Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/November-2006

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Female House Sparrow

Several people in my previous nomination mentioned that this image was superior, so I thought I'd put it up for discussion. The image is sharp, has nice colors, and the bird is in an interesting pose.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Faced with a dilemma here. In isolation I would support this image, but it isn't isolated and since a very similar subject has already been made FP, I'm not sure that I think there should be two FP of basically the same thing. Sure, the composition and pose is a little different but thats about it. Ideally, I don't think the first candidate should have been made FP, which would make this one easier to support, but what is done is done. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, and I did have some reservation on this nomination. However in it's defence, I notice that there is soon going to be two FP's which have even greater similarity! :-)--Fir0002 12:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I intend to nominate the old FP for delisting as it is severely undersized. Will you do that to your newly crowned birdy FP? ;-). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we also have two koala FPs:

chat} 15:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

True. I actually thought that older koala picture was already de-listed. Although there is nothing technically wrong with it, I just don't like the shot and angle itself that much, but I suspect it would scrape in if it were nominated for de-listing now. Still, no harm in finding out. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and I would also support this as a replacement if Fir wants to nominate the other for delisting (which is up to him, I don't really mind). --liquidGhoul 14:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I like the other one better, and would oppose here if its necessary to keep the other one "crowned". By the way, aren't you on a Wikibreak? ;-) |
  Talk 15:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Really? This one has a better pose of the subject, so you can see more of it, and it doesn't have the horrible car in the background. --liquidGhoul 22:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. That's somewhat salami tactics (slice by slice). I'd have preferred to be presented with both pictures at the same time. This one is nice, but the subject doesn't warrant two FP's. --Dschwen 16:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I generally try not to nominate more than one version of a pic at once (true the compound eye is an execption) since it makes closing difficult. A few peolpe mentioned in the old nom that this pic should be nominated seperately, so here it is. Fair enough you could think that it doesn't warrant 2 FP's but remember they are two very different images (like the koala shots) and remember there is no limit to the number of FP's - they images just have to conform to the standard. A few more examples Image:F-15 vertical deploy.jpg and Image:USAF F-15C fires AIM-7 Sparrow 2.jpg are basically the same; Image:Cyclone Gafilo.jpeg and Image:Cyclone Catarina from the ISS on March 26 2004.JPG; Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg and Image:Yarra Panorama.jpg - so you see there's quite a precedent. --Fir0002 10:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What if this were made a replacement nomination? --liquidGhoul 22:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually feel that this image () is probably the best of the images from the article. It is slightly on the low side of resolution but the composition is far better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't really see a difference in quality, except for size. It also doesn't look like the same species, but I guess that is what happens when one introduces a small population onto a continent, and they breed into the millions, if not billions. --liquidGhoul 22:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, to my amateur eyes, the one I mentioned looks more representative of a sparrow than Fir0002's one, which looks far skinnier than normal, but I really wouldn't know. Maybe it wasn't as cold that day and the sparrow didn't ruffle up its feathers, or something? :-) In any case, it wasn't the quality in question, it was just the composition, which I think looked a bit nicer. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe you've gotten used to the English sparrows. Unfortunately, I have many of these birds in my backyard, and they all look like Fir's. However, you are right, in that your photo is more representative of the species, as the Australian bird is an introduced population with narrow genetic diversity. I would say that it is probably a healthy and well fed bird though, as it looks healthy, and lives outside a bakery. --liquidGhoul 07:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well fed, probably, but I had a look at some old sparrow pics from Melbourne that I had lying around (never fear, they are definitely not FP worthy!) and they looked fluffier and fatter than this nomination as well. In fact to be honest, I've never realy seen a sparrow that thin before. Could it be a juvanile rather than adult? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As per liquidGhoul, it rings pretty true with me too as a typical 'Australian' sparrow. The one you've shown above looks quite different to what I'm used to. Personally, I think the current nom in its original crop is the best image in the article. --jjron 16:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. And I support a delisting of the current FP (if I ever come across it). --Tewy 17:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support crop. Better, more uniform background and more focus on the bird. --Tewy 18:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeSupport clipped version. A lovely pic in great focus, but it needs clipping. For me the bird is too small in the frame - Adrian Pingstone 20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I like it but and I will change my vote if more/better clipping is done Better clipping is done therefore it has my support. SOADLuver 23:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've uploaded a 1:1 crop from the original cameras. Because it is a 1:1 crop the quality is slightly degraded (not even a DSLR can give good 1:1 crops) but perhaps it will suit some better. --Fir0002 10:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I like the way the bird looks but do not like the shingles on which it stands; surface just too ugly for me, sorry.Harborsparrow 17:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support crop. No idea what a 1:1 crop is (though I'm sure I've looked it up), but the result is nicer, more directed. I have slight reservations about having two very similar FP's, so, "don't do it again" I guess. :) Stevage 06:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I interpreted it as taking the original photo at the original resolution out-of-camera and cropping it to a wiki-friendly resolution, as opposed to taking the original photo and downsampling it to a wiki-friendly resolution. The end result is the roughly the same pixel resolution, but the 1:1 crop means you are effectively 'zoomed in' on the image more, so the quality is reduced a little due to a lack of downsampling. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like a normal crop to me. Stevage 05:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support cropped version -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. I've had a bit of a think about it but I don't think it quite qualifies as a FP in my opinion. There is a better image on the article that I would support in preference to this one. It is still quite a nice photo though, but sparrows are pretty easy to capture and the standards are a bit higher. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support cropped version. I liked this on Fir's FPC page, and I like the crop even more. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, preference for original. As I said above, this is the best picture in the article, and better than the existing sparrow FP. --jjron 09:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. Although it has no real quality issues, a common subject deserves an amzing shot, which this is not. NauticaShades 17:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:House sparrow04.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bird

