Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/December-2009

Comment Your logic is odd. Sure, a conservative Saudi Arabian who thinks photography is sinful has no right to complain about the lack of good pictures. But our perspective in this forum is not as anti-photography Saudis but as Wikipedians. We didn't ban photos of the Kaaba (including the nominator). To us, a ban on photos just means good photos are hard to get. Anytime a photo is hard to get, you have to balance the rarity against the desire for good technical quality. For example, it would be stupid to hold a picture from Antartica to the same high standard as one from London or New York. Not that we want bad quality, but let's just keep in mind the point of an encyclopedia is to convey information, not to have a gallery of pretty pictures. Fletcher (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your logic is odd. There are much much better examples of photos of the Kaaba. As far as photos of the Kaaba go, this one is just awful. Yes, it may be difficult to get one from the ground - but plenty exist. Even more exist illustrating it from a high vantage point. This thing has been there for some time, at least a few decades (so I've heard), and it's not likely to be demolished any time soon. Exceptions in the quality are there for things that are exceptional. I've demonstrated very clearly that this is in no way so. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been more insulted for my pictures Mostlyharmless than your just awful comment. This nomination is probably going to fail due to its quality but I would love to hear what you find so awful about it. The tens of people who used the image worldwide clearly didn't think so and neither did the wiki editors who placed it in the articles. --Muhammad(talk) 09:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it is very obvious that the entire image is extremely unsharp and overblown all over the place. As a result, it looks like a watercolour painting. It's very obviously a cellphone image, and as such comes with the limitations of the technology. I really do appreciate that you took the effort to make this image at some personal risk, and I feel bad for criticising you as someone who makes a strong contribution to FPC. "Just awful" was rude. I'm not going to censor my opinions completely, but I'll endeavour to be nicer. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is not extremely unsharp. It looks extremely unsharp on the image page, because of an unfavourable ratio between its actual resolution and the resolution it is shown in on the picture page. Viewed at Full Resolution, the image is not "extremely unsharp" by any reasonable interpretation of that phrase. --JN466 12:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Full Resolution it is extremely unsharp by any reasonable interpretation of that phrase. Just look at the minarets. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, upload the better pictures to Commons so one can be nominated. Fletcher (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In the last three days, I have received three requests from people asking to use this image --Muhammad(talk) 18:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While clearly a rare picture with a huge amount of EV, I don't think that this photo meets the FP technical standards. Its current status as a valued picture seems highly appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support per Raeky and caveats mentioned above.
  NYer 01:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Support I'm disappointed to see people forgetting that this is an encyclopedia not a photo contest. This is a good composition and a very encyclopedic image showing one of Islam's most important rituals and holy sites. While technical quality is weak, the criteria state: "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images." This image is "otherwise unique" in that it is very difficult to reproduce: if I am right that the Kaaba is not open to tourists, you must be a Muslim worshipper, or lie about being one, and you must be willing to break the rules against photography risking your camera. Even for Muslims, the Hajj is something many are able to do only once. Thus the pool of Wikipedian photographers able to take this shot has got to be quite small compared to the pool of nature and landscape shooters in Western countries. I also note that people saying it can be reproduced, are not offering to do so themselves. And it doesn't work to cite non-free images on google and flickr, which can't be used on this project. Most of them I looked at are not much better quality anyway, if at all. If a better, free image is someday found, there's no reason we couldn't delist and replace this one. Objecting to a rare high EV image on technical grounds just shows a lack of perspective. Fletcher (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very difficult to reproduce (which I dispute also) times 1.57 billion Muslims (according to the wiki) = reasonable chances imo.
    talk) 09:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That fact actually works against your argument, because with that many Muslims, all of whom are supposed to visit this site at least once (if physically able), we would expect to have tons of high quality photos to choose from by now. That we don't indicates something is getting in the way of good photos, maybe security is too tight, or photography is too widely considered offensive, I don't know. But we have very little in Commons, and even non-free searches of Flickr or Google turn up mostly lousy undersized P&S images. I noticed some that were a bit better quality than this one, but still non-free. So good images do seem hard to get. Fletcher (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, logically, it does not. Including Muhammad's image there are about 25 of the Kabaa on commons and it is only a matter of time until a featured quality one is available. We even had another Kaaba nomination here recently.There are 110 images in the exterior of taj mahal category on commons, but only one or two could be featured. The image is not irreplaceable (another shot can be taken) or historic (doesn't show the structure 100 years ago) consequently the criteria exceptions do not apply when applied consistently.
        talk) 06:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I wouldn't say it's not historic. The main structure has not changed much during the last century. The major constructions have all been made to the grand mosque not the kaaba. --Muhammad(talk) 07:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm saying the photo isn't historic, not that the Mosque and Kaaba aren't.
            talk) 08:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • I know but what I'm saying is it wouldn't matter whether it was taken a 100 years ago, the structure has not changed --Muhammad(talk) 09:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I still think due to the high encyclopedic value this is a better one to delist and replace in the future if a better one is nominated.Fletcher (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. I think this should be a valued image, not a featured one. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Best we currently have doesn't override other quality criteria. If it did then the lead image in every article, if it's free, should be a featured picture since it must be the best we have (or it would have been replaced). Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not every article has equal encyclopedic value (compare Kaaba vs., say, filing cabinet). And the argument is not that it's the best we currently have but that it's the best we have in light of the difficulty of producing alternates. Many articles can be illustrated by a tourist or local resident with a good camera, so there is no reason not to be demanding of technical quality. We can be more lenient with pictures of places that are difficult to get to, or places where cameras are banned. The goal is to help the encyclopedia, not to have a gallery of perfect pictures... the technical requirements are just the result of competition - we don't have to settle for an ok image when great images are easily obtained. Unfortunately this is not true of every subject. Fletcher (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you completely miss the point of Staxringold's argument. The argument from supporters of this image has been: this is the best Wikipedia has, ergo this is the best that has been made, ergo it is a featured picture, if a better featured picture comes along we can d & r. I have demonstrated very clearly that there are much, much, better versions of images of the Kabaah, and supporters of this image decided to completely ignore that fact. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please try and address what I wrote instead of distilling it into a simplified version you can easily knock down. I did not say the best we have should be a featured picture, full stop (and I have opposed other recent nominations that could well be the best we have of the subject). I also did not say the best we have is therefore the best that has been made, which doesn't even make sense. Obviously not every picture in the world is uploaded to Commons. As far as I can see your only suggestion was to do a google image search, which includes non-free images that are not eligible for consideration. That's like arguing the runner cannot win the race because your car can go faster. You need to pay attention to context and not misrepresent people. Fletcher (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The photo is very encyclopedic and has good composition. I think it able to be a FP. --.dsm. 01:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Rare photo, not easily reproducible, and outstanding EV. Viewed at full resolution, the sharpness is satisfactory. --JN466 12:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not promoted --Caspian blue 03:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frans Hogenberg's Destruction and Capture of Godesberg Fortress, 1583

Reason

This historically significant engraving depicts the Siege of Godesberg 1583, the first major siege of the Cologne War. It is beautifully rendered, showing the

Tercios, Fussvolk (foot folk, or infantry), and cavalry units. It is the primary (box) picture of the Featured Article Cologne War

.

Articles this image appears in

List of Sieges

• Support as nominator --Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either Edit or original (prefer Edit 2) It's a very nicely executed image which superbly illustrates an important and dramatic event of the Cologne War. --JN466 21:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nearly full support Mark in lower RH corner should be explained or perhaps cloned out; use of shearing tool could make the image more rectangular, but sharpness might suffer. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is the accession mark from the museum. I'm not positive, but it would be characteristic of such pieces, thus part of the picture's provenance. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose original, Oppose upsampled edits. On the fence about this for a long time. But really, our standards should be consistent. I'd get annihilated if I nommed something at this quality. Durova³⁷¹ 22:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it is not of the quality of current digital photography. It is, however, a very good engraving of an important siege in the "Sewer War" (Cologne War. That said, and knowing we won't get a different digital copy, can something be done with the one we have to improve it? It could be downloaded again from here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been thinking about what you wrote, Durova. You might disapprove of the quality of this image by 21st century digital standards. This picture was drawn in 1585 or so, and is outstanding in its quality and detail. Imagine the technical work that went into this project. This was not accomplished with computers and lasers, but with every line, and every curve done by hand. Kupferstich was an incredibly difficult process, both in terms of its artistic process, its science, and its mechanics. Mechanical print was barely a century old. I'm disturbed at your statement, you'd be annihilated if you nommed anything of this quality. This piece of work is a miracle. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel pretty certain Durova was referring to the quality of the scan rather than the quality of the original artwork. I had misgivings about that as well. The resolution is not the highest, only barely above 1k. If you zoom in, the lines are not as sharp as one might wish. Balanced against that is, as you say, the exceptional quality of the orginal artwork, and its superb educational value in illustrating articles mentioning the event. If anything can be done in Photoshop to sharpen the image, Durova is probably the best-qualified person to do so, but it may just be impossible, and we may have to judge the image as it is, weighing educational value against scan quality. --JN466 11:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• that makes sense. I certainly have not seen better scans of 16th century engravings. Perhaps one of the folks who has better picture-skills can improve this one in some way. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a go in Photoshop; see Edit 1 (upsampled to 2048, and noise-reduced). Is this a step in the right direction? --JN466 19:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit 2 is de-skewed as well. --JN466 01:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Compare to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/London, 1616 and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Delaware Bay 1639. Both originals date from the seventeenth century and were well over 10MB; legibility issues in certain areas prevented one from getting promoted and in the other instance an editor made his support contingent upon translation of archaic Dutch. I'm not sure it's right to uphold such standards for early modern graphic art, but since those standards are being applied it's rather hard to support an image that is not legible, not translated, and an order of magnitude smaller in filesize. And I categorically oppose upsampling. Durova³⁷¹ 17:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The German and the French are both translated. The translations are on the commons page. Shall I copy them on to here (see below)? I have no idea what upsampling is. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inscriptions / Inscripties:

• GODESBERG
• 7.
• Vor Godesberg, eim festen Schloß // Thet Hertzog Ernst gar manchen schos // Als sichs damit nit schricken ließ, // Mit sprengen ers angreiffen hieß, // Auch steigen vil vom fußvolck sein // Durch ein heimlich gemach hinein, // Als er nun sturmet drinn und drauß // Erobert er diß feste Hauß.
• Godesbergh enuiron vne lieu de la ville de Bonn, vng chasteau fort, apres // que ceulx de la part de Truchseß, estoient dedens, se auoient braueme’t // deffenduz, a este des gens du nouueau Archeuecque, rompu en pieches par // moien de miner et force pouldres. Le 17. de Decembre L’an 1583.

English Translation of German inscription

• At the fortified castle of Godesberg // Duke Ernst fired many shots // When that did not frighten it // He had it attacked with explosives // In addition, many of his infantry // Entered through a secret chamber // So when he stormed it from inside and out // He conquered this fortified house.

English Translation of French inscription

• Godesberg, about a league from the city of Bonn, a fortified castle, after // those inside who were on the side of Truchseß had bravely // defended themselves, was broken to pieces by people of the new archbishop, // by means of tunnelling and gunpowder. The 17th of December in the year 1583.
• Okay, returning to weak oppose for the non-upsampled version. Durova³⁷¹ 17:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

great. Is that the edit #2? Before the upsampling? Is there any way we can increase the size, and not upsample? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've relabelled the edits for ease of reference. If there is interest, I can do another edit based on the original to deskew it, i.e. make the vertical edges straighter, as they are in Edit 2, without upsampling.

Personally, I find the upsampled and noise-reduced edit 2 more pleasing to view; somehow the depicted scene feels more alive that way. But I accept it is not everybody's cup of tea. I am new to FPC and not familiar with established conventions here, so please bear with me.

Upsampling is the same as increasing the size. When you tell Photoshop to double the image width and height, it divides each of the original pixels into four pixels, and tries to do so as cleverly as it can. --JN466 18:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added Edit 3. This retains the original resolution (no upsampling), but deskews the picture and reduces noise. (I've removed Edit 1 from consideration). Is this better for you, Durova? --JN466 22:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not promoted --Caspian blue 03:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thames Panorama, London - June 2009.jpg

Reason

High resolution, useful to both articles, and shows an interesting and important segment of the River Thames flowing through London on a clear, bright day.

Articles this image appears in

London and River Thames

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The Big Ben clock tower gives the time at 10 minutes to 8 O'clock. The left shows a very good image of the London Eye. The first bridge is Westminster Bridge. Although, most of it is water and sky and there are a lot of trees, it is interesting to inspect the photograph at maximum resolution and see the details of London. I see what a difference a good camera makes. Some of the pictures on commons are from the top of the London Eye and some of them show a very good view without too many buildings being obscured by trees. I have changed my mind about this image again - I think that the detail and high resolution should win it an FP rating. Snowman (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Lovely resolution and clear. Lighting and composition less good. Bottom 20% is brown water--why not lower the horizon per the rule of thirds and get more of that sky?--why not shoot early morning or late afternoon when the light is more interesting? The only landmark that takes up a significant portion of the image is the London Eye. You do a lot of great work, Diliff, so could you explain for an ignorant Yank who's never been to your city how it is necessary to supplement several existing featured pictures with this panorama? Durova³⁷¹ 19:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, in simple terms, I would say that this image isn't intended to illustrate either the Houses of Parliament or the London Eye, it illustrates the River Thames as it flows through London. It just so happens that this particular scene incorporates some subjects that have their own FPs. I agree that it doesn't really conform to the rule of thirds but given the scene and the intended EV, to crop the water further would only fuel opposition on the basis that the subject is a such small proportion of the frame. And obviously the top can't be cropped too much or it'd lose the Eye, so the framing options are a bit limited. If it isn't to your tastes, that's fine, but I wanted to explain why it is the way it is. As for taking it early morning or late afternoon, this particular image was actually shot at 7:50am, but at that time of year a sunrise shot would have required me to take it at about 4:50am! I suppose at this time of year it might be more practical to get a sunrise photo when it rises at about 7:45am - assuming I could actually strike it lucky with a clear, sunny morning at this time of year! I took a similar photo in the evening (8:10pm) which you might prefer, but it's not used in any articles. In terms of lighting, because it's a fairly wide panorama, one side will inevitably be lit while the other is in shadow. And because we're looking south in this image, we'll never really get the sun shining directly behind either in the morning or the evening (or indeed at any time of day). As for the need for this FP given we have another FP showing the River Thames, they're obviously fairly different images, showing different sections of the river, and on the River Thames talk page, a request was made to take a quality daylight shot of this part of the river, as it was considered to be the 'premier' section of the river in London. So there are a lot of factors working against this being a perfect shot. Hope this answers your questions anyway. No need to butter me up. You know what the sure-fire cure for Ignorant Yankitis is, though? Visit London for yourself! ;-) (no disrespect intended!) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For an image of the River Thames, I think it is unfortunate that only one bridge is seen well, and the second bridge is obscured by the first. Snowman (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's difficult to show more than one bridge from at-bridge-level. They tend to all be the same height and overlap. They're also spaced fairly wide so you'd have to be pretty high to get a good view of more than one of them. The London Eye is one of the few accessible vantage points, but then you're not able to get great photos as there are significant reflections from the glass. I don't mean to be cynical, but it's easy to put together a wishlist, but a little more difficult to create an image that delivers it! I've lost count of the number of times I wished I had access to a helicopter for good aerial vantage points. In the real world, we're unfortunately limited to where we can stand and point a camera from. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There a are literally thousands of images taken from the London Eye on flickr, but there are some reflections. Snowman (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I know. I've been up there too, and I wouldn't say any of the photos taken were of particularly high quality. It's really just not possible when shooting through glass. Anyway, as much as I welcome discussion of this image, all the galleries are getting a bit messy on the page! Perhaps you could just link to them instead? ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• From London Eye - not featured images
  • File:River Thames and Westminster Bridge, London-17Aug2009.jpg
  • File:Palace of Westminster and Westminster Bridge, London-7July2007.jpg
  • File:Charing_Cross_railway_station_and_Hungerford_Bridge,_London-22April2009.jpg
• Okay, weak support per explanation. Photographic opportunities over the water are necessarily limited. This does give a sense not conveyed in any other FP of the relative geographies. Would really prefer a delist/replace in spring or summer, perhaps from a weather deck if they run river cruises? Durova³⁷¹ 22:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Durova. Low EV for London and not Wikipedia's best (see gallery examples below). Insufficient EV for Thames as well (shows a very short section of the river within London, with only one bridge and few buildings visible in the distance; at standard wiki article size of 300px not much is recognisable). Elekhh (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might actually fit in Geography of London better than the two nominated articles. Elekhh (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipated support for delist, per Durova above (but for EV reason). :) Elekhh (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggested vantage point: File:River.thames.viewfromtowerbridge.london.arp.jpg
• Suggested vantage point2:File:London 360 from St Paul's Cathedral - Sept 2007.jpg
• Current & Better FP: File:London Thames Sunset panorama - Feb 2008.jpg

• A bit confused by your comments (and Durova's for that matter). This photo was taken in early summer so I'm not sure why you would support the delisting of this image for a different one taken in spring/summer. Besides, you opposed on the basis that it had low EV, not because of the time of year, so I'm not sure why you would say that. I quite like the Thames sunset panorama of mine, and I think it has value in the article, but I would say that it has slightly lower EV for the River Thames article than this one, given the time of day and the relatively monochromatic lighting of it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, should have been more explicit (see added comments in brackets above). My primary reason for opposing was the lack of EV for the river and especially London, resulting from the chosen vantage point and angle. I should have added also that the technical quality of the image is very high and pleasing. However I think an FP should be recognisable at standard article size (i.e. 250-300px). Elaborating on the EV, the image doesn't show much: is ca. 90% blue pixels (sky and water) and 10% the two triangles on the sides (of which again half are the trees). It's true that some major landmarks of London appear in the image, but only a few, and are only recognisable after significant zoom-in. I think a higher vantage point could reveal much more. In terms of composition I find it problematic that it lacks centrality. There is nothing to fix the eye on and generates confusion as to where to look... Elekhh (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh, I can recall making the exact same criticism of another of his landscapes. I think maybe they are meant to be enjoyed with a glass of wine.... Fletcher (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A high quality image that does a good job of illustrating the river as the river. The existing FP of the river is much better suited to illustrate Rayleigh scattering than the river. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Personally I like it shows relative position of those icons of London.  franklin.vp  02:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Durova. I knew I was missing these great panoramas. Agree the composition and midday lighting are a little plain, but the EV and technical quality are there. Also note the FP criteria only state the image must be among Wikipedia's best, not necessarily the best, so if you favor a different image that doesn't necessarily rule out FP for this one. Fletcher (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. For the record though, and as mentioned in my reply to Durova above, it was shot at 7:50am, so it doesn't have midday lighting. You can see that the left side is in shadow. It doesn't have the warm hues that you might expect - not sure why exactly, but it was probably slightly too late in the morning (the sun rose at 4:50am the day this photo was taken). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Fletcher/Durova... Gazhiley (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on compositional grounds. The contrails look like scratches, and having one pass across the Eye just ruins this one for me. Plus I agree there's a little too much distracting open water in the foreground. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose . Too much open brown water, the London Eye is too far to the left edge... Overall the composition is not great. TheCoffee (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I just clarify something here? This image illustrates the Thames river. It doesn't illustrate the London Eye. If the water is brown, that's just reality. I don't see how it's distracting or that there is too much of it when it's supposed to be the focus. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.
  talk) 23:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Good technical quality. Good EV showing the size of the River Thames and where the Houses of Parliament and London Eye are located on it; it's also one of our best pictures of the Victoria Embankment and of Westminster Bridge from the perspective of the upstream approach by water. I like the composition and would not support a crop: the large expanse of water is pleasing, and the position of the boat on the right nicely balances the Eye on the left and creates a pleasingly 'deep' perspective.
  talk) 17:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Promoted File:Thames Panorama, London - June 2009.jpg --Caspian blue 03:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martian Dust Devil Trails

Reason

High quality and mots interesting.

Articles this image appears in

Dust devil

Creator

NASA/JPL/University of Arizona

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 23:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Very cool image but what is the blue/white band running thru the image? Doesn't seem to be mentioned in the image page caption.
  NYer 01:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm not sure to be honest. If I had to guess it'd be reflections of sunlight.
    talk) 06:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Strong support. Magnificent and highly encyclopedic. Durova³⁷¹ 06:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think this can make many read more. I will take the opportunity to also ask for more explanation from someone who managed to understand what we are seing. I read in the image description that the trails are the darkened paths but they dont look like like trails, they have the same texture as the light terrain but dark. I don't understand what I am seing. The light band is also a mistery to me.  franklin.vp  19:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I understood now. They have a greyscale image (the original) and then they project that on a map. I think that explains why the trails also have the texture of the terrain although they are supposed to be trails of a dust devil. The white band is also there but is not so anoying in the greyscale image. Hopefully NASA knows their business. (which many times seems to be chock people or amaze them to justify or sell their research or games) franklin.vp  20:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support if someone can translate "Latitude (centered): 26.7 °. Longitude (East): 62.8 °. Range to target site: 284.9 km. Original image scale range: 57.0 cm/pixel (with 2 x 2 binning) so objects ~171 cm across are resolved. Map projected scale: 50 cm/pixel and north is up. Map projection: EQUIRECTANGULAR. Emission angle: 0.3 °. Phase angle: 51.3 °. Solar incidence angle: 51 °, with the Sun about 39 ° above the horizon. Solar longitude: 326.8 °, Northern Winter." into some appropriate language in the caption that explains the size of the area depicted in this photograph and of the features shown in it. Translating Martian longitude-latitude coordinates into kilometers is left as an exercise for the reader. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --JN466 12:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Martian Dust Devil Trails.jpg --Caspian blue 03:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great State Emblem of Russian Empire

Reason

In my opinion the most representative coat of the empire out of several others. Actually, was unaware of it until now.

Articles this image appears in

National emblems of the Russian Empire

Creator

• Support as nominator --Brand[t] 21:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In the first line of the article it says "Quite often the Russian state emblems are incorrectly called "coats of arms"." How should we understand the caption then? Is it that the caption is not good, or the image is misplaced in that article?  franklin.vp  23:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC) PS: Whatever it is that Russian emblem is wonderful.  franklin.vp  23:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I understand now. the national emblems should not be called coat of arms but this is the coat of arms that lies in the center of the Great State Emblem.  franklin.vp  04:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Brand[t] 18:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for comfucing you with my comfution. In the great state emblem it sas that it contains the coat of arms in the middle. So this is the coat of arms as you said in the begining. In any case you added the picture to the article, you can check in the refference you used.  franklin.vp  18:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There seems to be a crease across the middle of the image. Does anyone know if it looks fixable? Kaldari (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Agree with Kaldari that the crease is too obvious. Also, the corners are obviously corners. It would be much nicer if they faced into white (especially since most of the background is white anyway).
  NYer 06:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The crease looks fixable to me, but it would mean a little bit of cloning (hopefully indistinguishable). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've had a go at editing the background and crease line. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my Photoshop has expired, while MS Photo Editor distorted the colors. Brand[t] 11:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo editor would be a nightmare for editing this sort of thing with... Edit 1 is a decent attempt but I'm not sure if I like the abesence of a background texture, and there are some patches that were missed which stick out like a sore thumb. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added edit 2 which I think removes the horizontal band a bit more cleanly than edit 1. I'm not sure of the best way to remove or fade the background (or even if it is a good thing) so I've left it untouched. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a matter of taste, the original version looks like a scan. Brand[t] 17:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is a scan, but that's neither here or there really. I agree it's a matter of taste, but it's hard to tell if the shading around it is part of the illustration, or aging of the paper. The other issue is that if the background is faded away, the texture of the paper is lost and I think it look peculiar. As it is, the texture is patchy though, which is why I was unsure what to do with it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom right corner of the original background looks like an aging (yellowing) to me, so are probably the other parts. Brand[t] 18:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• support Although not sure if I prefer edit 1 or 2.©Geni 01:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment. In some ways it seems a bit pointless having the background since it is almost completely white, and there are lots of random speckles all over the page. I don't mind the background being left with the shading, but I can easily edit my version a bit more to clean up patches I missed, if people do prefer a version with a totally white background? And Brand, you can download GIMP for free which is what I use. --Silversmith Hewwo 02:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not fussed if you think it's important to remove the texture on the background, but the edit of the horizontal band wasn't done quite as well (IMHO, sorry), so I'd ask that you remove the background from edit 2 if you were to do that. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good deal is the whitening of background in edit 2, while original version could be just uncreased. Brand[t] 20:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 2. Although I would like no background. For some reason the nice golden color got damaged in edit 1. I don't know if it is important for FPC or Wikipedia, but if I want to use the image for something else (as many kids do for school projects) the background can be a problem. Maybe some blur can be applyed to the background to at least eliminate the speckles, which can be ugly in some printers. I can do that if it is not a bad practice in these cases.  franklin.vp  18:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any changes to the colour or contrast or anything so I don't know why there would be any difference in the golden colour. :/ I think it's probably best not doing more editing until a consensus is formed on which option would be best. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I think they might be referring to is the fact that you saved Edit 1 in PNG format. Aside from it being about four times bigger than the equivalent JPEG, it tends to have an effect on the thumbnail as Imagemagick does a poor job of scaling PNG thumbnails and they tend to look less 'punchy' as a result. I'm only guessing though. You can see it in the thumbnails but there shouldn't be such a difference when viewed at 100%. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good guess. My bad for not looking the full size again.  franklin.vp  12:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I chose PNG because I've heard that every time you save in jpg you lose some quality due to compression, whereas png is lossless compression. It certainly wouldn't be hard for me to go and save it in jpg though if png is an issue. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, it was requested that the previous version should be superseded by PNG, which is reserved for coas. Brand[t] 08:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that in theory you can loose some quality with compression but it's so minor that you likely wouldn't notice - especially if you set the quality high when saving the JPEG. There are times when PNG files are superior (for diagrams and the like usually, and even then, SVG tends to be superior again as it's scalable without loss of quality), but when dealing with scanned images or photos, where there is a lot of texture, then my preference is for JPEG. Just because one person has requested PNG, it doesn't make it the best format to use. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit 1. Looks the cleanest to me. Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, Edit 1 has some minor image damage where the crease was cloned away. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 –blurpeace ^(talk) 22:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Russian Empire-Full coat of arms.3.jpg --Caspian blue 03:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunrobin Castle, Sutherland, Scotland

Reason

good picture

Articles this image appears in

Dunrobin Castle

Creator

Jack Spellingbacon

• Support as nominator --Snowman (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --GerardM (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC) WOW where is Cynderella, the prince ?[reply]
• Comment. The image in the article is File:Dunrobin Castle -Sutherland -Scotland-26May2006.jpg, the one presented here is Dunrobin Castle -Sutherland -Scotland-26May2008.jpg. Caption should make reference to the garden as well, which is in the foreground and occupies half the image. Elekhh (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Caption amended. Image shown in en wiki article infobox has been replaced with good name file. Snowman (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Chromatic aberration and soft.
  talk 21:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I do not understand the what "soft" refers too. Please provide a little more explanation. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was referring to the sharpness of the image. I don't think it is sharp enough; I do realise that this can have the appearance of being improved by downsampling, but even at the minimum (by FP standards) size, the foreground is still fuzzy. Just my opinion, and clearly in the minority, ;-). I also agree that there is oversaturation.
  talk 08:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think that the chromatic aberration is slight considering the high resolution of this 3,872 × 2,592 px image, which even shows brickwork details. Snowman (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see much connection between CA and resolution. Apart from the (okay, minor) CA on the building, there is rather a lot of purple fringing on the leaves of the tree at the left. I know we're our own worst critics, but I get this sort of CA (and softness) on my images because I have two terrible, cheap lenses, and I would consider my photographs unsuitable for FP, on account of these faults alone.
  talk 08:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I see what you mean about the leaves and perhaps some other features in the periphery of the image. I meant when everything is downsized then the smaller features, including the chromatic aberration, are less easy to see. Are these problems bad enough to bring down a well framed detailed image of the castle? I might crop off a bit from the left side on the next revision, but I will see what it looks like first. Snowman (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The revised version (Alt 1) has been cropped and the trees on the extreme left and a portion of lawn at the extreme bottom have been left out. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would clone out the blurry birds. Kaldari (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That is easy to do, but I opted to leave them in. Snowman (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would prefer the birds cloned out as well. Even as a thumbnail they are visible and distracting. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Three birds flying in the sky now removed. Snowman (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Silversmith Hewwo 02:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd err on the side of saying it is acceptably sharp however I do wonder if the saturation has been artificially boosted quite a bit.
  talk) 06:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The contrast is similar to the other photographs of the castle in the author's flickr photo series. Snowman (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm suggesting the author might have had a fiddle with all of them. Compare the saturation of green vs this image for example: http://1photoblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/dunrobin-castle-highland-scotland.jpg. It can be fixed in an edit, we just don't want unrealistic colours.
  talk) 01:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yes, we do not want unrealistic colours. The linked image has convinced me that this image needs the contrast fixing. Snowman (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean saturation, I assume, not contrast... The contrast isn't really in question. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What is saturation anyway? I still do not know what EV is. Is there a list defining the jargon used here somewhere? Anyway, it looks better with the saturation reduced by 25% using the saturation feature in GIMP. To me it seems that this modification makes the slight chromatic aberration less noticeable too. What happens to this nomination now? Do I scrap this nomination? Is it acceptable to upload the saturation reduced image over the previous image like I did after the minor edit of removing the birds from the sky (I thought the birds were interesting and not a distraction, but I am not questioning how it appeared to others). Should I then link the original image (above) from the archives? I might crop off a bit from the bottom on the next revision as well, but I will see what it looks like first, and, if cropped, upload to a new name file. It may need more sky at the top too, and I might paint that in, if I think it will looks better in the next revision. Snowman (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For a short while we linked to a list of terms used here at FPC, but it was removed in August. Not really sure why, as it seems uncontroversial! Anyway, there is this list of terminology (which I note doesn't include saturation, :-/) and there's this list of abbreviations. Hope those two links are helpful. I was perplexed by EV (encyclopaedic value) for a while, too, but it's basically referring to the value added to an article by an image . . . how encyclopaedic is it? How well does it illustrate the subject matter? There are more facets, of course, but that's the biggest application, I suppose. The
  talk 14:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thank you. That is helpful. Excuse my ignorance; I plan to look at the lists of definitions that you linked. Snowman (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's okay, it's normal, :-) And you're welcome, anytime.
  talk 14:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Alt 1 version shown. Snowman (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Alt 1 Thanks for the changes in the caption. I also like the reduced saturation and the crop on the bottom and left, which provide a much better framing. I am not sure about the extended sky - I liked how the castle dominated the landscape in the original. Digital manipulation should be minimised per FPC (Featured Picture Criteria). PS. I suggest the links to the abreviations and jargon to be reintroduced to this page, as the hermetic language in use deters new participants. Elekhh (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The level of sky was a bit arbitrary. I have looked at it a bit more critically and cropped a bit of sky from the top. Snowman (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ALT1 Issues resolved. Jujutacular ^T · C 06:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Subject has great potential but is shot with harsh, uneven lighting with some clipped highlights on the left, and a general softness in the foreground. Speaking of the foreground, there seems to be either too much or too little of it; if the garden is to be included, I'd like to see more of it from a better vantage point; or in the alternate maybe it would be better to cut out the garden altogether and focus entirely on the castle. Fletcher (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 1. --JN466 13:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dunrobin Castle -Sutherland -Scotland-26May2008 (2).jpg --Caspian blue 03:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Painted Cliffs

Reason

As a notable geological feature on Maria Island it has the enc in my view. I'm not sure if there are appropriate geology articles present. It is also pretty. The article needs some work but that will probably come tomorrow.

Articles this image appears in

Maria Island

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 12:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support edit. Splendid. Brand[t] 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To PLW: Much of the vignette was caused by the use of a circuilar polariser (which helped knock back the sky and improve the saturation). The edit doesn't look bad though and I have no particular preference.
  talk) 22:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm not convinced that edit 1 is preferable. It looks like it's knocked out the blue tone in the sky (looks rather grey and flat to me now) and also made the tone of the white chalky parts of the cliffs look a little yellow, not to mention the coastline on the left looks a bit messed up. The original version is a little cool in WB, but I think it's still the most natural looking (not having been there, I'd leave it up to you to confirm). I'd Weak Oppose Edit 1 and Strong Oppose Edit 2 (looks very oversaturated, particularly in the sky). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite lovely. I personally prefer the edit. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 11:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with preference for the first edit. Added an edit (2) to show the effect of reducing the vignetting further. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support with preference going to edit 1. Nice shot, NS.
  NYer 01:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support either Durova³⁷¹ 06:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; I think that the date when the photograph was taken should be included in the image description. The camera metadata says; "23 November 2009" - is that correct? Going on your previous submitted images, I think that any discrepancy between dates should be explained in the image description, prior to any possible promotion. Snowman (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also fixed. This one was correct - different camera body.
    talk) 23:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment; I think that the file name is not adequately descriptive. I think that "Maria Island" should appear in the file name for clarity, and possibly also Australia. Snowman (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the sentiment of your argument, but I think you're taking a overly fundamentalist approach with your voting. The filename is fairly inconsequential to the image's value to articles. As is EXIF data. It's nice if they're extra descriptive, but it is the image page infobox that needs to be fully populated really. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may appear pernickety (a caring attention to detail), but I feel that there is no room for complacency for FPs - the finest on the wiki. I think that the guideline that the file name should be descriptive should be one of the fundamental considerations for FPCs. I have changed this a comment, and I hope that it is taken seriously as a technical issue prior to possible FP status. Snowman (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only as per above comments. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oooh, comment: I just noticed that there is some strange clone-like artifacting going on. A horizontal strip on the bottom right edge, and a vertical strip on the bottom left edge that reaches all the way up to the coastline. What could have caused that NS? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The photo is a blend between two exposures with a stop or less between them, didn't notice the edges that didn't line up when they were aligned I'm guessing. I'll crop it marginally.
      talk) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • If the spirit of this vote is for reasons other than the merits of the image with associated text, then I think this vote should be disregarded. Snowman (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you implying that my vote might be 'for reasons other than the merits of the image with associated text'? Care to elaborate? That comment seemed to come out of nowhere... are you assuming good faith!? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have striken out my comment. Instead, I would ask you to explain your comment; "only as per above comments." I am puzzled by that. Snowman (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was referring to my comments to Noodle Snacks near the top where I mentioned the issues I had with the edits, so I supported the original only. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you for explaining your short comment. You have given a perfectly reasonable explanation. Snowman (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original or edit 1. --JN466 12:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Painted Cliffs.jpg --Caspian blue 03:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Napa Valley

Reason

good ev and quality

Articles this image appears in

Napa Valley AVA

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Impressive horizontal resolution and EV. Brand[t] 19:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt 1. Brand[t] 10:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It doesn't appear in
  talk) 22:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks for noticing. I changed the link to the article.It might be usefull in

Napa Valley too, but there are quite a few images already.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Do Napa Valley and Napa Valley AVA represent the same area or is one a subset of the other?

They do represent the same area. I took my image like 10 miles from city that calls Napa.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent resolution. I support both of them, but alt 1 is my favorite. More sky and landscape features stick out a bit more. Cant find anything wrong with it Tim1337 (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both, Pref Alt1 per Tim1337, it is a better overall view rather than just partial view. Very striking colours on the vineyards... Excellent picture... Gazhiley (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support prefer the alt (more in the picture).
  talk) 11:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Alt. Alt is more interesting and has better composition. Kaldari (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT1 Great picture, crisp and plenty of EV. Perhaps we could get a similar photo next summer? I imagine it's beautiful. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportWai Hong (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support either. The original has too little sky but enough foreground, and the alt has enough sky but too little foreground. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both, Pref Alt1 -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either Better tones in the sky and more interesting landscape on the latter, but the former gives a better illustration of the economy: vineyards, plus a winding road for ye olde winetasting tour (Napa is the most commercialized county in California for tastings; I dislike the slickness--too much like bar hopping for the nouveau riche, but there's no denying its importance). Durova³⁷¹ 17:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT1 per Kaldari. Elekhh (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original (but don't oppose alt) I think the comp. in the original is more elegant - you got the winding road, the pond moved up higher in the frame, and it doesn't cut off so abruptly at the bottom. And while I know that big drumlin in the alt is part of the landscape, my first reaction was that it unbalances the composition. Fletcher (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt1 gives better scope of the valley. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Vineyards of Napa Valley panorama.jpg --Caspian blue 04:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

===[[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Giovanna Tor/ Santa Claus / Princess /ornabuoni cropped.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Original - Portrait of Giovanna Tornabuoni (née Giovanna degli Albizzi) from the

Reason

One of the finest portraits of medieval blonde women, nice outfit, the Latin inscription is annotated.

Articles this image appears in

House of Albizzi, Domenico Ghirlandaio

Creator

Domenico Ghirlandaio

• Support as nominator --Brand[t] 18:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Wonderful to have this at good resolution. Durova³⁷¹ 18:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ephemeral Oppose The image is not well linked to the content of the article. It is only portraying a member of the family that is never mentioned. I will try to fix that myself but if I can't or if no one else fix it then I think the oppose will have to stay. The image looks fine to me.  franklin.vp  18:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe she is the daughter of Giovanni Tornabuoni if I find a refference the image could be used there as well.  franklin.vp  19:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry [4] it says she is the wife of his son, Lorenzo Tornabuonni.  franklin.vp  19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What about as an illustration for the Ghirlandaio article? There's only one true portrait shown there, and I think this is a far superior reproduction. Think it could be switched out? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Of course! added. I Support now.  franklin.vp  19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and franklin. Elekhh (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for Ghirlandaio article. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make that support edit (shameful for an art historian not to realize what's missing...) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why has the border been removed? Shouldn't the picture be true to the original? As you can see in this photo of the painting as it hangs in the gallery, there is a brown border around the painting which I guess is the wooden panel it was painted on. In the art book I own the painting also has the border like this version. --Silversmith Hewwo 08:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to crop it out. Brand[t] 08:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit has come. Brand[t] 14:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which version do you prefer? Snowman (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the panelled one since it indicates the natural borders and adds some EV, while the cropped version fits best for articles. Brand[t] 14:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit as in the original you alway wonder if it is a fragment of a bigger piece.  franklin.vp  14:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support as an example of the artist's work (I don't think it adds much to the "family" article) but I do think it could benefit from a little restoration. J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there photographic problems? If not, I don't think digital editing of the flaked-off bits of paint would be necessary--there's no reason not to represent the painting as it currently exists, since no restoration is going to restore it precisely as painted anyway.
    Chick Bowen 00:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Weak support original good quality portrait. The edit detracts attention from the real focus of the painting. |anon| —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chsh (talk • contribs) 23:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you seen the comments below about the last page in the book being painted in what might appear to be a "frame"? Snowman (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suspend. The original has a serious problem. The current image was uploaded over the Yorck Project image instead of uploaded as a separate image. All of the info on the image description page refers to the Yorck image. The image needs to be reverted and the new image uploaded as a separate image. Kaldari (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reverted the original, uploaded the new version under a new name and switched out the file at the top of the nomination. Hope that doesn't disrupt anything. Kaldari (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. Now that the original has been moved to it's own filename. Kaldari (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning toward oppose original, support edit. Certainly the unpainted area of the panel is not very interesting. But this is not a canvas painting in a frame, but a panel painting: essentially an architectural element intended to be part of a wall. So context seems important.
  Chick Bowen 00:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: the source in both images is given as a bare link only, so it appears as [1] in the visible text. Surely, this should be written better than this in a way that shows the reader where the link leads too; in this format [http://www.name.name.html Name Museum]. I think that the current format is inadequate for a FP. Snowman (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both versions. Brand[t] 19:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a bit more like a finished product now. Snowman (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support framed version Support unframed version: I found it interesting to inspect the detail of the surface of the painting and I almost think that I could improve it by fixing the cracks and spots with digital enhancements (but that would spoil the actual details shown). I am slightly in favour of supporting the unframed version. At first I was in doubt why only half a hand is shown, but links to the framed version are now added to "other versions", which makes it clear that it is the full painting that is shown. I think that generally borders are removed for showing on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the same size of 30.32 by 19.29 inches is given for both the framed version and the unframed version, so one must be wrong presumably. It is probably worth putting the size in cm too - perhaps in the German part of the image description. Snowman (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The ratio of the dimensions in inches (30.32 by 19.29) are much different to the ratio of the image size in pixiles of unframed image and slightly different to the ratio of the size of the framed image in pixils. The dimensions do not appear to refer to the unframed version, so I have removed the dementions from the image description of the unframed discription. I am still puzzled by the size remaining, partly because the dimensions on the other image on the wiki (File:Domenico Ghirlandaio 007.jpg) is given as 76 × 50 cm (29.92 × 19.68 in). I hope these measuremens can be clarified before possible FA status. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's probably impossible to get them exact, since if you believe (as I do, and as art historians who have reproduced the painting implicitly do) that the surrounding wood is part of the painting, then who's to say where the painting ends and the wall begins? In that sense this is fundamentally different from a painting on canvas, where the painting size is obviously the canvas size.
  Chick Bowen 01:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That sounds like a reasonable explanation for a somewhat artibary size for the image, and perhap that should be included in the image discription. An image of the whole wall could also be included as another version. A discription of the wall could also be added to the image discription as well. Snowman (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the cropped version is incomplete and should not be promoted. Notice that the end of the last page of the book is missing and to show it the image necessarily must include the brown part (which is part of the painting). Also cracks and texture of should not be removed since they serve for identification purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin.vp (talk • contribs) 13:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that imperfections on the surface of the painting should not be removed. I see your point about the last page in the book and that the painting is incomplete without the frame. Snowman (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support framed version. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ghirlandaio-Giovanna Tornabuoni.jpg --Caspian blue 04:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canon EOS 400D

Reason

very good illustration of Canon EOS 400D

Articles this image appears in

Canon EOS 400D, Lens mount, Canon EF-S lens mount

Creator

Der Wolf im Wald

• Support as nominator --Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It was some time ago, but I know of a wiki article of a mobile phone featuring some firsts that was deleted, because Wikipedia is not a catalogue. Is the article encyclopaedic enough for the wiki? Snowman (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have an article on the camera, and that article needs to be illustrated. Unless you are challenging the existence of the article, this is something that should be illustrated, and is perfectly valid as a featured picture if the quality is high enough. J Milburn (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see that as out of question. It could be argued that all Canon EOS or a certain range of it should be merged into one article. Elekhh (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is partly a question of interpreting
        WP:NOTDIRECTORY and other things that the wiki is not. I think these guidelines on manufactured products have been modified to be more relaxed. It is also partly a question of how to best present information by merging articles or splitting articles, and I wonder if a series or range of cameras could all be merged in one article without losing any information. I doubt if there are grounds to delete the article in the absence a good comprehensive article on the camera series. Actually, I would not wish to see any information on this camera removed from the wiki. Snowman (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Well, regardless of what the policies say about what Wiki is or isn't, as long as the article exists, (per J Milburn) the image does a good job of illustrating the subject and belongs there. It seems a bit counterproductive to merge the articles when the features and history of each camera is independent. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In-the-round I agree with you that the article needs an illustration. I think that the article should not be deleted under the more relaxed rules of WP:NOT on manufactured products. Snowman (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I don't think this sort of image would be deleted. It's perfectly encyclopaedic. It shows the camera clearly, although it would be ideal to show it from different angles like we've done with many fruits and vegetables (I don't recommend it be sliced in half though!). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Agreeing with J Milburn. Durova³⁷¹ 19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't find it "among Wikipedia's best work" or that "it illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more" as per FPC. The frontal view only shows one of three interesting sides of the camera. Elekhh (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Smudgy and blurry. The surface of the camera has a texture, but it looks like it's been destroyed in editing. Thegreenj 23:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no texture, the surface of the camera simply consist of clean plastic. -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, this comparable image would support your assertion. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a nice quartet of images linked above, and is consistent with my idea of having more than one view on commons. The wiki could have six images (other versions) in a gallery including a view from the top and a view from the bottom as well. Snowman (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Compare the grips in this photo and the ones you linked to. Also, look at the lens mount, the black screws above the lens mount, and the flash covering. There's weird artifacts all over the place. Looks like bad NR to me; the blotchy surface reminds me of a median filter or something similar. Thegreenj 02:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm looking at the back, and the effect is even more apparent, presumably since that photo has not been downsampled. However, given the ISO 200, noise shouldn't be a problem, so I'm not sure what's causing it. It definitely looks like a low-radius median filter followed by sharpening, though. Thegreenj 02:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The surface of my 400D has been polished glossy from lots of use in many areas. This camera seems to have the same thing (to a much lesser extent). I wonder if this is what you are noticing. The flash on this one still opens, heh.
  talk) 11:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No, it's definitely a digital artifact, not something to do with the actual camera. In any case, it seems not to be an issue for anyone else here. Thegreenj 01:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; I like the picture as an uncomplicated illustration, which is what the article needs. I wonder if a view from the top, one from each side, an oblique view, and perhaps one with a typical lens could also be made available on commons and linked to this file in the image description as "other versions". Are any companion images available? - I think they could enhance the value of this image. Snowman (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I took a comparable image of the cameras back (see here) -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking of technical drawing (needing three views), but I should add for completion that an image from below would be beneficial too. Snowman (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'm in the market for a new camera, and this image did compel me to read the article. Plus, it meets the technical criteria. Sasata (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why was the resolution signifigantly lowered during the color edits you made? From 2,799×2,584 to 1,600×1,477 is about a 67% decrease in resolution... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The resolution seems to be high enough. -- Nicolas17 de (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose—Sorry, but the technical quality of this photograph is low, especially on the surfaces with contrast where you can see it most (like the "EOS" text). The photograph is blurry and has very low depth of field. A better effort can be done considering this image is static and doesn't need too much setting up compared to animal images or landscape images. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Canon EOS 400D.jpg --Caspian blue 04:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Château de Chenonceau

Reason

Good composition providing overview of the ensemble and its relationship to the river, good technicals, and strong in making the viewer want to know more.

Articles this image appears in

Château de Chenonceau, Catherine de' Medici's building projects, French Renaissance architecture

Creator

Wladyslaw

• Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per missing end. Also I think and angle like this would be better as the most interesting of the architecture has been left in a third plane.  franklin  01:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To cath the other end would increase distortion like here. Frontal persepective is more advantageous for the facade, however misses the tower - an important element of the composition. I disagree in regards of the comment on most interesting of the architecture. I think most interesting is the ensemble and its relationship to the water. Elekhh (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, no idea of the place, but are we sure that taking the picture close to that corner in the far left doesn't allow to get water, tower and closer facade, plus closer to frontal view.  franklin  02:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the missing part on the right can be solved (I think) with a shot in the very same place from where was taken the nominated one but turning the camera to the right and before missing the tower. Such a shot can be expected to come to Wikipedia.  franklin  02:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose per Franklin. Not seeing how far the building extends beyond the frame reduces EV too much. Might be tricky to compose but should be doable. Fletcher (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no way to capture everything in one image. Any picture is just a fragment of the real experience of a building. Just like this or this FPs. Elekhh (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very true. I note both of those examples focus on a single architectural element, rather than the whole building. This photo captures almost the whole building, but not quite. Similarly, many portraits capture only the head and shoulders of a person. But if someone nominated a portrait that captured nearly the whole person, but was cut off at the feet, I would oppose. Fletcher (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we need better examples to stablish a precedent in FP. One is a picture of a "campanile" (belfry) and a spire and thats why they are supposed to show only those architectural elements of the respective buildings. Moreover it has not been stablished the imposibility of getting this castle as a whole in frame.  franklin  02:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Libration

Reason

It is an animation of excellent quality which clearly depicts lunar phases and libration.

Articles this image appears in

Lunar phase

Creator

Tomruen

• Support as nominator --RobertJWalker | Talk 20:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent quality. Dogposter 20:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova³⁷¹ 22:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is fascinating and an excellent illustration of the moon. I wonder how it was made and what equipment was used. Snowman (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! It is a computer simulation, using albedo maps from the
    APOD [6]. My simulation has no topographic shadows visible in the craters, but good for overall geometry, smoother than real photos can be. There's another animation without phase at libration. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I would like to see more than one cycle to see more of the moon's movement. Would the sequence be easier to see if it ran slower? Would it be better if the viewer was presented with a static image with controls to start (and stop) the animation. I do not know the answers. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Animated gifs are limited. I've experimented with Windows movie maker, for *.wmv format, see another experiment, 12+ cycles for 2010: [7]. Wiki has a movie format of some sort, but I don't know how to create it. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Can you make a southern hemisphere one as well? Elekhh (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • North is up, and certainly images could be inverted for south up on another version. Here's another calendar version, showing the orientation of the moon for 45N for one cycle, so viewing orientation changes a lot more with latitude than fixing north as up. File:Moon phase calendar May2005.png Tom Ruen (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I kinda like
  ZooFari 03:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I can make new images as well, for appearances for a month of 2009 or 2010, larger or smaller, or less frames. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If it's a computer simulation then they could of done a far better job of the repeat point so it doesn't have a very obvious jump in position. If it's actual pictures of the moon then that could maybe be forgiven, but if it's just a computer 3d render to simulate it then the missing frames or whatever is missing that is causing that big jump is distracting to the eye. Also regardless if this does get prompted then it should be replacing the older FP since it is higher resolution. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no missing frame, although more care might be done to minimize the jump. The jump is reality because it's cycling a single month, while each month looks a little different. The libration motion is a mixture of different periods which never repeat perfectly. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a computer simulation there is _no reason_ it can't be smooth. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for your _expert knowledge_. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It runs pretty fast on my computer - I can't watch it for more than a few seconds without getting a headache. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree animations are dizzy things, unsure what to do about it except making them smaller helps. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One could make the last frame last for a few seconds.
      talk) 07:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Definitely an option. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—excellent value and more than sufficient technical quality. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007.gif --jjron (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln assassination conspirators execution

Reason

Execution of four people who conspired with

Abraham Lincoln Assassination. Restored version of File:Lincoln conspirators execution.jpg

.

Articles this image appears in

Lewis Powell (assassin), David Herold, George Atzerodt, Fort Lesley J. McNair, hanging, Capital punishment by the United States federal government

.

Creator

Alexander Gardner (photographer)

• Support as nominator --Durova³⁷¹ 06:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. The motion blur on the bodies is annoying, but I don't think we can expect a re-shoot. Clear enc.
  talk) 06:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • In this specific situation motion blur adds to the encyclopedic value. See reference below. Durova³⁷¹ 02:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Apparently they were still alive...
  NYer 22:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Lots of events can be classed as "very important history". The assassination of Julius Caesar, for example. However, we don't HAVE to have a featured picture on the subject, if one is clearly not available. To be a featured picture, it must be both an important subject, AND a decent portrayal of it. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am trying to wrap my head around your argument, Mahahahaneapneap. You call this a subpar portrayal. What, specifically, is inadequate? We do not need the condemned prisoners' faces: good portraits are available for all of them and three of which are feature-worthy (one has already been featured). Their order of position on the scaffold is not in dispute. What this captures is the moment of their death. Motion blur is advantageous in that regard: it gives the image dynamism and indicates how they were swinging. It was much more difficult to photograph this kind of moment than a totally sharp image after a hanging was completed. So you say that technical shortcomings outweigh the encyclopedic value. How so? Durova³⁷¹ 00:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that I can't tell what's happening is the issue for me. If I hadn't read the caption, I would probably still have no idea. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't have issue with known what's happening; I knew precisely what was going on. In fact, without even reading the title, I somehow knew (granted there are few options) that these were Lincoln's assassination conspirators. I don't know how you can't tell they aren't people being hanged, and since they are in the middle of dying, they are of course wiggling, which adds to the effect of the photo.
          NYer 05:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Comment I question Mr A. Gardner's defintion of ""best edition".©Geni 10:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain the comment more fully? The phrase "best edition" does not appear anywhere in this nomination or at his biography. Durova³⁷¹ 20:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you send something to the libiary of congres to be registered you are ment to send the best edition. In this case the overall quality of the original appears to be rather poor.©Geni 23:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a bit of original surmise. Doesn't take long on the LoC site to notice that Gardner copyrighted all or most of the images he took that day. Per Lincoln's Assassins: Their Trial And Execution by James L. Swanson and Daniel R. Weinberg, pp. 24-25, 181 this image was taken closest in time to the moment the sentence was actually carried out. Hence the motion blur. And more specifically, "death struggles" (Swanson and Weinberg, 181). Durova³⁷¹ 02:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Low encyclopaedic value due to the extremely low quality. I would have no idea what is going on without being told. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please explain the relation betwee encyclopaedic value and low quality... In our articles we use illustrations, so the fact that it needs some clarification or the fact that it clarifies the text is exactly why it is encyclopaedic. GerardM (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is such low quality that I can't see how it adds much to the articles. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. After reading the caption and file description I can not tell what many of the different parts of the photograph are. On first inspection it seems to be an unusual candidate having such low resolution, but I do not known much about the event, so I will leave it to others to talk-up any merits that it might have. Are any higher resolution versions available? Snowman (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support important historic material that provides a clue to an historic question. This "find" demonstrates why the attention to historic material profoundly affects our project. GerardM (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a remarkable photo with huge EV which meets the FP criteria. Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Interesting nomination. Arguably not much more detail visible than in the Bison skull pile. Elekhh (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not commenting on the bison skull pile, but the quality for this is not going to get any better due to camera limitations at the time.
    talk) 07:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Oppose Inappropriately low quality in spite of restoration. Perceived quality of original is higher. I also found this (click on image for full res) where at least two, possibly as many as five faces would be identifiable (vs. none in the nominee). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feature-worthy portrait photographs are available for three of the four prisoners, and one of those is already featured (George Atzerodt). The encyclopedic value of this nomination is that it shows their death struggles (see reference above). Only one photographer recorded this execution and only one of his photographs shows the nooses swinging; this nominee is that image. Durova³⁷¹ 19:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The EV for death struggle is certainly irrelevant to the nomination, as it is not included in such an article, and wouldn't be a particularly good depiction of it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose It's too blurry to tell what's going, in my opinion. If it wasn't for the obvious apparatus, I wouldn't have guessed that people are being hung here. The first and third bodies from the left are extremely undefined.-- mcshadypl ^TC 20:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Papa Lima Whiskey "Perceived quality of original is higher". I think the graininess resulting from the sharpenning and increased contrast makes the sky and especially the brick wall more distracting. Elekhh (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Strongly. Very high encyclopedic value, quality is actually pretty good for photography of moving people. I've added it to hanging, in the section on the United States, where it seems appropriate. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Capital_punishment_by_the_United_States_federal_government#Presidential_assassins
• Support per Mostlyharmless, GerardM. NW (Talk) 22:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—Technical quality of the image irrelevant as the restoration is true to the original image's technical quality and doesn't deduct from it. Very high education value and a great restoration work. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lincoln conspirators execution2.jpg --jjron (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile Bennett's Wallaby

Reason

Extremely cute. The bracken ferns behind give good scale for those familiar with the species.

Articles this image appears in

Red-necked Wallaby

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 01:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Lovely creature, but isn't it a youngster? The pouch is not also not shown...--Caspian blue 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Juvenile is plastered all over the article and this nomination, so yes it is. Only females have pouches...
    talk) 04:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Silly me, I thought "Juvenile Bennett's Wallaby" is another common English name for the species because of even the adult having an ingenuous face like the child (thought what an unusual name it is).--Caspian blue 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and I wish I could own such a cute critter. Sir Wolf (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good capture, and pleasing background. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; I think that the date when the photograph was taken should be included in the image description. The camera metadata says; "27 February 2008" - is that correct? I do not find that the image is self explanatory, because I am wondering where the mother kangaroo is and the image description does not say. Is it too big to jump back in the mothers pouch? Was the kangaroo in the wild? Snowman (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect, it was nov 26 (I have updated the description). Too big for mum (maybe 50% the size of an adult). Wild wallaby yes.
    talk) 11:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The date differences are confusing. I think that the discrepancy between the dates should be explained in the image description, prior to any possible promotion. Snowman (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed that it is a little confusing, but the date at the bottom of the image page is derived from the image's EXIF data, which the camera 'imprints' at the time the photo was taken. I guess the date on the camera was incorrect when the photo was taken. It is possible to fix this EXIF data on the image itself (I assume it would require a re-upload of the image), but I don't think the date discrepancy is of any major significance to the nomination. The EXIF is what I would consider 'value-add'. The info in the template is what I would assume to be correct. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Considering that this is being nominated for FP, I think that there certainly should not be an unexplained discrepancy between dates in the image description and metadata. It probably only needs a simple note adding to explain that the date in the camera metadata is wrong. Snowman (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it does not go back in the mother's pouch, is it wrong to call it a joey? The page
            Joey (marsupial) says a joey is an infant, but the one in the photograph is too big to go back in the pouch, so it is presumably more like a toddler and not an infant (or a joey). Snowman (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • But the question really is this: Does it significantly affect the value of the image if we don't know the correct date that it was taken? I'm not suggesting he should ignore your request to clear up the confusion over the date, but I am suggesting it isn't important for the nomination. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • To me it is obvious that mixed-up dates is a problem for an FP, which is described as the finest on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I wasn't so sure regarding the joey thing (so I said juvenile in the articles). I can't be bothered jumping through hoops to get it renamed at commons though.
                  talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
                  • Oppose For a kangaroo at the "toddler stage" (always out of the mother's pouch), there is uncertainty about using the word Joey, which is mentioned the file name and image description. The dates mentioned in the image description and camera metadata are different and confusing. Surely this is not the finest on the wiki. Does the FP project have standards about these sort of things? Snowman (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I can't help that the internal battery on my camera went flat. I could remove the EXIF if you are still getting confused. The description now says juvenile (the article always has). It still meets the definition of Joey given at any dictionary. Criterion 7 has details for the caption (which this image satisfies). I don't think your oppose really holds much water. UpstateNYer might be able to rename the image.
                      talk) 23:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
                      ]
                      • Not at all, I think that it should be described as a joey or a juvenile with more certainty. It is called a joey in the file name and a juvenile in the image description. Also the dates are different and confusing. To reduce confusion, I think that it would be appropriate to add that the date in the camera metadata is wrong somewhere on the file. Is any of the other camera metadata wrong? Snowman (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Rest of the metadata is fine. I've renamed the image the hard way for you - though joey is synonymous according to the dictionary.
                          talk) 00:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
                          ]
                          • To be honest I think that it is not that difficult to do another upload. Anyway, there is no doubt that names are consistent now. Snowman (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Sure, for one image, but I have on the order of hundreds with the wrong name (stuff that has been later identified). It also leaves duplicates and you have to go and update the articles by hand.
                              talk) 01:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
                              ]
                              • Anyway, one more does not make much difference surely. I have tidied up and asked for the duplicate to be deleted. If there is no hurry to get a file renamed, you can request a bot assisted file rename. Snowman (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                • For your information about file renaming. {{rename needs confirmation|new-name.jpg|reason}} is the format to add to a file for bot assisted (semi-automated) rename. This will start a process of administrator guided semi-automated creation of new good name file, deletion of old bad name file, and switching to show correct name file on all the language wikis. The process is in stages and can take two or three weeks. Snowman (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • I've tried that. It is generally broken in my experience. Sometimes the rename fails, sometimes it is successful but can't change the articles (then it deletes the original leaving articles in a mess). Commons really needs the "rename" button for general use rather than having to jump through hurdles to get things done.
                                    talk) 06:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
                                    ]
                                    • I suspect that a rename button will be too inviting for vandals to cause havoc, so I think that a move function is rightly a protected function. I find that the semi-automated administrator guided rename system generally works satisfactorily and I have used it scores of times. Perhaps it sometimes takes longer than 2 to 3 weeks. Snowman (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Sometimes their are only adults to photograph, so a picture of a juvenile will be of benefit to the wiki. Snowman (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Can I have one? --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Macropus rufogriseus rufogriseus Juvenile 2.jpg --jjron (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Barren Goose

Reason

Good image of a juvenile CBG.

Articles this image appears in

Cape Barren Goose

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 00:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose too soft
  NYer 01:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Definitely good enough for me.
  NYer 01:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose regretfully due to the hidden feet by the grasses.--Caspian blue 02:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They do feed on grass.
    talk) 05:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Oppose I don't really think feet are negotiable in this case. You managed to get them for the adult. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. The adult image is superior and it seems a bit cheeky to nom both of them right next to each other. If it were to pass, I'd hope that Howcheng'd mix them up a bit so we didn't have the same bird on the POTD two days in a row. ;-) But as above, feet are conspicuously absent unfortunately. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Howcheng does mix them up when sensible from experience. Perhaps it is a bit cheeky, but it shouldn't affect the outcome in my opinion.
    talk) 11:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Oh, agreed, it didn't affect my vote. It's probably no more cheeky than the number of FPs I've nommed from Kew Gardens. ;-) It's just that the composition isn't quite as nice as is expected from a FP IMO. It's clearly pretty good though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; I think that the date when the photograph was taken should be included in the image description. The camera metadata says; "28 February 2008" - is that correct? Going on your previous submitted images, I think that any discrepancy between dates should be explained in the image description, prior to any possible promotion. Snowman (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.
    talk) 23:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Where has it been fixed? The dates are still different and unexplained. Snowman (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that you have added a note to explain that the camera date is wrong. Snowman (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Often with birds there are only adults around to photograph, so a picture of a juvenile will complement the picture of the adult. It would have been a good to see both the adult and the juvenile in the same photograph, if the juvenile is not independent at this age. I wonder where the parents are? Are they independent at this age? It think that it is worth adding something to say where the parents were in the image description. Snowman (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wombat

Reason

You can see everything from the claws to the buck teeth. The lighting is also nice in my opinion. Also, wombats are hilarious.

