Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/February-2009

Ah, I see what you mean. My references come from http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/climatechange/figure_4.jpg/image_view. I will post it up on the image page.

Fari 16:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose Sorry but apart from being quite cramped and there being little to differentiate the Earth, the atmosphere and the greenhouse gas layer I just think I've seen more attractive, clearer images of the subject matter. Guest9999 (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The arrows are wack and the majority of the text is badly placed. Try reading some articles on typography and re-submit. For example the vertical height of "Atmosphere" "Earth" "Greenhouse Gasses" should be uniform and the text is especially hard to read across the horizon line.Teque5 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetic Alphabet

Reason

The FAA Phonetic and Morse Chart, showing each of the 26 letters of the English Alphabet and the numbers 0-9, along with their Morse code signal and their phonic pronunciation. Its an interesting find, and illustrates how a letter or number can be translated into Morse code and how each letter is pronounced by radio technicians. This is an svg image, so it should be easy to resize if size is an issue.

Articles this image appears in

NATO phonetic alphabet

Creator

Made in INKSCAPE by Jaime A. Sanchez. Edited to correct letter H by Richard G. Clegg. Uploaded to the commons by Rgclegg.

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 03:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Very similar to this, which failed. There is even a tabular version of this image in the article (it lacks the dots and dashes, but they're easy enough to add to the table: • • • • | • • | — — | — — — | — — !) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Wadester16, no need for an image here at all
  talk) 13:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. A number of the pronunciations do not appear to be correct. Papa does not rhyme with Oscar. Tang-go? See-air-rah? Rmhermen (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the pronunciations really need to be given in accurate IPA. Respelling really is an incredibly poor method. Thegreenj 00:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is one of those images on Wikipedia that should be in Images for cleanup in the subcategory of Images that should not be images. The information in this image would do best if it was to be recoded as
  Fari 21:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Per ZooFari.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It would be better if this was wikicoded and made into a featured sound by turning it into a spoken article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ichneumonidae mating

Reason

The flies are very small and maintaining a good DOF at this high level of maginification is very difficult. Good quality and lighting of a very rarely seen and photographed incident (according to the one who helped identify the subject). This picture is the first picture on wikipedia which shows the mating of these wasps.

Articles this image appears in

Ichneumonidae, Cremastinae

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This image is a macro action and IMO is interesting enough to get FP status. The image made me go to the article and read more about the insects.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Where do you find all these insects having sex? Do you just randomly run into them when you have your camera? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 21:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I chanced to find these insects. As I was leaving home for Friday prayers, I saw some movement around the leaf of a plant in the garden. I rushed in, got my camera and photographed the incident :) --Muhammad(talk) 06:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support attractive image (if you can say that about the subject matter) and encyclopedic. --Leivick (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We need more arthropod porn. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Shoemaker. brings violins Durova^Charge! 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ichneumonidae mating.jpg MER-C 07:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese river boat, 19th century

Reason

Old, original, being an example of a Japanese river boat as well as being a presumed photograph taken by Adolfo Farsari.

Articles this image appears in

Commons gallery of Adolfo Farsari, Sampan

Creator

Presumably Adolfo Farsari

• Support as nominator. I'd like to nominate dozens of images in that gallery, but this is a good start. --Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not used in any real wikipedia articles --Muhammad(talk) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could perhaps be used in Sampan. I think it might be such a boat type. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose GerardM (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The picture is PD and the text says that atribution is required.. Licensing info is incorrect[reply]
• Oppose per above. In addition, I believe this is a scan? I may be wrong, but the dust, scratches, borders, and that scribbled "A" looks a bit suspicious.
  Fari 02:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • How else do you propose to get it into the computer? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Point is that the original image was mistreated and had particles on it that the true image would not have (dust, scratches, "A"s), therefore I would prefer a scan of a cleaner version.

Fari 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually this condition is above average for an unrestored image c. 125 years old. Compare to this which is about 30 years younger. It took considerable effort to restore to featured condition. And attempting to clean a historic original before scanning would be a serious mistake: that can damage the original permanently. Durova^Charge! 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • That's not an "A", that's a stick sticking out of the water. rspεεr (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Needs some work - blue spots on the right, green blurs behind trees, the dirty smudge on the lower left, dust & scratches, maybe some color adjustment, etc. Sasata (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so sure about that, maybe part of the EV is that it's a painted photograph whose colors aren't accurate? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Source information is inadequate. Scanned photo from what publication? This has potential, though. First the uploader needs to correct the sourcing and licensing statements. Then select an image with clearly encyclopedic use and get an uncompressed version for restoration. Based upon the current filesize, an uncompressed TIFF would be about 6MB--on the small side but enough to work with. 10-20MB would be better if possible. Ping me if there's serious prospect of this moving forward. Durova^Charge! 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulaski, New York, 1885

Reason

Bird's eye view with captioning of Pulaski, New York as it appeared in 1885. Very high resolution. Restored version of File:Pulaski bird's eye2.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Pulaski, New York

Creator

Lucien R. Burleigh

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 05:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Are all these recent LOC uploads from the same batch? They appear to have a distinctive colour cast, probably due to poor calibration when they were scanned. I checked the first one I could see had and page white (the Zaandam nom which appears below) and having corrected for that, the paper stock tone looks much more likely. mikaul^talk 11:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They come from a variety of different printers and come in a variety of different tones, most of which are yellowed because the youngest of them is 80 years old. The printers tended to be regionally based and I am assisting a featured portal drive for Portal:Finger Lakes. If you're curious, browse a bit.[2] Durova^Charge! 16:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's why I thought there was a common source for the scans; a colour shift in paper is unlikely to give such a consistently yellow-magenta hue across multiple docs, much more likely a mis-calibrated monitor somewhere, or some kind of aesthetic affectation. The fact is, when a (fairly) reliable white reference is avaialable (as it is on the Zaandam map) it corrects out to a more neutral, natural tone. mikaul^talk 20:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very surprised you view this as a confirmation. Degradation traits for bird's eye panoramas varies by publisher. And the publisher that used the best paper (Currier and Ives) experiences the least aging--which would be explained by paper chemistry, not scanner settings. In support of the featured content drive for Portal:Finger Lakes I have been restoring material for a limited geographic region, selecting the originals that had the least degradation. So the images that have been going up at FPC are no random sampling. Durova^Charge! 21:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mikaul has continued putting forth the idea at another candidacy, so following up. What he has actually noted is not a scanner calibration error but the characteristic fade pattern of material from the L.R. Burleigh publishing company, which served upstate New York.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Other publishers from the same collection exhibit different fade patterns. See Hughes & Bailey,[9][10] and Currier and Ives.[11][12] The difference is the paper, not the scanner. If you are confused in the future, Mikaul, please ask questions on talk instead. Durova^Charge! 08:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Point taken. Paper fades, and similar papers fade in similar ways. This doesn't alter the possibility that these scans are from the same source and have a common calibration issue. This whole hypothesis is based on the availability of a white balance reference at the Zaandam original upload. A similar reference is available on the Japanese Archer original upload, also currently listed here. It's an observation, nothing more, a simple correction and and one you haven't yet accepted as a possibility. Oh, and if you want to get personal in future, drop me an email, don't do it here. mikaul^talk 19:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nothing personal here, although it does get a bit frustrating to explain the same thing three times in succession. Tonal qualities within the bird's eye cityscapes collection obviously correlates to printers. Even if a machine were miscalibrated (which is unlikely; LoC is the best archive around in terms of its digitization practices), it's very unlikely that two random items from unrelated collections would go through the same scanner before such an error were identified: the LoC site hosts hundreds of thousands of images. Of course if you write to their reference department and confirmation of the calibration idea, I'll apologize just as openly. Durova^Charge! 00:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support GerardM (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Doesn't the white balace needs to be corrected? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already been addressed in the discussion above. Thegreenj 04:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thegreenj 04:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sasata (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, wow, amazing detail. Renata (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pulaski bird's eye2.jpg MER-C 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell War Memorial

Reason

Detailed image of a historic, ornate war memorial

Articles this image appears in

Cornell University, Cornell West Campus

Creator

Mercuryboard

• Support as nominator --
  Eustress (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Reluctant oppose tilted, wide angle lens distortion, compression, and low-borderline dimensions. Good encyclopedic find; not FP material. Durova^Charge! 00:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per durova, perspective correction would eat a lot of the frame unfortunately.
  talk) 02:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not promoted MER-C 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Holmqvist

Reason

High quality sports photograph, with more action/game situation as requested in previous nom. I hope the cut off glove won't be an issue.