I think it is an excellent photography, it illustrate the Andrew Bird article.

• Nominate and support. - Ericd 02:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, very grainy when viewed at fullsize as well as blown highlights on the microphone and hands. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Grainy. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 07:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Grainy, blurry, dark... not the greatest depiction of this subject. tiZom_(2¢) 16:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per above, though I do like the composition. --Tewy 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, from an encyclopedic aspect and taking the FP criteria under consideration, I feel this image fails. But the story being told by the selective lighting is intriguing. Conceptually, it is a nice image.--Andrew c 17:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, black and white can be pretty... but this guy was born in 1973 and I don't think feel that there is a good reason to have him in B&W without very good reason. gren グレン 15:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very low light is a very good reason. Ericd 13:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Shelby troop formation

This fits all of the criteria for a FP, and it's a pretty cool formation of a group of troops; This article appears in marching band, Brigade combat team, and Camp Shelby, By Sgt. Jackquline Herring

• Nominate and support. —Captain538[talk] 01:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Blurry at full resolution, with some blown highlights (minor). Also, the back half is out of focus. But I don't know, the subject is interesting enough to make up for the photograph's lacking; that's a pretty impressive subject. Maybe if it were just a little sharper I would support. --Tewy 01:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. For a subject such as this, it would have been nice to see more detail, especially in the people, but it isn't very sharp or high resolution, so this can't be done. NauticaShades 07:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm the original nominator and uploader from way back when. Staxringold _talk^contribs 10:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, blurry, and doesn't really tell me much looking at it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here is the archive of the past nomination in April 2006 Glaurung 07:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's a pretty cool formation, but I can't see a lot of encyclopaedic value to be honest. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but I can't even see where it's explained why they're in this formation (like what is it a logo of, etc?). --jjron 08:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I can't see much encyclopaedic value here. I don't see any musical instruments. Therefore, I don't see why it's in marching band, but it's tempting me to write an article for "stupid human tricks". T Steinway 11:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth Hot Springs

I nominated this image because it is a beautiful picture that passes the FIC criteria; This image appears in the article Geothermal areas of Yellowstone created by Jon Sullivan -- SOADLuver 23:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI,

chat} 22:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Nominate and support. - SOADLuver 23:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- I am in love with this photo! Wish it were a little bigger (It just makes FP criteria), and I wish there were some sort of frame of reference. Viewer has no idea how tall those ledges are... tiZom_(2¢) 05:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up...Before I vote, are those jpeg artifacts considered too noticeable at the full size (on the ledges, etc.)? tiZom_(2¢) 05:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that noticeable.Sorry about the low resolution.The guy that works at the website I got this image off won't send me a higher res.I mean it's his job to do that stuff but he won't do it. SOADLuver 16:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain -- I think there is definite wow factor for me, but to see detail so small, it needs to have a higher resolution. tiZom_(2¢) 16:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I also love this image. That's why I fought in order to be considered a Quality Image (with no success). You are right, we have no idea of scale. Now, I'll wait for the consensus and see... Alvesgaspar 09:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, no "wow factor" for me and the technical quality is not very good. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Per above ("wow" factor and artifacts). --Tewy 21:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nowhere near high enough res (so detail) on subject matter. Staxringold _talk^contribs 10:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. A sense of scale would really add to the picture. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 07:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Aesthetics has prevailed. I also think that the lack of scale contributes to the irreality of the picture. - Alvesgaspar 08:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, lots of blurriness and artifacts. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regensburg twilight panorama

This panoramic photograph shows a part of the German city of Regensburg, with the 12th century Steinerne Brücke and Regensburg Cathedral on the left and the river Danube in the foreground. The photographer is de-Wikipedian Grizurgbg (Karsten Dörre).

