Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 03:07:58 (UTC)
Original - Pink Robin (Petroica rodinogaster), Mount Field National Park
Reason
I've spent many hours trying to get a Pink Robin photo. They are shy birds and don't usually make any noise so are difficult to spot. The photo was taken in very technically challenging conditions (1/10 sec wide open at iso 1600). This is to be expected for a temperate rainforest bird. I'm told we can expect a DYK for the relevant article at some point. This is the only image we have of the species. I think the image is aesthetically appealing too.
Support given the difficulty of obtaining this shot. Technically, it is acceptable too. Nice-looking bird. Just curious: what lens were you using? I don't know of any 700mm f/5.6 lenses.
Support; technically not stunning, but artistically and encyclopedically good. Lovely to look at. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The specimen is not especially beautiful, and its tail is not in focus.Shroomydan (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - I think these two pictures should have different nominations. They are from different creators and have both the chance of promotion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter? Voters could say yay to both, one of them or none of them.
Nergaal (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Not so, only one picture can be promoted in a given nomination. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then take the first as the original and the second as an alt.
Nergaal (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Two are sometimes promoted in one; as "male and female", these wouldn't make a bad set, though I admit two separate nominations would probably be best. Nominations like this often cause confusion/lead to problems. J Milburn (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed second altogether.
Nergaal (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
Weak oppose For such an ordinary subject, I'd expect an extraordinary image, and this doesn't shout that to me. Its pose seems a little awkward, and the res/focus isn't breathtaking. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's pretty good. If anything I'd have not stopped down so much so that the branches were less distracting.
Addult age is 5–10 months (females) and to 5–7 months (males) (from this article). So, it is adult cat. --George Chernilevskytalk 14:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's Caturday! Since the nomination is "male" tabby cat and is also stated in the caption, what here identifies it as male? Do male tabbys have special markings or is that only males can be tabbys in the same way that only females can be calicos? Matthewedwards : Chat 01:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no marked visible differences that I know, except the obvious ones. Adult males (non-neutered) are usually bigger and have larger heads. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: No matter about the tail for me—lots of images at
Nergaal (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Support -- Excellent depiction of the species, beautiful and good quality picture, as usual. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support both Wow I thought it was a painting until I zoomed in. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The haloing from the shadow highlights tool is the reason for weak.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2010 at 03:49:49 (UTC)
Original - A copal with few bugs inside. The piece of copal measures around four centimeters deep. The insects are trapped from 0.5 to 2 centimeters deep inside the copal. The bubbles around some of the insects indicate that they were alive and breathing, when they were trapped inside.
Reason
Beautiful high quality image showing how Copal can literally 'freeze' time.
Oppose. This has potential to be fantastic, but it just isn't. Compare it to the pictures in this category. J Milburn (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I replaced the image used in the article with the one on the right. That's why the nominated image is not used anymore, and the nomination should be withdrawn. Of course this other image could be nominated instead, but I am really not interested in reviews that compares apples and oranges. Copal cannot be compared to that images represented in this category. It is an absolutely different target for a photographer. It is like taking an image of a very small insect that btw is located behind the glass, and btw not a clear glass, and btw a different density glass, and btw a glass of a different curvatures. I guess I should be grateful that J Milburn did not compare my image to a category of images of dead fishes that he seems to like so much :) Oh, wait my image still could be compared to something. How about comparing it to one from this category Thank you for nomination,AmericanXplorer13, but may I please ask you to withdraw it.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. As per Mbz1, Withdrawn. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2010 at 04:46:32 (UTC)
Original - Reenactors dressed in British uniform of 1795
Reason
Nice image showing what soilders back then would look like. High EV in Royal Newfoundland Regiment as it shows the uniform used during the year they where founded and what they would look like. Also i dont think we have a FP of reenactors(just saying)
Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the picture is fine, but the usage of safety goggles makes this image ridiculous. Unless this happens in every case of enactments, it is not representative. Putting nerds in goggles on the main page is too much.
I think they used the safety goggles to protect there eyes from the smoke of the guns when fired. Spongie555 (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is obvious, but a reenactment should at look like the original (i.e. at least choose more subtle goggles)
Not all of them are wearing them either... I counted at least 4 on first inspection... gazhiley.co.uk 11:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nergaal... They could have them off while posing for pictures, then put the goggles back on when firing... gazhiley.co.uk 11:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having been a reenactor for several years, I have to say that I have never seen any wearing safety glasses (and any who wore ear protection, wore much more subtle plugs). It may have something to do with the apparent age of the members of this particular group which seems quite young. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, really not feeling the goggles. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice picture, but I don't like the goggles... they sort of subtract from the picture.Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Of course this is real! The English in the 1770's fought with goggles just like this!
But in all seriousness, Oppose as per Pteronura brasiliensis, J Milburn, gazhiley, & Nergaal. Nothing personal! AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Now looking closly it is weird for the goggles. Spongie555 (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, because there's nothing wrong with it. But I have to say I find it pretty uninspiring. Would it be possible to crop a bit less on the right side? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good, pretty picture but the object is not fully represented (right side is missing).
Nergaal (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
There is a possible alt, though perhaps it needs a white balance adjustment, tilt fix and crop.
Oppose "good" image but ack. Noodle snacks, ack. Nergaal. Alt is better but also not fp for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2010 at 01:03:48 (UTC)
Original - An Aedes aegypti female feeding off a human host in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Reason
Good EV. Shows the mosquito feeding off a human host. The abdomen is filled with blood. It was very difficult to hold the camera with one hand while allowing the mosquito to feed on the other and resisting the urge to itch. For those concerned, no, I did not get dengue fever ;-)
Oppose this would be a very good picture, except the size is just too small (half the recommended size); not all of the mosquito is in focus (especially its "mouth", which is particularly relevant here); and since this kind of mosquito is probably highly ubiquitous, I'm sure that the photograph can be replicated in better quality.
Oppose -- This is a good picture despite the small size. But not as good as the present FP of the same subject. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry. I intended to support, but looking at it full sized... J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose Who cares about the res? (Rhetorical question!) It's a good photo, and IMHO a better illustration of the subject than the current FP helpfully linked by Alvesgaspar. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops how did that happen? That was meant to say Support. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I actually think it is better than the present featured picture of the same subject. This one is clearer. Anoldtreeok (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Anoldtreeok.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO, there is room for both the images, the current FP and this one. Female mosquitoes are known to feed on blood and males on plants. Hence, it would be fitting to show the mosquito in both situations. --Muhammad(talk) 18:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My vote was based on the size and quality of this image, as well as the replaceability, not because it was close to another FP. I agree that there's value, and, as I say, intended to support when I saw the thumbnail. J Milburn (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the mosquito is not rare, getting a good feeding shot is not as easy as it may sound. The only other images of a related subject I found were Noodle snacks File:Mosquito Tasmania crop.jpg which is taken at 2:1 and not much larger than this one (taken at 1:1, equipment limitation) and File:Anopheles albimanus mosquito.jpg produced by the US govt which has improper focus. While NS image is great (already an FP), it is of a different species, does not show the blood filled abdomen quite well and has hairs which I personally find distracting. --Muhammad(talk) 04:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but, as has been said many a time, the fact that your image serves the purpose better than others, does not mean it should be featured. Sorry, this one does not hit the quality bar needed for FP, in my eyes. J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2010 at 16:16:17 (UTC)
Original - Not for voting - Leucopsar rothschildi - Bali Myna(h) or Rothchild's Mynah at the Milwaukee County Zoological Gardens in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.Alternate - Leucopsar rothschildi - Bali Myna(h) or Rothchild's Mynah at the Milwaukee County Zoological Gardens in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. AmericanXplorer13 (talk)
Reason
High quality beautiful photo showing detail of Bali Mynah
Weak oppose Although it's a nice photo, the reflections on the glass cage bars (esp. the vertical lines above the bird) makes this picture appear unprofessional.
Oppose actually, after looking at it full size, it seems to be not sharp at all. Seeing as this is at a zoo, this picture is reproducible. ugh.. sorry for changing my decision so many times.
Let's be careful with "reproducible": this is a critically endangered species with only few specimens surviving ("a total of 65 adults and 62 young present in 2009" (IUCN) and "about 1,000 are believed to survive in captivity".) --Elekhh (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A bit fuzzy at the edges, can still see a little bit of the bars, but great chest detail. VeryPunny 00:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During this recent nom, I was struck by how good it was to have high-quality lab shots of both a larva and an adult of the species. This shot has clear EV separate from the last, and the quality is excellent.
Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose The quality is not so good (tight crop that probably could be fixed, not very sharp head, that is harder to fix), but it is not the main reason for opposing the image. This is yet another image of a dead fish tells no story abut it. It does not show the most important characteristic - an ability of those fishes to camouflage themselves at any surface. Compare for example to this image.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It appears to be missing all of it's scales?
Oppose, as per above comments — quality isn't great and this image isn't visually striking. The black makes it a yawn. --BookswormTalk? 21:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm clearly alone in thinking this is feature-worthy- consider the nomination withdrawn. J Milburn (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I noticed the quality of the specimen when I nominated the previous one, but I got unsure after realizing that the specimen is dead.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 00:00:09 (UTC)
mollusks
with its nematocyst-laden tentacles and bringing the prey into its body for digestion, but is capable of only limited motion; like other jellies it primarily drifts with the current even when it is swimming.Alt - denoised background.
Reason
This is highly educational because you can see the internal organs, and the teensy angelic threads at the back (stinging as they may be) are a brilliant finishing touch. Crystal sharp and just about sufficient resolution.
Oppose Pretty in thumbnail, but poor quality. --Avenue (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What issues are there with the quality? It seems fine to me, could the opposers please describe/qualify? If it looks soft/blurry like jelly, that's because it's a jellyfish. The transluceny, organs, gelatinous appearance, and the fine fringe are captured well, imo.
I feel like the plane of focus should be on the front of the jellyfish rather than the tentacles at the back. The subjective result is that it looks out of focus. The photographer also could have stopped down and used flash to get the whole thing sharp.
Because if those are legit opposes, this should not be promoted. +6-3 is borderline ("If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis.") but tends to fail. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to get into legitimacy, it seems Mbz1 will oppose anything taken in an aquarium, even if it derives its EV from being an aquarium shot. Noodle snacks and Avenue make a strong argument- if this is worthy of FP, it is only just. J Milburn (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to several points:
a) one being that Avenue hasn't made an argument at all—a vague reference to "quality" is all we have and is left entirely unsubstantiated. (Ditto Mbz1's.)
b) Secondly, no one has yet, in fact, said how this lacks in quality. Noodle's response, while I appreciate his explanation, only addresses technique and how it could have been improved. The flash suggestion seems off to me, anyway, as anything but a professional set-up would result in just a huge reflection bouncing off the glass.
You wouldn't get such a reflection if you put the lens up against the glass surface.
c) To Makeemlighter, this makes it clear that 6-3 is considered by the community to be a promotion, so I'm not sure where you got "tends to fail". In any case, I don't see any evidence that the three opposes have more legitimacy than the six supports. I'm concerned by the MER-C-esque approach to this closure, which, as we know, often gave most of us an unhappy and disgruntled time.
Okay, to clarify, my "poor quality" comment referred partly to the 4-5 black patches (dust spots?) visible in the background above and right of the jellyfish, but more importantly to the noise, particularly as it affects many of the trailing threads on the sides. --Avenue (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, a retouched version should be made! Noise reduction in mostly uniform dark blue and removal of black patches should be easy enough.
The black patches would be easy to fix, yes, but the noise is not just in uniform areas. It makes many threads on the sides fade in and out of visibility along their length, or merge with adjacent ones. These would not be at all easy to fix IMO, hence my oppose !vote. I would be more generous regarding noise if the image was a good size, but this is pretty small. --Avenue (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay, I denoised the background but the tentacles are harder to fix, and denoising would lose data. I just got my new IPS monitor today and I have to say, upon closer inspection, the background is really a mess! Not only were there black splotches, there are also random white spots - I cleaned up all of those.
Thanks for the work. But—the jellyfish is in "inhabited" water, so I think the random flecks and spots were appropriate. It now looks like a fake or studio background, uniform and "perfect". This should be a promotion for the original, and the image can then be nominated for delisting or for replacing with the edit, if anyone feels strongly about it.
Comment IMO this is a promote. however, disregarding votes is a risky business and all 3 oppose should be taken into consideration. Reminds me of this --Muhammad(talk) 10:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding Maedin's earlier point that "If it looks soft/blurry like jelly, that's because it's a jellyfish," I have to agree: the
Request: Would Makeemlighter or someone uninvolved please close the nomination now? Two who have opposed have made explanations which are different from each other and which do not bring up anything to prevent this from being promoted. It was a promotion to begin with and remains so.
Comment because I can't decide, the composition seems off too me. Too tight on the right, too loose at the top and bottom, or something I can't put my finger on. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided an alt crop. I don't have a particular preference. Processing might be marginally different.
Weak support original -- technical quality is excellent and good EV. I agree with the above comments about composition. The alt crop is OK, but I think I'd prefer to see less space below the bird and more (or the same as there is now) above it. Everything is too central at the moment. A much tighter crop might also work: I don't think it's essential to preserve the reflected neck and head.
Weak oppose: I think the composition of the alt is acceptable and it's a good swimming capture, but opposing because of overexposure at the head and neck (and the small part on the side, but if it were only there I would probably forgive it).
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2010 at 05:12:44 (UTC)
Original - Short-beaked Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus setosus), Mount Field National Park, Tasmania, Australia
Reason
It is nice to get a wild one on the move. Echidnas "dig in" hiding the face and legs when a predator is spotted. There is an Echidna FP already, but it is a different subspecies.
Doesn't look like a brush/clone mark - probably either dust on the sensor or something in the air out of the plane of focus. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 22:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It most of the little critter is out of focus. It would not be impossible to take a photo without this problem. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the Echidna is on the move. So if one stopped down to f/8, then you'd need ISO 3200 (and there would be a lot of noise). Besides, the only thing out of focus is some spines, no EV is lost.
He doesn't have to be on the move to take a photo of him, and how can you say that losing some focus on some spines in unimportant? It's an echidna! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But plenty of spines are in focus. The ones that are not in focus don't necessarily tell us anything about the spines that the in-focus ones do not. But I agree with you, the difficulty of conditions for this particular photo aren't sufficient to justify a support vote when superior lighting conditions are conceivable. But I quite like the diffuse lighting. If it were taken on a sunny day in broad daylight, I don't think it would be as aesthetically pleasing. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 09:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think it's of good quality. Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2010 at 16:36:45 (UTC)
European Garden Spider
(Araneus diadematus) waiting for prey. Notice the characteristic croce-like pattern on the abdomen and the signal thread connecting one of the legs to the web.
