Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/January-2007

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

Older Archive
Miscellaneous Archive
2004: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


Battle of Hong Kong map

The Battle of Hong Kong (1941), World War II
Reason
Informative map of historic event. Well-drawn and clearly formatted.
Articles this image appears in
Battle of Hong Kong
Creator
Jerry Crimson Mann
Nominator
UCLARodent

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

African Penguin Swimming in New England Aquarium.

African Penguin at the New England Aquarium.
Reason
I believe this is a high quality picture of a penguin swimming. It meets the size requirement and is appealing to the eye. My only complaint about it would be the red tag on its wing, but that can be photoshoped out.
Articles this image appears in
African Penguin, New England Aquarium
Creator
Max Lieberman
Nominator
ZeWrestler Talk
  • Oppose. I don't have a problem with the water, it's that the bird itself is a little unclear. enochlau (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The problems this image faces are twofold. Firstly, it doesn't illustrate its subject very well. This could conceivably be solved by finding a topic it actually does describe well enough for featuring, though it may require some brain-wracking to come up with one. But while this'd help, I'm still not sure I'd support it. The red-eye of the penguin and the reflections of an overhead light at the top center really hurt the image. All in all, a good photograph, but not a feature-quality one. GeeJo (t)(c) • 17:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose is it just me or does the penguin have a red eye? Kind of looks scary, I don't mind the water color though. — Arjun 14:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid Peak Drainage Waterfall

Pyramid Peak Drainage Waterfall on the east side of Pyramid Peak (California) in the Desolation Wilderness
Reason
This image represents many hidden areas of a wilderness area many people believe to be devoid of such an oasis
Articles this image appears in
Desolation Wilderness
Creator
Phreakdigital, Mike Grindstaff
Nominator
Phreakdigital
  • SupportPhreakdigital 23:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose — even if the image is above the 1k limit, I feel that the image is to little for this kind of object. AzaToth 00:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Beautiful. Just Beautiful. Ilikefood 00:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support That looks like it would make a great one of those animated pictures. --
    Sign Here 02:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose. Image is fuzzy, like it's dithered a little. Looks like at some point it had been saved with little color depth --frothT C 03:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The landscape looks.. artificial to me. It looks like it's a man made decoration or something (why would the rock on the sides look like that?). --antilived T | C | G 09:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The colour in the image appears rather flat and dull for some reason, and I don't think the scenery depicted is particularly beautiful or anything, sorry. enochlau (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate Support; while looking at the picture while it was loading, it has come to my attention that there seems to be less focus on scenery objects further away from the camera (such as the waterfall). However, the level of detail on scenery objects closer to the camera (such as the flowers) is virtually unmatched. -- Altiris Exeunt 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as said before beautiful, and per above. — Arjun 14:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Resolution isn't high enough. --Zantastik talk 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Mountains of California

Sierra Nevada with Lake Aloha
in the foreground.
Reason
Shows the short chain of mountains from the best possible vantage point with the famous Lake Aloha.
Articles this image appears in
Crystal Mountains (California)
Creator
Mike Grindstaff, phreakdigital
Nominator
Phreakdigital 23:24, 25 December 2006 (UT
  • oppose — what are the holes/dots in the sky for a thing? why is it regularry blurry? AzaToth 23:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1 Now it looks better. --
    Sign Here 02:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Edit 1 - removed the "dots"
  • I support Edit 1; details are crystal-clear to me; decent lighting, well done. -- Altiris Exeunt 04:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are those dark bands in the water stitch artifacts? They look very unnatural to me... --antilived T | C | G 09:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure they're just shadows from the peaks. «
(¿Hábleme?) 23:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Promoted Image:Crystal Mountains CA02 edit.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 US Silver Proof

2006 American Eagle Silver Proof (Obverse side)
Reason
I saw this picture (I cannot remember which article I came from, unfortunately) and I just love the detail of the photo, not to mention the lack of compression artifacts and virtually no noise. All it needs is a little rotation correction and it should be good to go.
Articles this image appears in
US coin sizes
Creator
United States Mint
Nominator
Ataricom
File:Columbian expo 1892 obv.jpg
Comment - This
Trade Dollar is a Proof coin (see pic) and is completely natural and somewhat enhances the beatuy of the coin. While better examples exist, it illustrates the point that such beauty can be had if your willing to be patient. The US Mint's "doctored" proofs are too unnatural looking and aren't really an accurate representation of their real life counterparts. I mean, can you say, with 100% certainty, that the US Mint will give you a coin just like in the picture? Not really. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whistling Duck Flight

Black-Bellied Whistling Duck
Edit1: Some space added at the bottom

You've gotta admire a shot like this - from the excellent sharpness and focus to the superb bokeh; a great shot of a Black-Bellied Whistling Duck in flight.

Promoted Image:Whistling duck flight02 - natures pics-edit1.jpg Raven4x4x 05:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Chicago River

View of the Chicago River at night.

I was able to locate the full size version of this picture which I previously submitted. The picture is in articles:

Chicago river among others, and was taken by myself User:Kkmd
.

  • Could you instead add the full sized version to the first nomination, rather than creating a new nomination? Thanks. --Tewy 05:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support A great shot, illustrative and appealing. Jellocube27 00:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; sorry, but I could only load half the image due to some problems with my connection. However, in the top half that I managed to see, I noticed a small amount of fragmentation in some areas of the image, so that lowered my opinion of the picture a little. However, I have no qualms over the image resolution or anything else, for that matter. -- Altiris Exeunt 12:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here is the original nomination for the smaller version. --Tewy 18:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose I just don't like the way the lights reflect off the water. I know it's inevitable.... but I just don't agree with it. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. The picture is slightly leaning to the left (on top of the perspective distortion). I believe either a HDR shot or a picture taken during the day would reveal more detail and do the scene more justice than this (albeit pretty) picture. --Dschwen 11:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plate tectonics

Plates in the crust of the earth, according to the plate tectonics theory
Reason
I feel this image represents the plates of the earth perfectly. Although a little small, I have come to understand that is not an issue with svg images. Slowly superceeding Image:Tectonic plates.png
Articles this image appears in

Creator
User:Scott Nash / User:Zimbres
Nominator
- Jack (talk)
  • Support — - Jack (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment resized it to A0 format. AzaToth 21:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are gaps in the outline of the land where there are labels. Perhaps the labels could be moved to allow unbroken lines? Also, is the Equator relevant in this diagram? Surely it has nothing to do with plate tectonics... Mahahahaneapneap 23:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely agree, I thought all that when I found it, but kinda hoped someone with more of an understanding of svg manipulation than me could help with that one. I gather its easily done? - Jack (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose current version, although I think it could be fixed to make this a featured picture. My objection is mostly about the color scheme which makes it hard to detect the relation of the plates to the continents. One way to fix this would be to switch the scheme to dark, saturated colors for continents and light, desaturated colors for oceans. I also recommend changing the colors for the Arabian and Caribbean plates because the difference between continent and water is hard to detect and in general sticking with "maritime" colors for non-continental plates (Pacific and Filipino in particular). And lastly, switching the color of the plate borders to white might make it easier to differentiate between them and the shorelines. ~ trialsanderrors 23:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My main reason for opposing is the map projection. In my opinion it should be an equal area projection so that the relative size of the plaques are conserved, like in this picture, in the same article. Also, the ocean ridges should be represented, as well as the Equator and some meridians and parallels. Alvesgaspar 00:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per all above. --
    Sign Here 02:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose as per all comments above. -- Altiris Exeunt 02:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all above. sign here HAPPY HOLIDAYS!s d 3 1 4 1 5 π 03:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I've seen better. The one we have in school shows which plate is overriding at the subduction zone, not just where the subduction zone is. Ilikefood 17:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I believe that this is an attractive and informative map. It is easily understood but nonetheless contains a lot of data. I believe that the method used to show present day continents is not only very effective but also subtle enough not to compete with the plate outlines. I do think color-coding the plates for land and sea is a good idea. While not perfect, I would support this map for Featured Picture. MapMaster 02:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I like this image just fine, but what's with the red arrows? What do they represent? They're a little jarring as is. --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're the direction of plate movement, I thought that to be obvious - Jack (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sturts Desert Pea

Sturts Desert Pea, Melbourne Zoo
Alternative

An unusual image to come out of a day at the zoo (it's so dangerous it needs to be kept behind 400,000 volt electric fence and requires human sacrifices to feed it ;-)) but a good image IMO nevertheless. It was quite challenging to capture the vibrant red of the flower without blowing the red channel, but I think this pic does a good job at it.

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unfortunately, this image looks "messy" (even in full size), because of the mottled background and the foreground leaves. The composition also feels lop-sided. You can do better! --Janke | Talk 09:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. That's what HDR is for isn't it? Anyway I agree with janke, too confusing and messy --frothT C 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, HDR wouldn't be useful for this scene --Fir0002 23:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you lowered the red channel in other areas then the red on the flowers would be "redder" relative to the rest of the image and you can get more red in the image without blowing it out. HDR doesn't necessarily have to be for brightness, the same principle applies to colors too --frothT C 03:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with the people who say its messy, although i think the colours are nice, if theres another picture with the same subject that wouldn't be bad. User:Voshvoshka
  • Weak oppose both. Per above. I prefer the alternate, but it suffers from the same problems as the nominee, and I don't like the harsh lighting caused by what seems to be a flash. --Tewy 01:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose As stated above the leaves in the background are distracting and also the picture just doesn't have to much of an attractiveness. A good picture just not featured picture material. --
    Sign Here 04:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Moderate Oppose as per Why1991's comment. -- Altiris Exeunt 11:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nice colours, but the capital sin of this picture is the composition (or the lack of it). Alvesgaspar 14:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Composition aside, I also don't quite like the harsh lighting on the plant, why did you use flash? --antilived T | C | G 22:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

63 Building

Reason
A great picture of the 63 Building in Seoul, South Korea. Its coppery geometry stands out beneath an overcast sky, instilling a sense of awe.
Articles this image appears in
Seoul, 63 Building
Creator
IGEL
Nominator
Húsönd
  • SupportHúsönd 01:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neato, but I must Oppose. Overcast lighting it not the best way to show it off, composition cuts off the base and provides very little sense of scale. The only way I can tell how big it is is by counting floors. Also seems uniformly a little out of focus. --Dgies 02:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - In general, overcast lighting is going to make the photo subject less attractive. Also, the clutter at the bottom and the dim building in the back takes attention away from the subject. This would be a great picture had it been taken in better light conditions. Nilington 04:09 28 December 2006 UTC
  • Oppose Maybe if you would step back a little bit and wait untill a day that has better weather. --
    Sign Here 04:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose I agree with the above user about the weather, and personally i think the street lamps at the bottom are eye sores. If there were trees or blurred cars or something that would be better.User:Voshvoshka - Dec 27, 22:26
  • Oppose In addition to all that, aliasing all over the place. ~ trialsanderrors 08:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate Oppose; the weather in the picture will turn people off. A good shot, nonetheless. Do it in fine weather and you may get my support. -- Altiris Exeunt 10:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per rampant aliasing. Needs to be at least 130% that resolution. --frothT C 22:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per reasons stated above. sd31415 (sign here) 23:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per above. --Tewy 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per above, defiantly not featured material. — Arjun 02:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Not exactly FP material. It is couldy, the resolution isn't that great, and the picture isn't that inspiring. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hubble Ultra Deep Field

This high resolution image of the HUDF includes galaxies of various ages, sizes, shapes, and colors. The smallest, reddest galaxies, about 100, are some of the most distant galaxies to have been imaged by an optical telescope, existing when the universe was just 800 million years old.
File:Hubble Ultra Deep Field Black point edit.jpg
This edited version is already featured.
Reason
High resolution, very detailed, makes a reader wonder just how impossibly large the universe is with all of its galaxies. PLEASE VIEW FULL SIZE.
Articles this image appears in
Hubble Ultra Deep Field
Creator
NASA
Nominator
- Rogsheng

Nomination withdrawn by nominator. Not promoted --HereToHelp 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AjaxF

Two guinea pigs.

Nomination I found this picture and it is amazing!! The two guinea pigs are so cute!! Is there anything that the picture needs to make it better? Here is the picture:

Daniel10 15:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "'Strong Oppose'" . The picture isn't particularly special or stunning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.85.31.9 (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I doubt it will pass FPC. The red-eye in the left guinea pig would have to be corrected, and the white balance is off (the picture is too red). The image has noticeable jpg compression, ans thus is not particularly sharp. There is also some colour noise on the background. Unfortunately, "cuteness" is not part of the FP criteria, and isn't valued in FP (though if a picture is good quality and cute, that's quite all right). It's a nice photo, but it's not high enough quality for FPC, sorry. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the left guinea pig's eyes are red.Joshua dude 11:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its true, guinea pig's can be white with red eyes. Daniel10 11:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. I think that this picture has a very good quality. I think it can make Featured Picture. Sigeway 14:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry, no chance at all, the left hand animal is too blurred - Adrian Pingstone 16:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't think that the left had guine pig is blurred. Its a very good quality picture. KodiakB3 11:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a very good quality picture. TriceraGuy 11:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support A very good quality picture such as this deserves to be featured. Since lots of people have supported it, I'll change it to featured picture. KangarooFan1 11:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can't change it to Featured picture if voting just started, I changed the template back to {{fpc}}. Also, the vote right above doesn't count, since there isn't a signature. |
    Talk | Sign Here 11:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Support I love the quality of the picture. Also, how do we make a signiture? Zooyak 11:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Support The quality is amazing!! Monster1000 12:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vehement Oppose because of apparent ballot stuffing (puppeting?) by users Zooyak, KangarooFan1, TriceraGuy, KodiakB3, Monster1000 - all are new accounts. (Also because it is not FP quality - DOF problem, and the butt ends of both animals are cut off!)--Janke | Talk 12:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Comment: anon users are still placing the Featured Picture template on the image's page. sd31415 (sign here) 12:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not me. And this is breaking rules. It says make comments on the picture, no the person or people. I should tell the administrators. Daniel10 12:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if not you, you should not edit comments of others. Olegivvit 12:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you just put a strike throough it? Daniel10 12:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can only strike out comments that are yours. You MAY NOT, SHOULD NOT, CANNOT (and WILL NOT) strike out other people's comments. -- Altiris Exeunt 12:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, and I'm not doing anything wrong. It just nominatedit, that's all. Daniel10 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well of course there are other explanations for his behaviour, but I'm trying not to read too much bad intent into this. Raven4x4x 13:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral; this opinion will stay until all the flak has exploded. -- Altiris Exeunt 12:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forget the flak! Oppose; on closer inspection, this picture has a small amount of blur picture-wide. Also, I highly doubt that many people will appreciate this picture. The shot is above average as compared to normal shots in my estimation, but it just doesn't seem to be very eye-catching. -- Altiris Exeunt 08:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the image is okay but it is pretty blurry on the left side, while the image is nice it is not FP nice. — Arjun 14:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and kicks away sockpuppets. Animals cut off edge of photo, focus problems, unattractive composition, and honestly not all that cute. --Bridgecross 16:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per my comment above. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Pharaoh Hound. --Tewy 18:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above.--Andrew c 21:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, not even close to FPC quality. Could we get some checkuser action and blocks on the disruption going here? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong 'Oppose. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here - there's a very bad picture that somene took and that they will create multiple socks to try to get it featured. When that failed they just went straight ahead and featured it themselves. But, back to the picute, it's uninteresting, bad composition, bad lighting, unencyclopaedic and has retina reflection.
    lama 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose <sarcasm>Finally some drama in FPC!!!</sarcasm> --antilived T | C | G 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can't even see the whole entire body of both of the guinea pigs, and there is white splotches on the picture. --
    Sign Here 23:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose Per above. --DonES 23:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Exactly what is encyclopedic about this photo? Becuase it's cute? This is an encyclopedia, not Sesame Street --UCLARodent 02:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • <facetious>Superstrong AWESOME Support!!!111!! So so so cute, and I had one just like the one on the right. You peoples is all me@n.</facetious> ~ trialsanderrors 08:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Mean? No! We are voting here for the very best pictures on Wikipedia. To say this is pic is one of WP's very best is simply ridiculous. The left animal is is well blurred which puts it out of contention immediately. You clearly do not know the standard that FP pics are required to reach - Adrian Pingstone 10:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's nothing particularly special about this picture. The pigs aren't even particularly cute. —Psychonaut 11:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose - awful picture by FPC standards, compromised nomination by Daniel10 (talk · contribs · count)'s various sockpuppets: Sigeway (talk · contribs · count), KodiakB3 (talk · contribs · count), TriceraGuy (talk · contribs · count), KangarooFan1 (talk · contribs · count), Zooyak (talk · contribs · count), Monster1000 (talk · contribs · count), and possibly 85.210.43.199 (talk · contribs · count) (although that's just an IP so not a sockpuppet). —Vanderdeckenξφ 12:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doing anything wrong. I just nominated the picture. You guys are so me@n. Daniel10 14:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and
WP:POINT. —Vanderdeckenξφ 17:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lechuguilla Cave Pearlsian Gulf