• Nominate and support (I prefer the original, although Samsara's edit is ok, too). - KFP (talk | contribs) 20:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great picture! Nice composition and exposure, the photographer picked a great light/time. The stitching seems to be flawless. Low noise and good sharpness. I just can't find anything wrong with it. --Dschwen 21:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any. Per Dschwen, though the distortion is a *bit* distracting. --Tewy 02:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think edit 2 is the best crop, though. It's a nice compromise between too much and too little. --Tewy 19:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Except for the distortion (tilting biuldings) this is great. --Janke | Talk 07:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either. Good quality (aside from the distortion) and good encyclopedic value. NauticaShades 07:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent. Per Dschwen --Fir0002 08:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Before anymore people repeat this distortion argument just let me add this. There is always distortion in any photograph. Any photo is a mapping of the inside of a sphere (onto which the 3d surroundings are point projected) onto a flat 2D surface. This is equivalent to the geographical mapping problem (spheroid globe -> flat map). You have to choose between straight lines, correct distances, correct angles, and correct area ratios, or you have to find compromises. This is what the projections do. The distortions become more apparent the larger the field of view is. This pano and the one above have large FOVs, and the image creators had to make a choice of projection. I can only talk for myself, but as much as I value straight lines the price you pay is too high. The incorrect angles, distances and areas distort the spatial perception, the proportions of the buildings too much. Anyways as you see, distortion is kind of a null-argument, you'd have to be more specific, or trust the image creator that he made the choice for a good reason, compaing the outcome with the memory he had from the time and place he took the pic. Oh, the reason we do not percieve distortion in real life with our eyes ist that our brain creates a 3D image internally, thus no mapping no projection no distortion. --Dschwen 08:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Admittedly I prefer daylight images for the most encyclopaedic value, but this is light enough to provide information on the place and also visually appealing. --jjron 08:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Preference for original. --jjron 09:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support there is something about the composition that bugs me. Seems like a lot of dead space in the water and to the left and right. And the composition and balance of the left most and right most space is also bothersome. I'm not sure, but I may like a tighter crop of just the middle buildings better. Otherwise, great shot and high quality image.--Andrew c 23:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about the cropped version? Support my edit.
    chat} 17:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Very nice. Support Edit 1. Addressed my concerns with the original above.--Andrew c 22:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Towsonu2003 04:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. I was hoping someone would crop the edges as I don't think they enhance the image at all. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Much better now. - Alvesgaspar 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because blown out street lights would not be a good reason to oppose in this case. gren グレン 14:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose edit 1. City is not on a lake. Depicting it this way is not encyclopaedic. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 18:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is depicted as being on a lake. You can still see a bridge across the river, and you can see the cylindrical distortion which makes it pretty obvious that it isn't a lake, although such distortion can sometimes be misleading. Your edit isn't bad either but by no means necessary in my opinion. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like this photograph a lot; very good quality. JonCatalan 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support versions 2 and 3. Alvesgaspar 11:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Regensburg Uferpanorama 08 2006 2.jpg NauticaShades 12:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Göttingen market place

This panoramic picture appears in the Göttingen article and nicely depicts a typical street scene in the pedestrian zone of Göttingen, a small University town in northern germany. I like the picture because it captures a lot things, such as typical buildings, the famous fountain (which freshly baked ph.D's are supposed to kiss), people shopping, a kissing couple, a woman buying flowers, students waiting for their dates. I was lucky with the weather (nice clouds too), but with the bright sunshine comes a broad tonal range: the white buildings straight ahead are a little blown. The picture is composed from over 20 images which also enabled me to compose the scene by selectively blending the frames and influencing where the (moving) people appear. I tried to clear out the immediate area around the camera to obstruct as little of the scenery as possible while still maintaining a lively/busy atmosphere.