Reason
A detailed and good quality depiction of the species in its natural environment, adding to the article
I noticed that too but, though it doesn't mention it explicitly in the article, this seems to be a nocturnal beast so you'd pretty much have to use a flash to get the picture.--RDBury (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so, the picture was taken by day (check EXIF info) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Maybe it is a very accurate picture, but I couldn't tell what it was until I read it was a spider. The article has other pictures which I think show it more clearly.Anoldtreeok (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment Actually, I can see it now having found out what it is, and looking at it at full res it's quite clear. I think this may be just a case of something not looking right when made smaller. So, I'll undo my previous vote for now, but won't support just yet. Anoldtreeok (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It looks as though a flash was used and it portrayed a harsh shadow behind the subject. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so worried about the flash, but I think this image is much clearer and more interesting. Thoughts? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that image is better, but don't think looking at the bottom of the spider is the best view. Anoldtreeok (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Eisfbnore (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and recommend withdrawal. Unfortunately this image is below our size requirements of at least 1000px on its longest side. Other than that however it is a superb portrait, and I would most likely support given a larger image. Jujutaculartalk 00:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yeah, really far too small. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support But any chance of cloning out the red building on the right? Is that too much editing for a FP? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is - the building is actually there, so cloning it is misleading.
Comment: Since we don't have an article on the subject itself, could someone add some description to the image page? Who designed it, why is it so assymmetrical, what's with the european-looking brick column with statues? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those 'blown-out highlights' are really just getting the right exposure to make up for the overcast sky. You can see a person with an umbrella. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the bottom part of the monument is cropped out of the image.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2010 at 01:04:19 (UTC)
Original - Worst lead image on Wikipedia? Can we do better?
Reason
This is not a normal nomination, nor is it a joke, rather it is a challenge to the photography geniuses at FPC to produce a decent image for the lead of the
or anything other than a mason jar or paper cup! Whoever comes up with the best replacement wins a Photography Barnstar (and possibly gets their photograph featured).
Alternate 1 - AmericanXplorer13 (talk) - Quick photo I took of gasoline in a shot glass... No measurements on side of glass, maybe I will photograph that this weekend...
—Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC).
Meh as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per nom :-) I think I can produce a better shot in a few days, once I get back home. --Muhammad(talk) 04:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts - perhaps a combination of items would serve best as the lead image. A gasoline can and a filled graduated cylinder and... set on a plain white or black background. Jujutaculartalk 04:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nominator's decision to Oppose (c wat I did thar lolol) give me a few days! AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try to shoot on a white background with good lighting, it would look great with some light caustics. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't use candlelight ;) Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh both, too. Do we really need this? Filling a liquid and stating, it is gasoline, is not really clever, since nobody of us can proof it. And the pictures are really boring and not really eye-catching. That's my oppinion.--
You know what would make a great FP? An animation of a candle lighting gasoline on fire!!! Yay! AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The petrol around here usually is marked with a coloured dye. Does anyone actually have access to the strictly pure stuff?
I would mail you some, but you can't airmail anything flammable in the US. Stupid safety regulations! What color is the gas/petrol in Oz? Kaldari (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our pure stuff looks like water. I'm going to get a photo in a measuring shot glass. I wonder if someone might take it for Everclear... AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unleaded is kind of purple, Premium is yellow, iirc Diesel is Red. Turns out there is an article on it
Comment on Alternate 1 - I like the photo. Maybe a container that doesn't suggest drinking would be more appropriate though. Kaldari (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have one question on the alternate. What colour is the surface behind? White balance might need correction if it is white.
Comment -- I fail to understand why we a need a picture depicting gasoline. Why not also urine, tea, white wine, etc? Can we really see the difference between them? Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both I don't like the Alt because, unless the background is some sort of beige (a queer choice), the white balance is way off; the cup is not centered (more space on the left, perhaps); and, as Nergaal pointed out, it is strange to put gasoline in a cup and may mislead readers into trying dangerous things (like drinking it, lol).
Anyone can buy beakers and flasks and such, they're only a couple bucks each available at a zillion retailers. What country is it hard to buy lab equipment in? It's not illegal in the united states to buy any lab equipment glassware, in any quantity.... Not even suspicious really... Certain chemicals, yea, but equipment, no. — raekyt 05:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commendations on the experimental FPC. If other pictures are produced, additional nominations are encouraged. Jujutaculartalk 04:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2010 at 03:44:04 (UTC)
Original - Not for voting - Baltic amber inclusions - 40-50 million years old. The ant is about 8 mm long - measured in the position seen in the picture.Alternate - Not for voting - Nominated by AmericanXplorer13 (talk) - Alternate of the same photo, this currently isn't on any articles, but if it get's featured, it would replace the current original.Voting Alternate - Nominated and Edited by AmericanXplorer13 (talk) - Edited version of the alternate previously provided, removes shadow and random blue spot, etc.Voting Alternate 2 - Nominated and Edited by AmericanXplorer13 (talk) - Cropped out portion of fingers, gave it a 3:2 aspect ratio.
Reason
High quality and amazing photo of an ant trapped in Baltic Amber
I think that the fingers give a good sense of size. Most people have never seen a bug trapped in amber and don't know exactly how big (or small) it is. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 2 It is a more interesting picture and fingers give some sense of scale.
Support Alt 2only if the weird shadow on the left side is removed. It's a pity that the alt, which has far superior composition, doesn't have the sheer resolution of the original.
I'm always in awe of Eric's maps. I've created quite a few maps using his instructions and assistance (only 1 is uploaded). However,
WP:WPMAPS say "Only .svg (vector) and .png (raster) images are to be used for unanimated maps." Jpegs really are an unsuitable format for displaying maps. There is an .svg alternative, File:Florida topographic map-en.svg and I would support that without hesitation. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Switched. I just used the jpg because it was already in the article. Changed out, citing policy. Jujutaculartalk 04:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks great. We really need more maps of this quality. P. S. Burton (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I never vote on maps but this one looks very good indeed. Attention was given to the detail and the result is both aesthetically attractive and clear. Congratulations! A question to Sting: why is the distance scale designed this way?-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alvesgaspar! Such a nice coment from a cartographer is always very valuable and pleasing. The projection is an Albers equal-area and the linear scale along the meridians is not constant like it could be in a polyconic projection for example. That's why, in a search of precision, I indicate the horizontal linear scale variation between the top and the bottom of the map. And thanks to all for supporting my work!
In the Albers projection the scale along the meridians does not vary linearly: it reaches a maximum value at the standard parallel (or at a latitude situated between the two standard parallels), decreasing from there to north (to 0, at the pole) and to south. In my opinion the graphical scale should reflect only the principal scale of the chart (which is the scale along the standard parallels) and the latitudes of the standard parallels should be identified in the legend. Any other solution is confusing. By the way, the scale along the meridians is not constant in the polyconic projection; but the scale along parallels is! Carry on with the good job! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent map, easy to read and aesthetically pleasing --BookswormTalk? 21:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support HQ image and good details. SMasters (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2010 at 16:25:39 (UTC)
Original - CAMP KOREAN VILLAGE, Iraq (May 15, 2007) – Sergeant Christopher L. McCabe fires his rifle during monthly range training here May 15. The Marines and sailors of Detachment 1, Combat Logistics Battalion 2, 2nd Marine Logistics Group (Forward), provide necessities and services to coalition forces throughout the area of operations. McCabe, a Bellaire, Ohio, native, is the staff noncommissioned officer-in-charge of the maintenance section, Det 1, CLB-2, 2nd MLG (Fwd).Alternate - AmericanXplorer13 (talk) - Edited from original, removed dust specks, cropped out side of target.
Comment: I was going to oppose, as it is just another image in a column of images which show the gun being used (a gallery in every way apart from technically) but then I saw its prominent usage on Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight. I'd say it has significantly higher EV in the latter article. J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The EV's not blowing me away. Just because it's an old photo, doesn't mean we should feature it. J Milburn (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support indeed has a lot of EV. I don't really like the strange shape of the photo and the resultant white border, but I suppose nothing can be done about it.
Iconic, gorgeous image of the singer, recently dedicated to the public domain. (Maybe could use a tiny touch-up to remove dust/scratches. Thoughts?) This collection has a ton more images that probably should be featured - have a look!
Oppose. It's great to have it, but I'm not really feeling the composition or crop- it doesn't actually do a great job of showing us what she looked like. You're also right about it needing a clean. J Milburn (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could use a bit of dust/scratch/hair removal. The hair at the top of the photo is a bit distracting for example Kaldari (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose per Milburn. Is not too encyclopedic because, in an encyclopedia, a portrait is supposed to show what the person looks like.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2010 at 06:00:21 (UTC)
Original - A cutaway of a steam locomotive, with a numerical guide to the parts. Full guide at Steam locomotive components.
Reason
Here be a beautiful illustration of the inner workings of a steam locomotive, albeit with some parts present and missing due to engineering difference between the various types of steam locomotives throughout the years. A key for the image can be found in the article Steam locomotive components which also features this image prominently. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMVHO the colours are really weak. I'd prefer something stronger. Also, it would helpful to add the key to the image page. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would really, really like to see this made in SVG! About weak colors, this version already has corrected colors (see file history). Also,
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2010 at 08:55:25 (UTC)
Original - Red-capped Plover (Charadrius ruficapillus), Orford, Tasmania, Australia
Reason
I think I crawled about 500m on my belly during the course of the day where I got this shot. Heat haze became a very significant problem during the middle of the day (I couldn't get a sharp shot until some cloud cover came for a while). This is the best image available by far of a small and fairly wary species.
Support. Another good shot. In this case, even though DOF is shallow, you get a really good sense of the environment with the shells dotted around, and the hint of the shore behind. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 09:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, I'm not as sure about this one, but I do love the shells, as Diliff says. J Milburn (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good image, but tail is a bit out of focus.
Support somehow I get the feeling that the focus is not quite right; i.e. it is focused on its wing instead of its eye and beak or something. Not sure, but it seems sharp and encyclopedic enough to deserve my support.
Support. A touch overexposed perhaps? But good to get the detail in the darker feathers anyway. Looks like you caught this one in the act, has a guilty look on its face. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 09:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Something doesn't look quite right, but I'm not certain what. May be mild overexposure, I want to say "oversharpened", but I think that's wrong. In any case, worthy of promotion. Again, do we know the sex? J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the cuckoo I don't think one can tell from the photo. I might post a slightly darkened edit tomorrow for your consideration.
Support. Great 'action' shot. I'd be surprised if you have trouble getting this one through, the composition is excellent. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 09:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm always impressed by people who can photograph birds this well; I guess there's a reason I stick to mushrooms! Is this a male or a female? J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my books and so on I don't think this species exhibits plumage sexual dimorphism, so I'm afraid not.
Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wow, creepy and unique. Resolution isn't great but detail is sufficient for the subject. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 14:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Not the best resolution, and the EV on this image isn't the best. Honestly, I haven't ever heard of this person, and the article attached to it isn't very long and descriptive.AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - I just saw that the image is also on the Steampunk article, it has a better EV there than on the author's own page. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support very excellent depiction of steampunkness! I just wish the resolution was higher... it is not even one megapixel! Otherwise, I would have given it a full support. :(
Support A hi-res version was just put up on Wikimedia Commons, so hopefully the automagic takes place. Either way, this image is excellent, a great example for the Steampunk article. Battlemonk (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per nom. SMasters (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about a little glitz and glamour, season-themed? :) Considering the huge technical challenge presented by the scene, this has been excellently done. Put together with 51 images (and x 3 exposures)!
Oppose - It looks great small, but the problem you are going to have with images you stitch is ghosting. When viewed at a higher resolution, you start to see double images of people, some people cut in half, etc. It just begins to look chaotic. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't think the issues with ghosting are to do with stitching (and there isn't a single person cut in half that I can see), but I don't know for sure how it's been processed. In any case, I don't think that they're at all important when you're looking at the image. Surely the architecture, decorations and interesting projection is the eye-catching thing about it. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 22:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An example of a ghosted person is under the tree on the left side. It's not as bad as being cut in half, but it's noticeable.
Support the eye-catching quality and EV of this photo outweighs the few technical weaknesses. To have no blurry people, one would need to open up the aperture (thus softening the image) or bump up the ISO (thus introducing noise), and I think the slight blurriness is preferable to lack of sharpness or noise, since you're not supposed to be staring at the people instead (you're supposed to be looking at the architecture and the Christmas tree). Also, ghosted people are typically unavoidable in a large stitched image, and a single fisheye lens usually has less resolution and my previous point still stands.
Weak support I do agree with Nergaal on the blurred ghosting, especially in the middle. It's so blurred you can't even make out what it is. Otherwise, it's an excellent piece. SMasters (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. It's an amazing image. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! The vapor dome around the ash cloud is amazing. Is there any more info about that? This picture should be featured in volcanoShroomydan. (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There should be an estimate on the altitude from where the photo was taken.
Nergaal (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It was taken by the International Space Station so 350 km up. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image description for the alternative version covers this, and gives a lot more detail. --Avenue (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original; support alternative. The alternative version has better quality, most clearly in avoiding the burnt highlights in the vapour dome and the noise in the sea to the left of the eruption column. I'm not convinced that the colour changes introduced by the Flickr uploader are realistic, either. --Avenue (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original upload was unrealistically bright, and that's why the image I nominated was created. At least for me, the alt loses the immediate "wow" factor because it's rather dark, but I do suppose it's a better edit. Either way, I like both images. ceranthor 12:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original upload from Flickr had more immediate wow than either version here, too. That's fine in the Flickr context. But given Wikipedia's objectives, we put more emphasis on accuracy and technical quality than they generally seem to on Flickr. Maybe my edit is too bland (although the contrast is increased from the NASA original); I'd welcome further improvements. But I think it meets our criteria much better than the original nom. --Avenue (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, guess my lack of familiarity with videos showed there. I thought it was too small, but if it's FP-worthy we might as well add it. ceranthor 13:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support either per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose both The top image is a little tilted, the bottom image looks a little too much on the blue side, but otherwise they're good. If the color of the first picture could be combined with the orientation of the second, it'd be quite good, and IMHO would easily make Featured Picture status. VeryPunny 00:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're concerned about the colours, the original NASA photo might be a useful comparison. The alt was darkened, but the colours were otherwise unchanged from the NASA original. --Avenue (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't clear, I prefer the Alternative. (And I do not see a large overexposed area on a key feature as a mere technicality.) --Avenue (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative as per Purpy Pupple and Avenue. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I honestly thought that this was a photo taken within the last few years, not one hundred years ago! This is amazing! --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Yeah, it's a nice photo for its time, but that doesn't mean it's worthy of being a FP. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has an excellent quality, what do you want more?--
That's totally unnecessary. Please learn to accept constructive criticism without taking personal offence. Try and take a more professional approach next time you make contributions to this site.-- mcshadyplTC 03:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't insult, that was just my opinion. Yes, maybe I overstated, but that wasn't crossly meant.--
Quality is not everything, the encyclopedic value of an image is far more important; perhaps you would prefer the Commons FPC. The other pictures you link are of notable subjects; this one is not. In any case, you'll note I did not support either of them... J Milburn (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EV stands for Encyclopedic Value - "Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. The image is used in one or more articles. A picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value." Also "An image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article, rather than contributing weakly to many. Adding an image to numerous articles to gain EV is counterproductive and may antagonize both FPC reviewers and article editors." That said, I vote Support. Awesome image, great historical value, and good enough EV. We've got an article about the photographer, guys! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, erm, every picture he's taken has EV enough for a FP? J Milburn (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
who are you talking about , j milburn. I personally agree with Noodle Snacks about the EV and I Oppose it.Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it has good EV (unless those are not actual traditional clothes).