stalagmites, stalactites, and draperies by a pool in Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico, USA
Reason
I'm not a troglodyte, but I understand that Lechuguilla Cave is considered to be the finest cave in the world for its collection of crystaline limestone cave formations (most particularly the 'Chandelier Ballroom', although I think this photo is the better illustration). It was only discovered 20 years ago, but access is severly resticted and essentially impossible for the general public, so I suspect we are quite lucky to have this illustration by Dave Bunnell.
Articles this image appears in
Lechuguilla Cave
Creator
Dave Bunnell
Nominator
Solipsist
  • SupportSolipsist 20:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bad JPEG artifacts, marginal resolution, and some film/scanning grain visible. Original photo likely does not have these problems. Would support a higher-quality scan. —Dgiest c 20:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose It looks nice but it just kind of looks flushed out.--
    Sign Here 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Support A bit on the low side and oversharpened, but the lighting appeals to me --Fir0002 01:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose - artifacts, low contrast blacks. Debivort 04:04, 1 January 2007

(UTC)

  • Weak Oppose Although I like the picture, the technical problems with it (lighting, artifacts, possible aliasing) leads me to oppose. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Artifacts, small size.--HereToHelp 19:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickYSupport Good topic, good lighting, good quality. Reywas92TalkSign Here 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Great composition and lighting, but very poor technical aspects per above. --Tewy 05:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, although certainly an interesting picture, the size and quality is below featured picture standards. --RandomOrca2 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radar

Principle of radar: The radar emits a burst of energy (green). If the energy strikes an object (rain drop, bug, bird, etc), the energy is scattered in all directions (blue). A small fraction of that scattered energy is directed back toward the radar.
Reason
I like this image because it easily demonstraights the principle of radar, and it looks apealling to the eye. I found this by accident last night while checking out pages for the heck of it.
Articles this image appears in
Radar
Creator
commons:User:Pierre_cb
Nominator
TomStar81 (Talk)
  • SupportTomStar81 (Talk) 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Lots of faults. Radio wave should not change color. Doesn't demonstrate that much more energy is radiated than is reflected. Does not show how radar is used to build an image. The tight beam confinement shown is not demonstrative of pulse radar. Should show reflection off a more typical subject such as an airplane. The timing of the animation makes it look like the signal is being send by the object and bouncing off the dish. —Dgiest c 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dgies' last point alone does it for me. It really does appear that the wave is originating at the 'dot' and bouncing off the dish. There should be a delay in between each 'ping'. And his other points are all valid as well. But this is an interesting subject for an animation. --Bridgecross 01:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose I don't think it would be right to have an animation as a featured picture.
    Sign Here
    04:56, 31 December 2006}}
    • Comment That happens quite often, actually. Jellocube27 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is why this was proposed. --Tewy 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It doesn't even fit the size requirement.--
        Sign Here 21:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • From
          WP:WIAFP: While larger images are generally prefered, images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported, unless they are of historical significance or animated. --Tewy 19:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
  • Oppose, far too abstract to be really featured-level, it only gives the most basic operating principle. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For featured status, I think it should be a little more descriptive. Dgies pretty much summed it up. --Tewy 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per well enumerated reasons above. Debivort 09:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Bridgecross' comment. -- Altiris Exeunt 10:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. sd31415 (sign here) 15:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it's a bit basic for FP -mwe 02:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abandon M3 Tank

Abandoning a disabled M-3 tank in training.
Reason
Can't resist an old military photo like this.
Articles this image appears in
Tank
Creator
U.S. Army
Nominator
Sign Here

mind you. Details are sharp even though it is a two-colour image. In short, there's nothing I can find fault with in this picture. -- Altiris Exeunt 02:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose - image quality regs certainly do apply to b&w images, but I think you mean exceptions can be made if the image is historical, as this one may very well be. That said, it is strongly posterized, which has reduced its effective bit depth. The region around the tree seems to me a flagrant example of distracting blown highlights - a complaint I seldomly lodge about FPCs. Debivort 07:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I'm not sure what this picture is supposed to be telling me. Guys jump off of tanks? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not bad, but seems to me a poor scan of a not overly historic/enc image --Fir0002 01:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. poor quality not outweighted by much (any?) historical significance. There are literally thousands of pictures like this available via LOC, this one isn't really outstanding. --Dschwen 15:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. First of all the picture just looks weird. Something just seems wrong with the upper right person. But the main problem is: who does this expand your knowledge of tanks? I have to say it doesn't. The image is of quite high quality for its age, but I believe it should be removed from the article (as redundant and having nothing to do with its location) before being featured. Though it could fit well, unfeatured, in M3 Lee. say1988 04:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castel Sant'Angelo

Castel Sant'Angelo from the bridge. The angel statue on the top gives the name to the building.
Reason
A good use of contrast with the lighting helping to dislay the beauty of the castle.
Article this image appears in
Castel Sant'Angelo
Creator
Andreas Tille
Nominator
Sign Here

Oppose Per above, also seems to be on a tilt --Fir0002 01:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose - graininess or jpeg artifacts, especially in the sky. Much detail lost in the super-dark shadows on the right side of "the bridge." Debivort 09:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gas Mask

Finnish Civilian gas mask from 1939

Ok, shoot this down if you wish... ;-) This is not a "beautiful" image, but it is high enc and certainly eye-catching, even in thumb size. It shows a gas mask of the type that was distributed to civilians in Finland during

WWII. Not quite Darth Vader, eh? Appears in the Gas mask
article, of course.

Self-nom, so no vote. User:Janke

  • Blah Now that's some fine colour noise you've got there... --antilived T | C | G 09:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. It has good composition and lighting. However, as mentioned by Antilived, there's noticeable colour noise. Also it's not as sharp as I would like. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the color noise doesn't bother me. However, the image just isn't striking to me. The contrast is fairly low (background, jacket, and helmet colors have similar qualities) and overall isn't that dynamic of an image.--Andrew c 15:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose As stated by Andrew C it just isn't that appealing to me.--
    Sign Here 15:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose the noise is a little too much and per Andrew C. — Arjun
  • OpposeThe picture is of high resolution and of somewhat okay quality. But it is not (as quoted by the featured picture criteria ) "Wikipedia's best work." It isn't very attractive nor is it pleasing to the eye. Wwicki 17:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The picture really isn't inspiring to me. It's just some dude in a grey gasmask. Now, if it was a dude in a really cool gasmask (say, with multiple stamps or even bumper stickers on it) and the guy had some really cool hair or tattoos or something, then I would support. Although the picture is technically good, it's not exactly worthy of the front page. Remember, featured pictures are the best of Wikipedia in order to show the quality of the site. If this is the best we have.... then Wikipedia is in trouble. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 07:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, Sharkface, I don't think stamps and bumper stickers go well with a gas mask...but I would agree with you on the last point; it's Oppose for me. The picture has little notability, if any at all. If you could get an ancient picture filled with people in gas masks, that may be more appealing. -- Altiris Exeunt 08:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • some really cool hair or tattoos? You know that gas masks have a use besides weird fetish parties... ...do you? ;-) --Dschwen 15:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. sd31415 (sign here) 11:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Featured pictures should be for the best pictures. This one is rather dull. --RandomOrca2 00:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The image fulfils all criteria, and seems to be fairly striking to me, comments above notwithstanding. Prospects for featuring here don't look good, but do consider {{
    NowCommons}}ing the image and trying again over on the corresponsing Wikimedia Commons feature process, where it may get a more favourable response. GeeJo (t)(c) • 17:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Not promoted MER-C 12:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sand Garden

Panoramic view of the Red Sand Garden, Australian Garden, Royal Botanic Gardens, Cranbourne, Victoria, Australia

An attractive high quality panoramic image of the Red Sand Garden in the newly opened Australian Garden at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Cranbourne, Victoria, Australia. This image was taken back in June 2006, just a month after the Australian Garden opened and before the spring growth and changes.

It was taken in the late winter afternoon to avoid the crowds and to capture the best lighting and shadows on the dunes and across the gardens. While this has adversely affected the sky on the left where the sun was setting, in my opinion that does not diminish the encyclopaedic information or quality of the image as the garden itself is beautifully lit. Incidentally, in case anyone's wondering, the curve of the path and wall are real, not an artifact of the creation of the panorama.

  • Self-nominate and support. --jjron 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - In general, the composition is sort of lacking. A closer crop might be better. Beyond composition, the left-hand side of the image has blown highlights and the very top-left corner has a strip of black pixels—I would assume its a remnant of cropping a stitched image. drumguy8800 C T 09:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well spotted on that black line - in all the times I've looked at this I'd honestly never noticed that before, but easily enough fixed. Closer cropping overall however would reduce the encyclopaedic value of the image - I guess 'composition' can be a personal preference. --jjron 07:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I have updated the image to remove the strip of black pixels at the top lefthand corner - if you still see them please purge your cache or refresh the page (since this was a genuine flaw in the picture I simply overwrote it rather than posting an new 'edit'). --jjron 08:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nice but per above, the black strip of black pixels is very unattractive. Consider cropping it. — Arjun 14:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't know why they're complaining about a line that's just a couple of centimeters long. It's a beatiful picture to me. Just to make them happy I would just crop that line out.--
    Sign Here 15:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Very Strong Support; if that line at the top-left hand corner is removed, I'll change my vote. -- Altiris Exeunt 07:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To what? Super duper insanely strong mega support? --Dschwen 13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, nicely put. Don't take this too harshly Altiris, but maybe kill the over the top voting except for truly exceptional cases. "
Extreme support" and the like aren't commonly used on FPC --Fir0002 01:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll try my best to take that into effect, Fir. Bear in mind that I'm new to voting in FPC, so my opinions are pretty high initially. However, you can be rest assured that my votes will be...ahh, what's that phrase...harder to earn as time goes on. This does not mean that I give Extreme Support for no reason, though. As long as the image is exceptional in my opinion, it gets my vote. -- Altiris Exeunt 10:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, quite understandable for someone new, and I'm glad you took the comment in the right spirit --Fir0002 22:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The clouds seem to change hue from pinkish white to mustardy white about 1/3 into the picture (from the left). Is that the "adverse effect"? Fixable? ~ trialsanderrors 10:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The sky is very inhomogeneneously exposed. The blown out part on the left is rather unattractive. I don't like the composition either, too much of the path in the foreground. And shame on you for stepping into the bushes ;-). --Dschwen 13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't; it was taken from underneath the visitor's centre building - see here for a shot looking back the other way. --jjron 07:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The colours are really striking, but the blown out white on the left makes it less than featured for me. (is 'inhomogeneneously' a real word?) Bobanny 22:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I believe it is inhomogenenenoeouslysome. Anyways I was referring to the brightness changes across the sky :-) --Dschwen 11:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support The colors (red sand and blue sky) work well together - shame about the blown highlights losing this on the LHS --Fir0002 01:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support okay now that the strip of black is gone I am willing to support but also per Fir. — Arjun 14:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sufjan Stevens playing banjo

Sufjan Stevens playing banjo
edit1
edit2
Reason
I posted this recently on
WP:PPR
. Traffic there isn't that great, but I got some good feedback, and decided just to go ahead and nominate it.

Here's why I think this should be FP:

  • The composition is fantastic - the colors incredible, the placement is artistic, the focus is great
  • The subject is very well depicted. I've never really listened to Sufjan Stevens before, so I listened to a few tracks on iTunes. His music is very solemn, quiet, and thoughtful. The look on his face is very illustrative of his music.