• Self nominate and support. - Dschwen 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any While the image does have some distortion, it is not major. The walls of some buildings are slightly blown out, but in small areas. The dark areas contain good detail. This image is very encyclopedic and depicts it's subject excellently. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, distortion gives me my doubts. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. The blown highlights are quite distracting, and I almost want to weak oppose, but I can't get around the fact that this picture shows a lot of different things, such as the various activities going on, the different buildings, and other items mentioned by the nominator. --Tewy 02:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The tilting is distracting, there is no "wow" factor. a good photo but not the best (which is what a FP is). Hbdragon88 06:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The uneven lighting in addition to the buildings tilting inwards on the right makes this image "lopsided". --Janke | Talk 07:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Neutral Although technically the photo is great I have trouble understanding what your focus is. It's like you are trying to do everything and you ended up doing nothing. --antilived ^{T | C} 07:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is intended to be an overview. There are lots of more focussed pictures in the article, but I think both have their own right. --Dschwen 09:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above. Also I don't really like the composition with the large amount of sky up top and the couple's feet (and the dude in red on the bottom LHS) are cut off. Also is there supposed to be an upward slant on the area of the building with the red crosses (near center of image)? --Fir0002 08:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you about the composition (too much sky) but I would have to say that yes, there is supposed to be an upward slant on that building. If it were directly in the centre of the frame AND facing parallel to the camera, then it would be straight, but because it is not parallel, the building moves further away from the camera. It is not straight for exactly the same reason that the window ledges on my Radcliffe Camera image were not straight - perspective. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Original, Support Edit 2. Oppose Edit 1, it just makes it worse. As for the orignal, I don't see what everybody is complaining about. Like Dschwen explained below, distortion is inevitable. Aside from this, the quality is relatively good, and this perfectly captures the town life. "Lack of wow factor" and "lack of focus" are in my mind rather weak arguements. NauticaShades 08:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. It's a shame that the more interesting side of the picture is in shadow: otherwise I like this photo very much. I wonder if someone can rectify that with some Photoshop wizardry? Or maybe the photo could be repeated at a different time of day? Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, antilived. Support Edit 2 (oppose Original and Edit 1). Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I think its probably easier to be on the judging side than the creating side of a good quality ultra-wide panorama. That said, there are a couple of issues that I have with it. The shadow is of course a major one but cannot easily be helped, short of taking the photo on an overcast day and losing the blue sky. I'm not sure that a polarizer was the best idea either (I'm assuming you used one anyway) as the sky is not even. I might have also picked a slightly different place to take the panorama from (simply from a compositional point of view - I'm not sure what obstacles there are that might prevent it) as the others are right, the extreme curvature of some of the buildings is a little distracting, and could be minimised by being further away from them. Again, I'm not sure if this is possible. Cityscape panoramas are just very difficult to pull off. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. But check the location link on google maps, I stepped back as far as I could. There are buildings in the far left which would start to obstruct the city hall if I went further back. --Dschwen 12:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'll do the necessary editing in Paint Shop Pro, to make it better. Anyone agree?? --SunStar Net 11:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, go ahead and post your results. NauticaShades 11:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have to wait a few days before I can upload the new one to Commons, my account there (commons:User:SunStone) is too new to do re-uploads. SunStar Net 11:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give the alternative version a different filename, such as "Goettingen Marktplatz Oct06 edit1.jpg". Don't overwrite the original. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here it is. I changed the brightness and also the colour intensity on
    Paint Shop Pro - hopefully it looks better. --SunStar Net 12:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support Original version. I think the sky in Version 2 is too blue - Adrian Pingstone 14:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Towsonu2003 04:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've uploaded another update which lightened the shadows quite a bit and now is much more visible. I also reduced the contrast a bit as IMHO the original has too high contrast. Would do a higher quality one if a 16 bit original is available. --antilived ^{T | C} 05:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, Weak oppose edit 2 - This is a better picture than the original, although IMO the center part seems to have too much light. But the main problem (here I agree with Dilif) is the extreme distortion of the buildings. I really think this is too much - our eyes are not used to see so wide-angle panoramas, both horizontally and vertically. - Alvesgaspar 10:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the field of view of this panorama corresponds pretty much exactly to the FOV of you eyes. --Dschwen 14:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is so, you should straighten all lines, like our brain does. Unless this is an artistic view... - Alvesgaspar 16:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Check out my comment in the Regensburg nomination. Like our brain does simply is not possible, because our brain creates a 3D impression. --Dschwen 16:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What if we shut one eye, we start to see straight lines as curves?.... Alvesgaspar 23:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is because the retina is curved (a sphere cap). The eye doesn't project on a plane like a camera does. And our brain does the magic of creating the image in our brain then. --Dschwen 07:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is true, you cannot lay a 3d scene onto a flat image without distorting some, ask any mapmaker. A panorama(or any photograph for that matter) always have some distortion, all you can do is hide it as best you can. You see it in major motion pictures even. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as a matter of fact I'm a kind of a mapmaker...) The mathematical concept of distortion you are referring to, used in map projections, is only applicable to the transformation of one surface (the surface of a sphere or of a spheroid) into another (in general, a plane). A photograph is a different geometric process since we are projecting directly from a 3D space into a plane using a conical geometric projection. You are of course right by saying that we cannot reproduce the human 3D sensation in a piece of paper. That’s why I think that large (horizontal and vertical) panoramas should be used with parsimony, so that straight lines can be represented as straight, using or not image manipulations, without causing other worse distortions. An urban environment is, for obvious reasons, more sensitive to that kind of problem since we expect the edges of buildings to be straight - Alvesgaspar 17:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just wrong. For any regular camera where the aperture can easily be approximated pointlike, the photo is the projection of the inside of a sphere onto a plane. Haven't you read my comment below? Straight lines are not the only relevant criteria. --Dschwen 18:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to say something just like that but I could not articulate it so well. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This panorama is just like all the other ones with this size FOV. It's fine. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 19:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Why the heck ar we talking in such small font. Hbdragon88 05:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So they don't hear us! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the smallest you can go!!! Muahahahahahaha --antilived ^{T | C} 07:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • Bored Wikipedians are pathetic... --Tewy 13:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'll take that as a direct insult. :-) |
        Talk 21:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC) [reply
        ]