Oppose the image quality is not stellar. Unless nobody wears these kinds of clothes anymore, it should be possible to take better pictures of people wearing them. Besides, sitting on the grass is not the best way to showcase the traditional clothes.
Oppose I agree that the picture is not particularly stellar. Somehow it doesn't scream FP to me on technical aspects. SMasters (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sourcing and other information on the alt is substandard. Can we please have that fixed? J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV, rare, historical and really good quality. FP for me --George Chernilevskytalk 10:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2010 at 18:28:34 (UTC)
Original - Dale Earnhardt, Jr. during a pit stop at Darlington Raceway in 2008.
Reason
I believe that it is detailed and clear. I have also had it peer reviewed. However, one suggested increasing the ev, but I have no possible way of doing it.
Support as nominator --Citron (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The image isn't on any wikipedia pages as of this comment. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm glad to see that it's on a page. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not used in any articles. Also, the foxes (especially the front one) don't look totally realistic/natural. I can't pinpoint exactly what's wrong (something with its neck/shoulders?)q, but it makes more sense to use a photo... Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hum... What do you mean? You should especially look at this picture as a work of art : composition, execution, colors... This painting does not pretend to surpass a photo.
If we should look as it as a work of art, then it doesn't have a lot of EV for Red fox when photos will do a better job of illustrating it. If the EV is in the art, then it should be in an article that relates to it as art... IMO. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 10:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose since it now looks like it has some EV. I'm not sure it's a great enough reproduction/image to be FP - I'll leave that to others to decide. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Quality illustration but low EV in the article. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 10:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done If that's all what is needed.--Citron (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Better EV now that it illustrates the author. Could do with some minor touching up on what looks like dust spots though? Ðiliff«»(Talk) 14:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, EV now clear, quality obvious. The colours look right, but do we know the dimensions of the original? I'm just wondering if there has been any cropping. Less important for an illustration than a work of fine art, but still fairly important. (Also, if we're promoting this as art, which I think we should, it belongs in a different FP category.) J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support not that outstanding as an art, but I agree with JM about the category.
A great photo of jazz icon Cab Calloway. A better image in terms of showing what he looks like compared to the Billie Holiday photo below. Extra EV from seeing him singing. I love that the sheet music includes some of his trademark slang words like "hep".
Support For its historical value. SMasters (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the dark vertical lines are repaired. I will support if that's fixed. Jujutaculartalk 15:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the paneling in the wall. Is that something that's permissible to clone out? I can make a version without the lines later today, but I'm not sure it's desirable... Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! You're right. It would probably be undesirable to clone out in that case. I support. Jujutaculartalk 18:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It's just a distracting background for a B&W picture.
Nergaal (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
If the lines were damages to the image, sure, but in this case they were physically there on the wall behind him. It's fairly insignificant, so I wouldn't oppose if it were changed, but for me digital manipulation should only be used to restore what was originally there. Jujutaculartalk 02:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good EV. I can't believe what great details you have got, not just of the bird but of the insect being fed as well. --Muhammad(talk) 05:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to put the approximate height of the frame in the description, but a scale should not be put in the picture itself or it would ruin all the aesthetics.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2010 at 08:28:57 (UTC)
Original - Little Penguin (Eudyptula minor) family exiting burrow, Bruny Island, Tasmania, Australia
Reason
Another high EV image. Certainly something that it isn't possible to replicate in a zoo. The image was taken at night with three off-camera flashes. Flash isn't allowed at the observation platform. I had to wait until 11pm one night before everyone left so I could set up to start shooting. Because of the larger audience and educational the use of flash here is ethically justifiable. The penguins are used to torch light anyway and didn't react significantly to the flash either. I also limited the number of exposures to reduce my impact.
Support. This is just amazing. The timing is great even with the amount of setup it must have taken. No umbrellas though? ;-) --Dschwen 16:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A bit windy methinks, and I'd crush a dozen burrows (mostly owned by
Support -- stunning picture. One very minor comment: above the head of the middle bird I'm seeing a slight unevenness in the texture of two bits of grass, which is perhaps the result of merging the two exposures. It looks like there's a hard line running from coordinates 1075,177 to 1115,177. Might be worth taking a look at this if you upload an alt version.
Support!!! Love it! But in the spirit of NFU, the two left most pieces of vertical grass above the right penguin have a bit of a ghosting effect going on. Possible to fix this? I'd give it 2 supports if you can :) Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also some strange texture above the left penguin at the very top of the picture. But just to repeat, love the photo! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the exif again, it is 30cm high on the focus plane. I'm not going to go adding scale bars and stuff though - the penguins are not standing up straight, and applying a 2d scale bar to a 3d image is problematic at best.
Oppose The flash lighting is too stark, and casts a distracting beak shadow on the third bird. It seems unnecessary for a bird that's active during the day too. The head of the bird on the right seems a bit divorced from its body - is that from the compositing? --Avenue (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be, the left hand bird is the one that had it's head from another (consecutive) shot. The adults are active during the day - but out to sea fishing. The juveniles spend the day in the burrow out of sight. Every available day time photo of adults on land is either taken at a zoo or on land. Thus, night time shot is required for wild birds and most encyclopaedic.
Sorry I was wrong about the right hand bird. Here's an exception to your rule about photos of adults (although the quality is nowhere near as good as your shot). --Avenue (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Eudyptula minor family exiting burrow.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A simple, high quality image of a recently reconstructed highway. There is enough detail to see rumble strips at the bottom of the image yet there's enough clarity to see a highway interchange in the distance. The photograph also displays high mast lighting, paved shoulders, on/off ramps and merging points. The picture has a refreshing look to it as the photo was just taken after a thunderstorm pounded the area with heavy rainfall.
Oppose. Yeah, sorry; it's gonna be a very difficult shot to do eyecatchingly well, but the grey road, grey cars and grey sky... J Milburn (talk) 01:24, 11
December 2010 (UTC)
Comment Would colour enhancements help? I uploaded the original file so editing the picture would be easier. I appreciate the feedback guys! Haljackey (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rarely would colour enhancements help a photo that is mostly grey. Anyhow, I still made a retouched version. Maybe you should try again when the sky looks more interesting! Also, try using a neutral density filter and taking a really long exposure so that all the cars turn into long streaks, just for fun.
Wow! Really nice work with the retouch! I Support Alternate. Thanks for the tips too! Long exposure looks especially awesome at night. Haljackey (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I would like to Withdraw this nomination. The alternative is better and will replace the original photo. Thanks for the feedback! Perhaps I'll try out another time! Haljackey (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the photo meets all the requirements. It has already been defined in the press as a photo of historical value (see here), so I guess it should be fine.
Oppose to be honest when I saw the thumb, before reading the caption I thought that there is a female near a giant shoe. Anyways, the angle is not ideal, and the wife does not look like is mourning or anything.
Oppose per above. I also thought it was a giant shoe (but I have to say that it is an unusually nice coffin). SMasters (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2010 at 05:12:04 (UTC)
Original - Shia muslims in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania listening to a lecture, one of the activities in the Mourning of Muharram.Alt 1
Reason
The Mourning of Muharram has begun so I remembered to nominate this image from last year. Contrary to what is seen in the media, the vast majority of the people commemorate the occasion peacefully without any bloody activities. IMO this image counters the bias and adds EV to the articles by showing what a majlis looks like. The image has been stable in the articles for over 7 months.
Oppose I just don't view either of these as worthy of FP status. They don't add very much to the article, and there is nothing particularly striking about them. -- mcshadyplTC 03:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support orig as it has good EV; although some blue level reduction would help.
But it doesn't have a scale, Nergaal! :P Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
PS. How could you have supported this with no scale! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Your main reason listed is "political", but the photo's just not outstanding. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, got agree with the above opposers. J Milburn (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with the above opposers. Definitely, the original could just be a bunch of people in a room, and the alt is not stunning technically. LOL Aaadddaaammm, you make me laugh! SMasters (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --QuAzGaA 19:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there a reason for the line down the middle? Can it be removed? SpencerT♦C 01:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the line is a direct result of combining the image from 2 seperate ones. This action was performed before the LOC uploaded it to their library. QuAzGaA 15:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The
Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop can remove that line. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Another question. Is there any historical significance to this map from the 1950s? I see that it's the only topographical map in the article but I'm not convinced that it's the sort of image that I'd like to see featured. It's old enough that I'd have some doubts about the accuracy of the topography, but new enough that I'm not sure if there is significant historical importance for it - it's not a rare old map like we havepreviouslyfeatured, for example. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise though. It's definitely high res and quite detailed. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 12:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is historical significance to this image. However, I should note that "Historical Significane" is not a FP criteria for inclusion. It is used only as an exemption to meeting these criteria. The nomination lies primarily on its technical properties, accuracy, and detail. I don't believe there are any Featured Topographic maps in WP or commons that show colored shaded relief to such extent and resolution as this one. Other than accounting for Human Development, and Land slides within the last 60 years, I believe this map to be a highly accurate representation of the total Geography of the Archipelago of Puerto Rico for its age. QuAzGaA 15:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've missed my point though. It's not about whether it's specifically in the criteria, but whether there is anything about the image that gives it particularly good EV. Historical significance is one of those things that could get it over the line. And when I referred to it being from the 1950s, I meant more in terms of the ability to accurately map the topgography to modern standards without the aid of GPS, satellites, etc. Because unless there is historical significance, I can't see why we shouldn't be evaluating it against modern standards. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 16:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I thought I addressed your point above when I said that I don't believe it has any historical significance. What interests me here is the evaluation to "modern standards" that you mentioned. Is this evaluation seperate from the
Featured picture criteria? Should a "modern" evaluation be applied to the methods in making a Topographic map with 1950's technology? As for a Wikipedia relative comparison evaluation, my biased opinion is that this image will fit nicely with other non-historical Featured Maps thus meeting criterion 3. QuAzGaA 19:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
You did address my point in the sense that you did admit it has no historical significance, but you didn't seem to (originally) catch my point about how historical importance can make the difference between something having enough EV or not, so that's why I elaborated. And 'modern standards' is not strictly part of the criteria - the criteria can't mention everything. The aim of the criteria is to provide a framework for us to evaluate the image, but exactly how we evaluate the image depends largely on what type of image it is. In this case, if a map does not have historical significance, I would expect to evaluate it on modern standards. I'm not arguing whether or not it *IS* accurate by the way. I can't say my knowledge of topographical standards and technology is good enough to make a fair judgement. I'm just raising the issue that it may not be, by modern standards, as accurate as it should be. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 10:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but it is nowhere near the quality of the Florida FLC below; and being so recent does not justify being a jpeg as opposed to a svg.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. This map was printed in 1952! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nonsense if you interpret the comment to mean that any 'modern era' map should be in SVG format if the intention is for it to be as useful and accurate as possible, but I admit I don't know whether this was actually Nergaal's intention... and I know there is some disagreement on that anyway, since SVG is infinitely scalable and there is no way of knowing to what extent it is accurate. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 19:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe this image should be compared to "modern" SVG's such as the Florida FLC below. My reasoning is that when this map was made, the printing methods used where more artistic in nature than today's Cartoonish SVG's. I believe this map was made to look as the USGS thought it would look from space. Using realistic earth hues and superimposing elevations (tan), Primary roads (black &red), Rivers (blue), and other features to make the best representation of a topographical map of the early 1950's era. I am sure this process was automated, but this was not a digital computerized process of which all SVG's are. Their comparisons should take the form of Appples and Oranges and this image should stand on its own merits. QuAzGaA 20:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why anyone would say the map is not historically significant. I suppose it's again the case of "one man's trash is another man's treasure", and I don't mean this at all in context of the wealthy and the poor, but in the PBS
Cayey. Those of you versed a bit in history know this was the source of an interesting Puerto Rican Court battle some 5 years ago. Also shown is the course of the railroad lines of the American Railroad of PR, something that little was known about before, and partly responsible for the lack of a wikipedia article so far on the subject. Modern maps don't show this. So, yes, this map IS historically important. Of course, if you define historically significant only in the narrowest of all senses, such as "the map is historically significant because it is the map that President Roosevelt handed governor Tugwell during WWII to develop the Puerto Rico road system to wartime standards", or something along those lines, then it would fail to be historically significant... but then you are missing the whole meaning and value of what history is all about - that its not just a collection of dates, people's names and places. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply
]
You can argue that, but it needs to be shown through the encyclopaedia IMO (the articles that it's in etc), not just if you're well versed in Puerto Rican history and can intuit the EV by looking at the map directly. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 14:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but that's precisely my point: I just showed it to you. It's just that some people may never see it. Regards. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
It sounds like you are suggesting that unless you're well versed in Puerto Rican history, then you have no hope of appreciating the EV of the image. In that case, it doesn't have EV as far as I'm concerned. This is an encyclopaedia, not an academic journal. If the EV of the image isn't self-evident, then at the very least the article should provide it. If it doesn't, then it's not as valuable as it should be. If you think you've just showed me the EV, then incorporate it into the article. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 13:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose' I am not wading through the comments above to see if this is mentioned, but at full res the two halves of this photo (opposite sides of the dark line) don't line up. In fact they seem to be on different scales with parts lining up too high and other parts too low.--
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2010 at 21:59:07 (UTC)
Original - Headquarters of the Ural Railway Administration in the city of PermAlternative by Purpy Pupple: Retouched, removed dust and scratches, colour enhanced, contrast improved, slight tone mapping.
Oppose, it's only used in galleries. The EV is questionable at best, and I see no reason why a stronger modern shot would not be preferable. J Milburn (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a stronger modern shot would not be preferable because the place now looks much worse [3].
Comment: I note some of the alts have sloppy sourcing/author info, or lack it entirely. Please be careful, and please take those details seriously. J Milburn (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the sloppy alts have been removed and the remaining one that I made has correct sourcing/author info as far as I know.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2010 at 00:14:10 (UTC)
Original - Reproduction of Jorge de Aguiar's chart of the Mediterranean, Western Europe and African Coast (1492). The oldest known signed and dated chart of Portuguese origin. Size of the origial: 1030 x 770 mm (Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, University of Yale, New Have, USA).