Articles this image appears in

Johan Holmqvist, Goaltender

Creator

Krm500

• Support as nominator —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 12:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak, reluctant oppose I don't know the terminology, but the thing he's holding is cut off. The other technicals are acceptable, but not excellent enough to make up for that distracting loss of detail.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Teeth-gnashing oppose per HereToHelp. Darn, I'd like to support this one. Durova^Charge! 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albino Bennett's Wallaby

Reason

There is a spreading population of albino wallabies on Bruny Island, adds value to both articles in my view. Bennett's Wallaby is the name given to the Tasmanian subspecies of the Red-necked wallaby.

Articles this image appears in

Red-necked Wallaby, Albinism

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 04:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak support - The
  burdocks bother me, but I guess it makes it more natural. Now I know why Rocko was so light skinned (furred?). Also, do red-necked wallabies watch Nascar? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Good shot... shame about the red eye! (j/k!!) --Fir0002 05:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done. — Aitias // discussion 19:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great shot! Wish it had more resolution, but one of the better wildlife photos I've ever seen. Omnibus (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and composition --Muhammad(talk) 18:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Albino Macropus rufogriseus rufogriseus.jpg MER-C 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camel corps

Reason

Located another cache of historic World War I photography from the Middle Eastern theater, so rolling up the sleeves and restoring the best of them. Here's an Ottoman camel cavalry unit from 1915 at Beersheba during the First Suez Offensive. Encyclopedic material, well composed. Restored version of File:The camel corps at Beersheba.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

First Suez Offensive, Camel cavalry

Creator

American Colony Jerusalem

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 20:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and excellent EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV --Muhammad(talk) 10:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great quality and very unique. Bernstein2291 (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The camel corps at Beersheba2.jpg MER-C 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passionfruit and Cross Section

Reason

Technically very good and very high EV

Articles this image appears in

Passiflora edulis

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 09:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this is a very good photo series. --Avala (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an excellent set-very clear,simple and consistent. I'm becoming very impressed with Fir's photographs! Lemon martini (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Never had one, but this doesn't look yummy. Good EV nonetheless. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good
  talk) 00:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak Oppose This one is more eye catching of a subject but my feeling still stand per the other fruit and veg noms. I think there is strong encyclopedic merit to seeing the fruit attached to its tree as well/instead. Mfield (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand all these opposes based on fruits unattached to trees. Probably most consumers of any given fruit never see it attached to a tree. The tree has little to no connection to the culinary aspect of a fruit, which is probably the most important aspect of commercially important fruits like these. That is not to say there is no place for a tree photo somewhere in the article, but opposing a fruit photo because it does not contain a tree is like opposing a photo of meat because you don't see the cow too. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very reason that most consumers never see the fruit attached to a tree provides a reason for the most encyclopedic shot of the subject to be taken under the natural conditions. FWIW, I don't remember seeing any featured pictures of meat :-) --Muhammad(talk) 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the distinction (IMHO) comes between food photography and nature photography. You have to chose to capture the plant in its environment or the plant as food. If the latter I think the image may be more appealing with the subject in more of a still life setting rather than on the clinical white background which is helpful for designers etc. but does not necessarily make for visually engaging and feature-worthy photographic illustration. I think if they were shot on a nice plain non distracting complementary background with a simple plate/knife to provide some sense of scale my opinion would be different. Mfield (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support Excellent technicals, but a passionfruit at the appropriate degree of ripeness for eating is much wrinklier on the surface (like this). My lips are puckering just looking at the photo! Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it was quite good - perhaps not the sweetest I've ever eaten but definitely ripe --Fir0002 10:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done. — Aitias // discussion 19:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I can taste the passionfruit by viewing this. Very nice. Spencer^T♦C 21:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. The only thing that I'd even consider adding is some kind of size reference (which could even go in the caption). Spikebrennan (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Passionfruit and cross section.jpg MER-C 04:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Granny Smith Apple and cross section

Reason

Technically very good and very high EV. Better lighting than the previous, failed FPC.

Articles this image appears in

Granny Smith

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 09:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avala (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lemon martini (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this one seems a little "glowy" around the edges. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yummy, good EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd agree with shoemaker on the "glowy", a black background would probably give better separation, good enough though. I don't like the slightly uneven crop however.
  talk) 00:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak Oppose I just don't think that the photographing of a common everyday object on a white background is FP material. Sure it's sharp and well exposed, but once you are set up you can switch in and out thousands of subjects that will all be sharp and well lit but does that make them interesting to have on the front page? Hope you see my point, it's nothing against the images themselves, but where does it end, will we have an FP fruit month with a different fruit on every day?! I don't see people rushing to read Granny Smith when seeing this. I think there is strong encyclopedic merit to seeing the fruit attached to its tree as well/instead. Mfield (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done. — Aitias // discussion 19:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question how does the average person know just from the picture that this is a Granny Smith, and not some other green apple? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that even a perfect picture would allow this. It's hardly as if Granny Smith apples are strikingly different. vlad§inger ^tlk 03:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Granny smith and cross section.jpg MER-C 04:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zubarah Fort

Reason

Illustrative, unique and beautiful

Articles this image appears in

Zubarah, Qatar, Madinat ash Shamal

Creator

Rafeek Manchayil

• Support as nominator --Ariovistus (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Feels over-saturated. Given that this is a flickr image, would someone contact the author and ask for the unedited version? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Looks over-saturated to me as well. If you look at the levels, the blue is blown out, for example. Also should probably be cropped tighter, although it probably wouldn't meet the size requirement if it was. Kaldari (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too much sky (artistic consideration) which left very little detail of the fort itself (limiting EV) --Fir0002 00:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support I will support this once it's straightened (right side is higher than left - unless it there is actually a slight slope?). While it may show a lot of sky, what do you gain from lowering the camera - more sand? The fact that this incredible sky is incorporated so well in the photograph adds a lot of "wow" factor to an otherwise not-so-"wow" site. In this instance, the entire fort is shown, so no EV is lost by cropping off the building, so all other criteria are met. Very cool. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but for a building shot it should have more than 0.2MP (~700px wide * 300 px high) of actual building detail!
• Comment Could we contact the Flickr user and see if they'd release it a bit bigger? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apricot and cross section

Reason

Technically very good and very high EV

Articles this image appears in

Apricot

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avala (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lemon martini (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yummy, good EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mmmm... It's like Malatya apricot. --DsMurat^talk 23:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I just don't think that the photographing of a common everyday object on a white background is FP material. Sure it's sharp and well exposed, but once you are set up you can switch in and out thousands of subjects that will all be sharp and well lit but does that make them interesting to have on the front page? Hope you see my point, it's nothing against the images themselves, but where does it end, will we have an FP fruit and veg month with a different one on every day?! I don't see people rushing to read Apricot when seeing this. I think there is strong encyclopedic merit to seeing the fruit attached to its tree as well/instead. Mfield (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done. — Aitias // discussion 19:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Cacophony (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. The only thing I'd add is a size reference. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Apricot and cross section.jpg MER-C 04:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canteloupe and cross section

Reason

Technically very good and very high EV

Articles this image appears in

Muskmelon

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 09:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avala (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lemon martini (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is in the Muskmelon article. Could it not be considered for Cantaloupe as well? Lemon martini (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've now included it that article --Fir0002 05:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yummy, good EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I just don't think that the photographing of a common everyday object on a white background is FP material. Sure it's sharp and well exposed, but once you are set up you can switch in and out thousands of subjects that will all be sharp and well lit but does that make them interesting to have on the front page? Hope you see my point, it's nothing against the images themselves, but where does it end, will we have an FP fruit and veg month with a different one on every day?! I don't see people rushing to read Muskmelon when seeing this. I think there is strong encyclopedic merit to seeing the fruit attached to its tree as well/instead. Mfield (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing Picture of the Day with FP. All POTDs are FPs but not all FPs are POTDs. Cacophony (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Cacophony is right FPC and POTD are separate projects and you shouldn't be judging nominations with POTD in mind - that's a byproduct. I agree that this probably hasn't got mind-boggling wow factor, but this being an encyclopaedia the technical and EV make for an FP IMO. Also I was actually quite surprised at how hard it was to actually take these. I did initially think that once I'd got the first one right it would be relatively simple to do this series, but it was surprisingly time consuming to get a good cross section and to get it to stay upright (blu-tac was useful) and post processing also was relatively lengthy. All the shots were done as three-shot focus stacks (sometimes more); the texture of the white paper needed to be removed; the background had to be whitened without blowing any highlights on the subject or washing it out too much or creating harsh lighting etc etc. As for seeing it attached to the tree - well you can't have everything in a single shot! How else would you be able to get a cross section? --Fir0002 05:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the distinction between FPC and POTD, although my wording may have implied that I was not. I do think that for something to be FP though one has to consider its ability to incite interest in the viewer to read the accompanying article, and POTD happens to be an obvious place for that to take place. I do feel that if we are creating featured content then there has to be some limits to how many essentially identically composed and lit shots can be featured, there are after all a million items in the grocery store that could be swapped in, and it doesn't necessarily mean they illustrate the subject particularly well for enc. purposes. I am not belittling the work to create these images, I shoot a lot of this kind of work myself commercially, both stills and for ObjectVR. (If you want to save yourself some work, you need to get the subject a good deal further away from the background - not only to push it properly beyond DOF to lose the texture/folds in cloth but it will help separate the subject and background lighting and reduce issues with shadows and help contrast on the edges of the subject). See also my comments on the passion fruit nom re. food photography and sense of scale etc. to save me repeating them again. Mfield (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern but I do think it's important to keep in mind that an encylopedia is primarily there to inform people who are already to looking for information rather than to try inspire new readers. I also think that you're placing too much value on POTD as a tool to incite interest - the image will only be on the mainpage once for 24 hours - should that really be an FP's main purpose in life? For the rest of its days it's just going to be serving its home article - that's what you should have in mind not POTD. Also there really isn't much in the criteria to support this objection, because as you'll note in criterion 3 "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative." Also the incite interest objection would bar all reproductions of artwork from being FPs despite

