says images should be "pleasing to the eye" and "make the reader want to know more," amongst other things. I find most of my images (and most of yours, for the record) pleasing to the eye. I don't find this particular image pleasing to the eye -- unlike the person who found it disgusting but cool, I just find it mildly disgusting. It doesn't make me want to know more; I feel like I already know too much after looking at it. Again, I'm sorry -- I know it's a subjective thing, and I did give it some time to see if my initial reaction would fade. But it hasn't. FWIW, I've changed my comment to a weak oppose. But it would be a lie for me to say I'm neutral on it. -- Moondigger 20:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shows what I get for not reading it and going by memory, I thought criteria 7 was purely "The picture should make a reader want to know more"... which isn't a criteria that I believe clearly applies to many of our pictures, including many of mine and yours. Your commentary on the wetness of this wet type would appear to me to demonstrate conclusively that the image caused you to go learn more. ;) --Gmaxwell 22:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you think that no image of a "disgusting" subject should ever be FP, then? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't make a blanket statement to that effect. There might be a disgusting (to be fair, I said "mildly disgusting") picture I would support for featured status, but this one isn't it. Greg, it wasn't the picture that sent me to the article to read about wet-type vs. dry-type; it was the followup discussion here. Though I don't deny that others might react differently to the image, it definitely doesn't make me want to learn more. -- Moondigger 23:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Such an image does not help illustrate a concept or improve the quality of WIkipedia by contributing to its content. A picture of a common substance, of which everyone is familiar, runs contrary to the purpose of featured pictures, regardless of any technical qualities. Jeeb 21:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...whyever not? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are pictures of rasberries and sunsets, everyone is familair with them...-Ravedave 02:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then maybe they shouldn't be FPs. Read the ongoing discussion on FP criteria on the talk page if you want to go down that road. If you like the picture, then just vote for it and state your reasons. Jeeb 03:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High resolution, sharpnes and good lighting. Might not be an appetizer but shows earwax well. Please do not crop to make earwax more prominent, the cotton swab provides context. --Dschwen 01:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Technically a good photo, made me go EWW! then read the article so its gets a support from me. -Ravedave 02:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh and I can't wait to see what Fir002 and Janke have to say about this :)-Ravedave 02:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cynical Opinion The "awe-inspiring" landscape pics and the "important" historical pics are almost always hailed, when it comes to pics that concern the little things in our everyday life, which are after all experiences we all share, we despise, we condemn, we call them jokes...--K.C. Tang 03:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose mostly per Moondigger. I would not be proud having this in our FP collection: a photo of what looks like someone who stuck a Q tip in their ear, swirled it around, and took a photo of it. Yes, I would prefer a landscape any day. I don't think this adds a lot to Wikipedia, and I don't think it shows what makes us unique - go to rotten.com if you want to be disgusted. Stevage 09:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. It adds somewhat to the article, but not nearly as much as a comparison between wet- and dry-type would. I'm not sure that's enough to oppose it, but it's just enough to give me pause about supporting it. The "ick" factor isn't an issue, IMO. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Staxringold. --Hetar 18:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm trying my best to base my vote not on the "ick factor", but on the criteria of what a featured picture is. The two criteria in debate are 3 and 7. I believe that 3 is fulfilled because I cannot see a better way to photograph earwax, besides in the ear itself (though that is difficult, because earwax isn't on the outside). As for criteria 7, I believe that this image has inspired so much discussion that it must be interesting, and at least for me, it makes me want to read more (but as Moondigger said, it's a subjective thing. I think the only way to decide is by tallying the votes to see how many users think that this image meets criteria 7). --Tewy 19:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well shot & serves the article well. (And adds some nice variety to FPs.) --Davepape 01:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sharp, good lighting, couldn't really think of a way to improve the representation of the subject. --Fir0002 10:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm going to oppose, not because of the reasons stated above, but because it's just plain boring. It's not very interesting, and while great pictures can be made with everyday objects as subjects, this one is just dull. --Dark Kubrick 10:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose It has high resolution but the image do is not nice. Imagine enter to wikipedia for first time and see that image in the Main Page. No way. --Neo139 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, mainly because I am really irked that some people think FP's have to be of fluffy kittens or pretty landscapes ;-) Seriously though, nice technical quality, and if it wasn't interesting, there wouldn't be so many people discussing it. mstroeck 22:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We're not discussing it, we're voting on it. --Dark Kubrick 13:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose per all oppose, especially Jeeb and Steveage. Boring, gross, and not at all unique---anyone with a camera could take a picture of their earwax if they had the desire to do so. --Nebular110 23:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, not everybody can do that, at least not everybody can produce a pic of earwax of this quality.--K.C. Tang 03:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I agre, probably 99.95% of people couldn't repro this shot with the current camera they have. SEe my terrible attempt at a closeup: Image:Activated_Carbon.jpg. -Ravedave 04:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, Nebular. mstroeck 10:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Dante Alighieri. Nice work, but doesn't aid understanding much. -- Avenue 10:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - gross, but very clear. --Thelb⁴ 11:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Outriggr 12:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are a lot of everyday objects that are FPs. Some examples:
  Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible#Physics) My point is that images of "everyday objects" can be made FP material by portraying their subject in the best way. --Tewy 00:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong oppose This is pointless and stupid. that's about as interesting as watching paint dry. get rid of it off this list, right now!!! 150.101.54.34 00:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I really like this image. When I saw it before on the list for Wikimania awards, I immediately went and read our article on earwax. It's somewhat gross, because of the subject and typical Western POV, but it's a great shot, the swab gives context, looks like earwax to me, and it's also something which it's difficult to get a great, free, encyclopedic picture of, because it's not a lucrative subject to take pictures of. I think we should support pictures which draw in readers, and are also encyclopedic images filling a specific need in the encyclopedia. Mak (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High quality macro and interesting subject. I completely agree that we need more high quality images like this, even if they are 'simplistic' and boring to some. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While in terms of quality and picture composition I would have no problem nominating this picture. But the subject is of great concern. I cannot deny the quality of this picture, and I think the issue is less about this picture in particular, but more about whether pictures with controversial subject matter or slightly offensive content that fulfill nearly all other requirements of feature pictures, should be included in FP. I suppose I recognize the quality of this picture, but do not think it would be appropriate to consider this a featured picture, an example of the very best on Wikipedia. What does the picture lend to the article? There is not much artistry being used to show something that is so ordinary, mundane, and common to us as human beings. Perhaps a diagram showing where earwax is in the human body and how it is created. Perhaps a microscopic view of earwax would give interesting introspection into what earwax is, providing a new view worthy of an encyclopedic article. Lastly, as the article mentions and the caption mentions, this is only an example of the "wet" type of earwax found commonly in people of European descent. What about an example of "dry" earwax? It is not very universal considering that there are many people in the world with dry earwax, and many people in the world do not use cotton swabs to clean their ears. It might just be my opinion, but better be safe and not have a good quality image listed as FP, than to have something viewed as possibly offensive represent Wikipedia. I would definitely nominate it for a pictures of high quality, but not FP. Sudachi 17:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A photo of earwax on a Q-tip is like a photo of urine in a toilet. It connects the substance (which is what should be illustrated) to the act of personal hygiene in a manner that reduces the aesthetic properties of the image, while adding nothing to its explanatory value. Different types of earwax presented on a neutral background would work better.--
  * 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Support Stunning photo quality and has encyclopedic value. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not gallery of the beautiful things in life, so I have not problem promoting this quality image. I do, however, see the point Eloquence is making. If the earwax could be isolated, photographed while still in the ear, or photographed next to other types of earwax as comparison (even on q-tips), that would be even better. --NoahElhardt 18:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I commented towards the top, I shot many images.. The in-ear images where just a useless muddle.. far too busy and the earwax was hard to see. That is actually why I also took images of the earwax under intense UV, it was initially my intention to use the UV to make the earwax in the ear more visible. Ultimately I decided that the pictures were not useful. I also took images of pieces of earwax in free fall, but they just end up as meaningless blobs (the quality was fine, but the image just wasn't good in any other regard). A nurse recommended I try a swab, and that and I found that the swab gave the image a frame of reference and worked really well. Dry type earwax (which is what I have) is difficult to photograph, because it doesn't really look like anything. In small amounts it is almost completely translucent. It was always my intention to eventually pair the swab image with an image of an
    Crushing by elephant, something of an oddball charm of Wikipedia which is undeniably encyclopedic... Where else will you go to find a highly detailed photograph of earwax? --Gmaxwell 19:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • It was not my intention to offend, and I appreciate your effort, as well as the courage to face public debate about the picture (which is, as others have said, technically very well done). I simply think that the current presentation is suboptimal, because it does not sufficiently separate the subject matter from the act of personal hygiene, which is what many people will think of when they see the picture. "Gross" is not a criterion to not have the picture, but actionable objections to have a more visually pleasing presentation are relevant. Perhaps cropping the "stick" of the swab would make the picture more aesthetically neutral, perhaps a composite would be better. Adding a scale might also help.--
      * 00:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • There is not a single FP with a scale. Why? becuase they are ugly. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. May I add a note that Exploding whale is also a FA? Also, see Wikipedia:Unusual articles and the bit that says Wikipedia is not censored, if that makes any case in this discussion. --Tewy 22:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think anybody is arguing that this image should be deleted, which is what's implied when you reference the censorship statement. Many of us just don't think it's FP material. -- Moondigger 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The main point I wanted to make with the last statement was that the votes shouldn't be based solely on the "ickiness" of the picture. --Tewy 02:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It does not demonstrate ear wax well, if at all. Some items just do not set them selves up for good pictures. say1988 14:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (+16/-13, ignoring the vote from the anonymous voter) -- Moondigger 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetry group