Reason
One of the very few high quality reproductions of portolan charts available in Commons
Comment Is the orientation correct? Or should it be rotated 90 degrees clockwise? SMasters (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same thing too, but then a closer inspection reveals that there appear to be words oriented in all kinds of directions so I suppose the orientation doesn't really matter.
It appears to have a heading at the top (now left). Also, if it was rotated, half of it need not be read upside down, but sideways. SMasters (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- This is the common modern way of depicting the portolan charts, with the north-south axis of the Mediterranean shown as a vertical. At the time, there was no 'correct way' of orienting nautical charts: they were put in the positions that best fitted the present navigational use on board. As in all charts of this type, the geographical names were written perpendicularly to the coastline, as to avoid hiding important information, and their orientation changed throughout the chart, according to the orientation of the coastlines. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the explanation. It is fascinating indeed! SMasters (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool.
Nergaal (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
Strong support I saw this photo when looking into the photographer. The photo is amazing quality for 1912. I would support it even if it was taken in the present time! --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose although the photo is certainly very impressive for its time, modern photographs should far surpass the quality. Since I presume the bridge has not changed much since the time that photo was taken, a better photograph should be possible. Notice that since three exposures were taken to achieve this color photo, areas with motion (especially the reflection in the water) tend to get strange color shadows, an unavoidable artifact of the technique used. Furthermore, the resolution of the image isn't particularly strong either (although, as I said, very good for 1912).
Aww, that's a shame, I think it looks nicer in green! I guess I'll neutral for now, since I'm still slightly irked by the colour artifacts in the water reflections...
Comment: We are leading an article on an active railway with a very old picture of a bridge that now looks completely different, and everyone's sitting here saying it should be a featured picture? Am I missing something here? J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it should be the lead image, but I don't think it detracts from its value if it isn't. If something is 100 years old, then it should be illustrated at various points in its history.
Granted, if possible, but remember the article is on a long stretch of railway, not on this bridge in particular. J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kama River. In Trans-Siberian Railway and Eurasian Land Bridge, it is the lead image, but I strongly disagree with that placement. For the railway article, there should be a map that is first, not just a bridge on which you can't even see rails or a train. For the Eurasian Land Bridge, this is an even worse lead image, as the article is about 2 rail systems crossing Eurasia, and maps, not an image of a single bridge, should be in the lead. SpencerT♦C 23:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose per Spencer; an article on the bridge would be necessary for this to have the EV needed to pass FPC.
I'm not sure if your analysis of image vs. article is correct. See point 5 on Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Although we're talking about the image, we must consider the image's placement and value to the articles. SpencerT♦C 18:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know all points and I think this pic is not only with great quality, but also with much EV.
there should be a map that is first, not just a bridge on which you can't even see rails or a train.
There is a map in the infobox, but that's not my fault, that the first image is this bridge and the second a map. Why should there be rails/trains on it? Is it really necessary?
For the Eurasian Land Bridge, this is an even worse lead image, as the article is about 2 rail systems crossing Eurasia, and maps, not an image of a single bridge, should be in the lead.
I think this bridge fits to the lead, since there is no current map available. It is a GA, so anything seems fine. Regards.--
Oppose Per EV concerns, mostly. I'm not convinced that the fact this image is old is adding much. This is also pretty unimpressive as far as images from this collection go - uninteresting, bad composition. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean with "uninteresting", "unimpressive"; what "collection" do you mean? Bridges? It's actually the best composition for this bridge. What composition you would have like to see? What should be done to be more "interesting" and more "impressive"?--
I mean the collection of all the images by this photographer. We have hundreds of these super-old color photos. This is not a particularly good example. As for composition, a shot from the water on a boat would probably better be a better way of showing what the bridge looks like. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good example not for this man, but for the articles
My point is that I don't agree that it's adding much to those articles either. It's badly composed, and the fact that it is old is not really helpful either. Compare this existing FP for an idea of what a good photo of a bridge looks like. If this photo were taken today, it wouldn't stand a chance. And since this bridge hasn't changed much (besides being repainted) there is no reason to use an old photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2010 at 21:02:02 (UTC)
Carcharhinidae
that can grow 10 feet (3.0 m) long. It is a popular choice for study, as it survives well in captivity.
Reason
Great composition, obvious EV, very eye-catching. The quality is not super-high, but it's a big image and an underwater shot, so I think we can let that slide.
Oppose I hadn't noticed the posterisation and compression artifacts, but now that they are mentioned, I no longer think the image has sufficient technical quality to be featured.
Oppose The angle, combined with the remoras, makes it hard to make out what exactly in the photo is the shark's fins. Compare how clear this image and this image are. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While this is nothing on the white shark image, I see it as far stronger, compositionally, than the tiger shark pic. J Milburn (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do these sharks more often than not have remoras? If so, it would be deceptive to use a photo without them. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with JM.
Nergaal (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Striking my support due to the compression artefacts.
Nergaal (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose I agree with Calliopejen1. --Avenue (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Noticeable posterisation, lots of compression artefacts, see top left lighter blue.
Support Alternate -- Very crisp and clear showing great examples of multiple aspects of 3D modeling. I know you modeled this with Rhinoceros, but what did you render with? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternate (the last one). Can you copy all the other details to hte caption directly, rather than just saying "same as". I think all the details give the EV.
Actually, human eyes do see with DOF (try using one eye to look at a finger that is 4 inches from your eye. Does the background appear blurred? Try looking at the background. Does your finger appear blurred?) But usually the short focal length and the high f-number in human eyes prevents one from noticing DOF in everyday situations. In this case, however, Original 2 is used in the
Usually we don't stare at objects with 4-inch distance (and such gazing would ultimately trigger short-sightedness). Every sizeable model like this yields almost no DOF at normal distances and CGI gives an opportunity to avoid it. I think here DOF spoils the entire ray-tracing and photon mapping, affecting the encyclopedic value.
Weak oppose while technically it shows DOF, and ray-tracing well, as a chemist I have a hard time identifying the molecules; for some reason, bunching them together makes the image look pretty, but impossible to understand what molecules it actually depicts. I think taking out one of the molecules or moving them around (while keeping everything else the same) would significantly improve the image.
I understand that, but if the image is not clear on its composition then viewers won't understand what lies behind the fuzziness. Sometimes simpler is better.
Nergaal (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Some clarification, please. Assuming Purpy Pupple also supports the images individually, the Alternate has enough votes to pass. With multiple versions of an image, we replace also usages with the promoted file. In this case, I'm not sure if that's appropriate. Can someone clarify? Should the Alternate, which will be promoted, replace any of the others? Or should everything stay where it is currently? Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support the images individually. I think that the usage of Original 2 can all be replaced by Alternate, but in my personal opinion the Original 1 is more apposite in the
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2010 at 04:50:59 (UTC)
Original - Drawing of female figure with typical elements from manga and anime to illustrate the term ecchi.
Reason
Its a good image. Its featured on Commons,German,Turkish,Spanish wikipedias, Its a quality image and Valued image on commons and was a finalist for picture of the year for 2008. High EV as only image in article. Also we dont have an anime FPs(just saying)
Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is great that this is in SVG. Quality is amongst the best! Since anime is an important part of modern culture, I think that it is important to have at least one anime FP.
That's really not a valid argument. We should not be featuring things just because we consider the subject matter important. J Milburn (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify: this image, of high technical standard and resolution, is among Wikipedia's best work for this subject matter. It also fulfills all of the featured picture criteria. And yes, we should be featuring things for important subject matters, just as how we strive to have a featured picture for each notable species, each chemical element, and so forth.
Oppose, totally not getting this. The article in which the image is used doesn't talk about manga/anime at all, and the caption is completely unenlightening. What on Earth is this actually doing there? J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ecchi in amine/manga(and in this case Hentai) means the character is erotic looking like seen in image. Spongie555 (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely nothing about that in the article, which is about a word, not a genre of manga. J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image is showing what an ecchi anime character looks like and what clothes it would wear. Spongie555 (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. There's nothing about any of this in the article. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is an image representation of the term by making an Illustration of the term in anime form. It helps the reader visualize the meaning of the term Ecchi. Spongie555 (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ecchi is a term that in Japanese language refers to nearly anything that can be considered perverted etc. On the other hand its well known as a genre of anime and manga, which play with this aspect. Don't know why the article does not mention anything about mana or anime, since in "western world" it usually only refers to this kind of illustrations, manga and anime. Definitely a shortcoming of the article.
Robin E. Brenner: Understanding Manga and Anime. Libraries Unlimited, 2007,
An alternate term for hentai, the word comes from the English letter “h.” Ecchi is somewhat gentler than hentai or ero content, usually indicating rampant fan service rather than truly explicit content.
Frederik L. Schodt: Dreamland Japan: Writings on Modern Manga. Stone Bridge Press, 2002,
Ok- then there is a problem with the article, fix it. We can't say "support, should have EV, but doesn't". If there was a sourced section on the term as a genre of anime/manga, and this clearly illustrated the main features, then the EV would be much more clear. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done it as good as i currently could. Someone may correct my spelling errors. Sure i made a lot of them. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it is now clear why an image such as this may belong in the article, but I am afraid I am not completely convinced. We essentially have a picture of a scantily-clad anime girl in an article that discusses, in passing, the genre "ecchi", basically saying that ecchi is less explicit hentai. The EV really isn't blowing me away here, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to see that the term ecchi or after heburn etchi does have two different meanings. On the one hand it is a usual Japanese word to state that something is seen or stated as perverted. Even if the direct translation of "hentai" and "ecchi" is equal in words, ecchi is treated as less harmfull. Comparable to the german words "Perversling" and "Perverser" (last one has a strong negative meaning, first is undecided).
On the other hand we have the genre that is also known beyond japan and which is usually meant when a German, Britain or American "guy" talks about this word (clearly, the writing in romanji only refers to the genre, since in Japanese its written in Katakana or short "H"). The only thing i was a little confused about are the sources that never got into any detail, even it is very well known aspect of manga and anime. Maybe it is known so good, that nobody feels the need to go into further detail. A simple image search on google for "ecchi" should make it absolutly clear, but as usual it would not count to say "the earth is a sphere and not a circle", as long someone writes it into a book, even if it is obvious to everyone that walked from India to America to India following only one direction. Somehow this is sad. --Niabot (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See [7], are we sure about the copyright status on this?--RDBury (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The site says(under the image card there is a little info) it took the image from wikipedia since it's under public domain to make the card. The image was created by the wikipedian that drew it. Spongie555 (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since they ripped me off. As you can clearly see, the page provides a crop of this image, missing any licensing tag and so on. If you are not confident about it, look at the description and version history. (Also your mentioned page state the GFDL and CC as license in the description, even if it's missing my name) --Niabot (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Low EV per above; Composition is not very compelling (why is it tilted sideways?); Also, not suitable for featuring on the Main Page. Kaldari (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Insert "Why tilted": Its called the Dutch angle. If you think it is only used like described in the article, have a look at some pictures: [8] --Niabot (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a rather inappropriate use of dutch angle, judging by the article. Kaldari (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May you enlight me and tell me: "Why?" --Niabot (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's NSFW and would likely cause offense to many. Kaldari (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about that? In german wikipedia we had even futanari on the mainpage and it caused no trouble at all. The only interesting aspect was, that more then one fifth of the people also viewed the image in greater resolution. [9][10] Any newspaper shows the same level of revealing pictures as this one. Maybe i see it wrong, but i think you exaggerate to much. --Niabot (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"no trouble at all"? I guess you're not on OTRS. Even Jimmy Wales himself objected to it. Kaldari (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good friend of mine Don-kun works for the german OTRS and he was interested how much trouble it would make. The nearly unsatisfying (regarding expectations) result where 0 mails related to this topic. Instead we had some normal discussion posts, but really nothing against it. Instead some people praised the article or made some constructive comments. --Niabot (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also it doesn't have to be on the Main page like the other imges, it can be like the other images in Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused which where skipped for the main page but still a FP. Spongie555 (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who decides that? If they could comment here, it would be helpful. Kaldari (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the main contributor from POTD about it and I asked them if they could comment here about it. Spongie555 (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this does not belong on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not this is Main Page–worthy should have no bearing on the FP promotion process.
No, I strongly agree, though I think clarifying in this case that it is not going on the main page would be helpful for both "sides". J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a different case than our other "sensitive" images -- in all the other cases, it was because of something inherent to the image itself. Here, we have an image that's not particularly offensive or anything in and of itself, but it's the content of the associated article that raises concerns. If this passes, I'm leaning towards allowing it, because the idea of omitting those other images is to avoid shoving graphic pictures into the faces of sensitive viewers (those types of complaints were pretty common before I started skipping them -- you should've seen it when
So I guess the fact that I would consider it inappropriate for the Main Page isn't enough of a complaint? How many complaints do you need? If you're leaning towards featuring it on the Main Page, then I am definitely opposing the promotion. Regarding the statement that this should have no bearing on the FP promotion process, I was told that it was unnecessary to try amending the FPC criteria to exclude pornography since pornographic featured pictures would never be used on the Main Page. If this is incorrect, I will revive my efforts to amend the featured picture criteria to take Main Page appropriateness into consideration. Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seam not know the difference between erotic art and pornography. I just shacked my head and said to myself some words, that i better keep to myself. --Niabot (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you want to call it, it's NSFW and it's not appropriate for the Main Page. Kaldari (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily this is only your opinion and NSFW is clearly something else. --Niabot (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "line in the sand" varies for each image. The more people that complain about a certain image, the less likely it will appear on the Main Page. IMHO at this time, the only one to raise a serious objection is yourself, whereas J Milburn's doesn't seem to be nearly as vehement.
If we're voting, I'm opposed to it appearing on the MP. We have a lot of worthy images- this one is undoubtedly sexual, and perhaps wouldn't cast Wikipedia in the best light. The subject matter is not biological, it's not fine art, it's, as far as I can understand, cartoon porn with cartoon clothes. I'm hardly prudish (though I admit I know nothing about anime/hentai/manga/whatever) but that does not strike me as appropriate subject matter for the front page of an encyclopedia. Note that this is unrelated to the reasons I have opposed the promotion to FP- I am very much with you on the POTD/FP divide. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, i ask you why exactly you opposed the picture. The article mentions both meanings of the word (in Japanese slang and as a genre, which is usually meant outside Japan). That can't really be the issue to oppose. Is it anything else, or could you explain your doubts? (not regarding the "MP problem") --Niabot (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, you mentioned that "it's not fine art". However,
Support This is a good type specimen for ecchi IMO. She is very hot for a cartoon chick, and she looks naughty. 184.57.79.178 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this user has no edits to Wikipedia other than FPC votes (thus it has a high probability of being a sockpuppet vote). Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
184, regardless of whether you actually are a sockpuppet, as a rule FPC generally discards the votes of anonymous users. Perhaps you would consided
creating an account? J Milburn (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Strong Support Disclosure: anime fanatic, can't pass the image by, can't oppose it either. Also, why is it so hard to find good images like this one on site? ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know. Maybe it suites Ecchi better then this terms. Manga are usually in Graytones with patterns and not all images are about the ecchi theme, which could be misleading, if it's the only example. --Niabot (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its now fixed in the article and cites are given (in the past the article mentioned it right, somehow the content got deleted, even it was absolutely right). --Niabot (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support as per Purpy Pupple and TomStar81. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The purpose of Wikipedia being to support learning by more people of more subjects and since we already know that a woman can be made to be semi-naked and possibly chosen or fashioned to be under the age of consent, this picture adds nothing to what we know.
Nick Levinson (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do they know the two different meanings of ecchi in Japanese language and as a genre? I doubt that. --Niabot (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Irrelevant. The candidate is the picture. The caption is only secondary, and your point isn't in the caption at all. And I read the article before opposing.
Nick Levinson (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Whith the same irrational argument you could oppose any picture that is currently listed and has no description in itself. Today we have a duck on the mainpage, which is just an ordinary picture of duck. The colors may be diffrent, but what is the learning effect that you speak about, if you ignore the description? --Niabot (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point you raised isn't in the caption so the point you raised is irrelevant. What the picture tells us about females is really telling us something about men who control them, and is not anything new. So the picture and its caption are not giving us new information, which is the value of an encyclopedia.
Nick Levinson (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, i asume a picture of a duck on a lake tells us something new, while you think that men control women. Also that a encycolopedia should tell new stories and shall not repeat/reflect common knowledge. That is realy something new. You should read the basic rules of this project again. Ten times maybe... --Niabot (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The
Nick Levinson (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC) (Corrected a link: 03:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC))[reply
]
Your point about it not meeting the
Nick Levinson (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On EV grounds, with a caption of "Drawing fitting some typical features" and being out-of-context at the top of the page when where it's relevant is further down. According to the text of the article I don't see how this image is relevant, probably what is relevant is beyond what can be shown on wikipedia. Also the comment about the "chicks with dicks" comic pictures being on the German website, I can just imagine if Howcheng put that image on en.wikipedia's main page. I kinda doubt he'd have admin access after Jimbo saw it. What goes on on another language wiki is NOT relevant to what goes on on en.wiki. As for what is offensive about the image, the suggestive sexuality of it is offensive to many people. This should NOT be on the main page. — raekyt 05:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
as a genre is meant to be suggestive in a way, that it is up to the viewers imagination, what he likes to see. The article isn't written very well, wished it was as good as in the german wiki. The main theme of the article should be the genre, that this is what is usually meant by ecchi. At least by English readers.
I know that i shouldn't compare the german with the english version since it was decided by clear voting in german wikipedia that any topic is valid as the article/picture of the day. (direct reaction after de:vulva was shown on the mainpage) --Niabot (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that FPC and POTD are different issues. We can easily pass things here that won't become POTD (there are many examples).
In this case, Howcheng has indicated that he would promote it as POTD if it passes, so the issue seems relevant to discussion, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. If we take Howcheng's word as law in regards to PotD, and we think this would not make a suitable PotD, that would be a strong argument against promoting this as a FP.
Daraufhin erklärte Martina Peters noch weiteres zu den Möglichkeiten mit dem Inhalt eines Panels zu arbeiten. Sei es durch einen „establishing shot“, der einem später die Hintergründe erspart, oder offene Panels ohne Gutter, die einem das Eintauchen in die Handlung erleichtern sollen und die Geschichte atmen lassen. Auch mit unterschiedlichen Perspektiven lässt sich gut arbeiten. Stichwortartig führte sie als Beispiele die „dutch angle“ und die „Froschperspektive“ an.
Later on Martina Peters described further possibilities to work with panels. May it be through a "establishing shot", which allows to ignore backgrounds or open panels without gutter, what allows to easily immerse into the story and let it breath. Also it is good to work with different perspectives. In short she mentioned examples like "dutch angle" and the "low angle shot".
"...has encyclopedic value in its own right". The article Dutch angle states that it is "used to portray the psychological uneasiness or tension in the subject being filmed"...and the purpose of this image is titillation, not psychological uneasiness. SpencerT♦C 18:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The you should get into further detail where this tension comes from. You will soon find out that it emphasizes the size/weight of the portrayed figures. Without the dark surrounding, like in the example picture (btw a bad movie), only this emphasis is left. A basic concept in art everywhere. Its all about tension, but not only in a dark uneasy way. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. In short. The article is one sided and should be marked as bad, since it is more then only this special case. --Niabot (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the pictures in the google books examples, I can see absolutely zero that would become FPs. For example, dutch angle detracts from EV in the photo in this link you gave: [20]. Although it has a greater emphasis as a cinema technique (that may be popular), nonetheless, it detracts from EV in photographs and illustrations such as this. SpencerT♦C 18:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's only the angle. This can be fixed in five steps. a) Open the image in Inkscape b) Select anything c) Rotate the image d) adjust the document window e) save or export it. No quality will be lost in this procedure. --Niabot (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - for reasons as given above (& @ the commons discussions for same item). it's a good image, & we want to encourage artists to contribute more of them! Lx 121 (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per above --kaʁstn 21:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per above about wanting to encourage artists to contribute more.AerobicFox (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has this discussion been advertised somewhere? Where are all these people coming from? J Milburn (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is what you're looking for. (btw, how do I link to wikiCommons without an external link?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AerobicFox (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but the main point (At least with my vote is) that this image hasn't a decent home on this wiki... It's sufficiently high enough on technical standards of quality imho for FP status, but it fails strictly on EV grounds. The article it in, imho, has only a tenuous link to the picture. The requirements for a picture to be featured on en.wiki is NOT the same as on commons. We don't promote to just encourage the author to make more. Any votes that are not taking the policies of this FP process into consideration probably shouldn't be counted. — raekyt 04:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Votes
aren't counted anyways :P, just the reasoning behind them. Thanks for link.AerobicFox (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
They are on FPC.... please take the time to review the FPC policies and procedures if you wish to continue to contribute here. — raekyt 07:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No... it doesn't... o_O
WP:POLL
"Wikipedia has several processes to deal with such things as ... featured content (e.g. WP:FAC). These are sometimes wrongly assumed to be majority votes. Each of these processes is not decided based on headcount, but on the strength of the arguments presented."
Wikipedia has never been about the majority rules or sheer headcount in deciding debates anywhere, so there is no point in trying to "disallow" votes. Such an act just produces ill will between the editors and doesn't promote the discussion. :( I don't mean to sound as condescending as you seemingly didn't mean to come across, but please review the guidelines before the next time you tell someone else to do so.AerobicFox (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are guidelines for how Wikipedia functions, not how FPC functions. At FPC we operate by simple voting for promoting pictures. Sometimes a votes are not counted for various technical reasons, and when people solicit votes by canvasing like has occurred here, it causes problems when uninvolved editors who are not aware of how FPC operates jumps in and votes for pictures, although pictures like this that cause problems are VERY rare. You need to be aware of how things operate on all the sub-sections of wikipedia is not the same way we handle editing articles. Several areas of wikipedia function under voting mechanics, FPC nominations is one. — raekyt 20:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put some facts together. At first we have more than 2/3 (excluding myself) that voted with support. Then we have the arguments:
"great that this is in SVG. Quality is amongst the best!" As SVG it is resolution independent and always of high quality. Even if the current renderer of Wikipedia makes some mistakes since it is fast but bad. The file itself is valid SVG.
"The article in which the image is used doesn't talk about manga/anime at all..." This oppose reason is no longer valid, since the article mentions both meanings in native and global context. It mentioned this facts in earlier article version but they got somehow deleted. Knowing this, since i used the English article as a reference for the german article a long time ago.
"[...], are we sure about the copyright status on this?" We can, because we have the complete drawing history of this image, and the given page mentions the license and my name, even though it would be illegal to print this card as it is.
"Composition is not very compelling (why is it tilted sideways?)" As i mentioned it is the dutch angle, which is fairly typical for such illustrations, but not enforced. It gives the author more room for the central element itself, since the diagonal is longer then any side of a rectangle.
"Also, not suitable for featuring on the Main Page." That is an invalid reason for opposing, since featuring an image on the main page and featuring it in this instance is something totally different.
"Whether or not this is Main Page–worthy should have no bearing on the FP promotion process." Thats what happend here. Most oppose are based on the decision that it does not belong on the main page, because we are stuck in prudery, and aren't able to look outside the border of hometown.
"I guess you're not on OTRS. Even Jimmy Wales himself objected to it." The image was candidate for picture of the year and was a finalist. As far as i can remember we had no complaints about this image, even the voting was advertised at all major languages. And i absolutely don't know Jimbos opinion on this. Where can i read it?
"The purpose of Wikipedia being to support learning by more people of more subjects and since we already know that a woman can be made to be semi-naked and possibly chosen or fashioned to be under the age of consent, this picture adds nothing to what we know." Never got this argument. If this is valid in any means, than FPC should be abolished, since we should represent known knowledge.
"[...] being out-of-context at the top of the page [...]" No longer true, since it is also stated in the introduction, and if not: It could be easily moved to the right place.
"Eye-catching depiction of encyclopedic subject" no comment
"Disclosure: anime fanatic, can't pass the image by, can't oppose it either." no comment
"This is a good type specimen for ecchi IMO. She is very hot for a cartoon chick, and she looks naughty." As stated in the article
"it's a good image, & we want to encourage artists to contribute more of them!" no comment
If i missed something essential argument, correct me please. --Niabot (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly believe that's a fair assessment of the various arguments? One point I will make is that, as Howcheng has made clear that this would go on the main page, that if we take Howcheng's word on the matter as law, and we do not feel this is appropriate for the main page, then it would be perfectly reasonable to oppose. J Milburn (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That means that you voted willingly for oppose, since you are prude, instead of voting on the value, executions,... of this image. Guess you don't need to tell me anymore. I heard enough to be sure how to think about your opinion. Have a good day and spend a little bit of happiness, instead making wrong accuses. --Niabot (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm... What? You appear not to have read my oppose, or read what I just wrote. I suppose I could assume there is a language barrier, but that doesn't stretch very far, and doesn't excuse everything. Drop it. J Milburn (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To make clear what I was just saying; the word "prude" is often used rather derogatively, and is not a word that should be thrown about like that. Accusing other editors of being "prudes" is not appropriate. My oppose is based entirely on the EV question, though, no, I do not feel that this has a place on the main page (the thought didn't cross my mind until someone else raised the issue). My comment dated 13:12, 11 December 2010 was merely pointing out that opposing based on not wanting to see this on the main page could very well be a reasonable oppose, not me endorsing that opposition. I can see that the distinction may be hard to notice; please be more careful in future. J Milburn (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a woman would like a career as an artist, or as a firefighter, lawyer, or chef. That's not prudery. That's within civil rights: opening opportunities and not stereotyping her into just sexual service. We already know about the latter. Use the opportunity here to post a picture and a caption to tell us something new or something we forgot but want a reminder of, that being the main point of an encyclopedia. I trust that clarifies what you said you didn't get.
Nick Levinson (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Nick, who was that in reply to? I don't understand what you are trying to say. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the confusion. The reply is to Niabot (and anyone else interested), since he had quoted my words and said he didn't get it.
Nick Levinson (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
What has the career of women to do with this picture? Actually we have many (japanese) women that draw this kind of art. Have a look at [21] and [22]. Also the depicted characters are usually free to do anything like that. *headshake* --Niabot (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your new points aren't in the picture and caption and that's what the decision is based on. The portrayal is a problem because it adds nothing to Wikipedia's value as an encyclopedia, thus the relevance of the picture's content.
Nick Levinson (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Why should it? The illustration is for the reason that an reader not familiar with the topic of manga and anime can have a good imagination what the meaning of ecchi is (graphically speaking). "Ecchi na no wa ikenai to omoimasu"Mahoro Andō --Niabot (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closure Discussion
Promote, but don't put on the main page (if only to avoid controversy) would be my interpretation.
Unfortunately, it seems we have no influence on whether or not something is featured on the main page, and Howcheng has indicated that he favors using it. I would suggest seeking more input, as the disagreement here seems to be rather strong, and thus not in the spirit of consensus (even if the 2/3rds technically meets the normal threshold). Kaldari (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would like to point out that User:AerobicFox's first edit to Wikipedia was 3 days ago. Many of the other support votes were also from editors who do not normally participate at FPC, and appear to be "drive-by" votes related to the "prudery" thread at Commons. Kaldari (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as criteria apart from voting matter, I'm one of those who raised the issue of encyclopedic value. The defenses to that objection have largely been with points not stated or obvious in the picture and caption, and I wonder if that's adequate as defense.
Nick Levinson (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
@Nick Levinson: Please tell me what you mean with the caption of the picture? (The text under the thumbnail or the description of the image page?) If it's this, than it can be easily fixed, also with references. --Niabot (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: Look at the date of the entry at commons, it was very close to the end of the voting period. Don't think that it had a great effect. On the other hand it's more a less the only picture with such an topic on FPC, so someone could expect that other users participate then normal. --Niabot (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All three English texts are the same (comparing the
Nick Levinson (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC) (Corrected to stop displaying WP image: 11:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)) (Corrected to fix the prespacing and the row of disks: 11:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC))[reply
]
I expanded the description of the image on commons "a little", which also effects the WP file page, since it's mirrored from commons. The only thing left is the image description on this page. But it could be easily copied from the image description page. But you missed one point: My question. --Niabot (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I must have misunderstood your question, since I thought you wanted to know which caption or text I was referring to. If you meant to ask something else, please rephrase your question. I can see you have a little difficulty with English and I'll try to accommodate that, but try asking again, in different words. I'll come back later today (I'm not in any shape to stay right now) and I'll try to answer then.