this category. --Fir0002 10:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I find toothpicks work better than blutack actually.

talk) 06:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support well done. — Aitias // discussion 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. The only thing I'd add is some kind of size reference. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I agree with the above, size reference would be nice. From the picture it looks to be about the same size as the apples (above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatsdesk (talk • contribs) 03:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Canteloupe and cross section.jpg MER-C 04:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shōki

Original - "Shōki zu" (Shōki striding), by Okumura Masanobu, c. 1741-1751. The figure from Taoist mythology known as Shōki in Japan (Zhong Kui in China), was a slayer of demons.

Reason

One of the more striking Japanese prints from the mid-eighteenth century. Thanks go to Shoemaker's Holiday for creating a scrolling template to display the unusual aspect ratio--which was actually one of the standard formats of traditional woodblock printing in its country of origin. Very high resolution. Restored version of File:Shoki.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Zhong Kui, Okumura Masanobu, Woodblock printing in Japan

Creator

Okumura Masanobu

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 20:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Duuuuuuuuude.
  Xavexgoem (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support wow amazing quality, looks great at full resolution, I usually never have to wait for pictures to load but this took a good 3-4 seconds. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 05:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful, probably the best example of its type we'll ever have. mikaul^talk 11:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC) This picture is shockingly big. This obviously shows best the quality of the work and of the restoration. For normal use a slightly smaller version might be better..[reply]
• Support per above M.K. (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• support per above. Ryan shell (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Shoki2.jpg MER-C 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racial segregation, Mississippi 1939

Reason

A week ago during President Obama's inauguration, some of the older commentators on one of the broadcasts remembered the racial discrimination they had witnessed early in their lives and wondered how a new generation could understand how far things have come without seeing how bad they were. One way to convey that memory is to restore its record. Not all history is pretty; this deserves the front row treatment the man on the stairwell may never have received.

Articles this image appears in

Racial segregation, Racial segregation in the United States

Creator

Marion Post Wolcott

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 06:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This high resolution image depicts the darker times of American history. obentomusubi 17:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - How moving. I wish it included the price for white entry, just out of curiosity. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support decent quality, high EV value. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 05:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Strong EV, good enough quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Can we get these old images geotagged? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe if someone knew local Mississippi history well enough to identify the exact location of the theater. Durova^Charge! 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a shame geotags don't allow for ranges to be given (or perhaps they do?), otherwise this could at least be tagged to Belzoni, and so it would get linked to Google Maps/Earth etc. on here. At least people would be able to find out quickly where this town is. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Her best image by far and a striking, valuable document to boot. Could maybe use a little sharpening, but no biggie. mikaul^talk 11:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment: It's a shame the White Men Only sign is so small-larger print would make the point more obviously Lemon_martini who cannot identify himself as this duff keyboard does not print tildes....
• Support A very disturbing photograph.
  talk) 23:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support After some sleuthing, I've located the theater where this was taken. New Crescent Theatre, 211 N. Hayden Street, Belzoni, MS 39038 33°10′43.82″N 90°29′20.92″W / 33.1788389°N 90.4891444°W / 33.1788389; -90.4891444. See also http://cinematreasures.org/theater/7540/ --Chasingsol^(talk) 05:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per Krm500 (talk · contribs), Makeemlighter (talk · contribs) and the "O_O" factor. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Theo. Very disturbing in an understated way. Fletcher (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Segregated cinema entrance3.jpg MER-C 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bijinga

Reason

Bijinga refers to beautiful women in Japanese art, particularly ukiyo-e woodblock printing. Kitagawa Utamaro was one of the most important artists in the genre and we're fortunate to have a very high resolution example of his work. Restored version of File:Ase o fuku onna.jpg

.

Articles this image appears in

Bijinga, Utamaro

Creator

Utamaro

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 08:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, good enc. Spencer^T♦C 02:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice picture, nice restoration, and good EV. Sasata (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support due to encyclopedic value. M.K. (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support excellent resolution. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 02:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ase o fuku onna2.jpg MER-C 04:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Neck

Reason

I was quite surprised to find that there was not a single picture in the isthmus article. Whilst not particularly notable, the isthmus is of a size suitable for photographic illustration. It is also an important geographical feature of Bruny Island.

Articles this image appears in

Isthmus, Bruny Island

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator, oppose edit (colours are wrong) --
  talk) 01:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support edit 1. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Gorgeous ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprised I didn't develop it as sRGB in the first place, must have had the raw processor set wrong for some reason (my camera is set to sRGB). I'm not so sure about the yellow cast correction though, the sun was just over the horizon.
    talk) 03:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support edit 1Wow. The fix was very helpful -- mcshadypl ^TC 04:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Lovely scenery and good EV + technicals --Fir0002 10:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Original I'll trust the photographer on the colour rendition --Fir0002 11:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 - Draws you into the scene wonderfully - Peripitus (Talk) 10:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both --Avala (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question If the bodies of water on each side were ponds, would this still be an isthmus? Makeemlighter (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure but I would say probably not. The other side of the land bridge would not be considered a separate land mass, and indeed, you could just walk around the pond to get to the other side. However it seems like largely a matter of degree and I'm not sure where you would draw the line. Fletcher (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny living on the surface of a sphere, innit? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's the case, I have to go with Strong Oppose because I cannot tell looking at the picture that the strip of land is connecting two separate land masses. That fact, IMO, takes away all EV from this picture. An overhead shot would probably be the best way to illustrate Isthmus. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The geocoding of the image would let anyone doubtful check for themselves.
        talk) 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • But if someone looks at the article to find out what an isthmus is, this picture will mislead them. Or at least not give them the whole picture. And if they didn't know what an isthmus is to begin with, they aren't going to be doubtful and check the geocoding. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • To be honest, I think the caption takes care of that. But I'm sure a satellite image wouldn't be mutually exclusive with this one. They could jointly illustrate the article. But it seems that you're okay with the image illustrating Bruny Island. So the question you're raising seems to be not about whether this picture should be featured (its inclusion in Bruny Island would be enough), but whether it should be included on isthmus at all, never mind what its status should be. Is that correct? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, I think the picture shows far too little of Bruny Island to have substantial EV there. I don't mind its inclusion in Isthmus (although I think a better image can be found) since it's the only thing we have now. I just don't think it meets criterion 5: "Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." Rather than enhancing understanding, I find that this picture misrepresents isthmuses and may cause the reader to think that any strip of land between bodies of water is an isthmus. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The isthmus is a defining characteristic of the island and has enc in the article context. Furthermore Bruny Island is about an hours drive from one end to the other, not really possible to get a photograph of the lot.
  • The answer to this question should have been yes, there's even an example of this listed in the Isthmus article, namely Madison Isthmus. Kmusser (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original if that's how NS remembers the colors. It doesn't look unnatural to me, depending on the time of day. Fletcher (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As of now, both images are sRGB converted for better judging the differences between edits. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both nice. — Aitias // discussion 19:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with preference to the one that the creator feels has the true colours --Muhammad(talk) 10:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. There's no reason to assume the colors in the original were unnatural making an edit unneeded. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• To whoever is closing this, don't forget to take into account most of the initial edit supports were prior to the sRGB conversion of the original.
  talk) 10:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support original Beautiful. --Chasingsol^(talk) 06:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The Spit Bruny Island.jpg MER-C 04:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wounded Knee Massacre

Reason

High enough res. Extremely high EV, just look at how they treated Native Americans back then. Also significant to our interactions and how they progressed over time with Native Americans. Editing is IMO, unnecessary.

