Support as nominator --ClausX (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unappealing background and confusing pose of subject. Also, identity of photographer and legitimacy of the license for the photo ought to be clearer. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nothing exceptional here. Even the nominator can't say better than "nice picture". Clearly not enough for FP. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see what makes this picture notable. Can ClausX please explain why this should be a featured picture. Just because it "looks nice" doesn't make it automatically comply with featured picture criteria. Did the user even review it when nominating? AndrewrpTally-ho! 20:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this nomination was made 7 minutes after the user's account was created, and this is the only edit he has made except for one each to his user and talk pages (ClausX (talk·contribs·logs)). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creator is "A Photographer" That narrows it down! Source is the model's web site. Any copyright issues? Oh, and Oppose --Bridgecross (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the use of this image has been cleared at OTRS. --jjron (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose due to background. Decent image, but not quite featured picture material. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support decent quality and if not perfect in all aspects in my opinion it is certainly among the very best images of living people on Wikipedia and a good illustration of the subject that adds significantly to the article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Guest9999. Certainly one of the best living persons images we have on this site and illustrates the subject quite well. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Guest9999.--Paris 16 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background --Muhammad(talk) 09:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like an extended caption, particularly where and what she's doing. brandt 09:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Have been a little undecided on this one. Was iffy on the creator/licensing at first, but it seems valid enough. Image quality is pretty good and as some of the others have said, for a Wiki photo of a living person/celebrity it is quite good (despite her being of perhaps slightly questionable notability). Not that impressed with the messy background, but on the other hand it's clearly intentional. Overall leads me to a weak support. --jjron (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose No compelling reason to support this. But it's not terrible. Distracting background is biggest problem. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Awkward pose, distracting background, and looks heavily airbrushed. Kaldari (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Powerful image with lots of relevant EV. Lycaon (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Anyone else reminded of this picture? With regard to the present nom, I point out that the image was just added to the health section of the Poverty article today-- I'd recommend waiting a bit to see whether the image is stable where it's been placed, and whether there is consensus about its EV. Out of curiosity, was there image manipulation (the concrete looks lighter near the right leg than anywhere else) or was that the actual lighting? Spikebrennan (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a requirement similar to the one in VPC should be in force here. But that is not the case right now. As for possible manipulation I very much doubt as I can't see the purpose of it Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't show enough for strong EV. Just an apparently homeless pair of legs.
Oppose. Have to agree with the above. Additionally looks to have a clockwise tilt. Sorry. --jjron (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Who wants to look at just a homeless persons legs? BUC (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not really particularly encyclopedic. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I think this image is very exceptional in resolution and standard qualities. I also think that it has some enciclopedic value (maybe not much, but some), I was going to give a support vote, but I gave a weak support because I may not be enough objective in this case. - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_. -- 00:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose EV is diminished by only showing the legs. Cacophony (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its not a homeless person, it's a homeless person's legs - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess the people who opposed this picture don't think art should be allowed on Wikipedia. I like how there is no caption necessary to know exactly what this picture is about. Tennis_52 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are determining if it meets the featured picture criteria not judging it on its artistic merit. It could be the most beautiful shot in the world, but unless it provides a significant contribution to the encyclopedia article, it should not be a featured picture. Cacophony (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This does not give a striking and identifiable illustration of homelessness-it's a pair of legs.Without the caption,it's not even obviously a homeless person-it could be a miner or a poor person resting on a bench Lemon martini (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not boycotting anything, thanks to a new french student the internet here has been shaped for some time. I think this is detailed where it matters. As swans are usually found in the water more is shown than usual. I don't know about the white mute swans, but these are amazingly aggressive.
Oppose Very good aesthetics but little EV IMO as many parts of the body are blurred. Perhaps a side view? --Muhammad(talk) 06:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Everything, except for the neck and head, is blurred due to low DOF - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurred parts kind of show motion effect that I like.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best angle for good EV. Is beak blown? Makeemlighter (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support EV is good but DOF is quite shallow, slight motion blur in the legs and plumage seems noisy. --Muhammad(talk) 05:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "EV" or "DOF"? I have seen that abbreviations have been used repeatedly in this page. I think you should avoid making abbreviations, or at least put the respective link to the page or section which the abbreviation means. --Woglinde 02 (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well these are very common terms used at FPC, (Featured picture candidates). EV stands for encyclopedic value and DOF for
Oppose. IMO a poor pose for maximum enc. The head retracted posture is, while not uncommon, let's say atypical. Also the location, a pine fence railing, is not ideal. These suckers spend most of their time on the ground or water - as can be seen by their feet they're not well adapted for perching. Finally I'd like to congratulate you on blitzing an existing FP from not just both articles infoboxes but the articles themselves in order to put this in (come on Noodle, you know better than that). --jjron (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My bad on the "blitz". The other image didn't exactly look FP quality to me, but I should have checked. I feel it fair to point out that I ditched a number of images from that article. A shot in water would not show feet, and neither would most surfaces on the ground. Even the previous FP could be used to argue that perching is not entirely atypical. My bird book mentions that they may be found "many miles" from the sea too, which I'd consider empirically true. The name doesn't do me any favours though.
You don't have to convince me that they're found far from the sea (BTW how old or trite is your bird book? Miles?). And of course they don't always land on the ground - maybe something like a picnic table would be more enc though ;-). But a shot on the ground, perhaps ideally sand, would show the feet perfectly well with sufficient contrast in colours. Not commenting on quality per se as I haven't compared closely, but compositionally I do prefer the other image. --jjron (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Picnic table beside the sea stealing fish and chips would be most realistic.
Oppose - another very nice NS picture....but.....for such a common species a shot closer to perfection is needed. I don't like the pose, ISO has made some noticible noise and I think that camera shake (?) is evident in the legs. - Peripitus(Talk) 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per jjron --Fir0002 14:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current one is more interesting IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The giant, Suttungr, threatens the dwarves Fjalar and Galar, along with some of their kinfolk, with drowning on a rock submerged by the tides, in punishment for them killing his parents. They eventually bargain for their lives by offering the mead of poetry, made out of the blood of Kvasir, an exceptionally wise man who they had killed, and save their lives. Odin will eventual steals the mead from Suttungr.Not for voting: Original scan.
Reason
Another fine illustration of Norse mythology. It illustrates part of the story of the mead of poetry. Huard's art is particularly good - note the realism of the hands, which are usually considered the most difficult parts of anatomy to draw. The story itself is particularly violent, with a chain of deaths and cannibalism.
It's from the same series. I'm trying to space these out a bit, but, honestly, I have a tendency to forget about things if I delay too long. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it looks as though it could do with rotation clockwise in the order of a couple of degrees. Seegoon (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like most Victorian engravings, it's not perfectly square. This is the best fit I could find. If you look closely, the upper-right corner's border is "caved in" a little, the other three corners align quite well with the eges of the image. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To me there seems to have been a slight blurring (or similar effect) applied when restoring this. When viewed at full extent, it is most noticeable. A fantastic restoration but I do find this blurring a distraction at full resolution. Seddσntalk 04:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No blurring was applied. By the way, it's been 15 days. Is this ever going to close? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Illustrates the subject well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted FILE:Louis Huard - Giant Suttung and the Dwarfs.jpg --
Original -The rock formations of Joshua Tree National Park were formed 100 million years ago from the cooling of magma beneath the surface. Groundwater is responsible for the weathering that created the spheres from rectangular blocks. You could read more about the rock formations here
Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Few of my latest nominations went with no oppose, with no support and with no comments at all. With this one I would really like try to figure out what is going on. It might help me to safe my and yours time in the feature, and not nominate such images anymore. May I please ask you to tell me what is wrong with the nominated image 1. Too good to oppose, 2. Too bad to support, 3. Too boring to comment and/or to vote. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Compared to one other image in the article, this one IMO has better EV. If you upload a compressed version, then I can vote as this one is too large for me. --Muhammad(talk) 18:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Muhammad. It is very kind of you! I believe you are right about EV. This image shouws sphere and nice connection between other rocks. Here is the other version (the size is the same, but the quality is worse for you to be able to see without loosing the time) File:Giant Marbles in Joshua Tree National Park compressed.jpg or maybe you ment you wanted me to downsample the image rather than reduce the quality?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Spencer. I've overwritten my compressed image with down sampled one--Mbz1 (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any major technical issues with the image, colours look good. However, I sorta disagree with Muhammad. I recently visited Joshua Tree NP, and I think both images have good EV.
Support That caption needs to be added to the article however, its unclear what you are looking at there. Someone needs to remove about half the images from the article.
Thank you for your suggestion, Noodle snacks. I added geology section to the article. I'd rather somebody else, but me removed some images from the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets all the criteria. Very good EV. — JakeWartenberg 01:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sold on EV. Are these unique to this park? Are they the major feature of the park? I get no sense of scale from the picture. Are they huge? Small? I'd consider supporting if the caption or article were improved to give a better sense of what we're looking at. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No scale? There are not just one, but two persons at the rocks to see the scale!--Mbz1 (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the caption, may I please ask you, if you read the article I linked the caption to? I believe I did my best with the caption, but I am not a native speaker of English. I'm opened for suggestions, if you be so kind to advise me what else from this article should be included in the caption. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just visited the park about 2 months ago. After seeing it, I'd say the rocks are a major feature of the park (I have a similar picture, but the quality is crap).
Sorry, I didn't see the people. Changing my vote to Weak Oppose. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Lovely image, superb lighting, excellent EV. The human figures add a helpful sense of scale. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with conditional support Speaking as a geologist, the caption is very poor. Here is a suggested version with grammar and text alterations to make it clearer and more accurate:
The rock formations of Joshua Tree National Park were formed 100 million years ago from the cooling of magma beneath the surface. Groundwater is responsible for the weathering that created the spheres from rectangular blocks. You could read more about the rock formations here
If the above or similar change is made then this image recieves my support. Seddσntalk 05:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The caption was changed. Thank you--Mbz1 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Giant Marbles in Joshua Tree National Park.jpg --wadester16 04:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A swimming Fulvous whistling duck (Dendrocygna bicolor), one of eight species of the Dendrocygna genus. As the name implies, the ducks are known for their distinctive "whistling" calls.
Reason
Good size, good quality, clear illustration of the species
Very Weak Oppose Support. I really like this image, but per Muhammad the EV is limited by the camera angle. I keep coming back to it, but just find I can't support due to that. Would surely be a shoe-in on Commons (where I note it's already featured). --jjron (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC) On further reflection I figure that we have portrait style FPs of other animals, which for the most part is what this is achieving - yes full body is usually preferred especially for smaller animals, and while we see most of the full body here it's essentially a portrait. Quibbles here, quibbles there over that this and that, so I'll go for a weak support instead. --jjron (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was a shoe-in there. I can accept that the EV would be considered limited, but I'm glad you find it otherwise irresistable, too, :-)
On further reflection changed my vote (see above). --jjron (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support We already have a side view of the species in the article (taken by me actually!) so not seeing the side of the bird is not a problem, we've got it covered. This image instead shows what the bird looks like while swimming, so what does it matter that it is taken at the angle it is? We have one from the front and one from the side and both show different things and the one from the front is the technically superior one, and speaking as a bird editor I think the encyclopaedic value of this image is just fine. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Before I opened this, I was sure it was an oppose since the angle limits the EV. But it's a spectacular shot! The detail on its head surely makes up for the missing body. I think that adds up to a weak support. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Dendrocygna bicolor wilhelma.jpg --wadester16 04:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to get two good shots of this little jumping spider which I then focus stacked. Although the far legs are not in focus, the DOF is pretty good for the subject (8mm at the most). The image is high res and sharp, the only white pixels are a couple small specular highlights in the eyes, the EV is high, the composition is good, the background, although not ideal, isn't distracting.
Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would've liked to have seen the front pair of eyes a bit more, but that would eat depth of field. You should probably go up to about the sub-family with article placements.
talk
)
Support - This is an example of an astonishing quality image. Congratulations for the photographer. - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_. -- 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality. Lighting is good on the subject, shadow slightly distracting but the details makes up for it. --Muhammad(talk) 07:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Very good quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Great EV, quality. What is that white line thing about halfway down on the right side? Makeemlighter (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the spider's dragline. Jumping spiders don't spin webs but they do leave a strand of silk behind wherever they go, so that in case they jump somewhere they don't want to be (in pursuit of prey) they can get back to their original spot. Kaldari (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Kobe Beef in Japan. There are four filets pictured, the one in front is the highest grade of Kobe Beef.
Reason
Technically it is a good picture, the subject is in focus, crisp colors, etc. The image has a large resolution that well exceeds Wikipedia's required minimum for a featured picture. The image is the best example in Wikipedia regarding Kobe Beef. It can therefore be argued that it is an exemplar graphical representation of Japanese food culture, The high detail on the marbelling of the beef gives a valuable representation of what high grade kobe beef looks like. The image has no artistic characteristics, it is a straight forward picture of real Kobe beef. It is therefore informative and adds encyclopedic value to the articles it links to.
Support as nominator --iamorlando 23:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but the angle and lighting is poor. The background isn't pleasant and the image overall seems to be too soft (not sharpened). The illustration isn't bad, but it isn't FP material.