I understand that in an ideal world, there are a few things that could be fixed in this photo, but for the most part these are known limitations that are particular to concert photography. These issues include:

  • Lighting does not highlight the face well enough (Maybe this can be fixed with some photoshop?)
    (Because of this, thumbnail image does not show subject well if it's not big enough.)
  • It is a little out-of-focus around the hands, or possibly blurry due to the motion of playing the banjo
  • It is also somewhat grainy, due to the [necessarily] high ISO setting (800)
Articles this image appears in
Sufjan Stevens
Creator
Jlencion
Nominator
tiZom(2¢)
  • SupporttiZom(2¢) 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    PS - The biggest fault with this image is that it is so dark. It was suggested on
    WP:PPR that we tweak the Gamma a little. Unfortunately, I do not have the skills to fiddle with a picture like this. If anyone knows how to brighten it a bit, that would be greatly appreciated. tiZom(2¢) 21:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment How bout now? And next time please upload it to the commons so other language wikis can use it is well. --antilived T | C | G 21:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do. Whichever consensus deems is the better picture, I'll upload to the Commons (regardless of whether or not it makes FP). tiZom(2¢) 21:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose — too much grain. AzaToth 22:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original I like the first one but the second one is too washed out. The first one has more fullness in the color. --
    Sign Here 02:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment; the original image is too dark but has more fullness like Why1991 said. On the other hand, even though the edited image is brighter and more details are visible, it is washed out like what Why1991 said. -- Altiris Exeunt</foht> 02:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose The main problem is that Sufjan's face is in the shadow. ~ trialsanderrors 07:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Beautiful and representational - high quality and resolution, pleasing to the eye, and adds great value to the article. Perhaps not the perfection of resolution and lighting that we've got used to with landscape and wildlife shots, but that's a feature of the type of photo - for a musician, a concert shot like this, capturing a moment, adds far more value to the article than a posed and perfectly-lit studio shot would. Definitely among Wikipedia's best work. A gamma adjustment might benefit it, but I think the edit does perhaps go a little far, though I'd support either. TSP 22:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I feel it is a great photo, in addition, topically relevant. Sufjan Stevens has been featured in the press lately for his Christmas album that has been receiving excellent reviews. In addition, his unique goal of writing fifty albums for the fifty US states (2 down, 48 to go) makes for an interesting article.–Alex LaPointetalk 07:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Both Versions, but mainly EDIT 1 Both versions are good pictures. I especially like the first Edit, EDIT 1, because it largely fixes the shadow problems raised earlier. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for all of the support so far, everybody. I hear what you are saying about the darkess. I am out of town right now, but when I get back toward the end of this week, I will work on lightening the shadow on Sufjan's face.--Jlencion 15:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red XNOppose Not encyclopedic, colors get annoying, too dark on him. Reywas92TalkSign Here 02:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Awful shot and not nearly encyclopedic enough --frothT C 05:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Grain, lighting, poor encylopedic merit. —Dgiest c 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the poor lighting and high grain levels are too much to support. — Arjun 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sorry it took so long everybody, but I just uploaded my next edit. Hopefully that fixes some of the issues even though it was not promoted. --
    Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
    A Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus) in Panama
    Edit 1 by Pharaoh Hound. Cropped and very slightly lightened.
    Edit 2 by Pharaoh Hound. Cropped, but otherwise unchanged
    Reason
    A very encyclopedic, good quality and beautiful photo.
    Articles this image appears in
    Willet
    Creator
    Mdf
    Nominator
    Pharaoh Hound (talk)

    Promoted Image:Catoptrophorus semipalmatus edit.jpg Raven4x4x 07:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    4 June 1942
    . Dense smoke is from fires in her uptakes, caused by a bomb that punctured them and knocked out her boilers.
    Reason
    This is one of the iconic images that came out of the Battle of Midway, the pivotal battle of the Pacific Theatre of World War II. This image was taken shortly after the air raid against the U.S. carriers protecting Midway, and has been used in several notable publications (among them Robert Ballard’s book about the Battle of Midway and his search for Yorktown). For these reasons I am nominating this image for Featured Status.
    Articles this image appears in
    USS Yorktown (CV-5)
    Creator
    Photographer 2nd Class William G. Roy, USN
    Nominator
    TomStar81 (Talk)
    • SupportTomStar81 (Talk) 21:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A bad image, but historical and encyclopedic. |
      Talk | Sign Here 21:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Support Excellent.--
      Sign Here 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Support Very enc. --frothT C 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As above. --Midnight Rider 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support due to notability and image quality given its age (thank goodness size doesn't apply to it!). -- Altiris Exeunt 06:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • question - great subject, but is there no way to get a higher quality scan? Debivort 07:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have searched everywhere I can think of to get a higher quality photo, and came up empty handed on each account. If you want, you can try to find a higher quality photo, but from where I stand this is as good as it gets.

    TomStar81 (Talk) 08:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • what I am wondering is if the low res comes from the poor quality of the original, or just a low res scan. If the latter, I'd like to see a new version, but if it's the former, I'll gladly support. Debivort 23:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A good image. It's encyclopedic, powerful, and HiDEF. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Being (moderately) historically significant isn't reason enough to throw size and quality standards out. --ragesoss 10:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    *Support Weak Support. Very high quality. Clearly gives a feeling of how the Yorktown was destroyed.Has no copyright infringement. Wwicki 11:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. Uninteresting, vapid. Olegivvit 12:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. bw does not equal historic value. The image quality and the resolution are low. As for enc, the picture doesn't tell me anyting. All I see is a smoking aircraft carrier. Big deal. --Dschwen 15:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also oppose this image, for size requirements and quality. But your point "All I see is..." seems odd to me. I could say the same of a photo of Lincoln "all I see is a guy sitting there" or the Hindenburg "All I see is a zeppelin burning." I think a burning aircraft carrier is a big deal! --Bridgecross 16:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ha ha, I see you point. And I'm even inclined to agree to the Lincoln comment :-). I suppose it is hard to define what makes up historical significance (we should abbreviate that just like enc. I'll call it hist now). We can start arguing now if the explosion of the Hindenburg was a more significant event than the burning of (yet another?) aircraft carrier. What was the media impact back then? We can also argue about the historical importance of a figure like Lincoln, but in that case the significance of the depicted moment is more important to me (example: Lincoln eating a steak - low hist, Lincoln being shot attending a theatre performance - high hist). We can argue about all that... ...or just let it be since we wont resolve that issue here anyways :-). --Dschwen 18:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Midway was the first battle won by the Allies in the Pacific and marked the switch from Japanese to American naval dominance. Pretty important I'd say! Debivort 00:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support: Featured Picture guidelines reads: "The more historically-important an image is, or the rarer the content of the scene, the lower the quality that can be allowed", as well as "The more historically-important an image is, or the rarer or more significant its content, the less aesthetically-pleasing it may be".[1] I think this more than justifies this image as a featured picture-- it is very illustrative, as well as very rare. Jellocube27 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is certainly not very rare. WW2 is a well documented epoch, although it might seem like forever ago for younger people. Check this page and its subpages for tons of pics from the attack on the Yorktown. --Dschwen 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This most certainly is very rare. WWII was a well documented epoch, as you have stated, but the war ended over 60 years ago. These images are all we have left of the conflict, we can not build a time machine and travel back to these historical events with digital cameras just for the sake of correcting one or two imperfections. Moreover, pictures are not suppose to tell you anything, they are suppose to show you something that would be otherwise difficult to explain with words. If you are objecting to this on the basis of context, then read through our Battle of Midway article (a featured article, no less) and gain some deeper apreciation for the event(s) depicted here in. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that this shot is not reproducible with a digital camera says nothing about rarity. And you've got it backwards, a FP should make a reader want to know more not the other way around. --Dschwen 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if it isn't rare, the picture is still historically significant and (in my opinion) does a fine job of illustrating the Battle of Midway, or at least the bombing of the USS Yorktown. Jellocube27 00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral Changed vote per Dschwen. |
      Talk | Sign Here 21:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Oppose While the image itself is featureworthy, this version doesn't meet our requirements and there is no reason why a better version cannot be produced. ~ trialsanderrors 00:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I have noted above, I have searched everywhere I can think of to get a higher quality photo, and came up empty handed on each account. If you want, you can try to find a higher quality photo, but from where I stand this is as good as it is going to get. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I noticed that. But "as good as it's going to get" isn't a criterion except in the rarest of cases. This is a comparatively recent (in photographic history) picture from a well-documented event and a number of pictures have covered similar subject matter, so size and quality requirements shouldn't be cast aside because of the rarity argument. ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, "I couldn't find a better one" isn't an excuse when the problems are endemic to this version of the image and not with the original. The image is in the archives, you can ask them for access to make a better scan, this one has problems. I'd support the image, but this version of the image has flaws. Quality forgiveness for historical images doesn't apply when the quality issues aren't part of the original image. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Seal
    A seal.
    Reason
    High detail image of a seal. Originally uploaded under a CC license, which is irrevocable.
    Articles this image appears in
    Pinniped
    Creator
    Flickr.com user "Chylandra"
    Nominator
    Noclip 19:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  • Oppose. Mostly because of the noise, but also because the species isn't identified. --Tewy 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nasty artifacts/noise. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose It looks cool but I must agree with the above statements.--
    Sign Here 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose cute seal but the image has too much noise and other problems. — Arjun 23:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Have a look at the largest version, the grain/noise/colouration are not FP quality - Adrian Pingstone 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The chest looks like someone scanned a piece of cheap carpet and edited it in. Artifacts are over-the-top. Very cute seal though, and I like the frothy water --frothT C 05:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; that's an excellent position to shoot a seal (I mean, even the seal looks like it's smiling). Unfortunately, in full view, picture fragmentation is in the thousands. Also, it appears that this image has minor problems with copyright. -- Altiris Exeunt 06:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per above. Let's try to keep the snarky and potentially offensive comments to a minimum. Debivort 07:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose I really just don't like the picture of the seal. A better one can be found easily. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all above. sd31415 (sign here) 15:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Awwwww, cute seal! However, the pic is way to grainy, with the lots of artifacts. Very nice pic otherwise. Is there a cleaner version perchance? Jumping cheeseCont@ct 12:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. grain. info not really detailed. -mw 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it me or does this pic look like its godzilla seal or something??? Damn those man eating seals!! Oh and oppose. --Tobyw87 12:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, it's the angle. --Tewy 20:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


NB. This image was deleted from Commons due to an OTRS ticket (2007011610014593). I left the image here as part of the historical record. --pfctdayelise (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstorm
A massive sand storm cloud is close to enveloping a military camp as it rolls over Al Asad, Iraq, just before nightfall on April 27, 2005. DoD photo by Cpl. Alicia M. Garcia, U.S. Marine Corps.
Reason
Illustrates the subject well, appears to be of good resolution/compression, I find it rather breathtaking
Articles this image appears in
Dust storm
Creator
Alicia M. Garcia
Nominator
Eyrian
  • SupportEyrian 10:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Very impressive, however the composition is rather poor. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Pharaoh Hound took the words out of my mouth. — Arjun 14:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral They're right about the composition. Though it may not be so supported here, taking the image into Photoshop, upping the contrast and color saturation, and perhaps using some of the stagelight filter things on the storm would make it a much more dramatic photo—if the composition is shot, a lot of times reworking the lighting can fix it. However I don't think such an image would pass if the original is here. drumguy8800 C T 16:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very interesting image Sotakeit 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Impressive subject, but poor composition and lighting. --Tewy 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I know that the composition could make it look nicer but if you did change it that would take away from how it would really look in real life. I think it is a very interesting subject to pick.--
    Sign Here 22:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support Very impressive, has a few faults but it's such a clear example of a duststorm that I support - Adrian Pingstone 23:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Very cool, but come on look at all the compression artifacts, especially on the trucks and in the sand --frothT C 23:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Cool subject...terrible composition. The trucks and tree and post make it a very low quality picture. --Midnight Rider 00:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Pretty cool picture, but i agree with the above statement of a low quality picture this shot was probably taken by a amateur photographer, but i think its cool enough to be a fetured picture. User:Voshvoshka
  • Support Very impressive and imposing picture. There are a few minor flaws, but none of them detracts from the picture. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 03:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see why the composition is so bad. It's a familiar sight- a military parking lot or vehicle depot, but with a massive, imposing sandstorm approaching. The foreground is a nice touch. --frothT C 05:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a lamp post and a tree right in front of the subject. --Tewy 08:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah well I can see where you're coming from but they don't bother me much --frothT C 19:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my opinion, complaining about the lamp and the tree is a little bit ridiculous. C'mon, there's a sandstorm rushing towards the photographer!!!! He can't just walk around and find the best angle! (If another impressing picture of a sandstorm is nominated, which has a better angle, than I'm glad if I can support it. In the meantime, this is definitely a FP. -Wutschwlllm 13:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The questionable resolution is more than enough to compensate for the coolness and awe-inspiring nature of this picture. Lol, whoops. The picture is so cool, the resolution problems can be overlooked. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, cluttered and underexposed foreground. Should be possible to find better pics (compositionwise) ([2] [3]). --Dschwen 15:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Interesting, eye catching, and encyclopedic. The composition doesn´t doesn´t really bother me. It shows the environment of our troops in Iraq as well as the physics of a sandstorm. And its more than big enough. --Tobyw87 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support*, I took this photo in a rush. I have to agree that it's not a great photo and the composition is poor. However, my foremost concern when I took this photo was to take it and then put my camera away so that it would not be destroyed. For those of you who have never had to sit through one of these things, they are very destructive for electronic equipment. There may be better photos out there but most military photographers don’t shoot when sandstorms are coming because of the threat to gear. It would be cool to see this photo used by Wikapedia however, I am biased. I may have a higher resolution copy somewhere if neede. Statdard procedure is to drop the resolution of photos that are going to be posted on the web. AliciaGarcia81 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Alicia Garcia[reply]
  • Support Sure, the composition could have been better, but considering the circumstances.... -Wutschwlllm 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, great pic, low quality Lycaon 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support good pic Preetikapoor0 22:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sandstorm.jpg Raven4x4x 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Image:Sandstorm.jpg[reply]

Wolf Spider

A good image of a Wolf Spider on a white background. All body parts are visible and thus the image has a high enc value.