Articles this image appears in

Sioux, Wounded Knee Massacre

Creator

Northwestern Photo Company

• Support as nominator --Ceran^→//forge 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An important photograph.
  talk) 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Would it be possible to get a higher resolution version? This is worth a restoration, but the current file is too compressed to really work on. Durova^Charge! 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The copyright mark in the middle, although likely historic, would have to be removed to satisfy FP requirements. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FP requirements are that the image not be under copyright. They don't specifically require the removal of expired copyright marks, although I doubt this image at its current resolution would qualify on other grounds. Durova^Charge! 03:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Have located another file of the subject. Not exactly the same shot; the field. If anyone want to share work on the restoration and conominate, please leave word. Strong stomach required: they hadn't cleared the bodies yet. Durova^Charge! 08:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Technically not up to snuff.--ragesoss (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Beach, Miami, Florida

Reason

High quality panorama of South Beach in Miami. Went through peer review first, where it went through some edits to bring the quality up. This image shows the length of South Beach taken from the jetty at the very southern tip. The beach is sparsely populated for a warm winter day (compare to this), which shows the bare beach (apparently uncommon).

Articles this image appears in

Miami Beach, Beach, List of beaches

(just added to latter three articles)

Creator

ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk»

• Support as nominator --ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Cropped kind of close to the top of the tall building. Also, half of the beach is in shadow-- would photographing at a different time of day enable the entire beach to be lit? Spikebrennan (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That must have been a cloud. There is nothing south of this point to cause a shadow. Though I think it kind of adds a cool effect. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 21:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Beautiful resolution and colors. Is this the best location and angle? At far left is a distracting dark patch, then an unsightly fence. Makes me want to carry that camera northward and get the art deco hotels instead. Agreeing with Spikebrennan about the shadow and the skyscraper. There's a featured picture to be had at South Beach, maybe several featured pictures. This one comes so close I tried cropping. Please keep shooting. Durova^Charge! 21:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What can I say? Construction happens. The location was chosen because it's the southern-most point of South Beach. I walked out about 100 ft on the jetty. See the coordinates listed on the file page to see what I mean. I have another Miami Beach image, but I still need to do some work on it. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 21:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support alternate 1 Durova^Charge! 20:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support crop The rocks bottom left don't bother me, nor does the fence. Looking more closely there is a stitching error in the water near the right hand side that needs to be either be fixed by a cloning jedi or chopped off entirely.
  talk) 00:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Very good catch. I uploaded a cropped version. Also, now less of the jetty is visible. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Nice scene but I can see a lot of stitching errors in the ocean (I can upload an edit with highlights if you want). Perhaps this could have been taken with a single shot rather than a pano? Also I don't like the overcast section of the beach --Fir0002 00:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both --Avala (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support E1 Fletcher (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support crop illustrates the beach and the presence of the buildings probably give an idea of where the beach is --Muhammad(talk) 09:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All of the stitching errors that fir has pointed out could be removed by another crop, but it'd be hard to call it miami beach if one did so. Personally I am not too fussed about stitching errors in surf.
  talk) 11:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak support I would like it if the whole beach was in uniform sunlight or cloudiness, it's a bit of a jarring transition. Otherwise, great picture.-
  OnBrains 20:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Promoted File:MiamiSouthBeachPanoramaEdit.jpg MER-C 04:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Brando from A Streetcar Named Desire

Reason

An important actor in the role that made him a star. Fortunately, public domain due to a gift of the photographer. Restored version of File:Brando van Vechten.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

A Streetcar Named Desire (play)

Creator

Carl van Vechten

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 00:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite grainy and not hugely sharp but probably sufficient given its age
  talk) 02:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Agree with Noodle snacks about the quality. Excellent EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not the quality we're looking for. The face is lacking in detail to an extent I'd say this has been upsampled three or four times. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with previous comment, although there is evidence of sharp grain it doesn't appear to be a first-generation copy. The late 40's weren't exactly the photographic dark ages, either. A more passable version might come out of shading the top and bottom to even out the flare/fading tones and beefing up the contrast a touch, but I'm not sure the EV is that strong it would make much difference FP-wise. mikaul^talk 12:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was scanned from a faded print. Anyone know of a better public domain portrait of Brando? Durova^Charge! 16:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Seriously, "Upsampled"?! What the hell? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename This is not a photograph of Brando in character from the play, so it may be confusing to have it identified with
  talk) 22:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Actually it is a photograph of Brando in character from the play, one of several from the play's original run. Durova^Charge! 08:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Oppose per PLW and mikaul. It's nice and big, but there's just too much grain and fadedness and I don't think it has enough historical one-of-a-kindness to overcome the technical faults. Matt Deres (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Matt Deres. --
  Eustress (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not promoted MER-C 04:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squash Bug

Reason

Good quality and EV, replacing very low quality images in the articles.

Articles this image appears in

Pentatomomorpha, Coreidae

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Good choice of subject, but I worry about the many little reflections off the body, as well as the cut off hindleg. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have uploaded a less cropped version which shows the hindlegs over the original version. The reflections are there because the bug's body is covered with small hairs. The reflections are unavoidable, and IMO encyclopedic, as they shows that the body is covered with hair. Without the reflections, the hairs would not have been seen. --Muhammad(talk) 04:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I don't know this animal very well, I'll give it the benefit of a doubt that the reflections are really unavoidable. Thanks for the new upload! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you and you're welcome --Muhammad(talk) 17:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Color contrast could be better, but with this depth of field that's no problem at full resolution. Durova^Charge! 17:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor lighting, (hard on axis flash) causing the effects mentioned by PLW.
  talk) 04:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not promoted MER-C 07:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moringa oleifera flower

green peas and potato

.

Reason

Good quality and EV. The original had been in the article for a long time replacing my own low quality image.

Articles this image appears in

Moringa oleifera

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support either as nominator with preference to edited version --Muhammad(talk) 06:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Lacks information on what edits were performed. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NS, can you please provide the information? Muhammad(talk) 13:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was a levels and sharpen (look at peer review), its in the retouched tag now.
      talk) 00:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Weak Oppose - The background really gets to me. It's both distracting and sometimes difficult to discern from the flower. I would support this as a VP though. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems a bit darkly-lit. Maybe a levels adjustment would help pull this up to FP quality? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original (edited version) had a levels adjustment done --Muhammad(talk) 05:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose bright section at upper right throws off the levels. Otherwise excellent. Durova^Charge! 05:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is the stalk really that bare or are the stumps on it the remnants of leaves? --Fir0002 08:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the flowers begins to bloom, there are several of them together in clusters. Most of the flowers fall down before complete maturity. The stumps are remnants of flowers. --Muhammad(talk) 09:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian military hospital, 1916

Catholic mass in an Austrian

military hospital, 1916.

Reason

Another fine American Colony Jerusalem photograph of World War I. Restored version of File:Austrian military hospital WWI.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Casualties of World War I removed, see note below Guest9999 (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Creator

American Colony Jerusalem

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 04:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a difficult one. The coat-hanger bothers me, although without it, we may not be able to recognize the outline of the priest's face at all, given the low contrast in highlights. Looking at the picture with EV goggles, the best illustrated feature I can make out is the oriental rug, second would be the lamp (but with not enough pixel count). The focus is on the group of men in the background, who are dressed in a variety of garments, mostly mid-tone shirts with asymmetric buttoning, and wear mustaches. But I'm left with the feeling that if the EV is mostly on the furniture and dresses, we should have a different (set of) photograph(s) for this. Furthermore, this is the third photograph on
  Casualties of World War I, as the casualties are not the central subject of this picture (I'd say the priest is, if anything, in spite of the focus problem). This is a better photo to illustrate casualties. Maybe someone can see more EV than I can. I'd be grateful. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note I've removed the image from
  Casualties of World War I because - in my opinion - the previous image was a better depiction of casualties in World War I and there is no mention of military hospitals or religious services in the article. Guest9999 (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You could have just said that you agree with me. ;) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not totally convinced by this, as per the above, and nobody has brought forward a defending argument, and I think the default should always be to not promote images when there isn't a good reason for promoting them. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Decent quality (proving historical images can meet a quality bar) but I'm also not convinced that it has the necessary EV - I prefer the scene in this image for Military Chaplain --Fir0002 09:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hundred Guilder Print (Rembrandt)

golden section

. Rembrandt is known in his work for the great compassion he felt with ordinary people, which is fully evident here in the detail devoted to minor characters in the scene.

Reason

I actually thought this was featured and just now discovered it wasn't.

Articles this image appears in

etching, Rembrandt, print room

Creator

Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice digital reproduction; could use a more succinct caption, per
  Eustress (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose This works out to only about 160dpi, way below the necessary level to bring out all the detail in an etching by a master artist. Several of the figures are made significantly more indistinct than they should be by the low resolution. I'd want at least 300 dpi. I think we should be able to do better - a google image search finds a slightly larger copy (2800x2000), though, alas!, now deleted. For now, I'd suggest this would be an excellent choice for Valued images, and we should certainly keep an eye out for better ones. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't meet all criteria. It doesn't have good resolution of the subject, nor does it have much quality. I see this image in Valued Pictures, as it is very educational.
  Fari 23:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Regretful oppose We already have an FP of Rembrandt's work in File:The Anatomy Lesson.jpg. There's certainly room for more FPs from this great artist, but this borderline resolution file does not thumbnail well. Please keep looking. :) Durova^Charge! 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pineapple

Reason

Interesting photo of an exotic tropical fruit. Good composition, nice colors, great definition.

Articles this image appears in

pineapple

Creator

Whaldener Endo

• Support as nominator --Exlibris (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Depth of field a bit shallow, top leaf slightly clipped. Sasata (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Demonstrates how the fruit grows during two different stages of growth, technically adequate although not superlative. Durova^Charge! 05:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Technically insufficient - particularly the saturation looks overcooked --Fir0002 09:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Les Eclaireurs Lighthouse

Reason

Beautiful pic that I believe meets the FP criteria

Articles this image appears in

Les Eclaireurs Lighthouse, Ushuaia

Creator

Uirauna

• Support as nominator --
  Eustress (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose original This version from the same set (and same photographer) is more encyclopaedic. Is there any chance that he/she will release it under an appropriate license? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • I have released and uploaded the picture you suggested under the appropriate license:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Patagonia-leseclarieus-2.jpg Also, all my pictures on flickr are released under CC-BY-SA
    talk) 17:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Brilliant. Support alternate. Well done Eustress for getting permission, and thanks to the photographer for giving it! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a very handsome photograph.
  talk) 02:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Both original per PLW, zoomed out a bit this would have much greater EV. Alternate isn't close to the technical standards I'm afraid. Thanks for getting the image, it is better than the other one in the article.
  talk) 02:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak support original, oppose alternate. A bit too centered for really good composition, but good contrast and ev. Durova^Charge! 05:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Original, Oppose Alt Per NS - since this is a building shot I'm guessing that it'd be pretty easy to redo with the rest of the islet in frame --Fir0002 08:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peterlee - "The Place to Be" - in the early 1960s

File:Peterleeboxes.jpg

Reason

Historic shot, as the flat roofs have been replaced with slanting ones now

Articles this image appears in

Peterlee

Creator

Tufacave

• Support as nominator --Tufacave (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The file hosting page is missing a lot of data. No description, no authorship attribution, no date. Are you really the copyright holder? Did you shoot this photograph decades ago? Durova^Charge! 18:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Who is Tony Colling? Fletcher (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The big board running across is very distracting. There is also no source information. The odd viewpoint seems unncessary. Not among Wikipedia's best work. Cacophony (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Sasata (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted (G7) MER-C 07:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam Centraal railway station

Amsterdam Centraal railway station, photochrom

print c. 1890-1900.

Reason

A historic view of the main railway station in the capital of the Netherlands, as it appeared about 110 years ago before extensive construction altered the area. Compare to a recent version of the same scene.[13] Restored version of File:Amsterdam Centraal Station.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Amsterdam Centraal railway station

Creator

Detroit Publishing Company

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support even though the Central Station is still there, the environment has changed almost beyond recognition. GerardM (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - fabulous image. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, sweet. Renata (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Amsterdam Centraal Station2.jpg MER-C 07:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wounded Knee aftermath

Reason

Aftermath of the Wounded Knee Massacre with several bodies in the foreground. Appearance of grain is partly due to paper texture of the albumen print. Restored version of File:Wounded Knee aftermath.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Wounded Knee Massacre

Creator

Trager & Kuhn, Chadron, Nebr.

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 02:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't see the subject well. It took me a while to distinguish the bodies, especially since it is black and white. I think I would prefer this image to be VP. Consider nominating this at Valued Pictures, which may definitly be promoted if it meets the criteria.
  Fari 02:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose As above, hard to distinguish the lumpy blankets as dead bodies. Sasata (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. A rare image and the fact that that it may take the viewer a bit of looking to distinguish the bodies in a photograph shot in such high contrast conditions so long ago is not a problem. Images don't have to to be easy to completely interpret at a glance to be powerful and evocative. Mfield (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support many people have romantic visions about cowboys and indians, kids play with their toys like I did. The cruelty of how it was is captured in material like this. This shows a reality that people rather forget. GerardM (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: At last, a picture that is really worth "a thousand words." Support all the way.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 20:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click on show to view the contents of this section

For all commenters: Remember, Valued pictures now exists on Wikipedia. It is time to start realizing what Valued pictures are and Featured pictures. It may qualify for both, but the best should be chosen.

Fari 03:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

ZooFari's pursuit of this particular image is unreasonable. He has been made aware of an alternate FPC of the same subject:

Wikipedia:FPC#Wounded_Knee_Massacre. Yet instead of requesting that image for the VP program, he redoubles his efforts to get this one (with 50 times greater file size). <spanstyle="color:#009">Durova^Charge! 17:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If that is the case then it would be bordering on

WP:POINT. The desires and outcomes of other projects should have no bearing here. We are voting on this image with respect to this project only. Mfield (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support Sad. Kind of reminds me of the Gaza situation. :( --Muhammad(talk) 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per ZooFari and Sasata. As perviously stated above, it is quite difficult to distinguish the bodies in the image and I don't think such an issue should occur in a Featured Picture. Nominating this at Valued Pictures would be the best bet, I think. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful Oppose per above. Definitely a strong valued picture candidate because of the great EV, though. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Perhaps amending the caption to read something like: "...the bodies of several Lakota Sioux (covered by blankets)..." would make it more obvious what this is. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Okay, better I hope? Durova^Charge! 00:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - stark and shocking evidence of an obviously unrephotographical (?) event. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per the nominator.
  talk) 23:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Is that snow that is on the ground? Just curious, and should probably be mentioned in the caption if it is, as it is not in color.
  Fari 05:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yes, done. 07:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - also, it's clear to me that those are bodies (in reply to Oppose #1). The "subject" is scattered all over the battlefield, and I think that's obvious.
  Xavexgoem (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That which is clear and obvious to you may not be so for others. When I look at this picture, I just see a bunch of blankets. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A rare picture of a sad truth, there's no need of gore pictures to see that.--Jf268 (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Mfield (talk · contribs). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Though 'twas my idea first! :) Ceran^→//forge 02:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.jpg MER-C 07:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bananaquits

Reason

captivating action shot of this bird species, sharp high-res photo with vivid colors and excellent composition

Articles this image appears in

Bananaquit, List of birds of Costa Rica, List of birds of Brazil, List of birds of Montserrat, List of birds of Panama, List of birds of Trinidad and Tobago

Creator

flickr user lbojarczuk (http://flickr.com/photos/7599082@N08/542690999) cc-by-sa

• Support as nominator --—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Love it! --
  Eustress (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Has clarity, good composition, and wow. Sasata (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is something a bit odd going on with this image. Firstly, the studio lighting, the camera is set at F11, 1/500th (max sync speed), and there are what appear to be three softboxes relatively close to the birds going from the
  talk) 11:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Going by the rest of his photos, he takes them in the wild with a feeder, but this is the third photo in his stream, so it might be an exception. Some museums have displays like this, but I'm having a hard time believing that the feathers would be in such good order on a dead bird. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I work sometimes with museum skins and mounts, and if those were mounts they would be exceptional. In particular the eye of the lower one looks damp, the skin around the mouth means if they are mounts they are really really fresh, and the facial expression on the top one would be really difficult to get on a skin. I wouldn't call myself an expert but I would be exceptionally surprised if these were anything other than alive. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's quite a long string of metadata. The poses are engaging, and appear natural. but it does appear to be slightly oversharpened. Could the original photographer be persuaded to release an unedited version? Durova^Charge! 18:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a lovely photograph.
  talk) 23:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Promoted File:Bananaquits.jpg MER-C 07:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clavulina cristata

Reason

Image is clear, fits nicely in article of same name, shows much more detail than any other Clavulina species photos available on Wikimedia Commons, and there's a dearth of fungi-related FP's

Articles this image appears in

Clavulina cristata

Creator

Sasata

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Nice looking and informative picture. The low resolution is a shame though. Narayanese (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durova (talk • contribs) 05:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support though tightly cropped. Ceran^→//forge 21:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Clavulina cristata sasata.JPG MER-C 07:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Wattlebird

Reason

Sharp and clear and in a Cherry tree in Spring

Articles this image appears in

Wattlebird

Creator

mikaul

• Support as nominator --mikaul^talk 13:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A sharp picture for once. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean 'for once'? Most of my images, as an example, are pixel sharp, and far higher res that this one. I'm not putting this image down by any means, but it certainly isn't unique in terms of sharpness. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replied on contributor's talk page. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sasata (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Its good, but also over sharpened (big halos around the beak and so on), I'd like to see it processed again with less sharpening.
  talk) 04:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Promoted File:Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata.jpg MER-C 07:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whistler's etching of Zaandam

Reason

Here's a chance for another FP for a significant artist: a high resolution etching by

James Abbott McNeill Whistler of Zaandam in the northern Netherlands, with a view of some of the many windmills that city had during the late nineteenth century. Restored version of File:Zaandam.jpg

.

Articles this image appears in

James Abbott McNeill Whistler, Zaandam

Creator

James Abbott McNeill Whistler

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 21:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and EV.
  talk) 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I'd like to sort out the white balance issue I think this and other similar noms have, before I can support. See question posted at Pulaski, New York, 1885 up the page. I've posted an edit here, based on the page white of the original uncropped scan, which I think is probably closer to the true colour of the artwork. mikaul^talk 11:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the paper grain. Whistler had this printed on an unusual paper, possibly to give the etching the appearance of an original sketch. Papers of that grain would have had a distinct brownish tint. Durova^Charge! 16:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's an unusual paper, how has it faded to the same hue as other LOC scans? The original file has a white border, possibly from a scanner but certainly not the same paper, which has the same hue. I can't imagine why an archivist would choose a yellow-magenta paper for this purpose, so I'd conclude the scan has a cast, possibly due to mis-calibration somewhere, which should be corrected for historical accuracy. mikaul^talk 20:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is becoming disruptive. Mikaul supposes that a scanner was miscalibrated at the Library of Congress, and even though the hypothesis does not fit the evidence within the collection where he first hypothesized it he now extends the notion to completely unrelated material. If anyone is confused, please do refer to the other discussion. Durova^Charge! 08:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I'd wanted to be disruptive, I'd have commented on more than two noms. The hypothesis fits the evidence as far as I can see. If you don't want to see a problem, fine. Just don't twist it into some kind of personal vendetta. The crux of the issue, fwiw, isn't here, it's on my talk page. mikaul^talk 20:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Zaandam2.jpg MER-C 07:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Lion

Reason

Clear and good quality image of an unusual animal

Articles this image appears in

Lion, White lion

Creator

Benjamint 10:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 10:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I can see this at Valued Images, but not here. The composition is very plain, and the lighting and DOF choices are sub par. Probably to blame is the setting, but the grass and atrophy/emasculation of this animal couldn't make it more obvious that this is in a zoo (as the caption on one of the articles states, but please put it on the image page for others to use, esp. when translating). Compares unfavourably with other images at both lion and white lion. I can't help thinking this image belongs on animal welfare, but this would require us having more detailed information on how the animal is kept. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I don't see anything wrong with it being a captive animal: "white lions remain rare in the wild ... The greatest population of white lions is in zoos where they are deliberately bred..." From the article it sounds as though they're so rare in the wild they may as well not exist. I can't see anything wrong with the DOF. It's definitely a better image than the others on the White lion article though: there's only the noisy shot of the face and OOF one of the cub. What is it exactly that my image "Compares unfavourably with"? Benjamint 06:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think quality is good showing an unusual animal in a realistic, if not natural, setting. I don't think the fact that it's in a zoo really detracts that much from its EV, given that apparently the majority of white lions are bred in zoos these days. Fletcher (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I find the composition could be improved but this is what we have and EV is definitely there. --Muhammad(talk) 04:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Agree with Fletcher and Muhammad. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, more or less per PLW. The composition especially strikes me as uninteresting. I think the majesty of this animal could be captured much better, even in another zoo shot. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose per PLW. Spencer^T♦C 00:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unfortunately a fairly obvious zoo shot.
  talk) 07:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not promoted MER-C 07:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crazywell Cross

Maltese Cross

the arms of the cross grow wider as they move away from the centre. The area is surrounded with many superstitions.

Reason

The image is high quality, simple and beautiful with great composition. The image is educational.

Articles this image appears in

Crazywell Pool;Dartmoor;Dartmoor crosses

Creator

Herbythyme

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though the caption may have slightly the wrong tone. ("It is interesting", for instance.) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion about the caption. I tried to improve it. May I please ask you what do you think?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but "The arms of the cross are becoming gradually narrower toward the end." is a bit confusing, as they appear to get narrower towards the middle. A better phrasing might be "Like the Maltese cross, the arms of the cross grow wider as they move away from the centre."

I've changed it. Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I am reluctant to support my own image & I am flattered that Mbz1 considers it worthy. I set out to capture both the cross (one of a series which I am trying to get - there should be an article in it as they mark an ancient trackway) and to get a feel for a fairly remote area of the UK. So Support with thanks I guess! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Crazywell cross 1.JPG MER-C 07:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I love the way the cross stands out against the landscape. Colours are also spot-on (shame about all the clouds, though) and it captures the hills/tors, as well as the resevoir and its trees. Jolly Ω Janner 16:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice foto with gothic atmosphere.--Umnik (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black-faced Cormorant(s)

Reason

Quality is reasonable and only a very small quantity of photographs exist on wiki of the species.

Articles this image appears in

Black-faced Cormorant, (alt is in Bruny Island

as well)

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 05:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Original - Definitely a great photo. I like the look of the water in the background as well. These things have some cool eyes. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have two little niggles with this picture. First, do you have a version with less DOF? I find the background a bit nervous and distracting, and it won't be particularly easy to adjust the lighting in post-processing since the same hues are used throughout the picture, bird or sea! The second problem is that the Mr. Bird's tail vanishes behind the plank. Knowing the length and shape of the tail turns out to be quite useful as a rough guide to cormorant species, so I feel it would be a shame not to have it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have quite a few alts to go through for the first one, so I'll have a look a bit later. I have to stop down with the teleconverter to get things tack sharp generally (hence not much BG blur).
    talk) 00:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • There is one with the tail visible, but it is leaning forward in an unnatural pose, so the EV isn't so good.
      talk) 07:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Just out of curiosity how come the EXIF doesn't match up with your description? --Fir0002 11:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does for shutter speed/iso, doesn't match on focal length or aperture since I taped the pins on my teleconverter in order to get some degree of autofocus at F8 (Slow but works fine in plenty of light).
          • Ah well that's a handy tip! I'll have to try that out... Any side-effects/warnings about the operation? --Fir0002 12:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
            • I think the AF system in the 400D is the same as the 20D. It works best if you manual focus pretty closely then use AF to fine tune it. Sometimes it will oscillate around the focus point if there isn't enough contrast.I wouldn't bother with it unless you have very bright sunlight and a tripod, optimum sharpness is achieved stopped down, and F11 isn't very fast!. I've gotten some shots that I wouldn't otherwise have been able to get though. I don't really use the TC as often as I should, since I prefer to go walking with the 400 in my hands rather than lugging about a tripod.
              talk) 13:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • Oh yeah, I'd use it in one shot mode when using this trick, tends to hunt and muck about too much in AI servo and its too slow to track a moving target anyway. I also suspect some AF inaccuracy is the reason it looks better stopped down (my 70-200 looked better with a teleconverter wide open)
                talk) 13:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
                ]
• Oppose Lacks snap and just doesn't stand out to me. Whereas some of your other work really does. Like the next candidate below. Omnibus (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support IP user never came back to sign in... Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC) I like this picture. It correctly illustrates the animal and is a very high quality picture (technically speaking). Not only could this be a featured picture but it would make as a good Picture of the Day some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.217.236 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Unfortunately IP addresses don't have
    talk) 00:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support original Visible ripples communicate that this is a waterfowl. Durova^Charge! 01:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The case has been made that the original is to be preferred; photographically, it's the better picture, but many pictures have walked the plank here for having part of a subject cut off or obscured, and this, unfortunately, will be another one. And while I sympathise with the idea that it's desirable for the background to communicate proximity to water, I think a little more bokeh would have helped here as well. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternate 1 --Muhammad(talk) 09:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 06:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Berlin Archaeopteryx

Reason

It's the Berlin archaeopteryx. To anyone interested in palaeontology, this is an amazing image. It's also highly suited to Darwin year.

Articles this image appears in

Camadas de Guimarota, Bird

Metadata

Creator

Raimond Spekking, who also has some other brilliant photographs of fossils. I'd suggest that all of them would be worthy FPs.