Oppose for composition and lighting. Good EV, though. Take a look through the galleries for FP-quality photographs of food. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Canada geese and goslings,Branta canadensis. The goslings are born with no knoledge of how to survive. They are learning by watching and repeating what their parents do.File:Canadian geese and goslings in GGP edit1.jpgEdit 1
Reason
Good quality brhavior shot. Adds value to the article.
Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vignetting? wadester16 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, Wadester16. Does edit 1 looks any better to you?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture seems oversharpened and harsh. Colours dont look fantastic. Both which I would put down to the camera. Seddσntalk 04:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cute ducks though. Seddσntalk 04:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. They are geese.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I think it has not much encyclopedic value. - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_. -- 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good illustration but placement in the article and crop prevents full support. --Muhammad(talk) 19:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not much EV here. The article is already over-saturated with pictures. I don't think this one adds much. Composition and lighting are not very exciting either. Kaldari (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, lighting, composition and so on, it is a matter of taste, but I am not sure I understand complains about EV. I do not think we have a FP image of Canada goslings, so why this image's EV is any different than EV of any other image of an insect, animal, or a bird? As for the article, there are three very similar images of adult birds, two of which could be safely removed IMO. The nominated image's caption clearly shows both EV of the image and why this image adds the value to the article (IMO), not to mention that the nominated images shows the best details on adult birds feather (IMO). Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. I'd probably have been on my belly for this one. I think a detailed image of a chick would add more.
Support Have you seen any swans there?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did see quite a few swans, but only one on the moat itself - most were in other parts of the castle grounds. Lots of geese and ducks too. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good EV, high quality, good composition. Is it a little overexposed on the left part of the castle? Not sure, but the 'brick' colour there looks a bit bright. --jjron (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I think it's brighter because it's receiving reflected light from the moat, whereas the wall, made from different (less reflective?) stone stops that reflection on the right side. Whether it's overexposed or just rather bright is debatable, though I admit it's borderline. ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could selectively burn the left side of the castle to darken it a little if it's a problem for others, but I don't personally find it objectionable. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it particularly objectionable either (or I wouldn't have supported straight off), but a bit of a burn in mightn't hurt. --jjron (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I keep getting the impression that this is tilted clockwise a bit. But the building verticals are all over the place (to be expected with age). Also, is that a black swan about a third of the way from the left?
I can't be sure of the tilt any more than you can. I corrected for the verticals as they tend to be a little more reliable and consistent from left to right. Certainly if there is an overall image tilt, it's very slight and not noticable without pixel-peeping (optical illusions and impressions aside). Yes, I think it's a swan. Either my eyes are playing tricks on me or it looks like it's mounting a little black shaggy dog. Not likely, so I'm not sure what that is. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 13:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like it's just a swan swimming towards us that is in the shadows. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think I do detect a bit of tilt. And perhaps a bit of overexposure like Jjron mentioned. But I still think this is an excellent picture, strong in both EV and quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the tilt you're seeing is due to perspective (you're not looking at the building from exactly straight on, and due to wide view, that angle actually changes slightly from left to right too). Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm usually one of the first to jump on perceived tilts, but I don't think there's any here. --jjron (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tilts are evident on all the buildings this way or that. No one can pin it down though so might as well. Pity we don't have a reference non composite image from the same spot.
There would be tilts on various parts of the building regardless of how perfectly it was straightened or corrected though. You can only correct the perspective to avoid tilts if there was a single face, or if the camera is at the same height as the top of the building (so that there is no perspective at all, but even this wouldn't work as the building height varies across the scene so you could only ever keep it straight for one particular height). I'm not sure how this could really be improved to be honest. I know you supported so it's a moot issue, but wanted to bring it up anyway. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A reference non-composite (with a good lens) would let you figure out how off all the verticals should be for sure. You'd probably have to compensate with PTLens or something though to be really sure.
Original - Panoramic view of the memorial, as seen from the base of the reflecting pool. From left to right are the memorial chairs, Gate of Time and Reflecting Pool, the Survivor Tree, and the Journal Record Building.JPEG version by Diliff. Converted to JPEG (saved in Photoshop with quality level 10) which reduced filesize from 18mb to 3mb. No other changes
Reason
Took this one on a recent roadtrip west. The memorial consists of a lot of different parts. This panorama helps someone who has never been there understand their positions. I also think it's a very scenic picture.
Support as nominator --Raul654 (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a few stitching errors: two are along the closest edge of the pool on the left side. Another runs through the stone walls on the right side. And any reason this is PNG and not JPEG? wadester16 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prehaps something to do with JPEG being a crap format for high quality images and archiving? Seddσntalk 05:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That middle building looks really bright - there appears to be more detail in its reflection than the building itself. Tried to load a preview to comment further (the original at near 20MB is too big for me to download) but it wouldn't work, I assume a PNG issue. --jjron (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice view and composition, but the technicals are not strong. As mentioned, the building in the centre is quite overexposed and there are obvious stitching faults. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - stitching faults all over the place, main building is whited out. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. It is aesthetically pleasing though. I'd crop the wall on the far right out for symmetry. Good luck getting this to stitch without a panorama head. The image does a good job of showing where everything is. The survivor tree is obscured in this shot, so shouldn't really be included in the article caption imo.
Oppose, blown building (I'm sorry, I didn't plan that and wasn't thinking about what was behind the image). If we could fix that, and combine the sky and reflection from the PNG with the landscape from the JPG, as well as the stitching faults, we'd have something. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Reports show that homelessness is on the rise in Japan since the mid-1990s. There are more homeless men than homeless woman in Japan because it is easier for women to get a job (they make less money than men do). Also Japanese families usually provide more support for women than they do for men
Reason
A very powerful, high quality image with special EV. Adds the value to the articles it is used in.
Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose they say every image tells a story and this one definitely does but I'm sorry its too grainy. Maybe try wikipedia: valued pictures? --Thanks, Hadseys 00:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Too grainy"? There is virtually no visible noise in this image (taken at 200 ISO) when viewed at 100% so I am not sure what you are referring to. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there is no visible grain in this image. Could you explain, Hadseys? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I posted question at the user talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i meant artefacts, i mean look at the guys cap and for that reason im gna have to oppose. Sorry for the lack of clarity I know very little about photography --Thanks, Hadseys 20:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that homelessness in Japan has many different faces from the homelessness in other parts of the world including the ones I specified in the caption. That's why I wrote in the reason for the nomination that the image has special EV. Homelessness does mention Japan in few places specificly. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Still an oppose because of weak technicals: though interesting, the picture is of snapshot quality and the lighting isn't that great.
Come on now, Spencer. You complained about the absence of the article Homelessness in Japan. Look, this article name is not displayed in red anymore. IMO you ought to support the image now :) On a more serious note I cannot agree that it is snapshot quality image. The manual settings - aperture priority were used to take the picture. IMO the image has good quality. Please take a look at the man forehead. Every wrinkle is clearly seen. Of course the lighting is not even because of the cap the man has on, but it what makes the image more natural IMO. The subject did not pose for the image, yet the photographer captured not only a great portrait, but also all the misery of the man existence. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enc. is not the only thing to determine an FP; the issue on that has been resolved. Technical issues: Blown highlights on the man's pillow and a blanket/towel he is laying on. Some chromatic abbheration on his hat. Distracting background (I know that this shows and actual setting, but a simple wall would have been a better setting that with all the extra plants and lights poles behind him). Overall, I feel the image is rather bright, and perhaps a later photo time would have been better.
Good quality and EV. Better identification was not possible probably because few beetles have been completely identified and more research is needed. A different angle/composition was not possible as the beetle was hiding in crevices in rocks.
Oppose - EV issues due to lack of identification. The Tenebrioninae is a large family and this species can hardly be considered as representative. Could it be a Leichenum sp. ? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the forum where it had been identified and there was some further identification which I had forgotten to add to the image description. It is a Alphitobius sp. No EV issues now, I presume --Muhammad(talk) 10:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about the length of the animal? Is 2mm right? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the beetle was around 5mm long. --Muhammad(talk) 03:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't say for sure on the monitor I'm using, but WB seems very blue.
Just checked on a second monitor. WB seems fine to me. --Muhammad(talk) 13:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry but I can't see anything here deserving FP status. Correct and good quality photo, but nothing more. I don't like the framing. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What more is required. It has tremendous EV and very good quality compared to other images of its kind in the article. Come on Alves, are you just bent on opposing this picture? First EV and now framing? I thought this FPC was more about EV then any other criterion and I fail to see your reasoning. --Muhammad(talk) 05:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is required some magic or exceptional value, which I can't see here. Quality is not enough and you can't expect all of your pictures to be promoted. Did I already say that we are choosing the best of the best? My first oppose was automatic, I didn't even need to open the picture (the comment about few beetles having been identified isn't convincing). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to other beetles in the article, how is the quality? Images have to judged in context to other images of the kind, not just other macro images. This beetle was around 5mm long, getting better quality than this is impossible and if this is the best wikipedia has, than it should be promoted. If you know of any better darkling beetle pictures, than let's see them and compare them to this and choose the best of the best. And whether the first argument was convincing or not, its what the entomologists tell me. It seems kinda funny that you oppose for a reason, once that is fixed, you strike out your oppose only to oppose again after the nomination has received some support. --Muhammad(talk) 07:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The background is quite distracting. Do you think you might be able to get a better angle/composition in the future or is this really the best possible? Makeemlighter (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The background is the part of the rock where it hides/lives. I tried different angles but this one showed the beetle in the best possible manner for quality and EV. --Muhammad(talk) 07:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the critter is not identified, it is not really useful encyclopaedically. GerardM (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is identified till genus (only a step away from species) which is enough for it use in articles. Several featured pictures are identified to this level only as it is almost impossible to identify any further without dissection of the specimen. --Muhammad(talk) 06:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same is true of many fungi species too. On some occasions the naming hasn't been done yet. 58.6.103.150 (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further id would not be very useful as the image is being used in the subfamily and family articles. --Muhammad(talk) 07:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about the merits of this picture.. The critter is not identified and as such its encyclopaedic value is low.
This is as far as is possible. At least 20 other featured pictures exist with this level of identification only. --Muhammad(talk) 16:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Illustrates the subject well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support your reasonings are rediculous. You guys for some weird reason you are being more strict on this one. Muhammad addressed all the issues, what else could you possibly need? I've seen far worse images that you guys have supported, and yet if this was a FP for delisting, you would just be peevy about it.
Benjamin William Mkapa Pension Tower facing south, showing the Ilala
area
Reason
I was given access to the tallest building in Tanzania which gave a perfect view of the city center. The image is not very wide so it displays well in the article. Good quality as well.
Uploaded an edit over the original with the tilt fixed. --Muhammad(talk) 03:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still looks a bit tilted. At least the horizon is, but the buildings are (almost) straight so perhaps there is another explanation. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality image of the part of the world we rarely get images from.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although note we do have this already. wadester16 05:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was taken from a different location and IMO serves a different purpose in the article. --Muhammad(talk) 06:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea I know; I'm just saying. wadester16 20:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Good EV, although I would appreciate a wider view. I appreciate that these opportunities don't come around often, but it probably wasn't the ideal time to take this photo as it looks a bit flat. Half an hour later or perhaps an hour earlier probably would have given a more aesthetic view. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I think it could also benefit from a crop of some of the sky, as it sort of seems like 'wasted space' in this image. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Caption should identify the vantage point from which the photo was taken, what direction it is facing, and what landmarks/neighborhoods/sights can be seen in the photo. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated caption. Is it ok now? --Muhammad(talk) 17:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, and I would suggest using the {{location}} template at Commons, unless this was, say, from the roof of your house and you want the anonymity. wadester16 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good quality, high Enc. Value Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Skyline shot that personalizes a city not widely known for a skyline. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support A little photoshop love might go a long way in enhancing this image. It could use a little sprucing up, so to speak.Spiral5800 (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What changes do you wish to see when you say "photoshop love" and "sprucing up"? I mean, can you be a tad more specific? (like noise reduction, etc).
Weak Support. Good quality, but why take it from the rear? Composition would be better from a more side on or frontal view IMO. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its pretty close to side on. There is another from the front.
Looks about 30 degrees away from side on. The frontal view is too frontal and the proportions/shape is harder to discern. Perhaps 20 degrees from the side on view towards the front would be ideal, but clearly you don't have a second chance to reshoot it. ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 14:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a (back focused) top down view, which explains what it might look like.
Better replace it as the taxobox image in Abantiades, IMO better than the current one. Also noise reduction under the abdomen. --Muhammad(talk) 14:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which are you refering to abdomen wise? Also, about 80mm or so.
Support any--Mbz1 (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is this moth alive? It looks rather stiff/propped up. Particularly from the leg positions. Also it looks a bit haggard - lots of wing scales missing and one of the wings is torn. Kaldari (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good point. :-) It does a bit dead, or at least rather sleepy. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 22:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume it is nocturnal, but I found it during the day (~11am according to camera clock). It was crawling around a bit. If it was dead I would have taken it home and photographed it in controlled conditions.
Fair enough, I had noticed that it had moved between the two shots, but for all I knew you could have moved it with your hand! It does seem a bit strange that it's propped up on that white thing (bit of fungus? bark?), with a couple of its legs off the ground though, so you can appreciate a bit of confusion/suspicion. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you certainly have been busy. No wonder it's exhausted. It just spent the night being molested. Is the lack of mouthparts unique to that species? I'm hardly an expert on moths, but I remember reading about other insects that don't feed after metamorphosis... Of course I could be completely wrong, so I'm asking with honest curiosity. :-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 15:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of mouthparts is evident in all genera of the Hepialidae family, totalling about 587 species . . . whether it's also common in other families/genera/species, I have no idea! You could be right, but it was the first time I'd ever heard of it (but I am peculiarly uneducated, so no surprise there!).
Black soldier fly has no mouth parts. --Muhammad(talk) 16:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
You have been busy! I've got a book, "Wings: an introduction to Tasmania's winged insects" which I use to help ID things. I also have an entomologist contact who was at DPIWE but is now at the Museum (which has a reference collection of insects). My mistake on the species name. Don't get me started on the pain that renaming is. I'd re-upload the alternate prior to promotion if it looked like it was going to happen.
Ok about the ID, but while "conducting research" for the article, I started to think that maybe this isn't A. latipennis, but I have zero experience, so I would trust your judgement better than mine! The wing markings don't seem to match those of a male A. latipennis, so instead of thinking the species ID was wrong, I decided that perhaps it is a female, because the silver bars aren't outlined in the females and are less prominent. The body is also more grey than brown to me, which matched the female descriptions I read. But information was quite scarce, anyway, so there isn't a lot to go on.
A good proportion of the visible wing is damaged, with the furry covering that makes the markings rubbed off. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - would prefer a more healthy specimen with less wear on the wings and a more lively pose. Technical quality is excellent. Kaldari (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would "female dying of starvation" in the caption fix that?
I think that would be an improvement on the second image at least. Then the condition of the moth would contribute to its EV rather than detracting from it. I would be inclined to support the second picture in that case, but still not the first. The moth in the first picture reminds me too much of Weekend at Bernies. Kaldari (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. Illustrates the subject in a compelling fashion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original per Mostlyharmless. Sophus Bie(talk) 10:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good colour & form giving obvious EV, just a bit "zapped" under that big light, which could have improved detail had it been a little less front-on. I'm ok with the setting & war wounds, personally. --mikaultalk 13:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the original it was about 45 degrees and front left.
Original - The "Baker" shot of Operation Crossroads, at the Bikini Atoll, 1946Restored version - Edit removes dust, scratches, smudges and crops the left and right white borders.
Reason
An amazing shot from the nuclear testing era, might need a little Photoshop magic to remove dust/defects but otherwise I think it's an amazing photograph demonstrating the absolute power of nuclear weapons.
Support as nominator --— raeky(talk | edits) 01:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous comments from before suspension (no votes were made)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment I agree that this is a fantastic image, but it does need a lot of restoration work. I suggest you bring it over to the
graphics lab if none of the restorationists here are interested. wadester16 | Talk→ 01:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with Wadester. Suspension for restoration is a good idea.
Comment I do think that this photograph would benefit from a little Photoshop TLC. I could take a whack at it, I'll upload the alternative when I'm finished. Let me know if you think it's better or worse. Rfcarter (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
here for some attention. — raeky(talk | edits) 05:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I think I found my new wallpaper. I've been looking for a high res image of this but never did find one. Cheers! P.S. leaving the picture in suspension just in case someone has something to add to it. Victorrocha (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. Thanks for the help. Feel free to vote if you'd like. wadester16 05:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unsuspended after original was restored. Seven days starts.... NOW!wadester16 05:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Edit Fantastic image, great restoration, awesome EV = Definite support. wadester16 05:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity where is the streaking you are referring to? I will try to get rid of it when I have time. Thanks. Victorrocha (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think, but am not sure, that he means the peculiar vertical lighter/darker bands. Stare at the thumb and look for unusual darkening as you move horizontally across the cloud...--HereToHelp(talk to me) 19:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. They're clearly not part of theexplosion: They're straight verstical, and extend outside the cloud. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm.... I guessed I was looking too closely for spots to notice that. That's a lot of work to remove that, if it's even possible without diminishing the quality of the photograph. Victorrocha (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say they are inherent parts of the photograph that aren't worth the time or effort to try to "remove", kind of like the reflections off the window in this. But then again, I'm no restorationist. wadester16 15:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's more like an artifact from the scanning, but to get a better scanned version of this may prove impossible. Likewise it's probably very difficult to near impossible to remove it. — raeky(talk | edits) 13:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could be completely wrong, but a lot of these detonation images were partially or completely lost due to gamma radiation. Fortunately, they shot a shedload more than that and this is one of the most pristine. It's likely that those streaks are due to minor fogging, basically, which would be on the negative and actually quite intereting from an enc POV if it could be established as fact. --mikaultalk 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at other versions of this image the same streak's seem to be present, although the other versions are lower quality and could possibly origniate from this same scan, but it's entirely possible the streaks are on the negative giving credence to the fogging hypothesis. It definitely would add to the EV of the picture if this could be confirmed as the source of the streaks... — raeky(talk | edits) 07:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to this reference from a first-hand person working with the photography on the islands states almost all the film was damaged/destroyed by radiation fogging and that a special chemical technique had to be developed to save much of the images. That was for the Bravo shot though, but it does give more credence to the streaking on this image possibly being from radiation fogging. — raeky(talk | edits) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's very interesting! Wyckoff was an early pioneer in
HDR imaging where he used upto three layers of film to capture a wider dynamic range. His "burning off" layers of emulsion to save the image doesn't make sense unless you appreciate that... I'll do some reading and get back. It does make the streaking a very small price to pay, needless to say. --mikaultalk 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the explosion was captured in its entirety with no noticeable obstructions. Alexius08 (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question The image page of the original gives the Library of Congress as the source, but (as far as I can see) the LoC doesn't have a version at this resolution on its website - is this an offline LoC version or is it from another source? Time3000 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone sourced a larger image and added it to the page on 5-1-09, they didn't state where they sourced the larger image, but it is clearly the same image as the one linked on the LoC version, from a copyright standpoint I'm fairly sure that isn't an issue, the image is clearly a work of the us government? — raeky(talk | edits) 14:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, I can't see copyright being a problem. Time3000 (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edited version. Indeed, one of the finest pictures. M.K. (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit - lots of EV, lots of wow, unimportant technical issues. - Peripitus(Talk) 23:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The edited version is amazing. Bernstein2291 (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict-of-interested Support - Too bad the streaking in the top couldn't be fixed, but man, is that a great shot or what. Great restoration in the rest of the shot though. NW(Talk) 21:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Operation Crossroads Baker Edit.jpg Hopefully nobody is bothered by the fact that I closed this nom, even though I supported it. But it's been open a while, and the consensus couldn't be any more obvious. --wadester16 04:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Several Tuskegee airmen at Ramitelli, Italy, March 1945Original—not for voting - Unrestored original
Reason
Very high EV image by notable photographer. First African American pilots in US military. Digitally restored, dirt and scratches removed and levels adjusted.
You bet—it was linked to from both image description pages, but I have added a thumbnail below. — JakeWartenberg 22:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are a number of Toni Frissel images that I think could pass (such as Durova's earlier (failed) nomination), but this is a good example with high EV. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not an expert on restoration, but it sure looks like there's still a lot of dirt or something all over it. Can anyone corroborate this or are my eyes just fooling me (it's nearly 3 AM here)? Makeemlighter (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you were looking at the unrestored version? It seems fine to me.
It is a bit dusty still and although it's a decent enough repair otherwise, I'm not keen on the slightly compressed shadows compared to the original. Good to see it's looking like a promotion though, as these are minor niggles. --mikaultalk 13:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Diagram depicting the different stages of a Minuteman III missile path from launch to detonation, as well as the different basic stages of the missile themselves. 1. The missile launches out of its silo by firing its 1st stage boost motor (A). 2. About 60 seconds after launch, the 1st stage drops off and the 2nd stage motor (B) ignites. The missile shroud is ejected. 3. About 120 seconds after launch, the 3rd stage motor (C) ignites and separates from the 2nd stage. 4. About 180 seconds after launch, 3rd stage thrust terminates and the Post-Boost Vehicle (D) separates from the rocket. 5. The Post-Boost Vehicle maneuvers itself and prepares for re-entry vehicle (RV) deployment. 6. The RVs, as well as decoys and chaff, are deployed during backaway. 7. The RVs and chaff re-enter the atmosphere at high speeds and are armed in flight. 8. The nuclear warheads detonate, either as air bursts or ground bursts.
Reason
Informative diagram that explains how an ICBM with MIRVs works, covering the sequence from launch to arrival and detonation over a target. High encyclopedic value.
Neutral This is a fine diagram, but it seems pretty cartoonish to be a FP. That said, I don't see how it could NOT be cartoonish. I'm willing to agree that this image has a good deal of EV. Thus I find myself neutral on this nomination - so far. Question: would this be better as a jpeg? Spiral5800 (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. SVG is good because it is resizable (think large posters for example).
Support. I believe my concerns from the original nomination have been addressed. Other than that, unless someone with more expertise knows better, I think it illustrates the subject well. --jjron (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It is a fine diagram and illustrates well the subject. Still it lacks sophistication to reach FP level. Yes, it could be a lot less cartoonish. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It can use some more effects (gradients, blurring, strokings, etc.)
I refuse to be a part of the VPIC process; from where I sit, an article and an image should be judged by the same criteria, and if an article is good enough to be a GA, then its good enough to be A, and if its good enough for an A than its good enough for FA. By contrast, VP offers images no chance for promotion to FP, and since VPs do not receive a bronze star, are not mentioned in any official avenue, and can not be on the main page the whole point of VP is null and void. Lastly, on a personal note, I consider any comment on an image I add here to the effect of "take this to VPIC" to be an insult; I add images here because I feel they have what it take to go all the way here, not someplace else. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say nominate there too, but I opposed with no further suggestion. Maybe that means anything to you...
Oppose per above . An odd mix of styles lacking just a bit of finesse for FP, I think. Not keen on the trajectory crossing the box on the left, for example. Detailed missile doesn't sit well with posterised land & sea, and so on. Valuable image, having said all that. --mikaultalk 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - the International Space Station as of March 2009, in Low Earth orbit, at an altitude of approximately 350 km (220 mi) travelling at 27,724 kilometres (17,227 mi) per hour.
Reason
This image adds exceptionally to the article that it is a part of. On top of that, it is an incredible view of the marvels human engineering is capable of.
Support Excellent image given the circumstances. Why are there two types of units in the caption?--HereToHelp(talk to me) 12:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Heavy JPEG artifacting, but wow, what a picture! Kaldari (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Quality just isn't there. The EV is good, but hurt by the poor quality. I bet we can find a better picture of the ISS than this. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that NASA took this photo, and took it in March, unfortunately I doubt you're going to be able to find a better picture - especially considering that only as of a very recent shuttle mission have all the solar panels been installed (I believe the same shuttle mission that installed the last of the solar panels took this picture.) Please try - wikipedia would certainly benefit were you to find a better one and I would wholeheartedly lend it my support for FP nomination. That said, I very much doubt that, currently, any better picture exists. Of course, you could always take a quick trip up there and snap a better one with your Nikon =) Spiral5800 (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NASA should have a better quality, less compressed version. The original 12mp image from NASA is around 700kb only. --Muhammad(talk) 09:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they do, they do. I have not seen any evidence that that's the case. So right now, it's the best we have, and I don't think the quality hurts the EV. — JakeWartenberg 15:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change my vote to full oppose per my comment below. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The EV of this image completely overshadows the quality issues, in my opinion. Sophus Bie(talk) 10:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good EV. If a better version is found, this can be replaced --Muhammad(talk) 19:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment another possible image here, and another thing to remember is that these images are going to be out of date fairly quickly. Seddσntalk 02:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. At 27,000kph it should have the earth rushing past it, right? Umm, seriously, given that NASA operates under generous image licensing, I'm not at all convinced that better publicly released images of the ISS do not exist. It has very high encyclopedic value, but this shouldn't trump the lack of quality if better examples exist. I'm open to convincing on the matter, so I'm not opposing for now. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I've decided to support, per Mikaul. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I can see this has been rotated 180 degrees. Land isn't visible, but isn't this bending the facts just a bit?
Weak support It's probably the best image we have of the ISS right now, and there are quite a few. A tricky subject to start with, most of the panels seems to have been recorded pretty well so there's good EV here. Some lens aberration around the edges, but not bad detail elsewhere considering the compression. Worth noting that NASA like image compression for practical reasons and are pretty good at it, so don't read too much into small file sizes. --mikaultalk 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I can't go and take a better picture myself... I love space... Gazhiley (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture Seddon linked to proves to me that better pictures of the ISS definitely exist. Clearly, then, an exception shouldn't be made for this inferior quality picture. Because of this, I changed my vote above. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:ISS_March_2009.jpg The consensus is obvious, though it seems if a better image can be found, that is up to date, it should be nominated to replace this image. The image found by Seddon may have a bit higher resolution, but the artifacting is worse (I also think that the composition of the FPC is better, but that's my opinion). Either way, this is a pass. --wadester16 04:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Lima Lima Flight team performing at Thunder over Louisville. Thunder opens a two week celebration which ends with the Kentucky Derby, on the first Saturday in May.
Reason
Taken from PPR while archiving - I said a couple of weeks back that I would nominate it pending other opinions, but none were forthcoming. For mine quality looks good, but not overly sold on composition. Will let others judge. Original PPR nom: Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Lima Lima.jpg.
Weak Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Sharpness is lacking, this is probably due to the length of exposure, although the longer exposure has allowed motion blur in the props which is positive. More problematically composition is vertically very cramped, especially on the lower plane/smoke trail, I feel that removing this plane would add to the picture but sacrifice enc. - Flying Freddy (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much blur. Although a difficult image to shoot, far from impossible to have a higher quality shot. Seddσntalk 02:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "resolution trumps sharpness" is one I must point out to be a fallacy. A 10 mp blurry out of focus image is in no way better than a 3 mp well-focused, sharp image of the same thing. Resolution does not trump sharpness at all. The purpose of higher resolution is to allow for and contribute to image sharpness/detail. Spiral5800 (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've had approximately one hundred thousand discussions here over whether images that will be perfectly sharp if downsampled to minimum size (generally, 1000px in larger dimension), should indeed be downsampled, and the discussions have shown marginal consensus in favour of *not* downsampling to fix sharpness issues, in accordance with "avoiding unnecessary digital manipulation". Downsampling is destructive editing, and thus to be avoided. Good day! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just too many minor faults, per comments above. A crop from the right seems to help the lack of headroom, but it's not enough to mitigate the rest. --mikaultalk 12:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor IQ --Fir0002 12:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The zoom is a great feature to provide a close, high resolution shot of the planes, but a slightly shorter exposure would be best to remove the blur on the planes themselves. The framing of the shot would be perfect if shot in a portrait style rotation. Ard0 (Talk - Contribs) 01:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not very sharp, JPG compression artifacts, overexposed/sun-bleached in the centre. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per VanderdeckenSeddσntalk 02:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – poor lighting and quite heavy compression artifacts, EV is its only redeeming feature and that much is compromised by the posed figures. We don't feature zoo animals unless they're particularly hard to photograph, and this particular breed are very easy to capture in a more natural setting... it's some dude's holiday snap, fer chrissakes. --mikaultalk 12:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- not everyone may want to see nudity portrayed on the main page... Lilaac (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image doesn't have any metadata, is the uploader's only upload and depicts nudity. My experence is that such images are pretty much always a copyvio.Geni 09:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's an extremely interesting map. I have two issues though. First, the fonts are rough; I prefer them to be smoother. Second, are the blurrier areas not as well documented as the clearer ones? Because they are kind of annoying (almost like my eyes are playing tricks on me at first). wadester16 18:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Fonts can be fixed I guess, but you are correct. As you can see, some ship-based sonar data is more detailed than the rest of the map, which is taken from whatever space-based radar thingy, I assume. There is not much I can do about that, but the major areas of interest are mostly detailed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unrealistic depiction of the relief, looks like a stack of plates. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain your comment of "Unrealistic depiction of the relief" Seddσntalk 02:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, because of the low resolution of the elevation information, the whole thing looks like the The towers of Hanoi -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess we really need to determine if higher resolution is available.
Info PDF was apparently composed in Adobe Illustrator ("Hawaii-poster.ai"). Resolution of alternate pdf does not seem significantly different. Will point out one vector drawn part that apparently is not on the original raster image, and that's just North of the text "Honolulu" (best apparent on the original PDF). Not sure what's going on there, in terms of providence and accuracy. The original raster image may also have had some jpegesque artefacts, but I'm no expert on PDF-embedded images. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My attempt to upload a much bigger png to at least fix the fonts did not succeed (commons gave an error, "empty document", after about ten minutes spent in transferring the 31MB file); however, the previously uploaded image may be at or near the maximum resolution of the embedded raster image from what I can tell. Text is vector, though. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question about the various lines and trails that run across the sea floor, especially in the deeper parts of the image, but also at the edges of the image: Are they artefacts, and if so, which stage of the measuring/processing introduces them? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Some of the lines you see are the edges of data integrated from ship-based sonar, hence the zig-zag detail of the Maui Fracture Zone. If that is what you're referring to. If you're referring to the purple area below the Molokai Fracture Zone, that is more of an artifact of the lower resolution zone and this is what the source has to say about it:
Bathymetry that is predicted from variations in sea-surface height, observable from satellites, provides the low-resolution (fuzzy) bathymetry in between ship tracks. Subaerial topography is from a USGS 30-m digital elevation model of Hawaii.
Update I have provided a higher resolution image, so the fonts issue is solved. Also, there is no "towers of hanoi" effect, as this shows the natural features of volcanic lava flows piled up over time. All of the ship based data is of high resolution, but the areas of fuzzy low resolution are still present. Nothing can be done about this, but the supposed "artifacts" can be smoothed out, however, the this would only "hide" the fact that there is less data available for these areas (i.e., its still not going to be as detailed as the rest of the map). I'm hoping the previous !voters will be kind enough to re-evaluate the image again based on the new and improved version, and in light of new information. Or should I just renominate? I don't deal too much with Featured Pictures, so I'm not up to speed on the procotols around here. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Technically edit 1, but uploaded over the original). Looks much better now, with the fonts cleaned up and all. Very interesting and informative.
Support and Question There are a couple of places where 'Hawaiian arch' appears in large letters; I assume that's short for archipelago? Time3000 (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer Actually, no, it is not short for anything. If you notice, there is a "Hawaiian Arch" and a "Hawaiian Moat". The islands are surrounded by a peculiar moat-like trench (see this article). Some theorize that the arch is actually an effect of the hotspot deep below the islands, and this "swell" is proof of a "mantle plume", and that this mantle plume is pushing up through the crust like a pimple. Others might say it is simply an effect of the subsidence (sinking) of the heavy volcanic islands pushing down on the sea floor which produces a second arch beyond the moat (notice the words "Hawaiian Arch" again in the upper right-hand corner of the image). Also, the arch in the center of the image was part of an ancient mega-island, Maui Nui, which was broken up (through erosion and sea level rise) into several of the islands we see today. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 13:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A panorama of Morogoro Town showing the town and the activities of the people. The mountain ranges in the background are Nguru Mountains.
Reason
Good quality and EV, the only image in the Morogoro article. It shows the infrastructure and the mountainous area around the town. Took me a very long time to put together and get it right. It covers app 120 degrees.
Support. Likely to be among the best photographic images illustrating this city. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Completely unrelated to the FPC, but do you mind explaining why the city is jokingly referred to as "Mji kasoro bahari"? (Last sentence of the lead.) Just curious. wadester16 06:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Mji kasoro bahari" translates to City short of an ocean/port. I first came across the phrase when I was adding the image so I am not sure why, probably because it is one of the most populated towns after Dar es Salaam but unlike DSM, it is landlocked. --Muhammad(talk) 07:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Weak because I'm hoping you'll upload a bigger version. The height seems a bit small.
Support Lovely picture... I'm intruiged as to the random bike parked half on a herb half into the road in the bottom left that to me seems to be the krb dividing and entrance and exit to the roundabout... As a driving instructor by trade that seems like a silly place to park a bike... Gazhiley (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I'd prefer that the comment indicate the vantage point, the direction you were facing, some landmarks visible in the photo (especially if they have their own wiki articles) and the names of the mountains in the background. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The vantage point was the terrace of a 4 story residential building, facing North. Mountains in the background are probably the Nguru Mountains. the Uluguru Mountains are to the south.
Promoted File:Morogoro panorama.jpg --wadester16 01:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - An apple mango cultivar and its cross sectionEdit 1 Scale added and cropped out irregular shading mentioned by Spencer
Reason
Good quality and EV. Compared to the current FP it shows a different cultivar and also shows the seed. IMO both show different features and hence can be both featured.
Support. Hmm, it's tough, I think your photo is the equal of Fir0002's but I'm not sure if it differentiates itself enough from it. You know what would be ideal? Combining Fir's images with yours. ;-) You could turn it into a really wide image! No, I'd say it has just enough EV to pass. You're right, it does illustrate a different cultivar and is probably more realistic in appearance. Fir's is a little too perfect. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 20:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSupport. This image is too similar to Fir0002's. If it had a better license, I would suggest doing a delist and replace, but as it is, I see no reason to favor this image over Fir's and the article doesn't need both, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it actually becomes an issue, you need to stop voting on the basis of licence preferences.
Wikimedia and FPC both allow GDFL-1.2 only so IMO, not a valid reason to oppose. That said, I don't mind releasing this image under a different license. So, Done --Muhammad(talk) 04:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to clarify that I wasn't opposing specifically due to the file's license. I was opposing because I didn't think that the article needed both images and there was no reason to prefer using this image over the other one in the article. Now that this image can be migrated to cc-by-sa, however, which is a much freer license than GFDL, I would prefer that this image be used in the article. I don't see why the freedom of the license isn't a valid consideration. To me it seems analagous to considering the resolution of the image. Just as I wouldn't object to an image solely because it was only 1001 pixels wide (as that meets our requirement), I also wouldn't object to an image solely because it is GFDL 1.2-only. I think it is perfectly fair, however, to include either of those issues when weighing the pros and cons of the image. Kaldari (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Shows the pith. Higher EV than the other one. Lycaon (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support:Support either, but prefer edit 1: For several reasons, I think this is superior to the current FP. The cross section actually shows the juiciness and texture of the fruit, as well as, crucially, the pith. The background is more uniform in colour and less pink/grey towards the bottom. I thought the other was too bright and hurt my eyes; the lighting here I far prefer. It's more natural. Like PLW, I would support a replace.
Comment Let's sing the chorus one more time, with feeling. "Needs a size reference!" Spikebrennan (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded Edit 1 includes scale per Spikebrennan and cropped out some irregular shading mentioned by Spencer --Muhammad(talk) 18:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Manakin or Swallow-tailed Manakin (Chiroxiphia caudata), Parque Estadual da Serra da Cantareira - São Paulo
, 6 June 2009, Nikon D40
Reason
Seems to meet criteria - I hope not too narrow? See original version File:Chiroxiphia caudata.jpg if you think it should be cropped differently
Articles this image appears in
Blue Manakin
Creator
chzzFlickr user Dario Sanchez Corrected Chzz ► 11:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- Chzz ► 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the creator should surely be listed as Flickr user Dario Sanchez. I've always been an admirer of his contributions (via Flickr) as they have provided us with images of dozens of species in an area we don't have many from but I don't think the quality is quite there for a featured picture (although many might qualify as valued images) Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 03:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, thanks. Sorry about that - I simply didn't know; I certainly didn't intend to 'steal credit' or anything. I'll know for next time, so thanks. Chzz ► 11:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yeah, quality isn't enough for FP. Somewhat grainy (color specs, I suppose) and soft.
Comment Thank you for the above feedback, which will hopefully help me to assess potential candidates better in the future. Chzz ► 11:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - bad lighting. Kaldari (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but hmmm. In this case, the focus (literally and compositionally) is so much on the flower itself that you don't really get any feel for the actual plant, such as how big it is, its environment etc. I know full well that a good macro shot makes this sort of context difficult, but a photo like feels a bit sterile to me. It's technically almost perfect, but I don't learn as much as I would from a photo with more context. :-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pretty much perfect (except for the license of course :P). Kaldari (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A version that featured the stems and leaves of the plant would be better, but this illustrates the flower well enough, and you can't ask for everything in one image. This is an analogous case to objections regarding headshots of animals. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Erigeron Glaucus.jpg --wadester16 05:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice, good detail and separation of the background. I would personally have cropped the bottom slightly, but a minor issue. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 14:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent. Photographed at the perfect point in the flowering cycle.--ragesoss (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good DOF, sharpness and bokeh. Amazing! Second minor cropping suggestion --Muhammad(talk) 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a rough estimate, there is a collection of about 100-150 succulents in my garden. Most of the Echeverias are similar as far as appearances are concerned in my view. I swapped the Echeveria elegans back to the taxobox, given it is probably more representative of the plant as a whole. A large number of cultivars and species could represent the genus well though in my opinion.
Thank you for doing that, I did think it was more appropriate in the lead (even though it's a poor photograph). By the way—I hate you! Your garden sounds magnificent!
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Incomplete EV since no scale provided. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great image but its current placement in the article doesn't seem to make it much more than decorative to me. Guest9999 (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No other images in the article show any flowers, or how the plant reproduces.
Ceres in chariot and three females, symbolizing the science and art. The white central circle is a watermark, portraying King Leopold I. Below the watermark is Belgian Lion. The right side portrays Neptune and the three females, symbolizing the trade (with caduceus) and industry. The note lost its legal tender
in October 1944
Reason
I spotted this after skipping through some others. Probably one of the finest banknotes to appear in circulation (unedited version).
Support as nominator --brandt 19:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are literally tens of thousands of banknote designs out there. What's special about this one? Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it is quite representative, with state and allegorical symbols and an excerpt on criminal penalty for counterfeiting (bottom center, between the signatures). brandt 16:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The explanation given in the custom PD tag for this image makes no sense to me. Why is this image claimed to be in the Public Domain? Kaldari (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the copyright laws that existed in that time, were struck down by the current copyright law of Belgium, which also does not specifically mention the national currency as a non-free subject. brandt 16:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got that part. But why are we asserting that it's public domain under the current copyright law? If the national currency isn't mentioned in the current law, doesn't that mean that it's copyrighted by default? Kaldari (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it were copyrighted, I would not have received the scan from NBB's Museum. I've found, that it is the largest denomination to be issued prior to euro, so EV is high. brandt 07:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close not in any articles. MER-C 08:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Belgian franc and mythology just feature the original version, I don't see any problem regarding that. Brandt 09:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It's common practice to replace in articles upon promotion, so that should be okay. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commentthis version of the same image is used in the article Belgian franc a straight swap might be appropriate as the one nominated seems to be of a higher standard.Guest9999 (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Didn't see above comments, obviously hadn't refreshed the page. Guest9999 (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A farmer walks towards plantations in the Morogoro Region, Tanzania. The Uluguru Mountains can be seen in the background.Edit 1 - Sharpened slightly
Reason
Good quality, EV and aesthetics. When I uploaded the image I was not aware of plantations other than the sisal ones but after asking around, I was told there are sugarcane, coffee, cotton and sisal among the cash crops grown in the region.
Support. Has slightly weak EV for Sisal and agriculture (as it is fairly sparsely agricultural in view) but I think it provides good EV across the many articles it is used in - particularly Morogoro Region - which don't otherwise have much in the way of high quality illustrative images. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supportgood quality picture but will prefer less cloudsWai Hong (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clouds forming over mountains is part of the water cycle.. It seems a bit silly to be concerned about them when they're pretty common and therefore representative of the environment of the area. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. High encyclopedic value in illustrating the region and mountains. It's not particularly well focused at full resolution, but at lower resolutions it's good enough. Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weak technicals (blurry), and EV isn't too strong either. — JakeWartenberg 12:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is high resolution for a single non stitched image, and the procedure for voting, is to view it in the size requirement as per the FPC criteria and not at full size. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 15:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, opposing based on sharpness at full size is not fair, although even downsampled, it is still a little unsharp on the left side. I noticed that this was brought up at the PPR too actually. My guess is that the problem is with the lens. I don't know if your 18-55mm is the IS version or not, as you don't mention it on your kit list, but I'm guessing it is. I occasionally have the same problem with my 24-105mm f/4L IS lens, and I think it's the image stabilisation at fault. It must adjust the lens elements incorrectly sometimes which shifts the plane of focus away from the sensor. It seems to happen to me more often when I'm not holding the camera steady (but of course that's what IS is for!). Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 16:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my lens is not the IS version, but I agree the softness may have something to do with the lens. If you remember, this image seemed to have the same problem. But at the shutter speed this was shot at, I doubt it can be motion blur --Muhammad(talk) 18:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and it cannot be shutter speed if the centre is not soft. Most lenses are a bit softer at the corner but not usually to this extent. If I were you, I'd be looking to upgrade to a good wide angle zoom (the 17-40mm f/4 is very good), but I know that money doesn't grow on trees. Hmm but what about cash crops? ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 20:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I may get the 17-40mm in a couple of years time but for now, I am more interested in macro and want the MP-E 65mm. --Muhammad(talk) 06:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the softness is probably due to the shot being taken at f4.5 which is pretty wide open to be expecting a kit lens to be at its optimum, you should try shooting a static scene with this lens at f4.5, 8 and 11 and see if the softness improves as you close down. Certainly I would be looking to shoot a landscape such as this at at least f8, both for DOF and for lens sharpness. I would hesitate to go past 11 with a crop sensor though or you are going to start seeing diffraction softening of the entire image. Mfield (Oi!) 23:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW, the edit's a slightly sharper version. Time3000 (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per myself Mfield (Oi!) 01:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It's a nice composition, but I find the contrasts a bit harsh. Must be difficult to get this right in the tropics, but a smaller aperture probably would have helped, per Mfield. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The water lily house is the hottest and most humid of the houses at Kew and contains a large pond with varieties of waterlily, surrounded by a display of economically important heat-loving plants.
Reason
A high resolution and wide angle image, providing an interesting, detailed view of the interior of the building and the waterlilies.
Support Both educational and absolutely lovely. Sophus Bie(talk) 15:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good illustration of the garden and the activities that take place, taking notes and pictures. Must have been a headache getting the people right. --Muhammad(talk) 15:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Full of fun.--ragesoss (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great photograph David, can't say otherwise. There is however one person double in it. Is there anyway you can edit her clone out of the panorama?--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just uploaded an updated version correcting that problem, and also resulted in many of the people changing position too, as it became tricky to match their reflection with their bodies (because it was a double row panorama). I had to manually edit the blending layers to fix these problems. Also stitched it with cylindrical projection which made the image slightly taller. Finally, saved it with higher resolution (5000x2808 vs 3480x1703). Hopefully this is an improvement in all respects. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 20:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support stunning quality as always. Cacophony (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like to think that beret man on LHS is still staring listlessly into the lilies. - Flying Freddy (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A panoramic view of all seven sisters from the Beachy Head cliffs near Birling Gap, looking back towards the River Cuckmere and Seaford Head in the background.
Reason
A detailed and high resolution panorama of the Seven Sisters, a series of chalk cliffs in the South of England. The view shows the ocean, the well-worn path along the top and the geological structure of the chalk cliffs themselves.
Request for smaller or more compressed version --Muhammad(talk) 20:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I email a smaller copy of every nomination to you in advance? :-) I don't mind uploading a smaller version but I just don't want to clog Commons up with duplicates... Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd imagine this is a tough subject to get a composition that works for it, but Diliff has done just that. At 100%, each screen-width column is interesting as I scroll from top to bottom, and the whole thing is also nicely balanced.--ragesoss (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed you removed some ghost people from the original. Do you have any version with a proper person? That would add a nice scale. --Muhammad(talk) 06:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did remove them as the blender had decided to remove half of a torso... There are plenty of people in the original though, walking along the cliffs in the distance. It would be hard to judge the scale of it regardless though, as the distance varies from about 8-10km away for the cliffs in the distance to about 400 metres away for the cliffs on the far right. As you can imagine, people would look very differently sized depending on where they were. The cliffs are up to about 150 metres high though if that helps. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well composed, good quantity and EV. --Muhammad(talk) 17:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any case there are fences, people, buildings, gulls and sheep which give a good indication of scale. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Illustrative and compelling. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Since no one seems to have noticed, why's the sea so white? It doesn't look right, and certainly the other image in the article doesn't have this appearance. I can't help but get the feeling this has been overexposed. --jjron (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Had thought of that, but I've never seen the ocean look like that due to reflecting the sky (it's more likely to go a steely grey or just look dark and green or something), and as you suggest, the sky is overcast, not pure white. --jjron (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And before someone suggests it, had also considered whether we were seeing eroded chalk from the cliffs lying on the sea floor, but again I find that a bit hard to buy given the other colours we see on the beach above the waterline. And the sea certainly doesn't look rough enough for it to all be foam. --jjron (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the sea looks the way it does either exactly, but I don't think it's overexposed. What was happening in this shot, if I remember correctly, is that the sun had just started to peek from behind the clouds (out of frame) which lit up the shallow water (I've seen this happen before, and it does result in the water looking similar to this) and also the cliffs. I've got other images from this area where the shallow water also looks similar too. In any case, you can tell that it's not overexposed because the rest of the scene is not overexposed, particularly the rocks just to the right of the water's edge (there is no HDR blending here - WYSIWYG) and because the water in the distance blends to a less brown muddy colour, and then to a greeny-blue in the distance. I'd guess that it's a combination of the murky chalky water and the fact that it stays shallow for quite some distance. But as I said, I don't know why. All I can do is suggest that it isn't overexposed and that there must be an earthly explanation. :-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience it's quite common for rough water over sandstones and chalky soils to appear quite white. I don't think there's any irregularity there. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I commented above though, this water doesn't look that rough and the composition of the beach above the water line may indicate what the bottom is like below the water. Having said which, just happened to see a pro image of The Twelve Apostles (Victoria) over the weekend that had a similar appearance. Granted the water there can be pretty rough which would help explain it, but it may be possible. Still looks strange. BTW, I also thought the cliffs looked a bit bright, which is what I was referring to with the overexposure. How's this hypothesis - the sun peeks out opposite the cliffs, lights up the white cliffs which reflect onto/off the shallow water thus also giving that a white look, which is captured by the camera... --jjron (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's the actual explanation but if that's what helps you believe, then I'm okay with it. ;-) The water wasn't rough in the sense that the waves weren't large, but it was extremely windy and this was chopping up the water, hence lots of flat white surf. You do appreciate that the cliffs are supposed to be white? There's no luminosity that absolutely corresponds to the cliffs as exposure is inherently subjective and relative, but I think the cliffs look fine, and they look about the same, if not slightly darker than a lot of the other images of the cliffs in the article - any darker and the grass would look rather underexposed IMO. I don't know what else to say. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, duh! BTW, admittedly I only loaded a preview size and copied to PS so it may not be entirely accurate, but it had quite a range of blown highlights. --jjron (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to spam commons with images of little value, but I could provide you with a file showing all pixels from 252 to 255 and yes there are some blown pixels, but certainly not 'quite a range'. Most properly exposed images will have overexposure on specular highlights and the like. I had a look at a number of your images (eg this and this) and they had vastly more overexposed pixels. I could email them to you to illustrate if you'd like. I'm not attempting to deflect criticism of this image - just putting it in perspective. There is no fundamental overexposure in this image IMO. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Landscape Arch is a 290 foot long arch located in Arches National Park. It is the longest natural arch in the world, slightly longer than Kolob Arch in Zion National Park.
Reason
High resolution, good light, illustrates the subject well.
Support as nominator --Cacophony (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is what appears to be a clone stamp mishap which needs fixing on the top left hand side. I'd noise reduce the sky a bit whilst your at it.
Support Can't see any clone stamp myself, no matter how hard i look and certainly a fantastic quality picture... Will consider changing support if clone stamp can be more clearly identified but until then I have no beef with this... Gazhiley (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see it - a strip of grey with a hard top edge about 10 pixels below the top of the image, just to the left of the clouds. Also agree with Noodle Snacks that a bit of noise reduction in the blue of the sky couldn't hurt, but not a big deal. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah... I acn see it now... tbh doesn't spoil it for me as so faded you only notice it when looking for it so my vote stays the same... Gazhiley (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support contingent on getting the fault that Noodle Snacks mentioned fixed. I would have uploaded an almost identical image myself from 2004 but it was really overcast and unappealing at the time. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice pano, but it needs that edit.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 23:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded a version with the clone stamp problems fixed and noise reduction in the sky. Thanks, Cacophony (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A female bee Tetraloniella sp.Eucerinibee with its tongue extended to take in water or aphid secretions. Pictured in Kibaha, Tanzania.Edit 1 - Cropped and scale movedEdit 2 - suggested white balance. If you push it much further than this, you end up bleaching out the colors from the bee.
Reason
Good lighting, details and EV. Compared to the previous lead image, IMO the quality of this is outstanding. I maintained a loose crop to show the environment and to show that the bee is a solitary one.
Yes it's possible but I didn't find it distracting. If there is preference for an edited version, I don't mind uploading one --Muhammad(talk) 21:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks great. Would get rid of the scale though for the FP. Not sure what "streak" zoofari is talking about - the little speck of dirt? Doesn't bother me. Stevage 03:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Muhammad has started adding the scale at the request of various people here. I guess you can't please everyone, but a scale does certainly help the EV, even if it detracts from the aesthetics. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 06:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support the use of scale (see current talk on discussion page), however for this particular image, the scale should be on the bottom-left (or bottom-right). The bee is looking toward the upper-right corner. Therefore our eyes are drawn there, and right now they see a distracting scale. Ksempac (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but the colour balance seems very warm. Do you shoot in RAW Muhammad? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the composition could be improved by cropping it just to the right of the foreground leaf and moving the scale to the above-left of the bee. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had manually adjusted the colour balance during processing to what I remembered to be the right one. Uploaded edit which I hope fixes the points you raised. I shoot raw sometimes but this time I didn't. Is the scale and balance ok now?
I don't see a big difference in the colour balance (I would have made it slightly cooler but then again it seems to look much better than last time I saw it for some reason!) and the crop is much better now IMO. :-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 22:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Ksempac made a good point. Maybe the scale would be better on the bottom.
I'd suggest the scales pretty much always look better at the bottom. --jjron (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded edit 1 Adjustments made: crop, colour balance, and scale moved. After the crop, little space was left at the bottom so I have just moved it to the left where it can be easily cloned out for those who don't want it.--Muhammad(talk) 19:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support any--Mbz1 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Perfect panning technique, but I'm not sure if it's the best image to actually illustrate panning (but I've noticed that most of the better images I could think of have since been removed from the article!), and it doesn't do a great job of illustrating the driver either obviously, only his car. In fact it looks like he's got the seat right back and having a rest! Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 18:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per above. Technically ok I guess but IMO this FP illustrates the technique better. --Muhammad(talk) 20:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the other article. I suggest replacing it with the motorcycle in panning though. --Muhammad(talk) 06:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if a panning shot with an exposure time of 1/250s is a good example. This Motorcyle (at 85mm) is an easy panning target. A good panning shot starts with an exposure time of maybe 1/125s and can go down to 1/30s. The chicken is actually a great example :-) --AngMoKio (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the chicken was great too, but it didn't pass FPC recently. I do think the motorcycle illustrates the panning effect better than this one though because it's a bit more obvious that the background is blurred than with this photo. Clearly they're all very good photos. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Diliff, the background blur is not as evident in thumbnail. Not related to this nomination, but is this a good panned shot? --Muhammad(talk) 09:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support But add it to something relating to the event or car class.
You removed an existing FP to place your picture in the Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters article. Please revert this. I could do it by myself, to let you figure out how to use both pictures (one easy way would be to put your picture in the 2009 season article, since the previous FP is from the 2008 season). However, the picture swap on the Mercedes-Benz C-Class article is definitly a good one. Ksempac (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I missed something, the image that he removed was not an en:FP, it was only FP on Commons. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 14:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS ! Apologies. Striking out my comment. Ksempac (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ksempac, i am open to any suggestion. I thought replacing one of my older pictures with a better one of my pictures doesn't look that much as I would like to push my pics into articles. :) --AngMoKio (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, i was a bit tired. I didn't even notice the 2008 shot was yours (but I do like it and I'm a bit sad it doesn't appear anymore). Ksempac (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the older pic to the article
2008 Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters season along with a pic of an Audi. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I forgot to Support this great image. I get the sensation of a powerful thing on motion. I actually think it illustrates panning better than the motorcycle shot which gives me the impression of a static bike with a blurred background.Ksempac (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - HDR decreases the encyclopedic value. Cacophony (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Excessive HDR. The picture looks pretty good though (I find that the grain contributes to the 'feel' of the image) so it might be better to nominate it as a Commons FP. Diego_pmcTalk 08:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Same as last time. Kaldari (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Nice picture, but oversaturated, I´ll leave the decision to others. - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_. -- 18:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - intrusive tone mapping. I first assumed the image was actually for HDR. If it's just a train, the tone mapping seems out of place. Stevage 05:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A great picture that shows the relationship between father and son. See the reward bord page. It should be featured for either father's day 2009 (not proboble) or 2010. I despeckeled the image, and touched it up in photoshop CS4. I don't know if we could get a better reproduction- resolution leaves much to be desired.
Original - Drosophila sp fly. Pictured in Dar es Salaam, TanzaniaEdit 1 by User:Diliff. Cooler colour balance, and removed a dust spot directly above the fly
Reason
The size is above requirements but smaller than what I usually upload due to the size of the fly. This is a crop of the fly at 1:1 without any downnsampling at all. I know this may be a long shot but compared to this previous lead image taken by a very competent macro photographer, the lighting and quality of this one is pretty good. IMO it meets the criteria and is among wikipedia's best work on the subject of drosophils.
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Pushing the bar too far. Barely meets size requirements but still soft, colour balance looks way off, and for mine it sits too high in the frame. Sorry, I know regulars sometimes like to 'push their luck' as it were, but I think there has to a be limit somewhere. --jjron (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do regulars 'push their luck'? If anything, regulars are less likely to push their luck. IMO it's the people unfamiliar with the criteria and current standards that push their luck. ;-) Not that I'm discouraging people from finding new images out there and giving it a go, but the success rate from regular contributors is probably far higher than the average - just stating what I think is the case. Having said that, I agree with you that it's probably just a little too soft and low res but please do also consider that it's basically impossible without specialist macro equipment to get anything better than this in terms of detail. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 15:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may need to check your definition; you can't push your luck unless you are a regular - i.e., you have to have had luck before you can push it. My point is that from time to time (and sometimes too often) we see borderline images nominated by regulars with special pleading reasons and extended arguments with opposers. We don't typically get that from newbies, who generally make well intentioned noms, even if they are often misguided, and they are far more willing to accept the votes as given. --jjron (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough regarding the phrase, but I don't think regulars are given any special privileges and are just as likely to get their images opposed as any newbies if they're below par. I was only defending this image because it happens to be at the limit of what can be done with mainstream macro lenses but note I didn't support it and I haven't seen Muhammad defending the indefensible either. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ya reckon? --jjron (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can do better with a couple of extension tubes.
comment color balance looks just right to me. deBivort 21:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't word it quite as strong as jjron, but I share his thoughts that it might be a little too warm (mainly judging by the leaf, which is more yellow than I would expect, but of course I'm guessing). I've uploaded an edit that I think looks more natural - could you comment on whether you still think the original is more accurate? I bring this up because I thought another of Muhammad's macro photos was a little warm too. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 22:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The grays in the wings of drosophilids are far from neutral. They are rather warm to begin with. So, while your fly looks pretty good for how a fly would look on a neutral background, the original is closer to how it should look against a bright green background, given its translucency and the reflected light off the leaf. deBivort 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, this is a fairly well calibrated array of studio drosophila images I made for work a little while back. Now the question is, what would they look like on a bright green leaf... deBivort 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - For the newer version, better color balance. - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_. -- 07:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Drosophila is a huge genus with sub-groups some of whom diverged from each other some 50 million years ago (there may be even more distant examples that I'm not aware of, what, with 1500 species in the genus!) Not enough ID to have much EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Used to illustrate the genus and higher taxonomic levels. No further ID is needed, really. deBivort 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while there are a few drosophila species that can be distinguished by external morphological characters, many groups are only distinguishable by characters that are really only visible under electron microscopy or after dissection (such as genitalia morphology). Your reasoning risks precluding any drosophila from FP status because no single traditional photograph would allow a species ID. deBivort 20:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The geographic ranges of some species are well documented, and laboratory stocks of named species are trivially easy to get hold of. Given that most of the scientific work done on these species is in genetics, there can hardly be a laboratory stock out there that hasn't been ID'd genetically. Just ask your friendly genetics professor to be allowed to take some pictures - most of the time, they have flies to spare, and you'd only be asking for a single specimen to take a picture like this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I am a drosophila genetics professor. I have dozens of the various stocks of which you speak at my disposal. See above. The point is, this is a wild species. It is therefore hard to ID with morphological characters. Even the lab stocks D simulans and D melanogaster require microscopy to distinguish morphologically. By requiring a photo that has sufficient morphological information, you are precluding pretty much all drosophila species, wild or no from FP status. Since the image is used to illustrate the family and genus, and has plenty of characters sufficient to ID it to family and genus, that's all that can reasonably be asked. deBivort 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for morphological characters. I'm quite happy for someone to say they took a picture of such and such a laboratory stock. Unless you want to go on the record claiming that there is no morphological diversity within Drosophila apart from the genitalia, I suggest you accept my position as valid. Just to recap: I see absolutely no reason to accept an image of insufficient size that hasn't even been ID'd, when this is easily possible anywhere near almost any university with a biology department. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted No consensus in my eyes.--wadester16 17:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A soap bubble is a very thin film of soap water that forms a sphere with an iridescentsurface.A soap bubble can exist because the surface layer of a liquid (usually water) has a certain surface tension, which causes the layer to behave somewhat like an elastic sheet. Because the film is very thin, roughly 1 micron, refraction isn't a significant effect and reflections from the two surfaces of the film coincide. The upright image is from the near surface and the inverted image is from the far surface.
Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - very nice picture, but it's out of focus. Luca (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly out of focus, but good enough to illustrate the subject. Also, probably the best, quality and composition wise. --Muhammad(talk) 16:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Luca, should be possible to do better given some of the insect in flight shots floating about.
Edit 1 uploaded added scale but it may not be as accurate as the others--Muhammad(talk) 05:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original Only. An imprecise scale is worse than no scale at all, because it is misleading. An approximate size in the caption is better in this case.
I redirected the page to Nymphalidae which is the correct scientific name equivalent. --Muhammad(talk) 08:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original only per Noodle snacks. mgiganteus1 (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the standard of Wikipedia
featured images of this type is very high and I think any new nomination should be virtually flawless to be promoted. In terms of technical and aesthetic merit and encyclopaedia value I think this image meets that standard. Guest9999 (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Support original only. nice image.--Caspian blue 02:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original only by Noodle Sacks. Also in favor of adding a mention of the approximate size in the description of the shot. Ksempac (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original as above. Wow. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Edit 1. I don't think knowing the exact size of the butterfly is that important. It's a butterfly. It's about as big as... a butterfly. The size can be mentioned in the description, if it's that important. Kaldari (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, good EV for the species. If the scale isn't accurate, leave it off. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great quality, good color blance and exposure. --Woglinde 02 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original; Weak oppose edit 1. Good colours and overall quality. If the butterfly was of an abnormal size, then I'd go with the scale, but in this case, I don't find it necessary.
Original - Third quarter of the major regular season college football game between the visiting Ohio State Buckeyes and the USC Trojans at the L.A. Coliseum on September 13, 2008
Reason
Certainly not a perfect panorama. Let me first point out the flaws so you don't have to. ;-) It's not very sharp at 100%, the perspective is slightly off, it is was noisy, but I've cleaned that up a bit. Okay, they're the flaws. However, it's high resolution which makes up for the lack of detail (if you downsample it to minimum requirements, it's more than detailed enough IMO), there are no stitching flaws as far as I can see, it's an interesting scene showing the stadium shape, along with the fans and their attire. I think this makes up for the flaws and this is not the sort of subject that we have a lot of quality images of.
Support Per nom, we've seen better but I think we are selective enough without quibbling over the slight issues present here. However, it needs a more descriptive file name.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 12:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, considering the lighting (I know I would do a lot worse), and kudos for not downsampling. It looks perfectly sharp at 2000*640, so I can't complain about the sharpness at full resolution. Do you know why the flag on the right of the picture is at
Support. I'm flattered --I also agree with the nominator's assessment and impressed by the improvements. I took it without a tripod, over a period of a few seconds, so that's why its not as sharp as it could be. --Bobak (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The building on the right looks tilted. --Muhammad(talk) 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose My Ohio State Buckeyes lost by a lot.Oppose. When viewed full, perspective does show to be an issue, with the buildings on the far left tilted slightly one way, and the scoreboard on the left tilted the other. Even with some good NR, noise is still quite apparent, but not to a very bad degree, but still worth noting. In addition, I'm not convinced a downsample would fully help the sharpness issues—the lack of a tripod does leave a little to be desired. I'm not convinced that a downsample could really improve the sharpness. Before this, I just had a "weak oppose" until I noticed stitching errors. Stitching errors: Look at the two guys with orange-ish shirts on the lower right. Look between their shoulders and go up. The stitching line is evident even though the lack of sharpness hides it. (Look at the guy right above their shoulders with the hat). Another error: See the big orange railing in the lower center? Follow it along the bottom and to the right, where there is another stitching flaw. (Right below the man with the white OSU #28 jersey).
Sorry, I really like the image, it's a great capture with good enc., but the issues prevent me from supporting.
Comment -- Too bad people had pretty much left the stadium during this moment of garbage time against Washington last season (see image), but then again I wouldn't have been able to move to these seats. --Bobak (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a nice shot too, but probably doesn't have the same drama of the nominated image. Given the slight perspective tilt and the (admittedly minor) stitching fault mentioned by Spencer, would you mind if I had a go at re-stitching it? Unfortunately that would mean you emailing me the images so if you're not prepared to do that, I'll understand. I'll send you an email pre-emptively just in case though, so you could reply with them attached. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 21:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the tilt should be fixed. Probably something like this --Muhammad(talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per nom (not sharp, perspective being off) and the overly exposed lighting--Caspian blue 02:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Previously noisy areas are now extremely blurry (see dark area of field), upper-left corner of image is missing, weak EV, lighting could be better (this is one of those rare instances where I think HDR could actually help). Otherwise, a pretty impressive image. Kaldari (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks substantial EV in the articles. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted 4 S, 3.5 O → Sorry, no can do. --wadester16 19:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Ratsbew (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Definitely informative, but the resolution is far too poor unfortunately. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 19:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - wonderful event to show, but way too small to show it properly. Since this is the same size as the original from the external source, someone else needs to repeat the experiment. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it appears that the image hasn't actually been released by the author under the license specified. Certainly no evidence of it on the image page, nor on the page where it was taken from. That page says "all images copyrighted but commercial reproduction rights or individual prints may be obtained from the author". Perhaps the author might provide a higher resolution image, or tell us to take it down immediately. Could go either way. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 20:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I received email permission from the author. Ratsbew (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should really provide some proof of this on the image page then, including evidence that he released it under the CC-BY 3.0 license, and not just 'for Wikipedia's use'. We can't just take your word for it. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should forward proof of this to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. MER-C 11:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is higher resolution actually practical? You'd be talking ISO 12800 with F1.8 under bright sunlight to get that sort of exposure. I wonder if the sensor used actually has that much resolution. Camera flashes can get down to 1/10000th or so on very low power settings, but this is still a long way from 1/1000000.
Well, I don't know exactly how practical it is, but assuming you can capture it with a fast enough flash (and it looks like he has), you should be able to get significantly higher resolution than this - any modern DSLR could handle it. The flash and the trigger should be the only complicated bits... Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It should be larger, and with more details. - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_. -- 15:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support if license issues are resolved. The image just meets the resolution requirements (>=1000px) and has very high EV, so given how difficult it is to shoot I'll support. Time3000 (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 1000px minimum really applies to landscape/square formatted images. Realistically the standard is a minimum of around 1000px on both dimensions, not just one. IMO. it's not as clearly defined as it should be. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 16:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realised that just as I was writing it, but what extra information are you going to get from a higher resolution version? It's not like landscapes where there's a lot of detail and you could carry on increasing resolution until you could see individual blades of grass, becoming more informative with each increase; nor is it like macro shots of (say) insects where there's a lot of detail in the eyes, wings etc. If the resolution was higher here it would only show more turbulence in the smoke (not relevent unless it's in an article on fluid mechanics) and possibly some more detail of how the cartridge case deforms. I would certainly prefer a higher resolution, but I don't think it loses anything except noise by being this small. Time3000 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what on that page suggests that this image is a copyright violation though. The shotgun sequence on the page doesn't seem to be the same at all... Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though if that is the camera that was used I'd be right about the resolution.
True, but it looks like that camera is designed to take videos, not stills... Maybe this image hasn't been captured by a device fit for purpose? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it meets the size requirement, the picture really isn't big enough to have good EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted I checked and didn't see evidence of copyvio, but still no promoted. --wadester16 19:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Evania appendigaster wasp commonly called Cockroach Egg Parasitoid Wasp. Pictured in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Reason
DOF, lighting and good EV. Black insects are usually much harder to photography correctly but IMO this one turned out quite good. The white setting is natural as I usually find them on walls.
Comment and question. Needs to be rotated. Is the abdomen on top of the wing or underneath? It's a bit hard to tell from the photo. Kaldari (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abdomen on top of the wings. Why rotate? it was slanted in reality. --Muhammad(talk) 06:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think rotating to horizontal would improve the composition, although I suppose it's a matter of taste. Is it normal for the abdomen to be sitting on top of the wings? It seems rather strange, but I don't know much about the species. Kaldari (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot (i even like the tilt of the ground, makes for a more original composition). However, I've some trouble figuring out what are the black things on top of the wings ? Ksempac (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are referring to but I think it may be the abdomen. --Muhammad(talk) 12:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The anal and vannal veins (part of the wing structure)?
Support. Tilt doesn't bother me either. Good isolation of the subject while keeping the environment natural. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 19:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support No problem with tilt. Dirty surface is a bit distracting. It's good quality, but not as good as some of your others have been. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Evania appendigaster.jpg --wadester16 19:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've performed noise reduction on the image (over the top of the original) as I found it improved things considerably without affecting detail. But if you prefer, you can revert it. I could upload it as an edit. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 21:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok by me, thanks for the cleanup. Sasata (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You identified it as one of the best shots in Wikipedia. I don't see how that prevent you from saying the same thing here. You wouldn't be objective if you were the creator, the nominator, or had another interest in seeing this nomination pass (such as wanting an FP in your pet article). Even then, none of this prevent people from voting (the nom always vote, we have many self-nom, and others similar cases...). In the unlikely case that we do notice bias, others will point it out and deal with it accordingly. So don't worry and feel free to vote. If your vote has valid argument to support it, i don't see any problem. Ksempac (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I really like the picture, even if it has some things that makes it less suitable to be a featured picture; therefore, I could give a support vote, but being more objective: I think it should have a reduced or no blur at all. In the upper part there is some blur and it would be great if the picture lacks of that blur. Perhaps with a lower lens aperture? - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_. -- 04:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support: Great picture, looks fantastic, has good EV, but I have a few problems. Firstly, could the green splotches on the left side of the mushroom be remove? Or significantly altered? Because that stood out as a distracting feature when I analysed the top of the mushroom. Also, the little dirt/seeds/whatever on the top is a bit distracting as well, but I doubt that can be helped. Anyway, great picture, great comp, overall, great picture apart from the points I just mentioned. Jerry teps (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I find the blurred top to be a bit too distracting, a bit more DOF would have been great. But the shot still capture the unusual structure very well and that's what matters. Note that i would oppose an edit which removed the green things on the mushroom. Nature isn't and shouldn't be all cleaned up. Ksempac (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. When I added this article to the fungi portal, I actually considered nominating the image/reccomending it for nomination myself. A wonderful, wonderful photo of a great specimen. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, it's late and both my monitor and eyes stink. But is it just me or does this have substantial artifacting? Makeemlighter (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wonderful and useful (here) picture. I can't see the artifacting and the issues that Jerry teps has noted to me are not detracting - Peripitus(Talk) 08:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Quality is lacking at full size, good enough for me otherwise.
Support It's a wonderful encyclopedic image, not too hot at 100% but lovely viewed @ 1600px, ie decent FP resolution. Let's not penalise those who upload full-res files, esp from compacts... --mikaultalk 04:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Rhodotus palmatus2.jpg That's a lot of weak supports, but seems sufficient. :-) --wadester16 19:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A planform view of Avro VulcanXH558 as she flies over my head during her practise display for the 2009 RAF Cosford Airshow.
Reason
I feel that this unusual view of Avro Vulcan XH558 provides an excellent demonstration of the unique silhouette of the Avro Vulcan, and, given that the aircraft flew over my head as I was standing on the runway of my squadron's airfield, is a fairly difficult image to obtain.
Oppose. Unappealing background, lots of chroma noise, and the plane too underexposed.--ragesoss (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the background is the sky, and so, I suppose, a bit beyond my control. The exposure is a bit of a trade-off as if I brighten the aircraft it means I'd get a pure white, washed-out sky, so the whole image must be balanced. As for the noise, would it be better if I sent this via the image labs in attempt to quieten it? Oh, and I think you'll find that a
In some conditions, it's hard if not impossible to create a photo of the kind of technical quality expected of featured pictures; no doubt aircraft in flight under cloudy skies are among those conditions, especially when the sky is so much brighter than the subject. In terms of what was under your control, some of the flaws could have been mitigated by shooting at 100 ISO instead of 400, and adjusting the levels during processing so that the darker parts of the image were brightened without blowing out the sky. At this point, yes, some noise reduction would help, although if you have the Canon Digital Photo Professional software, going back to the RAW file and using that program's color noise reduction feature would probably be more effective than sending it to
Wikipedia:Graphic Lab and having someone work from the JPG.--ragesoss (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Incidentally, I think another of your photos of this plane is better: File:XH558 Flypast.JPG. Better background, better exposure of the subject, less noise. I still don't think that one is quite featured picture quality, but it's closer.--ragesoss (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, IO'll have another look through my 700-image strong collection of that display. :-) I submitted this one merely because of the unusual and very-hard-to-obtain view, but if a bit of noise is going to prevent it passing, far be it for me to say otherwise. I'll upload a selection and put them for PPR?
Original - Wandering Glider Pantala flavescens dragonfly. Pictured in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.Edit 1 - Colour balance adjusted
Reason
Good quality, DOF and EV. Same species as this recently failed nomination, but IMO all the faults mentioned there do not apply to this image. The angle is also as what had been suggested in that nomination.
Weak Support Good EV, although I prefer the composition of the other one. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COmment Quality's ok, colour balance just looks wrong. If this was shot raw, maybe try a conversion with default settings and see if what pops up better resembles original conditions. --mikaultalk 04:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request Since I was away for the majority of the nomination time and was unable to respond to the problem, could this nom stay open for a few more days? --Muhammad(talk) 07:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Hmm. Image quality is a bit lacking and with this being a static architectural shot, standards are high. Composition is quite good though. Was it taken from a boat or Toronto Island? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
from Toronto Island. Reducing resolution (e.g. like this
Comment If the building on the far left is cropped with the top space, I think the image could be better.--Caspian blue 02:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
copyright notice? I found no policy or guideline to that effect, it may deter infringement, and is used on 2400 other files that I've uploaded. Walter Siegmund(talk) 15:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose, per clearly not sharp enough at edges, plus a little noisy. I can see what you were thinking, but you need a better shot. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --AngMoKio (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good detail of the head (shame about the DOF softening the body a bit) and a very 'classic' pose of the Bald Eagle. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 19:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could we have the EXIF please? --Muhammad(talk) 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't edit the pic currently as it is on the front page of Czech Wikipedia. So I post the info here: 1/200, f/6.3, 160mm --AngMoKio (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Existing Bald Eagle Portrait FP: . --jjron (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, The existing image above is of less quality then this one, definitely support this version, better composition — raeky(talk | edits) 15:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps should have been put up as a 'Delist and replace'? --jjron (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it possible for them to coexist? --AngMoKio (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although if a better one comes along, it often prompts the question of whether the older one is still meeting our standards. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What he said, and it's often a matter of whether the new one adds any new 'information'. If not, and it's no better than the existing one then the existing tends to stay, but if it is better then there's usually a good argument for delist and replace rather than just piling them up. --jjron (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Beautiful photo. The evaluation of the existed bald eagle photo as a FP is a matter for separate discussion. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 14:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OK I'm gonna buck the trend here but I actually think the composition on this one is quite poor. For a portrait the wings are entirely unnecessary and they just look cut off. This is like a half hearted mix of a portrait and a body shot. Just the head would have been far more effective IMO - eg [1]. Alternatively to get the wings in I'd go with a breast shot --Fir0002 11:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks really good in thumbnail but apart from the beak, eye and part of the wing, pretty much everything else seems out of focus. --Muhammad(talk) 05:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted The dreaded 4S/2O → sorry, but Muhammad has a good point. --wadester16 06:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That can be resolved with a noise reduction filter, maybe suspend until that has been done? — raeky(talk | edits) 15:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A Tachnina praceps fly feeding on nectar. Notice the stout body and long abdominal bristles, characteristic of the genus. Abundant on waterside plants during summer. Eggs are laid on plants and grubs feed on caterpillars of moths and butterflies.
Reason
A high resolution and good quality illustration of the genus Tachina with its stout body and long abdominal bristles. The three-segmented antenna, with a dorsal arista, is characteristic of the Muscomorpha group of flies.
Support very nice you can see everything clearly --Thanks, Hadseys 10:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Sharpness is somewhat poor but more significantly I'm not keen on the composition. I'd have liked a more side on more conventional side view so that you can see it feeding or a plan view so that you get more wing detail. Here it's a bit half hearted IMO. Also too much dead space, but that can easily be fixed with some cropping... --Fir0002 11:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator 23:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC) -- 23:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Nominated by Labrat256. Note user has only 8 edits, 5 of which were creating this nom. --jjron (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The out-of-focus leaf in the bottom left is very distracting and cuts off the antenna, detracting from EV. The (wasp's) right leg is also cut off. Otherwise a great photo though - it's a shame the composition isn't better. Time3000 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pause for a second and think about what would be involved in posing a wasp. I'm not saying it isn't a shame that the tip of the foot and antennae are slightly hidden, I'm just saying that there biological factors that might add to the difficulty of the shot. I wouldn't get this close to it. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 05:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, the leaf is blocking, but just a little. In the other hand, what an astonishing resolution and detail! This photo is not only good for the resolution and high EV, but also, I think, taking this kind of photo of a wasp could not be that easy. - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_. -- 07:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Likely the result of a focus stack. Must try reversing my 50mm without another lens.
Neutral (might oppose later) - I'm not sure what to think about this nomination. An amazing detail and sharpness, most probably the result of a careful focus satcking (the animal being dead or sleeping) together with a clumsy framing and cropping ruining an otherwise excellent picture. Was it the work of a specialist or a lucky shot from a beginner? Or maybe the original picture was cropped? I will not support the promotion as I find little excuse for those flaws. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Certainly a high quality shot. But composition and limited EV keep this from being a support. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking, accomplished shot with stacks of EV. Check his Flickr page, this is no one-off fluke and I seriously doubt there's too much PP involved, just great lighting & technique. Nothing wrong with composition either. --mikaultalk 03:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some minor shortcomings but details and wow make up for it IMO --Muhammad(talk) 07:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - omg, stunning. I assume the 'oppose' votes for a tiny fragment of leaf were just kidding. Stevage 08:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As mentioned above there are some minor flaws, but a great shot regardless --Fir0002 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Poster issued in Van Diemen's Land during the Black War (c 1828-1830) depicting Lieutenant-Governor Arthur's policy of friendship and equal justice for settlers and Aborigines - refer to image page description for full detailsEdit 1 by jjron - Adjusted levelsEdit 2 by jjron - readjusted levels per Mikaul's request
Reason
A great example of the power of pictures with high EV. During the early British settlement of Australia there was a genuine (although ultimately unsuccessful) intention for peaceful relations with the Aborigines from those in power. These posters were created in
to try to convey the message of friendship and equal treatment. The original drawing was reproduced onto boards and mounted on trees in remote areas where Aborigines would see them. Some of these boards were recovered many years later and saved - this is one of them. Though smallish, it is above size limits; originals weren't big and I don't know of any bigger versions available. I don't believe a 'restoration' is in order as part of the history is that they hung in the wilderness for many years to convey their message - the hole in the top is where it was nailed to a tree, other wear is due to ageing in the bush (I have seen another one of these 'in the flesh' and it was in similar condition). Have however included an edit with adjusted levels which possibly displays better on screen.
Weak Oppose This is a really tough one. Undeniable EV, but it's just so small. The lack of detail really kills it for me. If you could find a bigger version, this would be an easy support. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to your opinion, but re size remember this is only 35.7 x 22.6cm in real life (as I said I have seen one, and it's only just a bit bigger than an A4 sheet of paper) - at a typical screen res this is viewed close to life size, and there's probably not a lot more detail to see. --jjron (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Weak support edit 2 Really informative and interesting and probably worth featuring even if repro was less than perfect. The fact is, quality is quite low – I can imagine how the actual piece looks but neither the Original here (too flat/dark) nor the Edit (brighter, but shadows over-compressed) are stand-out reproductions, AFAICS. Bigger would obviously be nice but I'd settle for a decent edit (Sorry jj..) --mikaultalk 03:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added Edit 2 with less 'squashed' shadows. Leave to it you to decide if that does it for you. --jjron (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better. It's really not your fault, it's just borderline FP in so many respects. I'd be happy to see it featured purely for it's historical value and compelling subject matter, if others ended up agreeing. --mikaultalk 09:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support either edit. Very informative image and good quality. The difference betwen the edits is pretty subtle so no comment there, I prefer the edits to the original. Good call on not restoring this, absolutely no need. |→
GMT
)
Weak support for either edit, slight preference to first edit. A shame about the size, but I take jjron at his word that the missing detail is minimal. Matt Deres (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Gov Davey's proclamation-edit2.jpg Edit 2 is preferable. --wadester16 18:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a decent image of whatever it is. Not your typical varietal, really, for decent EV. ID it accurately and it'd probably be worth supporting. --mikaultalk 09:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A larvae of the Polka-Dot wasp moth (Syntomeida epilais), feeding from a leaf.
Reason
Has a very good detail, quality and high resolution. Illustrates the Syntomeida genus of moths in a larva stage, adding valuable encyclopedic information to the article.
Original - Category 5 Cyclone Ingrid near the coast of Far North Queensland at its initial peak intensity at 2:00 pm AEST (0400 UTC) on March 8, 2005
Reason
The image shows a matured and powerful Category 5 cyclone nearing Far North Queensland. It clearly features several of the classic cyclone structures; round, clear eye, well developed feeder bands, symmetrical structure.
Support The tearing especially visible on the right could be better, but at 250m resolution it's difficult not to get some strange effects with moving winds (this is a ~2 minute exposure, with the top being exposed at the start and the bottom at the end). Time3000 (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image clearly describes the beauty of tropical cyclones, and is high resolution, and is one of Wikipedia's best work. Darren23 (Contribs) 13:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High encyclopedic value. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me Jason Rees (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can users following this link please ensure you are familiar with the criteria and you have checked similar existing FPs before voting. Thanks. --jjron (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything to suggest such users haven't voted according to the criterion? Additionally, how are existing FPs relevant? –Juliancolton | Talk 03:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Standard warning - canvassing in any form is discouraged at FPC, and non-regulars who find their way here following such a link often don't check the criteria. But FWIW a reason such as "Looks good to me" gives you little ground to suggest that the user, especially a user new to FPC, has checked the criteria, regardless of whether they have or not; we simply can't tell with the information given. Existing FPs allow you to assess what is typically accepted in this area, again, especially for those who may be unfamiliar with the process - this may in fact be better than some of the existing ones, but I haven't looked closely. Anything else you'd like to challenge me on? --jjron (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thanks for that explanation. And no, I wasn't challenging you; I apologize if it seemed that way. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Sounded a bit that way when I first read it, I spose just that it was two direct questions re my comment, but I thought later that you were probably just clarifying. --jjron (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My Support was based on the FP critera. Jason Rees (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (sorry!). It doesn't look like that great of a tropical cyclone image, and it seems too bright. IDK, it seems like other tropical cyclone images say a lot more. Isabel, for example, has a lot more color, and its image is a very significant moment, namely its landfall. It also doesn't have nearly the striking qualities of Felix's ISS image. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The color issue is mainly just location. Clouds are white so that really wont change in any image so it depends on the amount of land shown in the image. As for the comparison to Felix, you're comparing to different types of images, one was from a camera on the ISS, the other was from a satellite so they're obviously going to be significantly different. Lastly, the brightness is probably because of the sun reflecting off the highest cloud tops. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand about the color being in the original image, but I was comparing to the others to show more striking TC FP's, and I don't happen to think it's one of Wikipedia's best work. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I've now stated below, comparing to other FP's doesn't make much sense. It really isn't which image is cooler and only ones cooler than that can be promoted, it's does the image meet the qualifications for Featured Picture and does it have something that makes it stand out a bit or is it very helpful in portraying something. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does make sense comparing, with something as generic as a tropical cyclone. There are hundreds of them every year, and I don't think this one stands out that much. You can't tell where it is, and I just don't get any sense of awe when I look at it. That's it - I just don't think it's one of Wikipedia's best work. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image of Gafilo doesn't give sense of where it is as there is little land shown in that image. Knowing basic geography, specifically of continents, and you should get a sense of where it is. As for not having the "awe", that's a person by person opinion, I've asked several friends and members of my family which one (Ingrid or Gafilo) they liked more and Ingrid was more popular. I asked my dad why he liked Ingrid more and he said "it looks more impressive because it is more symmetric and doesn't take up the entire picture, giving a full perspective of the storm". But, if you want to standby your oppose based on your opinion of the image and not against the qualifiers, that's your call. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I'm going to stick with my oppose, on my opinion that it's not one of Wikipedia's best work. FWIW, I really don't think you can know where it is from basic geography. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to instantly identify its location. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you do already know the storm. I also found some other concerns. According to its image description in the file, it was not a Category 5 cyclone at the time, despite your description. Additionally, the image description says the cyclone was at its peak at the time, which is also not true, since the Global Best Track confirms that it didn't reach peak intensity until several days later. So, in summary, I'll ask the nominator for one last comment - why is this image, in particular, so important? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected the image description, the Category 5 was the Australian Scale, otherwise I would have put SSHS. You are correct about the intensity, it was at its initial peak when this image was taken but still a Cat:5 on the Aus scale. As for it being important, how can you say it isn't important? It shows a very well-developed cyclone, featuring a clear eye, symmetrical structure, good outflow and is overall a very striking image. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A little more quibbling on the peak intensity, but the image page doesn't say what time the peak was, so it could've been during a 24 hour period on that day. I say that the image isn't important, because it's a fairly typical tropical cyclone. Sure, it's nice and all, but there are multiple storms that look like that every year. If the image was it while at landfall, or its actual peak intensity, the image would mean a little more, but I don't see the amazing features for a tropical cyclone over water, approaching land. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
←I added the time to the caption and checked the Best track. The image almost matches up perfectly with it's initial peak, within 2 hours of reaching it. As for many storms looking like that each year, I beg to differ. Storms don't get that kind of structure so easily and get their image taken by the MODIS satellite so perfectly and what "amazing features" are missing? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, and where did you get the time from? The source doesn't say the exact time. And as for storms every year doing the same thing - Dennis, Dennis 2, Emily, Rita, Longwang, and Olaf were all in the same year, IMO about as impressive as Ingrid. I'm just saying, I don't see much unique about this image, as opposed to others from that same year. I'll say it again, and I don't think I'll change my mind, I just don't think it is that special of an image. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there any reason this should be more notable than Gafilo? We have an FP of that storm which is much more dramatic, I'm just not sure this is either as impressive or as important an image or event. Also, are you sure this belongs in a list of Western Australian cyclones? --mikaultalk 09:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the other images play into certain images being featured quality. I personally think it really doesn't matter what images have already been featured and that the images should be matched up against the qualifiers and not what's already passed. As for being in the list of WA storms, Cyclone Ingrid made seven landfalls across northern Australia, impacting Queensland, Northern Territory, and Western Australia. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that Western Australia ;o) I forgot it made up practically half the continent. I guess what I'm getting at is the regular appearance of 250m-res MODIS images of hurricanes and cyclones here at FPC. Some of them are awesome – ok, ALL of them are awesome, just some moreso than others. As there are 200 of them at commons [2] I'd suggest only the most notable should be featured. The question was posed in good faith. --mikaultalk 12:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Save the two that are already featured, I only see three more that are worthy of FPC, this one, Gonu and Daniel '06. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on principle - is a NASA satellite photo "Wikipedia's best work"? No. Stevage 03:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you expand upon your point please? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be snippy, but I do believe that opposing because it's an image from NASA is within the realm of
I've raised this on the talk page before - I personally don't see value in featuring mass-produced works from external organisations such as NASA or the US military. They have collections of thousands if not millions of images that would be "featurable". [@Cyclonebiskit, I think you're off the mark with claiming "POV" here. NPOV is the principle that article content must be balanced. It's not applicable to talk pages, wikiprojects etc etc etc.] Stevage 08:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's your opinion that there are thousands of "featurable" images made by NASA though there really aren't that many of Tropical cyclones. As for trying to get around opposing per it not being "wikipedias best work" I would consider that in the realm of POV despite the page for that not specifying it begin applicable for this type of page. It's more or less a guideline to follow in general not just what it said in the description of it. As I see it, you're opposing this image based on your own view rather than against the FP standards. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the guide borders unnatural and unattractive, especially since it makes the image look randomly scribbled. They are useful alright, but not a good idea for an image that size. IMO borders should only be added (and thicker) to low res pics to increase EV, but not for FP promotion. A better idea for location identification would be adding a locator map in one of the corners...
Huh? Sorry for my lack of understanding but could you please explain what you mean by all this? I'm especially confused about it being "randomly scribbled". Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you (probably everyone else) aren't aware of the borders that are placed along the shoreline of every island?
Oh, that's what you meant. There's nothing I can do about that since I didn't create the image. IMO, since we can't remove them, it's actually better to have them be as thin as they are so that when it's viewed in the "preview" format, they don't show since I don't think most people look as closely at an image as in an FPC. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good image, but it´s not very illustrative. A top view of a cyclone is very expected and often used, I don´t think this one is one of the best photos on wikipedia. - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_. -- 02:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just removed the photo from
List of cyclones in Western Australia as it clearly wasn't near WA at the time the photo was taken. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Not promoted I'm not promoting this image, which has received 6S/4O;
set and these types of photos are common for FP promotions (I see it as like saying we can't have images by Mathew Brady because he wasn't a Wikipedian). That said, the vote count would go 6/3. While that typically passes, after reading the discussion here, I'm not convinced of the relative importance of this specific cyclone at this specific time, based on the nomination and arguments for. Supports for this image include arguments of "striking beauty" and "high EV". While these may be the case, you do indeed have a library of almost 800 similar images, all of which meet the criteria of those support statements. Hurricanehink asks, at 22:43, 24 June 2009, "why is this image, in particular, so important?" This is precisely what I thought when going through this discussion. The answer ("how can you say it isn't important? It shows a very well-developed cyclone, featuring a clear eye, symmetrical structure, good outflow and is overall a very striking image") describes at least 100 of the images in the library and is not specific enough to warrant FP promotion, specifically regarding criterium 3 (bullet 1). If this were promoted, why not promote all the others in that library? I would suggest scanning the library and coming back with another, and writing a very specific nomination including its location, its wind speed, its category, and why it is notable (Is it larger than most? Is it faster than most? Did it cause a significantly notable amount of damage? Is the image of higher technical quality than most? Is it in a location that doesn't typically experience cyclones or cyclones of this magnitude?) The more specific, the better and the more persuasive one is in trying to promote an image. Not trying to sound mean or to put anyone down, but I think we can do better. Any issues with this closure → my talk page, please. --wadester16 06:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
Original - Canna sp. flowers at different stages and foliage. Pictured in Kilimanjaro, TanzaniaEdit 1 by Fir0002 - put together a quick edit to clone out the streak
Reason
Good quality and EV is also good as it shows the flowers in different stages.
Comment seems a bit over-filled with flash, and possibly a little over-sharpened too. Good colour though! --mikaultalk 09:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No flash used at all, check the EXIF. --Muhammad(talk) 11:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already did, right after I typed that :o/ – it's quite unusual lighting, as if there are two sources, one distant and one local. Where was it taken? --mikaultalk 12:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taken on Mt Kilimanjaro at app 1800m altitude. --Muhammad(talk) 12:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Support Actually I think the lighting is quite good as is sharpness etc. However, I don't think this has sufficient identification - almost all the other images in the article at least have a common name identification. There are some issues with the composition, IMO the centre of the flower should have been in the centre of the frame rather than the back of the flower, but its not too bad --Fir0002 11:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a simple crop can fix the composition, right? --Muhammad(talk) 12:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crop would imporve the composition somewhat but then it becomes a bit cramped and you're likely to cut off part of the leaves. However, my bigger concern is with the identification, if you can get this identified to the level of the other images in the article I'd switch to a weak support --Fir0002 03:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I find those twigs in front of the flower a little distracting. Don't crop though, IMO the leaves should remain as an important factor. A removal of that streak on the left would be appreciated.
Weak Support - just good enough for me. If possible, would have preferred a crop with more space on the left, and less on the right, but it's ok. (Oh, what Fir0002 said). Would be full support with full identification. (Do wild flowers have cultivars? Forgive my ignorance.) Stevage 08:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Identified The ISHS pointed me to some resources, its a Canna 'Pretoria' Canna americanallis var. variegata --Muhammad(talk) 17:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How sure are you on the ID, because I just did a quick google search and the leaves on your photo look nothing like this --Fir0002 23:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fir0002's right - the leaves in this photo don't look variegated (ie, they're just green - not striped with white). Stevage 05:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert but they look variegated to me. Regarding the difference in the leaves Fir, there is a difference within the species as can be seen here, so within the cultivars is also expected. To be on the safe side, I have struck out the species name but I strongly believe it is a Canna Pretoria. --Muhammad(talk) 15:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Variegation and different flower colours can naturally occur with many plant species, so I'm satisfied.
Oppose. Given that this image is a detail of a larger work, the cropping should be more careful. Spikebrennan (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How so? What was not "careful" about the cropping job?--Pericles of AthensTalk 07:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is an unfortunately tight crop and whereas I'd not be too fussed about that if it was a "a perfect example" in this case it ain't. It may be slightly higher resolution than some at Commons, but we do have better examples of this artist's work, let alone paintings of this era. This one, for example, is much more featurable, despite being lower res. --mikaultalk 09:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