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 01:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nice spider/shot but the some of the legs are clearly blurry which takes away from an otherwise fine image. — Arjun 01:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this is all but unavoidable in a macro image (see Macro photography) --Fir0002 01:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the article you reference contains an image proving the contrary, by... ..oh, right you :-). Well I guess this speciment didn't hold still as nicely as the other one... --
Sign Here 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Support. I don't mind the legs being out of focus. --Tewy 01:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Itsy Bitsy Spider Oppose Seadog Arjun brought up a valid point. Featured pictures of Wikipedia should not be blurry at all (unless their encyclopedic value significantly outweighs the blurriness or it is a picture that cannot be taken again.... or both). Sadly, another picture of this type of spide could be taken again without the blurriness. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned above, that's unlikely due to technical limitations in DOF for macro photography --Fir0002 07:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Selective focus often increases the encyclopedic value of a photo by drawing attention to the subject while blurring out irrelevant aspects of the image like background detail. 2) As Fir and others keep saying, getting all of the subject of a macro shot in focus is generally impossible. Debivort 09:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. As has already been pointed out by Fir0002 it is virtually impossible for all parts of the image to be in focus in this type of macro photography, especially on a relatively large beastie like this. The key parts are in strong focus, and at least two of the legs are also fully focussed showing all necessary details. --jjron 07:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose In addition to the DOF problem (could you shoot at f:64?), what bothers me are the double, or "cross" shadows. Fir, maybe we need to start a collection to buy you that white umbrella! ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    :-) I wouldn't complain! Maybe you can convince Wikimedia to part with some of their $800,000! But no I can't shoot at f/64 because the min aperture of my lens is f/22 - and at f/22 the sharpness is unacceptable due to diffraction (I can only imagine what it'd be like at f/64! --Fir0002 22:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per nom Tewy and jjron. Definitely one of the best spider images on WP. Debivort 09:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Maybe a good spider image, but not the best Wolf spider image. Repeating subjects tend to get a little boring. --Dschwen 11:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, which wolf spider image do you think is the best? And bear in mind that this isn't a repeat subject because the last image was an illustration of a focus bracket. --Fir0002 22:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed that only the composed 3-image focus series was promoted, which leaves just one real Wolf spider FP, crawling from its hole. So it was just a percieved repetition. In that case I happily support. Thanks for clearing that up. --Dschwen 14:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support okay now I know about Macro photography! Okay so the blurriness to the legs is unavoidable. But I am going to weak support due to others. — Arjun 14:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support Not a bad picture overall, only the shadows are somewhat distracting. How come you've been shooting spiders lately? ;-) |
      Talk | Sign Here 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Weak support per above. Reywas92TalkSign Here 02:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Large regions are out of focus and we already know the photographer can produce a better composite through
      focus bracketing. —Dgiest c 07:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it's easy to talk airily of focus bracketing but it's tremendously difficult to do, let alone on a live subject. I did try a full body shot, but he kept moving - the focus brackets I uploaded where the only ones I managed to produce --Fir0002 08:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Although this is an excellent picture there is something unnatural about the background and the shadows. I have nothing against editing (provided it doesn't fake the subject), I just would like to know what kind of manipulation was used. Alvesgaspar 21:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to say that no manipulation of the background was used --Fir0002 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]
    But I suppose the spider was moved to a favourable shooting place. Brrr, how did you manage that? Alvesgaspar 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I captured him and put him in a wide plastic tray (with about 15cm lip on it) lined with white paper --Fir0002 09:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, disturbing shadow, insufficient DOF. -- Lycaon 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disturbing? I think the spider itself is disturbing enough...--Iriseyes 00:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I seem to remember there being another shot of a similar spider without the shadows a while back. This one is much better. A shame about the blurring, but sadly that's unavoidable when taking such a shot. GeeJo (t)(c) • 00:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not promoted , although again this was quite close Raven4x4x 06:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Atlantic White-sided Dolphins at a port named Hvalba, in the Faroe Islands
    Edit 1 - Lightened and sharpened
    Reason
    A large, high res and compelling photo of whaling in the Faroe Islands that I feel is very encyclopaedic. A bit POV, yet displays similar content to the holocaust-era images of mass graves. This is simply what happens. The number of whales I think shows that the practice is of economic significance, essentially summing up the two main arguments behind whaling. (part of a series - here)
    Articles this image appears in
    Dolphin / Faroe Islands / Whaling / Whaling in the Faroe Islands / Atlantic White-sided Dolphin / Hvalba
    Creator
    User:Erik Christensen
    Nominator
    - Jack (talk)
    • Support edit 1 — - Jack (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Good, encyclopedic picture. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it would be nice if the picture page itself had a more descriptive caption. And just idle speculation - from all the faeces and intestines, I would expect some birds to be hanging around - I wonder why there aren't any in the picture? Mak (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The dolphins are on a concrete floored dock at a small port called Hvalba, which is in the Faroe Islands, north of the UK. They've been caught for food, as has been done for at least a thousand years. As for the birds; they're there, just not in the picture. It is best to view the photo in context, as part of the series of images that where taken of the same catch, which can be found at commons here - Jack (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to WIAFP "The picture should be displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption. The image description page should have an extended caption that is suitable for featuring the image on the Main Page." Last time I looked there was practically no caption on the image description page, in fact the image description page just has "Whaling in the Faroe Islands", which is somewhat misleading, as the creatures pictured are dolphins. Basically, could you please add a more descriptive caption to the image description page please? Thanks, Mak (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support, thanks for putting the caption on the image page. Very interesting, encyclopedic, and well done picture. Mak (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We seem to have a thing for the graphics images lately (eye surgery, decapitated prey, guinea pigs...). Very visually compelling, but what floor is this on? There are horizontal stripes which could be ripples in the concrete or image artifacts. ~ trialsanderrors 08:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Guinea Pigs are graphic? {I would admit to them not being especially attractive, I've never liked rodents very much). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support. While it's a very impressive image (at least as subject matter goes) it is somewhat blurry. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose, blurry and dully lit (although I can't really fault the photographer, overcast skies will do that to you, and blurriness seems to be the result of the camera). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per both of the above. This image is very encyclopedic. — Arjun 20:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak Oppose Per above - image quality isn't that great. (Not to mention the yuck factor!! :) --Fir0002 01:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • weak Support edit 1 - efficiently conveys what text cannot and illustrates many articles. slight blur seems to be on the 1.5-2px scale, reducing the effective resolution to at least 1200x500, which is barely within the acceptable range. Debivort 09:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • SupportHigh-quality. Clearly gives an image of whaling in the Faroe Islands. Wwicki 11:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Per wwicki. --frothT C 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Very encycolopedic in both quality and subject matter --UCLARodent 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose. Not good enough to be a featured picture. It describes the subject matter, but it should be clearer to be featured. --RandomOrca2 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Red XN Oppose a bit dark and blurry. Reywas92TalkSign Here 02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Unpleasing to the eye. Olegivvit 12:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you please elaborate? I suspect you don't like it because of the "yuck" factor, and I don't feel that is fair. If your objection is on the grounds of photographic quality, that's fine, as long as you explain yourself - Jack (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't like it because it is disgusting to me. In the same way I would oppose a high quality and encyclopaedic image of shit. I think, this is fair. Olegivvit 14:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support to cancel out Olegivvit's vote, since it would be a pity to lose this picture's FPC status simply because of the yuck factor. It's an important and genuine issue - if anything, the disgustingness should add to the importance. --Kizor 09:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, fascinating picture -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggested crop, for discussion
    • Comment The crop is not optimal, I think. There's a little too much empty space (i.e. the concrete) on the left. It might work better with a narrower crop, showing principally the two complete rows of whales on the right. — BillC talk 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Add: crop shown on right:-
    • Oppose crop - way too small! - Jack (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you referring to the size of the overall image? Because that's not I was proposing. I shrunk the size of the cropped image to be kinder on the servers; the image to the right is only for discussion as a proposal for where to crop the image, not a proposal to shrink it. — BillC talk 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, OK. Though it's usually best to create a ready-for-promotion picture as your edit. Although I partially agree with your idea, I think you definitely cropped too much. Perhaps a 100px shave off the left? Still, I do like the image as it is, I feel it gives the impression that more dolphins are yet to be added. I'm not sure - Jack (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Promoted Image:Whaling in the Faroe Islands.jpg Raven4x4x 06:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussions posted after the discussion had closed
  • Comment I like the image and whatever, I would like to make a note about the description of the image as reminiscient of "holocaust-era images of mass graves." Descriptions such as this to further an anti-whaling cause necessarily trivialize the Holocaust and the true magnitude and horror of such an event. To compare the slaughter of over 10 million people to any smaller scale killing of animals is inaccurate, rude, and disrespectful. Otherwise, great image.--Blingice 00:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per above, the photo does not belong on Wikipedia's front page. And I wholeheartedly agree with Blingice's sentiment--comparing any hunting/environmental event to the Holocaust is completely inappropriate and tasteless. I hope it was no more than a poor choice of words. Theonlyedge 02:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I do not agree that it should be excluded do to the graphic nature, but rather that it lacks the "wow" factor that I expect from a featured picture. It's shocking, no doubt, but if a shocking picture was a good picture, than the infamous hello.jpg would be FP quality without question. When you see a featured picture, you should want to learn more. Take this, for example:

    Now, when you see that, don't you want to know more about plasma? Do you get that same feeling about whaling from this picture? no!--Munkel (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I do. When I first saw this picture, I had only a vague knowledge that whaling was still legal anywhere. *boom* Suddenly, the reality is brought home to me, and I want to know where it's legal, under what circumstances, etc. --Herald Alberich 11:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Potato and Cross Section
    Potato and cross section

    In a similar style to the capsicum picture, here is a photo of a potato and it's (rather plain) cross section. Again nice lighting and high enc value IMO

    • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose. Very good "product shot". Enc could be higher by specifying species, and the cut potato is somewhat bland in appearance because it's directly facing the camera. Would like to see some of the skin on that too. Somehow, the right potato looks "dirty" - could you perhaps find better samples? --Janke | Talk 23:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal taste of course, but I chose that "dirty" one because it looks more natural then one which has been washed and polished (contrary to what some people may think potatos come from underground not the shops ;-). It also has a much more interesting texture. --Fir0002 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder whether the cross-section would be more interesting with a potato which has gone somewhat more green? How encyclopedic that would be is debatable, since usually people don't eat them green, but it might make a better shot.
    Sign Here 03:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Provisory support I think the full potato is quite spectacular. How much Photoshopping went into the shades? It seems a bit like the right one is floating.~ trialsanderrors 08:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assure you that there was no shadow photoshopping in this image. That's how it turned out (similar setup to the capsicum image with white paper, ambient and shoe flash). What is the provision of your support? --Fir0002 09:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Only your response to this. I'm not an opponent of nuanced photoshopping, but I would always like to see the original for comparison. ~ trialsanderrors 10:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I think the cross-section is fine, since we get enough skin on the other one. If it were a low-rez image, more contrast would be needed for the cross-section, but in this case it shows up fine, IMO. Caption should specify the type of potato - looks like the cheap ones I buy, (Russet?) Very encyclopedic.Bobanny 22:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Nice image, and encyclopedic, cross-section shows up fine. Hello32020 00:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Fir, your product shots are always great (although the capsicum looked a little evil). I would much prefer an unwashed potato to a washed one, as washed ones remove much of the skin. As stated before, species and cultivar are needed for the caption, I will have a look around. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Rather staid and boring shot of (to be honest) a boring subject. Is this photo really the best of the best?? Madman 05:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak oppose - better angle on the cut potatoe would much improve it. And with the common-ness of the subject, a redo is feasible. Debivort 09:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Ok, nice product shot. Just like the bell pepper, but will this lead to your whole kitchen inventory ending up on this page sliced in half over the next few weeks? --Dschwen 11:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know - that's all I've done if that's what you are asking. Do you think it would benefit Wikipedia if I took more? --Fir0002 22:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Fir, it would benefit Wikipedia. And I'm glad that we found a standard setup for shots like this. But thats exactly the point. I'm not sure it would benefit FPC to have your kitchen inventory posted. These shots are the necessary standard to depict a fruit. Anything less is unacceptable. So, while being encyclopedically great pictures I don't see them lacking in the stunningness department. Of course, if you nominating each pic here is the condition for taking those pictures, well knock yourself out. I'll just ignore them then. --Dschwen 07:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you discouraging Fir to take more shots? It is great to have these photos on Wiki, and have a standard for how vegetable/fruit shots should be taken. --liquidGhoul 23:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhrrrgghhhhhh, for the love of god! We've been through this. I'm not discouraging anyone to take more shots. What's so difficult in keeping the two things apart from each other, taking and contributing shots and posting them on FPC. With your logic we should nominate every picture and delete each one that doesn't pass FPC. Now that doesn't make any sense, right? Why? Because pictures can be wanted, valid, and usefull contributions without being featured. --Dschwen 07:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I read your sentence wrong (missed "on this page"). I completely agree with what you have said above. I have contributed heaps of photos, and am trawling the net for people who can contribute Aussie frog photos, just to improve the encyclopaedia. Featured pictures are a bonus, and only worth it if you can put up with all the crap, and I have not found it worthwhile of late. --liquidGhoul 13:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignore away, these are excellent enc pics that definately deserve FP. I'd like to see a half-opened banana next, or a closeup of a stick of cinnamon! --frothT C 05:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but Mum/Dad(?) bought those potatoes in a big sack, and the only remaining ones are in not optimum form (unsuitable for photography due to blemishes/wrinkling). I live in a small town, and the only potatoes availble at the general store are polished and washed (which I consider a bad feature for this scene). Next time I'll get some more of these potatoes would be in two or three weeks. So I could try with the washed potatoes, or you'd have to wait two/three weeks. But overall - is it worth the sweat? I mean personally as far as visible skin is concerned I can take it or leave it. --Fir0002 09:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well in that case, I'll support this image. And if you come across more in the future, it would be nice to see another nomination. :-) --Tewy 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. For what it's worth, which may be something given a few people have commented on this, I'm pretty sure this is a Sebago Potato (can find no article on this on Wikipedia). --jjron 09:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not promoted . Close, but I'm not totally sure I can call this consensus. Raven4x4x 06:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Boulevard du Temple
    This is "Boulevard du Temple", the first ever photograph of a person. The photo was taken by Louis Daguerre in late 1838 or early 1839. It is of a busy street, but because exposure time was over ten minutes, the city traffic was moving too much to appear. The exception is a man in the bottom left corner, who stood still getting his boots polished long enough to show.
    Reason
    historical: first photograph of a person
    Articles this image appears in
    Photography, Louis Daguerre
    Creator
    Louis Daguerre
    Nominator
    Talk | Sign Here 14:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support wow, nice picture considering its age. Very historical and clean. — Arjun 14:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per all above.--
    Sign Here 15:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support meets the historic and encyclopedic criteria, in addition to size. Support per nom.--Andrew c 15:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support – I had originally uploaded this image with the intention of nominating it; the picture is of historical significance and is in remarkable condition considering its age. However, the reason that I did not ever nominate it was that all of the information about it, including the caption, has been assembled from various personal web pages. Before we feature this, we should cite a reliable academic source who agrees that this picture is what we say it is. --Arctic Gnome 19:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find the explanation on the image page ... the city traffic was moving too much to appear. The exception is a man in the bottom left corner, who stood still getting his boots polished long enough to show a bit unbelievable, since the exposure time is claimed to be ten minutes. You would not stand totally still for 10 minutes with one leg lifted for boot polishing! Rather, it may be a person placed there by the photographer. Withholding my vote until any "hearsay" is cleared up. --Janke | Talk 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I doubt he was a plant; the artist would have just taken a picture of a person up close if that were what he wanted. The man need not have stood perfectly still that whole time; I'm sure he spent the ten minutes shifting around within a few inches and changing feet, but that wouldn't have made a difference for the image. The caption should read that he stood still enough while getting his boots polished. --Arctic Gnome 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The explanation on this page must be at least an exaggeration, too - 'Although, as a contemporary noted at the time, the boulevard in question was "constantly filled with a moving throng of pedestrians and carriages", the street in Daguerre's early photograph appeared to be completely deserted "except for an individual who was having his boots brushed."' A street constantly filled with a throng of moving people would surely not photograph as a clean white pavement, utterly disregarding anyone who was not motionless for the entire exposure - it would photograph with dark blurs in any areas where people were present for a significant portion of the exposure. I suppose this could simply indicate differing expectations of what a 'constantly filled' street looks like.... TSP 22:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it's an exaggeration, just a different use of terms. When I think of a "busy street", I'm thinking of downtown Toronto at rush hour. I'd bet that by 1830s standards, "busy street" just meant several carriages, not a whole line of them. --Arctic Gnome 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know (and I've read about this in a scientific journal) it is indeed true that there was a lot of traffic, but it cannot be seen because of the long exposure time. It seems weird but it is true. Whether this is the first picture of a person is something I don't know, but since this is one of the first Daguerretypes this is very likely. Anyhow this is one of the most important pictures ever made and therefore I am going to support this one.-Wutschwlllm 00:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Nice --Fir0002 01:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support for all the reasons listed above and any to follow. Excellent Find. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for obvious historical reasons. (Thank goodness for digital colour photography!)
      Yuser31415 05:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Support Very cool and of course uber enc --frothT C 05:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Although it was shot in a really bad camera and isn't colorful enough. Just kidding. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support although it would be nice if the caption included more info about the subject: is it in Paris? I suppose it is the same street which is today called the Boulevard du Temple? If so, is the vantage point situated near Place de la Republique, looking south? Spebudmak 23:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Promoted Image:Boulevard du Temple.jpg Raven4x4x 06:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Walnut
    A Juglans regia walnut, grown in California.
    This is the new version, taking into consideration the comments of the voters. (Edit 1)
    Is this fine? (Edit 2)
    Edit 3, edit of verstion 2 by Fir0002
    Reason
    A hi-res image, shows the details of a walnut clearly, and seems to meet the criteria. Alternate option: Image:English Walnut (version2).jpg.
    Articles this image appears in
    Juglans regia, Walnut
    Creator
    AndonicO
    : It's my first self-nom.
    Nominator
    Talk | Sign Here 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment By the way, should it be cropped a bit more? |
    Talk | Sign Here 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support sweet and very nice I like it much better cropped. — Arjun 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. sd31415 (sign here) 23:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support, illustrive and a high-resolution picture, but a rather uninteresting composition. Perhaps an adjustment of levels and cropping in photoshop would make it more visually appealing? Jellocube27 00:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. The lighting is a little strong, and it's a little blurry in places. I don't know if I like the unnatural surface the walnut is resting on. It's a nice picture, but not featured material in my opinion. --Tewy 01:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking for flaws...looking for flaws...ah! It's just a little bit blurry at full resolution! ;-). Support (edit 2), very nice. --Tewy 05:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lighting is a little strong. Good crop. What's that black surface. --frothT C 02:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Everything is great except that the background should probably be different. --
    Sign Here 04:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose. OK shot, but no "wow", and a slightly distracting background. I'd also like to see a cracked nut (or the innards), that would improve the enc. --Janke | Talk 05:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate Support; it's quite a good shot, and there is nothing I can find fault with as far as the focus on the walnut, picture resolution and image quality are concerned. My only problem lies with the surface on which the walnut is placed on. At times, it can be a bit distracting. However, I think it is a good shot on the overall. -- Altiris Exeunt 05:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After seeing the new pictures, my vote has been changed to Support Edit 1. -- Altiris Exeunt 08:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The background is a black rubber mat. I can take it again on a different surface with a cracked nut next to it if you'd prefer it that way. |
    Talk | Sign Here 10:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak oppose - I'm opposing not because the picture is bad (it is a great picture), but because it could and should be better. I don't like the colour of that rubber surface. Also, it would be better if an open walnut were put close to this one so we can see the inside. Alvesgaspar 13:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, I'll take a better one following your suggestions and upload it later today. |
    Talk | Sign Here 13:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Ok, I've uploaded this new version with a cracked nut next to the whole one. Is the background better? |
    Talk | Sign Here 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment I like the new one much more, the background is great. However, the subjects are a bit too close together for my liking, and they are a bit out of focus as well. Otherwise, a great shot! —The preceding
    unsigned comment was added by Jellocube27 (talkcontribs
    ).
  • Comment Please retake the second one, it's excellent enc and composition, it's just out of focus. --frothT C 03:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, here's the second picture with improved focus; sorry it took a while. I have two other almost identical ones too (they are slightly brighter), in case you find fault with this one. Can I please eat the nuts now? ;-) |
    Talk | Sign Here 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Support, attractive composition and of good encyclopedic value. Don't eat them just yet, though, someone else may have a gripe :) Jellocube27 04:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support for ALL PICTURES They are all good pictures of technical brilliance (my compliments to Andonic!) and encyclopedic excellence. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 2 - Bluedog423Talk 22:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Edit 1 or 3. Not much of a fan of the lighting, but good enc value --Fir0002 02:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Promoted Image:English Walnuts.jpg Raven4x4x 06:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FA-22 RaptorReason
    Great angle, clear, and an excellent subect.
    Articles this image appears in
    F-22A Raptor, and Airplane
    , and many many more.
    Creator
    United States Air Force
    Nominator
    Why1991