Nick Levinson (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
"I don't see how rewriting the caption can make up for its apparent absence of encyclopedic value." How can it be absent, if it illustrates the main facts of the genre ecchi? It is drawn in anime/manga style, it features at least one character and it shows tight clothing, which is lets the image tend to be "naugthy" but not "obscene" or pornographic. Exactly this is more or less the definition of ecchi. Other elements of this picture are explained within the description. "Some of what you've said in defense of the nomination would have to be in the picture itself to gain that value, and that doesn't look within reach." What did i say in defense of the nomination, that is not inside the picture? --Niabot (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a good reason to ignore the last three "strong supports". These are people who arrived from the Commons discussion and, without necessarily understanding the nature of FPC or the nature of the dispute, just threw in a strong opinion, perhaps as some kind of attempt to "counterbalance" the prudery in this discussion. Those three, who arrived at the last minute, were conveniently all that was required to push the discussion into the promote territory... Even if we don't fully ignore them, devaluing them at all would push this into not promote. J Milburn (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are your trying to ignore the opinions of people from other countries, even if they could and did participate in this project? Didn't you do exactly the same as them? Since the only true reason i can read out of your wording is: "It might be / is offensive, and I'm opposing it only because of this reason, since I hate sexual depictions." Someone should study the freedom of art in ancient times... --Niabot (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm a racist as well as a prude? I think you really are taking my criticisms too personally. I have no issue with the picture itself, and I have no issue with sexual depictions (though, as I have said, I do not feel this image belongs on the main page). I feel those votes should not be given weight for the reasons I explained, not because the users are from other countries. J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do they not have the same right to vote as you? And i don't call you a racist! Thats something you brought up yourself. Is there anything that qualifies you more for this decision then them? And I'm still in the dark, on what facts you based your decision to oppose. The only thing i read so far on facts, are the lines in my previous comment, since you "have no issue with the picture itself", "no issue with sexual depictions". But you do "feel" it doesn't belong on the main page. For what reason?! --Niabot (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me go through your arguments so far. The first was: "The article in which the image is used doesn't talk about manga/anime at all, and the caption is completely unenlightening. What on Earth is this actually doing there?" You were right at that time. The article was missing essential information. After i searched for some sources you stated: "Ok- then there is a problem with the article, fix it." After i fixed the article (as good as i could with my English) you found it not good enough (the article). "Ok, it is now clear why an image such as this may belong in the article, but I am afraid I am not completely convinced.". After that i added additional Information to the article and left you a comment, that still got no reaction (see voting section). In the middle of this, Howcheng indicated that he would had no problem to represent it on the mainpage. Your reaction was: "Hardly. If we take Howcheng's word as law in regards to PotD, and we think this would not make a suitable PotD, that would be a strong argument against promoting this as a FP." After that you supposed to strike out the last three votings, since the image has a 2/3 support/oppose ratio. If i collect all this arguments in a row, it gets clear that you never had never more of a reason, as you don't want it on the mainpage and any cost, but never an explanation for why?. This seams very tricky to me. --Niabot (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Niabot, you implied that the reason I was trying to discount the opinions of the final three voters because they were from a different country to me. If that's not accusing me of racism, I don't know what is. As for the rest of your post, well. Again, I'm willing to blame it on the language barrier, but you are completely misrepresenting my position. So, I will make clear my positions again. Firstly, I oppose the promotion of this image on EV grounds; I am not convinced it is adding significantly to the article in which it is used. Secondly, I oppose the use of this image on the main page because it is overly sexual; we have to be careful of what is displayed on the main page. Thirdly, while opposition to an image appearing on the main page is normally not a good reason to oppose an image's promotion to FP status, in this case, it is, as it has been made clear that if it were promoted, it would be used on the main page. I am not opposing it for that reason, I am just saying that that is not a bad reason to oppose it, in response to someone who said it was. Fourthly, my reasoning for discounting the votes of the final three voters is that they arrived from elsewhere, clearly in an attempt to counterbalance perceived "prudery". They do not necessarily understand the nature of FPC, and even explicitly refer to the Commons promotion- their votes were, to put it plainly, made for the wrong reason. None of these are particularly difficult points, yet you have repeatedly misrepresented my position. J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any consensus here as Commons talk:Sexual content debate & poll poisoned the discussion thus turned it into proxy battlefield for what is occurring in Commons. I also deny either side the right to claim to be the good guys side of the discussion. Editors never agreed on a clear definition of Encyclopedic Contents. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Took me a minute, but I think he is saying that consensus cannot be determined from this discussion due to interference turning it into a battle. Jujutaculartalk 20:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, nice. Aim reached. Image hidden. World is fine. Great! Somehow i think it is funny that an image that was finalist on commons picture of the year and caused no problems at all, is making trouble on EN. Guess the left column says all that is needed to understand. [23] --Niabot (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images uncontroversially promoted on Commons often aren't promoted here; there's a reason there are two separate processes. You really need to drop the paranoia. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paranoia? --Niabot (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are plenty of reasons people could oppose this other than because of the anti-sexual content conspiracy. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would everyone agree to disengage?
There is no consensus because editors used/use this discussion to make a POINT on the Wikimedia & sexual content debate. Grrr how much i dislike to use caps.
Second no one should leave this discussion thinking himself/herself as a good guy/girl defending Wikipedia from the evil bad persons from the other side.
Third lets convene another discussion on this picture when it will be free from external interference and evaluated for itself.
Fourth there is a handful of questions that people should ask themselves for next discussion:
What this picture has to do Wikipedia or not?
Why this picture is among the very best work of Wikipedia or not?
Do you think that contents directly or indirectly related to sex can be among the best of contents of Wikipedia and why?
The point people are trying to make (and one of mine) is that it fails #5 and #7 of the criteria to be a FP on EN. The sexuality aspect on the main page is another valid argument for opposing, although not a direct failure on any of the criteria. We accept votes for or against that are based on personal opinion. We don't discount an oppose vote if it's not citing a criteria it fails. On the other hand when someone canvases for votes, like has occurred here, votes that come in as the result of the canvasing can be ignored, imho. Specifically in this case the reason the people came and voted after the canvas post on Commons was because they felt we where being "prudes" when in reality most of the opposes was on technical failures of the criteria (#5 and #7). — raekyt 22:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
#5 is always debatable and could always be used or misused to oppose an image. But #7 was fixed during the nomination, since the translation was incomplete. Nothing that has to do with the image itself, it was the article that lacked information. The missing parts were added during the voting progress. --Niabot (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) This is already too late on the instant someone canvassed this discussion at Commons. This discussion was literally hijacked. The result is bound to be "used" as an argument in Wikimedia & sexual content debate regardless the outcome. Your choice between a no consensus and a will be controversial fail or pass. --KrebMarkt (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* For the record: Three comments dated after this Closure Discussion began were recently added to the voting section. They're dated December 12 (UTC) and are not new votes, but are comments.
In partial response to KrebMarkt, sexual content can fit as "best", but it's unlikely when encyclopedic value is needed. It would take a unusual amount of thought to come up with something that would meet. My guess is the successful picture would be controversial on a whole new set of grounds, and I don't know what those would be.
In response to Niabot's question to me:
On the value of the picture to the article, I don't know enough to comment on that subject, and didn't.
On whether this picture should be featured to encourage the making of more pictures of high quality in general, one criterion is encyclopedic value (EV).
On whether this picture should be on the Main Page, since that's where we essentially welcome newcomers to Wikipedia's encyclopedic range and depth and invite them to return often, the picture's EV is a criterion, and a very important criterion.
This picture mainly tells us that a female can be sexy. It may say something about artistic method, but that's not mainly what most of us see. So the picture, if put on the Main Page, would tell most users almost nothing they aren't seeing several times a day in various advertisements, television shows, streets, offices, and websites. (A Google search for "sexy female" without quotation marks minutes ago offered "19,900,000 results".) So the picture does not tell us anything new about females.
It should not tell you that a woman can be sexy. It should tell you that ecchi enforces a sexy look, which is combined with cuteness. It should also tell you that ecchi is on the borderline of erotic art (hopefully it has the same meaning as de:erotik in German language) and pornography. --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ecchi is defined most specifically by its subject, and as a subset of the artistic method. Thus, it may not be possible for ecchi to tell us anything new about the subject. While it's possible to draw the female's hair with an extra wave that maybe no one has drawn before, that would be too trivial to have EV. Ecchi would thus join other porn genres, such as porn photography or porn oil paintings, that could hardly add anything to Wikipedia's Main Page encyclopedically.
Ecchi is not pornography! In context it tends to comedy. --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The picture includes characteristics that suggest being under the age of consent, although not necessarily. The facial proportions are more akin to those of younger children. The hair ribbon is of a size suggesting she's a child. I don't know whether a large ribbon is a fashion accessory among Japanese women, but this picture appears to be of a Westerner, not an Asian, and I don't recall large ribbons being a Western women's style, while the clothing is, so the ribbon's use as a symbol of childishness remains apparent. Sex with children is so widely known as a possibility and a practice—most parents are intensely aware of the possibility—that the picture adds nothing of EV on that point.
That concept is called
Miku Hatsune, Haruhi Suzumiya, and so on. Also you should take a look at the 100 rules of anime. Note that this rules are exaggerated, but it isn't such far away from reality. Usually only some of this rules apply to a work. At least it's funny to read. --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't doubt that some women draw ecchi; I'll take your word for that. But this isn't an example of that, and most porn drawings are produced by men, so this picture doesn't add EV even on that point.
It does not depend on the artist, neither its nationality, religion or gender. In Japan i would go as far that this is shared 50:50. Since we know many female artists. They even work on
Clannad (visual novel) is no exception. --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Females can enter many careers, we agree on that, but this one isn't (it doesn't say she's found in other contexts and that would need sourcing), and so, on that point, too, this picture isn't adding EV.
This would be misleading since this aspect has nothing to do with ecchi. Also in real life you will have many situation in which you can't decide which profession a woman has. Think on a a day on the street. Can you instantly take a photograph and tell afterwards which profession all the people have? --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your "left column" reference seems to be to "Japan simply does not have the stigma or sexual innuendo it does in the United States." Assuming the antecedent, breaking out of the reproduction role is no less perturbing in Japan than in the U.S. and is not justification for this picture through EV.
Thats not what i meant, and what you should be able to understand. --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons English description does say much more than it did. I assume translations will catch up to the English expansion.
I asked you during the voting process which information is missing? I got no answer until voting time was running out. --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The caption does, or potentially does, add information about something most of us don't know, namely, artistic method. In my case, what I learned was about the greater drawing space it affords. Perhaps I knew that in the past but had forgotten it, so one way or the other it amounted to new knowledge. I thought I was looking at a cruise ship's fence at sea, albeit an unrealistic one (even allowing for artistic license) since she is perpendicular to the tilting ship and normally wouldn't be or she would be engaged with the event of the tilting (e.g., she'd be concerned about falling), and I didn't recognize tree leaves or plant petals until later. But that knowledge of artistic method would also be valid for subjects other than females whom men happen to deem sexy. Dutch angle, for instance, is probably applicable to a great many other kinds of subjects.
In dutch angle everything is tilted. And as you should be able to notice she is in motion (turning around). --Niabot (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the caption seems to be about the picture's acceptability to Wikipedia, e.g., that it doesn't have "primary sexual characteristics". I assume that will be edited out of a Main Page–ready caption. Grammatical corrections are also needed. Length may or may not be an issue on the Main Page. Because of likely editing and copyediting, I'm not clear what caption is being proposed for a Main Page use of this picture. The result has to have EV and so the caption's nearly final form is important in judging EV. That's not ready.
I asked for support at
Nick Levinson (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
No problem with that. But you should also have some knowledge about the terms i mentioned. Otherwise i doubt that you are able to vote, or at least to make confident and right decision. The question about the hair and the hair band showed me that your knowledge about manga and anime is close to "zero". No one that knows manga and anime would ever ask this question. --
Nick Levinson (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why i added a detailed Description to the image and also added a link to manga iconography, which shares all basic features with animes (except colors and some motion aspects). But i guess you can expect that someone that is willing to criticize an image should at least try to obtain some basic knowledge. At least he should have read the main articles manga and anime
. If he is unsure about one detail he would have the possibility to dig further.
Yes you are right that a random picture most likely wouldn't be featured. But it was in response to your demand that a women in a picture should show a profession. You could also have insisted on a apple on a cherry tree. Would make no difference.
The intended audience should read the article to find out what they don't know. For the duck example it would mean: "Great, i see a duck. Whats special about her?" After that question the reader is free to choose if he wants to read the article for further information or just pass it by as "another duck", "another drawing", "another map", and so on. The caption should provide him the possibility to get the further information he needs. That are basically links inside the description, since otherwise the description had to be the article itself. --
I (partially) agree. Like I said, opposing on main page grounds would be acceptable if and only if we take for granted that Howcheng's word on the matter is final; however, I think most of the opposition is on EV grounds. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with J Milburn, but for me, I oppose for issues with EV and composition, not with it being on the main page. SpencerT♦C 22:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why Howcheng's opinion has to set in stone in order for it to be considered. Every time I've discussed the issue of an image being featured on the Main Page at POTD, I've been told that I should bring the issue up here rather than at POTD. And every time I've brought up the issue here, I've been told that I should take it to POTD instead. The Catch-22 has to end somewhere. Kaldari (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Howcheng said above, it is not the responsibility of the FPC crowd to police the main page. Discuss it with him- if he refuses to discuss it, perhaps there is an issue. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it is not relevant to discuss here, this is the featured-picture-nomination section where we decide what is and is not a featured picture and on the main page is the "today's featured picture" section. When this whole project was setup wasn't one of the main intents of it was for featuring the picture content on the front page, I would tend to think that was the primary intent of the project? Therefore wouldn't it be highly relevant for that discussion to take place here? Why does it need to take place in a separate sub-project that seems to be cloaked in mystery hidden away in the bowels of the site. — raekyt 14:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a major purpose of this project is merely to provide content for TFP, it's hardly clear. J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if that is really the main purpose of WP:FPs, it should be stated clearly somewhere. If it's to be a valid argument for opposing, then it needs to be incorporated into the FP criteria. Until that happens, I agree with Maedin. --Avenue (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the assumption that your work will be featured on the Main Page is one of the main reasons people submit work to FPC (same as with Featured Articles). I always assumed that was what the "Featured" in "Featured Picture Candidate" referred to. 216.38.130.167 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Featured" refers to quality status, not that it will necessarily go on the main page. For example,
featured lists are not displayed on the main page. Jujutaculartalk 18:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Juju, it's been a few days since the last edit to this page, perhaps you'd like to make the call? J Milburn (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Raises hand* Can I? The result seems fairly obvious to me at this point. The only reason I haven't closed it yet is that I haven't been involved with the nom at all. I didn't want to step on anyone's (particularly Jujutacular's) toes. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
My toes will be fine :) I really just wanted to open it up for a little more discussion, I'm not keen on closing it. Jujutaculartalk 16:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination has become thoroughly “skunked”: any result will disappoint a significant number of people. Moreover, a bad odor envelops this nomination due to several lengthy and somewhat heated discussions that only tangentially relate to the nomination. The relation of FPC to POTD, for example, is important, but a FPC nomination should not be the venue for this discussion. All of the attention that this nomination received has made it difficult to judge consensus, especially given the nomination’s mention in a Commons discussion regarding sexual content. Indeed, it seems to me that consensus cannot even occur in this nomination due to the plethora of issues being discussed and the questionable commitment to addressing the image’s merits vis-à-vis the FP criteria. One cannot very well extract the relevant parts of each post and piece them together to make a coherent argument for or against the image. The result, then, must be “no consensus.” The vote is close, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. Some users have raised a legitimate concern about the EV of this image. No one makes a compelling argument for this image’s EV. Because the discussion was derailed rather early by issues unrelated to the FP criteria, the most important question – whether criterion #5 is met – has not been answered satisfactorily. The best course of action, then, is to close this nomination as “not promoted” and return to it at a later date, if someone chooses to re-nominate it. In the meantime, discussions regarding those other issues can take place on FPC Talk or POTD talk. A fresh nomination will allow voters to approach the image without having to sift through a long, partly unrelated discussion. Re-nominating this image will, I hope, give it a fair chance to pass or fail on its own merits, without the weight of issues unrelated to its FPC candidacy. As always, please raise issues on FPC talk rather than on this page. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bay of KotorVoting period ends on 20 Dec 2010 at 03:10:02 (UTC)
Oppose Nice, but the composition isn't quite FP level IMO. The crop above the mountains seems too tight, and there's a sizeable parking lot lower left which doesn't really fit in with the rest of the scene. The tower intrudes a bit too much to be just framing, but is too far right for a focal point. A shot from a bit further down might have been better, if the local topography allowed it. --Avenue (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there an article for the city? The image shows that slightly better than portraying the bay. SpencerT♦C 05:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kotor. Has a couple images showing the same thing, of poorer quality, that could be replaced. Jujutaculartalk 05:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not too thrilled about the prominent parking lot in the foreground, but otherwise, it's a decent picture with good ev. SpencerT♦C 22:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long as the image replaces all the instances of use of
Nergaal (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
Support I don't know why, but when I look at this image, I feel like I'm looking at a scene from Lord of the Rings. The image is beautiful and I think it has some nice EV. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great overview of the town. The parking lot isn't that appealing, but we're not going to be able to have them move it... --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:20090719 Crkva Gospa od Zdravlja Kotor Bay Montenegro.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dusky RobinVoting period ends on 21 Dec 2010 at 09:02:39 (UTC)
Original - Dusky Robin (Melanodryas vittata), Bruny Island, Tasmania, Australia
Reason
Probably the less exciting of the Robin species found here, but that doesn't mean the species shouldn't have a FP. One of two available images for the species (I took the other in 2008). A Tasmanian Endemic species (hence list of.. appearance).
