Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/March-2011

Promoted File:Painted Turtle Distribution alternate.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shepard Hall

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2011 at 01:33:36 (UTC)

Reason

Excellent exterior view of a historic landmark building of the New York City modeled after a Gothic cathedral plan. High resolution as well as free license.

Articles in which this image appears

City College of New York

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Suandsoe

• Support as nominator --Suandsoe (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the large area of snow in the foreground is distracting - I'd suggest retaking this photo once it melts (preferably at a time when the buildings behind the hall are also in the sun, if this is possible). Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Agree that no snow would be better here. Also tilt, perspective and lens distortion issues. Otherwise pretty good. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rhinoceros Skull

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2011 at 21:13:07 (UTC)

Reason

The EV of this one is pretty obvious - shows how the skull and horns connect

Articles in which this image appears

Black Rhinoceros

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Jebulon

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Benjamint 21:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I've credited the right author (Jebulon, and not Noodle Snacks ;) ) - Blieusong (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, just habit I'm afraid. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Blieusong (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support sweet.
  Nergaal (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per Nergaal. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I was going to nominate this, ^^
  talk 23:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - :D --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Diceros bicornis MNHN.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grey-tailed Tattler

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2011 at 05:00:53 (UTC)

Reason

An uncommon resident down here. I believe this image meets the criteria. Probably the last Tasmanian bird from me for quite a while. Fear not though - I've probably got over 75 birds from Thailand to nominate over the next while. Whilst the JAFBP "problem" will get worse, they will counter systemic bias in some sense since we don't have much coverage from South East Asia.

Articles in which this image appears

Grey-tailed Tattler

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support interesting composition.
  Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Smaller in res than your other birds tho--Muhammad(talk) 01:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah - had to crop it quite a lot. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • you were quite far away then, considering you have an effective 1100mm. And sorry to bring up the downsampling issue _again_, but Cephas shows pretty well on Commons that one can upload large quality pics of birds. Why not you ? Sad to see the most skilled wiki photographers downsampling most of the time. - Blieusong (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • 17.5 meters according to exif - but there was still a great deal of empty frame. I was informed about this bird by text message. I managed to gradually close my distance crawling in the mud and rain over about 30 minutes as it was feeding along the edge Lauderdale canal outlet. Since it was starting to get dark the bird decided to rest for the night. I managed to close another five meters or so before it showed signs of agitation - if I'd gone any closer it would have just flown away. Getting closer would really require waiting for the bird behind cover at high tide and getting lucky. Cephas does show that it is possible, and the more that do so the better. Downsampling isn't about quality - ultimately I don't quite feel comfortable with giving everything away. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that my upload behaviour is ignominious though. On the bright side I don't downsample as much as I used to - usually it is about 75% size now instead of 50%. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • (never noticed EXIF had distance..) I can understand your think twice when it comes to give high resolutions pictures to Wiki, and I've already come across several abusive use of my own pics (and they're not as near as good as yours...). There are pros and cons. On the cons side, what about if contributions to the articles were crippled the same way ? But don't get me wrong, I'm happy you keep contributing. - Blieusong (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Benjamint 06:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avenue (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interplay of neutral tones with just a little splash of bright reminds me of the Yes album cover Relayer. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tringa brevipes.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haitian Presidental Palace destroyed by Earthquake

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2011 at 04:50:40 (UTC)

Reason

Shows some of the damage from the earthquake and it is not reproducible as said in former nomination. This was nominated before Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Haitian Presidential Palace in 2010 Earthquake and im nominating it again. I put the original and edited one incase of anyones preference.

Articles in which this image appears

National Palace (Haiti), 2010 Haiti earthquake, Port-au-Prince, Presidential palace

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others

Creator

Logan Abassi

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as I've said previously, it is an impressive picture and I am amazed we have a free picture of it.
  Nergaal (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I prefer the edit.

Nergaal (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support Edit Should have been left alone from a tilt point of view though. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either - though I prefer the original. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original The edited version has blown highlights and an unacceptable amount of compression artefacts. Ottojula (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This vote was added by an IP, so might not actually be Ottojula. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's OK. I just didn't bother to log in before giving my vote.Ottojula (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, prefer original. I've taken the liberty of expanding the caption. --Avenue (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I also prefer the original. Cowtowner (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Haitian national palace earthquake.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral of Christ the Saviour

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2011 at 15:23:04 (UTC)

Reason

Meeting all the criteria

Articles in which this image appears

Cathedral of Christ the Saviour

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

User Voytek S

• Support as nominator --
  T 15:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• A crop-out of the left pole and the front trench might help the composition.
  Nergaal (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose A crop still wouldn't bring the composition up to par, in my opinion. It would have helped if the picture was taken about five feet to the right. Image quality is a bit lacking as well. Jujutacular ^talk 23:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swallow tail in flight

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2011 at 06:09:12 (UTC)

Articles in which this image appears

Swallow-tailed Gull

Creator

Benjamint 06:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 06:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support! Spectacular! A question though - what time of the day was this photo taken? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Around noon, no chance of a flying shot at night! Benjamint 05:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspected as much, so it can't be "fully nocturnal" then, yea? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• They displayed some diurnal activity, mainly just sitting on the rocks near their chicks but yeah I did see them flying a little. Perhaps the article should be reworded to improve clarity in this area. Benjamint 04:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very nice shot, with good EV. --Avenue (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice crisp bird against background just clear enough. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Swallow-tailed-gull-dorsal.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset in Tripoli

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 00:44:02 (UTC)

Reason

An evocative and colorful picture of the city. Its serene tone gives another side to the stories about the current unrest in Libya, while giving a glimpse into the aging architecture and cramped conditions in the city. What it lacks in resolution it makes up for in tone and clarity.

Articles in which this image appears

Tripoli

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

Salutandre

• Support as nominator ---Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 00:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No, it does not make it up in tone and clarity (has the name of a photoshop slider now become an official FPC criterion?). If by tone you mean saturated, then I wonder where the encyclopedic value is. The depicted part of town looks random and could be any north african or middle eastern city. There is nothing particularly special in the frame, and to study "normal" cityscape the resolution is nowhere near good enough. And, sorry, but the filename is not ok either. --Dschwen 04:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Size is sufficient for me, though Dschwen does make some good points. JJ Harrison (talk)
  • To clarify, I mean the size is sufficient for me to oppose. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Size is insufficient. Image quality is poor - there are blown out highlights, lens flare (in the bottom right), and image noise in the darker areas. Furthermore, there are JPG artifacts and aliasing (e.g. in the green building on the left). Upon close examination there are random splotches of green and magenta. Filename suggests that image has been aggressively downsampled from the original; and even this was poorly done, as evidenced by the aliasing. Moreover, Dschwen raises good points about encyclopedic value.
  talk) 03:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • To clarify, I mean the size is insufficient for an FP; hence I oppose.
    talk) 06:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Oppose Small size, odd lighting, noise issues. Okay enc.Spencer^T♦C 21:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of Ronald Reagan in a cowboy hat at Rancho Del Cielo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2011 at 09:47:47 (UTC)

Reason

high resolution, restored version, encyclopaedic value

Articles in which this image appears

2004, Ronald Reagan (as of 28 Feb), and several international wikis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

created by an unknown author and digitally restored by

Peter Weis

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 09:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment It's a great picture, but it's not currently being utilized well in the article space. I've proposed for it to replace a picture at Ronald Reagan (a FA), but no one has responded yet. Jujutacular ^talk 13:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The article on Reagan is already led by a FP, I fail to see what this one would add that that one wouldn't. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: As per Jujutacular's suggestion, the portrait now has a good home in the Ronald Reagan article. I've updated the nomination for that. The FP we already have of Reagan is one of those ubiquitous formal White House portraits, stood in front of the flag, trying to look natural and down to earth but serious and purposeful, blah blah. This is so much better (even quality wise), and we get something of his personality as a younger man. Don't see why there isn't scope for both being FPs, as his presidency did not define him nor his career(s).
  talk 22:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak oppose. The hat is cut off (would make a greater impression otherwise), but still good. Brandmeister t 23:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good portrait, poor president. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. In my view, this is an outstanding portrait. Spikebrennan (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular ^talk 01:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think this satisfies criterion 5 ("Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article"). In an article as heavily illustrated as Ronald Reagan, this picture just doesn't add much. He's already 63 in this picture (and governor of California), so it's not exactly showing a different part of his life. Restoration looks pretty good, though. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This photo is amazingly crisp and has great EV. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Would be even better with the hat included, but it's such a good pic of the fellow's grin.TCO (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ronald Reagan with cowboy hat 12-0071M edit.jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 03:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: yes I voted in this nomination, but all the normal closers of late have voted. By tally: 7/9.5 = 0.73 = promote. Jujutacular ^talk 03:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Beacon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2011 at 23:05:03 (UTC)

Reason

It has good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral colour balance (well at least that is what the image histogram strongly suggests). It meets the pixel criteria. Its probably the most photogenic of what's left of Sir George Staunton's work in Staunton Country Park (The Shell House is heavily shaded and damaged, the Chinese bridge has been reduced to it's bare structure and the lake has been altered). It adds value to the article in that it shows the structure and gives some idea of what the park would have been like before William Henry Stone got his hands on it and the trees became somewhat overgrown. The only editing done is a slight rotation and crop.

Articles in which this image appears

Staunton Country Park,Lewis Vulliamy,Folly

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Geni

• Support as nominator --©Geni 23:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't really feel like it has strong EV at the moment. This is more of a reflection on the article (which really focuses on the park itself) than the image. What about creating an article for the Beacon itself? JJ Harrison (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've dropped it into Lewis Vulliamy. I could probably justify putting it in Sir George Staunton, 2nd Baronet and even Leigh Park. An article on the thing itself though isn't really possible. There isn't much about it left I haven't already mentioned (it it is the centre of one of the 3 paintings of Staunton's gardens and a flag was flown from it to indicate if Staunton was at home). It's notable as part of the series of follies that Staunton built and as I have already mentioned the others have either been destroyed, lost, seriously damaged, altered or are not very photographable.©Geni 00:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you think about Folly? JJ Harrison (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tricky. I've dropped it into the follies article but eh that article needs some serious reworking of both the images and text.©Geni 02:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

50th (INDEPENDENT) PARACHUTE BRIGADE (INDIA).JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 05:40:54 (UTC)

Reason

The Indian Army is the 2nd largest army in the world and one of the oldest also. The army has seen action in World War-I, World War-II,Anglo-Afgan Wars,Sino-Indian War,Indo Pak Wars,Kargil War and numerous other conflicts.

The "historical significance" the image carries clearly overweights the so called "quality". This image shows the symbol of "50th (INDEPENDENT) PARACHUTE BRIGADE (INDIA)" and below are three units of this brigade that participated in Kargil War. The units of brigade has seen action in World War-I, World War-II, Indo Pak Wars,Kargil War and numerous other conflicts. The units of this Brigade were the back bone of British Army and saw action in middle east from British side.

But i'm sorry to write that such a significant army is also one of the most "under-written" and "under-photographed" armies on wikimedia,wikipedia and other wiki projects.There is not a single image that is comparible to this one; not just on wikipedia but on the whole internet also. This is not just a rare image but it is rarest of the rarest image of one of the bravest brigades in the world.

Though this image is not of too good quality, but it is not the quality alone that make a picture featured one......it is the "historical significance".

This image represent the strength of 1.1 BILLION INDIANS and thus must be a "featured picture"

Articles in which this image appears

50th Parachute Brigade (India),Kargil War,Parachute Regiment (India),Para Commandos (India)

FP category for this image

indian army

Creator

indian_poet

• Support as nominator --Indian poet (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Respectfully, it would be better to work on the article on the regiment, which this could go on the main page as part of the article for. One of the reasons why picture standards are so high is because it's found that, if such quality is insisted upon, we'll usually get it in the end, so it could well be counterproductive to promote this image, thereby not giving encouragement to acquiring a better one. Oppose, but I'd be willing to offer some help with the article. There are other alternatives; for instance US$40 would get a high-quality scan made of http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/oem2002006658/PP/ or http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/oem2002007114/PP/ - perhaps more significant images for war service. More broadly, we might consider the freely-available http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3g07373/ or http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8e00108/ - or if we're willing to pay for rescans, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8b05641/ http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b16259/ or http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8b05643/ - all of which would be excellent. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2002705692/ might be able to get a release after rights analysis. It might even be possible to get http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2005693711/ analysed, should we write a polite letter to the Library of Congress. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'd suggest withdrawing this nomination as this photo is low quality and doesn't meet the featured picture criteria (as it's out of focus and the logos are at an angle). These logos may also be covered by copyright. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt they're covered by Copyright: India has fairly short copyright terms, in particular, 60 for governmental works (which includes the military) so they'd have to have changed significantly since WWII. (Section 28A here). I presume they haven't, as that would make this image worthless for the intended purpose. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Parachute Regiment (India), two of the units whose badges are depicted (6 Para and 7 Para) were formed in the early 1960s, so their logos are potentially not PD (though, to complicate things, the badge may be generic across all the battalions of the Indian Parachute Regiment and so pre-date the formation of these units) The main issue here, however, is the poor quality of this image. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Naturally, but it's worth considering the point, as, bad quality as the image is, it's still useful to at least some of the articles it's in. (Not convinced about Kargil War.). Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It would be great if you could track down a better (higher resolution) image! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per comments above. The subject matter is perfectly worthy of a featured-picture-quality image, but this isn't it. Here and here are examples of a FP-quality insignia. Spikebrennan (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, the quality is way below what is expected here. SMasters (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Iguana