    Withdrawn by nominator. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Joseph Kittinger's Skydive
    This photo shows Joseph Kittinger's record-breaking skydive in 1960 from 102,800 feet (33,133 meters), with temperatures lower than -90°F (-67.7°C) and virtually no oxygen in the air. The record still stands today.
    Reason
    high-quality, breath-taking photo, and just plain awesome
    Articles this image appears in
    Joseph Kittinger; Project Excelsior
    Creator
    camera attached to the helium balloon he jumped from (technically counted as a US Air Force employee)
    Nominator
    Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs)
    • Support Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why is it in such high resolution? Looks like it was oversampled by a scanner. But it's a very cool picture, especially knowing its significance (which is what featured pics should be). --frothT C 05:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor Support due to notability. -- Altiris Exeunt 06:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would someone who attempts the highest skydive have notability issues? Anyway, the nomination is about the quality and encyclopedic value, not the depicted person. - Mgm|(talk) 11:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (as uploader), would prefer better quality, but this is really one of those incredibly unique historical images. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Caption suggestion,
        U.S. Air Force
        . His ascent took an hour and a half and set new records for manned ballooning altitude, and his descent reached a terminal velocity over 600 mph. The seal on his right glove failed, exposing him to the thin atmosphere and ambient temperatures below -90°F (-68°C).
    • Support A hiDEF photo that is encyclopedic and "awesome". S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. It's unique and significant, and a good picture, but it's not a great picture. The composition is extremely unbalanced, there is a lot of grain, and the colors are the extreme lighting makes the foreground (including the subject) tough to look at.--ragesoss 10:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think a better quality image could've been created in those circumstances.
    Erm...it was taken during the early 60's in extreme condition :p — Arjun 14:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support considering the historical significance of this picture and really pretty good technically. — Arjun 14:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support. Certainly not high def., more like blurry disposable camera crap. But the picture tells a story, it immediately converys whats going on. It gives context with the balloon gondola, and the far-away cloud sea, and a guy who obviously just jumped. It fulfills a key criteria FPs should have, it makes you curious, makes you want to know more. --Dschwen 14:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Dschwen. I hate making ditto votes, but he nailed it. This is indubitably among our best pictures. --Kizor 09:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Wow. What a photo! Interesting, encylopedic and historically significant! Ackatsis 03:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Aside from the "photocrapped" stuff and high rez stuff, I find the subject matter really moving in this pic.--293.xx.xxx.xx 10:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Far from great quality but enough encyclopedic value to support it. Actually, someone else jumped higher and survived (I forget who) but he was unconscious when he arrived on the ground, so it didn't count. There's also this French guy (of who I forget the name), who pans to beat the record this year. NauticaShades 14:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Promoted Image:Kittinger-jump.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sierra EscarpmentReason
    aesthetically pleasing, amazing and encyclopedic image.
    Articles this image appears in
    *
    Creator
    G. Thomas
    Nominator
    JorcogaYell!
    The Sierra Escarpment in Owens Valley, California, from the Inyo Mountains. Looking into the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range.
    • SupportJorcogaYell! 08:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support. Gorgeous, but the clouds are distracting and it's a little blurry --frothT C 08:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where is that picture blurry? It is as tack sharp as you can expect it to be after being downsized to only 600px height. --Dschwen 09:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I mean is that a person standing there could see much more detail, where's the detail? It's only 600px high, and it shouldn't be hard to get a great shot in that clear mountain air. Sorry, bad choice of word --frothT C 09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Aha! That we certainly can agree on. Although the min. size is 1000px in one direction (yadayadayada). This picture is too small for my taste. Not nearly enough detail. The mountains are a measly 200px high. With panoramic images much higher resolutions can be achieved. --Dschwen 09:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose. Stunning scenery but farily low detail/resolution. --Dschwen 15:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I kind of agree with Froth. But you might want to make the one you have here as a thumbnail a little bigger.--
      Sign Here 15:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Weak oppose The clouds I actually like; it gives a sense of how tall the range is. But I agree with Froth the image should have more resolution vertically. --Bridgecross 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Size. It's just 1.4 mega pixels, very very low for a panorama. Maybe we should change the criteria from side dimension to number of megapixels to be more precise? --antilived T | C | G 00:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good idea, but it's not that strict of a requirement anyway --frothT C 06:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Made me go wow! ... and it's big enough for me. Mactographer 10:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose - Vertical resolution, brightness/contrast/saturation. —Dgiest c 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Nobody is bothered by the uneven polarization of the sky? Great, then maybe it is time for a renomination... --Dschwen 18:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Well the uneven polarisation of the sky in this image isn't quite as bad as some others... But the colour cast looks quite purple to me and the scene just isn't as detailed as it should be. Good for the article, but not good enough for FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Swifts Creek, Victoria, Australia
    Alternative

    OK, I've tried a zoo shot of a shortbeak echidna (which was unpopular to say the least ;-) so here's a geniune authentic wild version. As you can see because it is in "the wild" there is no great photo op locations, and I had to make do with a few in the way stalks of grass. The echidna was making it's way towards a dense cluster of bushes and so I had only about 10 metres of open grass to play with. And to add to all of this he was camera shy and would very quickly duck down into a ball at the sound of the shutter - blurring several photos. However I'm quite happy with this shot and thought it worth nominating.

    • Support Version 1 Self Nom. --Fir0002 09:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Version 2 they are both very nice but I prefer the second. — Arjun 16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support version 2 - Much better than the unpopular zoo version... Version 1 has an annoying unfocused branch in the foreground. Alvesgaspar 18:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my reasoning also, the firs on has too many twigs, branches, etc. — Arjun 18:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Version 2 Great detail. —dima/s-ko/ 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Version 2, I agree with the others, since the second is less distracting. --RandomOrca2 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Version 2 You might change the file name later... -- Lycaon 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, thanks ;-) --Fir0002 09:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The many pieces of grass in front of the animal spoil it for me, on either version - Adrian Pingstone 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support Version 2. Excellent pic. Clear detail and no artefacts. Though the piece of grass or whatever that is is a bit distracting. -mw 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Version 2 per Alvesgaspar. SD31415 · SIGN HERE 00:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1st one The big branch in the second one is just as distracting as all the little one in the first version. It's a good photo though and I really like the angle.--Why1991 01:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Support Version 2 It's better than the first one (due to the position of the face) and it highly encyclopedic.S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that beast lives in thre grasslands the few grass blades don't bother me. I actually prefer version 1, as I think the beak comes out better in the half-profile. --Dschwen 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The echidna lives in grassland, forest and sand dunes, so it doesn't exclusively inhabit grassland. --liquidGhoul 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Promoted Image:Wild shortbeak echidna.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2005-issue penny obverse
    2005-issue penny obverse
    Reason
    The original FP penny is facing a delist for its unauthentic cameo effect. This version is crisp and clear and though it's a little bright on Lincoln's head (maybe someone can touch up the color balance?) I think it's probably the best shot available. It seems to be lit from very close to vertical so there are minimal shadows. It's extremely detailed and high-resolution.
    Articles this image appears in
    Cent (United States coin) Lincoln cent
    Creator
    US Mint
    Nominator
    frothT C
    • SupportfrothT AMY WAS HERE!!!! C 06:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, blurry, clearly artificial crop, doesn't meet size requirements. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with caveat - comply with the rules first, and i'll support 100%.--293.xx.xxx.xx 12:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I know that we already have a penny that is featured picture but I believe that this one is better. I doesn't have the shadow on the right hand side, and it is a real spendable coin in the money circulation unlike the other one that is a collectable printed in San Francisco--¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 15:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose, too small, bad image quality, appears in no article. The is a reason for the last rule, the picture has to be peer reviewed by the people working on the article. Otherwise the photo-nerds keep promoting only pretty pictures ;-) --Dschwen 17:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's extremely detailed and high-resolution. this is a slight misrepresentation of the facts, isn't it? Its just 900x744 px. --Dschwen 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, per Dschwen -- Lycaon 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. How much more resolution do you need on a coin, there's not much to show.. it's a picture of a 1-centimeter object --frothT C 22:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. As Froth alluded to, I measured a real penny at 0.75" and the picture at 7.5", meaning it's ten times as large as the real thing. That's good enough for me. Also, provided the consensus is that this photo is better, it will be placed in articles. You all are way too bureaucratic. Perhaps someone should just add it to an article to address that concern...--HereToHelp 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Fails criteria, 2,3, and 7.Meniscus 04:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any details on 3 and 7? Those are highly subjective --frothT C 04:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Doesn't meet size requirements. --Tewy 05:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Resolution too low. It may seem big but detail per pixel is low (ie. blurry), and also 1:1 macro shots can provide even more details. --antilivedT | C | G 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, per Dschwen -- Madman 19:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. For something incredibly common, it shouldn't be too hard to get a higher resolution. NauticaShades 11:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Barrington river
    A mountain stream.
    Reason
    From my viewpoint this is a very high quality image. I found it whilst random articling. — Arjun 04:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles this image appears in
    Barrington Tops National Park
    Creator
    DanF
    Nominator
    Arjun
    • Support — — Arjun 04:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - beautiful image.
      Yuser31415 04:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Oppose. Edit conflict! There are some pretty serious blown highlights in the water, as well as some purple fringing at the edges. --Tewy 04:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support I would hang that picture in a library.--¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 05:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Nice catch with the purple fringing Tewy but it's still a great image --frothT C 06:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Ack Tewy, plus there is blurryness in the top-left corner, and while being pretty the subject lacks notability/enc. --Dschwen 09:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Very serene and encyclopedic pic! However, as noted above, there are a few blemishes, none of which really detracts from the pic. Jumping cheeseCont@ct 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Tewy, and overall dark lighting, bland composition, low encyclopedic value. --Bridgecross 14:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Adds minimal encyclopedic value to article, visually uninteresting, blown highlights. —Dgiest c 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Although some of you may find this to be unencyclopedic, you must note that not every place in the world has streams and this does capture the very essance of what a stream is. The shot is high quality, so I see no reason why this shouldn't be an FP. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This image isn't in the stream article so it doesn't really help people to understand that concept. It is only in the National Park article. It does illustrate that article reasonably well but it just isn't that high quality image. It has a few faults and isn't particularly noteworthy. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. As per my comments above, not an outstanding image and not particularly noteworthy. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The lighting is bad, and it doesn't illustrate it's subject ver well, as Diliff mentioned. NauticaShades 11:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I have squillions like this. It's, as very carefully noted, "a mountain stream" - we don't even know which one. The lighting is poor, it's not that sharp, and the choice of shutter speed isn't great - the water is blurry but not smoothly so. Even some of the bushes are blurry. Lastly, what's with the file name - is this actually a river called Barrington River? If so, perhaps there should be an article on it - Barrington River appears to be about a river in the US. Stevage 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Robocup
    Reason
    I feel that the picture is of good quality, freely licensed, and describes the subject well.
    Articles this image appears in
    Robot, RoboCup
    Creator
    BradBeattie
    Nominator
    Brad Beattie (talk)

    Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cassini
    Reason
    Scientists have uncovered evidence of the existence of lakes filled with liquid methane on Saturn's moon Titan. Although the existence of such lakes or oceans has been predicted for 20 years, this is the first time that convincing evidence has been gathered due to a dense haze preventing a closer look. Radar images taken by the spacecraft Cassini during a fly-by of the moon on July 22nd last year show more than 75 large bodies of liquid ranging in diameter from three to 70km in the moon's northern hemisphere. It was taken by the Cassini spacecraft, and is a NASA public domain license. It currently appears in the Titan article
    Articles this image appears in
    Titan (moon)
    Creator
    NASA
    Nominator
    Preetikapoor0
    • SupportPreetikapoor0 22:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The news section would be a better place. I realize the scientific finding is moderately spectacular, but the picture isn't. --Dschwen 23:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support perhaps not the most striking of images, but it is very encyclopedic, very informative, and very rare (due to contemporary technological limitations). The image is also technically flawless, being very large and without artifacts or noise. There are few pictures like this on Wikipedia; I think it's reasonable to call this one of our best pictures. Jellocube27 02:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose It's not interesting like a featured picture needs to be. Like Dschwen said try to get it nominated in another category and it should do well. Why1991 03:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • support - lakes on a moon of Saturn = spectacular in my book. Debivort 05:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral Higly encyclopedic, but not exactly what I would call a Wow image. — Arjun 05:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral Although it has an encyclopedic level that is off the pages, it's a pretty lousy picture. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — Amazing photograph. How is this image NOT interesting? Certainly spectacular, as Debivort stated. ♠ SG →Talk 06:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Folks are ooh-ing and aah-ing over a Photoshopped picture of a coin, but complain about a close-up image of an object a light hour away? Is this reverse week? ~ trialsanderrors 08:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But this is just a radar image, it could be anything anywhwere. There is no indication in the picture itself that this is a lighthour away or that we are seeing methane lakes. Don't get me wrong here, as a physicist I'm all for the excitement of the find, the pic on its own is what I find unremarkable/unspectacular. --Dschwen 09:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How exactly would a picture convey that it was taken a light hour away? We could of course create an animated gif that turns from black to image after an hour, but I don't think that's what you had in mind. ~ trialsanderrors 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Only if it was over exactly 1000 pixels ;) --frothT C 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I like it. Better than the coin too. --Iriseyes 13:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which coin? And what does it have to do with this picture??? --Dschwen 13:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, see the comment above mine. --Iriseyes 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support I think the picure is attractive, it's encyclopedic, difficult to reproduce and of high quality, the only thing that isn't so great is the blank space, which could perhaps be cropped out to give a smaller overall picture or be filled in as the research continues? Personally I think there is more than enough explanation on the image page of what it is and with a bit of a tweak the thumbnail caption could convey exactly what the picture is of. Terri G 14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Dschwen said it. --Bridgecross 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Very encyclopedic photo, but do something about the black space that comes with images like these. MER-C 12:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried to crop them out, but we'd lose too much of the picture. Plus they signal just how hard it is to take an image under these conditions. ~ trialsanderrors 23:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -- is this not one of the better pictures in Wikipedia? It is certainly more interesting than potatoes and coins, no matter how technical perfect those shots are. Madman 19:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • strong support. I believe that like the photo of
      Edison and Phonograph , we should see the macroimportance of this image rather than just the quality. It revealed the liquid methane lakes on the Titan, which nobody had seen before. It was important enough to on the COVER of Nature, [4] which is the most prestigious journal in whole scientific world. I think that alone is sufficient to meet the criteria of a featured picture. Preetikapoor0 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Oppose - False color suggests dirt and water, which would give the average viewer an inaccurate impression. Choice of angle is a bad idea: if you're not soing to show a true landscape, use an isomorphic (map) projection. Also needs distance key. I think the raw data could be turned into a FP, but whoever's running the post-processing for NASA went for "pretty" over "encyclopedic". —Dgiest c 08:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that Cassini is orbiting Saturn and not Titan. so you do not have any control over the angle of view or the distance and due to this you rarely get the opportunity to take a picture of titan. We do not have many options as this is the ONLY image that NASA has. Intensity in this colorized image is proportional to how much radar brightness is returned, or more specifically, the logarithm of the radar backscatter cross-section. The colors are not a representation of what the human eye would see. The lakes, darker than the surrounding terrain, are emphasized here by tinting regions of low backscatter in blue. Radar-brighter regions are shown in tan. The image is centered near 80 degrees north, 35 degrees west and is about 140 kilometers (84 miles) across. Smallest details in this image are about 500 meters (1,640 feet) across. 68.61.233.160 02:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Promoted Image:PIA09102PIA09102 Liquid Lakes on Titan.jpg Raven4x4x 07:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Banded cleaner shrimp
    Banded cleaner shrimp, Stenopus hispidus
    Reason
    I have received some nice comments about this picture, and it shows the shrimp in its natural habitat.
    Articles this image appears in
    Stenopus hispidus
    Creator
    Laban712
    Nominator
    Laban712
    • SupportLaban712 09:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like it's shot in somebodies intestines :-). Nice quality apart from the low DOF. But the main problem I see is that a full frontal shot of that critter makes it hard to guess its structure. What's the head, where are the legs and antennae attached. It's just a bit confusing. --Dschwen 10:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Dschwen makes good points, but I fault more towards aesthetics in my judgments. I let others haggle over encyclopedic value and whatnot. I love the background lighting and the vignette effect. Focus on most of the critter is good. He even seems to glow a bit. I personally prefer a shallow depth of field in many cases for the sake of setting the subject apart from the foreground and/or background … which this photo does very nicely, yet still gives us a sense of placement in the environment. In fact, the DOF as it stands makes this photo all the better since, as Dschwen mentions, it is difficult to define the body parts of the shrimp from this angle. Since he is IN focus (most of him) and the rest of the image is OUT of focus, his body stands out and thus makes for a good portrait photo.-- Mactographer 11:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Subject is interesting and I'm willing to give a little leeway for poor DOF, but so much of the subject is out of focus it distracts my attention and makes me think the real subject is the intestine-like tube. Also hard to make out the animal's body plan. —Dgiest c 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, mactographer brings up good points --frothT C 20:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support An incredible picture with great encyclopedic value. In this case, I think the minor defects can be overlooked. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support well I can't say what has already been said. — Arjun 05:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The focus is not up to FP standards - Adrian Pingstone 11:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Sort of looks like the background was out of some text book that was pasted in behind the shrimp. I think the angle is all wrong for the shrimp itself as well. Terri G 15:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Well, I can agree that the picture has a somewhat surreal effect, but it's not altered (except for color correction which is always necessary for UW shots). I shot it hovering over the opening of the cylindrical sponge, so the shrimp was actually looking up at me. It's shot at 15 meters depth and in a pretty strong current, so I was pretty amazed when I saw how well the focus turned out. Then again, it is macro DOF, but I sort of like the effect.--Laban712 16:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My Two Cents: I checked out the listing at:Stenopus hispidus and found that Stemonitis (a Wiki admin and biologist) decided to move this photo to the taxobox as the signature photo for this listing. Seems like a ringing endorsement of the encyclopedic value of this photo to me. -- Mactographer 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • File:2002-issue Euro cent obverse.jpg My Two Cents: Hm, I cannot quite understand that move to the taxobox. This pic seems better suited to me for that particular purpose. As it shows the body plan (yeah, that's the word I was looking for). Anyway, the nominated pic still is aesthetically way more pleasing. --Dschwen 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • My Two Cents: more... I'll agree,...seems more definitive for IDing the body parts. But I guess even biologists have aesthetic appreciation. -- Mactographer 17:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • My Two Scents: Agree with above, although it would be nice if more of the nominated image was in focus. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-05 21:24Z
              • Musing: Brian -- So are we to associate the quality of your opinion with the "scents" you've provided???? --Mactographer 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose...back to the picture (although I was considering envelope pictures for my two "sents"), I don't like it. The focus isn't up to par as per Adrian, but aside from that I think it's a truly ugly image. It looks like the cancer-infected inside of an ear...the background is simply too distracting. --Iriseyes 23:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It has no yuck factor for me. If the area is less disgusting than it looks, the image caption could mention it. --Kizor 09:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak Oppose It's just not that appealing and the bottom left corner seems a little blurier than the rest of the picture. It's okay but I don't think it is the best. Why1991 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment. I certainly acknowledge everyone's right to think that the background is weird-looking, ugly, intestine-looking or whatever. I just want to state that 1. Cleaner shrimps live on or in corals/sponges. 2. This shrimp, at the time pictured, lived inside a sponge and thus is representative of cleaner shrimps. 3. What you're seeing in the image is what a fish coming in to have its body cleansed would see. This makes it encyclopedic in my book. I agree that it does not show the shrimp's behind very well, and that probably the other pic is better suited in the taxobox (bodyplan etc.). The nominated pic shows the shrimp in its natural habitat, preparing to do what it does for a living.--Laban712 12:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak support. Yep, that convinced me. We already have a picture showing the body plan and this picture has its own merits. Though for a strong support I'd have preferred a slightly different angle on the shimp. --Dschwen 12:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Mactographer's comments. Also, I don't find anything wrong with the background. --Aqua 06:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Metallic Ringtail
    Female Metallic Ringtail (Austrolestes cingulatus)
    Alternative

    An excellent photo of the Metallic Ringtail damsefly. Took a bit of hunting to get a good clear shot of it (I spotted the blue colored male a few times but he was too elusive), but this one has good colors and focus.

    • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Original Very sharp, great shot. --antilivedT | C | G 10:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support the original. Very nice shot, clear and free of any technical problems. Highly encyclopedic. — Arjun 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support Original. Good, encyclopedic picture that is almost technically flawless. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support either, preference for 2 Support alternative. The background on Nr.1 is great, but some parts have small focus issues. Nr.2 has perfect focus and a better angle/wing-posture. Is it eating? The Fly on the wing is a nice detail too. --Dschwen 21:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I think it's eating some kind of bug/fly which does add interest, but personally I think it was a little unfortunate that the fly was on it's wings at the time. --Fir0002 21:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now as it might matter again I restrict my support to the alternative version. Focus is more important to me too. --Dschwen 17:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support alternative. It's hard to tell that it's actually eating something if you haven't seen the original shot, but the alternative's focus is much better --frothT C 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I like both images a lot. I prefer the “original” due to its pleasing bokeh which contrasts the head , upper body and legs better than in the alternative version. Will support if place and date of photograph are given on the image page for encylopaedic factor.--Melburnian 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done --Fir0002 01:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support with preference for original as above. Nice work.--Melburnian 05:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Nice image. Pretty colours and high resolution. Good composition. --Midnight Rider 02:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Cool picture. Good resolution and detail. User:Voshvoshka
    • Support original - Impressive picture, good enc value. Alvesgaspar 08:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support either Great detail. Terri G 15:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support alternative - I think the alt has better detail, is a little more interesting. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support either They both have excellent clarity but I think that the clarity in the first one is a tad bit better. I like how there are plants in the picture with the dragonfly in the second also. Good photo. Why1991 00:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Support alternate - I like that one much better...how odd with the bug in the wings. --Iriseyes 21:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support alternative. Better focus. Not quite as good subject isolation though but the focus is more important. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Alternative. I think that the alternative is much more interesting, with it eating and the fly on it's wing. It's also better in focus. NauticaShades 19:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Alternative I don't like the fly, but the focus is much better. |
      Talk | Sign Here 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Promoted Image:Austrolestes cingulatus03.jpg Raven4x4x 07:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Obverse of a penny 16 years in circulation
    Obverse of a penny 16 years in circulation, with a worn out cameo and lots of scratches (compare to the proof coin).
    Crap all over the coin. They don't look like scratches since some cast shadows.
    edit1 - lightened shadow
    Articles this image appears in
    Cent (United States coin)
    Creator
    User:Dschwen, Nominator: Dschwen

    Well, since nominating pennies seems to be en vogue I thought I throw this one in for the fun of it (as my one cents :-) ). I just had the idea for a linear-macro-panoramic-image technique and had to try it out. This one is assembled from 16 macro shots. The camera was static and I moved the coin after each shot. The BG (white paper) and the shadow looked quite crappy, so I gimped them (sue me!). Oh yeah, it is downsized from 9 to 4 megapixels. One pixel corresponds pretty much exactly to 10µm x 10µm.

    • SupportDschwen 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose there is no need to duplicate the Featured pictures. The image is not very attractive either, especially on the edges. — Arjun 23:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's nothing in the criteria that says an image has to be attractive. This image illustrates a weathered penny, so of course it isn't going to be pretty. --Tewy 04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • and not to get technical Arjun, but there are not two penny FPs. The other one is still a candidate as well. Not that there's anything in the rules about having multiple FPs of the same subject! --Bridgecross 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support edit 1. What the hey, it's a nice shot. I love the resolution and sharpness. There will probably be some arguments for the encyclopedic value of this, but I think this does a great job at showing what a penny goes through. --Tewy 23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support agree with Tewy. Impressive detail, and shows an important encyclopedic aspect of coins - that they are for every day, they get thrown around, thrown in the wash, mixed in with pocket lint (you can see fibers on this coin), etc. I like this image a lot for that aspect, plus it is very well done. Mak (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, we shouldn't have 2 versions of the same thing concurrently as candidates. Also it's ugly, the other penny is much clearer and cleaner. Also I don't like the ridiculously high resolution. And the shadow on the left is clearly fake since none of the features of the coin have shadows --frothT C 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually I agree that the shadow is a little strong. Edit 1? --Tewy 00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You might even remove it altogether. --Tewy 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The shadow looks perfectly real to me. Did you view the image at full size? It's quite easy to see the shadows on the coin itself. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • They're nowhere near at that angle. The kicker is that almost the entire shadow is the exact same color- try using the fill tool with 0% tolerance. I don't believe this occurs naturally.. also the border between the left side of the coin and the big shadow looks magic-wanded. --frothT C 01:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As you pointed out below, Dschwen stated it was fake. --Tewy 02:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I didn't explore the left-side large shadow in detail, but I accept that it's problematic if people have done analysis on it. I would add, however, that "they're nowhere near at that angle" is a far cry from "none of the features of the coin have shadows"... which I what I was originally disputing. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 03:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The fake shadow coincides exactly with the real shadow the coin casted. Lighting came from the right at an angle of about 60° off the normal. Do the math, measure a pennies thickness and you will see the shadow matches. --Dschwen 07:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now this is my favourite: I don't like the ridiculously high resolution. *pause* welcome to the 21st century. I mean... cooooome oooon, 1000px is the absolute minimum on this page (well yeah, you nominated a 700 px pic below, sorry, but maybe you have to adjust your standards a little) so 2000px doesn't seem like that much of leap to me. --Dschwen 07:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, lincoln's head is so damaged that it's barely distinguishable --frothT C 00:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely with that, the head is damaged too much. — Arjun 00:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But isn't that exactly the point? This image serves to show what happens to a penny after the usual wear and tear, not how it looks coming out of the mint. If you want a shiny penny, scroll down to the other nomination. --Tewy 00:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the point was to show what a penny looks like. --frothT C 02:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if Dschwen just wanted to show what a penny looked like, he would have picked a newer penny. --Tewy 02:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that goes without saying.. I mean that FPs should demonstrate their subjects. You can't do much with a penny other than show what it looks like. "Showing how it wears down while in circulation" is kind of a lame rationale, you have to admit --frothT C 03:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, please tone it down a little. Sure I could have used a newer penny, or cleaned this one. That was a deliberate choice to set the pic off from the other pennies, and avoid doubling nominations. --Dschwen 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Intriguing technique (and good results) - but would a simple scanner at 600 dpi do the trick? At any rate nice pic but I would strongly prefer a much lighter shadow (say 50% of it's current darkness) and maybe make it softer as well. --Fir0002 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for the scanner, the current version has 2540 dpi, and that is scaled down from 4300 dpi. But yeah, if you have a nice scanner sure. For the shadow I oriented myself after the original, but sure, I guess I could make it lighter. --Dschwen 07:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. There are two things that bother me about this image. While I like the overall concept, and would like to see a "distressed" penny shot to compare to the proof penny, this shouldn't be the one. First of all, there's no evidence that this coin has been in circulation for 16 years. Just because it was minted 16 years ago does not mean that it's been in circulation that long. Secondly, I think we should use an even "worse" penny for the shot, to highlight the amount of wear that occurs over the years. I would suggest something from the 70s or 80s. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • At a certain point the penny goes completely black from dirt and wear and it's not at all fit for FP. --frothT C 01:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But depending on the amount and type of use, a penny can last several decades longer than intended. I guess that goes along with what Dante Alighieri said about there being no proof that this coin has been in circulation. It may well have sat in a box for 15 of those years. --Tewy 01:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also doesn't anybody notice the shadow? It is very distracting. — Arjun 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Edit 1 seems to fix that. --Tewy 21:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I didn't even notice but it looks like Dschwen admits to creating the shadow artificially --frothT C 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Does anyone else see the crap all over the coin? (2nd image) --frothT C 02:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm...I personally dislike the shadow (hence I opposed) makes it look thick. Also is it just me or does it look like that the penny is turned slightly to the right. — Arjun 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Certain parts may be off but look at liberty, it's perfect. Maybe stitching problems? --frothT C 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohhh epithelials and fibres, lets do a DNA test :-). Seriously I didn't bother cleaning the coin and shot it just out of my change purse. About the shadow geometry see above. --Dschwen 07:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Like most other US coins, this nomination should be put on hold until copyright status can be cleared up. The template is certainly false. See US Mint terms of use: "You should not assume anything on this site is necessarily in the public domain." ~ trialsanderrors 07:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. According to Fir's suggestion I lightened the shadow, and I actually prefer it. It makes the coin stick out more. Sorry about the shadow blurring, that takes a little more time (to get the match right at the top and bottom edges I'd have to apply a blur-radius gradient making the shadow sharper to the right, if you know what I mean). --Dschwen 08:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Edit 1. Thanks for the edit, the lighter one is much better - fair enough if the shadow softening is too difficult for little gain. --Fir0002 21:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support edit 1 - I wish you had brushed it off a bit, but I really like the resolution and the wear and tear. --Iriseyes 21:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I don't like that part of this image is fake, and to me the edge of the coin does not look right.. I don't think it should be difficult to take another picture of a penny, unlike some subjects. Use just any older penny and the same setup, except perhaps a different light source.say1988 17:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to comment on the not difficult, it took me over two hours to produce that image. Half an hour to take the pictures (used a timer to avoid shake) and the assembling. Then 1.5 hours to get the optimum DOF by manual editing of the stitching masks. --Dschwen 17:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am sorry I didn't phrase that well, in fact very poorly. I did not mean to refer to the actual process, but the subject and that are not that difficult to set up. I am more critical of a photo of a common subject in normal circumstances than a shot that cannot be repeated a will (time allowing). I did not mean it as an insult, and would like to apoligise. say1988 01:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per say1988. Madman 19:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Edit 1. Quite an original take at the common penny, and I love it. This is the real 1 cent peice we know, not the flawless mint ones. And the stuff on it isn't crap, it's authentic material from the inside of a pocket. NauticaShades 11:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The pocket material is prominent and unenc --frothT C 04:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Semi-sarcastic? --Tewy 05:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose Love the surface of the coin, it's certainly a change from the stripper tits fake cameo crap. But I see three problems that keep this from being FP; 1. Fake shadow doesn't go with the "realism" of the coin face. 2. There seems to be some
      crosshatching which I assume comes from the panoramic technique. And 3. and most critically, the rim of the coin is seen from all sides. There's also some artifact sticking into the fake shadow that's just jarring. ~ trialsanderrors 08:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Oppose - While it might be good to have a circulated coin as an example, it shouldn't be one with spots. Patina can be nice (and typical for an old coin), but a spot is a defect. —Dgiest c 16:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Spots and defects aren't a problem; they can make for an interesting figure. Shadows are relistic on difference in height of coin, and in height of the relief. But what the spots and defects do show is that it really hasn't been in circulation that much; rather, it has been hoarded somewhere, in a place that got some moisture, and it stuck to te coin(s) above it. You can see the transferred ridges from contact with another coin, most clearly around Lincoln's neck but elsewhere as well. Gene Nygaard 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Royal Australian Exhibition Building
    The Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne, Australia
    Reason
    It is an excellent picture of a beautiful building with much clarity and a flower border at the bottom.
    Articles this image appears in
    Royal Exhibition Building, and Australia
    Creator
    Diliff
    Nominator
    ¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here

    Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    RMS Titanic
    .

    • Nominate and neutral support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose- Historically significant, and the resolution isn't really a problem... It's just a really ugly picture. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 14:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Oppose Not a very good image. — Arjun 15:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose Yes it is historically significant but a more interesting and better picture can be found.--¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 15:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - In both this nomination and the previous, people are saying "there must be better pictures out there". I'm not sure how much I believe that - there have only been a handful of expeditions and how many produced public domain images? "Ugliness" is a non-criteria for denying FP status in this case: shipwrecks are ugly. Previous complaints about darkness are silly too: The subject is reasonably visible and this is at the bottom of the ocean, greater lighting would make it look like a museum piece. This is a non-grainy, well focused, stylishly lit, medium resolution photograph of a very historic subject, and has nice visual interest. —Dgiest c 16:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – Striking image, and satisfactory in terms of technical quality. While it'd be nice if they raised the Titanic to allow for other freely-licensed images to be taken, this seems somewhat unlikely – so the photograph gets additional kudos for being rare and historically significant. GeeJo (t)(c) • 17:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose despite the documental value and because I don't hear any bells ringing. Ugliness is a perfectly legitimate evaluation criterium, together with all the other subjective ones (including beauty and enc value). If the evaluation process were objective, we could all go home. Alvesgaspar 18:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Great enc very rare shot --frothT C 22:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Barely meets the resolution requirements. Even if it passes, it will probably be delisted in a year or so as the requirements are growing stricter.--HereToHelp 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not promoting an image because it might be delisted in the future is a poor rationale. Debivort 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • support nicely shows what happens to iron ships as they decay underwater. As for "ugliness" ... ugly can be aesthetic - think The Scream. Debivort 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    erm...I think the Scream is beautiful. But that is just my "two-cents" :D — Arjun 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you arguing therefore that the image is historically insignificant and not worth featured picture status? Well, given that the American 1 cent coin is well known to pretty much every person in America, does that stop it from being featured. Just because something is recognized across the world, doesnt mean it shouldnt be featured. And given that your issue is about the bow being immortalised in the film; lets say the film was never made, im sure many would agree that the image is still significant from a historical point of view
    • I'm not saying it's insignificant, just that its significance is affected by the inclusion in the film. It would still have some significance even if the film had not been made, but perhaps not as much. I'm just raising the issue, not voting pro or con.Spebudmak 05:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if the Titanic had been a tugboat, this image wouldn't be notable enough either. But it wasn't a tugboat, and it was featured in the film. Hypotheticals don't help one bit in determining whether an image is feature-worthy. It is what it is. GeeJo (t)(c) • 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: good picture with historical relevance82.6.84.37 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No anonymous votes, please - Alvesgaspar 12:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above has one edit...this edit. —
    Talk | Sign Here 13:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support per Dgies. JorcogaYell! 13:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If anybody ever finds a better image, then we can delist this one. NauticaShades 11:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promoted Image:Titanic-bow seen from MIR I submersible.jpeg Raven4x4x 07:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian bride portrait
    Version #2
    Reason
    I think it’s well posed, colorful and somewhat exotic.
    Articles this image appears in
    Indian wedding
    Creator
    en:User:Mactographer
    Nominator
    Mactographer


    • NominateMactographer 09:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. Pictures of people have a hard time here for some reason. This one is not bad, and I like how it shows several features of the bride, like gown, henna tattoos, and jewlery. I holding back the support due to size reasons for now. 0.6 MP seems a little measly to me. --Dschwen 14:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support now. I sort of agree with Alves on the occidental bride thing, but this picture has informational value for me, and I really like the composition (plus the quality is great). As Alves also said, if the evaluation process were completely objective we could all go home :-) --Dschwen 19:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral I must agree with the above statement.--¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Edit 2 a very encyclopedic image, also very clear in my eyes. — Arjun 16:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I don't think the expression of the bride is particularly interesting, which should be a most important element in any human portrait. Because I also don't believe exoticism is enough for enc value, the question I put to myself is: how would this picture be evaluated if this same woman were dressed as an occidental bride? - Alvesgaspar 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Version #2 "Here's the original size and resolution file.—Mactographer 19:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! And the quality is great even at that size. --Dschwen 19:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support version 2 (which is really version one if you think about it...but whatever). The expression is fine. The exoticness compensates for it.--HereToHelp 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Technically speaking this is a poor picture for illustrative purposes. The subject is not well framed; both her fingers and her shoulder are cropped off, which is quite unacceptable. For documentary purposes, the colors and expression are what they are, and the image does appear to be appropriately focused and all that. This is undoubtedly a very decent memento of someone's wedding, but as a documentary image it is definitely lacking. As to exoticness: I cannot see how an image of an Indian bribe is "exotic", given the rather large number of women who every day must either look like this or are trying to look like this. I'm all for combating cultural bias, but we don't do that by parading everyday images of non-Western culture as "exotic". Kelly Martin (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The exoticness specifically referred to western bias. I laude you political correctness, but simply ignoring that a westerner has a western-bias is counterproductive. Reflecting upon it like Alves is more helpful. Fact is Alves(?) and me are from the western hemisphere and while statistically (I guess) one in six weddings is an indian wedding virtually no indian weddings take place on our doorsteps. --Dschwen 08:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose -- It's an okay portrait, but generally an unremarkable image and not of the best Wikipedia has to offer, IMO. By exotic, I assume is meant "foreign," in which case essentializing western perspectives is inappropriate for an encyclopedia used and edited by people from all over and from lots of different cultures, regardless of where they live. (Any weddings on my doorstep are as likely to be "non-western" as "western," and I'm in the western hemisphere too). And if the "exotic" factor isn't heavily weighted, then there's really no "wow" factor here at all. Bobanny 18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uhum, it is as likely? Well my friend the reality here is different. And how spectacular or surprising an image seems is in the eye of the boholder after all. Ah well and forgive me for not tip-toeing around backwards and colonialistic terms like exotic. --Dschwen 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That comment annoyed me especially since I tried to point out my personal awareness of that bias just in the paragraph above, but no I still get the same lecture again. --Dschwen 21:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't doubt it's different where you are; I was just trying to point out that your reality isn't the universal reality of the western hemisphere. It's not about political correctness for me, just ordinary correctness, and I don't see how acknowledging a bias justifies incorporating that bias in an encyclopedia. I agree that what strikes us as exotic can be subjective, but I don't think subjectively held impressions should be weighted heavily in selecting a featured picture is all. Sheeesh. Bobanny 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, if everybody votes to his subjective liking and the audience here is as universal as you say, then any bias should even out. If on the other hand the votership and readership has western bias so be it, then the picture has a novelty value for the majority making it featureworthy. I cannot see anything wrong with that. With the same logic a picture of a rural african village would be unremarkable to you, because millons of people live in such villages and only cultural bias makes them seem special. --Dschwen 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • My concern is simply that I don't believe that seeing the subject as exotic should tilt the scales in the way that, say, historical significance or extreme rarity does for evaluating photos. For me personally, the subject is exotic, as I'm not Indian, have never been to an Indian wedding, and was raised in a culture where colourful Indian traditions are exotic because they are different. But the Indian bride, as with the rural African village, are common enough subjects that other criteria need to be exceptional to be feature-worthy, regardless of how novel or exotic the subject seems to me or you. I also believe that Wikipedia is dominated by male editors, Americans, etc., and that awareness of that should be used to try and overcome biases, with the ultimate goal of making Wikipedia more inviting to people who aren't as well represented, which in the end would make it a more authoritative source. Maybe that's a little pc, but it's also an ideal for Wikipedia with practical implications that I don't believe many editors would take issue with.Bobanny 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Systemic bias, dshwen. Since most wikipedians are western, these pics are bound to be considered "exotic" by the community. We have featured pictures of western stuff too that other cultures might think exotic.. it's not that bad --frothT C 00:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose per bobanny --frothT C 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment & Question That comment from Fruitbasket was rude, but it WAS a support. Doesn't it count in the vote? Why was it removed? -- Mactographer 01:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite frankly I didn't think of that aspect. But I'm not sure whether we shoud walue such votes. I for one would happily do without. But I guess it's up to the closer, so let me note plus one removed vandal support. --Dschwen 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. While I'm not overly fond of staged portraits, this one certainly does summarise (to the best of my knowledge anyway) a typical indian bride's costume/appearance. Quality is excellent. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Version 2. The quality is reasonable and "exotic" or not, it depicts its subject well. NauticaShades 11:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Sorry to raise the question, but is there an authorization of the bride to have her picture reproduced here? That shouldn't be difficult, I presume the photo was shot in the US, right? - Alvesgaspar 14:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Yes. She signed a wedding contract that allows uses like this. However, this is the first time I've heard the issue raised on Wiki. Tho I've wondered about it regarding other photos. --Mactographer 05:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Polar Map of Jupiter
    This map of Jupiter is the most detailed global color map of the planet ever produced. The round map is a polar stereographic projection that shows the south pole in the center of the map and the equator at the edge. It was constructed from images taken by Cassini on Dec. 11 and 12, 2000, as the spacecraft neared Jupiter during a flyby on its way to Saturn. ReaganThe map shows a variety of colorful cloud features, including parallel reddish-brown and white bands, the Great Red Spot, multi-lobed chaotic regions, white ovals and many small vortices. Many clouds appear in streaks and waves due to continual stretching and folding by Jupiter's winds and turbulence. The bluish-gray features along the north edge of the central bright band are equatorial "hot spots," meteorological systems such as the one entered by NASA's Galileo probe. Small bright spots within the orange band north of the equator are lightning-bearing thunderstorms. The polar region shown here is less clearly visible because Cassini viewed it at an angle and through thicker atmospheric haze.
    Reason
    I am re-nominating this picture because it is the most detailed map of Jupiter ever produced, it was "Image of the Day" at the NASA website, and it has an exellent caption.
    Articles this image appears in
    Jupiter
    Creator
    NASA
    Nominator
    Talk | Sign Here 12:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment So why did you remove the FPC tag? Terri G 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You already nominated this pic two and a half months ago. Whats the reason for renominating it so quickly? --Dschwen 14:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oops! I had forgotten to remove the fpc tag the last time, and I hadn't decided to re-nominate it again when I removed it. As for why renominate it 2 1/2 months later, is it too early? I thought I had waited enough, but remove you can the nomination if it's too early. It should say somewhere how long we should wait though. |
    Talk | Sign Here 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Question - There is something unnatural right on the pole. I remember someone asking the same question the last time but I forgot the answer... Are you sure it is the polar stereographic projection (because last time it was the orthographic and I don't see any good reason for that choice, an equal area projection might be better)? Alvesgaspar 16:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (after edit conflict) The probe came in at an angle, and didn't pass directly under the pole, meaning it didn't have a picture of the very bottom. Instead of leaving a hole, they covered it up with a similar color. |
      Talk | Sign Here 16:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Support. Interesting way of looking at the different bands on Jupiter. If they had an animated version, showing the alternating rotation of each band, I would move for Speedy Promote :) — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-05 21:17Z
    • That would actually be awesome, but as this is map composed from many satellite pictures I guess the chances are low such an animation will be possible. --Dschwen 10:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - I can get over the grey spot, but the edges of the planet seem overly sharpened, as if someone circularly cropped it. I would expect with a gas giant that the edges would be fuzzy, a bit like fuzzy jupiter this one, but I have reservations even on that - Jack (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a direct snapshot, it's a composite generated from many different pictures. That would explain the sharp edges and the grey area at the pole (that they didn't have any pictures of). Redquark 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A kind of long descrition but an excellent map of an interesting planet. Why1991 00:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Support. High quality, and I like the fact that it's an unconventional view of Jupiter -- it startles me into looking at it in a new way. I think the image should be renamed "Map of Jupiter's south.jpg" though, since it doesn't show the northern hemisphere. Redquark 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose It is a very interesing picture that shows a fascinating view of Jupiter but I don´t think ist up to FPs standards. The circular grey spot in the middle ruins it for me. And it doesn´t have that crisp FP feeling to me. It is an awesome picture that benefits wikipedia greatly but it just doesnt fit FP standards. --Tobyw87 13:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ironic isn't it? --frothT C 00:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, many pictures benefit wikipedia greatly but are not up to the standards of Featured Pictures [7].--Tobyw87 14:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Someone might be a little confused; the Cassini flyby produced the most detailed views of jupiter, but this specific shot is not the most detailed. See this one for example, much more detailed --frothT C 00:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the caption says it's the most detailed map. I agree the 3-d image is more aesthetically appealing though. |
        Talk | Sign Here 01:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Promoted Image:Map of Jupiter.jpg Raven4x4x 05:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]