Promoted Image:Goettingen_Marktplatz_Oct06_Antilived.jpg --NauticaShades 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rotorua Museum

A panorama of the Rotorua Museum in Rotorua, NZ, a major tourist attraction in Rotorua. A problem with focus or something made one of the image (the one on the far left) blurry but the affected region is quite minor. Otherwise I think this image is sharp and demonstrates the subject quite well (no people, few blown highlights etc.). The thumbnail doesn't display for most of the times, any help on how to fix that (jpeg encoding problem? or a bug with mediawiki?) would also be appreciated.

• Self Nominate and support. - antilived ^{T | C} 05:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, the blur on the left is the main problem. Yes it's only a small portion of the pic but it's quite noticeable. (I am having some problems with displaying the image too, but that's hardly your fault.). --jjron 09:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Try re-encoding without progressive jpeg. --TheJosh 04:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that but it still doesn't show up on the image description page... Thanks though. --antilived ^{T | C} 04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there a slight tilt? Perhaps it's not important, I just remember the Dinner Plain example.• Leon 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's an illusion: one of the gables on the right is blocked by a tree so it seems tilted to the left when it is not. Also the road is supposed to be tilted downward as it is a ramp. --antilived ^{T | C} 03:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. It's a nice picture, but the blurry section (I think the camera moved) ruins it for me. The cars are also a little distracting. --Tewy 02:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it's nice... and I don't even mind the blur... it's just that it's not so important or spectacular... maybe if there weren't any cars in front. But, unless the place is very notable it doesn't seem like it would deserve FP status. gren グレン 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --NauticaShades 17:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Dictionary

I stumbled across this by accident earlier this week while looking for material related to my pshychology class (which is apparently a cleverly disguised biology class. Go figure :/). Anyway, this image got my attention right quick, so I decided to put it up and see what everyone else thinks. This image is used on the page dictionary; the photo originates from the commons and, although not explicitly stated, I believe that it is already featured over there since it was selected as a picture of the day.

• Nominate and Support TomStar81 (Talk) 10:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's a nice picture (although the top-right corner is too dark), but the most important difference between our featured pictures and those on commons is that ours must illustrate a subject: "It is important that the encyclopedic value of the image be given priority over the artistic value of the image" (
  University Library of Graz, so I'm going to oppose it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Actually, I have taken advantage of those subtle differnces in the past to get well known historical images up to FP standards. Here, the equation is "photographic requirements+encyclopedic value+ supporting consensus=FP", where as the commons omits the middle requirement. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentSupport Just put it on Book and I'll support, because it illustrates Book very nicely - Adrian Pingstone 14:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It illustrates Dictionary and Book quite well, and the quality is good. NauticaShades 16:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Good composition. But the book, which is the main subject of the picture, is out of focus. - Alvesgaspar 22:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not all Commons PsOTD are FPs. Until recently, anyone could add an image to be POTD.
  chat} 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Which is why I said "not explicitly stated". On here the rule is that the POTD must be an FP, so I made an educated guess about the pictures there based on the system here. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. per above say1988 01:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. bad lighting. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Nice setup/composition, but the flash lighting kills it for me. Apperture was very wide so the DOF is a bit low, I guess thats what Alvesgaspar meant with the book beeing out of focus, most parts of it are tack sharp though. Again, the lighting is unfortunate and prevents you from reading the backs of the lined up books. --Dschwen 08:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What I mean is that we can't read the text in the dictionary due to lack of sharpness. - Alvesgaspar 11:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I actually don't care for the composition particularly (though it looks better at bigger sizes than in the thumbnail). Other issues mentioned above. --jjron 09:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Flash lighting and I can't even see the text in the book clearly.
  chat} 17:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Mostly because of the bad lighting. --Tewy 02:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --NauticaShades 17:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montreux, Switzerland

A photo taken by my brother, Ahmed, in Montreux, Switzerland. Looking at Lake Geneva and at France on the other side of the lake.

• Nominate and support. -
  Talk | _#info | ) 03:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Blown highlights and the blurriness on the left are the major concerns here. Also suffers from halo from over-sharpening, and tilted buildings in the foreground. --antilived ^{T | C} 05:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It just seems a bit overexposed in general really. Its a relatively pretty snapshot scene but doesn't stand out enough for FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Blurriness takes alot away from photo. Also, the photo is a better illustration of Lake Geneva than it is of Montreux, as the shot focuses more on the water than the town. Nilington
• Oppose. As much as I love Lake Leman, the quality of this picture doesn't meet FP standards. NauticaShades 12:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Overexposed, tilted, and blurry. --Tewy 03:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted NauticaShades 17:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse from space

Solar eclipse of 2006 March 29

From

solar eclipse of 2006 March 29

, a gorgeous example of space photography and a one-of-a-kind shot with a definite "wow factor." And it just barely meets size requirements, too!

• Nominate and support. -
  TC 04:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose that boom arm in the foreground is distracting. It takes the focus clearly away from the subject. Also, I almost wish for a wider shot so we can really see the difference in the shadow on earth. The contrast could be better (although it is probably hard to expose properly for something like that), and the resolution is borderline. The concept is clearly FP quality, but I feel like we should hold off for a better image.--Andrew c 05:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Interesting subject but pretty poor composition. A snapshot from space. --jjron 09:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per jjron. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Great subject, poor photograph. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The boom arm blocks out part of the image and is distracting. Also, I don't think that we can see enough of the eclipse. - jlao ⁰⁴ 08:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Spectacular subject! I just wish we could see more eclipse and less boom. T Steinway 11:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I would prefer something more like this (even though it's too small) that doesn't have any obstructions and shows the entire shadow. --Tewy 03:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The composition could be better. If I hadn't known what the picture was of, I think it would've taken me a while to figure it out. — Ultor_Solis ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Eventhough this piece of hardware disturbs the photo, subject and image are spectacular. Cyprus is easily recognizable, and this is a unique perspective to solar eclipse. I would love to see this photo without the detail from the ISS... Meelosh 23:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --NauticaShades 17:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Iris

I stumbled across this by accident earlier this week while looking for material related to my pshychology class (which is apparently a cleverly disguised biology class. Go figure :/ ). Anyway, this image got my attention right quick, so I decided to put it up and see what everyone else thinks. This image is used on the page eye; the photo originates from the commons and is already featured over there.

• Nominate and Support TomStar81 (Talk) 10:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great photo, and encyclopaedic. It should be put in the article Iris (anatomy) too, since it's better than the photos that are there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, the big spot of glare on the right really wipes out a lot of detail, and the image is blurry at full res. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The image is gorgeous. Sharkface217 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not much more to say than amazing. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support What a featured picture should be. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image but would appreciate it if you could remove that little blood vessel on the bottom right as it is distracting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antilived (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Please don't. I would change my vote to oppose if you did that, because I don't think photos should be manipulated in that way. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Irregular focus, and lack of sharpness for nature of subject to my eye (perhaps downsampling would help?). Also composition - if it's of the iris then it should be more centred and there's too much sclera; if it's of the whole eye then it's cut off. --jjron 09:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The glare and the off-center composition are the biggest problems.--ragesoss 16:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Some minor features already explained that aren't good, but looking at the big picture, it is a very good picture that illustrates and focuses on the subject. Hello32020 02:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I recall an old message board thread (outside Wikipedia, of course) in which hundreds of people took photos of their eyes, often with stunning results. I've seen better eye macro photos than this one, although this is not really that bad, although it has some problems as the above editors have mentioned. I think that an enterprising Wikipedia editor with a bit of time and a really good camera can do better.
  TC 06:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. It seems to me that a picture of an eye should be easily obtainable by anyone. Thus, we shouldn't accept anything less than perfection.
  chat} 17:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Per above. Once my exams are over, I'm sure I'll be able to get a better image with my new Sigma 150 macro. --Fir0002 06:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I keep having to remind myself that you are also in school; that comment about having to take exams really caught me off guard. Pretty quick here I am going to be taking a wikibreak for the exact same reason. I wish you good luck and God speed with your exams. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom and likewise for you; I appreciate your support. --Fir0002 09:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Could benefit from downsampling, but even then a better picture could be obtained. --Tewy 02:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although i would prefer the iris to be directly in the center of the image rather than having the white parts uneven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs)
• Support I also would prefer it in the center, but it's very good anyways. | — Preceding
  talk • contribs
  )
• Oppose per Howcheng. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 9.5/7. --NauticaShades 17:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erg Chebbi

chat} 00:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

A Commons Featured Picture of Erg Chebbi, a large sand dune field in Morocco. Photo by Rosa Cabecinhas and Alcino Cunha and licensed under CC-BY-SA. Also used in Erg (landform).

• Nominate and support original Flickr version.
  chat} 22:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support very iconic image. Quality is high, and technical aspects are almost flawless.--Andrew c 23:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A great looking photo! Ackatsis 09:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful!! --Midnight Rider 02:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although JPEG artifacting is visible in the upper part of the sky and along the edges of the dunes. Gorgeous picture, though, but it would be even better if it weren't as compressed.
  TC 04:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak oppose, though the photo itself is excellent. From my point of view, it does not fully meet images that add significantly to article criterion. Moroccan Erg Chebbi area is famous site for birdwatching. At the end of winter, a temporary lake is formed there. I guess FP for Erg Chebbi article or for the main page of Wikipedia should capture this theme. JanSuchy 11:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, I believe it adds significantly to the
    chat} 17:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support I think it adds to the article in that it gives a feeling of being there in a way words cannot describe. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I can't support a picture with so many JPEG artifacts. Is there any non compressed version? It'll be great to have a better quality. It is obvious that this is not the best photo we can have on this subject, as the original, non compressed photo of this image has better quality. Support Thank you for removing the artifacts. Good photo --Arad 00:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Groovy shot. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport Fantastic photograph, deserving of featured status. Hello32020 02:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - superb photograph! - Alvesgaspar 11:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original or Edit 1. The quality isn't perfect, but the original is a large improvement. Quite encyclopedic, though. NauticaShades 12:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just noticed the artifact issue in the sky (I had noticed it in the distant lines of the wavy side of the foreground dune before). I wonder if we could still edit the original? The quality is superb compared to the originally uploaded photo, but I'm not sure what rights are reserved (see the logos at the bottom).--Andrew c 13:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
    chat} 17:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment. I edited the original, using the same gaussian blur technique. NauticaShades 17:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I actually like the original flickr version best. The gaussian blur sky makes it look sort of blotchy (in the same manner that jpgs compress using nearest neighbor-type data, except this blotchiness isn't hard and square). Does that make sense? I feel like the level of noise is totally acceptable in the original, and because there is a lot more subtle color variation between each pixel, it seems like the 'noisier' version is more crisp, detailed, and the blurred version blotchy and compressed. But this may just be the way I look at things.--Andrew c 01:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I tend to agree with you. I put the edit up for consideration, though, as some people might prefer it. NauticaShades 08:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Good composition and colors. And as Andrew c said, the other two are "blotchy". --Tewy 03:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support unedited Flickr version, oppose others. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Erg Chebbi.jpg --NauticaShades 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the sextant

This is a didactic animation to illustrate the use of the marine sextant to measure the

Altitude (astronomy) of the Sun at sea. A detailed explanation of the frames is in the image file. The animation appears in the article sextant

.

Image created by Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Nominate and support. - Alvesgaspar 11:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I like this animation a lot, but one thing to note. It isn't altitude that you're measuring (which is the DISTANCE above the surface of the earth) but the angle of the sun from the horizon. You will need to change the caption and the comments on the image page. Also, surely when you tilt the sextant, the horizon in the left pane will also tilt? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Info. The correct technical term, used both in British and American English, is really altitude: the angular distance between the horizon and the body. The word is used in Astronomy, Geodesy and Navigation. In this case, it is called the sextant altitude. To get the apparente altitude, we still have to correct all sistematic errors (due to instrument, observer and depression of the horizon). When the sextant is tilted, the horizon seen through the telescope remains horizontal, only the image of the mirror/glass rotate (I have done it a lot of times, believe me!) ;-) - Alvesgaspar 12:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I apologise. I've never heard the word altitude used in that way! How does the telescope remain horizontal? I'm assuming that it rotates on its axis somehow? I've added a link to the
    Altitude (astronomy) article in the introduction to the nomination. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yes, we rotate the instrument around the optical axis of the telescope, maintaining its ocular close to the eye! -
• Weak oppose. There is a bright line appearing and disappearing in the middle of the animation. And I'd like the light path to be visible from the beginning (maybe thinner or transparent) and the sun (or direction of the sun) indicated in the overview. The tilting of the sextant looks like a squeezing not a rotation. Otherwise a nice animation. --Dschwen 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There's a lot going on simultaneously in this animation, it might be easier to follow and understand if it was a bit slower and smoother. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I oppose this particular version but I'm really looking forward to an improved one - this would be a very useful FP.

The sequence is too fast, you can't actually understand what is going on without watching it a large number of times. The picture transitions is very blocky, could it be made into a smooth animation like the "pi unrolled" FP? The numbers in the corner should relate to the steps required to use a a sextant not the frame number of the animation. The animation can't be understood by itself, you have to read the explanation at the image page - all the relevant information should be on the animation without requiring reference to external sources.

lama 17:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose There is also a bad looking wiggle when the sextant is tilted. This animation can certainly be improved. --Janke | Talk 19:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. I'd support a version that addresses these issues.
  chat} 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose I had to watch the animation a dozen times before I figured out what was going on, and I had to read the image page to understand the captions. The first few captions went by too fast for me to read. --Andrew c 23:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Info. Thank you for all the suggestions which I hope will help to make a much better animation. Please hold your votes until it is done. - Alvesgaspar 00:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Information. Voilà, the new version of the sextant is ready. The animation is now smoother and a bit simplified. I decided to include the light rays only at the begining and at the end, otherwise the image would be too cluttered. But the sextant is a working replica, i.e., the angles and reflections are all correct. - Alvesgaspar 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:: Please help, I cannot make the thumbnail here visible. - Alvesgaspar 09:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit 2. The new version is much clearer. NauticaShades 12:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• VERY weak Oppose New version is great, but I still would not mind seeing the blue reference lines throughout the animation. It may show better how the mirror swings up toward the sun. Any chance we could have a 3rd version just to see? --Bridgecross 14:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like you are puting me to work... - Alvesgaspar 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Edit': part of the animation was lost: You see the sun swinging about the horizon, but DON'T SEE THE SEXTANT SWING INTO AND OUT OF THE PICTURE anymore. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose edit per above. --Janke | Talk 07:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Info. This is the third and last version. The swinging is back, although more discreete, and I have also included the light rays. - Alvesgaspar 01:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all. It's a good image once you watch it a dozen times...but maybe that's just because it's a complicated instrument for those new to it. But there are other problems. You can't tell it's swinging without reading the text, the image would benefit from an indication of where the sun is relative to the sextant, and the text should be capitalized. Finally, for aesthetics, I would like to see the glass view (the circle) on the right and the sextant on the left, with the numbers and text together on the left side. --Tewy 03:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose An okay animation. But I find that most animations are too fast for me to get the gist of it in one go round. — Ultor_Solis ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -

Mailer Diablo 19:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ambrosian Iliad

This image appears in Ambrosian Iliad, and I believe that article clearly explains the importance of this image. It is one of the earliest examples of an illuminated manuscript, one of the earliest manuscripts of the Iliad, and the only pre-medieval illuminated manuscript of the Iliad (one out of 3 illuminated manuscripts from antiquity). This is a work of art from over 100 years ago, so it (and photographs of it) are in the public domain (at least in the US, according to the copyright tag).

• Nominate and support. - Andrew c 00:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Love it. My only comment would be to put it in the Achilles article as well. If a shot of Brad Pitt is useful, this is useful. :p Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support The image is great but the shadow (as visible on the edges) are quite hard and the background should be less distracting. Otherwise great image. --antilived ^{T | C} 05:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, one of the most important surviving manuscripts. Its unlikely we will find a better copy. Dsmdgold 22:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. It seems blurry and I don't like the background, but since a better scan is unlikely, I'm not sure which way to go on this one. --Tewy 03:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Very good picture, very informative and encyclopedic! Jellocube27 02:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — A truly historic image. ♠ SG →Talk 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:AmbrosianIliadPict47Achilles.jpg -

Mailer Diablo 19:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Trench warfare 1916

An image that perfectly depicts trench warfare from 1916. There are some quality issues (scanning artifacts?), but I think the historical value outweighs the technical deficiencies.

• Nominate and support.
  chat} 23:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support though grains are visible on the sky at the top, it has a very high level of detail and high historical value is well. --antilived ^{T | C} 05:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and recommend for front page on November 11. –Outriggr § 05:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • chat} 17:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Can't the comet be moved to later? NauticaShades 12:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Dang, I almost nominated this one myself. Snooze=lose. I like the various positions of the men in the trench. It illustrates the combination of tedium, exhaustion, and fear of trench warfare. --Bridgecross 14:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this is a very nice photo with historical relivence. Pigottsm 14:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support New perspective on the words "digging in". TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fairly good image, historically important. Hello32020 02:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good image. I used this pic in one of my pieces of work, but didn't nominate it.:( - jlao ⁰⁴ 09:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I only regret there not being a better scan. NauticaShades 12:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A nice picture, but a better scan would certainly help as well. --Tewy 03:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cheshire Regiment trench Somme 1916.jpg -

Mailer Diablo 19:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hopi Chipmunk