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Yes, absolutely. Prefer edit 1. Durova^Charge! 01:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support In agreement.
  talk) 02:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question The picture is bright on the right and a bit dull on the left. Is this change of lighting naturally like that r is it due to uneven lighting when the photograph was taken? --Muhammad(talk) 14:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I've only seen this in photos, and usually far worse than this one. I honestly couldn't say.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I think this image needs some croping. The outline is distracting, especially when this image is used in a wiki thumbnail box. I support if it gets cropped...
  Fari 21:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support edit 1, agree with Durova. Excellent image of what is probably one of the most famous fossils ever discovered. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both I looked at this earlier and thought it looked a bit odd. Did a little surfing and found the original specimen is actually framed and (as I suspected) much more detailed. I can't be certain cos I've never seen it, but the one we have nominated here is probably a facsimile, the original having only quite recently been exhibited publicly, AFAIK. The lighting is probably available light, as another shot here has the same, and appears along with other, much better shots of the original. Check the link, decide for yourself. mikaul^talk 12:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the pictures of it framed were taken after this one (with the only exception of "Mike the bird guy" whose pictures were taken "behind the scenes", in early 2006). Do you have any further evidence that the original was framed at the time this was taken? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The museum website suggests the original has only recently been publicly displayed and a facsimile would have been displayed before that. The rash of flickr shots late 2007 suggests this happened around then, after the shot here was taken. Not evidence as such, just using my eyes :) mikaul^talk 20:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, that would also be consistent with the slightly plastery appearance of this exhibit. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 05:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Colosseum, Giovanni Battista Piranesi

Reason

A major Italian engraver, in a fine reproduction

Articles this image appears in

Colloseum

Creator

Giovanni Battista Piranesi

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record, the quality of the original was so high that there wasn't really any point in editing it. Paris 16 deserves the credit here for finding this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice work. Renata (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful detail. Great find. --Chasingsol^(talk) 06:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support what is the reason for the obese png?
  talk) 08:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • PNGs are acually better for engravings: JPEGs are optimised for pictures. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like a real photograph. It's not, is it ;) --Muhammad(talk) 09:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The geometry looks kind of odd. Is there actually an angle from which the Coliseum looks like this? Spikebrennan (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, yes. The Colloseum is actually ovoid (either that, or a lot of diagrams on Google image search are coincidentally making the same error), and has some odd use of external walls. Of course, if Piranesi did include errors, it'd be pretty understandable given the thing was horribly overgrown with trees at the time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Giovanni Battista Piranesi, The Colosseum.png MER-C 05:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Play fight of Polar Bears

Reason

adds value to the articles

Articles this image appears in

Play fighting

Creator

mbz1

• Support any as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Almost-support comment Please provide the date when this was recorded. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support They may be deadly carnivores but they sure look cute. Durova^Charge! 07:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fwiw, support either. Prefer alternate. Durova^Charge! 02:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is it difficult to fix the underexposure? Everything looks very grey, rather than white atm.
  Xavexgoem (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment If you Internet connection is slow, it is better to watch the video in preview at this page than in full resolution. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt only, per snow is white.
  talk) 01:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support alt as above --Muhammad(talk) 09:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Play fight of polar bears edit 1.avi.OGG MER-C 05:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video of Barack Obama Presidential Inauguration address

Reason

High quality video of historical event. High encyclopedic value.

Articles this image appears in

Inauguration of Barack Obama (using the lower-resolution version, File:Barack Obama inaugural address.ogv)

Creator

White House

• Support as nominator --Cirt (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I dislike the White House logo in the introduction and conclusion (these can obviously be cut out). Also, the video bounces throughout most of its length, which is annoying. I'd prefer a version from the front. Many videos were taken from the front at greater zoom. They may not be free, but they are better quality than this, which is another reason why I oppose. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia has been known to feature public domain images when a preferable version is under copyright. For instance this video of Iwo Jima, even though it lacks the iconic status of Joe Rosenthal's Associated Press photo. Durova^Charge! 06:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That said, the video still jostles through most of the speech. Maybe run it through some stabilization first? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I had the software. Any volunteers? Durova^Charge! 03:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd also like to see the "titlecards" edited out. They're very distracting and not necessary. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video of Barack Obama oath of office during Presidential Inauguration

Reason

High quality video of historical event. High encyclopedic value.

Articles this image appears in

Inauguration of Barack Obama (using the lower-resolution version, File:Barack Obama Oath of Office.ogv)

Creator

White House

• Support as nominator --Cirt (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Barack Obama taking the Oath of office. Cirt (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd like to see the "titlecards" edited out. They're very distracting and not necessary. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just saw this... I think my original upload had the initial credits edited out as much as I could. That could be reverted to... is that one any better? I think it has a bit less at the beginning and end than the current version, but also may have been converted at a slightly worse loss level. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broccoli and cross section

Reason

Technically very good and very high EV

Articles this image appears in

Broccoli

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lemon martini (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yummy, good EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Cultivar not identified (shouldn't be too hard). Nice to see your umbrella turned up, but the fine detail shows up better with hard light in this case. It also looks over exposed to me.
  talk) 00:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I disagree - the hard light, at least in your sample shot, looks too harsh and the broccoli is left looking unrealistically dark. I'm not sure what colour the original of yours was, but the broccoli I photographed was relatively pale. That said you're probably right that the original is a bit bright and the edit looks the most realistic. As for the cultivar I suppose I could go ask at Coles, but I suspect from this it's Calabrese --Fir0002 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I just don't think that the photographing of a common everyday object on a white background is FP material. Sure it's sharp and well exposed, but once you are set up you can switch in and out thousands of subjects that will all be sharp and well lit but does that make them interesting to have on the front page? Hope you see my point, it's nothing against the images themselves, but where does it end, will we have an FP fruit and veg month with a different one on every day?! I don't see people rushing to read Broccoli when seeing this. I think there is strong encyclopedic merit to seeing the fruit attached to its tree as well/instead. Mfield (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But broccoli doesn't grow on trees you know ;-). --jjron (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mfield and Noodle snacks. The exposure problem at least should be fixable. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support both well done. — Aitias // discussion 19:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 but not Original. Nice fix to exposure. Omnibus (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. The only thing I'd add is a size reference. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Broccoli and cross section edit.jpg I checked the cultivar, and it is indeed calabrese [14]. MER-C 05:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

α-helixes, and arrows show β-pleated sheets

.

Reason

A beautiful example of a ribbon diagram created... by the inventor of ribbon diagrams. We are so, so lucky she's a Wikipedian. =)

Articles this image appears in

Triosephosphate isomerase, Jane S. Richardson, Ribbon diagram

Creator

Jane S. Richardson, User:Dcrjsr on Commons.

• Support as nominator See clarification below as to which. --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Was the picture published somewhere, or just here? (I couldn't spot it in "The Anatomy and Taxonomy of Protein Structure") Narayanese (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it certainly did appear here. I believe it was originally published in a black-and-white version, though. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The color version was also published in Biophys.J. (1992) 63:1186 doi 0006-3495/92/11/1186/24. Dcrjsr (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV. Looks great. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, Strong Support Wow. I can't stop coming back to this great educational image. EV is A+ and then some. Omnibus (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice, but there is a blemish in the upper left hand corner that should be taken care of first. --Pstanton 07:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
  talk • contribs
  )
• Comment Thanks - done! On Wikimedia Commons is a fixed version called TriosephosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel.png, which I have just replaced here since it's a very worthwhile but minor change. Dcrjsr (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC) This is so cool[reply]
• Comment I have re-photographed the original drawing and put a higher-resolution version on Commons as shown below

  

  . That is now the version linked on the Jane S. Richardson and Ribbon diagram Wikipedia pages. Would it be appropriate to replace the candidate image above with the new high-res version? 71.111.205.107 (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the high resolution version Wronkiew (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support high-res version. The only real critique is that it might look better witht he black point slightly higher; charcoal grey lines are easily interpreted by the eye as blurred black ones, while I'm pretty sure they're actually as sharp as you could ever wish for. But I'm not entirely convinced that the manipulation is desirable in this case, as it could lose some detail. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentThis is delightful. Is there any chance of getting an uncompressed version of the new upload? Would like to try a touch of work on it. Otherwise support the new version. Best, Durova^Charge! 00:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The original was only cropped, not downsampled. Had originally corrected the lens distortion to straighten the mat edges, and warmed the color balance a little. I recently tried fixing the slight vignetting and darkening the black lines, but ended up with a slightly less good image for the main drawing, so my preference is for the hi-res version here. Anyone should feel free to play with it, of course. Dcrjsr (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This "upgraded" version doesn't really pass mustard for me. At full zoom, the edges look awfully blurry, and scream "Vectorize ME!" If others think it's worth the effort, I could probably turn it into a good SVG. Redoubts (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:TriosePhosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel photo mat.png MER-C 05:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V-2 bombing at Battersea, London

of 27 January 1945.