    Hawker Hurricane

    Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Approach to Kata Tjuta

    This picture was nominated by Arlen66 (talk · contribs · count), who also appears to be the photographer. The account was created 00:53, 5 January 2007, precisely 4 minutes before nominating the picture. It has three edits: to the image page, to create this page, and to the main FPC page adding the nom.Vanderdeckenξφ 11:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment not sure who nominated or what the story is, but I liked the picture so I photoshopped it and put my version up. Jellocube27 04:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    *Support edit 1. This is a great shot. But next time submit your FPC correctly.. --frothT C 03:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Nice shot with no distractions. Like Froth said be sure to read the directions from above when submitting a picture. Why1991 03:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose not encyclopedic, beautiful image but is missing one of the key elements. It is not used in "any" article. — Arjun 05:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Seadog Arjun hit it right on the head. The picture, although nice, isn't really encyclopedic at all and it has no article. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Arjun Glaurung 06:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose Not a bad photo, but I think I'd have preferred a much closer picture of KataJuta, so that it was the subject and there were less things in the way. A blue sky would also have made it more striking. Terri G 14:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Terri G and Arjun. Plus it has visible stitching seams. Looks like an inferior stitching software was used basically just blending the pictures along a vertical strip. --Dschwen 17:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Oppose, lack of enc --frothT C 04:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Not in any article - Adrian Pingstone 10:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Reluctantly since it's a nice shot but it isn't very encyclopedic and fails to be in a single article. Cat-five - talk 10:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Not the best quality and in no article. I'll change to neutral if it is placed in one. NauticaShades 19:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Canadian Geese
    Example of a parade
    Reason
    I really like this image of some geese in a parade.
    Articles this image appears in
    Canada Goose
    Creator
    User:Wsiegmund
    Nominator
    Bewareofdog
    • SupportBewareofdog 03:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose pity too. While the image is very symbolic, technically it is pretty bad. The Color noise is pretty high and is out of focus. — Arjun 03:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. It's compositionally pretty good, but it needs a crop, and the technical flaws are too serious (image noise, focus issues). --Tewy 04:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per tech problems --frothT C 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - very cute, but technically bad - subject out of focus, a lot of colour noise. —Vanderdeckenξφ 11:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - cute...but the noise and lack of focus can't be ignored. --Iriseyes 21:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The lack of focus is a problem. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Per all above. Why1991 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Meat Eater Ant Queen
    Meat Eater Ant Queen beginning a new colony
    20 seconds later...
    ~1 min later...

    Not only is this a good shot of a fertilized meat eater ant queen, it shows a hugely significant event - the beginning of a new colony. I was originally just shooting the ant colony that was swarming, but as I was walking back home I was luckily enough to see this young queen. I followed her around and eventually she selected this spot and started digging.

    • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 11:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support I like the macro shot and appreciate how tough it is to get a good one however I can't support any more strongly with the left ant being mostly out of focus like that. Cat-five - talk 11:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, can that be confirmed? I mean, kudos, that would be national-geographic-style coolness. Nice quality too. What's the approximate scale of the pic? --Dschwen 11:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry should have added that to the description page - it's about 20mm. Do you mean can I go back and confirm if she was successful? I know after standing around for about 10mins she was out of sight! --Fir0002 22:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have been clearer. It is established that the queen dug, but does digging automaticall imply colony foundation? It shoud just be cleared with certainty, that this was not, let's say, digging for food etc. --Dschwen 09:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Ok, I did some reading. Looks like the colony formation is more common than I thought, but the picture is still great, especially with the extra pics showing the progress. --Dschwen 08:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Top most (largest) image - the others I just added to show a bit more of the event. --Fir0002 22:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) Okay, still support. --Tewy 22:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support All pictures Very good catch! Will make an exellent FP. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support first It's clear, it's encyclopedic, it's interesting ,and it's appealing. . It's awesome. Why1991 03:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Support - for reasons articulated above. Preference for first for greater view of subject. —Dgiest c 07:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment File name has a typo "qeen", which really should be fixed before we make this a FP. —Dgiest c 09:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I noticed that too; does it really matter, besides showing how carefully the uploader named the image? --Tewy 09:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, sorry about that --Fir0002 07:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support mostly the last image. AzaToth 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support, either version A terrific set of photos, especially considering the size of the photo subject. Ackatsis 03:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I strongly suggest linking to the other images on each image page. --Tewy 20:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support All. All of them are good quality and quite encyclopedic. NauticaShades 14:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Promoted Image:Meat eater ant qeen excavating hole.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Valley of the Temples.
    Valley of the Temples park in eastern Oahu, Hawaii.
    Reason
    Picture rivals commercial images for quiality and adds considerably to articles on which it is used.
    Articles this image appears in
    Valley of the Temples, Hawaii & Oahu
    Creator
    Brendel
    Nominator
    Signaturebrendel
    • Oppose Entire frame is out of focus and there is a fair bit of image grain. It's possible some image editing could fix the grain and downscaling could possibly improve focus enough to still meet resolution requirements. —Dgiest c 09:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if I down-scale the image, would that solve the problem? Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Downscaling hides focus problems but you may need to downscale so far that you end up failing resolution guidelines. You'd still need to perform a very careful noise reduction. It may be fixable but I'm not sure. —Dgiest c 15:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the advise. I'm going to introduce a revised version later today. Regards, Signaturebrendel 16:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I really like it and do think that it represents some of Wikipedia's best quality pictures. Excellent find. Why1991 19:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Support A great picture, but per above, quite a bit of grain. 72.82.244.76 20:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose focus. --Bridgecross 23:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Contrast. Mazin07CT 00:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Not bad, few featured pictures of Hawaii. Leon math 23:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    A New York City firefighter looks up at what remains of the South Tower.
    September 13, 2001: A New York City firefighter looks up at what remains of the South Tower.
    Reason
    This is a very cool image
    Articles this image appears in
    September 11, 2001 attacks User:Acebrock/9/11
    Creator
    Work of the United States Government
    Nominator
    Bewareofdog
    • SupportBewareofdog 04:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - While not every part of an image must be perfectly sharp, the subject should be sharp. The subject is the firefighter and the ruin, yet the ruin is quite blurry. While you could claim "historical exemption", this event was widely covered by the press so there must be pictures with far superior technical aspects. —Dgiest c 07:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This image was nominated last September at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:WTC-remnant.jpg. --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, tower out of focus --frothT C 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose It's really grainy, and as stated above there are many pictures that could have this same topic that are of much better quality. Why1991 19:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose yeah to me the subject should be the ruin, a very interesting image but could be much better. — Arjun 02:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Very good composition, poor image quality . Alvesgaspar 09:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Sunset over steeple.
    The First Church of Christ, Scientist on Third Street in DeKalb, Illinois. It is one of the many churches in DeKalb.
    Reason
    Self-nom, I just really liked the photograph, its composition and contrast. The way the sunlight bathed the steeple, almost as if it were holy. Just a really good image, I thought, and I don't often think things I create are worth much. Take it as you will
    Articles this image appears in
    DeKalb, Illinois
    Creator
    Andy McMurray
    Nominator
    A mcmurray
    • SupportA mcmurray 21:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose well to me there is nothing particularly special about this image that makes you go wow. I dislike how the trees cover up pretty much the whole front of the church, also this might just be me but it looks like it is at a bit of a tilt. — Arjun 21:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - It's not a particularly attractive image. Basically, this looks like a photo anyone could take with their new digital camera, and it doesn't show any special composition skills. I'll leave technical comments to the regulars.--Iriseyes 22:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral I don't feel strongly enough either way about this picture. I would like to note, however, that sunsets of any sort are ususally struck down for FP status. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Not uber high res, technical problems, bad composition, boring shot, blown highlights, glare problems, grainy, unnatural photoshopping, better as SVG, blah blah blah the usual list :) There's nothing specific in my mind about this image, but sorry it's just not FP material. Don't let all of these opposes intimidate you, your shot is competing for the highest honor a wikipedia upload can achieve --frothT C 23:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • better as SVG... :-) --Tewy 23:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • One of my favorite default oppose reasons :) --frothT C 00:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not intimidated. It's good to get such feedback so if I nominate other images or take others that I nominate I will know what to look for/what to take. A mcmurray 17:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. It's a pretty shot, but for featured pictures you need encyclopedic value. Since most of the church is in shadow, the left side is covered by a tree, and the right side is cut off, you can't really see what it looks like. And what little lighting there is (on the steeple) prevents one from seeing the actual color. So while it may look nice, it doesn't have the encyclopedic value that is required of featured pictures. --Tewy 23:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose on composition. Lower building in shadow, tree obscures nice columned front, parking lot and chain link fence visible. --Bridgecross 23:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose The picture itself is not very good, and at a glance looks quite blurry. Plus there are street signs everywhere like the one way sign which are major eye sores. Another eye sore is the obstructing tree, its not taken at a nice angle for the tree to look nice. Another thing that i personally dislike is the shading, the main building is in slight shadows and the tower is quite illuminated. Mabye another picture of the same subject could become a featured picuture. Voshvoshka 01:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should never judge a picture "at a glance". I don't know if you did on this one or not, but just saying... --Tewy 01:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't judge it at a glance, but i think that a picture should look apealing to the eye when you first look at it. —The preceding
          unsigned comment was added by Voshvoshka (talkcontribs
          ).
    • Oppose The main thing that does it for me is the tree. A couple other things are the lighting and the angle. Why1991 03:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Poor encyclopedic value: is this really an iconic image of DeKalb? It looks like any old church. Also oppose on technical ground listed above. —Dgiest c 07:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Brolga Cranes
    Reason
    I really like this image and I hope you do to.
    Articles this image appears in
    Brolga
    Creator
    Paul Thomsen
    Nominator
    Bewareofdog
    • SupportBewareofdog 20:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose I had some minor problems with finding the subject of the image. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Oppose Yeah which birds are the cranes? --frothT C 23:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose. This image is technically good, but it doesn't do much to inform me about the Brolga. The subjects are very small in a small image. And as Sharkface217 said, they aren't very prominent, either, because they're surrounded by the other birds. --Tewy 23:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose Awesome picture but the only thing that makes it not Featured Picture material for me is the other birds. Why1991 03:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose due to the other birds. JorcogaYell! 13:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, the subject isn't clear. The cranes don't stand out much among the other birds. --RandomOrca2 03:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The other make the subject unclear. NauticaShades 08:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Seriously, the other birds are a terrible reason to oppose; birds should be shown in their natural enviroment, and this often means other species. Neutralitytalk 05:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edison and Phonograph
    Thomas Edison and his early phonograph. Cropped from Library of Congress copy. Probably taken April 18, 1878.
    Edit 1, dust removal by Janke
    Edit 3, Arad's edit with adjusted lightness
    Reason
    A high-resolution image of Thomas Edison with one of his most famous inventions. I think it is very encyclopedic and informative, as well as good photograph.
    Articles this image appears in
    Thomas Edison
    Creator
    Levin C. Handy
    Nominator
    Jellocube27
    • Support edit 1Jellocube27 09:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Either Historic importance + Quality = Featured Picture --antilivedT | C | G 10:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Agree with Antilived, in the focus this pic has an extraordinary clarity. Plus it's the portrait of a geek ;-). --Dschwen 12:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support edit 1 Historical significance, great quality. Question: Should we do dust & spot removal, or leave as-is? --Janke | Talk 13:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • At least dust removal would be justified, as the dust isn't part of the original picture and constitutes a technical deficiency of the digitization process. --Dschwen 13:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Original Great pic! We need more geeks/nerds, this is an encyclopedia. :-) |
      Talk | Sign Here 14:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Suppot This is a wow image, historical significance and per the fact that it is of high quality...even for back then! — Arjun 14:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support historical photograph.
      Noclip 15:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Support, this picture is historically significant, and it has good quality, which is amazing, considering its time. --RandomOrca2 16:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per all above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Would suggest not doing dust removal except for that which is particularly distracting, such as the two large black spots and the smudge right of his head. —Dgiest c 19:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (edit conflict) I did a "tactful" dust removal, see edit 1. However, I left the specks that are obviously defects in the original, but removed the "painted in" black spots. --Janke | Talk 19:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support edit 1 only. Good job on the dust removal. This is probably way too picky, but the dust removal seems to have removed some things that were on the original photograph, such as the reflection on his lowest shirt button, the white gap just to the left of it, the reflection on a (rivet?) closest to the handle where his hand is, and the shadow on top that hand. Normally I'm not this picky, but I've got two tabs open where I can see all this, and this is featured pictures. --Tewy 21:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Janke that edit 2 removed too much. --Tewy 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support edit 1 Everyone really already covered what I was going to say. It's really a good historical photo. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support original. Dust specks on a 128 year old photo really don't bother me. Very nice photo of a subject of maximum enc value. --207.38.206.107 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC) --Bridgecross 02:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support Edit 1 There isn't one thing wrong with it even as an older picture. Why1991 03:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Support both. Beautiful image, historical significance. thuglastalk|edits 15:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support either. High detail and very historic. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-07 18:01Z
    • Support Edit 1 Very encyclopedic and culturally significant. Ackatsis 03:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Seems like a very good picture, with high enc. (also I never knew he was so attractive). Terri G 13:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support edit 1 strong, historic photo, with adequate dust removal/clean up.--Andrew c 03:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support edit 2 OK, i did another edit. Hope it helps. Plus this one is in commons which is more accessible --Arad 23:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry to say so, but I think you went too far. You removed some defects which clearly are in the original negative (i.e. some splotches and marks), so you in fact did more than a dust removal - you altered the original. This is a matter of taste of course. (The fact that you uploaded to Commons is of no importance - any version can be moved there in a jiffy... --Janke | Talk 08:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course it easy to put it on commons, but for now, the second version is up for FP on commons. --Arad 04:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Any. I'm fine with the original, and the edits do a pretty good job. Janke has a good arguement against edit 2, so I won't decide between them. NauticaShades 14:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Edit 3 added with some lightfixing. No reason.

    Promoted Image:Edison and phonograph edit1.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Swifts Creek, Victoria

    • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. We've certainly raised the bar for bird shots recently, but aside from the usual depth of field issues (which are minor in this case), this is quite a good one. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Nice, encyclopaedic image--Melburnian 12:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It has good clarity, is encyclopedic, and is interesting. :-) Why1991 13:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak support Looks slightly posterized to me, on my screen (around the head and neck), but I know that's no quarantee that there's a problem, so I'll support it anyway for good composition and enc. Terri G 13:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Excellent picture. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support. I wouldn't call the DOF issues minor. All tail and wing feathers are out of focus. Otherwise a excellent picture, quality- and compositionwise. The posterization might come from a saturation increase, or is that bird really that colorful? —The preceding
      unsigned comment was added by Dschwen (talkcontribs).
    Nah that's what they look like - very colorful little things --Fir0002 07:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support. DOF could be a little better. --Tewy 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply