Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/March-2007
Featured picture tools |
---|
|
Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.
The Starry Night
- Reason
- My main reason is that is very pleasing to my eye and encyclopedic. Meets criteria: High quality (though it is jpeg, I see no artifacts, feel free to correct me, I'm not terribly experienced in image quality detection); useful to its article (The Starry Night); high resolution (more than 1000px each side); in the public domain; I think it shows as one of Wikipedia's best work.
- Articles this image appears in
- The Starry Night
- Creator
- Vincent van Gogh (uploaded by User:Thebrid on Commons[1])
- Nominator
- WillMak050389
- Support — WillMak050389 03:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- support - does the saturation match the original? I haven't seen it. Debivort 05:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think the original is more greenish-blue, like this version. ~ trialsanderrors 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- The colour balance of this image was discussed in this previous nomination. I don't think anything definitive came of it back then. Raven4x4x 06:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think the original is more greenish-blue, like this version. ~ trialsanderrors 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Even more problematic than the colors is the provenance ('Can no longer find web site"). If we feature well-known paintings we should stick to official reproductions done by the owner or a source known for accuracy and not something found somewhere on the internets. ~ trialsanderrors 06:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I still oppose the current version on the same grounds. There is no deadline to finding an authorative version of this picture. ~ trialsanderrors 07:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Withdraw I was unaware that there was a previous nomination of this image that failed. No more of a chance to get promoted now. --WillMak050389 09:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you should withdraw the nomination. I think you should let it go, and since no consensus was reached on color ballance last time, I would suggest we not engage in an edit orgy but just vote on this version. I'd bet there is a reasonably good chance it passes.Debivort 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- We need a proper scan of this great painting --frothT 01:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps this could be a chance to have a go at figuring out what the proper colouring should be? The discussion last time didn't seem to get anywhere conclusive. Raven4x4x 03:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe this photo could help. We could use the lady to establish the gray value. Maybe part of her scarf is an actual gray. That would seem to indicate a color balance closer to the cyan edit of the last nomination. Debivort 07:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- The MoMA website doesn't help. They got four versions, all in different hues, although the biggest one comes somewhat close to the one we have here. ~ trialsanderrors 07:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- All right - here's a shot at an objective color ballance. I took the image with the lady and the scarf, took 8 of the gray subpanels of her scarf and averaged them and then set the gray point of the image to that color. Then I matched the nominated image to the corrected image as best I could by eye. Seems pretty aesthetic, and it matches my recollection of the image. Debivort 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- We can't know that the light falling on the scarf is identical to the light on the painting - and do we know the scarf really is a true grey? In edit 1, the painting looks a bit too blue-green. I made an experiment, assuming the wall is white, and depending on where on the wall the white balance is checked, I can get thew painting from anything between reddish orange to dark blue. So, it is almost impossible to determine the correct color without having a true grey card (Kodak 18% type) directly in front of the painting. OTOH, I think edit 1 is the best so far, so I'll weak support that one. (PS: Why did you GNU licence the edit, when the original is PD? A simple color correction isn't reason enough for changing the PD status.) --Janke | Talk 08:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Janke - I know what you mean about different pixels on the wall. I think the variability is just color noise in that image. - that's why I chose several regions of the scarf to average. You could try averaging a region of the wall. As for different light on her and the painting, yes it's abslolutely possible. But most walls are slightly creamy versions of white, and that I ended up with that color on the walls after correcting based on her scarf is suggestive that the correction is somewhat close. I GNU licensed it because I couldn't figure out a better license, mostly because I thought VVG had died within 70 years, checking that, it isn't the case - I'll go PD it. Debivort 13:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- We can't know that the light falling on the scarf is identical to the light on the painting - and do we know the scarf really is a true grey? In edit 1, the painting looks a bit too blue-green. I made an experiment, assuming the wall is white, and depending on where on the wall the white balance is checked, I can get thew painting from anything between reddish orange to dark blue. So, it is almost impossible to determine the correct color without having a true grey card (Kodak 18% type) directly in front of the painting. OTOH, I think edit 1 is the best so far, so I'll weak support that one. (PS: Why did you GNU licence the edit, when the original is PD? A simple color correction isn't reason enough for changing the PD status.) --Janke | Talk 08:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- All right - here's a shot at an objective color ballance. I took the image with the lady and the scarf, took 8 of the gray subpanels of her scarf and averaged them and then set the gray point of the image to that color. Then I matched the nominated image to the corrected image as best I could by eye. Seems pretty aesthetic, and it matches my recollection of the image. Debivort 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- The MoMA website doesn't help. They got four versions, all in different hues, although the biggest one comes somewhat close to the one we have here. ~ trialsanderrors 07:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe this photo could help. We could use the lady to establish the gray value. Maybe part of her scarf is an actual gray. That would seem to indicate a color balance closer to the cyan edit of the last nomination. Debivort 07:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps this could be a chance to have a go at figuring out what the proper colouring should be? The discussion last time didn't seem to get anywhere conclusive. Raven4x4x 03:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support any version that gains concensus. - Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support edit 1. chat} 05:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Support all of them! --frothT 04:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- yay! I'm glad this nom hasn't been closed promptly, as the consensus is converging... Debivort 05:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Support Edit 1 -this is the best one -Nelro
Promoted Image:VanGogh-starry night ballance1.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
December Fog
- Reason
- I think this is a very good encyclopedic picture of valley fog. It was seconded on peer review
- Articles this image appears in
- Fog
- Creator
- Digon3
- Nominator
- Digon3
- Support — Digon3 16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose The fog in the foreground is nice, but the mountains in the background are suffering from blown highlights and atmospheric haze. Perhaps some retouching could help? Asiir 20:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Fcb981 has added an edited version --Digon3 13:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support Edit 1 I was origenaly going to abstain from voting on this because I had said "It has a shot to be featured" on the PPR and I felt compelled to offer some support here which would be unobjective. However, I think the shot illistrates fog exeptionaly well because it not only shows a, 'cut away' if you will, of the fog but also the fact that it can sit in valleys and has a very different look from above. I think the edit corrects all the complaints above and from a technical point of view the image is good. -Fcb981 15:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. I personally think there is too much noise all around in the image, especially on the mountains and on the fog. JHMM13 20:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - It's not clear enough, in my opinion, especially in thumbnail form. Too much noise and haze. JoshHolloway 22:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)]
Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Go board
- Reason
- Looks really nice. That said, I am slightly concerned about its size (it's rather small) and there is some fuzzines at the end - perhaps somebody could help address those issuses with some editing? Please note that a different variant exists at commons (commons:Image:Go board.jpg) however our variant was changed when the background was 'blacked', I think. While the black background is nice, the Commons version seems sharper.. let's decide on the best variant (or create it) and synchronize it with Commons.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Go (board game)and several others
- Creator
- User:Donarreiskoffer, modified by several users throughout history
- Nominator
- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk
- Support — Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Resolution is much too low. Dan M 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Dimensions are about half of what they should be. ShadowHalo 19:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Oppose edit I don't understand why the board is (or appears to be) on the ground by people's feet, especially when there's someone kicking a soccer ball (football) around. ShadowHalo 17:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Which is why this needs to be combined - high-res of the 2nd variant with masks of the first one (unfortunatly I don't have the needed skills).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose edit I don't understand why the board is (or appears to be) on the ground by people's feet, especially when there's someone kicking a soccer ball (football) around.
- Oppose Please read the rules! One dimension should be at least 1000 pixels, this pic is 578 by 344 pixels - Adrian Pingstone 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Has a strong unsightly yellow color cast (I took this out in an edit at some point but this was reverted). Also, it's not really that interesting a picture. Note that the original image was almost completely unsaturated, and then the saturation was boosted (to an ungodly level), and a very imprecise mask was added to attempt to block the background. Any user with a real go board and stones and a decent camera should be able to take a much better (more interesting, higher resolution, better color) photograph with not much trouble. --jacobolus (t) 00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Low resolution and it looks like there are artifacts around the edges of the board and some of the pieces. Aside from that, I don't think it's the best picture of a Go board that could be taken. 86 03:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Comment. I uploaded the original file at commons:Image:Go Board, Hoge Rielen, Belgium.jpg. Allthough I also think it is a nice picture, it is not an excellent one. Anyhow feel free to improve contrast, light balance ,... --Donar Reiskoffer 09:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
California Poppies
- Reason
- Beautiful
- Articles this image appears in
- Creator
- Vsion
- Nominator
- Brewdog
- Support — Brewdog 15:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Very poor focus in upper third of image, thus it becomes "messy". FPs should be razor-sharp. Beauty alone does not an FP make. --Janke | Talk 16:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Fixed nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 19:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The background flowers are very blurry and the weeds/green flora is very distracting in the foreground.--BirdKr 13:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose -it is an eye catching picture, but the top part is too blurry -Nelro
Not promoted MER-C 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Bharatanatyam
- Reason
- Sharp colour and focus
- Articles this image appears in
- Bharatanatyam
- Creator
- Nominator
- Ernst Stavro Blofeld
- Support — Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too small. Please see chat} 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Oppose - artificial lens flare and scrapbook look detracts from encyclopedic value. Debivort 21:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Read the rules! FPC needs at least 1000 pixels in one direction, this one is 223 by 370 pixels - Adrian Pingstone 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose: Image is too small. S.D. ¿п? § 12:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hoodia gordonii
- Reason
- this is a sharp, clear, high resolution photo of a beautiful subject
- Articles this image appears in
- Hoodia
- Creator
- Amrum
- Nominator
- The Talking Sock talk contribs
- Support — The Talking Sock talk contribs 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral. I'm not good enough at judging pictures to make a decision on this one, but I have noticed some blurring here and there on places that is not the center of the image (so it may not be enough to kill this), and I'm not entirely sure about the brightness (seems pretty bright) and sharpness on the plant. JHMM13 20:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- weak oppose - nicely shows the plant, but the background is cluttered and the plant doesn't really stick out.. Maybe if the camera angle were lower or the light wasn't as direct on the plant. Debivort 22:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose image is washed out.Circeus 00:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose For a picture like this in a clutered enviroment you almost have take a macro shot otherwise the background takes too much away from the subject. The angle is also uninteresting. -Fcb981 06:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - A tad dull. ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 16:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)]
Not promoted MER-C 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Steam Train at Shildon
- Reason
- I though about nominating this picture as the light on it I think is quite well divided up and not too bright and it gives the full effect of what Steam trains were like before going into musuems and generally gives a well formatted and eye catching image.
- Articles this image appears in
- London and South Western Railway
- Creator
- Tellyaddict
- Nominator
- addict
- Support — addict 17:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Oppose — too much reflection The Talking Sock talk contribs 19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too dark - Adrian Pingstone 22:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesen't show subject well. -Fcb981 06:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Wrong angle, and doesn't have much of encyclopedic value due to the better steam train image already found in the article. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose poor composition - needs cropping and the locomotive is distorted. Poor lighting, there is too much reflection on the tender and splasher and the smokebox detail is lost in shadow. I've moved the image out of the Steam locomotive (please, this is not a train) article into the London and South Western Railway where it is more appropriate. Gwernol 12:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
John Hancock Center, Chicago, 2006
- Reason
- Great picture of an awesome building . . . maybe a little cropping on the bottom to take the lamp out, but other than that it looks gorgeous. I also feel the water tower in the foreground provides an appropriate contrast between classical and modern architecture, both of which are excellent examples.
- Articles this image appears in
- John Hancock Center
- Creator
- Path2k6
- Nominator
- Soakologist
- Support — Soakologist 03:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- please note this is not my picture, but I thought it deserved a shot --Soakologist 03:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:WIAFP example #2, chromatic abberation, tilted verticals etc. --antilivedT | C | G 05:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Hmm, I fail to see where the subject has been "cut off", unless you're referring to the bottom, which really isn't entirely relevant. --Soakologist 06:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose A very mundane shot. The building is still there (I hope ;-), so it would be easy to get a new shot, with different lighting and composition - i.e. a little "wow", which this shot lacks. --Janke | Talk 07:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose A beautiful building, but it feels like anyone could snap this photo from the sidewalk. I concur with previous editors -- there is simply too little "wow" here for an FP. --Asiir 13:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, unfortunately, per all above. Living in the middle of Boston, MA, I know [and hate] how difficult it is to get a decent shot of a building like this. With a low POV, and buildings all around, it's a really difficult thing to do. tiZom(2¢) 23:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nomination Withdrawn --Soakologist 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 04:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Egeskov Castle
- Reason
- Good picture with enc value which shows us the architecture of the castle very well.
- Articles this image appears in
- Egeskov Castle
- Creator
- Malene Thyssen
- Nominator
- Arad
- Support — Arad 17:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support - lovely composition, but I wonder if we could clean up the perspective distortion a bit. The walls seem to bulge outwards. Stevage 23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support - The picture itself is beautifully taken at a good angle. The picture is high-resolution. The fact that the walls seem to bulge outwards give the picture a slight 3D effect, which is something that I consider very pleasing to the eye. Maybe a small caption could be added. Wwicki 00:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Some people and other stuff have been cloned out in this version, the original is at Image:Egeskov Slot spejling.jpg. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Focus is a little soft, there is to much of the tree/shrub on the right. bad focus on the left background isn't great but since it isn't the subject I cant complain that much. Other than that a good picture. -Fcb981 02:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - This is the reason why we don't have enough FP. We're too picky and have a lot of time on our hand. --Arad
- Um, SHOULDN'T we be picky. We ARE trying to select the very finest pictures after all. I'd rather have 700 very good featured pictures than 1200 OK ones. -Fcb981 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Of course we should be picky. But a featured picture isn't just about hw it looks. What is also important is if it actually adds to the article. Is it a significant addition? Why do you think this picture would label as "ok"? It gives an excellent overview of the architecture and is high-resolution. I personally don't think that the walls bulge outwards however, I don't think regular users who aren't experts or picky, will be when it comes to the minor,minor glitches of a high-resolution (I don't think this picture has glitches). Wwicki 13:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support I checked the verticals and can't find any bulging walls that aren't the result of the architecture (note that circumference increases upwards, especially in the towers). The only thing I can't identify is an odd
yellowdot to the right of the tower. Rest is well done and enc. I think the foliage in the foreground adds context. ~ trialsanderrors 05:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)- Comment I think the yellow dot is a flag or something similar.--Arad 05:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- It might be a leaf from the tree in the foreground since it's not mirrored in the lake. Since the picture has already been photoshopped I'd support removing it. ~ trialsanderrors 17:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- It does look like a leaf. I can't think of any possible yellow flag that could be associated with (the Counts of) Egeskov, so I wouldn't mind seeing it gone. Support btw. Valentinian T / C 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- It might be a leaf from the tree in the foreground since it's not mirrored in the lake. Since the picture has already been photoshopped I'd support removing it. ~ trialsanderrors 17:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's obviously a ]
- Oh, that's from the spire, right? I was looking at the dot to the right of the right tower, roughly at the level of the topmost window under the roof. The UFO on top of the spire looks like a weathervane. ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- The thing on the spire is indeed a brass weathervane. Valentinian T / C 10:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, that's from the spire, right? I was looking at the dot to the right of the right tower, roughly at the level of the topmost window under the roof. The UFO on top of the spire looks like a weathervane. ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Nice architecture; I'd like to do this as a jigsaw. Oh, and that's definitely just a leaf there. Mrug2
- Comment I think the yellow dot is a flag or something similar.--Arad 05:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support per nom and others. This is a lovely pic, and gives a lot of information about the structure of the castle which you wouldn't get from a straight-on entrance view. Mak (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Sharp, good color, pleasing composition, high enc. --Janke | Talk 09:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support very nicely done. I very much like the scene, the tree on the right is only a little prob. But all in all it is a very nice image, meets FP requirements. ~ Arjun 14:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support excellent picture. Zarxos 16:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support The castle appears under perfect conditions and makes for an amazing photo. The only way it could improve would be to crop a bit of the water out to add balance. No doubt FP worthy. - Nilington 08:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good composition, technically great. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great picture and meets all the criteria required for a Featured Picture. Christophenstein 20:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. - Mgm|(talk) 09:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support, I want to live in this picture. gren グレン 00:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose has anyone opened up the original and this version in two different tabs and jumped back and forth to compare? The person in the pink shirt is still faintly visible in the bushes. The cloning of the steps on the left side of the building has some bad repeating patterns, and the bench has been completely removed with some fictional object. Also, the composition is a little unbalanced with the foreground foliage on the right side.-Andrew c 03:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- No part of the subject itself has been modified, people were removed, a branch and the people on the bench was replaced by a bench. I think the image page should make these edits very clear, but I don't think it damages the encyclopedic value. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I added {{RetouchedPicture}} on the commons page. --Dschwen(A) 10:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- No part of the subject itself has been modified, people were removed, a branch and the people on the bench was replaced by a bench. I think the image page should make these edits very clear, but I don't think it damages the encyclopedic value. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Not bad. By the way, that dot's a UFO. ;-) · AO Talk 00:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Egeskov Slot spejling Edit 2.jpg Basar 04:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Observatory by the Pond
- Reason
- I think this image, a picture of idyllic Camp Susque is good enough to be featured. It is 2000 x 1500 pixels.
- Articles this image appears in
- Camp Susque
- Creator
- Heather Klees
- Nominator
- 'WiiWillieWiki→(Talk) (Contrib)
- Support — 'WiiWillieWiki→(Talk) (Contrib) 13:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This certainly doesn't illustrate the observatory very well, does it? The rest of the picture is just generic grass, hills and trees, so, a "no go" from me... --Janke | Talk 17:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Dull composition, tilt to the left. --Bridgecross 17:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- oppose it may illustrat the camp better than it illustrates the observatory, but there are technical problems like chromatic aberation in the trees, and motion blur. Debivort 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose this isn't an image of the observatory. It is illustrating the camp in general (shows the field, pond, and observatory framed with mountains and trees). It is adequately encyclopedic for the topic. The image also isn't terrible, but it isn't anything that special either. While it does help me understand the camp better, there isn't really enough going on. No wow factor, not the best of wikipedia IMO.-Andrew c 01:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -No "Wow" factor. The observatory is not really featured in the photo -Nelro
Not promoted MER-C 02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Australian States History
- Reason
- Interesting, clear and informative. This information is known by very few people (including Australians). The animation may be a little jerky for some people. What do you think?
- Articles this image appears in
- History of Australia
- Creator
- Loaded by Electionworld, based on Chuq's maps.
- Nominator
- lama
- Support — lama 04:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Oppose - not especially good quality (artifacts around the borders, background changes colour halfway through) and actually not all that clear IMO - what's the little kinked arrow for next to ACT? What was the central, northern area called when it was annexed by the creation of Queensland (was it still administered as part of NSW)? --YFB ¿ 05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose current version, Support the idea. This is instructive, but right now flawed in implementation. ~ trialsanderrors 10:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- On reading Yummifruitbat's comment, I must say I agree. I've posted a note at Chuq's talk page to ask him to change the file in that light, hopefully he does... lama 19:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Oppose Ragged lines, garish colors. --Janke | Talk 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, because I saw Golbez's Canada one... gren グレン 11:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -This could be much better (see Canada one) -Nelro
Not promoted MER-C 02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Artichoke Flower
- Reason
- It illustrates the globe artichokearticel very well.
- Articles this image appears in
- Globe artichoke
- Creator
- Laura Vance
- Nominator
- Bewareofdog
- Support — Bewareofdog 01:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't think the image illustrates the subject very well, for all its quality. The shape of the whole plant is unclear from this angle. Mrug2 01:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -The whole plant should be in the picture, not just the flower -Nelro
- Oppose - Not outstanding picture Tomer T 20:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 02:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Osmotic pressure on blood cells diagram
- Reason
- Very high enc value for wikipedia. I would love to see a bit higher resolution. It's SVG by the way.
- Articles this image appears in
- Hyperosmotic
- Creator
- LadyofHats
- Nominator
- Arad
- Support — Arad 18:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. With the tons of excellent illustrations LoH has created so far, it is surprising not seeing more of her pics on FPC. --Dschwen(A) 19:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. It doesn't really show why the osmosis is happening. Maybe show little particles moving in or out of the cell to emphasize that it's osmosis going on? Right now it looks like water just flowing around for no reason --frothT 20:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- A good animation illustrating osmosis is still missing. But I would not cram that into this image. This pic shows hypotonic, hypertonic, and isotonic blood cells, and that's it. It is not explaining osmosis, just as it is not explaining how a red blood cell works. --Dschwen(A) 20:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mean an animation, I'm just trying to say that while it explains what's going on, it doesn't even attempt to explain why. It seems like it shouldn't be too hard to add particulates "in motion" with little arrows --frothT 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- The only particles in motion are the water molecules, that is the point and is shown at the bottom (or has that been added since Froth's comment?). Possibly what you require is the definition of hypertonic vs hypotonic vs isotonic? David D. (Talk) 17:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)]
- The only particles in motion are the water molecules, that is the point and is shown at the bottom (or has that been added since Froth's comment?). Possibly what you require is the definition of hypertonic vs hypotonic vs isotonic?
- I don't mean an animation, I'm just trying to say that while it explains what's going on, it doesn't even attempt to explain why. It seems like it shouldn't be too hard to add particulates "in motion" with little arrows --frothT 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- A good animation illustrating osmosis is still missing. But I would not cram that into this image. This pic shows hypotonic, hypertonic, and isotonic blood cells, and that's it. It is not explaining osmosis, just as it is not explaining how a red blood cell works. --Dschwen(A) 20:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Clear and accurate. TimVickers 01:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I would prefer it if the hypotonic cells showed a little more bloating. Right now, the difference with the regular cells is hard to spot if you're not sure what to look for. Why are the arrows in two different colors? Isn't the arrow head enough to show the direction? - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support very illustrative -- Lycaon 08:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Osmotic pressure on blood cells diagram.svg --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Red-necked Grebe
- Reason
- Very sharp, no artifacts, excellent composition, perfectly captured the bird's personality
- Articles this image appears in
- List of Iowa Birds
- Creator
- User:Mdf
- Nominator
- Althepal
- Support Reasons given above. Only negative about this picture is the water splashes showing up blurry should have been cloned out. --Althepal 03:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support - A fine action shot from MDF. Debivort 03:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Great shot, although would liked a bit higher shutter speed but at 700mm focal length (is that the 35mm focal length or multiplied by 1.3?) what more can you expect? --antilivedT | C | G 04:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Would be an ok FP on commons but not here. It's not so much encyclopaedic as an interesting photo. Does not teach me about the subject. Also blurry on wings. lama 05:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Comment I don't think that the blurred wings detract at all from the picture, and even though the DOF was small, Mdf did a fine job. Anyhow, here's something that the picture teaches you: These birds often stand up in water and flap their wings while preening and playing. I don't know if you want to change your vote or anything, but it is something to think about. ;-) --Althepal 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Impressive focal length (not entirely sure how he got that particular length.. 700 doesn't correspond to any standard focal length except the 35-350mm f/5.6L with a 2x teleconverter.. it doesn't take into account non 35mm sensors for effective FLs) but the angle just isn't ideal. The wings look quite awkward. Would have preferred a more frontal view. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support lovely encyclopedic photo. Mak (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I appreciate the wings are out of focus because the bird is flapping them BUT for an FP I would want them in focus (it can be done!) - Adrian Pingstone 12:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support to me opposing for the wings being out of focus just doesn't make sense. The image is mostly in focus, the wings really look fine to me. A gorgeous image and highly encyclopedic. ~ Arjun 14:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just my opinion! - Adrian Pingstone 15:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I know and I respect that, I wasn't making a reference to you :). ~ Arjun 00:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just my opinion! - Adrian Pingstone 15:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, the wings are just a bit *too* blurry. And considering that they're the essential part of this scene, that's a problem. Can you imagine printing and framing a picture like that? The sharpness of the rest is great though. Stevage 00:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Of course they're blurry, that's common with moving things. - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Common in common photos, not so common in exceptional photos.. Technically this image is very good except in composition. If it were more front-on, the right hand wing would be less of an OOF blob and the blur would be easier to accept (IMHO anyway). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Support - Beautiful shot -- Sturgeonman 01:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support - This amount of wing blur is exactly what you are aiming for in wildlife photography. Also 700mm is a very standard focal length as this is a 500mm with a 1.4 TC. Nice catch. Wwcsig 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I think it shows the bird's plumage exceptionally well. I don't see how the slight blur detracts from the photo or how it would be inappropriate given that it's showing the bird in action. Basar 06:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support - It looks slightly too tight for the wings, but otherwise it's fine. typhoonchaser 16:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Podiceps-grisegena-008.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Close-packed spheres
- Reason
- It’s a ray-traced CAD image that I think is attractive and informative
- Articles this image appears in
- Close-packing(added 02:41, 1 March 2007)
- Creator
- Greg L
- Nominator
- Greg L
- Support Throwing it out there and seeing if others like it too. Greg L / (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- comment it doesn't seem to illustrate thermodynamic temperature as well as other images on that page. I would like to see it as an illustration of close-packing though. Debivort 08:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Comment. Is it really many chemical elements that form close packed structures? The reflecting balls sure are eye-candy, but I'm not entirely convinced that this is the most clear illustration. And what about the two possible stacking orders? --Dschwen 09:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (answer) Many. Roughly 43 at room temperature. More at absolute zero. There isn't any consistency among sources though. For instance Wikipedia and WebElements differ. Greg L 17:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- This would better illustrate Close-packing already has a great clean diagram. --Dschwen 09:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Comment (response) I agree. The Close-packing article could benefit from a 3D illustration of close-packed spheres; not everyone can easily or quickly grasp the 2D illustration that's already there. But what's already there is pretty good so it will take some effort to add this without redundancy. I have a bit more studying to do on the subject before interjecting this into that article. I've got both my crystalograhy/mineral books out. One could also add it to the talk page and let someone more expert in the subject move it to the article (as I had done with this picture of the sun). The first sentence of the newly added caption wouldn’t appear in the caption in its actual placement. Greg L 17:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)]
the caption says fcc but the image shows hcp. --Dschwen 19:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)- Three-face + base (tetrahedral) pyramidal cube packing is definetely FCC. HCP is an entirely different arrangement (starting at the third tier down). Notice how the two balls facing the viewer, in the second tier down, both touch the same ball in the third tier down. That doesn’t happen in HCP. I revised the alternative caption with this explanation. Greg L 19:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, my bad, you are right, I had it twisted up in my mind. --Dschwen 21:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Visualizing 3D sphere packing is tough. Exercises like Featured picture candidates seems to be a good venue for fine-tuning captions. As now revised, confusion will hopefully be infrequent. Greg L 22:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, my bad, you are right, I had it twisted up in my mind. --Dschwen 21:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Three-face + base (tetrahedral) pyramidal cube packing is definetely FCC. HCP is an entirely different arrangement (starting at the third tier down). Notice how the two balls facing the viewer, in the second tier down, both touch the same ball in the third tier down. That doesn’t happen in HCP. I revised the alternative caption with this explanation. Greg L 19:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (response) I agree. The
- Opppose. Very good for a helper pic in the article, but not really FP material. There's just not enough content --frothT 04:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment / Update I've added the illustration to the Close-packing article. I think the illustration makes understanding 3D sphere packing much easier. Greg L 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Support Tomer T 20:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
World Map
- Reason
- A very encyclopedic map.
- Articles this image appears in
- World map
- Creator
- Van Schagen
- Nominator
- Bewareofdog
- Support — Bewareofdog 21:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support absolutely. -Fcb981 23:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good scan, top enc. This is a "natural" for FP! --Janke | Talk 09:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Great image. - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Question Can we get more information on this specific map? Currently the image is used in the article only as a generic example of an old map and all we know about it is that it was created in Amsterdam in 1689 by someone called Van Schagen. With more information, this map could be useful in articles such as history of cartography. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support. Utterly fascinating! --frothT 06:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. There's no information about this map, violating criterion #8. Normally, I'm not such a stickler for this one, but we know nothing about the map. Was this significant in any way? Is it an example of a certain map style? Does the map show any particular misconception about the world that was common at its time? You say it's encyclopedic, but how? I don't think being old in and of itself counts. chat} 23:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Comment: It does show the California island misconeption. Rmhermen 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support It is extremely encyclopedic-- I see no validity in your argument. Jellocube27 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's basically the same as KFP's question above. This is a very nice image, but more context would make it far more encyclopedic. For example, look at chat} 05:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)]
- It's basically the same as KFP's question above. This is a very nice image, but more context would make it far more encyclopedic. For example, look at
- Support: Wow. This is a fascinating picture. They even seem to have the Western coastline of Australia down there - how did they do that?! Ackatsis 01:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support - James Cook was not the first European to see Australia. The Dutch came first. :) Valentinian T / C 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Fascinating. Review)11:49, Friday, 23 February '07
- Support - I think it's featured on Commons, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is. Valentinian T / C 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Great image. S.D. ¿п? § 12:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support, very amazingly clear! typhoonchaser 15:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support -Superb picture -Nelro
- Weak Support - Very good. My support is weak because it's not the best map of the time. Look at Middle East, specially Persia and Persian gulf. I've seen older map which are much more precise. --Arad 23:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:World Map 1689.JPG --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Mccarthur brokering accepting peace.
- Reason
- Clear, moving, historically significant, and iconic.
- Articles this image appears in
- Military history of Japan, Pacific War
- Creator
- From the national archives
- Nominator
- Tobyw87
- Support — Tobyw87 21:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I like the image a lot, but it needs a much more informative caption. First of all, it should place the image in historical context, and second, it should explain, if at all possible, why the opposing seat is empty and who it is for.--ragesoss 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The picture is of great historical importance. This digital version's contrast is too flat and should be enhanced. Greg L 16:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very historical and important --Joebengo 16:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, not even the best image to illustrate the surrender. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support, this is an FP based on historical significance, irreplacability and it's a pretty good shot too! However the caption is wrong - this is not a peace brokerage, it's a surrender. lama 04:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Support -Okay picture. Great historical signifigance -Nelro
- Weak Support - Per above. --Arad 23:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Ww2-198.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Peugeot 206 WRC
- Reason
- This is an image of rallying (WRC) action on snow, and I think it succeeds in depicting that very well. It seems to meet the criteria and is quite eye-catching too. I was planning to nominate this after uploading, but was a bit unsure until now, when I noticed this is a candidate on the German Wikipedia and currently has unanimous support.
- Articles this image appears in
- Swedish Rally, World Rally Championship
- Creator
- Christopher Batt (Flickr)
- Nominator
- Prolog
- Support — Prolog 14:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Definite "wow factor", but barely of size.--HereToHelp 15:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support and Comment This is a Flickr photo, so there might be a larger version if someone can contact the photographer (no idea how that works on Flickr). ~ trialsanderrors 18:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Finally a good car photo. Amazing. And I'll be very happy to see a larger version. Many thanks to the creator for the licence. --Arad 20:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support. I was blown away by this picture the first time that I saw it on someone's userpage. One of the most interesting racing pics that I have ever seen (that from a huge racing fan!). Royalbroil T : C 04:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Wow. chat} 05:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Support. Wow, indeed. --Janke | Talk 08:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- support per nom and above. Debivort 08:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support per the nomination. Wow. S.D. ¿п? § 12:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Cool picture, but fake (or at least heavily altered). Observe the snow at the bottom left around the fender - some displays motion blur, whereas other is crystal clear. Driver shows impossible lean (his whole body is tilted such that his lower extremities would be somewhere on the gearshift; if properly harnessed, his head would be tilted, but not his whole body). In the upper right corner in the background snow there has been some heavy cloning (notice lack of smooth color gradation versus, say, the car itself). Noraad 14:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I have to disagree with your rationale for proving this is a "fake". Observe the snow at the bottom left around the fender - some displays motion blur, whereas other is crystal clear. - Easy to explain: The snow particles that have a trajectory straight towards the camera would not be blurred. I can't see any other definitive proof of editing, either. --Janke | Talk 15:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I can reply more as a long time rally follower and less as an image expert, but I see absolutely nothing bizarre about this image. Pykälistö's shoulders and head are in the position those are supposed to be, when landing a high speed "yump" on two wheels on a road like that. Rally drivers are not glued to their seats and they have room to move around a bit and do tricks like Scandinavian flicks, opposite locks and handbrake turns, as you can see for yourself from footage on YouTube. I see neither proof of altering nor can I think of any motive to do so. The action in the image is pretty common, even if capturing it well is not easy. Prolog 16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I understand about camera and trajectory, et al. And I doubt there is any definitive proof of anything; but there are suspicious elements to the picture. Also note the wheel in the lower left of the picture. There seems to be something of a transparent fender - you can clearly see a motion-blurred wheel where you shouldn't be able to. Yes, I noticed that the fenders are damaged, understand that suspension or transaxle might be broken, etc., but viewing other pictures of Peugeot 206 rally cars says to me that something is not right with that wheel. I realize that this is only my opinion on the picture; perhaps someone should contact the creator of the image. --Noraad 16:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I ran it through the bag of tricks I know to detect Photoshop tampering, but I don't find any strong evidence. The image might've been sharpeneed, but I don't see evidence for cloning. The fender is ripped into pieces, that's why you see the tire peeking through. ~ trialsanderrors 19:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I trust your expertise there. I like the picture, and have no problem with it being featured as such. I would like to see a larger version, which would make for a better image and allow for closer examination, but I will by no means stand in the way of it being featured -- Noraad 20:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Does't look tampered with. the snow that is crystal clear as opposed to the motion blurred snow is moving directly at the camera so that its position as percived by the lens doesn't change in the time of exposure and is a fairly common sight. -Fcb981 00:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support If anyone thinks this photo is tampered with, I would encourage them to seek out some other top-level rallying images. You might be surprised how often surreal "effects" miraculously happen when vehicles are in such radical conditions. Still, this is a well framed and cropped example with good color and visual impact. - Plasticbadge 22:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T 20:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Peugeot 206 WRC.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Helix Nebula (NGC 7293)
- Reason
- Oh no, not another nebula! I found this doing comparison surfing for the recent nomination, and noticed the picture in the Helix Nebula article was of low resolution. I discovered the hubblesite.org versions and extracted those two from the full resolution tiff files. Both versions are centered, cropped and downsampled to a manageable file size. No other edits were made. I'm indifferent between the two versions here, so I'm posting them both for your consideration. On the Nebula itself, hubblesite calls it "one of the largest and most detailed celestial images ever made". Both versions are composites of a nine-image Hubble panorama and ground-based images. The Helix Nebula is only 650 light years away, which accounts for the high level of detail. This is the visible light version of the nebula, the infrared version is currently up for FPC at Commons, but in my opinion this one is far superior. ~ trialsanderrors 20:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Helix Nebula
- Creator
- Alternative 1: NASA, NOAO, ESA, the Hubble Helix Nebula Team, M. Meixner (STScI), and T.A. Rector (NRAO)
- Alternative 2: NASA, ESA, and C.R. O'Dell (Vanderbilt University)
- Nominator
- trialsanderrors
- Support — trialsanderrors 20:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support JoshHolloway 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Strong Support Alternative 2 - Yes, definitely number 2. The encyclopedic quality is very high, the image dimensions are high, and the image quality is high - you can see the white dwarf in the middle clearly. I'm going to put this on my user page, I like it so much! Mrug2 23:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - What's up with the 1px horizontal lines in the red on the left-hand side? One that initially caught my eye can be found between approx [450px,2175px] and [825px,2175px] (about 2/3 down the image vertically). I wouldn't ordinarily be this picky, but it really jumped out at me... tiZom(2¢) 04:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak neutral :) per Tomtheman and general graininess where there should be absolutely none (the black of space) --frothT 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- The line looks like a stitching error. Those are fairly complicated panoramas from my understanding. The original tiff is quite a bit bigger, so I think I can fix it without loss of information. On the background noise, I just checked the last featured nebula and it's there too. The consensus seems to be not to retouch astronomical images unless necessary and accept some flaws that stem from the complexity of creating them. ~ trialsanderrors 06:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support 2. This has been one of my favorite Hubble images for years. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-02-27 15:23Z
- Support 2. Great "eye in the sky"! --Janke | Talk 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support 2. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support both - As said above, this was also my favorite Hubble photo for years. I like both of them. The second one is new for me and I think it's sort of better and the colors looks better too. --Arad 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support 2 - And please make it stop lookin' at me... tiZom(2¢) 18:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support 2, against 1 - Picture 1 is slightly grainy around the central white dwarf. Picture 2 is nice, but I'm supersaturated with HST images of big things. Zoomed in images are more intriguing. --zandperl 03:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:NGC7293 (2004).jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Lillies
- Reason
- A clear, sharp picture that illustrates very well the subject. (Lillium Michiganese) The foreground flowers are in focus, but the background is not, so it is not to distracting from the flower. There is both a horizontal and a vertical version.
- Articles this image appears in
- Lilium, Lilium michiganense
- Creator
- Heather Klees
- Nominator
- 'WiiWillieWiki→(Talk) (Contrib)
- Support Third time's the charm? — 'WiiWillieWiki→(Talk) (Contrib) 19:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not... The highlights are all blown out, and the composition is kinda "messy", with none of the flowers completely within the image. So, Oppose, sorry. --Janke | Talk 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -The background is destracting. No "Wow" factor -Nelro
- Support Vertical version Tomer T 20:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vertical version -More clearer image. Josh215 20:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Janke. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Plastic utensils
- Reason
- A picture of kitchen utensils made of biodegradable plastic. The image was created using photoelasticity to produce the variety of colors based on stress distributions. Probably one of the best illustrations of the phenomenon (or at least, Google didn't produce anything close). The picture is also currently a candidate for featured picture status at the Commons.
- Articles this image appears in
- Biodegradable plastic, Photoelasticity
- Creator
- Scott Bauer (USDA)
- Nominator
- ShadowHalo
- Support — ShadowHalo 15:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)]
ConditionalSupport - please crop away the partial utensils at left and right edges - there's even a black stripe on the very left edge... This could also illustrate polarization. --Janke | Talk 19:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)- I've cropped the left and right sides some for edit 1. ShadowHalo 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)]
- I've cropped the left and right sides some for edit 1.
- Neutral While the quality is good, they don't look any different from normal plastic utensils and as from the commons FPC, what is the "polarisation" (?) of the plastic doing there? I know it's used to show the distribution of stress but what is the point in here? --antilivedT | C | G 05:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- The reason I nominated this image is because I thought it illustrated ShadowHalo 01:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)]
- The reason I nominated this image is because I thought it illustrated
- Oppose Agree with Antilived, I don't see the relevance of this picture. If the objective is to show the stress, a single piece would be better. If the objective is to depict biodegradable utensils, why the special lighting? Aesthetically, I don't like it. - Alvesgaspar 09:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, I'm more confused after having seen the image than before. Though an interesting picture, it is not encycloaedic. lama 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]
- confused about what before and after? Debivort 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- support cropped version nicely shows the results of the technique. The article on the other hand doesn't explain the technique very clearly. Debivort 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support (cropped version). I actually found the image more illustrative than the explanation in the article. Also works very well in biodegradable plastic. And has the wow factor. ~ trialsanderrors 09:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support version with more supports, it's nice image for utensils at the very least.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Only one fork is shown fully and all the other partial knives, forks and spoons detract from the image. I find it a confusing mess of weirdly lit plastic things. Wow factor is none and it is displeasing to the eye. I really can't imagine this on the main page as the best of wiki. -Fcb981 18:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe 1 fork, 1 knife, and 1 spoon, taking up most of the frame, and not cut off?--HereToHelp 19:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T 20:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support edit 1. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:BiodegradablePlasticUtensils2.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Eugenes fulgens
- Reason
- High res, superb quality, very attractive image.
- Articles this image appears in
- Magnificent Hummingbird
- Creator
- Mdf
- Nominator
- Pharaoh Hound (talk)
- Support — Pharaoh Hound (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support — WOW! I likes it. Just how big is that bird, though? 'WiiWillieWiki→(Talk) (Contrib) 14:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: 23 cm long (5.11 inches), weighing just 8.5 g (0.29 oz). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment the unnatural lighting from a flash is really obvious. we need an edit (I'll fool around a bit myself) at least killing the reflection in the eye and the blown highlights on the beak etc. depending on how that goes this may get my support but I think it may very difficult to get the lighting looking good. -Fcb981 15:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support - It all seems to be one hue; I don't think that can be helped though, and is it possible that the light in the bird's eyes is from the sun? Besides the lighting probs, It's quite clear and encyclopedic. Mrug2 15:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Razor sharp focus. I'm willing to overlook the blown highlights on the beak and eye, but if someone can produce a satisfactory edit, so much the better.--HereToHelp 19:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Slightly Less Than Total Support Razor sharp focus EXCEPT at the end of the beak. jlkramer (talk)
- Support Great detail, encyclopedia value, aesthetically pleasing. 86 04:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Support -Lovely Picture -Nelro
- Oppose, I'm sorry, but the picture isn't unusual enough Tomer T 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support immpresive detail, especialy considering the relatively slow exposure and long focal length --Benjamint444 11:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice, good subject, good focus (besides the beak which is an issue that can't always be avoided in nature photography. and good framing of the subject. Cat-five - talk 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Eugenes-fulgens-001.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Agassiz statue
- Reason
- It is a historically significant photograph, of reasonably high resolution, and is very eye-catching.
- Articles this image appears in
- 1906 San Francisco earthquake
- Creator
- W. C. Mendenhall
- Nominator
- Readro
Support — Readro 18:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)- Support Not great quality, but is fair enough for a 101 year old picture, and is interesting. It isn't going to happen again either. I think... · AO Talk 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support The subject is extremely interesting, and it is a great historic representation of the effects of the earthquake. The age of the image explains its poorer quality. Royalbroil T : C 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I support either version, although I prefer trialsanderrors' version. The image demonstrated the destructiveness of the earthquake, so it should represent the 1906 SF earthquake article IMHO. Royalbroil T : C 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- I support the alternate version too, but I like Edit 1 more. One of these three should be featured in any case. Royalbroil T : C 14:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I support either version, although I prefer trialsanderrors' version. The image demonstrated the destructiveness of the earthquake, so it should represent the 1906 SF earthquake article IMHO. Royalbroil T : C 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Quality ok, but the substance of the image is stunning. Could use some retouching on the upper left corner to remove the white cast there. Asiir 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Image is not currently in any article. Image:Agassiz in the Concrete.jpg appears at Louis Agassiz.Circeus 01:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Fixed. Readro 01:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support any. Eyecatching. --Tewy 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit Rarity, age and importance for ]
- Comment Would like to support a better scan of this - it looks a bit like it has been scanned from a printed source. Also, the shadows are inky - no details. --Janke | Talk 07:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Here is a different version from the Stanford website: agassiz.jpg. Stanford asks for permission for its images, but this would be {{PD-Old}}, no? ~ trialsanderrors 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]
- PD-old requires that the copyright holder to have been dead for 70+ years. Fortunately, this was published before 1923 making it PD-US. Even more fortunately, it was taken by the USGS, making it PD-USGov-USGS. chat} 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]
- PD-old requires that the copyright holder to have been dead for 70+ years. Fortunately, this was published before 1923 making it PD-US. Even more fortunately, it was taken by the USGS, making it PD-USGov-USGS.
- Conditional support If an agreement can be made over it illustrating an article. Currently disputed whether this or Image:Agassiz in the Concrete.jpg should be in the Agassiz article.Circeus 00:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
OpposeSupport Edit 1 or Alternative This is eye-catching alright and good for Commons, but the very fact that the building is unrecognizable (and the pedestal is not visible) makes this image less enc than most other contemporary versions (see e.g. cdlib.org), so I agree it shouldn't be used in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake article. ~ trialsanderrors 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm derived from a San Francisco family, and know from family lore that this image is quite iconic of the earthquake. Not that I can cite that... Debivort 01:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- The image or the subject? There are any number of versions of the subject in the online libraries, from a variety of angles. This one is a pretty poor one, and I also believe it gets most of its visual attraction from digital enhancement. ~ trialsanderrors 02:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good distinction to draw. The subject is iconic. I'm not sure the building is more recognizable in the alt version (it is missing a roof line for example), but seeing the pedestal helps. Debivort 08:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I edited the alternative, both have their advantages, so I'm indifferent between the two now. ~ trialsanderrors 09:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- support Debivort 01:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I found the current version on the USGS website and created a restored version from the largest available copy. If anyone else wants to attempt their own restoration efforts, the orginal is in the edit history. My comment about lack of enc stands. ~ trialsanderrors 03:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional support for the picture with the alternative perspective if it's cleaned up since it better portrays the effect of the earthquake than the original: viewers can picture that statue falling off the pedestal; the original seems like an accident.--BirdKr 13:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 -Serious "Wow" factor -Nelro
- Support edit 1. —Dgiest c 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 - I'm changing my vote to support the first edit. I did not know that there was a better version out there, and I would rather the better image was used. Readro 01:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support for the alternate version. I really like the additional context provided by the zoology building and the statue's old platform next to the other statue. I Oppose the original or its edit. Basar 07:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Agassiz statue Mwc00715.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Finlandia Hall
- Reason
- Concert hall "Finlandia" in Helsinki, designed by the "father of modernism" Alvar Aalto in 1971. The walls are carrara marble. In my opinion very nice angle of this piece of modern architecture, looks very good to me.
- Articles this image appears in
- Finlandia Hall
- Creator
- Thermos
- Nominator
- Pudeo (Talk)
- Support — Pudeo (Talk) 15:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support great composition - shows of Alto's rhythmic facade nicely - particularly like the reflections from the (nearly unseen) glazing. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It is a little difficult for me to look at and understand because of the lack of context. Although I understand the picture may have meaning architecturally, I still think that this picture might be considered to be "cutoff" in the FP criteria since it only shows part of a wall. The flag in the bottom is also unfortunate. Basar 17:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Captures the spirit of the architecture. This building is huge, and can be shown "uncut" only in a picture shot from the bay side - unfortunately, those pics tend to be rather dull - there's not even a full image on the official site, as far as I saw... --Janke | Talk 19:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose no context.. the only idea of scale I get is from the size of the lights underneath the overhang. It's also not a plan, elevation or section so its not exactly useful for architectural study. Regardless, the image could be sharper. -- drumguy8800 C T 23:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Great composition - Alvesgaspar 01:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. The composition is pretty good, but I agree with drumguy8800 that the pic is basically too artsy to be encyclopedically useful. --Dschwen 09:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry chaps, I never interrupt on FIC but there's two people now who are objecting for this pictures lack of encyclopedic quality because its too arty - presumably a elevation would be considered encyclopedic? Well architecture is a fine art - what you suggest is like illustrating a painting by number break down of the mona lisa - an assmebly drawing does not show how the light hits a building's forms and masses or how the rhythym of a facade diminishes with perspective - these are things the architect has in mind. The lack of scale is a criticism often laid at the door of modern architecture - so it's inclusion in this image, makes that point and is therefore encylopedic on that basis alone. Some thoughts anyway. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Are you sure that's a product of the picture and not the building itself? I'm trying to find other pictures of the building to see if there is a way it would be more clear and more encyclopedic... gren グレン 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- trialsanderrors answered that better than I could --Dschwen 19:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This picture sits uncomfortably between the poles of representing the building and representing the architectural style, and for both poles there are better pictures. This one captures the full facade and puts the building in context, while this one does much better at capturing the international style of the building. Now we just have to collect the money to send Diliff to Helsinki... ~ trialsanderrors 17:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per trialsand errors. The two linked images in his/her comments are much more informative than the nomination. Debivort 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -Nelro
- Oppose not an impressive picture Tomer T 10:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 07:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Physical attractiveness - Hot or Not composite comparisons
- Reason
- An (relatively) unbiased view of various levels of physical attractiveness that's cleverly composited and very clear/informative.
- Articles this image appears in
- Rating sites, Physical attractiveness, Averageness
- Creator
- Manitou2121(flickr), uploader:Quadell
- Nominator
- antilivedT | C | G
- Support — antilivedT | C | G 05:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Isn't this original research? I don't see how it passes criterion #5 (accuracy). chat} 05:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)]
- The problem is more that the accompanying text will probably have to be removed from the articles, rendering the images contextless. ~ trialsanderrors 06:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's actually #6, and it just says it should be supported by facts/refs, which it is with the ratings behind them and so I see no problem with it. --antilivedT | C | G 07:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- It just might be hard to justify their usage in the articles if the whole context consists of OR and has to be removed. ~ trialsanderrors 08:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's actually #6, and it just says it should be supported by facts/refs, which it is with the ratings behind them and so I see no problem with it. --antilivedT | C | G 07:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is more that the accompanying text will probably have to be removed from the articles, rendering the images contextless. ~ trialsanderrors 06:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question Are there any copyright issues with using images that were harvested from the Hotornot website? Spebudmak 07:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Depends on how recognizable they are. ~ trialsanderrors 08:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose And completely unrelated to the context discussion I find the image rather unattractive, starting with the drop shadows. This strikes me more like a nomination for "Neat Research Idea". ~ trialsanderrors 08:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The creator is cited incorrectly. It was actually created by a guy on flickr, not a wikipedian. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting concept, may however be WP:OR, but I oppose mainly because of the low quality of the full-size image - very fuzzy! --Janke | Talk 18:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Averages of faces are always fuzzy. There's no way around it I think. Junes 19:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- It might be more interesting to find a high-quality published composite of multiple faces. The album cover of Pleased to Meet You by James is a composite of the band members' faces. I know it's copyrighted, but that's the first example I can come up with. ~ trialsanderrors 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Averages of faces are always fuzzy. There's no way around it I think. Junes 19:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Very interesting original research. Get it published somewhere and I will support it as a FP. —Dgiest c 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I like the idea. But there are many problems to be solved above. And also the faces looks pretty much the same. They are mostly "Not" for me. --Arad 23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Since it was created with a freeware tool using very basic data assembly, I wouldn't consider it a violation of * 00:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Oppose: Even if you solved the above issues, I think the phrase "hot or not" (in the picture) is inappropriate, especially for the main page. Perhaps if you had a more scientific title, or even better, no title at all. Basar 06:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why is it inappropriate? The images were taken from the Hot or Not website. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think that would make it appropriate if the image were only used to enhance the hot or not article, but since it is being used in general articles like physical attractiveness, I feel that a more than less slang phrase from a popular website would be less appropriate than something like "female physical attractiveness". I think letting the caption do the describing would be best though. Basar 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why is it inappropriate? The images were taken from the Hot or Not website. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, ignoring for the time being the sourcing, OR, and copyright issues cited by others, I personally dislike the design of the image. The typography is poor, and the drop shadow and bevel effects are cliche. I do not consider this the best wikipedia has to offer by any means.-Andrew c 03:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral, will support if the drop shadows and title are removed. Willing to cast lone dissenting vote if necessary -- I like it. But I may still need to yield to OR concerns, if that's what the consensus says. Spebudmak 10:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- And what about privacy issues? I'd hate to be one of the people in this image and find myself on the Wikipedia Main Page one day -- especially if I was one of the low-rated ones. At least on Hotornot.com your photo is one among a zillion. Spebudmak 10:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - I'm not sure about the accuracy of this, but if it is true (and there should be sources that justify what the picture says) - I support. Tomer T 14:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 07:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Grapsus grapsus
- Reason
- Another great picture
- Articles this image appears in
- Crab, Grapsus grapsus, The Log from the Sea of Cortez
- Creator
- Marc Figueras (Oersted)
- Nominator
- Tomer T
- Support — Tomer T 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Blown highlights, a bit blurry. Jellocube27 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -Great photo -Nelro —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.134.65 (talk)
- Oppose - Sorry, but the limbs are out of focus/blurry, and the lighting is harsh. tiZom(2¢) 00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It looks like its motion blur that has killed the shapness. -Fcb981 00:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above.--HereToHelp 14:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. It's a great thumbnail for articles, but in full-resolution it's lacking. -Harmil 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Mid-day lighting doesn't suit this picture. chat} 03:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)]
Not promoted MER-C 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Trees and sunshine
- Reason
- A great picture of sequoia trees
- Articles this image appears in
- Muir Woods
- Creator
- Richs5812
- Nominator
- Tomer T
- Support — Tomer T 21:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I guess by now we all know what contre-jour is ;-). But unfortunately illustrating an article significantly is a prerequisite for a FP nominee. --Dschwen 22:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Artifacts. -Fcb981 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. Grain, overexposed. Pretty shot, but not really FP material. --Tewy 04:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- oppose over exposed. Debivort 20:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. These could be any kind of trees in any forest. chat} 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)]
Not promoted MER-C 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
lemon03
- Reason
- You can understand it in just a sight; isn't looking beautiful.
- articles
- a link to the article this image exists in Lemon
- Creator
- Jaseem umer
- Nominator
- ?JAS?
- Support — ?JAS? 11:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. This one is already featured, and more enc due to the cut pieces reviealing the interior of the fruit. --Dschwen 12:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just reverted your edit to Lemon (rv picture replacement. The old one is more appropriate for this section, and the new one is redundant.). Sorry, but the pic showing the fruit on the tree is better in the Cultivation section. And yours is redundant compared to the pic above. Sorry, the picture really is not bad, pretty good actually. Its just that there already is an even better one. --Dschwen 12:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry, the other lemon photo is better. chat} 03:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Oppose. It's not a bad picture, but the existing feature picture is just better. - Mgm|(talk) 09:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small (600 px), also less enc than the existing FP. --Janke | Talk 13:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small (read the rules!) - Adrian Pingstone 15:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Mountain High
- Reason
- Gives a great deal of information about mountain high, and with the fog, is in my opinion, quite pretty.
- Articles this image appears in
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_High
- Creator
- Mike Frieda
- Nominator
- Mtf612
- Support — Mtf612 00:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - This isn't really a panorama of the resort, it's a panorama of a carpark, some cars, a few random people and a couple of trees. A very small part of the resort is visible, but not sharp and not prominent, in the middle. Reasonable stitching but otherwise just a snapshot - no encyclopaedic value, and it certainly doesn't give "a great deal of information about Mountain High". Try again on a clear day and from a viewpoint where you can actually get the resort in the frame, without distractions. --YFB ¿ 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note that the east resort is on the left and west resort is middle-right. Also mountain high is usually foggy, and is rarely clear.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtf612 (talk • contribs).
- I'm sorry, but this picture has almost no chance of becoming featured. The parts of the resort that are visible are indistinct and uninformative, and are not nearly prominent enough in the image as a whole, as evidenced by the fact that you felt it necessary to point them out. Even if Mountain High is "usually foggy" (it's not today, for example: [2]) there is no way that a photo largely consisting of cloud will be a suitable featured picture of the subject. If it's really not possible to get a good photo of the resort from a high vantage point, I suggest trying a shot from somewhere below the cloudline, where you can look up at the resort and make it a more prominent feature of the photo. Try to illustrate a specific part of the resort clearly if it's not possible to get a good shot of the wider area. --YFB ¿ 01:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment you should probably give it a more descriptive name. gren グレン 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - a foggy ski resort car park? I don't get it. I like panoramas, but we need a bit more than this. What's the focus of the image? Are the cars and kids intentional? Stevage 02:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - maybe if you cropped the car and such, but really it begs for a different shot from the same roll. Brianski 10:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The kid in the photo i liked, as t is symbollic to me of the awe one sees in such a majestic mountain. However, the car was not on purpose and i agree it ruins the image. I agree i need to go to a better location, i simply went here because i wanted the east resort in the image. Hopefully next time it will be a clear day.
- Oppose - Not really special, in my opinion. Tomer T 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Fog obscures most of the sky and a bit of the mountain, and there are distracting details such as people, cars and litter. Mrug2 22:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
FA22 Raptors
- Reason
- It's historical (the first official deployement of F-22) and very good quality for such a hard to catch image.
- Articles this image appears in
- F-22 Raptor
- Creator
- U.S. Air Force
- Nominator
- Arad
- Support Any — Arad 20:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
Could we have the historical year in the picture description?Basar 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC) I found it in the metadata. Basar 22:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC) - Oppose original,
weak supportneutral Edit 1 - I've uploaded an edit which fixes the poor contrast, green colour cast and fairly heavy noise. I'm not 100% convinced about the enc of a head-on shot like this, though. I prefer the alternative as an illustration but the image quality isn't that great. --YFB ¿ 02:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak supportNeutral Alternative Edit 1 - Better after a spot of noise reduction and a minor contrast boost, but there's not a great 'wow' factor and I'm a bit puzzled by the port vertical stabiliser, which looks sort of like it's been manipulated badly in Photoshop (rear edge, just in front of the rudder). --YFB ¿ 03:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I fail to see how this is historical. Are we going to see pictures of the first Toyota Camry being sold in Washington state soon? Also, call me old fashioned, but that deployment over Ohio didn't really involve any military action, did it? Wasn't it a mere testdrive? --Dschwen 12:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Come on. How can you compare Toyota Camry to F-22 Raptor, the best fighter plain in the world. It's technology is the best available. It's something you don't see everyday. --Arad 04:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Make it a Prius then ;-). Anywho, my point was more on historical... ...and the deployment being just a testdrive (not that I would rather want to see them in an actual fight). All in all it is a decent pic (but please don't call it historical). Just like all those military promo shots, I don't think it is of terribly high enc value (if it were, it probably wouldn't be declassified). --Dschwen 08:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Make it a
- Oppose all Run-of-the-mill aircraft photos. Just because this is the Testarossa of fighter jets doesn't mean we have to elevate any middling photo of it to FP. ~ trialsanderrors 22:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose all per trailsanderrors. Plus, I don't know if anyone has noticed, but the caption here says the planes are over Ohio. Whereas in the article it says this was taken over Utah. Furthermore, the picture summary just says the planes are en route to Utah and gives no info on location whatsoever. Uberlemur 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Yeah, looks like I made an error. Thanks for telling that. --Arad 04:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- THat doesn't look like Utah to me. I'd say Ohio might be closer to it. ~ trialsanderrors 06:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Alternative Edit 1 -Nelro 15:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Aurora Borealis
- Reason
- Commons Picture of the Year 2006, somehow not an FP on the Wikipedia
- Articles this image appears in
- Aurora (astronomy)
- Creator
- Joshua Strang, US Air Force
- Nominator
- Goodmanjaz
- Support — Goodmanjaz 19:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I thought it's already featured. --Arad 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I suspect this discussion is going to be long, interesting and unpredictable... Alvesgaspar 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Oversaturated low quality shot. Quite a surprise this came out as POTY. --Dschwen 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)- Hmmm, the original version is actually of decent quality, concering the circumstances it was made. So my initial oppose was due to the POTY surprise. I'll stay Neutral for now. --Dschwen 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Alvesgaspar was right. The discussion is going to heat up. --Arad 21:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Oversaturated, very grainy, severe and highly irritating (to me) distortion. I share Dschwen's surprise at it being POTY. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - There's something really weird about it, which I can't quite put my finger on. Mrug2 00:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Maybe because an Aurora is wierd? :-). --Arad 00:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Shouldn't we also include the original in the nomination? ~ trialsanderrors 04:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Probably so; I've been hanging around for a while, but it's my first nom and I couldn't figure out how to add more than one image in the template. — Goodmanjaz 04:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can just add images after creating the nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 04:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Probably so; I've been hanging around for a while, but it's my first nom and I couldn't figure out how to add more than one image in the template. — Goodmanjaz 04:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose POTY edit and Edit 3 I was trying to find out what the motivation for the color correction was, but can't find any other than it seems to make it look prettier. The main problem is that it turned the aurora turquoise and the snow blue, killing any enc the original had. I haven't made up my mind yet about the original. ~ trialsanderrors 05:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose original, weak support my edit. I fixed the problems that bugged me with the original without overdoing the color correction like in the POTY edit. I agree with Alvesgaspar that this is among the best impressions of an aurora borealis (compare Flickr), so with a number of edits the technical problems should be solvable. Happy to ditch this though if someone finds a better picture of an aurora. ~ trialsanderrors 17:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not a photograph expert, but as I'm grouw up in such conditions, I personally can assert that the snow may look like that. →AzaToth 18:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure what this means but when comparing to the original I'm not buying that a turquoise aurora reflects purple in the snow. When I'm trying to recreate the edit I have to move the blue color balance slider all the way over to the right, something that doesn't instill any confidence in me that this was done to replicate the original natural colors. ~ trialsanderrors 20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support color corrected edit. I'd rather see the snow blue than a sickly yellow-green. As for the "true" color, that's impossible to tell. In low light, the human eye loses color vision, and cameras and films behave differently than in normal lighting conditions. However, the edit matches the majority of aurora pics I've seen. As for being grainy, that's pretty unavoidable - I'm sure this wasn't shot at 50 ISO speed... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that the snow is supposed to reflect the light of the aurora, which it does in the original but not in the edit. ~ trialsanderrors 08:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - Aesthetically it is overdone and somehow kitschy. Also, the deformation is annoying and the photographic quality is not great even considering the difficult conditions of the shot. But I won't oppose the promotion: it is still the best available Aurora borealis image and the Commons POTY 2006. However I'm not surprised with the promotion, anyone has noticed the voters' comments (the quantity and the quality) in the four best pics? It is not by chance that I have tried (with no success)to select the POTY 2006 by a "consensual type" of election rather than by a "blind voting"- Alvesgaspar 13:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)]
- I'm partial to chat} 03:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)]
- I'm partial to
- Oppose All The original two per above. Edit 2 (trialsanderrors) looks unsaturated and lacking in contrast. -Fcb981 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support POTY - Not my favorite but we should defer to the judgment of hundreds of other Wikipedians from a broader audience. —dgiestc 20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to talk page.
Oppose It seems that the camera hasn't been still during exposure, as the stars are stretched. →AzaToth 20:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Neutral changing because of invalid reasoning from my side. →AzaToth 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)- The exposure length is 25 seconds. The stars moved. If they used an automatic steering device, the ground would be blurred. —dgiestc 20:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, then I understand, I have also made another version of the image. Image:EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska -- The Aurora Borealis above Bear Lake.jpg
- The exposure length is 25 seconds. The stars moved. If they used an automatic steering device, the ground would be blurred. —dgiestc 20:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 3 Tomer T 16:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Very nasty colors before photoshopping and since the main appeal of image is the beautiful colors it's not a very good image --frothT 23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I think the end product is a beautiful picture at any resolution. Werothegreat 20:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 02:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Tawny Owl
- Reason
- This image, used in it's mainbox, adds a lot to the article in my opinion.
- Articles this image appears in
- Tawny Owl
- Creator
- NikiWiki
- Nominator
- SonicChao talk
Support — SonicChao talk 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Weak support. It's a great shot, but there's some noise.--Tewy 18:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)- Support edit 1. Great shot. --Tewy 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 - I removed the noise Tewy talked about. --Arad 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 - That's a cute animal. WiiWillieWiki
- Support Edit 1 --Miskwito 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 -its so cute -Nelro —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.131.153 (talk)
- Support Edit 1 - Great. Mrug2 00:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 Looks good without the noise. Hello32020 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 Per above..--HereToHelp 15:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 Tomer T 16:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 Cool bird. --Mad Max 06:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I see no noise in the original and the edit introduces slight blurring. I prefer the original, but I support promotion of either image. - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support, the way the rail cuts through the photo bothers me... but, it really is a great shot. gren グレン 07:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Tawny wiki edit1.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Crabs at a market
- Reason
- Third one today, with the same reason of the previous
- Articles this image appears in
- Crab, Blue crab, Organism, etc.
- Creator
- Wpopp
- Nominator
- Tomer T
- Support — Tomer T 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- support a familiar, illustrative sight, as I am a Marylander. Debivort 22:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment -wouldn't it be better if we could see the eintire stall -Nelro —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.134.65 (talk)
- Weak Support I agree with Nelro, it does not depict its subject very well. Still, it is a good picture and is encyclopedic enough to suit its purpose. Jellocube27 22:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, Artifacts. -Fcb981 00:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Composition is wrong for a crab picture, and wrong for a seafood market picture. —dgiestc 20:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, jagged edges. Lycaon 08:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose for not being soft shell... but.... I think the illustration of a crab should be clearer... this is hard to tell where one crab ends and the other crabs. gren グレン 13:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- very illustrative of how crabs are sold in a market. chat} 03:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Oppose -Nelro
- Support -- good photo to show crabs as a food product.--* 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Support per howcheng --frothT 22:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Cropping kills context. ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I can't oppose this picture because nature made this crabs' shells kind of confusing. Also, this picture it's quite attracting and reminds me of a Costa Rican fish market (that may be my personal opinion, but the point is the picture is good). Also, even if I had never seen a crab in my life, the one on top is quite distinguishable and accurately depicts what a blue crab looks like, so I have to say this picture is encyclopedic.Bernalj90 03:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)]
Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Dune in Morocco
- Reason
- A great picture that I uploaded from Hebrew Wikipedia
- Articles this image appears in
- Dune, Morocco, Geography of Morocco, Sunrise
- Creator
- Gilgamesh
- Nominator
- Tomer T
- Support — Tomer T 12:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- The image is way too small to be a FP, unfortunately. Try to get the larger original from Gilgamesh. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-05 15:22Z
- Unfortunately, there is no larger version of the picture. It was contributed to Wikipedia by one of Gilgamesh's friends, and he has only this version of the picture. Isn't there any chance to feature the picture in this version? Tomer T 16:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's absolutely gorgeous, but way too small to ever survive FPC. I'd support a 1000px+ version in a heartbeat. --Golbez 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- oppose - size. Debivort 20:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- non eligible not even close. --frothT 05:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Oppose If someone speaks Hebrew, he/she could ask the creator for a larger image. -Wutschwlllm 20:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've already asked him for a larger image, he said that this is the largest he has. (The creator also speaks English, if you want to ask him) Tomer T 14:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Palacio de Bellas Artes
- Reason
- It adds alot to the article and it's the best image i could find.
- Articles this image appears in
- Palacio de Bellas Artes
- Creator
- Daniel Manrique
- Nominator
- Bewareofdog
- Support — Bewareofdog 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Original -very nice -Nelro
- weak oppose original, oppose alternative - original seems washed out, shouldn't those domes be brilliantly colored? The angle is significantly better than the alternative though, which really doesn't show the building. Debivort 20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose original. The original has the more impressive angle, but the overcast sky doesn't do justice to the dome. Oppose alternative. The alternative doesn't have the nice angle of the original. (believe it or not, I formed this opinion before reading Debivort's response :P )— BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-06 20:42Z
- Weak Oppose Both Per above. (Believe it or not i made my decision from the first moment this image was nominated) :-) --Arad 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Original Tomer T 10:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Pecans
- Reason
- I found this to be a very eye-catching, illustrative picture of pecans, both shelled and unshelled.
- Articles this image appears in
- Pecan, Hickory
- Creator
- Scott Bauer (USDA)
- Nominator
- ShadowHalo
- Support — ShadowHalo 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Support very strange way to illustrate an article, though I suppose it is effective! Jellocube27 01:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. Just because easily-obtainable photographs should be superb. This is a little blurry (but still highly interesting). --Tewy 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support edit 1. Same reason as above. --Tewy 20:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Even if it is blurred . But I have seen worst.Bewareofdog 04:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Original Aesthetics adds back the points lost through blurryness, and I don't see the massive artifacts. --antilivedT | C | G 06:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Interesting picture. Terri G 12:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support I'll go for that one. 'WiiWillieWiki→(Talk) (Contrib) 14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful presentation of a common object! Royalbroil T : C 20:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong Opposesee below - Am I the only one that sees the massive artifacts in this picture, particularly in the nuts without shells? (Pay close attention to any lines that appear at a 45 degree angle) Sorry, I have to oppose this, but I would definitely support it if this problem were fixed. Such a unique and fun way of displaying nuts! tiZom(2¢) 01:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you are the only one... I cannot see any "massive" artifacts except some noise here and there. Care to be more specific? --antilivedT | C | G 05:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see them too. They're not really massive artifacts but rather look similar to scanlines. Looks rather strange to be honest, but not something that is easy to fix. Downsampling would help and probably not lose much/any information. In fact it looks as though the image has been upsized already with poor sampling hence the artifacts. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, maybe not massive! But I can't justify supporting pictures with this problem (see crop) ...it's just not the quality I've come to expect at FPC. Again, I would happily support if we got a copy that addressed this issue. I really do think it's a fun, encyclopedic shot. tiZom(2¢) 18:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with above. Blurry in full size. Not unique, could be re-done with much better quality. --Janke | Talk 07:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. Due to artifacts mainly. The pattern brings attention but doesn't really add to the understanding of the nut. A more casual presentation of shelled and unshelled pecans would probably be better IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Artifacts are really disturbing. Lycaon 08:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Pretty. ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 16:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Support Looks good to me.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've applied a Gaussian blur and reduced the image to 2000x1309 (which should still be more than adequate resolution) to remove some of the pixelization/artifacts. ShadowHalo 19:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Support original, oppose edit — The original is nice. It has some flaws, but it is overall pleasing and informative. The edit causes some loss of quality and strange tone/color change. ♠ SG →Talk 03:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose not very clean looking, also that isn't exactly a natural formation. A better photograph might have a whole pecan next to a cracked-open shell and the shelled nut sitting alongside it. drumguy8800 C T 08:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support edit 1. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- No clear consensus yet on whether to go with the original or edit 1. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support original I don't see what the improvement is of the edit. There is a barely visible cut in the center of the picture, roughly at a 167 degree angle, but the edit doesn't remove that either. ~ trialsanderrors 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose edit, decreasing resolution to a point where the artifacts aren't noticable anymore also discards good data from the picture. Weak oppose original not very enc as each individual nut is fairly small. I'd strongly prefer macroshots of closed, cut and opend nuts. --Dschwen 12:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support original Aesthetically a very nice picture that shows pecans in an artistic yet informative way. I see no improvement in the edit -- it merely seems blurrier. I agree that close-up macro shots would add to the Pecan article, but I don't think that should count against this particular image. Despite some technical flaws, I think this image should be promoted. --Asiir 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Pecans.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Homeomorphism
- Reason
- It caught my eye, I thought it looked cool :)
- Articles this image appears in
- Topology, Homotopy, Homeomorphism
- Creator
- User:Kieff
- Nominator
- TomStar81 (Talk)
- Support — TomStar81 (Talk) 04:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. A little on the simple side, but still interesting and makes the reader want to know more. --Tewy 04:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. This image doesn't do it for me. it's just too bland. If it were spiced up somehow I would support. lama 04:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)]
- weak support - lovely idea, gray is a bit drab, the polygons comprising the solids are a bit simple, i.e. the cylinder part of the mug expands non-smoothly into the handle. Also, it would be nice if the figure preserved its volume throughout. Debivort 08:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Homeomorphisms aren't volume-preserving transformations, so I don't think there is a reason to have the volume preserved. There is something to be said even for not having the volume preserved. Spebudmak 00:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I realize this. I just think it would covey the concept of deformation better if volume wasn't appearing from no where. Debivort 05:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, the bottom of the coffee cup rising to make a solid cylinder at the start of the animation could be a bit smoother with the rest of the deformation. Spebudmak 07:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- That was my original idea, but it didn't work the ways I've tried. It's just hard to interpolate a highly concave shape like the mug into a convex shape like the torus the way I did it. Maybe later when I figure a better way to do it, but right now that's beyond my abilities. Sorry. — Talk 00:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)]
- That was my original idea, but it didn't work the ways I've tried. It's just hard to interpolate a highly concave shape like the mug into a convex shape like the torus the way I did it. Maybe later when I figure a better way to do it, but right now that's beyond my abilities. Sorry. —
- I agree, the bottom of the coffee cup rising to make a solid cylinder at the start of the animation could be a bit smoother with the rest of the deformation. Spebudmak 07:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I realize this. I just think it would covey the concept of deformation better if volume wasn't appearing from no where. Debivort 05:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Homeomorphisms aren't volume-preserving transformations, so I don't think there is a reason to have the volume preserved. There is something to be said even for not having the volume preserved. Spebudmak 00:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Good animation. Gray is fine. But I'm afraid it gives a wrong idea of a homeomorphism. It doesn't illustrate which point of the donut goes to which point of the mug. And it is not necessary to have a continuous deformation between the two objects in order to have a homeomorphism: think of a trefoil knot which is homeomorphic with a cylinder for instance. This animation should probably go to homotopy instead. Someone on Talk:Homeomorphism has already made this remark. --Bernard 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Shouldn't this image go in string theory? I remember seeing a film on it and homeomorphism was explained, but I don't remember why. --Iriseyes 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. The animation is just fine where it is. Just because basic topology is a prerequisite to understand String therory I wouldn't cram it into that article. And I disagree about the move to homotopy too, that's just taking it too abstract. The anim is a proverbial example for topological equivalancy. The fact that it is animated is not the point, it just helps understanding whats going on. How it is animated, whether it conserves volume or not etc. is completely irrelevant to the concept presented. --Dschwen 19:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support This is a good animation and illustrates well enough the concept. But I don't like the part when the cup is "emptied". After all topology is about "deformation" not "removal" of material. Maybe it could be modified to make it more obvious. In that sense, I agree with Debivort's comment. - Alvesgaspar 00:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- A deformation does not have to be volume conserving, does it? --Dschwen 15:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not at all, that is not relevant. But it would illustrate better the idea of deformation if the volume removed from the interior of the cup would be put (slide) to the "margins". Alvesgaspar 16:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't get your point. You'd rather if the cylinder thinned as the bottom of the cup rises to the top? — Talk 00:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Well, I was looking at it the other way around. But yes, while the cup fills its height should be decreasing, so that the transformation is perceived as a deformation of the existing volume, not the adition of new "material" - Alvesgaspar 09:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. That'd be extremely complicated for me to do. :( — Talk 10:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Oh, I see. That'd be extremely complicated for me to do. :( —
- I don't get your point. You'd rather if the cylinder thinned as the bottom of the cup rises to the top? —
- Comment well, apparently the colors were too faint for anyone else to notice, so I made it bluer. It's the only change I can make right now, with my current tools, time and knowledge. — Talk 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)]
Oppose. There are several ways that people could get wrong ideas of homeomorphisms from this animation:- If you think that a homeomorphism is a continous deformation, you have it wrong. You must understand that the homeomorphism is just the map from the initial state to the final state.
- If you think that such deformations always exist between homeomorphic objects, and therefore conclude that a trefoil knot cannot be homeomorphic to a cylinder, you have it wrong.
- Then there are problems about the way the mug is filled. If you visualize it like water being poured in the mug, you have it wrong: you have to deform matter already present, not add some new.
- If, consequently, you think that the mug should be filled by expanding the inner part of the bottom of the mug, you still have it wrong, because the map is not continuous.
- If, consequently, you decide to expand the inner and outer parts of the bottom of the mug together, and simultaneously shrink the upper part of the mug, you may still have it wrong, because in the process the inner part of the boundary of the mug (the cylinder part) gets contracted into a circle and the map is no longer injective.
It is likely that some mathematicians, when thinking of homeomorphisms, have in mind something like in the animation, but unfortunately it is difficult to make it into a rigorous argument. I'm curious to know if wikipedians have made the mistakes I describe? It is still a good animation, but should be better explained, probably moved to homotopy, and should not be featured. --Bernard 16:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Very strongly oppose. See my comments below. --Bernard 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)- The first three objections are nitpicks. There are many wrong things one can imagine a layman will think from such an animation. The relevant question is whether the essential idea has been conveyed. The last two objections are apparently why BernardH considers this not to demonstrate a homeomorphism, but it does. This is a perfectly good isotopy in fact. --C S (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I very well knew all the time that it could demonstrate a homeomorphism, and I wrote it. Salix's solution doesn't surprise me; I could certainly have done something similar if I had wished (it's actually very much like making the two steps of my solution into one). I felt that people, in the discussion above, were at risk of making those mistakes, and I think I was right. Even after I had warned about pitfall 4 two times, someone below still made the mistake. Was I wrong to insist on these problems? I don't think so. My conclusion is that warnings in the image page would be useful. You talk about confusion below but it is not on my side. --Bernard 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support The fact that homeomorphisms are not necessarily continuous deformations does not change the fact that this is an ideal illustration of the often-repeated phrase, in undergraduate classes, of "a donut and a coffee cup have the same topology". As such, per Dschwen, the animation is perfectly adequate at doing what it purports to do. Also, my comments above were just nitpicks and I still think this is a good animation. Spebudmak 04:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support The fact that is an animation helps the viewer understand how the two shapes are topologically the same. Sure, you don't have to transform between two items with an animation to make them topologically the same, but it sure illustrates the point! Normally I'm a bit skeptical at bland, simple illustrations, but this actually does have a "wow" factor. And it's certainly encyclopedic. Enuja 10:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Supportalthough the caption should be changed from "A classic example" to "The classic example". On Bernard's points above, correct me if I'm wrong, but every single frame in this animation is homeomorphic to every other frame. Also, I find the topologies as physical "matter" objection unconvincing. Since they're both subsets of the R³ they both contain infinitely many points, so there is no matter added even if the object expands. A mug is also homeomorphic to a mug five times its size. ~ trialsanderrors 16:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)- Thanks for replying to my arguments. It's true that every single frame is homeomorphic to every other, but the reader has to imagine for himself what those homeomorphisms are, and if he takes the trouble to do so, then the animation strongly suggests a transformation that is not a homeomorphism. I'm going to repeat and expand on my last point above: if we expand the lower part of the mug and simultaneously shrink the upper part, it's all the upper, 3-dimensional cylinder part of the mug that becomes contracted into a 2-dimensional annulus. Sure the transformation could be made a homeomorphism, but the animation is not helping. It took me some time to see this problem, and somehow it looks like just a detail, but it still makes the animation either imprecise or mathematically incorrect. That's annoying. I could imagine ways to fix the problem... But anyway I don't like this animation so much.
--82.66.235.13422:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC) --Bernard 22:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)- OK, I'm not quite if I follow this, your "bottom part" of the mug is the disc at the bottom and the "top part" is the tubular part, and they are for some reason distinct elements? ~ trialsanderrors 08:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's it. We consider them as distinct elements because we really need to apply different treatments to different parts of the mug. Another possible decomposition would be a radial one, but as I said it doesn't work either. --Bernard 11:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'm not quite if I follow this, your "bottom part" of the mug is the disc at the bottom and the "top part" is the tubular part, and they are for some reason distinct elements? ~ trialsanderrors 08:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying to my arguments. It's true that every single frame is homeomorphic to every other, but the reader has to imagine for himself what those homeomorphisms are, and if he takes the trouble to do so, then the animation strongly suggests a transformation that is not a homeomorphism. I'm going to repeat and expand on my last point above: if we expand the lower part of the mug and simultaneously shrink the upper part, it's all the upper, 3-dimensional cylinder part of the mug that becomes contracted into a 2-dimensional annulus. Sure the transformation could be made a homeomorphism, but the animation is not helping. It took me some time to see this problem, and somehow it looks like just a detail, but it still makes the animation either imprecise or mathematically incorrect. That's annoying. I could imagine ways to fix the problem... But anyway I don't like this animation so much.
- Change to Oppose for reasons unlrealted to mathematics: I just noticed that the lighting is inconsistent between the cylinder and the ring. On the ring, there is a spotlight above the viewer, but this light never appears on the cylinder. Also, as the mug hollows out one of the shadows indicates a light source to the right, but the right side of the cylinder is itself in the shade. ~ trialsanderrors 08:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, you are wrong. In the POV-Ray scene I wrote, there's only one light source just behind the "camera" and a bit to the right. The reason the lighting may look odd is that I'm using orthographic projection and a bit of transparency and ambient light to soften shadows a bit. Also, there are no areas on the surface of the cylinder with a normal vector at the right direction to create a specular reflection in this angle, unlike in the torus, so your criticism doesn't really make any sense, 'mathematically'. Sorry, but there's nothing inconsistent here. — Talk 11:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)]
- On second viewing it's not inconsistent as much as it's unrealistic. A single light source would leave a spotlight even on a cylindric surface, just turn on your desk lamp and point it on your coffee mug. Of course if you stick to a mathematical model of lighting the spotlight is a single point on the upper ring, which creates the impression that the mug is made from different material than the handle. ~ trialsanderrors 21:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, you are wrong. In the POV-Ray scene I wrote, there's only one light source just behind the "camera" and a bit to the right. The reason the lighting may look odd is that I'm using orthographic projection and a bit of transparency and ambient light to soften shadows a bit. Also, there are no areas on the surface of the cylinder with a normal vector at the right direction to create a specular reflection in this angle, unlike in the torus, so your criticism doesn't really make any sense, 'mathematically'. Sorry, but there's nothing inconsistent here. —
- Weak support. After some thinking, I've decided to support my own image. I'm not sure, is this against the rules? ... Now, I like this image. I think it shows well enough how the mug and the torus are topologically equivalent, and it just requires a little bit of thought to figure that the bottom of the cup is rising to the top in order to make the overall shape convex for a smooth transition, and it seems that once the average person realizes this the whole concept of topological equivalence seems to "snap" in place (worked with a few friends I showed to, so I'm happy with the results — but don't take my word for it.) So I guess this animation ended up being a good thing after all. Also, if or not the image would be better at Talk 20:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)]
- I will ask you to be more precise about how you think the object should be deformed when the bottom of the cup is rising. If you think that the bottom should be expanded only in the z direction and the rest of the cup left unchanged, then it is just wrong, since the deformation is not coutinuous. I am annoyed that nobody gives accurate answers to my remarks, and I wonder how people can support without doing so. It seems to me that nobody sees the problem: I can assure you, as a mathematician, that there is one. This problem is all the more serious if nobody sees it: it is acceptable to be approximative only if one is conscious of the limitations. --Bernard 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can assure you, as a topologist, there is no such problem as you imagine. --C S (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- My answer to "I wonder how people can support without doing so" is that non-topologists may support this animation without knowing what's "wrong" with it and without understanding the math just as non-taxonismists can support animal pictures without researching to see if the illustrated animal is, in fact, the correct species and a typical member of the species. This makes it important for topologists, taxonomists, and everyone else to make VERY CLEAR what's wrong with articles or pictures. I'm sorry but I STILL don't understand what's wrong with the picture. Since I still think it very clearly shows that mugs and donuts are the same topologically, I still think this deserves to be a featured picture. Enuja 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are right and my comment was a bit abusive. However I don't know how to explain better than I did... I will ask you to be more specific about what you don't understand. I am a little lost here. I had thought my comments would be understandable at least by mathematicians and would have hoped one of them would lurk around here, so if a mathematician reads this he is encouraged to give his opinion on this matter, whether he understands and agrees or not. If non-mathematicians fail to understand... Sorry, but that is also a weakness of the animation. People think they understand but they actually understand very little, I'm afraid. --Bernard 03:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, I have no idea what would be the best and most accurate way to make this animation, and I'm pretty sure such a thing is beyond my skills at the moment. So I can't say how it should be deformed. The only reasons it turned out this way, with the bottom rising and all that, is because it gave the best aesthetical results and it was withing my skills. I also have a feeling that a mathematically accurate animation would look less convincing than what it this one is. The original point of this animation, in case you're not aware, was just to illustrate the famous idea that the donut and the coffee mug are topologically equivalent, and to this purpose it seems to be good enough. It was never meant to accurately illustrate the mathematical concept of homeomorphism or homeotopy. See Talk 00:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)]
- It is not so much that this picture is inaccurate, but that it suggests a wrong way to deform the object. I am not asking too much of the animation. I recognized its value. But having a mathematically wrong animation in FP, that is not possible. As I said, I have ideas to fix the problem, but that would not put it in FP realm to me, and would make it more complicated; and after all, why fix a problem that nobody acknowledges? The best would be to just warn about those problems in the image page. Sorry, don't want to work on the animation myself, lost too much energy here (actually, asking people who oppose to do better themselves has several times been viewed as bad style on FPC). I will ask for comments in the page you mentionned. --Bernard 01:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not asking you to do better animation or anything like that, I just pointed out that you could have edited the articles already. Also, I noticed you have said, several times, that you have ideas on how to fix these issues you pointed out, but you never really stated what these changes are. I'm just asking you to explain this further. I'm just curious, really. And I'll learn something more on the subject, and that's always a good thing. :) — Talk 02:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)]
- It is some work to describe, and I would have done it more happily if people had understood my previous comments. Anyway, here it is, I've added the thumbnail on top of the section. This raises a few other issues: it will be difficult to understand without seeing the interior of the mug; people who don't see the original problem will wonder why it is done this way... --Bernard 15:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not asking you to do better animation or anything like that, I just pointed out that you could have edited the articles already. Also, I noticed you have said, several times, that you have ideas on how to fix these issues you pointed out, but you never really stated what these changes are. I'm just asking you to explain this further. I'm just curious, really. And I'll learn something more on the subject, and that's always a good thing. :) —
- It is not so much that this picture is inaccurate, but that it suggests a wrong way to deform the object. I am not asking too much of the animation. I recognized its value. But having a mathematically wrong animation in FP, that is not possible. As I said, I have ideas to fix the problem, but that would not put it in FP realm to me, and would make it more complicated; and after all, why fix a problem that nobody acknowledges? The best would be to just warn about those problems in the image page. Sorry, don't want to work on the animation myself, lost too much energy here (actually, asking people who oppose to do better themselves has several times been viewed as bad style on FPC). I will ask for comments in the page you mentionned. --Bernard 01:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm a graph theorist, and we don't really deal with those kinds of minutiae, but it seems to me your objection stems from the visualization of the mug as a tube on top of a disk, with the diameter of the disk the same as the outer diameter of the tube. In that case the removal of matter from inside the tube amounts to a reduction to a 2-dimensional annulus. But an alternative visualization is the disk inside the tube. In that case the removal compresses the inner cylinder into a flat but 3-dimensional disk – a volume-reducing but perfect homeomorphic transformation. ~ trialsanderrors 09:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's the "radial decomposition" I was writing about. I think you are making mistake 4 on my list above. Your transformation is not continuous. --Bernard 15:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, in that case I can't continue the conversation without formalizing this, and that's not something I'm particularly interested in. ~ trialsanderrors 17:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but does that mean you agree, disagree, or just don't know? --Bernard 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Somewhere between the second and the third. ~ trialsanderrors 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but does that mean you agree, disagree, or just don't know? --Bernard 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, in that case I can't continue the conversation without formalizing this, and that's not something I'm particularly interested in. ~ trialsanderrors 17:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's the "radial decomposition" I was writing about. I think you are making mistake 4 on my list above. Your transformation is not continuous. --Bernard 15:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I will ask you to be more precise about how you think the object should be deformed when the bottom of the cup is rising. If you think that the bottom should be expanded only in the z direction and the rest of the cup left unchanged, then it is just wrong, since the deformation is not coutinuous. I am annoyed that nobody gives accurate answers to my remarks, and I wonder how people can support without doing so. It seems to me that nobody sees the problem: I can assure you, as a mathematician, that there is one. This problem is all the more serious if nobody sees it: it is acceptable to be approximative only if one is conscious of the limitations. --Bernard 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- support graphic is fine, illustrates the topological concept of a homotopy perfectly. But I do agree with Bernard that its not the right one for homeomorphism. It actually reinforces the wrong idea about what a homeomorphish is. People will look at the animation and leave with that incorrect impression. --Salix alba (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Graphically illustrating why the image could be confusing for homeomorphism. There is a homeomorphism between the torus and Trefoil knot, but no homotopy. --Salix alba (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for giving your opinion on the homeomorphism/homotopy problem. I would like to ask also what you think of the other problem I wrote about, namely that the transformation that is suggested between the torus and the mug is not in fact an homeomorphism (fails to be either continuous or injective)? Whether you understand, agree, and think it is a serious problem or not... --Bernard 12:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I beleive you can construct a continuous and injective map which mirrors this illustration. What you don't get is differentiability. Consider just a small portion round the top of the cup, before its been pressed in, and just after. A slice through is illustrated below, I've constructed two diagonals lines and divided the interiour into three sets of points: a,b,c.
------------- |------ aaaa\bb\ccccc |\ccccc aaaaa\bb\cccc |b\cccc aaaaaa\bb\ccc ----|bb\ccc aaaaa\bb\cc
- The deformation maps each set of points before onto the corresponding points after. Hopefully enough to convince you. --Salix alba (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I expect many people intuitively visualize something of this sort when they see the animation. I'm rather baffled that it has been a source of confusion, but in hindsight it's somewhat understandable. I remember when I started learning topology that I would overthink these things. There was a tendency to think things really couldn't be as they somehow appeared. If one works a lot in hands-on topology in 3 dimensions, one learns to trust one's intuition again (or at least certain parts of it....). --C S (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. The only real objection I see is that the animation demonstrates an isotopy, which is a stronger condition than homeomorphism between two objects contained in an ambient space. Is this a serious objection? I don't think so. The gist of what topology is about is conveyed more than adequately. It's a great animation. --C S (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Mug and Torus morph.gif --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Canada provinces evolution
- Reason
- Self-nom; seeing the response to the animated Australia map below (people saying the concept was good), I thought it was time to nominate one I made of Canada some time ago, spruced up a little bit. It may look low quality in thumbnail view but full view makes it better. The actual animated version is in the two articles mentioned; each frame is also individually used in Territorial evolution of Canada.
- Articles this image appears in
- Canada, Provinces and territories of Canada
- Creator
- User:Golbez
- Nominator
- Golbez
- Support — Golbez 13:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you take suggestions? It would be good to have an intermittent frame showing only the outline of the country at the end so it doesn't jump from present to 1867. Also, the dates might be better presented as a timeline. Otherwise this is pretty nice. ~ trialsanderrors 19:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Another one: There are occasions where it isn't clear which territory the Arctic Islands belong to. ~ trialsanderrors 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure how to make that one clearer, I do believe that Keewatin never included them, so they always belonged to either the NWT or Nunavut. I've added dashed lines between Nunavut and NWT though. --Golbez 12:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Another one: There are occasions where it isn't clear which territory the Arctic Islands belong to. ~ trialsanderrors 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. There was a peer review of this image (by the same nominator) here, which includes some other suggestions as well. Just throwing that out there. --Tewy 23:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd honestly forgotten about that, I knew I'd done one on Commons but I forgot about the one here. --Golbez 11:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support, very well done. The only reason I do weak is because I'm not sure that gif is the best way to represent this. Maybe an html solution where you click on tabs to change images would work better (I can't find an example, but I know I've seen them). gren グレン 11:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I've uploaded a new version with a timeline, explanations, and a blank frame at the end as suggested, which I thought would not work at all but it kinda does, it cleanses the palate (and palette! heh) before restarting again. I should have done this after the peer review, but here it is. :) --Golbez 12:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. High enc value. I liked to see it start from the beginning of Canada, but maybe that'll be too long to fit in a single map. Anyway, good job again. --Arad 15:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- It would also seriously threaten my sanity, as the borders of the colonies of pre-dominion Canada were, shall we say, poorly documented. ;) I'll eventually make one, probably. --Golbez 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support -Very informative -Nelro
- Support. Nicely done (although a little slow, but that's just because so much happened). --Tewy 22:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support — Well done, especially now that you have incorporated the other suggestions. Though, I've got one more for you: could you make the borders slightly thinner? I'm thinking about 0.5 to 1pt smaller. ♠ SG →Talk 03:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not without redoing the whole shebang. :| --Golbez 05:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support I think it's great, I especially like the recent addition of the timeline. I was thinking of doing the same kind of thing for the Grateful Dead#Lineups, haha. A couple of comments though: Perhaps the text of Saskatchewan could be the same (or comprarable) size as the others, and not slanted? A hyphen could make it fit, maybe. Also, it would be great if the text could be curved to follow the lines of equal latitude, which are particularly important in the case of the edges of the Western provinces. Spebudmak 07:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I like the delay between the frames, as it gives you ample time to read it. Also,
- Question: Does anyone know if Flash presentations are ever going to be compatible with WP? With a forward/backward button, this would be an ideal candidate, as the viewer could read at his own pace... tiZom(2¢) 15:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Til then, each frame is available separately with sourcing and more information at Territorial evolution of Canada :) --Golbez 16:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good job again! Canada's proud of you ;-) --Arad 21:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Til then, each frame is available separately with sourcing and more information at Territorial evolution of Canada :) --Golbez 16:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- weak oppose - ambiguous regional identity of islands at many places in the animation, and the boundary lines change thickness throughout. Debivort 20:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- They do? Where? The international borders are thicker than the internal borders, but beyond that there should be no changes. As for lack of identity, 1) I don't think the District of Keewatin extended beyond the mainland, the islands always belong to the NWT except when 3) Nunavut comes along, and its borders are clearly delineated. So, please be specific - where are the borders wonky, and which islands are ambiguous? --Golbez 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- No the borders are the same. The international ones are thicker only. I think it's a mistake eye makes because of colors maybe. --Arad 15:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are right about the borders changing only when they change status. I hadn't realized that was the distinction. It would be worth saying that in the caption. As for the NWT, there is no way to know that the islands belong to NWT or any of the other sepia territories that run into the water there. Change opposition to weak opposition. Debivort 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- No the borders are the same. The international ones are thicker only. I think it's a mistake eye makes because of colors maybe. --Arad 15:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- They do? Where? The international borders are thicker than the internal borders, but beyond that there should be no changes. As for lack of identity, 1) I don't think the District of Keewatin extended beyond the mainland, the islands always belong to the NWT except when 3) Nunavut comes along, and its borders are clearly delineated. So, please be specific - where are the borders wonky, and which islands are ambiguous? --Golbez 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Canada_provinces_evolution.gif --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Brise soleil on Milwaukee Art Museum
- Reason
- After the failed nomination earlier this month I was intrigued by the building and looked for better versions of the brise soleil. This set of pictures from Flickr captures the entrance of the pavilion at sundown, just when the brise soleil is closing, and gives a better idea of its purpose. It also has a quite beautiful atmosphere. I did some cleanup work on the image, but I did not retouch the right wing of the sail, which seems to have some surface damage. (Note this is not a representation of the whole pavilion, which should be covered from a different angle.)
- Articles this image appears in
- Brise soleil
- Creator
- Mulad (on Flickr)
- Nominator
- trialsanderrors
- Support — trialsanderrors 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question Are all three of these images being nominated as a single image, or are we supposed to select the one we like most? Basar 06:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your call. I'd say it's sufficient to feature Image 1, but they also work as set. ~ trialsanderrors 08:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Well then, I'm willing to go out and support picture 1. I can understand why some people may have trepidation because of the cars and people in the picture, but I'm willing to overlook that because of the composition which I feel is good, the quality, and the enc value it has. Basar 17:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I thought about removing the cars but didn't because by good luck they have the same color as the background. Next round of retouching I'll remove the dent in the door though :-) About the people, any architecture photographer would drool over them. Thankfully they're all wearing dark colors, so they add a human element without distracting from the main subject. They're almost like the human props drawn into architecture sketches to add the impression of habitation. ~ trialsanderrors 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose you are right about the people; they are sort of nice. Basar 00:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I thought about removing the cars but didn't because by good luck they have the same color as the background. Next round of retouching I'll remove the dent in the door though :-) About the people, any architecture photographer would drool over them. Thankfully they're all wearing dark colors, so they add a human element without distracting from the main subject. They're almost like the human props drawn into architecture sketches to add the impression of habitation. ~ trialsanderrors 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support a composite image of all three, which would have great encyclopedicness. I'd make one but I don't really have the time right now. chat} 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)]
- No worries, I can do it if it finds consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support image 1 - Pretty. I like the light above it. ♣Tohru Honda13♣ 03:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Comment, I wanted to support the first one... but the blacks on all of them seem really odd... does anyone else notice this? Look at the bushes, the car tires, and the back of the person with the black shirt. gren グレン 21:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific? ~ trialsanderrors 03:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- That image are the parts I referenced. The blacks seem to just be hollow and two color not showing any of the detail. gren グレン 03:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I can only see it when I invert the picture, but it seems it's a side effect of my way of increasing contrast, which is supposed to give the image a more "metallic" feel. I switched back to normal contrast enhancement. Let me know if that solves the problem. ~ trialsanderrors 04:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- That image are the parts I referenced. The blacks seem to just be hollow and two color not showing any of the detail. gren グレン 03:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific? ~ trialsanderrors 03:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Image 1. I've reduced the size of the other two - let's make this a nomination just for one image, as per normal. I don't think a composite of 3 images would be good. Stevage 02:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment A composite would add an incredible amount of enc. I actually had no idea what this actually was until I saw the pictures of it opening and closing. Granted, I didn't read the article but a composite would be very interesting. CaseKid 06:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I added a sequence of images to all individual images now if you click on any of them. It spans a total of six once I get the last one uploaded. ~ trialsanderrors 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Those pictures to way more justice to the museum than mine did. --Paul 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Image 1 Tomer T 15:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Image 1 -Nelro 15:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Milwaukee Art Museum 1 (Mulad).jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Paris Metro map
- Reason
- It's clean: without the names of the stations, the interconnectedness of the network is easier to see, and the map isn't too cluttered. Also, this map doesn't have the artificially-parallel lines that the standard RATP-distributed one does, making it (purportedly) geographically accurate.
- Articles this image appears in
- List of stations of the Paris Métro
- Creator
- User:Metropolitan
- Nominator
- Spebudmak
- Support — Spebudmak 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- ...although I realize it's hard to see much in the thumbnail view. Spebudmak 03:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose May I have the honour of screaming "SVG!!!" for the first time? Also is it geo-referenced? If it is it should be treated like a map with scales and other things that you would find on a map. --antilivedT | C | G 04:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you completely on these technical issues; perhaps they could be addressed by someone who knows how to make SVG images. What do you think of the aesthetics, though? Spebudmak 04:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Q So does this also exist with names? ~ trialsanderrors 04:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- oppose grey background looks muddy, and almost completely uninformative as a thumbnail. Debivort 04:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Made an edit, replaced background with white. (I hope I didn't miss any spots with my bucket-tool.) Spebudmak 08:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Bucket fill is not optimal, since the antialiasing of the image is geared towards a grey bg. Recoloring, another reason to use SVG. -> Oppose both. --Dschwen 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately, this isn't very appealing, graphically. Informative, yes, very good for the article, but no "wow" factor to make it an FP. --Janke | Talk 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, although aesthetically very well done (obviously a lot of work in this one!) I would only support a metro map (of any city) if it had the station names and other information found on the official map. As a metro map on wikipedia, this is not ecyclopaedically useful except for showing that the metro covers a lot of ground. lama 10:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)]
- I don't think you could fit all the station names on here -- look at the high density of stations in the centre! (note that only the central one-quarter of the image is actually "Paris"). It's a tradeoff between geographical accuracy and getting all the station names on. Maybe you could fit the names of the transfer stations but that's all. Spebudmak 17:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppos Even after clicking on it, it's almost impossible to see which lines are RER and which are metro. No station names, no geographic names of any kind. Not very informative, not very visually pleasing, and it's not even an .svg. Stevage 02:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- The RATP map does not differentiate between Metro and RER lines either (the line thicknesses are the same).Spebudmak 17:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose with the leaps and bounds we've undergone in diagram awesomeness you'd need a clear SVG with an image map, probably. gren グレン 08:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -Nelro 15:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Row of Icicle
- Reason
- Wonderful picture that I saw on the article ice.
- Articles this image appears in
- Ice
- Creator
- User:Digon3
- Nominator
- Tomer T
- Support — Tomer T 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -Nelro
- strong oppose - tilted, grainy, out of focus, and the subject, the icicles, are low contrast. Debivort 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - It's a very bad image compared to the other images of User:Digon3. Per above.
- Oppose Pic is tilted - Adrian Pingstone 15:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - It's very hard to get a high contrast picture of icicles, due to weather conditions; I know this from experience. I'd support an untilted version of this picture - of course part of the edges would have to be clipped. Mrug2 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Most interesting" pictures on Flickr; Free licence only. ~ trialsanderrors 01:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This picture was taken before I got into photography. Its tilted and out of focus. --Digon3 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I will upload a untilted version sometime soon. --Digon3 22:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Cells
- Creator: LadyofHats
- Reason: Lady of Hats has many very high quality SVGs which are all "biology book" worthy. So here I nominate the collection. We already had a FP collection before, so here is another one.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
- Support --Arad 22:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Well, that's a lot of good images. However, I'm afraid that they will have to be nominated separately. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Oppose: 5. Neutral: 1. Can see: 2 Animal cell can be shown better, namely the chromatin and the neuclous isn't very clear. Sodium channels on #1 need to be labled. I can't see #2. (I also added the number lables for the purpose of identification in the votes) -Fcb981 23:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- oppose procedurally - there is no community consensus on what to do with a set like this. First of all, they aren't united by a theme. What article do they illustrate? If we let these nominations linger a full week, it will be a nasty burden on whoever has to close the nomination. Let's go to the talk page, hammer out some ideas and then re-nominate. Debivort 02:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Copying this here: Discussion on featured picture sets at WT:FPC. ~ trialsanderrors 03:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as set They illustrate so different things, that I see no reason to bunch them together as an "FP set". This is quite different from the Mandelbrot FP, where the images formed an unbroken sequence. --Janke | Talk 13:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as set per above gren グレン 08:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted without prejudice. Feel free to renominate if and when featured picture sets become a reality, or individually. MER-C 08:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Bones
- Creator: LadyofHats
- Reason: Another collection of high quality, high enc value SVG of LadyofHats. I removed the less "enc" ones.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
-
12
-
13
-
14
- Support --Arad 22:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Well, that's a lot of good images. However, I'm afraid that they will have to be nominated separately. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I remember that we already had a FP set before. --Arad 23:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support all EXEPT #2 #2 is on the simple side to be featured, I think. -Fcb981 23:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think we need to define what a "set" of featured pictures is. I don't think it applies in this case though since the only commonality is the creator. Oppose procedurally therefore, I'd be up for supporting individual images though. LadyofHats needs more barnstars though. ~ trialsanderrors 00:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose 6, 10, 11, 12: The drawings are great, but following the labels is like watching a tennis match (though at least they're not just numbers). Most of these drawings could use image maps too. I made one for number three just a week ago (after moving the labels slightly). I'm also not sure about having a group of images going through FPC together and oppose procedurally as per Trialsanderrors. —Pengo 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I started a discussion on featured sets at WT:FPC. ~ trialsanderrors 00:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as set There is some duplication among these, at least visually, and not all are FP quality, IMO. This is quite different from the Mandelbrot FP, where the images formed an unbroken sequence. --Janke | Talk 13:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as set per above gren グレン 08:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as set Tomer T 19:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted without prejudice. Feel free to renominate if and when featured picture sets become a reality, or individually. MER-C 08:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Millennium Dome
- Reason
- A fortuitous shot of this monster. The Dome is highlighted by lateral sunlight while contrasting nicely against the cloudy sky. It's among the "most interesting" free-license architecture images on Flickr and certainly the most encyclopedic view.
- Articles this image appears in
- The O2
- Creator
- zakgollop on Flickr
- Nominator
- trialsanderrors
- Support — trialsanderrors 07:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -Not very sharp -Nelro
- Please Pstuart84 Talk 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Please
- Support -Beautiful Tomer T 15:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- oppose grainy/blurry at full size. Debivort 20:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Sharpness lacks, but this is one of those pictures that has enough going for it in terms of composition that there's an acceptable tradeoff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmil (talk • contribs)
- Support Agreed- the composition is great, as is the encyclopedic value. I'm sure the noise could be digitally removed. Jellocube27 23:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I already did some noise reduction, although other editors might have better tools for it. There is always a tradeoff between sharpness and low noise, so I usually try to hit the middle ground. On sharpness, it's not Diliff quality but I think it's pretty sharp for a picture taken from half a mile away. The thumbnails came out pretty blurry though. ~ trialsanderrors 02:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. I'm not too thrilled by the compo, too much dead space. The subject is fairly small and yet rather blurry.. --Dschwen 21:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted PS2pcGAMERtest 04:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Second Severn Crossing Panorama
- Reason
- I took this on an atmospheric evening last summer, having used the bridge frequently to travel from my home in Cardiff to work in Bristol. Although the bridge is in silhouette, I think this shot does a good job of illustrating its structure and size, and is visually appealing and eyecatching. It's already featured on Commons but I hesitated to nominate it here because I thought it'd be shot down for unc1; I've reconsidered because (bias aside) I believe it's highly enc.
1unencyclopaedicity
- Articles this image appears in
- Second Severn Crossing
- Creator
- Yummifruitbat (YFB)
- Nominator
- YFB ¿
- Support (both my versions, slight preference for original - weak oppose Armedblowfish's edit) — YFB ¿ 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support original, weak support alt 1, oppose alt 2, Needs to be looked at in full size since the thumbnail doesn't show off the detail of the image effectively (esp the diagonal cables). Btw, I swtiched the image to panorama in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 23:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support Outstanding quality! the clouds have almost no noise. well done. -Fcb981 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose while the resolution is high and quality decent, I feel that the backlighting kills the encyclopedic value. You can only see so much of the structure, and I would rather see the subject lit than in shadow.-Andrew c 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Nice job! --frothT 04:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose -nice picture bu its too dark -Nelro
- Suppot - Excelent composition and atmosphere is this contre-jour picture. I like the dark menacing shades of the clouds above the bridge. - Alvesgaspar 17:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Support.Willing to overlook lighting, but what about the left side of the bridge?--HereToHelp 02:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Um, good point - I'm not sure what happened there. I've restitched the image with the rest of the frames and uploaded the result as an alternative version which shows the entire bridge. I'm not convinced that any particularly useful information is gained by this addition and I can't decide whether the first seems a more balanced composition. Thanks for pointing it out - any opinions either way? --YFB ¿ 07:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Maye it's good for commons but I don't see the Enc value for Wikipedia. I like it in a way but the subject (i think it's the bridge) is too dark (no detail) --Arad 22:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Arad, thanks for commenting. If you're struggling to make out the subject, it may be that your monitor isn't properly calibrated. Many monitors are set too dark "out of the box" and need adjusting to get full shadow detail. Admittedly this image is dark (as Alvesgaspar puts it, "contre-jour") but it should be easy to see the bridge's structure in considerable detail on a properly calibrated display. --YFB ¿ 01:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply but I can assure you my monitor is perfectly calibrated. It's just that I don't think the image is a perfect FP for Wikipedia. It's a very good photo indeed, --Arad 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Arad, thanks for commenting. If you're struggling to make out the subject, it may be that your monitor isn't properly calibrated. Many monitors are set too dark "out of the box" and need adjusting to get full shadow detail. Admittedly this image is dark (as Alvesgaspar puts it, "contre-jour") but it should be easy to see the bridge's structure in considerable detail on a properly calibrated display. --YFB ¿ 01:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Alternative version Tomer T 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support The detail is great when viewed at full resolution. In case it makes a difference, I created a version of this with slightly greater contrast and brightness.
— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 12 March 2007
- Oppose alternative version with slightly greater contrast and brightness, blows out the sky. --Dschwen 12:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
So... Which version? Moving to "additional input required" section. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm for the unedited alternate. That's just me, though.--HereToHelp 22:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support alternative, Oppose alternative version 2 I can't really decide what version is better (original or alternative), but I have a slight preference for the alternative (after all, there's more information in it). The sky of version seems almost too bright in my opinion. -Wutschwlllm 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Second Severn Crossing pano 2 s.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Vernal Fall
- Reason
- Very attractive photograph of the waterfall
- Articles this image appears in
- Vernal Fall
- Creator
- God of War (talk)
- Nominator
- MattWright (talk)
- Support — MattWright (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I actually like the asthetics of this picture, but I wonder if it might have too much noise in the sky. I would make a decision after seeing the opinion of a more capable user. JHMM13 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -great picture. the rainbow is really nice -Nelro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.137.170 (talk • contribs)
- You need to log in and use our tildes: ~~~~ to sign your comments. ~ trialsanderrors 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the rainbow is actually lensflair. :-D --Arad 23:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- No I was there, the rainbow was quite real. That's why I took the picture.--God Ω War 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was joking. It's because of an earlier nomination which had a lensflair "rainbow". --Arad 20:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry - that was my idea, I feel stupid about that now. Mrug2 00:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why you feel stupid? Because of the rainbow? If i miss directed you, my apologies. --Arad 01:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- No I was there, the rainbow was quite real. That's why I took the picture.--God Ω War 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Harsh shadows everywhere, grain in the sky, and it's nowhere near as sharp as it could be at that resolution --frothT 23:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose a very artistic shot however could be more ENC. The focus and noise in the sky distract me more than the dark shadows. -Fcb981 05:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support - Mrug2 00:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T 20:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - M&NCenarius 22:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Strong Support - Photo IS of high quality. the shadows are NOT that harsh, and the shadowing ads emphesis onto the colour of the rainbow. The waterfall behind is quite beautiful and SHARP! —The preceding talk • contribs).
Promoted Image:Vernal Falls Rainbow.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
CSA states evolution
- Reason
- Self-nom. After seeing the happy responses and suggestions for my Canada map (Below) I decided to try it out on the Confederacy. This is much less a 'territorial evolution' map and more an 'animated timeline' but I'll stick with the naming system. ;) I added a days-of-the-month timeline because there are a few months where a large number of events happen. I wonder, should it be there the whole time, or only during busy months? Anyway, let me know what you think. --Golbez 10:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Confederate States of America
- Creator
- User:Golbez
- Nominator
- Golbez
- Support — Golbez 10:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -Very good and informative -Nelro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.46.208 (talk)
- Comment What is the top counter (that goes from 1 to 30) referring to. perhaps you could label it? lama 14:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Day of the month; since some months, particularly in 1861, had multiple things going on, I figured that was the best way. --Golbez 14:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Can you put commas in between the day of the month and the year? Neutralitytalk 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question Are the colors based on a cartographic precedent? I have to admit I find them poorly matched and not very telling (for instance USA and CSA could be separated by different color schemes, with different levels of brightness or saturation establishing different levels of incorporation). Also, I don't see the need for the day-of-the-month timeline or the thick line between USA and CSA. ~ trialsanderrors 19:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The colors are based on all of the hundreds of maps I've made up to this point, and I haven't yet been shown a better scheme. :) As for 'different levels of incorporation', I'm not quite sure what you mean; like showing how much control the CSA held at a certain time? That would be more of a war timeline, whereas this is more of a political timeline. --Golbez 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a term I made up on the spot for want of a better one. It roughly means a state in a union is a higher level of incorporation than a territory, so a possible color scheme would be:
- State of the Union
- Territory of the Union
- Independent state
- Territory of the Confederacy
- State of the Confederacy
- It doesn't have to be these exact colors, but it's easy to signal affiliated states by using different color depths. ~ trialsanderrors 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, I might try that out at some point, but for now I like my system. :) though it did get a little out of whack here, I used my normal "disputed" color for the CSA territory. --Golbez 13:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a term I made up on the spot for want of a better one. It roughly means a state in a union is a higher level of incorporation than a territory, so a possible color scheme would be:
- The colors are based on all of the hundreds of maps I've made up to this point, and I haven't yet been shown a better scheme. :) As for 'different levels of incorporation', I'm not quite sure what you mean; like showing how much control the CSA held at a certain time? That would be more of a war timeline, whereas this is more of a political timeline. --Golbez 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. In reference to Trialsanderrors. I don't know (care) so much about colors. I think the day of month thing works because there is plenty of room and I can't think of anything more worthwhile. I think the thick line is good because it's claiming to be a national boundary... not just a state boundary. gren グレン 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I haven't looked at this in enough detail to make any criticism of the quality (looks pretty good on first glance) but I don't really think an animated GIF is an ideal way to show this progression. There are simply too many steps and the animation is therefore too long and lacks user control. This would be great as a Flash applet with forward/back controls and a speed slider for the automation. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that there's a Flash implementation for Wikipedia so I can't really suggest a constructive way to make this better - I just think it's too long at present, and too likely that someone would want to go back a frame or two and not be able to. --YFB ¿ 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, as with my other animated timelines I'll eventually make a list article, I simply haven't done that yet. And yeah, this is rather long. And no, I will not be making one for the United States, that animated gif would be over 5 minutes long. =p --Golbez 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was wondering the same thing. Is there a way to make it so you click on a little tab with a year and it changes to another (preloaded) image. I know this can be done... but I'm not sure if the code is allowed in Wikipedia. I think that would be ideal (providing there aren't too many years. But, can it be done? gren グレン 13:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can have a template linking a series of maps, see commons:template:USA territorial evolution --Astrokey44 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support, very nicely done, I like how it shows the confederacy separate from seceded states. Although it might be good to also show the borders of the US territories. Also, should Indian Territory (oklahoma) be confederate too as in this map, or at least shown as disputed? I tried doing something similar several months ago made from maps on wikipedia, interestingly with colors like those suggested by trials&errors above and showing part of the war borders. I had previously thought that writing would not work in an animated gif, but it does work very well here. --Astrokey44 12:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- My original version did have the U.S. territories, but there are too many changes in the time period that it distracted from the focus, which was the CSA. --Golbez 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- And that one includes Indian territory, but I specifically omitted that from mine, because even though it started under CSA control, it was never formally annexed or organized by the CSA, unlike Arizona Territory. --Golbez 13:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- My original version did have the U.S. territories, but there are too many changes in the time period that it distracted from the focus, which was the CSA. --Golbez 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very well done animation, shows the image's intention well. The image is very informative with its descriptions and dates. Hello32020 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- weak support very informative, but I would prefer something like the color scheme in the non nominated example. Debivort 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would recoment pending above recomended color scheme (blues and greys); also your "day of the month" bar kind of threw me off (I thought that it was going to be a slide counter, as in "map 1 of 30".) Otherwise, I am totally digging this map, and hope to see your continured involvement with Wikipedia. OverMyHead 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The Canada one does a better job at representing this kind of an animated map. This one here is too cluttered, the day-of-the-month timeline is unintutive and unexplained, and the color scheme is unhelpful and unattractive. ~ trialsanderrors 18:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:CSA states evolution.gif --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Pomegranate (Punica granatum)
- Reason
- This is a nomination partially to advertise two rich and underused resources: biolib.de , a repository of old, mostly out-of-print biology books, and Otto Wilhelm Thomé's work on German, Austrian and Swiss plants in particular. I picked one that is both attractive and easy to clean up (since most original scans have the common dark edges). There are two versions: I prefer the version with the yellowed, somewhat uneven paper, but there is also an edit with white background. (The original is here.)
- Articles this image appears in
- Pomegranate
- Creator
- Otto Wilhelm Thomé, 1885
- Nominator
- trialsanderrors
- Support — trialsanderrors 07:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Version 1 I like it. Nice and clean, high-resolution, no noise, yada-yada etc. etc. — 'WiiWillieWiki→(Talk) 14:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Original Tomer T 14:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Either. This is another pomegranate FP, but it is a photo, so no need to fear overlap.--HereToHelp 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support version 1, sharp clean image.-- Dakota 03:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support original. That is indeed an excellent resource.--ragesoss 05:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support original only. The second one looks anachronistic, since paper was never completely white like that before bleach. Chick Bowen 03:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)]
- In 1885, paper was (sometimes) plenty white; color like in this "original" (which has been retouched already and may have had an unknown amount of color correction to enhance the red even before trialsanderrors worked on it) would be a combination of aging discoloration and a not-super-white but probably much whiter original color. Still, I mostly agree with you.--ragesoss 04:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I should have been more clear--yes, the paper will have darkened considerably, but the background of the second picture is, essentially, blank—i.e., not like paper at all. Chick Bowen 04:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)]
- I should have been more clear--yes, the paper will have darkened considerably, but the background of the second picture is, essentially, blank—i.e., not like paper at all.
- The original of my edit is directly from the biolib source. Looking at their gallery as a whole, they certainly didn't do any editing to their images. Of course the scanner setting might have contributed to the high saturation, but I don't see eveidence that all their images are oversaturated. I agree with Chick that the white background is digital white. ~ trialsanderrors 05:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Illustration Punica granatum2.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Xylocopa male
- Reason
- This is a great shot of a bee. The vivid colour of the flower the bee is resting on is dramatic, and reflected nicely in its eyes. The tight focal length on the bee's face gives it a personality that would be lacking in a blander photograph.
- Articles this image appears in
- Eastern carpenter bee
- Creator
- Pollinator
- Nominator
- Hex
- Support — (❝?!❞) 15:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Oppose DOF is tiny. there's some glare on the eye and the subject is cut off. -Fcb981 15:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Far too much of the pic is out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 15:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too low DOF, subject cut off. --Tewy 21:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose pretty much exactly per Tewy --frothT 18:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Shows in great detail the animalPenubag 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag
- Oppose as per Tewy --Benjamint444 23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -Nelro 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Fish and chips
- Reason
- Very nice and appetizing picture :)
- Articles this image appears in
- Fish and chips, Take-out
- Creator
- User:Solipsist
- Nominator
- Tomer T
- Support — Tomer T 15:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Is this picture of fish and chips or a beach? The nerve! ;-) Mrug2 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think that there are a lot of good pictures that thier subject is a beach. What's bad with a picture that its subject is Fish and chips? Tomer T 20:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -Not a very good picture -Nelro
- Please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. ~ trialsanderrors 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Meat-and-potato picture. ~ trialsanderrors 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- What is wrong with a food picture? This one is featured. Tomer T 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is not that it depicts food, but that it depicts it in a not very attractive, encyclopedic, or technically outstanding way. ~ trialsanderrors 00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- What is wrong with a food picture? This one is featured. Tomer T 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not only is the horizon tilted, it's also curved. Either make the pic unacceptable as an FP - Adrian Pingstone 22:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose just noticed some worrying DOF problems on the back of the fish. In fact, almost all of the fish is at least a little out of focus.. FPs should be razor sharp --frotht 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Don't know what everyone else is talking about- seems like a nicely enc (and very sharp and high-res) pic of fish n chips. But it doesn't belong on a beach; the beach background makes no sense. Put it in a fast food place or something --frothT 18:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)- Froth, in many parts of the world where fish and chips is most common (ie UK and Australia, not so much the United States), it is pretty common to have them at or on the beach. See the image caption in the fish and chips article. Your own American bias may place fish and chips in a fast food restaurant but that isn't necessarily the case, particularly since this is a British image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I'm going to buck the trend here and support it. Ideally it could be higher res and the horizon could be straightened somewhat but it isn't vital since it is OOF and of secondary importance to the beach and the foreground. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose', the composition doesn't work for me, why are the fish and chips just sitting there on the foreshore, and where are the seagulls?--Peta 00:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support-don't know why, made me laugh (Also support beause it is a very original, unique pic)Penubag 02:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag
- Support, please, you're makin' me hungry. I actually didn't know what fish and chips looked like before seeing this picture, so very encyclopedic. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 18:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. The light on the sunward side of the food seems too bright. Plus the composition seems odd to me. This just looks like someone left their order on a wall or something. chat} 23:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Oppose I agree that the light seems too bright. I think the beach is also very distracting. ShadowHalo 23:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Oppose The beach is blurry enough not to be the focus of the picture, but is also clear enough to distract the viewer from the fish and chips. Better focusing would improve the picture. -- Sturgeonman 20:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting shot, but no FP material. -Wutschwlllm 13:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I love it when I find fish and chips sitting on the beach! Kaldari 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Little Egret with reflection
- Reason
- Composition; quality; subject; etc.
- Articles this image appears in
- Little Egret
- Creator
- Birdman1
- Nominator
- Birdman1 talk/contribs
- Support — Birdman1 talk/contribs 23:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -Great Compostition -NelroNelro 11:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. The composition is good, but there are artifacts, it's blurry, and the lighting is dull. A downsizing might help. --Tewy 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's blurry in the foreground, if that's what you mean, on purpose. It focuses on the subject. Please explain. How would a downsizing help? --Birdman1 talk/contribs 17:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Viewed in full size, the subject itself is a little blurry (look at, for instance, the eye). A downsizing would increase the overall sharpness of the image, even if it makes it smaller. --Tewy 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh and don't get me wrong, it's a great picture, just not quite a featured picture in my mind. --Tewy 00:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's blurry in the foreground, if that's what you mean, on purpose. It focuses on the subject. Please explain. How would a downsizing help? --Birdman1 talk/contribs 17:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T 16:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose- great picture and all, but just not FP stuff(even I could take that snapshot if I had a camera)Penubag 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag
- It's easy to say, but practically it's harder. Tomer T 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but I don't think it's quite good enough for a FP. It just isn't very striking; I think it might be because it's a little busy; maybe it lacks some important lines or coloring, something that would bring the picture together. The reflection almost does it, but it is disturbed by the weeds. Basar 06:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not particularly sharp, and artifacty. Dull lighting could be overlooked, but not the technical flaws.--ragesoss 05:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Eye Diagram
- Reason
- Superb quality svg with very high enc value
- Articles this image appears in
- Eye
- Creator
- Chabacano
- Nominator
- Arad
- Support — Arad 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Now new and improved without the circles around the numbers... ~ trialsanderrors 16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great SVG and enc.--HereToHelp 00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support A exemplary picture! An attractive and informative composition. A+++ SELLER FAST DELIVERY Jellocube27 00:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support
ifeither an image map version is made, or a labelled-with-words version is made. (It's a great picture and i'm sure it will pass anyway). I wish I had bought that journal where they'd done a study which showed exactly how much more effectively people learnt when labels were closer to the picture. I also wish I had a word for the "close label effect". —Pengo 02:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC) - Support. Also, I suggest creating either an "image map version" (first I've heard of this), or simply a second version with English labels instead of numbers. I've never understood the arguments for one or the other: just make both. Stevage 02:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just to clarify my position above: yes, having a numbered version is equally important :) —Pengo 03:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok I've gone and filled my own request, and made the image map: Template:Eye diagram (not currently transcluded anywhere). —Pengo 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: This image has parts that are not visible on a white background. This might be obvious to people with good monitors when you see the grey checkerboard, but my screen's contrast is pretty crap, So i've made a red backgrounded version to highlight it instead. Umm.. Does anyone else find this odd? (detail especially on the left side of the eye is lost with a white background) —Pengo 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's interesting. Perhaps the white bits could be surrounded with a black outline? Stevage 02:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please no black outline, but a more neutral color for the background would help, since red is already used in the illustration. ~ trialsanderrors 03:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm seeing perfectly those transparent parts on white background. It look great. The quality of this pic is amazing, idk how can it be improved. --Arad 04:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just checked and those bits are visible when the colours are inversed, so it must just be my old LCD screen. My apologies. —Pengo 08:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm seeing perfectly those transparent parts on white background. It look great. The quality of this pic is amazing, idk how can it be improved. --Arad 04:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please no black outline, but a more neutral color for the background would help, since red is already used in the illustration. ~ trialsanderrors 03:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's interesting. Perhaps the white bits could be surrounded with a black outline? Stevage 02:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support, the image map of this looks amazing! gren グレン 08:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support, looks amazing. --Mardavich 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support see above reasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penubag (talk • contribs)
- Conditional Support - It looks great. But I'm not so crazy about the background being the same colour as many elements in the subject. A light cyan might be better, since it really isn't present anywhere else in the image, and is light enough to allow labels to be seen. --Paul 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Also, does SVG support embedded metadata? (I'd be surprised if it didn't , since it's XML-based.) Because I preferred the version with labels. However, if the descriptions for each numbered label were in the metadata, it would make the picture independent of any page it might be embedded in. It's a pet peeve of mine to see images with label descriptions or colour keys that are in the referring page instead of the picture itself (though in this case, having the descriptions in the picture itself would make it too noisy, which is why I'm suggesting the use of metadata). --Paul 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, SVG supports metadata but I don't believe there's a standard way to embed caption information, or at least any standard way to read it back again (someone please, please correct me). There is a standard [way to include href links, but unless Wikipedia begins to support them, or has a way to convert SVG link tags (with CURIEs) into image maps, then, well, it's all just an exercise in futility. Perhaps you'd just like the labels named or given IDs that reflect what they point to. I doubt it would help anyone though. —Pengo 02:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Eye-diagram no circles border.svg --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Historic church of Cúcuta
- Reason
- It is beautiful.
- Articles this image appears in
- Historic church of Cúcuta
- Creator
- Qwerty2
- Nominator
- Ricardo Ramírez
- Support — Ricardo Ramírez 22:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -Nelro 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Almost the whole sky is white and the colours are washed out. -Wutschwlllm 23:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As above, low quality of sharpness, shadows show little detail and lots of noise. --Asiir 23:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- oppose bad sky color — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penubag (talk • contribs)
- Oppose per above. Basar 02:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Park of the Greater Colombia - Cúcuta, Colombia
- Reason
- It is excelent.
- Articles this image appears in
- Park of the Greater Colombia
- Creator
- Qwerty2
- Nominator
- Ricardo Ramírez
- Support — Ricardo Ramírez 21:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -i like it Nelro 22:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - It looks good, but I feel it doesn't really show much of the park. It would be better if the picture had something important to the park, not just a brick sidewalk with trees. If this picture, hypothetically, had made it to FP status, nobody would know where that place is. — Resources) 22:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Oppose per JuWiki. Basar 23:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose: my knowledge on photography is basic, enough to say that this picture is nothing compared to other featured pictures. Has nothing special or at least a technique. Sorry guys but I'm pretty sure Colombia has better views. --(((BLA BLA BLA) 05:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Oppose. The white balance is way off- way too bright. Also, why are there trees growing all over the sidewalk in the background? --frotht 08:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- oppose the subject of the picture isn't clear Penubag 02:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
17th century star map
- Reason
- High enc, good looking, high quality scan.
- Articles this image appears in
- Astronomy, Star chart
- Creator
- Frederik de Wit
- Nominator
- Janke | Talk
- Support — Janke | Talk 18:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose — I love these sorts of old maps/starmaps but even at 1804 × 1236 pixels, it is still not high enough resolution for the detail to be visible, sorry. —Pengo 22:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Pengo.--HereToHelp 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I feel kinda bad opposing for resolution when it's 1804x1236px, but there isn't enough detail to be able to read some of the text. ShadowHalo 23:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Well, you can't really read the small print on the existing FP "Carta Marina" [3], either, even though it's over 5000 px wide... --Janke | Talk 06:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can read just about all of the text pretty easily, and the major captions are larger and clearly visible. I think it's more of a problem that I can't read the names of the planets (I'm presuming that's what they are based on the corresponding symbols) in the center-top circle. ShadowHalo 06:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)]
- I can read just about all of the text pretty easily, and the major captions are larger and clearly visible. I think it's more of a problem that I can't read the names of the planets (I'm presuming that's what they are based on the corresponding symbols) in the center-top circle.
- Well, you can't really read the small print on the existing FP "Carta Marina" [3], either, even though it's over 5000 px wide... --Janke | Talk 06:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
George Bush Park 2
- Reason
- It seems well enough to be nominated, good view of park. It also demonstrates how straight-down Houston bayous can be.
- Articles this image appears in
- George Bush Park
- Creator
- JuWiki
- Nominator
- JuWiki
- Support — JuWiki 01:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Oppose - compression artifacts in water, and purple fringing on tree limbs. Debivort 02:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't see any purple fringing. — Resources) 14:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Comment - I don't see any purple fringing. —
- Oppose All I see is some water and some shrubbery (no pun intended). ~ trialsanderrors 03:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, nowhere near striking enough for FPC - Adrian Pingstone 10:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Would Resources) 14:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)]
- I think that alternative version is too bright. Tomer T 14:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Turgor pressure on plant cells diagram
- Reason
- High enc value. Good svg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Hypertonic Turgor pressure
- Creator
- LadyofHats
- Nominator
- Arad
- Support — Arad 23:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Very high quality drawing, but not very exciting. —Pengo 05:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support We are lucky to have a free license on a diagram that aethetically seems (IMHO) worthy of a quality biology textbook. Spebudmak 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is infact worthy. --Arad 17:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support This is pretty well done, although I'm not sure why the background is grey and what the significance of the green and yellow arrows is (both easily fixed, I suppose). "Weak" only because I see number of more impressive illustrations on LadyofHats' user page. ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. The arrows indicate the direction water is moving in, but the colors suggest the arrows indicate the movement of two different substances. I will support an image in which the arrows are the same color. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weakly Oppose The yellow arrows indicate the diffusion of water into the cell's vacuole, the green arrows show water diffusion out of the vacuole. This is obvious if you think about it, but not immediately clear. I agree that the quality of the diagram is extremely high; however I do not really think that the image holds enough interest to be featured. -- Ninjakannon 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 05:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Sow with Piglet
- Reason
- Encyclopedic, and a well taken picture.
- Articles this image appears in
- Pig, omnivore
- Creator
- Scott Bauer
- Nominator
- RyGuy17
- Support: per nomination. RyGuy17 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose original, it needs a caption. There also appears to be jpg artifact at the bottom, fuzziness, and a little up and left of the big-pig's head you see a scratch line. gren グレン 19:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I removed the scratch line and a whole slew of scanner artifacts. The background is far from perfect, but the subject is in focus and the composition is good enough to support. ~ trialsanderrors 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I added my own edit and support that. ~ trialsanderrors 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurred - Adrian Pingstone 22:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- oppose See reasons above Penubag 02:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag
OpposeSupport I can't get over the background. I think it would be a nice picture if the mud was just brown. Basar 02:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)- Are you saying that as a matter of aesthetics or because you think the mud is blown out? gren グレン 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I guess aesthetics; it just seems a little distracting. Why, are those blown out reflections or is that just a bunch of white stuff on the ground? It also might be nice to have more DOF. Basar 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like some heavy frost or light snowfall. anyway Support, highly enc (nursing, farm, pig, etc.) good quality. -Fcb981 03:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is quite certainly frost. I checked for blown highlights but didn't see any digital white. Even the very light areas have structure. ~ trialsanderrors 03:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I never thought of frost, maybe that's because I'm from California. I think it's OK now. Basar 04:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is quite certainly frost. I checked for blown highlights but didn't see any digital white. Even the very light areas have structure. ~ trialsanderrors 03:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Are you saying that as a matter of aesthetics or because you think the mud is blown out? gren グレン 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose. I find several distractions in the picture. The sow's tail is docked, and she has an ear tag. The sow is not washed or cleaned. I would expect to see a better looking pig competing at my local county fair. At least the piglet is clean and extraordinary looking. The picture as a whole doesn't strike me as an extraordinary picture of a pig (as my grandpa had these Yorkshire pigs when I used to help at his pig farm). The snow in the background doesn't provide a great contrast like some nice green grass or mud would. Royalbroil T : C 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- That may be so, but isn't it nice to have a pig looking like a pig and not all prettied up? I think that mud would be nice too, but if pigs live in frost, then I think it's enc. Basar 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- come on, if you want a perfect picture of a pig someone can make an .svg picture. This is a great animal shot, full of life (for a change) Good lighting, composition, clerity is great. Tag on ear is Enc to farm. -Fcb981 05:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- A FP should be the best that Wikipedia has to offer. It's just a dirty pig to me. It's probably more than mud if you know what I mean. Look at these clean pigs and tell me that they don't look much better: Hampshire Duroc a clean Yorkshire . Either that, or go to a
dirtymuddy pig like this one. Notice thatitthey stillhas itshave their tail intact and no ear tag. Royalbroil T : C 05:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)- I cleaned up my wording above a bit to better reflect my thoughts. I realize that my words are quite harsh (which is unusual for me), but I expect a featured picture of any animal to feature show quality animal. FP is a high standard. Royalbroil T : C 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why? The criteria require accuracy, not prettiness. Would you also reject pictures of cats unless they're best-in-show? ~ trialsanderrors 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Both aesthetics and encyclopaedic value are required. The line of reasoning "it's hard to take a pretty photo of X" is bogus, sorry. Stevage 01:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly not my line. I think the dirty pig rocks and would def'ly take it over a washed one. ~ trialsanderrors 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- umm, it's not mud. Mud requires the temperature to be above freezing, and the snow indicated otherwise. It's 4 letter word that starts with S. I could be in favor of a pig with a muddy snout and/or muddy legs. That is not the case here. There are other breeds of pigs that look a lot nicer with some s... on them like I linked to above. I bet you couldn't even see the s... on the red breed called Durocs. Royalbroil T : C 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? What? Who are you talking to? ~ trialsanderrors 22:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- umm, it's not mud. Mud requires the temperature to be above freezing, and the snow indicated otherwise. It's 4 letter word that starts with S. I could be in favor of a pig with a muddy snout and/or muddy legs. That is not the case here. There are other breeds of pigs that look a lot nicer with some s... on them like I linked to above. I bet you couldn't even see the s... on the red breed called Durocs. Royalbroil T : C 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly not my line. I think the dirty pig rocks and would def'ly take it over a washed one. ~ trialsanderrors 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Both aesthetics and encyclopaedic value are required. The line of reasoning "it's hard to take a pretty photo of X" is bogus, sorry. Stevage 01:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why? The criteria require accuracy, not prettiness. Would you also reject pictures of cats unless they're best-in-show? ~ trialsanderrors 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I cleaned up my wording above a bit to better reflect my thoughts. I realize that my words are quite harsh (which is unusual for me), but I expect a featured picture of any animal to feature show quality animal. FP is a high standard. Royalbroil T : C 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- A FP should be the best that Wikipedia has to offer. It's just a dirty pig to me. It's probably more than mud if you know what I mean. Look at these clean pigs and tell me that they don't look much better: Hampshire Duroc a clean Yorkshire . Either that, or go to a
- Support Both Tomer T 13:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. I thought about it for a bit, but no. It's glarey, with not much contrast, and the quality just isn't great. The composition is nice, but it's let down by so many other things. The bright background is just too displeasing. Stevage 14:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Aesthetically painful to look at. It's just used to illustrate "pig" and "omnivore," there is no reason to have an ugly sow with an ear-tag and a distracting background. Enuja 01:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I just feel there are better pictures of pigs out there and so, this is not one of Wikipedia's best works.
- Oppose In my opinion, this is just an ordinary picture of a (muddy) pig. I don't see anything special about it. -Wutschwlllm 14:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Shivta
- Reason
- Beautiful encyclopedic picture in high quality. It is hard to take a picture in Shivta without picturing the shadows.
- Articles this image appears in
- Shivta, Nabataeans
- Creator
- ST (here or here)
- Nominator
- Tomer T
- Support — Tomer T 16:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Bad lighting (overexposure and harsh shadows). Should be taken at another time of the day. Alvesgaspar 17:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just don't see either overexposure nor harsh shadows. There is plenty of detail in the shadows as far as I can see. That being said I'm not too excited about the pic either. Focus is a bit soft and the subject matter is a bit too arbitrary. --Dschwen 19:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Arbitrary!? Since when is the ruins of an ancient civilization arbitrary? As a matter of fact, since when is a UNESCO world heritage site arbitrary?Bernalj90 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)]
- By arbitrary I meant that the way the photo is taken does not depict the site in a unique way (or show its unique features) that makes it distinguishable from other ruins of an ancient civilizations. I did not intend to belittle the subject itself at all. --Dschwen 07:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Arbitrary!? Since when is the ruins of an ancient civilization arbitrary? As a matter of fact, since when is a UNESCO world heritage site arbitrary?
- Sorry, I just don't see either overexposure nor harsh shadows. There is plenty of detail in the shadows as far as I can see. That being said I'm not too excited about the pic either. Focus is a bit soft and the subject matter is a bit too arbitrary. --Dschwen 19:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, I'm seeing artifact around where the building turns into the sky... and what Schwen said. gren グレン 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- oppose- Anyone can find a pic like this on the internetPenubag 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag
- Neutral Not concerned about shadows, which would be hard to get rid of without artificial lights (bleh) or if the sun was directly behind the subject, and that might not be possible based on positioning of the subject and lends itself to overexposure, which I see none of here. (That long and still a fragment! My English teachers would be proud.) But the view does not lend itself to showing the layout of the whole site (where am I?), and the focus, while good, could be better. This may be due to the camera itself.--HereToHelp 00:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly Support I agree the shadows are well proportioned in this picture and I can't complain about the quality or resolution in any reasonable way. Also, I love the fact that it depicts a little-known yet immensely important ancient historical site. Bernalj90 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Support -Nelro 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Artifacts all over the place. The shadows look interesting, but overall this image is just not that striking to me. The lower third looks too bright. Not really Wikipedia's best work. -Wutschwlllm 14:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)