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 07:53:07 (UTC)

Reason

another very under-photographed (sub)species

Articles in which this image appears

Marine Iguana, Española Island

Creator

Benjamint 07:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 07:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets the criteria. The waves behind are very telling. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice species to pick. Brandmeister t 11:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good EV, especially for its colours. The
  Marine Iguana article suggests that only males are brightly coloured, and only during the mating season. It would be good to include this information in the caption. --Avenue (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• There is definitely some ambiguity, my understanding is that the iguanas found on Espanola are brightly colored all year round because of the concentrated pigments in their diet. Perhaps clarity in this area could be improved in the article Benjamint 01:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As per nom, and nice EV. SMasters (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Marine-Iguana-Espanola.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Farmers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 10:30:39 (UTC)

Reason

Gives a good glimpse into a common method of salt production

Articles in which this image appears

Salt, Sea salt

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Good quality, but some weak attributes at full screen. It's tough to get a proper amount of detail on all the white objects. Also composition, I think it would be more effective with only one or two people in the shot. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support interesting composition, good resolution --Muhammad(talk) 03:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Muhammad. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Muhammad. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 13:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collared Kingfisher

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 10:35:08 (UTC)

Reason

Definitely the best available image. Taken from a boat, which presents some challenges.

Articles in which this image appears

Collared Kingfisher

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Looks too bright for me, probably needs some adjustment. Nice species anyway. Brandmeister t 11:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend to agree, but just darkening it made the eye/beak too dark, so I did a highlight reduction instead. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks extra bright to me too --Muhammad(talk) 03:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. Overexposed. Curves/levels should be adjusted. Kaldari (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to draw your attention to the edit. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This species is amazingly variable, with 49 described subspecies. We've identified it as humii on
  WP:BIRD, which should improve the EV. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks for the info. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'd love to support the edit, but the colour/quality appears degraded from the original, as a kind of posterisation, I suppose, particularly noticeable on the prominent blue of the foreground wings. Did you make the adjustments from raw? Can you fix it?
  talk 22:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I see some sort of periodic wavy pattern. I did the edit from the raw. It is there on the original too though. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 13:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Knot

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 10:37:43 (UTC)

Reason

We didn't have a winter plumage image before this. Meets the criteria and is geocoded pretty accurately. Also taken from a boat.

Articles in which this image appears

Great Knot

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. 700mm and only 1/500th ... a lot better than what I've managed from boats. Did you have to take a whole heap of shots to get this sharp one? Benjamint 11:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2 stop IS in the Canon 500mm f/4 IS probably helps.
    talk) 01:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Probably 4/5 were sharp and a similar proportion for the kingfisher in calmer water (1/250th). The IS/Tripod probably helped, and the swell was not huge. The movement made it more difficult to keep the camera on target, but it was still considerably easier than trying to photograph seals in ~2.5m swell, 400mm f5.6 and a small boat at home was. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support amazing if taken from a boat. --Muhammad(talk) 03:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was going to oppose based on the "distracting background", but I think seeing another bird there tells me something... J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good shot. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Benjamint 22:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Calidris tenuirostris - Laem Phak Bia.jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 13:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomcord

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 18:03:58 (UTC)

Reason

The image is high-resolution, excellent quality, and the only photo of this grape variety.

Articles in which this image appears

Thomcord

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits

Creator

Stephen Ausmus (USDA employee), uploaded by

Visionholder

• Support as nominator --– 
   talk » 18:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support: Good illustration of the bunches in situ, and the lighting adds a nice artistic element.
  talk 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per above. Jujutacular ^talk 02:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Cropped too tightly at the bottom, and the shadow at the top (right of centre) is unfortunate. --Avenue (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A greyhound racing

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2011 at 07:43:51 (UTC)

Reason

Cool panning shot of a racing greyhound at full extension. Good isolation of the subject on the track (hopefully that doesn't mean he was lagging behind? ^^). Promoted on Commons in January.

Articles in which this image appears

gait (dog)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals

Creator

AngMoKio

• Support as nominator --
  talk 07:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support for the sheer awesomeness of the shot. The only problem is the background.
  Nergaal (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• SAaadddaaammm (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic. Jujutacular ^talk 04:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Avenue (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Love seeing the musculature here. TCO (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Brilliant shot and good EV. SMasters (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Greyhound Racing 2 amk.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belvedere auf dem Pfingstberg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2011 at 20:45:51 (UTC)

Reason

high quality image of this building

Articles in which this image appears

Belvedere auf dem Pfingstberg

and others

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Me!

• Support as nominator --Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Got no feedback at peer review, so thought I'd try it here. First image I've ever uploaded, I think. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Needs some perspective adjustment --Muhammad(talk) 00:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are patches of messy editing in the sky. They will need to be fixed.
  talk 20:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Stitching errors visible at the top of the archway on the left tower. The temporary fence and dumpster are a little unsightly- are they always there? Is this the optimal time of day to shoot this subject, given the way that shadows are cast on the building? Spikebrennan (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Spikebrennan gazhiley.co.uk 12:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• OK I'm working on a version with better stitching and sky, but the dumpster isn't so bad, IMHO, may even add EV, as the article mentions it was renovated... ... Also the shadows emphasise the architechture. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I really want to support this impressive shot. Cloning the dumpster would improve the picture, but the shadows are one of the best parts of the photo.
  Nergaal (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Withdraw I spent the whole day restitching, and fixing the sky and stitch errors, and forgot to save it and my laptop crashed. I'll do it again later. I'll be back! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK uploading a new version with restitching (and stitch errors "fixed"), better sky, a little bit of perspective correction and slightly altered colours. I'm not good enough to clone out the dumpster :( Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Any comments/votes on the update? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did fix the stitching errors so I withdraw my opposition. Still not crazy about the dumpster, though. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halde Rheinpreußen in Moers (night)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2011 at 20:49:29 (UTC)

Reason

I like the colors and the composition (with the sunset at the right), quality and EV should be good

Articles in which this image appears

The Industrial Heritage Trail, Blue hour

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Carschten

• Support as nominator --kaʁstn 20:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'd love to support this- a gorgeous pic of an interesting subject- but I am concerned about EV. Is there any chance some sourced discussion of the monument could be added to Otto Piene? If it is, this would get my support straight away. J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've incorporated information about the memorial in the article about Otto Piene. Is that now in your taste? --kaʁstn 12:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is absolutely no sense of scale at thumbnail size. When you view at full size, you realise (from steps and concrete cubes - which my brain assumes are about the the size as similar blocks it's seen) that it's quite big. I was a bit suprised. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• it's difficult and almost impossible to add a size comparison in the darkness which should have been seen at the thumb size next to a 30 metres high monument. At day it's much easier, see File:Halde Rheinpreußen, Grubenlampe, III retouched.jpg, but the special thing (the wow) with the illumination can just be seen at night. So I think there's nothing I can change. --kaʁstn 21:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose It's absolutely not impossible to have a size comparison in this photo, there just isn't one. That said it is an amazing photo, with real wow factor, but it's almost misleading at thumbnail size (I had no idea of how big it was). Sorry! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Being a mining lamp a night shot really makes sense here. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful. Jujutacular ^talk 06:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A better size cue would be nice (e.g. a person at its base), but good nonetheless. --Avenue (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• support —DerHexer (Talk) 20:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Grubenlampe, Halde Rheinpreußen, Blaue Stunde, 2010-10-09, I.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norges Statsbaner Di 4

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2011 at 13:13:50 (UTC)

Reason

Handsome train, pretty scenery, good EV, great resolution. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Norwegian State Railways

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles

Creator

David Gubler

• Support as nominator --
  talk 13:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support This is a high quality photo with strong EV Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Indeed a high quality photo with strong EV.
  talk) 10:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Like the EV(multiple articles). IANAP but wonder if some cropping games might make it more stunning. TCO (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the above. Cat-five - talk 20:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great picture - FF23-fr (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Regarding the EV, I hate to be a contrarian, but the locomotive is rather small. The image is large. Would a crop, perhaps, improve EV? Spikebrennan (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a crop would spoil the composition. At the moment, the locomotive has good lead room, and the blue sky at top gives context/scale. Cropping would also reduce some of the EV—the picture is in use in
    talk 21:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Promoted File:NSB Di 4 Saltfjell.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glebionis carinata

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 02:25:35 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, EV, resolution, aesthetics.

Articles in which this image appears

Glebionis carinatum, Glebionis, Anthemideae

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 02:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For identification, it'd be nice if the leaves were a bit more in focus, though I know this is a popular way of setting out Flower FPs. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support true, but still good for iding. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support < 5 Makeemlighter (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Pleasence restored

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 02:12:40 (UTC)

Reason

high resolution, restoration, unique historic item, encyclopaedic value

Articles in which this image appears

Donald Pleasence

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Allan warren

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 02:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: Much improved, but why such a tight top crop? --Avenue (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's the framing of the original image - the space above in the original version is of pure black, which indicates this is part of the medium used for digitisation (kodachrome slide or else). regards,

talk) 07:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Supporttttttt. Love it. J Milburn (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support. Love the photo, but the new crop is too tight. Kaldari (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: The original should have been promoted imo (see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Donald Pleasence). I can see some of the fixes in the edit, nothing most people would notice without a microscope. The tightness of the crop was noted in the previous discussion and making it tighter has made it worse. Honestly though, I think people are getting too wrapped up in the technical details. Most of the actor photos we get are random snaps at a convention or award ceremony, while this is a professionally done portrait with very high EV since it conveys something of the type of roles he was known for. I would hope that we'd be trying to encourage more contributions like this rather than worrying about cropping and whether there was a barely visible bit of lint on the negative.--RDBury (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm not a big fan of the crop, but this is an excellent portrait anyway. The restoration has fixed up a lot more than "a barely visible bit of lint". The flaws were pretty glaring at full size. I'm glad the original was not promoted, as I don't believe we should promote images with significant defects than we can reasonably fix. I'd hope that maintaining high technical standards will encourage useful contributions like Peter's restoration of this image. --Avenue (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per RDBury and nom. Cowtowner (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too tight crop on top. --JovianEye (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, crop notwithstanding - this is a fine, fine portrait. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; this is a very well-done portrait; as RDB says, the technical issues are not that big a deal. If Peter is right that this is the crop of the actual negative, than OK.
  Chick Bowen 21:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Promoted File:Donald Pleasence Allan Warren edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mugimaki Flycatcher

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 04:12:32 (UTC)

Reason

A nice portrait of a pretty bird. Only a few images on commons for this species, and all very low resolution. The geocoding adds a little value too.

Articles in which this image appears

Mugimaki Flycatcher, Ficedula

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the thumbnail doesn't do it just it. Looks very good at larger sizes --Muhammad(talk) 18:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice shot with very high EV. I'd go as far as to say say that this and the two other bird shots nominated at the same time are reminiscent of shots by Fir which hopefully will be taken as high praise. Cat-five - talk 20:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributors such as JJ and
    talk 22:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support. Wonderful. J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hmm, certainly. It would be nice if we had a female to compare it too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ficedula mugimaki - Khao Yai.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Pycnonotus flavescens - Kaeng Krachan.jpg

1906 French GP

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2011 at 04:03:05 (UTC)

Reason

rare, good quality (for a century old video), interesting and good EV (first GPs were on dusty or planked roads)

Articles in which this image appears

1906 French Grand Prix

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport

Creator

from Shell History of Motor Racing

• Support as nominator --
  Nergaal (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question: is this a significant moment in the race or just a representative snippet? The article is somewhat ambiguous; it mentions Shepard running off the planks but doesn't make clear whether the time lost was significant or whether it contributed to his eventually breaking down.
  Chick Bowen 20:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm the major contributor to 1906 French Grand Prix. It would be very hard to say whether Shepard lost time as a result of running off, as he retired soon afterwards. Whether it contributed to his retirement... maybe. The wheels were fragile things and running off the road certainly wouldn't have helped. But I can say the video is a very useful addition to the article, which was unique in its use of plank roads (which were essentially a failure). Apterygial 09:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very interesting. And as a century old video – rare and unexpected quality. – SMasters (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dusky Dolphins Marineland of the Pacific in 1962

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2011 at 03:07:53 (UTC)

Reason

wow factor, high quality for a 1962 picture, decent EV for both the dolphin and the closed tourist attraction

Articles in which this image appears

Dusky Dolphin, Marineland of the Pacific

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

EditorASC

• Support as nominator --
  Nergaal (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Yeah, it's good for its age, but it's not good compared to what is available today. This same show was being offered until very recently, so I don't really see why we should promote something that is comparatively low quality. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the Marineland was shut in 1987, I wouldnt exactly call 24 years ago very recent, digital photography wasnt exactly prolific in 87 in fact first consumer cameras werent on the market until 88. Gnangarra 05:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies. Neutral for now then. J Milburn (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• support good quality for its age, historical value per my above cmt Gnangarra 05:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unless these dolphins are no longer kept in captivity. The image may be somewhat dated, but the subject is most likely not, making a modern photo possible and desirable. Jujutacular ^talk 17:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Buddha Reclining

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2011 at 02:05:34 (UTC)

Reason

This is the new updated Image I first took in 1995. It has wonderful light & color, and has been posted on the Wikipedia page for this structure as the main image for this Temple, located in Bangkok Thailand for over 2 years. First posted on: 21:21, 7 December 2009.

Articles in which this image appears

Wat Pho

FP category for this image

Reclining Buddha statue of Wat Pho Worlds largest "Buddha"

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 00:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Flowers in the front distract from the subject, the angle is horrible, and the top of the Buddha is cut off of the shot just to name the top three reasons that come to mind. Cat-five - talk 20:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The angle is less than encyclopaedic (that doesn't make it a bad photo!). JJ Harrison (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I wish that the photo was taken from a straight-on angle rather than from the side. This angle just doesn't show as much. -- mcshadypl ^TC 03:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Having been to Bangkok and visited a few of these reclining Buddhas, I just want to point out to folks here that many of these places have just enough space in the building for you to move around the Buddha. It is impossible to get a shot of the full length from the middle using a normal lense. You can only do it from the sides. Having said that, the flowers spoils this shot for me. SMasters (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its true, though someone has gotten clever stitching panoramas before and it is possible to get a front on, though cut off, view with an UWA. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That first picture looks like a painting. Unless they tore down the walls, I'm not sure how it's possible to get the shots required for the stitching. – SMasters (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The first does look like something that's not a photo eh. But yea, not really FP quality composition. Sorry, another oppose from me. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator Comment: I took this picture on a weekend, a few weeks ago and the place had not less then 400 people in it at the time the shot was taken. The flowers cover a flaw in the arm of the Buddha that you can see in the original version of this same photo that I took in 1995, just look at the pictures history. --WPPilot 03:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC) (WPPilot)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Race of Champions 2007

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 22:11:41 (UTC)

Reason

A quality panorama showing how the venue was utilized for the occasion (I mean, who really puts a motor race in a football stadium?). Also has some EV in the Wembley Stadium article. Might benefit from some cropping on the sides to remove a few distracting elements, we'll see what reviewers think.

Articles in which this image appears

2007 Race of Champions, Race of Champions, Wembley Stadium

FP category for this image

Place: Interiors

Creator

E01

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It has wow. I wondered about cropping, but really the stadium and spectators are part of the event too. I can't see any obvious stitching errors. It might benefit from a noise reduction in the sky. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the stadium is important to the composition and the EV. The parts I thought about cropping were the person in white at right and the video screen at the left. Cowtowner (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Good ev, but sharpness is a problem. Spencer^T♦C 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is in a serious need of some denoising --Muhammad(talk) 15:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file is quite large. It might benefit from a scaled reduction in file size, which might help increase the sharpness visually. – SMasters (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subspecies of the painted turtle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 21:34:25 (UTC)

Eastern painted turtle C. p. picta	Midland painted turtle C. p. marginata	Southern painted turtle C. p. dorsalis	Western painted turtle C. p. bellii

Reason

What's special about this image is the content and composition. This species of turtle is the most written about species (over 2000 science papers) and has been widely described in field guides, review articles, etc. I never find a really good way of understanding the subspecies descriptions though.

To differentiate the eastern and southern, the top view is most important. For the midland and western, you need to see the bottom shell view.

I collected the individual shots piece meal: three were special donations that I wrote to obtain, three I hunted down around the web, and then two were in article already. Jack Merridew started the composite view and then RexxS did quite a lot of work to crop, flip, etc. so all the images made sense. The 3/4 views for the top shell are deliberate (as straight top down, tends to lose discernability of the images given how the shells curve). Although we lack a scale in images, the sizes are "about right" in that southern subspecies is known as the smallest, then eastern, then midland, then western.

In a perfect world, I would go into the field collect all four specimens from heart of range territories, and use a light table and just shoot them all against some blank background. But I still think it's kind of an advance as is. Although the individual images are far from perfect, I just thought this was a concept to share for other article work (and it does make our painted turtle article more powerfully illustrated than the non-Wiki competition).

Also hoping that FP crew can push it further if it is short of star material (but somehow could get there). And Jack and RexxS are on content-creator strike and I hope this makes them smile and love teh Wiki.

Articles in which this image appears

Painted turtle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

RexxS, Jack Merridew

• Support as nominator --TCO (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is a beautiful collection, but I do not think FPC is the right place to honour it; there simply doesn't exist a mechanism to recognise this sort of thing (though the failed
  valued pictures project could have been if its aims were better defined). I'd have to oppose a number of them straight away- File:Painted-Turtle-1 Young.jpg is obviously far too small, File:B3 Southern painted turtle underside.jpg is also too small and has poor lighting, while the hand and background on File:B1 Eastern painted turtle underside.jpg almost certainly stop it from being featured material. I'd also have to oppose File:A4 Western painted turtle.jpg as it doesn't have the best composition to display the subspecies, and the focus is a little off. The others may have some potential- File:A2 Midland painted turtle.jpg is cute but not mind-blowing; File:A3 Southern painted turtle.jpg needs a little cleanup and perhaps has rather harsh lighting. The colours on File:B2 Midland painted turtle underside.jpg look a little muted, while, by comparison, the colours on File:B4 Western painted turtle underside.jpg look a little too much. FPC can't recognise this as a group. I certainly can, and I congratulate you on a job well done. However, individual pictures may stand a chance here- I wonder what anyone else thinks? J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm definitely nominating the whole thing as one schematic. Like you might have a drawing that shows evolution of man from a fish or whatever (iow, with multiple parts to it). I agree with the comments on the non-specialness of these as individual pictures, but my whole point was to show a concept. Anyhow...even if no star, I hope that sharing an idea sparks more things from others. All for teh good of teh Wiki.TCO (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think J Milburn has been more dismissive of the format than deserved. This
  talk 21:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I agree with you. It's not good enough for FP. But I still felt it was a real advance over general practice on the wiki and over anything else I've seen on the painted turtle off-wiki. I'd like to let it run it's course, so at least I can have a positive influence on our articles (these teensy nugget of an idea that I have in terms of more analytical imagery). Plus I totally heart you for saying something kind.TCO (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ^^ And I heart you for doing something different and putting the work into it. It's just the kind of super-informative, high-value content that we like . . . just, ya know, we're fussy, too, :p

talk 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I actually have an eastern bottom shell view that does not have a thumb (more like the others). The problem is that the specimen has iron oxide staining of the plastron (something a percentage of specimens get depending on where they live) which discolors it. The issue is it ruins the classical "look" of the plastron. So I really need to go with the more helpful view of the animal, even if there is the darned thumb. I feel like I busted my ass so much to get what we even had so far. If it were just a matter of that one, I might try to go get another (although it really was a significant feat to somehow assemble all 8 cells with free licence pics).TCO (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just thinking out loud, but what if we had one of the photo jocks here, photoshop the pic? Would it be possible to fix the thumb? We could also go ahead and make the backgrounds all the same (maybe that plain white)? Or gravel? What's best? Should we try it for the top? Not trying to push a rope, but just thinking...01:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Photoshopping that image to remove the thumb would be too drastic, and would probably be considered

innapropriate digital manipulation as far as FPC goes. In my opinion, showing all of them in natural habitats would be optimal (the top four are all pretty well composed IMO). But yea, none of them are up to par in terms of image quality. Jujutacular ^talk 04:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment: Just to clarify what I meant- this set as it stands now is worthy of recognition, but FPC is not the place to give it. I appreciate that sets have been and can be featured, and I appreciate that a similar set with stronger images could well pass, but I was meaning that, at this time, this set would not pass. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see. I made my remarks based on a different understanding of what you said. Sorry!
    talk 19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black-capped Kingfisher

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 04:16:17 (UTC)

Reason

Despite the fact I had to crop it a ton (25 meters and a small bird, just about a 100% crop), I think this is one of my favourites. It was a shy bird and decided to disappear quickly, even at this distance.

Articles in which this image appears

Black-capped Kingfisher

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice shot with very high EV. I'd go as far as to say say that this and the two other bird shots nominated at the same time are reminiscent of shots by Fir which hopefully will be taken as high praise. Cat-five - talk 20:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The quality is not perfect (a bit of noise), but the beautiful background and composition make up for that. J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per J Milburn --Benjamint 22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Passable quality and given the crop percentage, I'd say pretty good. Some minor artifacts(?) on the tail- could you fix those? --Muhammad(talk) 14:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will give it a go tonight. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended while JJ works on an edit. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Photoshop has stopped working for some reason. I'm getting a new computer within the week, so will fix it then. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be fixed now. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Halcyon pileata - Phra Non.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red light camera

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2011 at 00:12:53 (UTC)

Reason

sufficient EV and also shows the internal camera arrangement to a good extent.

Articles in which this image appears

Red light camera

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics

Creator

Jovianeye

• Support as nominator --JovianEye (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think a technical photo of the camera without the casing would have much more EV. This picture doesn't really tell us anything - there's no sense of scale or position, either. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree with Adam, but I also feel that this is a long way from a picture which
  illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A picture illustrating this subject in such a way would be difficult, but not impossible. J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Per above. This photo would be more interesting (at least to me) if the whole height of the camera was shown and possibly flashing at a speeding car or something. Spencer^T♦C 03:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --

The front entrance of the Ordination Hall Wat Arun, Thai: วัดอรุณ

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2011 at 03:01:03 (UTC)

Reason

Great composition color and structure

Articles in which this image appears

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

FP category for this image

Categories: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture;

Creator:WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 03:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Conditional support If the article it's used in is beefed up a bit to improve this image's EV. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the distortion was annoying me, so I took the liberty to create an alternate. Please don't be offended
    • Haha not at all. The 15mm f1.8 lens give a perspective all its own. None taken. . .
      • Now Support eitherAaadddaaammm (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt. Looks good. Brandmeister t 00:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt only. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative - it's pretty awesome. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am not in front of a good monitor. Are those blown highlights in the upper left? Spikebrennan (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• As for as I can tell, the only completely blown pixels are near the top about a quarter of the way across, on a small round cloud. (Is there an easy way to check this with The Gimp?) Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Use the color picker tool. O is the keyboard shortcut. A completely blown white is RGB 255/255/255. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator Comment. I have gone back the the files from this shoot and edited the original to suit the taste and coments above. --WPPilot 03:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support alt only. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Jujutacular ^talk 18:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Temple of the Dawn 01 Photo D Ramey Logan perspective.jpg --

A NAPA valley Morning

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2011 at 22:22:55 (UTC)

Reason

This is a wonderful and artistic photo that clearly shows the grace of the NAPA valley in the early morning fog.

Articles in which this image appears

Napa County, California

FP category for this image

Category:Wine regions of the United States

Creator WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 22:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't find anything here that explicitly identifies Napa County or Napa Valley. It could be any vineyard anywhere in the world. It isn't even clear that this is morningtime. Anyway, surely Napa Valley AVA would be the main article for the nomination rather than the article for the county? Image needs a better caption both here and in the articles. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not really the sort of useful image we would normally feature IMO, and there are a number of distracting elements (is that a cell phone tower? Some sort of radio tower anyway). It's not great compositionally IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Whistling-thrush

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 09:54:14 (UTC)

Reason

A good picture of this (somewhat distant) relative of the Common Blackbird.

Articles in which this image appears

Blue Whistling-thrush

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support prefer edit 1 --Muhammad(talk) 17:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. Looks like a bird from Avatar. Brandmeister t 20:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. I assume this species is more active in the day than its Malaysian relative, which I tried to photograph last year. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't answer that, but they seemed pretty shy. This one was taken from inside a portable hide. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. J Milburn (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, prefer edit 1. Jujutacular ^talk 18:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Myophonus caeruleus - Ang Khang edit1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Swamphen

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 09:56:36 (UTC)

Reason

We have a purple swamphen FP, but a different subspecies and the plumage is quite different. It has dinner in it's mouth too.

Articles in which this image appears

Purple Swamphen

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: That's a very ugly animal, and the shellfish in the mouth is a nice touch. Where's the other FP? J Milburn (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added here now. The plumage is quite different. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a FP- this one is, but it is not currently used in the article space. J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Purple Swamphen - Pukeko02.jpg. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, quite right. I don't see how it should affect this nomination though. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks kinda warm though. Golden light? --Muhammad(talk) 03:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, sunset. This was taken 15 minutes later. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should probably add that this was taken from a boat as well. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --KFP (contact | edits) 05:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Nice, better composition than other FP. Good that subspecies is identified, too.
  talk 20:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Cowtowner (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Porphyrio indicus viridis - Bueng Boraphet, Thailand.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenshank

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 09:59:33 (UTC)

Reason

A good picture of this migratory bird.

Articles in which this image appears

Greenshank

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Benjamint 22:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Muhammad(talk) 13:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support
  Nergaal (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular ^talk 18:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --KFP (contact | edits) 05:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pile on... Cowtowner (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tringa nebularia - Laem Phak Bia.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Vazov National Theatre, Sofia

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 10:31:16 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, very good composition, illustrative image of one of the major landmarks of the Bulgarian capital city.

Articles in which this image appears

Ivan Vazov National Theatre

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

MrPanyGoff

• Support as nominator --MrPanyGoff (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems to be tilted a bit CW. Jujutacular ^talk 04:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The tilt should be fixed however. It felt a little dark, but I guess its the time of day. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it is a little bit darker but I intentionally waited for the moment when there is no direct sunlight. I would like to avoid the strong contrast caused of the nearby high-rise buildings which throw a shade on the front elevation. --MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good photo indeed. --Gligan (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice shot and EV. – SMasters (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I like it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:IvanVazov National Theatre 7.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificent Frigate Female in flight

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 22:19:09 (UTC)

Articles in which this image appears

Magnificent Frigatebird

Creator

Benjamint 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, used only in a gallery. J Milburn (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificent Frigate Juvenile in flight

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 22:19:09 (UTC)

Articles in which this image appears

Magnificent Frigatebird

Creator

Benjamint 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, used only in a gallery. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificent Frigate Male in flight

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 22:19:09 (UTC)

Articles in which this image appears

Magnificent Frigatebird

Creator

Benjamint 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support as nominator --Benjamint 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support There is some slight oversharpening visible around the edges of the bird. Image size is acceptable, but not particularly large. There is some vignetting. Bird's right wing (left in image) appears to have some chroma noise. Otherwise, it is an okay image and encyclopedic value is very strong especially with the female and juvenile to compare with. I suggest rotating this picture to look consistent compared with the pic of the female and the juvenile.
  talk) 01:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This image easily meets the IQ benchmark for in-flight FPs Benjamint 07:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, used only in a gallery. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (only replying to this one for the sake of clarity) I know we normally follow that rule but which passage is it in the criteria that actually states that? I would argue that it would be outweighed in this case anyway: we have three images which collectively have pretty high EV but would clutter the article if placed outside. If that's not mitigating I don't know what is. Placed them below the gallery with larger thumbnails, anybody have a better idea to integrate them into the article? Benjamint 22:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've put this image in Frigatebird. I think many would be more likely to see these in flight than when landed. For birds, I'd argue that if a good field guide would picture something, then the EV is most likely good. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think this is the best of the three and has high EV. The article just needs work. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freckled Duck female

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 22:33:54 (UTC)

Reason

another highly underphotographed species

Articles in which this image appears

Freckled Duck

Creator

Benjamint 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Muhammad(talk) 13:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent photo and good EV. Very nice. – SMasters (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular ^talk 18:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --KFP (contact | edits) 05:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my support for the male above. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 07:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support See my comments on the male nomination. Cowtowner (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose small, cutted off shadow at bottom --kaʁstn 17:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Freckled-duck-female.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freckled Duck male

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 22:33:54 (UTC)

Reason

another highly underphotographed species

Articles in which this image appears

Freckled Duck

Creator

Benjamint 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, and good EV. – SMasters (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular ^talk 18:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --KFP (contact | edits) 06:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - beautiful composition, excellent EV, very striking image. Definitely worthy of a star. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 07:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I would move that this and the female image be promoted as a set. I think that this is an example where the two images complement each other in such a way that they have enhanced EV together. Cowtowner (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, good idea. Brandmeister t 13:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose small, cutted off shadow at bottom --kaʁstn 17:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Freckled-Duck-male.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Beach Back Bay

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2011 at 04:41:16 (UTC)

Reason

this is a photo of a view that is for the most part, only reserved for pilots that fly out of John Wayne Airport.

Articles in which this image appears

Newport Beach - Newport Back Bay - San Diego Creek - Upper Newport Bay

FP category for this image

Category:Newport Beach, California

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 04:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I assume the brighter area in the sky and the water towards the right is a reflection from a window? It does detract from the aesthetics a bit... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that spot could be edited out (the colors in that area are almost homogeneous). Brandmeister t 11:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spot was removed. WPPilot 19:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Removing the spot is a huge step in the right direction, but I'm not crazy about the washed out colours and lack of sharpness. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The composition feels off and it feels as though the important thing is off in the distance. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The whole image looks fuzzy, i'm assuming this was a helicoper shot, and as JJ Harrison and Adam said the washed out and long range look doesn't do the subject area justice. Cat-five - talk 18:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne Airport

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2011 at 05:25:40 (UTC)

Reason

Nice perspective of the terminal area

Articles in which this image appears

John Wayne Airport

FP category for this image

John Wayne Airport

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 05:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Top left... Can we do the same magic as below? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure . . magic complete
    • I'm not saying that I could do better, but that cloning is pretty messy... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cut off for the whole thing of course, but great for the terminal. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 07:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Container ship

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2011 at 13:51:44 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, EV and very high res. The only quality wise decent image in the articles. Boats provide scale

Articles in which this image appears

Delmas (shipping company), Cargo ship, Container ship

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 13:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, good detail. Jujutacular ^talk 14:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good photo of something which is of everyday importance. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and many thanks for the correcting of the oversharpness! Very good now --kaʁstn 13:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Resolution, detail, quality, and EV are all very good.
  talk 13:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support; lighting is nice. It might have more EV in the "crane" section of
  Chick Bowen 23:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Promoted File:Container Ship.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian heavy cruiser Australia, October 1937

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2011 at 23:02:25 (UTC)

Reason

high EV and meets the FP technical requirements

Articles in which this image appears

HMAS Australia (D84)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water

Creator

Allan Green / State Library of Victoria

• Support as nominator --
  [majestic titan] 23:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clears the bar for this kind of image. I'd rather see it in Vehicles>Water if it is promoted though (we already have a few ship pictures like this there) Cowtowner (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, you're right. Sorry, I didn't double-check the category. :-)
    [majestic titan] 03:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support Spongie555 (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Would support if the obvious spots and fibres were cleaned up.
  talk 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Only 4 supports. Worth re-nominating, especially if cleaned up. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari F40

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2011 at 23:02:56 (UTC)

Reason

It's quite unusual to have a good "moving" shot of a car that's in focus, especially one as nice as this (you can even read the brake calipers). Has good encyclopedic value, showing the whole car in profile without shadows and without anything to distract alongside it. The image is used to illustrate the article about the car in the infobox. I don't think we have many car featured pictures, and it gained support at its peer review.

Articles in which this image appears

Ferrari F40, List of automobile sales by model

FP category for this image

/Vehicles/Land

Creator

Will ainsworth, slightly modified by me.

• Support as nominator --Bob talk 23:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful image. Indeed we could use more FPs of cars. The background could be better, but it doesn't detract too much imo. Jujutacular ^talk 01:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Was this taken from another car or using one of those camera boom rigs? If it was the latter we need a retouched tag. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uploader hasn't edited since 2009, but there is a "Will Ainsworth" on Flickr who is likely the uploader ([1]). I sent them a message there, hopefully they will drop by. My guess is that this was taken from another car. Jujutacular ^talk 13:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great Picture WPPilot 03:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just FYI, I ran a tineye search on the image: [2] and got 5 hits, but they were all lower quality so this is very likely the original. Jujutacular ^talk 13:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice --Muhammad(talk) 18:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent shot! Good EV and FP quality for me. – SMasters (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High quality photo with strong EV Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Benjamint 09:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:F40 Ferrari 20090509.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tabby cat

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2011 at 18:31:29 (UTC)

Reason

Second try (and not happy with the first nomination). I think it deserves the FP status for the excellent image quality and encyclopaedic value, showing the features of the breed and the characteristic resting posture. Maybe it is now time to have a featured cat.

Articles in which this image appears

Tabby cat

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - beautiful cat, beautiful picture, very clear and hard to capture given that cats never ever stay still for very long! --Thanks, Hadseys 23:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support purr nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • :-) --Muhammad(talk) 16:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Hadseys --Muhammad(talk) 00:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV and quality. If I have no idea what a tabby cat is, and I open an encyclopedia, this is what I would want to see. – SMasters (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support virtual cats - they don't excite my allergies. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose good quality, good colors, but the composition isn't featured. The cat just sits the in middle of picture, the background is ugly. I miss something special, or maybe using of rule of thirds or the golden cut. That's just a common pet photo to me. --kaʁstn 17:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High quality and good EV. Jujutacular ^talk 00:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support <instert Meow Mix reference here> (high quality, high ev) Cat-five - talk 18:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cat November 2010-1a.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laguna Beach CA

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2011 at 03:22:15 (UTC)

Reason

Great perspective and the ONLY photo of the entire city. I fly a route that takes me down over Laguna and then up the ridge to get this perspective. Few people ever see this view of Laguna Beach. One of my personal favorite photos.

Articles in which this image appears

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

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 03:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support The rest of us don't have the facility for aerial photos, so pretty hard to replace. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Is that the curvature of the earth on the horizon? Or lens distortion. Jujutacular ^talk 13:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split answer. If you look at the meta tags you can see that this picture was taken with a 15mm fisheye lens. The 15mm has no distortion at centerline, so what you see is for the most part the curviture of the earth. I was at about 3000 feet ASL (above sea level) and you do see the curve in the horizion when you get above the haze and see things from that perspective. The fact that it is just ABOVE centerline makes me think that it is both the earth as well as the lens that we see here, but more the earth then lens distortion for sure.
• Support as JJ --Muhammad(talk) 07:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular ^talk 15:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Valuable photograph. - Darwinek (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:LagunaBeachCA photo D Ramey Logan.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forth Bridge

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2011 at 21:44:39 (UTC)

Reason

Just a superb picture. It is of high standard and resolution and looks absolutely incredible. The subject (the bridge) is of great historical significance

Articles in which this image appears

World Heritage Sites in Scotland

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

George Gastin

• Support as nominator --AndrewvdBK (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Great picture; not very high resolution by current standards (particularly since the subject takes up a rather small percentage of the frame). It appears that an FP regular asked George quite a while ago if he was willing to upload a higher-resolution version and he responded by suggesting a different one.
  Chick Bowen 22:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose low resolution and low EV - the image is concentrated on the shoreline, not the bridge, and the sky and water conditions seem highly unusual. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice picture, but per the creator not particularly encyclopaedic. It feels like a tobacco grad ND has been used. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - although visually interesting, it's not very high resolution and the subject (the bridge) itself isn't the main focus of the picture - for an encyclopedia, we should be able to find out from the picture that the bridge is actually red! Also, the yellow sky looks a little oversaturated in post-production. Bob talk 10:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above. An impressive looking picture, but not FP material. J Milburn (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Tower, Tripoli

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2011 at 21:00:03 (UTC)

Reason

Last week there was a nomination of a photograph of Tripoli, which did not have sufficient quality to get very far, but I thought it was a worthwhile thing to try to do.[Addendum--I now realized I had my Tripolis mixed up.] This photo not only illustrates its subject better than any modern photographs of the tower on the web, it also shows the quality and precision of the work of the American Colony photographic division (I found an archeologist talking about the value of that work for archeology, and cited her in the American Colony article). I've cropped it, adjusted the levels slightly, and cloned out a lot of scratches, dust, and other damage, but all the cloning I've done is in the sky and ground; the building is untouched. The people in the image give a sense of scale; the composition (which I think is aesthetically quite good) shows the integration of the site into the modern infrastructure.

Articles in which this image appears

Lion Tower, American Colony, Jerusalem

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Photographic Division of the American Colony, Jerusalem (most likely Elijah Meyers or Lars Larsson); digitally edited by

Chick Bowen

• Support as nominator --
  Chick Bowen 21:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per nom JJ Harrison (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not overly eye-catching, but very high quality. Good EV. Jujutacular ^talk 12:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow, I was ready to say "not very eyecatching" like Juju above, but at full res this photo is spectacular. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: but looking at it thumbnail, the comp is bugging me. Can we give the poor building a bit more headroom? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be nice, but there isn't really any there--if you look at the original (linked as a tif from the image page) you can see I cropped probably less than 10 pixels below the border of the negative (and the shade of that bit of sky is off, which is common at the edge of the frame with a view camera like they used).

Chick Bowen 22:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

BTW, I've uploaded a jpeg version of the unedited image for easier comparison:

Chick Bowen 23:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]