Support. Really like the composition and detail is as always excellent. Getting good use from the 400mm lens. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 14:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikileaks RallyVoting period ends on 21 Dec 2010 at 09:10:30 (UTC)
Original - A December 2010 rally in Australia protesting the Australian government's treatment of Julian Assange
Reason
Quite demonstrative of the strong public support (see some of these polls for token evidence) that Julian Assange has in Australia. We don't cover news events very much at FPC.
Oppose Quite the opposite of demonstrating "the strong public support", I find this image shows a handful of underwhelmed people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.156.145 (talk • contribs)
77.12.156.145, votes from users who are not signed in are normally not counted at FPC. Perhaps you would like to sign in or create an account? J Milburn (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, I have to agree with 77.12.156.145. J Milburn (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Have to agree too. I know by Tasmanian standards this is an out of control mob ;-), but probably not significant enough as a protest for FP. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 21:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I protest this nomination with the same amount of energy displayed in the image.
Nergaal (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose: Doesn't really show all that much. It also has a strange look to it, as if it's been shopped. Anoldtreeok (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the background isn't fake or the image isn't shopped, if it looks like it is, that is a problem and downside to the image. Anoldtreeok (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Can you actually articulate reasons for your fallacious interpretation?
I'll give you that it would be an illusion and not photoshopped. I never said it was, it just has a strange look that gives that impression. There is an odd and unbelievable (to me at least) sense of space, which makes it feel like some of the people in the photo have been shopped in. I don't believe they were, it just looks that way, and as a result I don't support it. The background also does indeed look fake as AmericanXplorer13 said. Perhaps you cannot see it because you know the landscape, but to someone who doesn't, it looks rather odd. There are parts of the background that are hard to make out and are out of focus, and there's a bit of roughness to how things appear on top of each other, which adds to the feeling that the picture has been edited. Granted, it is a bit unfair to fault the picture if this is indeed what the landscape looks like, but the way the photograph is taken makes it hard to really see where it is. A more specific example is the woman (whose head is cut off) standing in front of the pond/stream thing. There is just something I find unrealistic about where she is. I think there is a bit of forced perspective going on. This means that the photo in some way doesn't portray the scene accurately. Another example is what I assume a lamp posts. They just don't look right. I can't explain it I'm afraid, they just don't. All this combined really means I can't support this picture. Anoldtreeok (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My take is that it's because the strip of brightness at the top of the frame looks like sky in the thumbnail, when on closer inspection it's clearly a road. Because our brain perceives it as sky, the perspective looks wrong as a consequence. I don't think this is such a major issue but I guess it's the sort of subject that needs everything lined up just right to make the grade. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 11:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even pick up that it was a road. I can now also see that what I called the river/pond thing is just a path. It kind of makes it clearer, but I still think there is something off about it.
Oppose The photo is unremarkable technically, and the tight focus makes it impossible to judge how large the crowd is (eg, are these people just part of the crowd or everyone who turned up?) Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tasmanian DevilVoting period ends on 21 Dec 2010 at 09:16:31 (UTC)
Original - Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) female, Tasmanian Devil Conservation Park, Taranna, Tasmania, AustraliaEdited - cloned out some grass.
Reason
The only high quality shot that we seem to have. The photo was taken in captivity. There are many devils in captive breeding programs in an attempt to provide some insurance from the Devil facial tumour disease. A wild shot would probably involve dragging road kill around on a little used dirt road to create a scent trail, then hoping some turn up. I'd imagine that this might be a bit hit and miss given the hit the wild population has taken. I know that it is a female as she had Imps.
Request Would it be possible to clone out the tall, out-of-focus grass in front of his front legs? I find it really distracting. 77.12.156.145 (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry, I'm finding the grass rather distracting too.J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't find the grass distracting personally. Kaldari (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice image, grass is ok, image manipulation would not be ok. --Dschwen 02:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you will forgive me for manipulating the image!
Support Probably the only person who prefers the original, but either way I support. Anoldtreeok (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and oppose the edit. IMO it is pointless and unnecessary. The grass was there, no big deal, and no reason to concoct a lying fake image deceiving the viewer. There is no value whatsoever in made up fantasy content. As simple as that. Support original though. --Dschwen 21:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original I don't like the fake sunken look of the fur where the grass has been removed in the edit, plus that straw that mysteriously ends at its middle. The picture was more than fine before that. Narayanese (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think "lying fake image deceiving the viewer" is a bit much, but maybe we could reach a compromise - and just clone out the tallest piece of grass (that 'touches' the white patch on the chest. This is the most distracting for me personally. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, oppose edit. We have long accepted the cloning out of dust and damage, and there's also often a fair amount of cloning in stitched panoramas, which makes sense since they're composite images anyway. We have occasionally accepted cloning in the background, or the cloning out of something other than the subject. This seems to me different, since the subject itself is affected.
Hang on a sec! I don't see that as a clear majority, by my count I get 6 supports for original, and 4.5 for the edit. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original: 3S (Dschwen, Narayanese, Chick Bowen); Edit: 3S (Aaadddaaammm, Nergaal, Greatorangepumpkin), 2O (Dschwen, Chick Bowen); Either: 3S (NS, Kaldari, Anoldtreeok), 1 preference for original (Anoldtreeok). They have the same amount of support (more for the original, taking into account the preference), but the Edit is opposed. That adds up to promotion of the original. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the original looks to have it. J Milburn (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardhead duckVoting period ends on 24 Dec 2010 at 02:26:57 (UTC)
Original - Hardhead Duck standing beside lake
Reason
Is of a high technical standard,Is among Wikipedia's best work,Has a free license
Oppose. Sorry. Not really loving the background, and there's a bit of noise. Just not blowing me away. J Milburn (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since the bird is tame it would be easy to do better.
Comment Perhaps it's unavoidable with something so small, but there are depth of field and chromatic aberration issues if you look closely. Perhaps a tighter crop or lower resolution would help mitigate these.--RDBury (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One snowflake is pretty much in focus, but yea, the colours around the edges are a bit funky. As I said, it's the best image we've got. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is the best image we've got, the best image we've got is
The linked images are far too low resolution for a FP. They are also taken completely out of context. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only true "context" for a snowflake is in a cloud, where they form. Besides, the portion of the presently nominated image that actually shows the subject is no bigger than the linked images. Of course, I am not saying that the linked images should be an FP; I am merely saying that, since I believe the presently nominated image to be inferior to images that are not FPs, I strongly oppose the nomination.
Support This image is beautiful, great quality, nice EV. Purpy Pupple makes a valid point, but those images aren't in a natural environment. This gives a good sense of scale, while showing great detail. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is partly overexposed and the background and foreground are distractingly overexposed/underexposed. There is also a huge amount of noise and the subject is very small within the image frame. - ZephyrisTalk 09:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't have one any more, but it is a subject begging for photos with an MP-E 65mm. eg
Oppose The snowflakes are too small and the other bits of show covering the branch (I think its a branch at least) are distracting. It is an excellent picture; however, and may qualfy to become a
Stephen MerchantVoting period ends on 25 Dec 2010 at 05:06:55 (UTC)
Original - Stephen Merchant in November 2009Initial unedited image
Reason
After contacting Merchant's publicist for an image to support his article, I received this great portrait. I also reached the author of the image and she acknowledged it was able to be released under the CC-BY-SA. Besides the fun process of securing the image to be released under a free license, I find this to be an excellent, high-quality capture of the comedic actor.
Support That is scary resolution! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the top is cropped (plus, there is such a thing as too high resolution; nobody wants to see the actual cells on his face).
Nergaal (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Weak Oppose on the basis that the top is cropped. It seems that the creators of the picture are willing to contribute, so is it possible that you can ask them for another portrait?
Although it would be nice to have the top not cropped as much, I don't think it detracts from the subject (if he was known for wearing a hat or had some unusual hairstyle, I'd probably also want the lesser crop). As we already see the majority of his hairstyle, it's not that much of a loss for the upper ~tenth. Rather than ask for a new image, I'd like to contact the author to see if she would be willing to release other images of other actors, but I'm waiting for the outcome of this nomination first. I was definitely surprised with the resolution provided, so far 99% of the images I've received permission for come no where near this. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, the top of the image is cut off, but the composition is still rather compelling. And no, there can't be too high a resolution- a courtesy copy could be provided at a smaller resolution, but it would always be the larger version we promoted. J Milburn (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
Original - Animation proving that in a Pythagorean triple, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides.
Reason
This animation has nice EV and proves that in a Pythagorean triple, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides.
Oppose this is well-made, intuitive, and nice. However, contrary to the caption, it doesn't convincingly show the Pythagorean theorem for any triangle. It only shows it for the special case of a 3-4-5 triangle, or, more generally,
Oppose, for the same reasons as given by Purpy Pupple. The image was uploaded, added to an article, and nominated for FP all by the same person and all in the same day. There should be some sort of waiting period to make sure the images at least fly in the articles they've been added to before they're reviewed for FP.--RDBury (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The animation shows only that , but the caption claims that somehow the image is supposed to illustrate a general proof for triangles with integral sides. I suppose that the image must not be intended as a proof of anything, but then its purpose seems unclear to me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The squares don't have to be integer lengths. So this would be a proof for any triangle with the side-length ratio 3:4:5.
Oppose per all the above. In addition, unfortunately, animations suffer from the problem of being visually distracting — so much so that some animations make reading the surrounding text nearly impossible. They should be used sparingly and only when their use is a crucial aid to explanation, and then care needs be taken to minimize the visual distraction. I find this animation particularly distracting and in this case needlessly so when there are many diagrams which better serve the purpose. Paul August☎ 14:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawl Sorry to waste everyone's time with this animation. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk)| —Preceding undated comment added 14:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Support. Great landscape shot showing the position of the village very well. Just a shame the detail isn't better. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 21:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spectacular. wackywace 16:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The picture itself is gorgeous, and the bird is shown very well; the thing staying my hand is the fact the bird is on a fence rather than a branch or something natural. If there was something in the article about the birds hanging around in human areas or something, ala
Common House Martin, then there would be no issue... J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Of the five currently active nest sites that I know about four are in manmade structures. One is on the wall near the roof of the Mt Field NP visitor center, one is in a Horse float (that hasn't been used for a while), two are in (distinct and distant) picnic sheds and one is on a cliff face. Most of the previous nests that I've known about are in or on man made structures too. I'll see if I can find a citation for what you say later. Swallows don't land that often during the day, but they do seem to favour fences in my experience. I expect that this one has a nest somewhere (because I've seen it roosting in this spot previously), but I didn't spot it.
Birds in Backyards says "swallows are a common sight on wires, posts and other suitable perches.". Is this enough? Another site says "mostly found in open areas, man made clearings or urban environments, preferring these to densely forested or aria inland areas" .
Support. Excellent image, great isolation of the subject. Could be cropped slightly. Showing birds on man-made structures is entirely "natural" in my opinion, providing that it is a common habitat for the bird and isn't distracting to the image. For example, how often does one see a pigeon outside of cities? Kaldari (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the point I'm making- I'd want to see a source saying that it was common in the article. J Milburn (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hooded PloverVoting period ends on 28 Dec 2010 at 11:18:32 (UTC)
Original - Hooded Plover (Thinornis rubricollis), Bruny Island, Tasmania
Reason
A little bigger than the Red-capped Plover, but seemly more wary. Photo was taken in pretty dark conditions, but the lighting was nice. A natural environment. Best of the two available photos.
Original - Sooty Oystercatcher (Haematopus fuliginosus), Bruny Island, Tasmania, Australia
Reason
The photo shows the typical habitat of a Sooty Oystercatcher (contrasting in particular with the pied oystercatcher, which spends more time on beaches). A fairly difficult bird to expose for (being black, with a beak that can easily clip).
I thought this deserved another shot. High quality zoological illustration, produced by an artist for a scientific work. Obvious EV as the lead image on the article on the species (which isn't too bad an article).
Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I opposed this the last time it came up (see Previous discussion) and I still think the reason is valid; it's just not a natural pose for the subject.--RDBury (talk) 11:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't even see the eyes. Jó Kritika (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. It won't pass, and I'm not actually sure it deserves to any more. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --JovianEye (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting. The flash or other light source dominated the lighting, making it harsh. Jó Kritika (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per User:Kritika. Greg L (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Afraid I don't think I really learn anything in particular from seeing it. Well, that's not entire true, but I don't think any photo of it is going to be descriptive enough given that everything it does and is, is inside it. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 22:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn --JovianEye (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original The background appears more natural as it lets more light into the scene. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More input on the edit, please. Which do we prefer?Makeemlighter (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the light effect in the original, but the top left corner is distracting. I would say very weakly towards alt.
