Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/August-2008

Not promoted MER-C 06:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coca-Cola

Reason

A very good image which does a good job of showing 19th century advertising.

Articles this image appears in

Coca-Cola, Hilda Clark

Creator

The Coca-Cola Company

Shall we begin again, then? MER-C 04:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit 2 Although it is slightly unauthentic as edit 2 vs edit 1 removes the yellowing of the image (presumably due to age) Edit 1 is just for lack of a better word ugly due to the yellow aging tint. Great work removing the white spots btw. Cat-five - talk 04:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I need to clarify to anyone that I have the cleaned up image with the border if anyone prefers it. I was leaving the nomination suspended to get some feedback, sorry for the extra work MER-C. User:victorrocha (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit 1 It looks great now. I'm not sure about edit 2, though; I'd think the LOC has their scanners pretty well calibrated, and none of us has any idea how the original looked, so correcting the white balance of a painting really is a shot in the dark, IMO. It's plausible the original painter chose a warm scheme on purpose. Thegreenj 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Looks more natural. Nice job on the restoration. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 --Fir0002 04:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Bewareofdog 07:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I suppor the 1st edit, but this picture is intriguing. Clever, even. --
  (§peak to me) 21:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support Edit 1, but am pretty neutral between Edit 1 and 2. If Edit 1 is the more authentic we should go with that. Fletcher (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1, Oppose Edit 2. Warmer color-scheme seems natural enough. Without seeing the original messing with the white balance is inappropriate. Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either one. Just a thought: could this go on advertising also, in the history section? It talks about advertising in the early 20th century. It could probably also go on some of the other marketing articles too... great job anyway! Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cocacola-5cents-1900 edit1.jpg MER-C 06:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnifying glass

Reason

This picture adds signifigantly to the article by showing the effect of a magnifying glass on a smaller object. This images orginates from the commons, and is already featured there.

Articles this image appears in

Magnifying glass

Creator

Heptagon (Commons user)

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Fascinating composition. Is it possible to get a better focus on the stamp? Durova^Charge! 03:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't think it's great as the lead image in magnifying glass, but would perhaps have higher EV in stamp collecting and/or philately. --jjron (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This could have great use at Postage stamps and postal history of Germany. Spencer^T♦C 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as long as it goes on the stamp collecting or philately or postage stamp page(s), like jjron said. but it does give some value to magnifying glass by showing how one works Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Here is an image of the stamp in question. Spencer^T♦C 20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose if I'd never seen a magnifying glass before, this image would be confusing. Nothing is seen at the same distance both without and with the magnifying glass. —Pengo 08:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How many people who have access to the internet have never seen a magnifying glass? Surely as many people who have never seen a stamp! Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If everyone's seen one, why does it need illustration? —Pengo 10:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Unencyclopedic for Magnifying glass (the purported subject of the photograph, which is the magnifying glass and not the stamp, is out of focus). Spikebrennan (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. If you'll look at the reason for nomination, you'll see "This picture adds signifigantly to the article by showing the effect of a magnifying glass on a smaller object." It's not supposed to show the magnifying glass, it's supposed to show what a magnifying glass does. Clegs (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to response. Yeah, but does it? The stamp viewed through the magnifying glass has been lifted up, so it's closer to the camera than the background stamps-- no wonder it looks bigger. The effect of the magnifying glass might be more effectively shown by depicting how it magnifies one of the stamps that's still in the sheet on the table. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Sorry, Tom, but is this really encyclopaedic? --
  (§peak to me) 21:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose because it's a clever image, but not a mag-nificant one. It seems to sit on the fence between being sort of encyclopedic for two different topics, but not very encyclopedic for either one. Agree with Spikebrennan's comment that the rim should be in focus for this image to be encyclopedic with respect to
  magnifying lens. --Fletcher (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Very cool idea, and you pulled it off. Clegs (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Air National Guard F-16s

Reason

It's a good image taken above the cloud layer below. This allows the sun to reflect off the planes in a way that shines back into the camera. The position of the planes also make the picture look good.

Articles this image appears in

158th Fighter Wing

Creator

Senior Master Sgt. Robert Sabonis, uploaded by: ktr101

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Too noisy. Spencer^T♦C 20:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Noisy and not particularly interesting compared to some other FP planes. sorry. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's been said. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 23:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small White feeding on a thistle flowerhead

Reason

High quality image which combines enc value with some pretty nice aesthetics (IMO)

Articles this image appears in

Small White

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 04:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sharpness is lacking Capital photographer (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 1. A very attractive shot, and sharp enough where it counts.--ragesoss (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both Sorry, but DOF is too narrow. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - Only because I like the edit, but I feel this will be one of your weakest candidates, Fir. --
  (§peak to me) 21:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Beautiful creature, but yeah, not sharp enough. Fletcher (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Cool pic, but it has some DOF issues. Clegs (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett M82

Reason

A training demonstration of the Barrett .50 photographed with the cartridge in the air exiting the chamber. A good demonstration of the weapon in operation and a high resolution file. As noted at peer review, none of the 105 images at

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Gallery

depicts a female servicemember on active duty. It'd be good to remedy that shortcoming and this seems to fit the bill on technical and encyclopedic merit.

Articles this image appears in

Barrett M82, Hurlburt Field

Creator

A1C Jason Epley

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 23:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Mildly uninteresting. The picture is just not compelling, and seeking something more compelling in the articles turns up nothing. --Blechnic (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. Encyclopedically speaking, it's quite a nice image. However, the quality is lacking. The image seems to bright (or at leas the colors are washed out), very little is in focus, the background is distracting, and her back looks close to being blown. I checked with the eyedropper and there's nothing at 255-255-255, but it's getting close. NauticaShades 00:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for obscuring subject's face and too much smoke. By comparison this similar image is sharper, has a nicer background, and with a faster exposure it doesn't blur the cartridge ejecting. Fletcher (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • The cartridge by his neck is not the one being ejected - that one still has the bullet in it. de Bivort 03:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other spent cartridges taper in the front; I think you're seeing the tapered portion not the bullet. Otherwise I don't understand what I'm looking at. Fletcher (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grrrr... This was the one that got the best overall responses at peer review. While I respect the responses, what's peer review for if the difference in feedback is this great? Durova^Charge! 01:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • C'est la wiki. And I think it got mixed reviews not unambiguous support. Personally I was favoring your second and third submissions. Fletcher (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My heart's with the third, but I wonder if it has enough fans. Back to the archives... (dig, dig) Durova^Charge! 03:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm with this one. While the quality deteriorates at the largest sizes, I think it has enough at lower ones (although still well above the size minima). It also has sufficient "interest" and dynamic and evocative colours in my opinion, to gather my support. The background isn't to everyone's taste, but is a plus for me. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Original. It's a good pic technically, but I find the background distracting, and the subject is not presented in a very interesting manner. Neutral Edit The edit dealt with most of my concerns, and the rest of my objections, while preventing a support, aren't big enough for me to oppose. Clegs (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. haha I like how it shows something happening (not just a still picture) and how you can see her reaction. I also like the background. But that's just me, and the quality is an issue for some people. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 - I am partial to this photo, but recognized the problems others have seen in it. Here is a crop / and minor clone job that gets rid of most of the uneven lighting. I also did a selective levels adjust to bring out some detail in the dust cloud. de Bivort 22:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless we can verify that the lady really did have sunburn at the time, I'll oppose edit 1. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 23:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, that saturation change was inadvertent. Replaced with aloed version. de Bivort 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No reason this should get fast tracked just because its a woman in the army. Almost nothing is in sharp focus due to the shutter speed and the smoke.
  talk) 12:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Does it help that she's in the Air Force? ;) Seriously, it's used in the article about the weapon and the military base, not at the history of women in armed services (although that would be an encyclopedic purpose too). Durova^Charge! 17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Blechnic. Nothing particularly impressive is being demonstrated here. If a male was depicted in this picture, you wouldn't even consider nominating it. 67.174.4.2 (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From above: "Note, however, that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets." Please sign in or sign up to contribute to the discussion. NauticaShades 23:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morelia viridis

Reason

...

Articles this image appears in

none at the time of the nomination :-(

Morelia viridis it's been reverted (it remains a much better image than the existing images so I left it on the talk page for someone with more involvement in the article to judge) Mfield (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Creator

Micha L. Rieser

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 19:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Object Since it is in no articles and thus cannot be judged as encyclopedic or non encyclopedic which unlike commons is the main thing here. Cat-five - talk 20:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just added it to
  Morelia viridis, as its surely a better image than the top one there was. Now I'll go and look at it further to vote. Mfield (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Followup - background far too noisy, have uploaded an edit since its a pretty subject and picture, but the blown highlights prevent me from supporting. Mfield (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: the nominator appears to assume that "reason for nomination" and the inclusion in articles criterion are optional. They are mistaken. Not to sound too harsh (in truth I am mildly annoyed, but trying to AGF), you can't just shrug your shoulders when asked why you're nominating this - follow the procedure and
  assume that's not the case, and you're just new here. Oppose on grounds of FPC politics. The photo is also quite noisy and has blown highlights, but that's a minor issue compared. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Close image does not appear in any articles and still has no FP reason some hours after nom. Mfield (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aeshna cyanea moulting

Edit 1 by Fir0002 - sharpened, NR, dust spot removal

Reason

Very high encylopedic value

Articles this image appears in

Southern Hawker

Creator

Bohringer

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 14:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very encylopedic, with good detail and good overall quality. Couldn't this be added to moulting? NauticaShades 14:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added it.--ragesoss (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there a particular reason why we're not presenting this as an animation? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, a series like this works better than an animation because this way, a viewer can observe each image at ease, without any time constraints. Muhammad(talk) 16:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cf. Image:Cicada molting animated-2.gif (FP). Papa Lima Whiskey (todo) 17:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that the frame changes significantly, so animation is likely impractical. Thegreenj 17:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would just have to be a bit slower. I personally find the Cicada one a bit too fast anyway. And it's by no means perfectly suited for animation either - the lighting varies quite a bit between frames. And just to pre-empt a possible further question - I don't think a real time video of the event would be out of place at all, and I think it would be a better alternative. However, I don't see that as a reason to oppose this image now. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 18:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is someone skilled enough to put together an animation? I think the cicada has to be an animation because of the poor background, but this one doesn't have to be. I do wonder about its impact as an animation, though. --Blechnic (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll take a crack at an animation. de Bivort 20:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • NVM - I started to this, but between the shifting framing and lighting conditions, I don't think the images are amenable to animation. de Bivort 21:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay. Thanks for trying. --Blechnic (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Muhammad, would you mind going back to the originals and arranging them as a 4×3 grid? Thegreenj 17:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean Image:Aeshna cyanea freshly slipped Q1.jpg? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 18:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops! I thought Muhammad was the creator... But yeah, like that. Thegreenj 18:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm in love. --Blechnic (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Amazing! Such a dramatic transformation after it leaves its old skin.--ragesoss (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the points mentioned by Nauticashades. Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Not only encyclopaedic, but a quality image as well. Applause. --
  (§peak to me) 21:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support for proving life is beautiful. What gorgeous images; I'm not in favor of an animation, even were it possible here, because I much prefer viewing these frames at my own pace. Also oppose the grammar in the caption. Should be: "The exoskeleton limits growth, however, and is periodically shed in a process referred to as moulting." --Fletcher (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support With preference for edit 1. Despite some frames which have poor sharpness (i think due to low light) the overal sequence is very enc. --Fir0002 00:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Brilliant. —Pengo 15:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A lot more interesting than a lot of the bug pics that are nominated. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I wanted to nominate it here too after having seen it on Commons' FPC. I think I would have supported any of them alone. Amazing. Blieusong (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Don't think I can say anything that hasn't been exclaimed above but I believe brilliant sums it up very well, very encyclopedic, very good shot(s). Cat-five - talk 08:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - Each photo is capable of being a Featured pic. Superbly done. And good job to fir on Sharping. --66.36.137.22 (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there any video of the same process? --69.127.161.198 (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Aeshna cyanea freshly slipped L2.jpg MER-C 06:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp

Reason

Our featured picture collection deserves at least one Rembrandt. Offering one of his better known early works, which is famous enough to have its own article, in the best quality digital file I could locate. Also useful at History of medicine.

Articles this image appears in

• History of medicine
• Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp
• Rembrandt van Rijn
  (gallery)
• Aris Kindt

Creator

Rembrandt van Rijn

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 23:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The figures around the dead man seem very pale. Maybe someone here has seen the original painting recently, and would be able to comment? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image comes from the National Library of the Netherlands and originates from The Hague. Although I can't comment on the color balance, it was the most reliable source archive I could locate. Durova^Charge! 02:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's certainly better quality than the alternate image here on Wikipedia. Support. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very nice painting, very helpful to wikipedia; --
  talk) 07:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. A good quality digital version of a great painting (I love the facial expressions!). NauticaShades 14:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support like Nautica, I like the xpressions. Muhammad(talk) 18:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - How many FP's can you get Durova? I think you deserve a monument. --
  (§peak to me) 21:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Build it for Fir0002. He's way ahead of me. :) Durova^Charge! 21:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and I also love their expressions. The guy in the background looks a little freaked out, like he's wondering, "hey, did you read the manual first!" Fletcher (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: added to
  Aris Kindt, the poor guy being dissected.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Fine image, great restoration. Spencer^T♦C 19:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Hey Pete, I'm no expert, but I think the guy's dead. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's just resting. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fine image! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:The Anatomy Lesson.jpg MER-C 06:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harper's Ferry, 1862

Reason

An original

Battle of Harper's Ferry, September 14-15, 1862. Restored version of Image:Attack on Harper's Ferry.jpg

.

Articles this image appears in

Battle of Harpers Ferry, Robert Knox Sneden

Creator

Robert Knox Sneden

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 18:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think this image should be either more cropped or less. The map was pasted into a diary, and the same handwriting as the purple caption is present in the borders that were cropped out. Was Robert Knox Sneden the creator of the map, or did he just collect and annotate it? If the latter, it might be better to crop to the black lines. If the former (which it looks like from the hand), I think more the page should be kept, including the different top caption, the page number, and the cross-reference. There should also be a link to whatever is on page 1072, if at all possible.--ragesoss (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, I was a little concerned that someone might head in that direction, but expected I'd have time to create Robert Knox Sneden and didn't anticipate a comment so soon that went so far. Private Sneden organized his diary after the war. It is over 5000 pages long, more than 4500 of which are text. I have located digitizations for most of the illustrations but for none of text pages, and to the best of my knowledge the principal text has never been published. He was a mapmaker for the Union Army. There are several ways an image such as this one could be restored and my intention is to get as close as possible to the appearance of the document when it was newly created. My hope is that for a moment the viewer of this image can imagine himself or herself in the uniform of a Union colonel, holding the field map in hand, and comparing it to the campfires from the enemy army on the other hill. That is why I cropped its proportions very close to the original paper dimensions and discarded the later diary notes that added very little direct value to the image (just a page reference and a rephrasing of the caption). Your suggestions would be very appropriate if this FPC called Diary of an American Civil War soldier, but that image would appear at different articles and I would probably select a different page for that. Durova^Charge! 19:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The cross references makes it seem like page 1072 is another image, but if it's just text then that's that. A bit more context would be helpful on the description page. I think the bottom caption should be cropped or cloned out if you want it to be close to the original map, since it looks like that caption was added after the map was originally created (but maybe before it went into the diary). This is just my suggestion, but if you feel strongly about that I don't think it's a huge problem.--ragesoss (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I got a little tiny start into the page. Will expand it in a few hours. Durova^Charge! 20:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. We seem to have scared everyone off. When I look at it again, the map itself is just too good an image not to support, regardless of the context issues discussed above.--ragesoss (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)--ragesoss (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very encyclopaedic, good job. --
  (§peak to me) 21:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - Too good not to pass. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per ragesoss. Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Attack on Harper's Ferrypass5.jpg MER-C 06:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Tree Sparrow

Reason

The image is high quality, encyclopedic, and informative. It is already a Featured Picture on the German Wikipedia. And, well, it's cute.

Articles this image appears in

List of Iowa birds

Creator

Mdf

• Support as nominator --NauticaShades 03:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Edits 1 and 2. Too much detail is lost during noise reduction. I would, however, support a color corrected but not noise removed edit. NauticaShades 21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit 1 is now acceptable. NauticaShades 14:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support !vote updated I think the DOF and size are just about sufficient, otherwise it's perfect! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice, excellent lighting and very enc. Mfield (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very strong oppose to either edit--ruined a lovely picture, one of my favorites of all the FPN lately. All the usual, but it's also cute as all. --Blechnic (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the strike-through mean you've withdrawn your support from the original? NauticaShades 15:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly support the original only, repeat: no support for edits. No, I love the original, it is gorgeous, and enlarged it includes lovely soft belly feathers of the bird. God alone (pick your deity) knows why anyone wants to ruin a gorgeous picture, though, and I don't want any mistakes made that include anyone thinking I support crapping up this fine image of an American tree sparrow. What a waste to readers who could come and get a lovely image to have it replaced with so something much lesser. --Blechnic (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support excellent detail. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-22 13:12Z
• Support good choice. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Per above - surprised now one pointed out/fixed noise before me... --Fir0002 12:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh look I can be childish too - strong oppose original due to noise which completely ruins it! Come on guys you're being silly about the noise - it's failing criteria no.1 of WIAFP and you're happy to leave it in that rut?! --Fir0002 04:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an otherwise encyclopedic and gorgeous image is noisy and correcting the noise appears to mean ruining the picture by taking away part of the detail, part of what makes it gorgeous, then I am not being childish to reject it. And consider that temper tantrum in bold italics the equivalent of
      WP:NPA. --Blechnic (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Take it easy buddy - if you have a problem with the NR removing detail then say so, but at least refrain from "crapping up this fine image" "What a waste to readers" "God alone (pick your deity) knows why anyone wants to ruin a gorgeous picture". I don't want to single you out but you are acting a little unrationally here to say the least. Btw just checking you realize I've revised my edit twice now to overcome concerns about feather detail and now the bird is essentially untouched (appart from chromatic noise reduction in the belly which doesn't lose detail) --Fir0002 12:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Taket is easy pal! Please, take it easy! Slow down! Catch your breath. At work we call Wikipedia's Featured Pictures our "What not to do," to reflect that fact that most of the images that have any scientific value could not be used in scientific articles anywhere but on Wikipedia because of the type of photoshopping (whatever your software) done on the images. The eager race to get their first and edit nature out of the images, change nature in the images, and promote the unnatural when perfectly good images are nominated is annoying, but the the results that leave usable scientific images as worthless are more than annoying, they detract from Wikipedia's value overall. So, take it easy on that editing software buddy. Relax the next time you see an image and consider first its scientific value by, for example, looking at the feathers as part of the bird first. Have I accounted for your mood well enough? And as accurately as you surely pinpointed mine? Did it enhance my post to ascertain your mood at the moment you read my post before launching forth? --Blechnic (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, back to the images, now that we've dealt with each others' feelings, so important and transparent in Wikiworld. Edit 1 is okay. I don't see the need for it, but the bird looks the same blown up on my standard monitor, but not sure about viewed on my imaging system. Still, this last point does not matter to me for FP as the image is for a general audience. --Blechnic (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • A few things: Human eyes see without digital color noise and therefor its removal (which as fir said leaves no artifacts) is more "natural". Secondly, photos here, I'm sure, have been used for scientific applications as much as is practical. I have a summer internship at the Harvard University Molecular and Cellular biology labs and a large part of what I am doing involves image capture and editing of mouse
              ES cells on Nikon Microscopes costing upwards of $200,000. I also set up a studio in a bio-safety level 3 underground facility for taking pictures (for publication) of animals. Without a doubt the editing I have done on the two dozen images of chimeric mice was more extensive than this. That is my (limited) experience with imaging in a scientific setting and I think the editing is necessary. Sorry, what's your experience? -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • Well, that argument fails, because those algorithms do not remove noise in the same way the human eye does (fact number 1: the human brain compensates for natural noise inherent in the architecture of the human eye; fact number 2: the normal human brain is capable of compensating for digital noise, too). Anyway, my popcorn's run out, and I'm hoping not to have to go back to the microwave. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 16:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Fact no. 3 wait another year or two and a DSLR will be able take the same photo (same lighting/settings) with zero noise - aka the same way you get with NR. Noise is a deficiency of a camera, one which manufacturers strive to minimize. Leaving noise like that in an image is a cardinal sin to a photographer. --Fir0002 22:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't know how your comment addresses anything I've said. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 17:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's quite simple - don't treat the noise in this image as an inherent part of this scene. The noise is not a natural part of it, it is there because the camera was unable to do a better job at capturing the image. Hence your "fact" 2 is wrong - the human eye is not going to magically edit out the noise in this image (obviously since we can see it) to create what it would see if it where the camera because the noise was not in the original scene but was generated by the camera. --Fir0002 10:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 Very good photo. But I thought a better noise reduction was needed + a touch on the colors and contrast. --Arad (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 Edit 1+Original not enough lighting in my opinion.
  REVIEW ME 16:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• oppose - this bird is fat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairyholebutt (talk • contribs) 17:39, 23 July 2008
  • User's second ever edit. NauticaShades 21:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • User blocked for vandalism. Spencer^T♦C 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose edits 1 and 2. I think the noise is acceptable; the edits are losing detail on the belly of the bird. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The belly of the bird was 90% noise. I thought that too, that we are losing detail. However this is not true, we're loosing noise. There is actually barely any detail on the belly. I agree however that it's now soft. Which is another point. And is an acceptable one. --Arad (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah. To my eyes, the edits do create an unnatural edge between the belly and the rest of the feathers. I can't convince myself that that's what we should be aiming for, regardless what we believe about how much of the belly is noise. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say good eye, Papa Lima Whiskey, but it's so obvious I can't understand why no one else sees it. The edits create a horrid "unnatural edge between the belly and the rest of the feathers," and lose all of the detail of the belly feathers of the original. It's awful. --Blechnic (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original Very sparrow-like. The edits look strange with the high contrast around the eyes and the glow in edit 2. Narayanese (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've redone my edit with more careful masking which should allay people's concerns - and frankly it would be plain stupid IMO to promote an image with easily fixable noise issues!! --Fir0002 09:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better, but still blurring the edges of the bird. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok I've done another edit - hopefully the last --Fir0002 04:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's still pinching the tuft of feathers on his right foot. Well, I've said that the noise seems a minor issue to me, so I'll stick with my !vote. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 16:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I assume you mean the claw? The claw is slightly affected but it's so minor I can't believe you'd bring it up... Fixed anyway, but I assume at least you no longer oppose edit 1? --Fir0002 10:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, foot is the more widely used term, and used throughout biology. Cf. Image:Birdmorphology.svg Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original Oppose Edits I'd rather a bit of noise than zero noise and lost detail.
  talk) 11:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - I like the original much better. --
  (§peak to me) 21:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Geez, what am I doing oppose all. Yes its an MDF, but sorry, an 1 Megapixel image?! You've got to be kiddding me. And I gotta give Fir this much credit, the noise and artifacting is pretty bad. All in all it is just an oversharpened bird shot. We've had way better. --Dschwen 03:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad you agree with the noise issue but I have to say it's frustrating to now see that your original vote seemed to be a knee-jerk one... --Fir0002 07:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this constructive? --Dschwen 12:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well hopefully a gentle slap on the wrist now will encourage you to give edits a fair chance in the future... --Fir0002 22:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow! Talk about AGF. I'm really sorry that the edit bussiness is an obvious source of frustration for you here. If slapping me makes you feel better go ahead. But be aware it makes you look slightly condescending. After all I have quickly corrected my mistake... --Dschwen 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support edit 2 Though I do agree with Papa Lima Whiskey. Spencer^T♦C 19:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 and original, Oppose other To much background contrast in Edit 2 --Base64 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• UPDATE EDIT 2 - I remade the edit. Like Fir's Edit, the belly is untouched. However more background noise was removed and the contrast corrected. --Arad (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion - I think it's better to put this nomination on hold until we get a clear consensus. --Arad (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus Trainwreck, original too noisy. MER-C 06:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BP Bridge

Reason

It is a great, high-resolution image of an aesthetically interesting bridge as seen from a rare angle.

Articles this image appears in

BP Pedestrian Bridge

Creator

Torsodog

• Support as nominator ----Torsodog^Talk 22:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No wow, even technically not very good, overall nothing special. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the bridge is really nice, and could possibly be a FP by itself, but there's just too much going on in the shot. plus part of the bridge is obscured by trees. Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If you cropped about the top third or top fourth of the image, you'd improve composition a lot - this would also improve quality, as that part is out of focus. However, the tree cutting off part of the bridge is problematic - maybe try in winter or spring, when less foliage? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very snapshotty. Clegs (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 03:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TCD Campanile

Reason

Trinity College Dublin Campanile is one of the most prominent tourist attractions in Dublin and nominated picture illustrates that landmark magnificently fulfilling all the necessary technical criteria of FP (i.e. licence, size etc).

Articles this image appears in

Trinity College Dublin

Creator

Niaz

• Support as nominator --Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 21:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it fails to show either the complete campanile or the statue, plus the building is suffering from extreme perspective distortion which is undesirable in an encyclopedic architectural shot. Mfield (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It really doesn't contribute anything to the article; no where else in the article does it mention the campanile or Salmon, and the pic itself has been inserted into a section that has nothing to do with the picture. It is a nice pic of a building on campus, but that's about it. the perspective problems and the cropped building also detract from its EV, per Mfield's comment. sorry. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sword dance

Reason

Another early twentieth century archival photo: a military sword dance in celebration of an Ottoman victory during World War I. Unfortunately no data available on exact date or location, but a fascinating cultural document with an attractive composition. Restored version of Image:Men dancing with swords.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Sword dance

Creator

American Colony (Jerusalem)

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 21:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A great image which meets the criteria. The encyclopedic value seems huge.
  talk) 11:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Support. The angle is kind of akward, and the sword dance is blurry (but that's understandable; they're moving!), and that detracts from its EV, but it's the best illustration of a sword dance on the page, and the quality is good. What sells it are the expressions on the onlookers' faces. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for being overexposed, grainy, and not very sharp. We can forgive technical flaws of historical images if they are super-encyclopedic, but I think this is only moderately encyclopedic. Sword dancing does not appear to be an extinct practice, so I expect a good photographer with a modern camera could take an amazing picture. Fletcher (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ottoman Empire ceased to exist very shortly after this image was taken and the successor state actively turned its back on much of its distinctive customs. Durova^Charge! 09:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A valuable and interesting image, but the quality is not quite there in my view.--ragesoss (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - The quality is now decent and the image still has a very high value. --Arad (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's too hard to see the actual dance that's going on here. This image of a Bedouin woman dancing with a sword is far more compelling visually and would be much more helpful to readers of the article. I'm starting to restore it, then I'll upload it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've put my alternate image to the right. I think this would be a much better lead image, because you can actually see the person dancing with the sword. It's also a really interesting cultural document in its own right--this isn't the stereotypical image of a Middle Eastern woman. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was looking at that one too when I selected this. Durova^Charge! 03:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This one is faar more special with the WWI setting. Just my 2 cents --66.36.134.61 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, but Support the new one! --Blechnic (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Angle helps to get a good view of the crowd, but also helps to obscure the action of the dance. Clegs (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stave Hill, Rotherhithe, London - May 2008

Reason

A high quality panorama of Stave Hill in Rotherhithe, London, good encyclopedic value, not to mention great quality Image, taken by Diliff.

Articles this image appears in

Stave Hill

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator --Mifter (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Well, the technical quality is good, but I'm not sure its one of my most awe-inspiring photos. ;-) Certainly not one I would have voluntarily nominated, but thanks for the nod anyway Mifter! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant, weak oppose The quality is really high, but it's boring... no wow at all. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. In addition to what's been said about "wow", it's also low on EV. The article is a two-sentence stub without inline references. In addition, the "ecological park" doesn't seem to be fully illustrated by this picture, as I'd imagine there would be parts that aren't mown grass. I'm sure the viewing platform seemed a nice idea at the time, but we don't get a sense of whether it's popular. Looks pretty lonely (and yes, I know that having too many random strangers in a photo is one of the standard complaints here, but this particular composition is just *too* plain and might have benefited from some jolly crowds). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 23:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Hey, it's probably the best picture ever taken of
  Stave Hill. Why not? NauticaShades 23:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose it's a good picture technically but as previously stated; not very impressive nor much encyclopedic value. --Krm500 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I quite like the composition. It's simple but elegant. Is it possible to get a taller view to give more perspective? --victorrocha (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately not, the ground slopes away in all directions. This was about the only decent place to take the shot from. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guess climbing a tree is not an option. :D --victorrocha (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not for a photo of this, it isn't.. The ends would not justify the means! Anyway, there are no trees where I took the shot from (the path connects to a road), and even if I did manage to climb those flimsy trees on the left and right sides, the symmetry would be lost. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So does this imply that you have climbed trees to get better perspective? ;) Farthest I have gone is climbing an external fire escape for a picture. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 13:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. per Krm500 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs (talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Something of a moral support. It's probably the best picture that could possibly be taken of this subject, but I agree the subject is fairly average-looking. I like the lightposts, though, and it's certainly encyclopaedic for the article it's in. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Maybe subject has little WOW, but the quality has a LOT! --Arad (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I really like the symmetry of the photograph and the perfect shape of the hill, but I'm not so sure about its encyclopedic value. A. Parrot (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normal 100 1930

Reason

Nice shot

Articles this image appears in

Stony Point railway line, Melbourne

Creator

Melbtrip

• Support as nominator --Megamelbourne (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, speedy close Way too small. Suggest nominators familiarize themselves with criteria before submitting... ;-) --Janke | Talk 12:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Valley

Reason

A high-quality panorama. The people really give you a sense of scale.

Articles this image appears in

Death Valley

Creator

Phreakdigital

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Gorgeous. Do you have information on which of Death Valley's sand dune fields this is? Durova^Charge! 05:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photographer's last contribution was in 2007, so I'm afraid that we're probably not going to get more information now. =/ Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like the one near Stovepipe Wells, close to the road. I have a very similar shot that I took in 1993... --Janke | Talk 06:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very possibly; I climbed the Stovepipe Wells dunes in 2000. And if I had to venture a guess I'd say the camera's facing west. But how different from the other Death Valley dune fields does this area really look? In an 80 mile long area lined with mountains on all sides, there's a chance of a similar sierra formation occurring somewhere else. Would it be fair to match this against reliably identified photos of Stovepipe Wells? Durova^Charge! 07:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Weak oppose If this is really Stovepipe Wells then it's relatively accessible and should be possible to photograph under better conditions. The haze itself is virtually unavoidable: partly a result of air pollution from the state's urban areas which rain almost never cleans out of this arid region, and partly a function of the conditions that create the dunes--prevailing winds carry fine particulates westward from the Sierras. (I don't have citations for any of this; quoting from memory from a trip to the park). The long and short of it is that these atmospheric conditions make sunsets and sunrises more colorful but wash out the midday sky. Durova^Charge! 08:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Composition wise, there's too much sky and not enough dunes for the subject. Technically, there's some sky banding, the foreground bottom left is out of DOF and in general detail is smushy like too much jpeg noise reduction (i am looking at the bushes and ground, its not atmospheric like you can see on the dunes). I think this could/should be easily retaken in much higher IQ at a better time of day to make it FP.Mfield (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very cool, and great quality. 216.183.234.7 (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Me again. Clegs (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per User:Mfield. Washed-out sky, hazy skyline. Not FP quality imo --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. bad stich. Undulating brightness in the sky can be reduced with a restich and applying a vignetting compensation beforehand. A reasonably new version of hugin should have no problems with that. I'd be happy to reconsider after this is fixed. --Dschwen 16:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photographer has left Wikipedia. This is a "found" FPC, not one I was involved in. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 17:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reindeer sled

Reason

Photochrom print of a sled with reindeer. High resolution file with good composition. Restored version of Image:Archangel reindeer.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Reindeer#Reindeer_husbandry

Detroit Publishing Co.

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 23:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Illustrates well historic reindeer husbandry. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Another shoo-in, imo. Durova, how many FP's do you have now? Good work, as always. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 10:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Archangel reindeer3.jpg --John254 13:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon and Irene Castle

Reason

One of the most important couples of twentieth century

ballroom dancing: before there was Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, there was Vernon and Irene Castle. One measure of how well a couple dances is how close their bodies are. From the toe to the hip they practically touch. A large file with good photographic composition--it appears that the edges of the negative were painted, so I preserved that effect. Unrestored version at Image:Vernon and Irene Castle.jpg

.

Articles this image appears in

Ballroom dance, Vernon and Irene Castle

Creator

Frances Benjamin Johnston

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 01:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The head poise of the gentleman is wrong. This flaw could be remedied by an appropriate caption. See Image:Ballroom dance exhibition.jpg or Image:2005 ballroom dance championships.JPG for what is the accepted modern standard. What's shown in the image *may* possibly have been acceptable historically (but I'm not aware of any hard evidence for that), but it misrepresents ballroom dancing today. In any case, it would require clarification imo. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 09:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please bear in mind the image is at the history section and includes the date in the caption. Durova^Charge! 10:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A marvelous photo--perhaps not the best quality, but just look at them dancing! A truly legendary couple in the history of partner dance. I would hesitate to say that anything Vernon Castle did was "wrong" or a "flaw". Different dancers have different styles, and if a master is dancing a certain way, then it is likely because it his his style rather than because it is a mistake. Different dances also have different traditional postures. The two photos you linked to are waltzes, whereas it is not entirely clear from this photo what sort of dance the Castles are doing. (Might it be a tango?) Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Castles were best known for the Foxtrot. I'm not sure whether it's that or some other dance, but the foxtrot article links to a video clip of a recent competition and it appears that the male dancers do tilt their heads in a similar position at some moments. Durova^Charge! 04:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The physics of dance have been completely worked out. People in the business can tell you instantly, for example, whether a dancer has good footwork or not, and can tell you why, and, more importantly, agree with each other. The room for interpretation does not extend to technique, it is restricted to issues of timing and the size of each movement. If you're not using the physics properly, you will never achieve the look that modern judges are looking for. Foxtrot is a good guess for this picture; tango is less likely unless it is Argentine Tango, in which case, it would call into question the caption which identifies them as "ballroom dancers". Argentine Tango is not among the line-up of dances currently recognised as ballroom dances by bodies such as
    IDSF (see Ballroom dance for more information). In conclusion, "style" never trumps technique. If your technique is bad, your style can't be worth much. You probably need to entertain the possibility that this is not a picture of this couple actually dancing, but rather, being stationary waiting for the picture to complete. You will know this if you've ever tried to take pictures at an indoor ball, even with a modern camera. This, again, could be quite feasibly worked into the caption. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 15:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support original per Calliopejen. Strong oppose Edit 1 - I fail to see how less detail = better prints. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - I don't think we need an image that big. A down-sampled photo will do much better, both for viewing on computer and prints. --Arad (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original per nom and Calliopejen Strong oppose Edit 1 pointless downsampling. Mfield (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original - I totally agree with Papa Lima Whiskey that this is most likely a still posed shot. However, as an illustration of two people who were, almost a hundred years ago, ballroom dancers, in their article, I think it wouldn't matter if they were hanging from monkey bars, as the subject matter is the people, not dance technique. It's a little harder to make that argument in the history section of the Ballroom Dance article but the way it is being used there in no way implies that they are demonstrating anything specific. Instead it shows that these two people were historically important. I'd welcome a suggested better caption there from Papa Lima Whiskey. The current one certainly doesn't hold them up as examples of modern technique, and it dates them correctly and treats the photo as a portrait (it doesn't even say they are dancing) so a specific suggestion would be helpful. The only one I can think of, "Vernon and Irene Castle probably not dancing and possibly not showing modern day style in 1910" doesn't really seem to work. Not trying to be snarky here, just at a loss for what else could be said. pschemp | talk 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All this discussion of whether their technique is "correct" strikes me as completely anachronistic. I don't know details of the history of dancesport, but the IDSF wasn't even founded until 1957 and according to Foxtrot that dance wasn't even invented until 1914. (And the Castles were the couple that popularized it!) Extreme standardization of social dance is a modern phenomenon. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I've not said anything that contradicts your most recent statements. But I'd like to avoid giving a misleading image of ballroom dancing, as might happen if we gave insufficient weight to the historic context. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 18:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think your concern is valid, but that in the context of their current use, the historic context is already sufficiently weighted. (Though admittedly, the history of Ballroom dance section is really quite poor to begin with.) I took a stab at that caption in the ballroom dance article, so it now reads, "Vernon and Irene Castle, early ballroom dance pioneers, c.1910-1918". Not sure what else to do. Are you worried about how it will appear in the FPC listing by itself? pschemp | talk 20:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Vernon and Irene Castle2.jpg Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zizina labradus butterfly

Reason

High quality macro shot of this previously unillustrated tiny butterfly (specimen shown is about 1cm). Taken in an attractive setting perched on (or in) a rose. Compares well to other such macro FPs.

Articles this image appears in

Zizina labradus, List of butterflies of Tasmania

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's a tad dark but the composition is superb. The colors of the flower stand out very well. The focus plane is well placed with only the outermost tip being out of focus. victorrocha (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose But only because I think my photo has better definition and also slightly more interesting behaviour (feeding vs static). --Fir0002 00:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that you consider yours to have better definition when it's only about 2/3rds the size and mine clearly has considerably better detail on the wing scales, etc. I also notice that yours pre-dates mine as far as when it was photographed, but has only appeared on Wikipedia after I've created this nom. --jjron (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant definition in the fourth sense, in that my image has sharper details. Open the two in tabs at 100% and flick between them around the head and you'll see what I mean. Believe it or not I actually only just got a reply from the Australian museum with the ID of this butterfly last week and was planning to upload it in the near future. But yeah seeing this nom I figured it would be a good time to upload now to add to the discussion. --Fir0002 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you are well aware DOF on macros like this can be quite narrow, so it depends where you are looking. Sharpness on the details around the body look pretty similar to me, as is. If I downsize mine to the size of yours, 'apparent' sharpness will become greater across more of the beast (at the loss of some of the wing detail which yours is already lacking). It also looks like you had the advantage of shooting in good sunlight allowing you to stop down more, which should have allowed you greater DOF. You're luckier than me re the IDing, and FWIW you wouldn't have had an article to upload it to. --jjron (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah but I'm not so sure that DOF is to blame here as even the parts which are in focus aren't that sharp - what shutter speed where you shooting at? But actually no I didn't get much sunlight - the lighting is thanks to the MT-24EX! :) Fair enough on the article (and it's great you went to the effort to write it), but the article on "the blues" was in dire need of a photo... :P --Fir0002 05:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • IMO if an image purporting to illustrate a particular species can't illustrate its own species' article in some way then it's usually lacking in EV. I actually looked at 'the blues' article as well, and decided against adding my photo given that Zizina are listed under Doubtful Polyommatinae. Nah, your flash may have come in handy, but I can see from the bg that you had more light than I did - I was in a semishaded spot during early twilight, and any bg beyond the flower would almost certainly have come out black. --jjron (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not sure how reputable a source it is but this site gives a polyommatinae ID. I might check it on Monday - I think the Hargrave Andrews library at Monash has this book which that brisbane insects site cites. But I can tell you for sure that this was taken in semi-shade (shade caused by reasonably thin tree cover - from memory AE metered the scene to be -1 to -1.5 exposure. You can tell because if it was in sunlight the white flowers would have been blown white. But regardless it is of course possible that you had worse conditions. --Fir0002 01:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Jeezy Creezy. Those are both amazing photographs. What a dilemma! Kaldari (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The other image currently isn't in any article, so I see no problem with promoting this excellent quality image. NauticaShades 02:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as Nautica. Muhammad(talk) 08:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. First come, first served. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 08:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Zizina labradus-Butterfly-on-Rose SC,-EG-Vic,-23.2.2008.jpg --pschemp | talk 12:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snake eating a lizard near Ibor river, Cáceres (Extremadura, Spain)

Reason

it shows that this small snake can eat a prey with similar size. it's only focused the head of the snake and the postcranial part of the lizard because the rest doesn't contribute information about snake's diet. Scales of both animals can be seen in detail.

Articles this image appears in

snake

Creator

Mario Modesto Mata

• Support as nominator --Mario modesto (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I really like the image, but the depth of field is much too shallow. NauticaShades 15:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I don't like the fact that I can only see the front of the snake. If I could see like a diagonal view of the snake like 45 degree angle from the ground, it would be great.
  Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Stopping down a step or two would have done so much for this picture; the halation would be greatly reduced, the DOF would be better, and the front bokeh would look much nicer (stopping down would get rid that highlighted edge in the OOF highlights). As is, the DOF is the real killer, although composition could be improved also by putting the snake's head farther to the right. You should also get an identification on the snake. Thegreenj 21:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I really can't tell who's eating who. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 01:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still life

Reason

During the seventeenth century the Dutch Reformed Church forbade overtly religious subjects, so still life artists depicted moral lessons symbolically, often with a small object such as a skull or a pocket watch in an opulent scene to suggest that worldly pleasures come to an end. A high resolution file from a good source (the Dutch national library again), painted by one of the leading artists in the genre. This would be Wikipedia's first featured picture of a still life.

Articles this image appears in

Abraham van Beijeren

Creator

Abraham van Beijeren

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 23:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Can someone explain the fading/banding that I've circled in the image? Is it a scanning or photographic error? NauticaShades 03:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, it seems I was chasing ghosts. What I was seeing was a monitor problem (fixed now), not anything wrong with the image. I'll remove the circled image. Janke's right about the artifacts, though. NauticaShades 14:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose They're terrible JPG artifacts. --Janke | Talk 12:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination - Drat, you're right. After the Vermeer and the Rembrandt I thought this was a good archive to use again. Off to dig through more archives... Durova^Charge! 14:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is a typo in the file name. It should only have two l's, not three. Rmhermen (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 01:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F-15 71st Fighter Squadron

Reason

This high-res pic shows great details of the aircraft in flight.

Articles this image appears in

F-15 Eagle, 71st Fighter Squadron

Creator

U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Samuel Rogers

• Support as nominator --Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Could someone attempt a noise removal edit of this? It might help substantially. NauticaShades 15:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for being noisy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intothewoods29 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Compression artifacts, and the subject is underexposed.--ragesoss (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 01:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red-bellied Woodpecker

Reason

Beautiful specimen, stunning image, high resolution, great detail.

Articles this image appears in

Red-bellied Woodpecker

Creator

Ken Thomas

• Support as nominator --ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Noticeable compression artifacts, e.g., on the bill and the tree bark.--ragesoss (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Distracting background/composition, and artifacts. NauticaShades 15:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the points mentioned by Nauticashades. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very noticeable compression artifacts and a distracting background. –  LATICS  talk  03:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Background is fine, compression artefacts are the problem. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 20:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a really good image otherwise, but I think the compression artifacts all over the image really do mar it at full size. vlad§inger ^tlk 22:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 01:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regiment from Petrograd

Reason

Bolsheviks

). Restored file per upload notes.

Articles this image appears in

Women's Battalion

Creator

unknown

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 09:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about the caption, it says this unit pushed past German trenches, but this looks more like a unit consuming the vodka. What is this unit? Is the caption correct? --Blechnic (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was the 1st Petrograd Women's Battalion. Yes, the caption is correct. Durova^Charge! 16:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it could do with a better, more explanatory caption. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I'll draft something. :) It seemed like at least a couple of voters were actively hostile to the idea of having an FP on female active duty personnel. This find was serendipity while I was looking for potential FPC restorations on Russian history. Durova^Charge! 18:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you referring to this? All of the opposers in that nomination (myself included) voted on quality grounds. I didn't sense any hostility. NauticaShades 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone showed up on a single shot IP for the express purpose of accusing me of gender bias. Durova^Charge! 01:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course, that person doesn't get counted as a voter.... Fletcher (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I've updated the caption; hope it's acceptable now. Durova^Charge! 03:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • So this is definitely the women's battalion? Fletcher (talk)`
            • There are enough women in uniform that it seems likely. Still, the caption does not relate to what is happening in the image, and it's hard to grasp what is going on in the image that relates to the caption. Are they resting after? Doesn't look like it. Is this just a picture of the group known for this, and this image unrelated? --Blechnic (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, this is a photograph taken in late February of the following year. Imagery of the Russian female World War I units isn't easy to locate in English language archives, and I haven't had much luck getting assistance from the Russian editors regarding this. As you might suppose from my username, I've had my eye out for this kind of thing for years. Durova^Charge! 05:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Oppose I think it's a great picture, but the image itself is not compelling, and the caption is entirely unrelated to what is happening in the image. --Blechnic (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Reading the discussion with Papa Lima Whiskey I see his issue (and from a comment he made on my talk page, and rethinking the image). I think it's an excellent image, but I don't think it shows anything compelling. If this is the first FP of the Eastern Front, it ought to be a battle scene or a refugee scene or the women in action or something. But I don't find anything compellingly encyclopedic about a group of soldiers drinking coffee and posing for photographs in between battles. Better caption for the image, though: what's going on, plus related the unit historically. --Blechnic (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Now, I'm sure I might be accused of all sorts of things, seeing that this seems to be the tone of these nominations recently, *but* in this picture, I can clearly identify everyone on the right of the picture as female. However, in the image nominated here, some individuals could plausibly be boys. A brief scan of our articles reveals that Polish boys did participate in warfare from 1918 (see Lwów Eaglets), which makes it plausible that boys might have participated on the Russian side when this picture was taken. In any case, the age of conscription was probably handled a little more loosely than it would today. Is there any way we can get clarification of the genders of the individuals in the picture? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 16:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Library of Congress identified this image. That's a reliable source. Their archivists are among the best in the world. If your question is based upon a scholarly source then a citation would be very interesting; as it is this speculation looks like original research. Durova^Charge! 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are several people in the picture who are clearly women, and I'm happy that they're members of the particular regiment as your source indicates. The statement I'm looking for is that *all* of the people in the photograph are women, which I feel is not unambiguously clear from the photograph alone, and the terse image description doesn't corroborate that claim. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 18:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • PLW, the Library of Congress identified this as one of the Russian Army's all female units. It seems you are proposing that this would instead be a mixed unit of women and boys. If you want to suggest that the Russian military organized units that way during World War I, please present a reliable source for the claim. Durova^Charge! 19:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though suggest tweaking caption The caption describes what this group did, but not what they are doing in the picture, making it somewhat confusing. Stating what they are doing first would help. By the way, PLW, do you know how many women have managed to join the army by cutting their hair and pretending to be men throughout history, fooling everyone in whatever army it was for years and years? Given that, I hardly think "They look like they could be young men" trumps reliable sources that say they aren't. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, caption changed as requested. FWIW here's an article that explains female participation in the Russian military during WWI.[2] Durova^Charge! 19:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article has the image but says they're in a training camp, not at rest between battles as the caption seems to imply. This would explain how fresh and healthy they look compared to other images on the same page, a number of which would be sure-fire FP to me at least.[3][4] It also explains the photographers, the relaxed look, and who the males might be. Both of these images that I link to are haunting, compelling and tell stories far beyond any words that could convey them. I also like the translation on this page, although I have not read the Russian (mine is limited to scientific articles), "Women's Battalion of Death." --Blechnic (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm going to have to stick with saying this is incompletely sourced. I've made my concerns known, and it seems that it isn't possible to determine that all of the individuals in the picture are members of the regiment, and are female. I'm being offered handwavey arguments whose premise is that because women *can* disguise as boys, if a caption claims that something that looks like a boy is a woman, we have to believe that caption, even if the source doesn't make it clear (which could be done, for example, by identifying the individuals in the picture). That doesn't feel like responsible reporting to me. Durova, I also particularly object to the notion that asking for an unambiguous source constitutes original research. That comment casts a very ugly light on your attitude towards this work of reference. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 19:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Um... I'm sorry, but... there is a major history journal, which Durova linked, that says it's the members of the battalion. [5] "Members of the First Petrograd Women's Battalion relaxing at their training camp at Levashovo." What part of "Women's Battalion" do you not understand, or are you simply launching attacks on Durova's character without bothering to read what she actually says and links you to? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Yes, to put it another way, from what I have read these units were not co-ed, hence the name Women's Battalion, so if there are some women present, most likely they are all women. Fletcher (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that two reliable sources would be enough to settle this, especially since PLW has provided no source for the doubts he expresses. But if no one objects I'd be glad to contact the Russian wikiproject for additional verification that this is an all female unit. I wouldn't want to be accused of canvassing, so posting here first. If no one objects in 24 hours I'll follow up with the project. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 01:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the regiment is sitting around, but being visited by the male soldier in the right foreground. I don't understand the point of this issue, though. Is this usually done on FP that one must verify all personnel in an image of a military unit are of that unit? I think that will eliminate all military unit pictures. --Blechnic (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova has commented (paraphrasing) that she believes this image has exceptional EV because it depicts female soldiers. If that is going to be implied by the caption, I'd rather have us make damn sure that it actually shows only female soldiers, or, if not, make it clear which individuals are male. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 10:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me; I made no such comment. I did state that this image would have high EV as Wikipedia's first featured image of World War I's Eastern Front. Surely that's not in doubt. Durova^Charge! 10:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[6] [7] I don't think that arguing about the exact interpretation of your statements will do this nomination any favours. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 18:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, the unit may be all-female, but the people in the picture may not -> there may be people in this picture who aren't members of the unit. Does that make it clear now? And btw, I still don't see how a request for clarification needs a reference, and stand by my comment that this attitude of yours is unbecoming @Durova. Also, please keep any discussion relating to this picture here. My talk page is not an appropriate place. With that, I'm off on vacation. I expect my oppose to be taken seriously except if we get a reference that presents evidence concerning this photograph specifically, to state unambiguously that there are no men or boys in it, or alternatively, if the captions on this nomination *and* articles (please) are changed to reflect the fact that not all individuals in the picture may be from that unit (something along the lines of, "a camp at which members of WB are present"). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 10:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You attempt to reverse the burden of evidence and demand that I prove a negative, based upon original research for which you provide no scholarly support. I respectfully request that you review

WP:NOR and refrain from proceeding this way in future candidacies. Durova^Charge! 10:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm going to have to agree with Durova on this one Papa, you made an argument which of course has been investigated and refuted and yet you still stick to your oppose and beyond that you are/were borderline attacking those who dare oppose you and on top of that even assuming good faith it seems that you are requesting that the caption state which soldiers and male and which are female which I think most people would see as being unreasonable. Cat-five - talk 22:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not been refuted. Durova is not able to make a specific claim about *all* the figures in the picture. Based on the available information, all we know is that some of them certainly belong to the women's regiment. It may be the case that Blechnic has meanwhile found the answer, The men are the regular army soldiers at a training camp, training this woman's unit. [8] We seem to have two sets of conjecture here, neither of which can be fully verified. I find that extremely unsatisfactory in terms of verifiability and encyclopaedic value. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 18:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose for although it is an odd and interesting picture, it's not a very coherent composition, neither being a group portrait nor depicting any meaningful activity. A couple soldiers are caught with awkward expressions on their faces. I can accept the reliable source that claims they are indeed women (and I see from Durova's link that the women were intentionally de-feminized in their training), but that one leaning over in the lower right... well, I'm scratching my head about that one. Maybe it's just me, but the pic could be more likely to befuddle our readers than to enlighten. Fletcher (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support This is a high-quality picture. The primary concern raised, that there might be boys in the picture is based on original research borderling on speculation, while we have multiple reliable sources describing the batallion the people in the picture as female. That some of them look tomboyish shouldn't be surprising anyways given the military context. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Sorry Durova, can you clarify the licensing - it says "Restored version of source archival file (which, unfortunately, English Wikipedia hosting rules prevent uploading for easy comparison)." I don't understand how we're not allowed to host the original file, but we seemingly are allowed to host this edited version of it? --jjron (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you can find a way around the dilemma I'll gladly upload the unrestored version (and in the meantime I'll provide it via e-mail or Skyp upon request for candidacy review). I cannot upload this image to Commons because Russia recently changed its copyright law to be more like EU norms; this is pre-1923 PD in the United States but would only be PD in Russia if the photographer could be identified and verified to have died before 1938. English Wikipedia expects image files that it hosts to be used in article space. The original version for this image would not be used in article space. If a reference link to the source file would be sufficient justification for hosting then I'll go ahead. Durova^Charge! 10:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, it was a legit question. I don't particularly care for all the copyright BS as I've expressed before, so have little interest in understanding all the different rules for all the different countries, and thus don't know offhand why you may or not have uploaded files here or at commons, upload one file and not its original, etc. I simply found the information provided on the image page confusing - it certainly doesn't explain what you've explained here. Then there's other files that can be displayed on relevant articles, but not anywhere else (such as userpages, FPC, etc). Shrug. --jjron (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, yours is a really good question. Durova^Charge! 20:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support per JoshuaZ Fryslan0109 (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Agree with JoshuaZ (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't' grab me, and the quality isn't good enough to overcome it. 216.183.234.7 (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC) And that would be me, forgetting I wasn't logged on... again. Clegs (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - been agonizing over this, but what is going on is just too vague for me to support. I wish we had some more specific from a historian, because some of these people look an awuful lot like men. Are the women resting? Are they visiting the men? Dunno, can't tell and no one has the specifics :( pschemp | talk 13:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 01:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar transit of Earth

Original - The moon transiting the Earth, as viewed from NASA's EPOXI spacecraft on May 28-29, 2008

Reason

Extraordinary astronomy video- and remarkably, for an astronomy video, it's pretty self-explanatory. The globe in the lower left indicates what portion of the Earth is visible at any given moment. (There's a version of the image on NASA's website without the globe). Regarding the relatively low-resolution, NASA's website explains: "The movie is put together from just a small portion of the actual frame (no need to show alot of empty space!) and of course was taken from 31 million miles away." [9]

Articles this image appears in

EPOXI. (I just uploaded it there, other article suggestions welcome).

Creator

NASA (NASA asked me to use the following video credit line when they confirmed the PD status to me via email): "Video Credit: Donald J. Lindler, Sigma Space Corporation and NASA/JPL-Caltech/GSFC/UMD"

• Support as nominator --Spikebrennan (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Removed large animation (4 MB) from display. MER-C 06:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Simply too fuzzy for FP. Interesting, though. --Janke | Talk 17:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support given that this was taken from 31 million miles away, I think I can forgive the amount of fuzziness. It's a very interesting, one of a kind image. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This gigantic GIF would be happier in a more apropriate video format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle.bungle (talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 August 2008
• Support reminds me of the iconic view of the earth from the moon's surface. de Bivort 22:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, that was sharp, not mushy like this... Yeah, 31 Mmiles is impressive, but mush is still mush... --Janke | Talk 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Janke. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 09:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 01:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catapult Officer

Reason

This high-res picture demonstrates an interesting job, with great action.

Articles this image appears in

Modern US Navy carrier air operations#Catapult Officer

Creator

US Navy; http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=54407

• Support as nominator --Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I thought that's what this was at first glance. It's a well-framed, interesting image of a small piece of the military in action. Good find for the encyclopedia, if you're the one who found it. I would puke before I take off in a plane like this. --Blechnic (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - wow. Durova^Charge! 23:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This definitely has enough wow to get my vote. Amazing photo. –  LATICS  talk  00:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose After reading several comments below, I have to change my vote. Yes, it's an amazing picture but not nearly enough encyclopedic value. –  LATICS  talk  23:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great job. Malinaccier (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. WOW. And in a very real way, it does have great encyclopedic value, demonstrating the dynamic nature of a catapult officer's workplace. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - just came across it on Commons. Awesome picture! →
  .И 12:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Very cool, very enc, and one of the best pics I've seen here in a while. 216.183.234.7 (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Ooops. That was me on a different comp than normal. Forgot I wasn't logged in :-D Clegs (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I purely hate blurry, cartoony "action-line" photos like this. Obviously a matter of taste, and clearly I'm in the minority. But still.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I would support this in a heart beat on the commons but I can not do so here. It doesn't do a great job of highlighting what a catapult officer does. In all seriousness, it's a guy in uniform obstructed by steam. In that regard, I could not support it for steam catapult either because again, all the requisite parts are blurred. If the plane had been stationary, it would be a different situation. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yeah, a commons FPC, but here, no! It offers little if any encyclopedic value. It is a partially occluded guy and a blurry mess. Just conveys emotion and wow, but no information. --Dschwen 18:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose great image, and no doubt on commons it would FP but here no. Enc value missing per Dschwen. Mfield (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment.While disagreement about the FPC is of course legitimate, you would have to concede that the photo does convey considerable information. It isn't "a guy in uniform obscured by steam", but rather a catapult officer signalling a plane while another (likely a FA-18) launches at high speed in front of him. It shows the posture and demeanor of catapult officers while signalling planes on the deck of aircraft carriers, that they work among planes being launched at great speed among large amounts of steam (which adds, rather than detracts from the EV), and that their work is potentially dangerous. In my opinion this picture shows a huge amount of information, much of which would be very difficult to capture in a static shot. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying, my feeling was that this shot is a little too abstract to depict all those things well with no other context. It doesn't show enough of the plane or the ship to really gauge the scale of things and the distance or speed involved is my feeling. Without having seen other footage and images of this procedure i am left none the wiser as to what he is doing. I know it stands with the article and the other images on it so that's a little harsh and I do love the image - it certainly conveys speed and motion, just not necessarily in a way that is that descriptive. Mfield (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Great composition, and I agree with Mostlyharmless that the photo does in fact represent well what is involved with the catapult officer's job. Bonus Onus (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 01:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peach Glow water-lily

Reason

This water-lily shot has pretty much everything one could want in flower portrait: sharp detail, good resolution, preservation of the subtle color variation between the concentric rows of petals, water droplets, and a backdrop of lily pads.

Articles this image appears in

Nymphaea, Brooklyn Botanic Garden

Creator

ragesoss

• Support as nominator --ragesoss (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful photograph. And oh, the location... Any chance of going back? A shot of the arboretum would be delightful. Durova^Charge! 04:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some other shots from my trip today that I'm processing, but it was a behind-the-scenes bonsai tour and we didn't have much time to explore the rest of the garden; I didn't get a chance to get nearly as many pictures of the (full-size) trees as I would have liked. What I did shoot is uploading to Flickr as I type, and whatever I can find a home for in articles will be on its way to Commons. I didn't get any wide-angle shot that would be representative of the arboretum, and it will probably be a while before I return to the BBG (although after this trip, I'm really looking forward to another).--ragesoss (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lovely! Durova^Charge! 10:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice and very well done. Cat-five - talk 21:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support quite nice. —αἰτίας •discussion• 03:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High quality and informative. NauticaShades 03:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great image. Acalamari 23:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppot either with preference for Edit 1. Nice shot --Fir0002 01:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Peach Glow water-lily at Brooklyn Botanic Garden.jpg --John254 02:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adm. Mike Mullen awards Silver Star to Army Capt. Ambrosia

Reason

It is of a good resolution, has great visuals, and is encyclopedic for both articles it appears in.

Articles this image appears in

Silver Star, Michael Mullen

Creator

U.S. Navy photo/MC1 Chad J. McNeeley

• Support as nominator --Hello32020 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose tilted, messy background. Also, is this really very enc? --Janke | Talk 10:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It is a bit tilted, but I think it's encyclopedic (it shows a ceremony involving the Silver Star, and shows Michael Mullen performing one of his less-exciting duties). It's a good picture, IMO. Good choice. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose background and composition is not that great Thisglad (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Trafford

Reason

This picture is of very high resolution. It also adds value to the article "Old Trafford". Furthermore, it is use widely as a template. Hence, I think it would be a splendid candidate.

Articles this image appears in

Full list here

Creator

Nic

• Support as nominator --HeLLboy2HeLL (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not big enough to really show detail, and has lackluster composition along with serious vignetting. Horizontal lines aren't horizontal either. pschemp | talk 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree w/ pschemp vlad§inger ^tlk 22:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small and too dark. –  LATICS  talk  19:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 21:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water fountain near the art museum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin 6178.jpg

Reason

A stunning picture with very high technical quality and high encyclopedic value as well: I can't imagine a greater way of illustrating Fountain.

Articles this image appears in

Fountain

Creator

Dori

• Support as nominator —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a really cool closeup showing jets of water in motion. I doubt it's the best possible way to illustrate a fountain, though. At 1/4000 of a second we are seeing a view that's not readily discernible to the human eye, and at such a close perspective, this isn't really what a fountain looks like to most people. But still, a useful image to show people. Fletcher (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't illustrate a fountain, and doesn't have (for me) any visual grab. Clegs (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As far as illustrations of fountains go, I really like this. NauticaShades 15:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw that fountain in real life last week. Absolutely stunning. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 18:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Rococo's not for me. A very fine babe-magnet on nice days, though --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support -- I like the photo, but don't find much encyclopedic value there. Maybe you can find another article it fits better in? --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Clegs. Mfield (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This image is currently a FP candidate at Commons, and it seems likely that it will gain it for the aforementioned qualities. There is no particular need to prove encyclopedic value - its qualities have been recognized. vlad§inger ^tlk 22:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles from Getty panorama

Reason

a sharp high resolution near 180 degree panorama of Los Angeles on an exceptionally clear winters day clearly showing a large number of landmarks and illustrating the geography of the city.

Articles this image appears in

West Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, Interstate 405 (California)‎

Creator

Mfield

• Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support fantastic timing: a rare moment where the 405 Freeway isn't bumper to bumper north of the 10. Seriously, a very large 180 degree panorama. Los Angeles being what it is, any image that gives a relatively clear view from downtown to both Brentwood and the peninsula is a good one. Durova^Charge! 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't mean 360, but i added the angle - it's actually a couple of degrees short of 180. Mfield (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. Durova^Charge! 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see where I used to live (Veteran Ave.) and work (UCLA physics building). Any reason you aren't sharing the full size version? --Dschwen 18:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One reason only - the lack of a non commercial license option. I upload less commerically useful imagery to Wiki at full reslution and if there was a way of doing CC with NC then I'd upload the original of this in a heartbeat. However this version is not exactly small at 10000 wide. Mfield (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Contrasts nicely with my vaguely similar image taken a couple of years ago. By LA standards, you're right, that is exceptionally clear. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great photo, I'm starting to love panoramas. :) –  LATICS  talk  03:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wish I could get panoramas to turn out like that. vlad§inger ^tlk 22:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose only for aesthetic reasons. I don't like composition on this one. I would have prefered a lower point of view, with less sky. Blieusong (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. To Blieusong- a lower perspective could easily block most of what is visible from this vantage. de Bivort 01:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Durova and Debivort.--ragesoss (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Agree with Blieusong that a lower angle would help, but still of featurable quality in my opinion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wonderful panorama. Respect to the photographer. - Darwinek (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Los angeles from getty panorama.jpg MER-C 12:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. When viewed full sized, the image is quite spectacular. Someone else could argue about composition, but there's more than one way to picture a city. Given that it's Los Angeles, there are so many ways to do this, there is something pleasant about the exquisite detail. I would support this and favor a wikipedia entry with links to city multiple panoramas of major cities or particularly beautiful smaller citys. A single would do for many. To be honest I would like a link to cityscapes in panoramic former with the content to links, ideally with enough description to facilitate choice. In terms of information, where it can be done, the general location of the photographer (as here or what works). Degrees within a few degrees, e.g. 110, 140, 150, 180. Whether, composite or panorama, camera and detail. In every case possible. I would include the name of the photographer and/or agency -- as part of the popup description. Getty is less valuable than the ties to an individual photographer given the spreading fraud of false claims for the work of others -- and the belief that the maker's art lives best when it's connected personally to the artists.This one could include Mfield's credit as well as Getty to everyone's advantage. Jmc9595 (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused what you mean by Getty credit? This image is not and has never been the property of Getty. The reason that this image is in the Getty article is that the image was shot (by me) from the South facing balcony of the center. The image has no other connection to Getty, either the center or the picture agency. Mfield (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confused by why this was brought up in the FP nomination that has already passed and been archived. I suppose it was found via the image page. Not really the appropriate place to bring the issue up in any case, although as you say, there really is no issue and it is a case of crossed wires. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bougainville Campaign underground surgery

Reason

Meets the criteria and is historical as well as dramatic.

Articles this image appears in

Bougainville Campaign, World War II casualties

Creator

"Miller", US Army, US National Archives File # 111-SC-187247WAR & CONFLICT BOOK #: 918

• Support as nominator --Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - fits the criteria, and a very nice picture too. Thelb⁴ 08:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow, wartime surgery...the medics aren't even wearing clothes...smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the lighting is horrible, and the subject is barely visible. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe there are several subjects in the image, including the dugout bunker itself as well as the surgeon and the patient. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Weak Oppose Illustrates nothing about the article it's in, and any encyclopedic value about combat surgery at the time is limited by the lighting. Thegreenj 22:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think its value to that article is to show the difficult conditions that the combatants were living under, including performing life-saving surgery in basically a hole in the ground by surgeons operating shirtless, I assume because of the heat or difficulties with keeping clothing sanitized. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But is that something unique to the Bougainville Campaign, or just an overall result of the combination of technology and resources anywhere in the fringes of WWII? This doesn't help me understand the Bougainville Campaign any better, but it is encyclopedic for World War II casualties, so I've changed to weak oppose. I can't support a photo whose subject is blown. Thegreenj 14:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, make that oppose unless the image is actually in World War II casualties, as it has been removed by User:Woogie10w without an edit summary... Thegreenj 14:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added the image to World War II casualties where it replaces an image that had uncertain copyright status (due to a change in Russian law). It would be better in an article about wartime medicine, if that could be found. Durova^Charge! 02:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for doing that. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Blown highlight where it matters the most. --Janke | Talk 06:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Because I'm evidently too stupid to realise that primitive surgeries generally go hand-in-hand with professional photography. I mean, really, who wouldn't expect that? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmmm Shows the conditions of wartime surgery, so definitely encyclopaedic. On the other hand, I'm wondering if it should be cropped. The bags of sand offer a better idea of what the trenches look like, but they give little information relative to the space consumed. So I'll be sitting on a barbless fence for a while. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Just for the record, there are a whole bunch of articles where this could potentially fit:
  Medical Corps (United States Army), Military medicine, Field hospital, Combat medic, etc. I like the first two best as potential fits. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not promoted MER-C 12:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Harmon

Reason

meets most of the FPC criteria.