This image was created by User:Debivort, and is in the article Symmetry group. It clearly and beautifully illustrates the concept, and is highlighted appropriately to complement the mathematical concepts in the article.

• Nominate and support. - HappyCamper 02:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Exactly what an FP should represent. This image is extremely helpful in understanding an abstract concept, and is eye catching as well. The article itself needs some clarification however. Image must be enlarged to max to see the rotation angles properly. Jeeb 02:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice image! Would be even better as an SVG, though. mstroeck 07:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good illustration overall, but of course, that PNG/SVG issue that everyone argues about is probably going to be debated again... (I personally did not take into account the filetype for my vote, otherwise it would be a weak support.) --Tewy 18:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Enclyclopedic and well drawn. Resolution is enough that svg is not an issue(imo). HighInBC 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. SVG would be nice, but PNG with an alpha channel is almost as sexy. —Keenan Pepper 09:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Very encyclopedic, but perhaps too complex. --Thelb⁴ 11:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't get it...Nnfolz 18:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  One way to interpret the image is as follows: Look at the rod, and see how it passes through the tetrahedron. Some of them go through an edge, while others go through a vertex. The arrows show what happens when the tetrahedron is rotated along the axis. --HappyCamper 19:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I dare anyone to make one of these for the icosahedron! —Keenan Pepper 03:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Heh :-) It wouldn't be too bad I suppose, 60 representations wiht arrows and such. --HappyCamper 19:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Ack! Don't tempt me guys - I have a thesis to write! :P Debivort 23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very eyecatching. The REAL Dyslexic Q-Thief 22:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until an SVG source is made available. I like this diagram, but when another talented artist wants to improve on it (e.g. to make the rotation axes bigger), he or she will have to start from scratch because the source is not available. Cowpriest2 01:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so happens I have had a SVG version sitting on my hard drive the whole time. Personally, I am suspicious of SVG because I have had trouble getting fonts to render correctly, but this one looks OK. Debivort 03:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! However, it looks like there's no fonts, as I think you mentioned, so as far as FP goes, my support is for the PNG until the degree rotations are included (some are 180°, some are 120°). --Tewy 03:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, the rotation angles don't render in the thumb, or on the image page[29], but if you load the image itself [30] they show, so the data is there. Maybe one of the SVG artists out there knows how to get them to show all the time? Also the SVG is significantly slower to load on my system - Firefox / Mac OSX. If there are tricks to improve it, please let me know. Debivort 04:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About two thirds of the svg file is taken by an <i:pgf id="adobe_illustrator_pgf"> element. Apparently, this element has no effect on the image itself. There should be an option in Adobe Illustrator, called "Preserve Illustrator Editing Capabilities", that controls this element. Perhaps it could or even should be removed, considering that Adobe Illustrator is proprietary software. --Bernard 12:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a version with Illustrator compatibility disabled [31]. It seems to behave the exact same way though. It also includes embedded fonts which I expected to address the lettering issue, but hasn't. Debivort 15:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My initial concern has been addressed. Cowpriest2 05:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

w00t! :-) --HappyCamper 05:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Bernard 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tetrahedral_group_2.svg Raven4x4x 08:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stadshaven

Perfect evening in the Goes main harbor. Many beatiful corners of Europe are very little known, they just wait to be discoverd; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goes, by Lsorin.

• Nominate and support. - Lsorin 12:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The largest version is blurred, the blur is visible even on the thumbnail. Sorry! - Adrian Pingstone 13:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Very blurry. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose very blurry. HighInBC 22:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Lighting is very nice, but as mentioned above several pieces of the panorama are out of focus (>5px blur radius). If a reshoot is possible, try to lock the focus and I'd like to see less roofs cut. --Dschwen 00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agree with this above comment. --Kalmia 20:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The image itself is beautiful, especially the colors. However the article it points to has no content whatsoever. If there was, I'd support this. Jeeb 02:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the article, small as it is, has anything to do with the value of the image itself. Raven4x4x 04:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the first sentence on this page. An FP in an article with almost no content defeats the purpose of it being a FP - what does it add to the non-existent content of the article, and why attract users to that article? --jjron 08:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The bluring of the image is caused by the conversion software use in Wiki. Do you have any clue what is that software? If you look directly at the full size picture http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/31/Stadshaven.jpg with a good browser, you'll notice that the blur is not in the original picture, but is generated by the conversion software.Lsorin

• ImageMagick is what wikimedia uses to resize images. HighInBC 23:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Lsporin, I'm puzzled. On my CRT screen the pic you link to (which is just the pic you'd get by clicking on the thumb then clicking on what then appears) is very blurred! So, for me, the blur is in the original picture. I know my browser well (IE version 6) and it never blurs pics. Is anyone else seeing a sharp pic on the highest res of this submission? Of course, Lsorin's idea of sharpness may not be mine. - Adrian Pingstone 08:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're both right. MediaWiki uses some software that causes unsharp thumbnails. However in this case the original image is quite soft as well. It could safely be downsampled and sharpened. Stevage 09:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But with an unsharpness radius of at least 5px it'll have top be downsampled to <20% making it fairly tiny. Reshoot with manual focus! --Dschwen 17:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Per above, with blur. Otherwise I like the picture --Tewy 18:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. The subject and colors are great, but as above... it's too blurry. Perhaps a resize will reduce this and make it sharper? --DinkY2K 23:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I almost don't need to click on it to see how blurry it is. --Thelb⁴ 11:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor quality at full res. --Fir0002 12:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshoe Bend

Nice colors, encyclopedic, interesting... Just about everything it needs.

Horseshoe Bend, Arizona - an interesting bend in the Colorado River

. Wideangle view as seen from the lookout point off Rt. 89.

• Nominate and Support -- Viva La Vie Boheme! 01:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominate and Support - This photo is absolutely, naturally gorgeous. Picture of Epitome. Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 02:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Magnificent view, very sharp. Colors are vivid, hopefully true to the original scene. --Janke | Talk 03:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Janke, I didn't mess with this one much. I boosted contrast a bit, sharpened it, and that's about it. Nothing funky. The color balance looks a touch too magenta on my work monitor, but looks accurate on my home (calibrated) display. The apparent color of the rocks varies depending on the lighting -- full sun vs. partial clouds vs. overcast. This was taken in full sun in July 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moondigger (talk • contribs)
• Support nice! per above --Vircabutar 03:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great angle, beautiful site, very deserving --DinkY2K 03:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was going to nominate this...ah well, good picture anyway. Though, I've noticed a growing support for larger pictures on FPC lately, and I'm tempted to just weak support it for that. I'll see what everyone else says. --Tewy 03:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I would like to see more details of this beautiful place when viewing at max resolution. This might be possible with a higher resolution picture. Was this a 1-MP camera you took this picture with? Otherwise, feel free to upload the biggest version available. Mikeo 06:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeo, your oppose solely on size is not valid, it fulfills the required criteria of 1000+ pixels. Haven't you read the discussion on the FPC talk page? There is a reason for moondigger not to upload a larger version (I guess he shoots at 6, 8 or even more Mpx). --Janke | Talk 06:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janke, at this resolution this just is not a featured picture for me. It lacks some details that I would like to see. This makes it an oppose based on lack of detail, not on size - making it valid. At this resolution, it is nothing special. Mikeo 08:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best=Best. HighInBC 23:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we showcasing Colorado or Horseshoe Bend? Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 07:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Excellent shot. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-17 09:15
• Support. Purdy. --Billpg 18:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Good feeling of depth, but is there a larger version available? HighInBC 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, it's a very nice image, but could greatly benefit from a higher resolution. It'd look horrible in print or even fullscreened on many monitors. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That depends on the print or monitor size, actually. It would make a fine 4x6 print. And centered on a really large monitor it would look fine (as opposed to "stretch.") To answer HighInBC's question, a larger version exists, but is not available for use here. I talk about the reasons for that on the talk page in the "Commercial concerns" subtopic. -- Moondigger 23:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent photo. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although I also would really, really appreciate a larger version. mstroeck 07:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- Great image, just perfect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.225.234 (talk • contribs)
• Support As above --Fir0002 10:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent--Melburnian 13:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Exelent picture, amazing. We need more size/detail but as it is, it still kick ass --Neo139 15:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per above. Awesome! --Thelb⁴ 11:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a great picture of such as fantastic looking place. The colors are amazing! Benje309
• Support A great sence of perspective. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A beautiful image with geological relevance Rtcpenguin 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Something just doesn't seem right about this picture. The colors of the rock and water look extremely boosted, not matching the overcast sky at all. I'd expect a deep blue sky for colors like this. I've been to the grand staircase region but this picture just looks very weird. --Dschwen 21:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if you like, but I can't believe you're implying I would mess with it that much, especially after I already explained the conditions it was taken in to Janke above. The colors have not been artificially boosted as you're implying. The vast majority of what you see in this photo was in full sun. The sky was overcast to the west (in the direction this photo was taken), but the sun was high in the south as evidenced by the shadows cast on the south canyon walls (left side of photo). Here are some sample photos demonstrating the mixed cloudy/sunny conditions at that time. (BTW, none of these example photos have been modified in any way other than resolution reduction -- the color and contrast are exactly how they came out of the camera.) 1: The view facing west (towards Horseshoe Bend) at the beginning of the trail leading to the overlook: [32]. Notice how the sky in the west has lots of clouds, but the entire visible area in the foreground is in full sunlight. 2. Here's another view facing west a few minutes later as we continued up the trail towards the overlook. [33] Notice how the entire western sky is filled with clouds, yet the entire foreground is still bathed in full sunlight (evidenced by the shadow cast in the sand by my daughter). 3. This is the view facing east (away from Horseshoe Bend) as we walked the trail back to the parking area after I took the nominated photo. [34] Notice the full shadow cast by my son on the sand. -- Moondigger 02:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Horseshoe Bend 1 md.jpg Raven4x4x 08:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mangosteen

An nice picture of a rather interesting tropical fruit.

• Nominate and support--Vircabutar 01:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose--The back to mangosteens are blurry, and the coloring (i.e. the colors in the background contrasted with the ones in the front) isn't FP worth in my opinion.Joniscool98 01:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. It's very close, but I'd like to see at least one full fruit in focus. Also, the photograph isn't balanced in my opinion (not enough subject matter on the left). --Tewy 04:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even the front fruit is blurred - Adrian Pingstone 13:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Soft focus even in the narrow depth of focus it has. HighInBC 21:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Illustrates a uniquely shaped fruit that the average person would otherwise have no idea of. Quality could be better though. Jeeb 01:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Cool subject and good res, but just not a great encyclopedic photo. One fruit that's kind of in focus is cut off and still not fully in focus. You don't see a full fruit, the botton of a fruit, or full DOF on any fruit. 69.183.81.46 02:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• D'oh, the above was me. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for weak composition, but mostly because you can't see the whole fruit. See the other image at Mangosteen - the top of the fruit is actually quite interesting. If only the shot showed a whole fruit! The two out of focus fruits are fine with me. Stevage 09:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. One fruit should be fully in focus. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't like the picture. --Neo139 15:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, at least two need to be clear. --Thelb⁴ 11:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar system

solar system

with grid plane (not to scale)

This is my first nomination for any featured object on Wikipedia, so I hope I do this correctly. I have made it detailed to explain my view as best as possible.

This image is of high quality, though it is a JPEG, it seems to not have lost any quality due to jpg compression. It has excellent contrast with bright planets and objects against the black of space.It is of high resolution and over 1000px – 1440 × 904. Free use:”This file is in the public domain because it was created by NASA. NASA copyright policy states that ‘NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted’”. I have not been able to find the specific hyperlink for this image, though I have

2006 redefinition of planet

, it shows the longheld, and enduring belief of nine planets which has been largely accepted for over 75 years.

Caption: The solar system is a

Solar system

and probably should be worked on before officially featured.)

Once again, this is my first nom and I appreciate any criticism and/or comments of my nom. Please contact me or reply here about it if you would like to say something.

• Nominate and support. --WillMak050389 04:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment about the nom itself. There really isn't any need to copy the FP criteria here; it clutters the page with information that's already available one click away. Furthermore, that information is part of a living document -- one that could change in a minute or an hour or a day, rendering what's included here outdated and inaccurate. -- Moondigger 04:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted and I have cleaned it up. --WillMak050389 04:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Stylistically there are a few things I might quibble over, but my main objection is that this presents stale, outdated information in that it doesn't include
  2003 UB₃₁₃ (the so-called tenth planet, bigger than Pluto), Sedna, or any representation of a Kuiper Belt Object or the Kuiper belt itself. -- Moondigger 04:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Now that Pluto is no longer a planet, can't it serve as a good representation of a Kuiper Belt Object/Dwarf Planet? Surely we don't want to unclude all of them in this graphic. Kaldari 19:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. This is a very good image in terms of quality and understanding. However, there's a fine line between showing too little and showing too much. This particular image does an excellent job of displaying the classical (and better-known) model of the solar system, but as Moondigger said, an up-to-date model might be more appropriate for Wikipedia (this version won't be the better-known model forever). I'm not sure where to stand, because once you start adding stuff to the diagram, it gets more and more crowded, but then again, it would be nice to have an accurate model. I suppose if this image had an alternate version that coincided with the definition of the classical planets, i.e., excluded Pluto, then it would would have encyclopedic value and a formal definition of what it depicts, rather than "this is the solar system, as of early 2006". I suppose Pluto could be edited out to meet the definition of a "classical planet". In any case, whatever this diagram depicts, it depicts it well, and I suppose that everyone else will decide whether it's encyclopedic or not. --Tewy 07:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Good job on the nomination, I haven't seen such a detailed caption in a long time. It's good to see someone who hasn't been here so long that they've gotten lazy ;-). --Tewy 07:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, I have tried to describe my points about the image as best as possible based on the
      "What is a FP?" criteria. But I can't take credit for the caption, as it says, I pretty much just copied it from Solar System. --WillMak050389 17:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Conditional support. (Add a link to the article covering the IAU redefinition in the caption.) Good pic. --Billpg 10:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Q: How many planets in our solar system have moons? A: Only one. Stevage 14:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which would you prefer, that we not include an example of satelites at all or that we inlcude all 240 known natural satelites in the Solar System. I think having one example of a satelite in the graphic is appropriate, just as it has one example of a comet and one example of a dwarf planet. Kaldari 20:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The grid is supposed to represent the ecliptic, I guess -- but if it does, then not only is the graphic incomplete, lacking the newly-discovered bodies I mentioned previously -- it's also incorrect, in that it has Pluto on the ecliptic. Pluto's orbit is highly-inclined w/r/t the ecliptic -- it does not resemble that depicted here. -- Moondigger 14:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The image if the sun is great, but the rest don't apport anything. --Neo139 15:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "apport" mean? Kaldari 20:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose My biggest problem is that it's not to any scale. There is probably a way you can create a scale to fit the solar system (a logarithmic scale, perhaps?). Also, I oppose per Moondigger and Stevage. It's technically correct, and it would be nice for perhaps grade school kids who are trying to memorize their planets (though it doesn't name the planets), but it fails when it comes to moons of Jupiter, Saturn (both of whom have moons larger than some planets), etc., and when it comes to the shape and angle of the orbits of the planets.Joniscool98 16:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Though I do respect all of the oppose comments, this image displays the nine planets that have been considered the solar system for a very long time. (My guess is over 75 years due to Pluto's discovery in 1930.) I do not know that this will affect any of the votes, but this is why I like this picture and not one that would include Ceres, 2003 UB₃₁₃, and Sedna. It is almost like a capture of our beliefs over the last several decades. --WillMak050389 17:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nothing special and not to scale. Could be technically obsolete soon if the IAU officially approves their crappy definition of a planet. --Nebular110 00:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it's not to scale, that would make for a rather useless graphic. Picture a yellow circle about a centimeter in diameter (for the Sun) and then a black expanse extending about 100 feet past the edge of your monitor. The gas giants would each be about 1 pixel. Earth would not be visible. Regardless of the IAU decision, the inclusion of Pluto serves as a good example of Dwarf Planets and Kupier Belt Objects. Kaldari 20:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's artistic as well as being informative. Plus, it doesn't include any of the so-called 'planets' such as
  2003 UB₃₁₃, Ceres, etc, etc... which is a Good Thing in its own right. Nippoo 00:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I have to admit, I never thought I'd see somebody advocate the exclusion of valid, topical information on Wikipedia. That's never a "Good Thing."-- Moondigger 00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I coudn't agree with you more Moondigger.Nnfolz 06:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. If the said bodies do become "official" planets, then it is our job, regardless of our personal opinions, to include that valid information in Wikipedia. --Nebular110 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The picture is amaizing, but given the situation about defining the term 'Planet' i'm not too inclined to promote an image that will most likely be outdated in about a month or two.Nnfolz 06:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How will it be outdated? Regardless of the IAU decision, the inclusion of Pluto serves as a good example of Dwarf Planets and Kupier Belt Objects. Kaldari 20:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral per Tewy. --Thelb⁴ 11:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Great picture (nice find), but terrible timing. Might be better to re-nominate after the dust has settled a bit. This image could then be nominated as Classic solar system view :) It clearly documents what we thought of as planets for like 60 years. -Ravedave 18:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a graphic of "planets". It's supposed to give an overview of the contents of the Solar System. As such it includes an example of a satelite (Luna), a comet, asteroids, and whatever term you want to call Pluto (minor planet, dwarf planet, Kupier Belt object). Kaldari 20:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment New version of image added with Pluto deleted to only show "Classic" planets. --WillMak050389 04:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i don't wanna start a debate here, but I think pluto should be included as a 'classic planet'. The controversy about its status only became heated a couple of years ago (please correct me if i'm worng about that statement).Nnfolz 11:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An edit that only shows the "classical" view of the solar system (those objects known prior to the invention of the telescope) would not include Neptune, Uranus, or the asteroid belt. If we wanted to show the version of the solar system as it was understood between 1930 and 2000 (though I see little reason to depict that particular 'view' other than nostalgia) then it should include all the moons around any of the planets known at the time. What we have here (in either edit) does not conform to any reasonably logical model of the solar system, unless you redefine the solar system to be "what's shown in this graphic." -- Moondigger 12:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to delete Pluto? This is not a graphic of "the planets". It's a graphic of the solar system. Last time I checked, Pluto had not been ejected from the solar system :) Kaldari 20:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said we had to delete Pluto? My complaint is that the graphic does not accurately represent any reasonable definition of the solar system. -- Moondigger 00:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This looks pretty cool, but the lack of moons on most of the planets kills it. I would support a version with all the moons in place (and perhaps names) --Fir0002 12:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you want all 240 known natural satellites within our Solar system added to this graphic?? With names?? Why not add all 135,000 asteroids while we're at it. Kaldari 19:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In a relatively dramatic turnaround from the direction they appeared to be going a few days ago, the International Astronomical Union has adopted a new definition of "planet" that excludes Pluto. Pluto and the recently-discovered objects previously mentioned are now classified as "dwarf planets." I'd suggest suspending this nomination, and waiting for NASA to release something similar, either including the dwarf planets and moons, or excluding the dwarf planets and Earth's moon. -- Moondigger 15:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. Yes, there are other moons besides Luna; Yes, Pluto is no longer a planet; Yes, the graphic is not to scale. However, this graphic is designed to give an overview of the contents of our Solar System, not an accurate representation (which, graphically, would be nearly useless, as it would either be overly sparse or too cluttered, depending on what methodology you used). Having only Luna in the graphic serves as a good representation of satelites, just as the sole comet in the graphic represents comets. Same for Pluto. Having Pluto in the graphic serves as a representation for the dozens of dwarf planets in the Solar system. Would we really want to show every dwarf planet in this graphic? No. Would we want to omit dwarf planets altogether? No. This graphic (the first one of the two presented) is perfectly suited for it's purpose (regardless of the IAU decision). Kaldari 19:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if I were willing to dismiss those concerns you mention (I'm not, but hypothetically speaking...), it still depicts Pluto's orbit as lying on the ecliptic, which is factually incorrect. -- Moondigger 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, I don't believe it is possible to judge the inclination of the orbit based on the sliver that is visible in the image. Secondly, there's nothing in the graphic to say that that object necessarily has to correspond to Pluto. Now that Pluto is no longer a planet, I would consider that object to be a generic representation of a Kupier Belt object or Dwarf Planet. Thus I don't think it would matter much what inclination of orbit is indicated. Kaldari 23:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's clearly sitting on the same flat plane indicated by the grid pattern as all the other planets. No judgement is required to see that. As for it 'corresponding' to Pluto, it's obvious that's what it is; otherwise the same argument could be made for other objects. (There's nothing in the graphic to say that object second from the end necessarily has to correspond to Neptune, either -- yet that's clearly what it is.) A generic representation of a Kuiper belt object or dwarf planet would not lie on the ecliptic either. One of the common characteristics of such objects is that they tend not to follow nearly circular orbits on the ecliptic. I would support an image similar to this one for FP status but not unless the stylistic problems and factual inaccuracies are addressed. -- Moondigger 00:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afriad there would never be such an image of the solar system that is both stylistically pleasing and factually accurate. A factually accurate graphic of the solar system is not going to be visually appealing. Personally, I think this graphic makes pretty good trade-offs between accuracy and graphic style, but of course that's just my opinion. Kaldari 02:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. Nah, the planets "Xena", Ceres, Charon, and Pluto should be included in this image to make a full-house solar system.
  talk) 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Partly because of Pluto's new status, and partly because I think featuring a not-to-scale diagram like this is a bad idea. The better these types of images are aesthetically, the more potentially misleading they are, and the less likely they are to be understood as conceptual diagrams rather than realistic images. If we were to feature a diagram like this, I would want an artist's rendition with some historical significance (though copyright status probably makes finding a good one an unlikely prospect).--ragesoss 16:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace this image with Image:Solar_sys2.png (see above) --M@rēino 19:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I like it with Pluto removed, but I'd personally like it more if the Kuiper Belt was added. --Age234 20:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't like any of them, including the one with Pluto removed. If Pluto's out because it's no longer a planet, then what are any of the other non-planet objects doing there? (What is that illustration doing in an article about redefinition of a planet lacking Pluto but including a comet and asteroids?) Not that I think an image lacking those objects would be better. I think the only reasonable solution would be to create an image of the Solar System that includes all known planets and dwarf planets, with the dwarf planets not on the ecliptic, and some representive sample of moons, undiscovered Kuiper belt objects, and comets.-- Moondigger 22:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, doesn't really convey information well because it's too far from reality. There's no scale nor labels, and the cropping and artistic, rather than scientific, basis for the image limit how much usefulness it can have. It looks like it would be used as an illustration in a children's book about the solar system rather than a serious teaching tool. I'd rather have a diagram of the solar system that I can rely on to tell me something about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tulum

It's a neat photo of Tulum, close up and big; in the article: Tulum, Created and uploaded by Reywas92.

• Nominate and support. - Reywas92 19:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Highlights WAY overblown in the upper right hand corner. Overexposure everywhere, actually. Viva La Vie Boheme!
• Oppose. Good subject and angle, but I would prefer to see a slightly higher quality picture, as well as no rope fence in the way (if possible). --Tewy 22:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to overexposed sky. HighInBC 23:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with HighInBC --Fir0002 12:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bad crop/shot missing parts of the building --Digon3 16:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agasthiyamalai range and Tirunelveli rainshadow .jpg

western ghats which blocks the monsoon

winds from the west

Self nomination. Image shows the arid landscape of a rainshadow region with a backdrop of rainclouds and showers over the mountain range of the western ghats in South India.

• Nominate and support. -
  PlaneMad|YakYak 17:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Do you have a less compressed version of the image (larger file size, less artifacts)? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-20 19:46
• Oppose for now Two problems. The first one is as Brian stated, and the second is that the rules say that the picture must appear in an article. This image only appears on FPC pages. If you could fix those, you will have my support. Viva La Vie Boheme!
• Oppose for now. Exactly as above, but the best I will vote for is a weak support, as highlights are blown in the upper right. --Tewy 22:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not in article, unclear what the subject is. HighInBC 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed Ive fixed the highlights and uploaded a larger version (1280x960). Also added to articles. The image shows the effect of a rainshadow on the local climate. The landscape is arid even though less than 20km away there are rainclouds and monsoon showers --
  PlaneMad|YakYak 13:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Suppport. utcursch | talk 10:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sun, Earth size comparison labeled.jpg

File:Sun, Earth size comparison labeled.jpg

File:Sun, Earth size comparison.jpg

An amazing picture of the sun and the earth. The thing that I like the most is that you can get a feeling of size and scale in the solar system when you look at how tiny the earth looks besides it. It really gives you a sense of Humility. Really informative in my opinion.

It appears in the Sun article and was created by brian0918 with NASA images.

• Nominate and support. - Nnfolz 00:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. I threw this image together really quickly, but it conveys exactly what I wanted it to. There is also a version without text, if anyone thinks that is preferable. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-20 03:22
• Oppose Not very visualy pleasing to me. It is a "rough" comparison as said on the image's description page. Is there an extended caption for it? --WillMak050389 03:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why I wrote "rough comparison". It's as accurate as you can get given the finite size of a pixel. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-20 04:58
    • I agree that this is very informative, and assuming it is correctly scaled, which it looks to be, but FDeatured pictures should not just be informative, but also visually pleasing. Per Davepape below, I think this image could use a little cleanup visually before it is a FP. --WillMak050389 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support (Version with label). I like the pic, but I'm uneasy that the relative distance between the sun and earth shown is wrong without making any sort of clarification that artistic license has been applied. I would remove the "Weak" from my vote if some sort of caption could be added making it clear that the earth is in fact ~107 sun-diameters (1 AU) from the sun. --Billpg 10:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The image clearly states that is a size comparison, not a distance representation.Nnfolz 17:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose (No label version). At thumb scale, the earth is lost. It looks just like a picture of the sun. --Billpg 10:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment.
  The Moon's orbit has this image. Image:Earth-Moon.png --Billpg 10:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support (label only). Very encyclopedia-ic, and just makes you think! --Thelb⁴ 11:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support stronger support if some clarification is added per Billpg. Very informative, we need more images like this to convey these concepts to the average reader. --Nebular110 15:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm concerned that the license may not be correct. The sun image is from SOHO [35]. Because of ESA's involvement, SOHO images don't generally fall in the "NASA PD" class, as noted in the commons' PD-USGov-NASA license. [36] states that they're only free for non-commercial use. Also, the images don't fit together very well visually (for an FP). --Davepape 18:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding your 2nd point: Are we trying to make it look like the Earth is actually right next to the Sun, or are we trying to convey a size comparison? I'm sure it would be pretty easy to make the Earth fit in better with the image, but I didn't think that was the point of the image. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-20 19:39
    • Even for a non-realistic diagram, the elements should be visually consistent, and to me the Earth and Sun look too dissimilar and pasted together. I think it would work better as a diagram if the Sun were cleaned up to remove the "glow" and background stars (keeping the flare, as a size comparison of that is good); then maybe the jarring pastedness of the Earth wouldn't be a problem. Of course, it'd still need a freely license Sun image. --Davepape 05:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If there is a licensing issue with this particular image of the Sun, I have one I took in 1999 I could upload. It's decent quality but doesn't show solar flares. It does show some sunspots, which might make for an interesting comparison with Earth; I'd bet one or two of the spots are bigger than the Earth. -- Moondigger 20:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support version with caption, as long as the image is indeed factually correct and the copyright is valid; this image is highly informative. --Tewy 22:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Version with caption. Agree with Tewy --Fir0002 12:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support one with caption/. cool, informative, good pic. -Ravedave ^{help name my baby} 19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no text version. I like it better. TomStar81 22:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose. Somethign just looks wrong with the picture. It looks to me that the earth is within the outer reaches of the sun. I know it doesn't represent their distance appart, but something still seems off to me about the Earth's location.

Promoted Image:Sun, Earth size comparison labeled.jpg Raven4x4x 04:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hummingbird Hawk-moth2

electronic flash. This picture was shot in Hanko, Finland

, latitude 60°N, on August 19, 2006, thus far north of the typical residential distribution.

OK, another picture [37] of this amazing buzzing creature was recently awarded feature status, but here's one that addresses one of the concerns voiced by some; the wings are sharp here, frozen by flash. The size of this image is smallish (reason: cropping and some downsampling), but it still fulfills the requirement. Note that I don't propose "replacing" the previous FP, I just wish to present this for your consideration. Appears in

electronic flash

.

• Self-nom. --Janke | Talk 21:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Looks like the EXIF data is gone. What was the exposure length? Was this during the day or at night? Not that it will effect my vote, I am just interested. -Ravedave ^{help name my baby} 21:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXIF disappeared during cropping & downsampling. Late daytime, but flash overpowers daylight (of course - otherwise you'd have blurry wings). Flash duration is probably in the 1/5000 to 1/10000 range, due to the short distance. I do have another shot with "fill-flash", not "full-flash", the wings are transparent in that one!! --Janke | Talk 22:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A great addition to the article, it's good to have one picture showing the motion blur and another (this one) freezing the motion to show the wing and body colouration and patternation clearly. I have identified the flower (Perennial Phlox) on the image description page.--Melburnian 02:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are some parts of the flower that i don't find particularly appealing (i don't know the exact botanical term, if you will). I also don't like the dark background.--Vircabutar 05:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain I cannot support due to dark blackground and small size. I cannot oppose because it is such a good picture. HighInBC 13:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It does a good job of showing the moth and its "frozen" wings, but there are too other many things I don't like. The background is dark, the flash creates harsh shadows, and it's a little grainy (especially in the dark areas) (now if the flash shadow is supposed to be there, I'll change my vote to a Weak support). Despite the informative caption, it's not clear by just looking at the picture that the wings were moving very fast. I think the other two water pictures on the
  Electronic flash article display the subjects in a more obvious freeze-frame. In all, I just don't think this is FP material. --Tewy 01:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Dislike the harsh flash light. Congrats on freezing the wings, but it hasn't really produced that amazing a photo - existing one is much better. Also this image seems to suffer from noise and lack of clarity. --Fir0002 12:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 01:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actinoform cloud

A satellite image of an actinoform cloud. These clouds spread out over 300km and so are only visible from space. Image is by NASA.

• Nominate and support.
  chat} 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak oppose; it's a very striking image, but the image isn't centred and the background (presumably the sea) is too dark. Would probably support an edited version. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not that impressive for a satellite photo, we can raise the bar a bit here. Stevage 17:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Good sharpness, good degree of exposure(the sea should be dark). I would like to see more information in the caption. Also for a sattalite picture it is not too large. HighInBC 13:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Certainly interesting, but I'd like to see better quality in a picture of this type. --Tewy 01:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 01:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]