Nergaal (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi, both versions are great, but if I have to pick one, I'll choose the original version. --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Copied from my talk page. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Condylactis gigantea (Giant Anemone - yellow & pink tip variation).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Red-headed FinchVoting period ends on 27 Dec 2010 at 22:25:19 (UTC)
estrildid finch found in Africa.
Edit 1 - Denoised by Papa; Lycaon requests that edits be uploaded over the top, but that would be messy at the very least for FPC purposes, so it's a separate file for now.
Reason
Compelling composition, very eyecatching shot, lovely little animal. The article is underdeveloped, but that's due to our general bad coverage of Africa-related topics.
Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though it could have a slightly better EV if the legs and tail were shown, this has an awesome composition. Why is this hosted as a delist nom?
Nergaal (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Because I'm an idiot. I'll fix it. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the "spotlight effect" on the bird. Too bad the legs aren't shown and tail is out of focus; I would have fully supported it otherwise.
Support Wikipedia is especially weak on Africa, so as well as being a great pic it helps to redress the balance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go with the original simply because the edit didn't just denoise but also tinted everything slightly yellow... — raekyt 05:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply not true. View them in tabs, for gods' sakes! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did with my macboook pro, I'm not a novice, I didn't directly compare in Photoshop, but I can if you'd like, but I suspect it will yield the same results. —
I had intended to oppose the original because it was far too noisy. The edit fixes that without any drawbacks and is imo the one that should be promoted.
(with Corporal Yukio Araki holding the puppy) the day before their mission. May 26, 1945.
Reason
A quite unusual portrait of young kamikaze pilots, all of whom have died. The photo became iconic to some extent in Japan, appearing in several local museums and in a number of Japanese books. I didn't crop the thin top/bottom frames because it would eat some photo space as the frames aren't straight, the original low-res framing is here.
Nergaal (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose for now. It's not adding a great amount to Kamikaze, and I don't feel the squandron article is well developed enough. It doesn't mention they're Kamikaze-ready, and at the end it mentions that there were 12 members- does this picture show most of the squadron? J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't figure out how many members the squadron had, but 5 seems enough representative, especially with all of their fates known. The word "
I'm not sure I quite get what this photo shows. Would we be promoting a modern photo of five people petting a small animal if all five people happened to belong to the same military group? J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think a featureable kamikaze should be in/in front of his aircraft or somewhere else - that's another issue, wouldn't argue :)
Comment The photo has some EV in that it shows that the Kamikaze pilots weren't all fanatics (most of them seem to have been not very enthusiastic conscripts). However, I don't think that this EV or the technical standards of the photo are sufficient for FP status. Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't had any fine art nominations in a while, and they make great FPs. The dimensions are right, the reproduction is very large (while the painting is by no means huge) and the image has pride of place in the artist's article.
Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It feels like it has a yellow tint, but I can't say since I've never seen the original, and I'd assume the scanner was calibrated. The source link is broken though.
Support - I've seen this piece before, elsewhere, and it has the yellow tint in every reproduction. Come to that, many of the Bernini paintings I've seen have the same tint. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose the image is cookie-cut at the bottom. 70.170.117.40 (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I now created an account. The unwelcoming of anonymous users was a disgrace though. Jó Kritika (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support so what it is cookie cut at the bottom? It can be photoshopped by somebody willing with a bit of experience. wink, wink.
Nergaal (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Support Quality is there, it does suffer from some unfortunate reflections of the photographer, as in he was obviously wearing a bright red shirt, not sure you can eliminate that entirely for something like this though. Not sure if this one is on the table to be reshot with a cube or not... hopefully Alchemist weighs in. Otherwise I think it's good and I have a soft-spot for elements anyway. Oh and striking the anonymous vote like above per rules. — raekyt 05:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The visibility of the shirt is good actually, since it does not give that desaturated feeling like other rock pictures. The subject is obviously pasted and it looks to apparent unfortunately. It is too ridged andat least a smoother cut would have been better. You are right, I can't vote, but you all very know that it is true. 70.170.117.40 (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image wasn't cut out from it's background, it was photographed on a white surface. It's not a "rock" but an elemental metal, these are it's crystalline structure, a smooth lump of metal is far less encyclopedic than one showing the natural crystalline structure of the elemental metal. Your comments are nonsensical. — raekyt 09:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear to be cut from the background though - there is aliasing along the bottom edge - not something you would get from a DSLR due to its anti-aliasing filter and bayer algorithm sensor. Certainly, there should be some sort of post-processing explanation for the aliasing. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 10:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Short of Alchemist saying so, we can only assume, but I do see your point, it COULD be, but irregardless is this enough to oppose on? — raekyt 10:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the absence of Alchemist saying anything on the subject either for or against my assertion, we are free to make educated guesses. :-) I think his withdrawal notice below implies that I was right though. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 14:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as creator Sorry, but I can't reshot this sample. It isn't longer available. It is very difficult to take a photo from 1001 mirrors. Conclusion: we have only this and an older image in its history. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if possible then I withdraw this nomination. I think it isn't good for FP. VI perhaps. Diliff infos are right. I try to take a photo from an other sample incl. a 1cm3 cube :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to withdraw just yet. Just mention on the image page that the natural background has been removed. People are less likely to oppose if they don't think they are being deceived. 14:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Info the shadow is photoshoped. It was in the past simple to dificult for me to take a good image with a real shadow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Removal of the background and the reflections in the metal are negligible issues.
Comment: I like it except for the photoshoped shadow. Maybe you can work on that and present an alternative version? SMasters (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Alchemist will upload the original unedited version for us to compare? — raekyt 09:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That one looks cutout from the background too ;-).. if you plan on making another Hf image in the near future (within next year sometime) then we could just close this and wait for a better Hf image, if you don't have access to good samples of Hf in that time frame, then maybe we can do some photoshop magic on the original to make it less obvious it was cutout of a background. — raekyt 11:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or we can renominate the new image again ;-) The background was a white glossy paper sheet, the lightning from all sides to the sample. My plan: I think I take better from all the other elements photos at first. Later ... I'm not a clairvoyant :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Hf-crystal bar.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Battle Between the Monitor and Merrimac, from an old wood engraving.
Reason
This is a wooden engraving of one of the most influential naval battles of all time: The Battle of the Monitor and Merrimack (known also as the Battle of Hampton Roads) . Depicted here is the first battle between ironclad warships, one that resulted in a draw for both the United States Navy and the Confederate Navy. The results of this battle were telling: major naval powers world wide halted construction of their wooden fleets and began the process of converting their navies to ironclad type warships based on the designs used here. While the battle itself predates the use of rapid photography, there are pieces of artwork that commemorate the battle, and this particular piece is large enough for consideration of FP status.
Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 23:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose While the quality of the work is excellent, I personally don't find that the wood engraving format particularly shows the battle well. Obviously, something like File:Monitorvirginia.jpg is of lesser quality, yet it shows the overall battle better, IMO. SpencerT♦C 20:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this image can also be placed in
Nergaal (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree, I think it should have something that makes it particularly illustrating for an article so general.
Oppose. Hardly grabs my attention, doesn't seem to add much to the article, doesn't seem particularly interesting in and of itself... Sorry, just really not FP material to my eyes. J Milburn (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support nice quality, but I would prefer a picture of the entire HDD instead of a crop.
Nergaal (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment The article is about a head crash, not the hard drive. The crop is based around the head crash. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that's why I did not oppose the image. A full image I think would have had a nicer composition.
Nergaal (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Support. Poor hard drive. --KFP (contact | edits) 13:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well executed (and hopefully not repeatable for anyone here).
Support Please, don't let this fate ever befall me! SMasters (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support But the word "new" in the caption will be dated - sooner than later when it comes to digital equipment! Why not mention the size and capacity of the disk instead, if placing it on a timeline is important at all? Mumiemonstret (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read it as "newly purchased" rather than "up-to-date". J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very professional looking photo with fabulous attention to lighting and surround. Greg L (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose there are too many color artifacts visible in the shadows. Not the best compared to other elements I've seen.
Nergaal (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous? i don't think so. Maybe the mentality you expressed. Look at the top right sample, it clearly has red artifacts. 70.170.117.40 (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yee to anonymous comments! Where on the right top sample? Try to point out better.
Nergaal (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It has significant chromatic noise for sure; whether there is also oxidation happening is hard to say. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: I don't think we should auto-promote just to encourage the author. The image should be judged on its technical quality and encyclopedic value alone. Besides, I think that Alchemist-hp already knows our great appreciation for his photos of chemical elements. Also, you should refrain from insulting others (even people who have not registered) by calling their opinions "retarded". (Although I personally don't see any significant colour artifacts except some
Support. Not Alchemist-hp's best, but certainly worthy of FP. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 - How about this image as a replacement for the current Bismuth FP. It shows both the natural and oxidized states and doesn't have that horrible unreadable scale plastered onto it. Kaldari (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm? This is a total other image! I think you are confusing!? The cube is the same but the crystals are different. The "Alt 1" can be also a FP candidate? You can nominate it. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer the inbox image and the FP for the element be unoxidized completely... It's a little misleading of the crystals are oxidized but the cube isn't. A compromise in my book would be a picture of both oxidized and unoxidized crystals together with the cube. So I don't like the alternative, so Oppose it. — raekyt 05:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alt 1 is a completely different image and should have a separate nomination. It looks colourful and eyecatching though, and I might support it if it was nominated separately.
Colorful and eye-catching isn't important for a technical image, accuracy and educational value is the most important, oxidized metal (specifically if we already have a FP showing it) is less EV then unoxidized. If this Alt 1 image was D&R for the existing oxidized image, that might be supportable, but to support this over unoxidized isn't good imho. — raekyt 08:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I wouldn't support the Alt over the unoxidized one.
Guess I should take it to D&R instead of here. Kaldari (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support it as a D&R, I like a 1cm3 cube of the metal as a natural scale for the picture than an artificial scale anyway, which will be consistant with all the recent metal FPs. — raekyt 09:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 Since bismuth oxidizes so easily, including the colorful, common appearance not only makes sense, but is attractive. Greg L (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Greg L, bismuth oxidized only if it is very hot >= 300°C, not at room temperature. Purpy Pupple wrote it too: "Alt 1 is a completely different image and should have a separate nomination." ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The fact the editors of the article have chosen to use an unoxidised sample in the infobox is telling. Oppose ALT1 for now, but I certainly have no objection to it being given its own nomination. J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to agree on the basic facts before we cast our votes on what image best balances aesthetics and encyclopedic value. According to the Bismuth article, here, “Bismuth is a brittle metal with a white, silver-pink hue, often occurring in its native form with an iridescent oxide tarnish showing many colors from yellow to blue.” Assuming our Wikipedia is correct (who ever heard of Wikipedia being wrong?) I supported the image showing the iridescent form too. I suspect the significance of 300 °C is that is the temperature at which the natural oxidation process occurs in just seconds. I had researched bismuth when working on the Kilogram article because bismuth was the element used in an Avogadro-based atom-counting approach because, like gold, it has only one naturally occurring isotope (which is very slightly unstable). But bismuth was only used for cheap initial experiments because it oxidizes so terribly easily. Gold would have been the only semi-practical solution for atom-counted kilograms. Greg L (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you oppose the use of the current lead image? I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing. J Milburn (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is customary on FPC that Alts are alternatives for consideration for voting purposes. I don’t know who placed Alt 1 here, but it is here and I have thrown my support behind it in preference over the original. I had accidentally struck my vote in support of Alt 1; I’ve corrected that and continue to support it. Why Alt 1? Because bismuth in its native form often has an iridescent oxide passivation ranging from yellow to blue. For this reason, I find that Alt 1 is not only beautiful, but has high EV because it is more useful and practical; if someone were to stumble across bismuth in its natural state, readers of Wikipedia who are exposed to this picture will be more likely to recognize the element. The high-res version of the photo is just gorgeous.
P.S. Having worked as a fuel cell engineer, where electromotive potential and galvanics are a big deal, I just pulled out my custom pocket-sized periodic table from my wallet and flipped it over to look at the galvanic potential of bismuth. Oxygen has a one-volt cathodic advantage over bismuth, so it certainly should naturally oxidize. Greg L (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Bismuth crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated this before and it sadly just missed out due to lack of participation, so I'm giving it another bash. This is a very interesting and striking picture of extremely interesting subject matter- it may well make a great April Fools' Day POTD. Clear EV in the context of the (very well developed) article- there are two paragraphs (and two blockquotes) devoted entirely to this image. Other than that, the file is of a very high quality, all the text is readable, the colours are great (and the "yellowing" was actually on the original) and the image is nice and big. It's aged well.
Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess. It is pretty interesting, but it's weird.. I'm giving it full support mostly for quality. --I'ḏ♥One 23:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get this image, but I am pretty sure that the text on bottom should be transcripted to the image description page before passing FP?
Nergaal (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The image contrasts "The Pig Faced Lady of Manchester Square" (a person genuinely believed to exist) with "The Spanish Mule of Madrid" (a charicature of
Ferdinand VII of Spain). I implore you to take a look at the article- a fascinating read. I will transcribe the text if you genuinely believe it is necessary. J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Text added to image page.
I took care of the text. Someone just needs to add it to the image...
Ah: sure a pair was never seen so justly form'd to meet by nature!!!
The Pig Faced Lady of Manchester Square
This extraordinary Female is about 18 years of age - of High rank & great fortune
Her body & limbs are of the most perfect & Beautiful shape, but, her head &
Face resembles that of a Pig - she eats her Victuals out of a Silver Trough in the same
manner as Pigs do, & when spoken to she can only answer by Grunting & her cheif
amusement is the Piano on which she plays most delightfully.
The Spanish Mule of Madrid
This wonderful monster: (to the great greif of his subjects) is a King!!! He was
caught about 7 years ago by Buonaparte, & during his confinement in France,
amused himself by singing anthems & working a Robe* in Tamboue* for the Holy
Vigrin! but since his liberation, he has amused himself, by Hanging his best Friends!!!!!
Well done- I was going down the route of a "role" in "Tamlowe", assuming there was a French place name in their somewhere! I'll add it to the image page. J Milburn (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the source linked on the image page provides a version which is not so tightly cropped. I'm not happy with the way that the current version crops the edges of the paper off, and even goes so far as to crop out the edge of the paint which has been used to colour the print. I'd quite happily support an uncropped version (cropping out the whitespace at the sides is fine, of course).
That's what the uploader wants. There are a lot of people who dislike Commons for various reasons, or are just more able to keep an eye on their uploads if they are here. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good EV and resolution. --Avenue (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Decent EV in its article and notable artist. Good resolution, quality, and condition.
.jpg)
.JPG)
8.JPG)
.jpg){kind=link}
_released_on_a_beach,_heading_for_the_sea.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](http://stats.grok.se/de/201011/Datei%3AFutanari.png){kind=link}
.jpg)
_edit.jpg)
_edit.jpg)