Articles this image appears in

Mark Harmon

Creator

Jerry Avenaim

• Support as nominator --Music2611 (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support edit 1 with a request to take the nomination live. This is high quality portraiture. Durova^Charge! 05:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination re-opened following upload of larger version as Edit 1. --jjron (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support - while total pixel dimensions could be larger, the face takes up a large fraction of the image, and is detailed. de Bivort 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. While the composition and mood of the photo is great, has nobody noticed that the face is a bit overexposed? I've uploaded a slight edit which reduces the highlight luminosity on his face. Its subtle, but I think it makes the photo look a bit more balanced, while still contrasty. My preference is Support Edit 2 with weak support for the original (edit 1). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Comment Edit 2 does seem like a more accurate exposure, but does anyone think it makes him more sullen looking, the creases and texture of his skin more prominent? I take it our job on FPC is not to flatter celebrities, but as far as portrait photography goes making the subject look good is a consideration. Curious to see how others react. Fletcher (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment on the Comment I was going to say the same thing. But I refrained from going as far as an edit, albeit more from professional courtesy than a lack of desire to make the portrait more encylopedic and/or technically perfect. I do prefer it per Edit2 though with less of a high key effect on the face, that's just MHO. Mfield (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the image, undecided on which version. Fletcher (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose' the original and edit 1. Neutral for edit 2. It's not that big, and for professional, commercial celebrity portraiture I feel that we shouldn't settle for the bare minimum; maybe somebody wants to make a poster based on the image. On the other hand, encouraging this kind of contribution is good, and we can also raise our standards later if free licensing of this type of image becomes common.--ragesoss (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, this nomination was suspended for a week in order to request a larger file size. During that time any argument for a larger minimum might have been made, but wasn't. The photographer has complied with our published requirements and it really isn't fair to change the rules and generate a double standard after the photographer has fulfilled our request. Professional photographers have financial motivation not to upload larger files than necessary, due to the risk of downmarket exploitation of their work. The best way to encourage this type of contribution is to operate within our existing rules. Then, if we're fortunate enough to receive more of this type of material, at some point where the standards generally rise we may review the existing material on that basis. Let's not look fickle. Durova^Charge! 08:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Durova. This sort of commercial photography being released on GFDL or CC licenses is not common, and it's easy to understand why. Once an image is put on the internet - particularly a site like Wikipedia where people actively come looking for 'free' media - it is a genie that is very difficult to put back in the bottle. I'm not a full time photographer where my work is my livelihood, but I do make a bit of money on the side from it, and even I am a bit concerned with uploading my best work at the best resolution here, because it may impact my income from photography. It is very difficult to quantify, but I can certainly see why photographers are concerned. My estimation is that only about 20-30% of people who use images from Wikipedia elsewhere on the web actually conform to the license terms. Everyone else skips the fine print and assumes they can use it in whatever way they wish. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding Durova's comment about fairness... that's why I'm not opposing it. The main reason I commented at all was to note my preference for edit 2, while intending to remain agnostic about whether any version should be promoted. Diliff: I understand that general concern, but to put the minimum resolution version of this image in the same discussion as the kinds of things you upload... I think that does a disservice to the quality of your work, not to mention that even your scaled-down shots are usually much bigger than this. I think formal portraits should be held to a higher standard, since it's such a controlled situation. (By the way, how many of those 70%-80% who misuse Wikipedia licenses would have paid for rights under any circumstances? In my experience, the people/organizations who normally pay for image rights will do so even if you mark your uploads PD; I was recently paid for such a shot, which appeared in New Scientist. Obviously you would know better than me, but I would be surprised if adding your copyleft work to Wikipedia would have anything but a positive impact on your bottom line.)--ragesoss (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps you're right that many of those who use my images wouldn't pay for them if given an ultimatum, but is that really the point, anyway? Why should they be allowed to break the terms of the license? That's the thing - if someone contacted me to ask if I would waive the license terms, and their intended use was reasonably non-corporate (I don't have much sympathy for rich clients who want to nick someone's work for free but still profit from it in some way), I'd probably let them. But when somebody doesn't have the decency to ask or conform to the terms, then I'm going to be far less likely to compromise. As for holding portraits to a higher standard because they're relatively static subjects, maybe, but that doesn't make a portrait any less exploitable by those who don't respect the terms of the license, which is the whole point really. In any case, it is likely that the photographer is at best mildly flattered by the nomination but isn't prepared to compromise his commercial viability for the privilege. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2. Per all the reasons above. NauticaShades 15:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All edits, preference for edit 1. See reasons above, the photo is beautiful, and that I believe that modifying the photograph detracts from the original photographers intent. This is my personal opinion and throw my support to any edit that should achieve consensus. Bastique ^demandez 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you to an extent, but this isn't the photographer's personal exhibition, and anything that presents the subject in a more encyclopaedic and easily visible way should be the goal, IMO. Granted, the change is quite minute, and possibly does grate against the photographer's intentions, but my interpretation of those intentions is that he wanted to make it a bit arty with strong lighting, which is fine for many uses, but isn't ideal for an encyclopaedia. Thats not to say I'm not supporting it - I am, but I don't think it stands above scrutiny or modification just because it was taken by an established photographer. Just my two cents anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support without particular preference (undecided on which is best yet). I've had a look through the Featured Pictures, and don't think that this falls below the standard established for living figures. Wikipedia is of course a project that anyone can contribute to, and I don't think we should discriminate on the basis of the identity of the uploader. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 - Not often we get posed, professional, celebrity photos. Photo is very well done and would be a great thing for the front page - Peripitus (Talk) 12:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 per Peripitus. You can see his features better in this one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 2 It's the best-looking one of the three.Nightscream (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any hi-res version. One of my reservations about the image-use policy has been that it generally consigns us to whatever we're lucky enough to get from Flickr's two eligible streams for images of celebrities, particularly movie and TV stars, that readers wonder what's going on when everywhere else you can see pictures of these people that look like what we see on screen. Pictures like these change that. Promoting this and putting it on the Main Page at some point will encourage further high-quality free-image submissions. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question as this is a private portrait, and not a public image, we still need permission from the subject as the license is a commercial license or no? I mean the photographers copyright does not extend to licensing the image this way without the express permission of the subject? Mfield (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I am interested as I have a lot of images of notable subjects that were taken in the same manner. Mfield (talk)[reply]
• Oppose an ideal FP portrait is not black and white. Cacophony (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not common to get high quality portraits of celebrities on Wikipedia, and IMO black and white is ideal, and I prefer it over colour photography for portraits. --Krm500 (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite a good portrait and very encyclopedic and quite rare to get a celebrity actual portrait shot released under such terms. I agree btw that black and white is definitely better than color for this type of shot. Cat-five - talk 09:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mark Harmon 1 edit1.jpg MER-C 12:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Federal Labour Party, 1901

Reason

Group portrait of all the inaugural Australian Labor Party members of parliament in the year Australia gained independence. Includes future prime ministers Chris Watson, Andrew Fisher, and Billy Hughes, among other notable politicans from a formative period. (This photograph was taken before the Australian spelling change from labour to labor, so the title spelling is historical.) Restored version of Image:LabourGroup.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Australian federal election, 1901, Fred Bamford

Creator

Barroni of Barroni & Co

• Support as conominator --Durova^Charge! 20:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as conominator Gnangarra 00:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Cut off arms. Age is no excuse for sloppy composition --Fir0002 01:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as it's not very likely we'll be able to manufacture a time machine and pop back 107 years to ask the portraitist for a better composition, would you grant leeway for encyclopedic value? Suppose the United States Declaration of Independence had a coffee stain... Durova^Charge! 02:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know what you're saying but IMO it's just one of those images which was almost there but not quite FP level. Otherwise you get to the point where any historic photo can be promoted to FP regardless of it's photographic attributes --Fir0002 03:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Original, Weak Support for Edit 1. Bad composition and a poor scan. Why are there colored pixels in a black and white image? NauticaShades 03:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original was a scan of a print that had yellowed with age. Sometimes histogram and color correction reveals staining. This was relatively mild and covered an area that would not be practical to address manually. If it would make a difference to your decision I could desaturate the image. Durova^Charge! 03:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not talking about yellowing. I'm seeing green, red, and purple! I don't know if desaturation will help, but you should definitely try. NauticaShades 14:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a ten second fix, fortunately. The staining occurred at upper right. I wasn't sure which you were talking about. Durova^Charge! 15:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, that's much better. I'm still not completely satisfied of the composition and the scanning quality, though. I upgraded to Weak Support for the edit. NauticaShades 23:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A good image with outstanding encyclopedic value. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Compression artifacts, per Thegreenj. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support A fantastic restoration of an image with incredible encyclopedic value. For non-Australian editors, the Australian Labor Party is Australia's oldest major political party and the only one to have had had elected members in parliament since the federation of Australia in 1901.
  talk) 10:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support desaturated edit. Nautica is right about the upper right hand corner having minor colour issues. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because it has such high EV value (included on so many pages!) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1. Great one. - Darwinek (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I really would like to support this one. Its EV is really high, and the restoration is great, but the scan quality is simply atrocious. The amount of visible jpeg artifacts makes this look like a puzzle, rather than a photograph. Thegreenj 18:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bad scan quality led to bad artifacting. Clegs (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reflections of Earth fireworks

Reason

The image is visually striking and shows many of the elements of the fireworks show: fountains, the "Earth globe", and different types of fireworks.

Articles this image appears in

Reflections of Earth

Creator

Benjamin Esham (bdesham)

• Support as nominator --bdesham ★ 23:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the composition is good but the image is unsharp and a lot of chromatic aberration Mfield (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose The scene itself is quite beautiful, but the quality of the shot is terrible. 67.174.4.2 (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• IPs do not have suffrage, even if the reasons are valid. If you wish to vote, please
  create an account. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong Oppose - nice enough subject, but the photo is low quality - unsharp, posterized, and large amounts of blur and chromatic aberration. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Vanderdecken. Will a photo of fireworks ever become a FP? :( –  LATICS  talk  19:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Sumter surrender telegram

Reason

Telegram announcing surrender for the first battle of the American Civil War. Unrestored.

Articles this image appears in

Robert Anderson (major)

Creator

Robert Anderson

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 08:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's an interesting and valuable document, but as an image it doesn't grab me much at all. In contrast to, e.g., the WWII instruments of surrender, this is almost completely a product of the mediating technology (pasted together at the receiving end in a standard way) rather than an intentional visual composition.--ragesoss (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per ragesoss. Also, adding on, only medium quality, not one of your best until improved, Durova. --
  shal 00:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Per Ragesoss Clegs (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]