Articles this image appears in

Common Wombat

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 12:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Looks rather staged actually (the wombat looks stuffed on display!), but the quality and isolation of the subject is excellent. Hilarity of subject is not a valid reason however. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Not a lot to say, good quality, great EV. Would be nice to see the tail, though. What a cutie, I want one! ^^
  talk 14:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Awww :) J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good isolation and EV but the wombat does look flattened, 2D!?! --Muhammad(talk) 15:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long lenses (400mm + especially) tend to have that effect. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is not easy to perceive the scale - is this a young adult? The sharp change of background does not reveal environment: can you provide more info about the location? Elekhh (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a full adult. Location wise the image is geocoded. More specifically the wombat is on some dirt outside it's burrow with trees behind.
    talk) 22:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Nice spot. thanks. Support. Elekhh (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Hilarious animal. Ummm, EV and quality. I didn't see this nomination, hence this dif on Noodle Snacks page. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great EV. However, I do agree with Elekhh, that scale is difficult to perceive. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 11:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adults grow to an average of 98cms and about 26kgs. Added above. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per hilarity of subject, no matter what Diliff says.
  NYer 01:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per nom. Australia appears to have a lot of cute creatures due to the FP contributors from there. :-) --Caspian blue 02:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you exclude me from that generalisation! ;-P Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Cuddly, although the article text makes it appear dangerous to cuddle one. Durova³⁷¹ 20:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cuteness serves as a weapon here, IMO. Lures you in then noms your face. Diabolical. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; I think that the date when the photograph was taken should be included in the image description. The camera metadata says; "28 February 2008" - is that correct? Going on your previous submitted images, I think that any discrepancy between dates should be explained in the image description, prior to any possible promotion. Snowman (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of images have been nominated here months or years later, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Mostlyharmless (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What he is getting at is that the EXIF date data on Noodle Snack's recent images has been incorrect. He's added that comment to all of NS' nominations where it is not correct. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also fixed.
      talk) 23:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Where has it been fixed? The dates are still different and unexplained. Snowman (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to explain again. The EXIF is incorrect. I can remove it but it isn't easily editable.
  talk) 23:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It that case, I think that the "The EXIF is incorrect" should be added to the image file to reduce confusion. Snowman (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Doing so (and the others too).
  talk) 00:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That is fine. That explains the difference in the dates. Snowman (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What does Maria refer to in the file name? Snowman (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maria Island.
    talk) 00:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• The file name should be descriptive, so I think it probably should be changed to "Vombatus ursinus -Maria Island.jpg" or something like that. Please consider that the files on commons and likely to be used on other language wikis. It could be misinterpreted by someone who could not read the language in the caption as saying that Maria was the name of the wombat and that it was a female one. Snowman (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: looks like a wombat, but the file name could be more descriptive. Someone might think that the wombat is named Maria and think it was a female, if they do not read the image description or knew only a different language. File names are important, and perhaps there is some complacency here. Snowman (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • talk) 22:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Not at all; see "Aim 3" in the renaming guidelines that you have cited; "correct misleading names into accurate ones". As I have explained above, I think that the file name is misleading as it could imply that the wombat is named Maria and that it is a female – Maria the wombat. I think that the ambiguous name of this file falls well below what I would expect for a FP for the reasons I have given. Many people upload animals with a pet name, so to me this file name is potentially misleading and confusing. I think that it would be a useful exercise to rename the file, and that the file name should be fixed prior to possible FP status. From my observations of the FPC process I honestly think that the there is a culture of complacency with regard expediency or errors in file names and the written details in the file descriptions and details. Snowman (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might I remind you of
        WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY? :-) FPC is about the pictures... EXIF dates and file names and the like are just minor details. Besides, the image caption clearly says Maria is the location, and if you read up on wombats you see they are not pets, thus not likely to be named. Fletcher (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Pandas, chimps, killer whales, and sea-lions have names and they are not pets. Some people might think that the animal was in a zoo, because of the close up and that the zoo had named it Maria. Snowman (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am talking common sense about an ambiguous name, which is nothing to do with bureaucracy in my opinion. Snowman (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I realise that the commentary on images is of a high standard here; however, may I say that I think the accompanying "EXIF dates, file names, and image descriptions" are also important considerations. Good reliable well written information will help viewers on many language wikis all over the world use the images appropriately. Snowman (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • It'd be misleading if it was "Vombatus ursinus my pet wombat named Maria.jpg". It isn't in it's current state; the name is entirely factual. By the way Maria Island is pronounced mə-RYE-ə not mə-REE-ə (like the name).
        talk) 06:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Most people who are not local probably would not know what the pronunciation of Maria is; however, thank you for the hieroglyphics on pronunciation - which I do not know how to interpret. I am not saying that the file name is outrageously misleading, but I think that it is potentially misleading because of ambiguity, and I still think that it should be fixed. This encylopedia does not list "Maria Island" on the dab page for "Maria", so no one so far has listed the island being refereed to as "Maria", so this use is probably little known through out the world. The wiki page is called "Maria Island" and that page does not say that the island is also know as "Maria". I conclude that this wikipedia to date does not recognise the abbreviation of "Maria" for "Maria Island". I anticipate that your file will be shown on many different language wikis, which I think emphasises that any ambiguity remaining in the name of a file a failure of the FTC process. Some people might think that the animal was in a zoo, because of the close up and that the zoo had named it Maria. I think that the ambiguous name of this file falls below what I would expect for a FP. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I mean no disrespect by this, but it seems that your expectations of FPs are out of line with the way that the FPC project has operated for many years. I don't want it to appear that we're not receptive to suggestions for improvement, but nobody has ever placed such high importance on the accuracy of EXIF data or the descriptiveness of filenames, except in extreme situations where the filename is clearly meaningless. While I do sympathise (and I personally make sure my filenames are descriptive within the bounds of a reasonable length), I do think you need to appreciate that filenames are arbitrary tags that only serve as a unique identifier, and are not intended to actually provide a reader/viewer with information. The infobox does that. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Rules_of_thumb item 3; "Use a clear, detailed title.". Also see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_titles_and_file_names. Where did you get the notion that "filenames are arbitrary tags"? Snowman (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I see it, but see also item 1; "Use the image description page to describe an image and its copyright status". That supports my notion that the filename is not intended to describe the content - the filename is used to create a unique 'location' of the media which separates it from other media. Sure, it can help if the filename is specific and refers to the content of the media, but it is just not a valid reason to oppose IMO. The line you cite is a rule of thumb after all. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_titles_and_file_names also supports my notion that filename should be descriptive primarily so that it is uniquely named, not because it should describe the content thoroughly as you seem to expect. Anyway, if you still feel the need to continue the discussion, perhaps we should take it to my talk page. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Common sense - the image description is where a full description of the image can be written; however, this does not contradict the guideline that the image file name is descriptive and clear. I think that this should be discussed in a more open forum. Snowman (talk)
                  • Then perhaps you should take it to the FPC talk page, because this nomination is not the appropriate forum. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think that I have been mentioning what is relevant to this image. I have already found a few examples of what I see as complacency with text associated with the FPC images including two issues with this file, and I anticipate that I could collect a number of these sort of issues for discussion. Snowman (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Please do collate examples, I'm not trying to stifle discussion. But given that it looks like you're the only one with such a fundamentalist view on filenames (at least from my POV from years of participating on FPC), it may be time to stop arguing about it on each nomination individually, and bring it to the project talk page instead. I think it's fair that if after extensive discussion there, consensus agrees with you, then you can use it as a valid reason to oppose or withhold support. But if the consensus is that the filename is not of significant importance to the encyclopaedic value of the image, then I think it's fair that you stop bringing it up as a point of contention. That's why it's best to bring it to the FPC talk page IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are welcome to rename the image.
          talk) 11:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]

• I note that the basic upload guidelines also advise alt text. See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Rules_of_thumb item 8. At first inspection this basic guideline seems to be disregarded here. Snowman (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was going to offer to rename it. OK we can discuss what to call it. Presumably we start with the binomial name. I do not generally put trinomial names except something like the African Gray Parrot. Then the place name - I usually use the native language name of the locality for the place name (English in this case) for internationalization. Perhaps, then a date or number. Not knowing the island, should any particular locality be included. Can you confirm that it is a wild one, or one in a zoo, or rehabilitation centre for the image description. This information is often (but not always ) available on a flickr, and I generally transcribe this sort of useful information onto to image description and compose an internationalised file name when uploading a flickr image to commons. I note that there is a "Anna Maria Island" in USA. Snowman (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have uploaded a new name file to "File:Vombatus ursinus -Maria Island National Park.jpg". The EXIF date is fixed. I did not know the time of day it was photographed or I would have fixed that too. Old bad name file listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The clock was fine (I checked it when my phone was about to go flat so I still had a time reference). I can confirm that it is a wild one.
  talk) 01:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support Great picture, obvious enc. value. Fletcher (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Vombatus ursinus -Maria Island National Park.jpg --jjron (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Eagle Head

Reason

High resolution, good contrast and color balance, is one of Wikipedia's finest images of the Bald Eagle

Articles this image appears in

Bald Eagle, Ventana Wildlife Society

Creator

Jörg Hempel

• Support either as nominator --Samwb123^T-C-@ 05:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose original. Looks a bit dark, probably overshadowed. Brand[t] 14:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. An impressive specimen but the colors are missing a certain vibrancy. anon -20091203060217 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chsh (talk • contribs) 06:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good detail, interesting subject; nice bokeh too.
  talk) 18:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak oppose per Brand -- mcshadypl ^TC 23:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. Looks fine now. Brand[t] 18:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. Good now. -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This will be a very ironic example of FP inconsistency, after so many FP nominations have been opposed, and in consequence not promoted, for not including the whole body of the animal. Elekhh (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have numerous animal 'portraits', but I'd suggest a bigger concern is that we have such a similar existing FP . This should really have been done as a delist and replace. --jjron (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above.--Caspian blue 02:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]