Reason

A ruined building, a child's face, and a flag: the World War II bombings of London in one image. This one is right on the edge in terms of size and resolution, but the composition made it worth a try. Restored version of File:London V2 Frissell.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Vergeltungswaffe

Creator

Toni Frissell

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 01:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great picture. This specific V2 bombing occurred at the northwest end of Usk Road at the York Road intersection in Battersea. 51°27′49.64″N 0°10′57.42″W / 51.4637889°N 0.1826167°W / 51.4637889; -0.1826167. Source located here. --Chasingsol^(talk) 06:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Its a good picture but I I think relatively speaking the enc is low in
  talk) 08:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 'Strong Support - not the best res, but man what a pic. Shows the devastation in two ways with the ruined, bombed-out building and the child behind. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose I don't see any EV for this in any of the articles, meaning that this picture fails criterion 5. I'd say "speedy close" but a couple supports already probably means that's not going to happen.Makeemlighter (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To elaborate: I see this as more of an artsy picture, the kind you'd see in a documentary or something. It doesn't do anything for me in
    Vergeltungswaffe. If the intent is again to show the destruction caused by the bombing, my above objections apply here as well. This is a good photograph, but there just isn't the EV to make it an FP. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment Great image. I'd support it if it found its way onto the Toni Frissell page; would tip the EV into positive territory I think. mikaul^talk 13:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can find a good place for it, by all means do. She's better known for her wartime photographs of the Tuskegee Airmen, so replacing that one seemed kind of tough. Durova^Charge! 04:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose lack of EV. Cacophony (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen Twigs (Jan 09 Midwest Ice Storm)

Reason

subject is sharp, footprints define the backround, interesting situation, the footprints and twigs kind of form a dynamic pattern.

Articles this image appears in

January 2009 Central Plains/Midwest ice storm

Creator

Raj1020

• Support as nominator --Juowikis (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Minimal EV and the article is literally 28 words of prose. The image quality is not all that impressive and no part of the image implies its location or consequence. No relation between the article and the image. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the scene can be reshot, try it in portrait orientation with fewer branches and frame it so the background snow is undisturbed by footprints. Durova^Charge! 06:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, and snow is white, not grey. F10 is too narrow for a p&s, the whole thing is soft. 58.6.103.48 (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per reasons above. Sasata (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Also, there's a white blemish(?) in the top, left of centre. Can this be retouched? Microchip08 21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel del Coronado, c.1900

Reason

Historic photochrom print approximately 110 years old of a landmark hotel. A panorama from this angle is no longer possible due to subsequent development. Restored version of File:Hotel Del c1900b.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Hotel del Coronado, William Henry Jackson, Detroit Publishing Company

Creator

William Henry Jackson

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 19:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. I'm looking forward to celebrating my tenth wedding anniversary there next year. Spikebrennan (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I've been there! Never new it had its own railroad tracks. Great image; cool to see it so long ago. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent work for the time period; still retains great EV.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose, sorry, but the composition (the field in front) is not that great. Renata (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Sasata (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hotel Del c1900b.jpg MER-C 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Holland Honeyeater perched.File:New Holland Preening.jpg

Reason

Technically good, interesting pose clearly showing entire bird.

Articles this image appears in

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

Creator

Flying Freddy

• Support as nominator --Flying Freddy (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Poor lighting. Needed faster exposure and fill light - much of the background is disturbingly blown to pure white - Peripitus (Talk) 21:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I disagree, the blown background is irrelevant to the subject except to isolate from the otherwise cluttered foliage, Uploaded alternatives without such white backgrounds, prefer alt 1. - Flying Freddy (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blown background looks weird and unnatural when it occupies such a large part of the image. While I like the composition and light for alt2 I think it might be affected by camera shake and it's not as good a species illustration as File:Phylidonyris_novaehollandiae_Bruny_Island.jpg (nominated somewhere else here ?) For such a common species we should expect to promote a tack sharp and well lit image - Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Phylidonyris novaehollandiae Bruny Island.jpg. MER-C 10:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sorry, blown whites are a problem at FPC unless the area affected is really minimal. Excellent shot of the bird; please come back with another. Durova^Charge! 06:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, support alt 2. The page cache must not have purged yet; didn't see the new submissions until after hitting save. Better background; small but not too small. Durova^Charge! 06:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Questions Can we sort out what happened with the flash in these images? ISO varies from 160 to 400, but flash fired in all of them according to EXIF data (and all with 1/200 seconds exposure). Alt 1 has high noise ratio for an ISO 200 with this camera (Nikon D80). How much sharpening and exposure correction has been applied? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On all images on board flash was used. As the camera will only sync with the onboard flash down to 1/200 that was set (camera was on tripod for all shots so motion blur was unlikely), then aperture set as appropriate for DOF and sharpness. Actual exposure was controlled to a ballpark figure by adjusting iso to within about half a stop of correct as measuerd my camera, then used flash as fill. As such exposure correction would've been at most maybe half a stop. I think the high noise to signal ratio comes from shooting in raw, when shot in .jpg I believe NR is automatically applied which sacrifices detail. Frankly noise is a non issue to my eyes in any of these shots as compared to File:Phylidonyris_novaehollandiae_Bruny_Island.jpg for instance. Sharpening was applied in photoshop as is the norm with 90% of images submitted here, it was kept to a minumum as downsampling raised apparent sharpness. - Flying Freddy (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My opinion, forget the fill (since you can't get above 1/200th) and just wait until you get one sitting in the sun.
      talk) 11:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Oppose all - just. I don't see the "blown highlights" of the original submission as a big technical problem, but the white background makes the composition displeasing to my eye - bright background and dark foreground doesn't work too well. There's also what looks like sharpened blur. In alt2, the blur on the leaves (motion blur? boku? hard to tell) is just slightly too distracting. It's close though. Stevage 04:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't think we can accept these, if only to remain consistent with previous decisions. The resolution on subject is borderline for each of these images; orig has unfortunate composition (tail on branch); personally I'm not too outspoken about blown highlights. Alt 1 has high noise levels. Alt 2 suffers from some motion blur (particularly on the branch and feet - windy? would also explain lack of sharpness on breast feathers). If the good features from all these images had come together in one image, it doubtless would have made it, especially since I'm not sure (didn't check) if we have an FP that shows a bird attending to its wing. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hachures

. Digitally restored from pen-and-ink and pencil manuscript on tracing linen, mounted on paper (original 41cm x 41cm). Scale [1:63,360].

Reason

A manuscript map of the first major land battle of the American Civil War, known as First Battle of Bull Run in the North or First Battle of Manassas to the Confederates who made this document. Restored version of File:First Manassas map.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

First Bull Run Confederate order of battle

Creator

unknown

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 06:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A high quality, high EV image with historic value. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Durova.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --
  talk) 08:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - LoC has some interesting images, don't they...great job again, Durova, and my apologies for not getting ere sooner. 20:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:First Manassas map2.jpg MER-C 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebetria palpebrata

Reason

Found this on the main page. Interesting bird and high res

Articles this image appears in

Light-mantled Albatross, Phoebetria

Creator

Vincent Legendre

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The lower 8th of the bird and around the edge of the head/neck area looks blurry to me, which is unfortunate because the rest of him seems so detailed. Is there an image of the entire bird? This doesn't show what the shape or size an Albatros fuligineux is, or whether the coloring of the head continues over the rest of the body. I have to oppose on these factors, I'm afraid. Best, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Seems to be a bit compressed for such large dimensions, but no problem with the depth of field issue. This bird isn't likely to be identified by its shoulder. Durova^Charge! 17:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support per Durova. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The image is nice, but it is severely lacking in encyclopedic value. It doesn't show enough of the bird to be informative enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am puzzled by this as a reason for opposing. The image is without question the best image we have of the head of an albatross. It is not uncommon for reference works to include profiles of the head in addition to the whole body, and in fact this isn't even the only head shot we would have featured. This image isn't the only one we have of this species, and no one image can cover every aspect of a species. We have images of the whole bird in flight which shows different things from the one we have of a bird on the nest which in turn shows different things to this one, and it happens to be this one that is of sufficient quality to nominate here. As an example of what that quality brings to the image and to Wikipedia, it shows clearly the differing levels of darkness around the dark plumage of the face; albatrosses have darker spots in front of the eyes to prevent reflections, which is easier to see on a Laysan Albatross but harder to see on a darker birds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per reasoning I give above. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Omnibus (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great detail. --Chasingsol^(talk) 06:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - excellent photograph.
   GARDEN  22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Albatros fuligineux.jpg MER-C 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply