Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/September-2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured picture tools

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

Older Archive
Miscellaneous Archive
2004: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2025: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


African Hawk Eagle

[edit]
African Hawk Eagle

An excellent image, which I think meets all the criteria. Used (to little effect in the taxobox) in the species article and in the article on bird flight. Also demonstrates the excellent free content that can be found on flickr.

Not promoted Mikeo 00:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Towers of Bologne

[edit]
the famous "Two Towers" of Bologna.

I recently returned from a computer science conference in Italy. While there, I got to tour Bolonga, and see the two towers, featured in the picture to the right. I wanted to see if wikipedia had any images of these towers prior to me uploading images, and I found this picture in the Bolonga article. The quality of the image was much more impressive than anything I took while visiting the towers, so I figured I would nominate it here.

Not promoted Mikeo 00:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chopsticks

[edit]
Chopsticks

A detailed picture of a chopsticks courtesy of the commons. The image is hi-res, and appears in the article chopsticks.

  • Object. The image is pretty simple and boring, and besides, most people can imagine what chopsticks look like. --Dark Kubrick 21:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FPC guidelines state "Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed". If you find the image boring that's fine, its an opinion and I can respect that, but I can not in good faith address those problems as it is a matter of taste. Could you maybe give a more valid reason, or perhaps change your vote to neutral? TomStar81 21:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps boring was the wrong word. I'm just saying that the subject matter itself, used here, is not very interesting to most people, and it's not hard to imagine a pair of chopsticks. I would go with Howcheng's idea, and find a more stylistic, cultural pair of chopsticks. That would be a nice picture. --Dark Kubrick 02:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's a lot of noise in the background. Also, if we're going to have a picture of chopsticks, they could be a lot nicer than the ones pictured here. Some nice black lacquer ones with a good pattern on them would look a lot better. howcheng {chat} 22:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sorry but, I too find it rather boring and un-appealing. The composition does not make it 'pleasing to the eye. Maybe executing howcheng {chat} idea would be nice.Nnfolz 02:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose too plain. needs to be jazzed up somehow. -Ravedave help name my baby 02:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Plain, no context. Perhaps an image of them by a meal or held by hands. The photo tells me nothing of what they do. HighInBC 13:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are several quality issues, such as the noise in the background, the subject not being completely in focus, and it being so dark. It's also at a funny, almost upside-down angle. --Tewy 01:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Chopsticks come in many different shapes, sizes, materials, and colors. To limit the concept to these two chopsticks in a rested static state does not contribute enough. A child trying to master the eating utensil by picking up noodles from a bowl would do a great job. It should be more like the picture (http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/images/image082.gif) illustrating different uses of a mouth that was included in the Golden Record on the Voyager probes. Sudachi 07:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 00:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half Dome Side View

[edit]
Original: A side view of Half dome
Edit 1: Adjusted color, contrast, saturation, sharpness
Edit 2: Converted to black & white, adjusted contrast, brightness, sharpness
Edit 3: Better color edit?
Edit 4: Another take on the color

A unique photo of half dome showing how perfectly flat it is; appears in Half Dome, Created by Reywas92.

Fixed the colors, of rock & sky separately. Is edit 3 better? --Janke | Talk 05:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 00:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Goose in Flight

[edit]
Canada Goose, Burnaby Lake Regional Park (Piper Spit), Burnaby, British Columbia
Edit 1 by Pharaoh Hound.
Edit 2 by Diliff - similar cropping to Edit 1 but additional noise reduction in the background

Maybe not quite as tack sharp as the Brown Pelican, this is still sensational (and for those that were concerned it doesn't have a visible halo)

Promoted Image:Canada goose flight cropped and NR.jpg Mikeo 00:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

80486DX2 200x

[edit]
Upper interconnect layers on an Intel 80486 DX2.
Edit 1 - Corrected barrel distortion, increased saturation and contrast a little

This image provides a good visual for explaining integrated circuits and microprocessors, and is an unusual find on Wikipedia at this resolution. I think it's rather striking and is a good supplement to Image:80486dx2-large.jpg. At the very least, it's a nice change of subject compared with the typical featured picture nominees. Note: I had originally uploaded a slightly different image ([1]), but went with this one because it's a good bit sharper.

  • Nominate and support. - uberpenguin @ 2006-08-24 00:47Z
  • Weak oppose (prefer Edit 1) Low saturation, vignetting, and barrel distortion HighInBC 01:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's pretty difficult to avoid with my microscope setup. For an extra $2k or so I could probably do something about it. Anyway, if this image is doomed because of prevailing circumstances, so be it. I doubt there are many other folks on Wikipedia who could produce this picture, though. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-24 04:15Z
I know how you feel, I have been trying for months to take a FP with my $300 camera, and I have not even got one I would nominate. HighInBC 04:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see what I can do with that image in photoshop. HighInBC 04:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool... By the way, the color (or lack thereof) in the image isn't incorrect. The materials you're seeing are most likely aluminum and silicon dioxide. The colors you see in the whole-die shot are largely from diffusion, refraction, and the very different lighting condition. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-24 04:38Z
HighinBC ... yeah me too... I have like 6000 pics with my canon S500 and not one is FP material. I have some close ones but nothing that is Fir quality. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose This is a very interesting picture. Too bad you cannot obtain a picture quality comparable to your featured whole die picture of the processor. Glaurung 06:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose it's a great picture, and that's most obvious in how much I really really want to see beyond the edges of the black, but I really would rather have a picture with more in the frame, since we can only see a single small part in this one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You guys do realize this is under an optical microscope, right? 200x magnification, remember? Used an optical microscope lately? The limited coverage of the objective is due to the magnification, comes with the territory, and is unavoidable; as is the circular viewing area and to some extent the vignetting (though it is admittedly worse here than it could be). Sure I could tile several of these things together and produce a lovely rectangular picture, but that has its own problems and I'd prefer not to seriously mess with an image other than to correct minor defects (like the barrel distortion). Lordy, would you folks fault an AFM picture for not showing enough of the target? Images produced by good microscope optics will NOT look the same as those produced by a 35 mm lens and while I don't claim that this picture is perfect, I rather think some of you are expecting a microscope to be a super macro lens pointed at a well-lit target. I can't help but notice that most (all?) of the featured micro-"photographs" on WP are produced by SEM, not by optics... Am I to understand that microscope optics produce sub-standard pictures and that I must use SEM in the future? If that's the case let me know and I won't bother nominating pictures produced by optical microscopy in the future. Sorry for the rant. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-26 20:14Z
  • That's fine, nobody is saying that the photograph was poorly taken, as you explained the problem clearly lies in the equipment used. The fact that there were technical limitations to the photo does not excuse it from the aestetic opinions of those who vote here. The standards of featured pictures is kept high on purpose. It is a great picture worthy of inclusion in the enclyclopedia and surely helps it's article greatly, but a featured picture needs to be an example of wikipedia's best. There are images that are much like yours such as Image:Microphoto-butterflywing3.jpg and Image:Microphoto-butterflywing4.jpg, and their are others of higher quality such as Image:Wirebond-ballbond.jpg and Image:Diatoms through the microscope.jpg. Now ask yourself if we are really being unfair or unreasonable opposing based on these technical faults? Is this image an example of wikipedia's best work? This is about the picture, we are not trying to judge you. Sorry for the rant. hehe HighInBC 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't meant to suggest I perceive some slight towards me. No, far be it from me to get upset about something like this. I just think that there might be some irrational 35 mm bias going on... Not that my conspiracy theories are likely to change anyone's opinion, but I thought I might as well comment on it. To directly answer your question, yeah, I do think this is some of the best work you will see from an optical microscope on Wikipedia. Maybe I could do a bit better with some more time and maybe I could spend a week trying to get time on an SEM, but I obviously thought this was a possibility for fulfilling FP requirements, otherwise I wouldn't have nominated it. Anyway, I'm done ranting... I respect the validity of most of the criticisms raised. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-27 01:30Z
  • Oppose I can appreciate the difficulty, but the colors/vignetting combined with a none to sensational subject just don't make this image special enough for FP status IMO. A nice image all the same. --Fir0002 12:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already explained the color. I don't know what else I can do other than inaccurately add false color to match whatever prior expectations you have... -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-26 20:27Z
  • Oppose. Per Fir0002. --Tewy 19:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 00:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Quarter

[edit]
A United States Quarter
An actual photograph of a coin (not for voting), although this coin isn't cameo, and so shouldn't exhibit any of the lighting effects illustrated above.

A rather well detailed image of a standard US Quarter as seen from the "heads" side. The image appears in the article Quarter (United States coin). I am nominating this image for its excellent detail.

  • Nominate and support. TomStar81 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, it's as good as the other US Mint photos that are already featured. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-24 21:51
  • Support, Nice detail, even the artist mark is very clear. HighInBC 22:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Just a good overall image; about the same quality as the featured penny image. --Tewy 01:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nice. Cat-five - talk 07:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not special coin, not special photo. In principle, this coin has few details to be interesting.Olegivvit 11:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So would you delist the current featured pictures that are US Mint photos? This picture illustrates the subject excellently--the very definition of what a featured picture should be. Are you suggesting that Quarter (United States coin) is part of a special subset of articles that are undeserving of featured pictures, because the subject itself is "not special"? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 15:40
      I would delist. Why this photo should be featured but not, for example, many of these [2]?
      • I think this is an invalid oppose; FPC guidelines state "Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed", and this one does not. TomStar81 19:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note the first two word is that quote. say1988 02:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am aware of that. For me, if you can not give a specific reason for opposing that can be adressed I think to be either a boring picture, or something someone just does not like about the picture. In either case, I believe that to be beyond my ability (or anyone elses, for that matter) to fix or improve. I am not saying that the people who dislike the photo can not vote oppose unless they have a valid reason, I am just saying that it seems a little hard to count a vote that states something that can not be addressed. TomStar81 03:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Some pictures just plainly aren't good enough and can't be improved. Hence the "Where possible" You get an image from NASA that has part cut off, you obviously can't fix that, so oppose votes for being cut off shouldn't count much in that case? say1988 02:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Beautifully photographed, I love it! - Adrian Pingstone 16:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Encyclopedic, high resolution, good image quality. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Personally, I don't think any of these kinds of coin shots should be featured, primarily because they're product shots produced as advertising for the sale of proof sets and the like by the U.S. mint. Also, they don't appear to be legitimate photographs -- every single one has the same yin-yang-shaped highlight/shadow section that doesn't correspond to any kind of lighting I could imagine (or to the shape of a coin). At best they started as photographs, but are so artificial-looking in their final forms as to be best described as illustrations. Now that alone doesn't mean they aren't feature-worthy, but to me it means that since every coin the mint produces ends up with a similar illustration, we're going to end up with dozens and dozens of product shot featured images simply because each nomination couldn't be said to be worse than the last coin image nomination. -- Moondigger 22:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm I bet you could make that lighting effect with a flexible piece of reflectic mylar. HighInBC 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give it a try and post the results. ;^) Seriously, there's no way you're going to get a border between shadow and highlight with that even, gradient-tool transition. And even ignoring the border, the lettering isn't going to magically form neat black outlines in the highlight area to set it off from the background. The more I've studied this image the more I doubt it ever was a photograph at all. -- Moondigger 00:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Skim through these Google images (or [3] or [4]) and you'll find some photos exhibiting this effect, such as [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. There are also examples on eBay, such as [15]. Most coins aren't proof with deep cameo. This illustration depicts such a coin. You should be more careful before influencing so many other voters in the future. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-29 04:37Z
  • Support I find no problem what so ever with product shots - they're the most encyclopeadic images possible. And I actually like "yin-yang" lighting - I always wondered how they did that and I am slightly envious I can't do it. Makes it look really shiny in a bizarre way. Good image --Fir0002 12:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well photographed, high resolution, and deserving of featured status. Hello32020 12:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shiny support - Shame that there are no shiny coins like that on American streets. Iolakana•T 13:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per moondigger --Vircabutar 16:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Moondiger, it looks artificial. What's so special about this pic again?Nnfolz 22:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Moondiger. No different than the dozens of other US Mint product shots. Nothing special, not a FP. Chicago god 01:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Moondiger. I think he is right that it has been manipulated - on the upper right part of the head, in the black part of the field are edge highlights that look like sloppy masking in clearing out the background to make it black, same along some of the letters, none of which have black components as dark as the yin-yang. Debivort 02:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It hasn't been manipulated; it's just a drawing, not a photograph. The shading effect is not fake, whether or not you think it looks fake. See my reply to Moondigger's vote. The Susan B. Anthony coin is not a cameo coin, so of course it wouldn't show this effect. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-29 13:39Z
  • Oppose per Moondigger -- mcshadyplTalk Cont 03:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I've got to agree that the lighting looks highly artificial (that was the first thing I thought when looking at it; the lighting is too perfect) and thus smacks of photo manipulation, but I don't think that in particular should prevent the image's promotion. However, I don't think it's particularly interesting, just high quality. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-27 03:35Z
  • Oppose Per Moondiger and Chicago god. Chris Quackenbush 22:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think people are getting too hung up on aesthetics and are forgetting the fundamental purpose of FPs, which is to illustrate the subject. This is aesthetically pleasing enough to qualify as a FP because it is such a valuable, demonstrative illustration. Dylan 23:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a better illustration of a quarter would be an actual photograph of one. I don't believe this is a photograph; it could have been put together in Illustrator and Photoshop without even starting with an actual coin. I'd prefer something like the Anthony dollar image we have here, posted above for comparison. -- Moondigger 00:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Moondigger and Debivort. I also think that if the image was manipulated, the author (if present) or the nomitor (if he has knowledge of this) should release the information. --Chaos Reaver 05:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me be clear -- I don't think the manipulation itself is reason enough to oppose; the U.S. Mint web site doesn't even claim they're photographs. (They're product illustrations that many will assume are photographs.) My opposition is because I think a better (more accurate, more encyclopedic) illustration of a coin would be an actual photograph of a coin. -- Moondigger 14:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. per Moondigger. I would also be in favor of an actual photo of the currency. This illustration just looks way too fake, especially when you compare it with the photo of the Susan B. Anthony coin. --Nebular110 15:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the shading effect is not fake, whether or not you think it looks fake. See my reply to Moondigger's vote. The Susan B. Anthony coin is not a cameo coin, so of course it wouldn't show this effect. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-29 13:39Z
      • There are cameo Susan B. Anthony coins, though obviously this one isn't one. There are also cameo quarters, but the vast majority of quarters are not cameos.
        • Well, obviously... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-31 18:40Z
      • The U.S. Mint images were designed to look like the cameo images you linked to, but the blacks are too perfectly black, the highlights are too perfectly smooth, and the border is too perfectly graded, clearly done with a gradient tool in a graphics program. The letters in the highlight areas of the photos you linked to aren't all perfectly outlined in black to set them off from the light background -- sometimes they're imperfect because of the way the light source hits them. Here's one of the images you linked to for comparison: [16].
      • I'm a bit confused by your objections to my comments anyway. You admit the U.S. Mint images are "drawings, not photographs," which is what I said. That they are thought to be photographs by casual viewers is a big part of my objection. I believe a photograph makes for a better, more encyclopedic depiction of a given object than a drawing of that object does.
      • As for my "influence" on others' votes -- I voted and gave my reasons for voting the way I did. You voted and gave your reasons for voting the way you did. How is what I did any more objectionable than what you did? -- Moondigger 14:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I only objected to your claims that manipulations were necessary to create the yin-yang effect, and those incorrect claims influenced later voters. Specifically, you said, "every single one has the same yin-yang-shaped highlight/shadow section that doesn't correspond to any kind of lighting I could imagine (or to the shape of a coin)." — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-31 18:40Z
          • No, as I explained below, I mentioned the yin/yang shadow/highlights as evidence that the image isn't a photograph, which (contrary to your objection) is absolutely correct. I elaborated shortly thereafter, mentioning the gradient-tool border between shadow and highlight, the pure blackness of the shadow, etc. None of that corresponds to any kind of lighting used in product photography, and is indicative of either a drawing that never began as a photograph or a heavily (and unrealistically) manipulated photograph. If the way I phrased the comment caused confusion or misunderstanding about what I meant, then I encourage those who may have been influenced by my comment to reconsider their votes. -- Moondigger 00:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment with respect to the feature-worthiness of this particular image. It's being used to illustrate the articles Quarter (United States coin), Gallery of coins and Gallery of circulating Western hemisphere coins. Since it's clearly a drawing of a cameo coin, as you point out, it's entirely inappropriate for a gallery of circulating coins. It's also not a terribly good choice for the Quarter article since the vast majority of quarters people are likely to come across aren't cameos or proof-quality. All IMO, of course. -- Moondigger 14:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Reading back through the discussion above, I think I understand your objection now. I mentioned in my Oppose vote paragraph that the yin/yang shaped shadow/highlight sections didn't correspond to any lighting scheme I could imagine. You're pointing out that dark/light sections are common in photos of cameo coins, and that therefore such lighting isn't 'fake.' I get it, and you're right -- it's not 'fake' from that POV. But my comment was only meant as evidence that the image was not a photograph; I focused (excuse the pun) on how the border between shadow and highlight was clearly done with the gradient tool, and how perfectly black the shadow section was, etc. My point is that this image is almost certainly not a photograph, though it might appear to be one by casual inspection.
    • The truth is that I have a coin collection, including several proof sets and cameos, and I get the U.S. Mint brochures/catalogs in the mail all the time. The illustrations in those catalogs are the same as used on the web site, and I believe they are poor representations of the actual coins. I would prefer legitimate photographs, and find such photographs more feature-worthy even if they don't have perfectly smooth borders between shadow and highlight, etc.
    • If anybody's vote was swayed by a misunderstanding of my comments, I encourage them to reassess their votes and change them if necessary. I didn't mean to imply that such shadow/highlight areas were impossible in a photograph -- only that the nature of the shadow/highlight areas in this particular illustration are indicative that it's a drawing rather than a photograph. -- Moondigger 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To adress Brian0918 - while the images you link to as examples show high-contrast fields, they are clearly photographs as evidenced by the noise in the fields. The black parts of this image have absolutely no variability - their RGB value is #000000. To get this from a camera is essentially impossible over a large field because of instrument noise. Should it be considered as an illustration? Perhaps, but I say no because it looks like a photo, people will view it as one, and walk away thinking coins could actually be as shiny as the one portrayed here, which they cannot. Therefore it deceptively illustrates the very topic it is supposed to portray. Reiterate my opposition. I might be more sympathetic if it had been created by a wikipedian rather than a governmental marketing department. Debivort 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it's an illustration. I only objected to Moondigger's claim that, "every single one has the same yin-yang-shaped highlight/shadow section that doesn't correspond to any kind of lighting I could imagine (or to the shape of a coin)." — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-31 18:46Z
  • Support This picture is very clear and the shading/shadowing is very appealing. It is also a significant coin to the United States. --midnight_rider 01:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf structure

[edit]

I randomly found this image, and think it is a very simple and clear diagram. It was designed by DynaBlast, and is used in Leaf and Palisade cell.

Christus Ravenna Mosaic

[edit]
A 6th century mosaic of Jesus at Church San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, Italy.

I found this image during a debate over what image should top the Jesus article. This picture is of a mosaic at the Church San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, Italy and I think it demonstrates the beauty of early Christian art.

  • Nominate and support. - —Aiden 04:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Historic, and beautiful. HighInBC 05:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clear, historic image that is impressive even at thumbnail size--Melburnian 06:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, provided that the colors are accurate. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-24 12:28
  • Neutral. I had a look at it full sized and there is clearly a lot of jpeg artifacts due to overcompression. They blend in a bit due to the tiled nature of the image, but they are there and don't look great. I would support a re-upload of this image with much lower compression. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure those are artifacts and not just the surface structure of the mozaic pieces? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-24 14:10
      • No, there is definitely heavy and noticible artifacting. You can see the block quantization in many areas extends between tiles in the image. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-24 14:35Z
  • Weak oppose. Excellent except for the jpeg artifacts (I noticed them too on close examination). If the artifacts are fixed I will support. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Worthy, competent, engaging photo of a significant art work. The technical matter is the question of whether it meets the criterion "free of compression artifacts (such as in highly packed jpg files)." In my judgement, this photo meets the criterion. It is not completely free of compression artifacts. Artifacts are present, but I would not have noticed them until they were pointed out to me. It is free of compression artifacts of the extent that is visible in highly compressed JPEG files. So while I wish for more technical quality, this image has plenty. Fg2 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I would support this if a) it were larger and cleaner, or b) if a Wikipedian created it. But this is not outstanding compared to a lot of PD art scan images floating around out there. A good find, but not quite FP quality.--ragesoss 16:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment The PD seems valid, why should it matter if a wikipedian scaned it or not? HighInBC 16:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant if a Wikipedian had taken the picture, rather than it being a scan of a printed reproduction of a picture.--ragesoss 17:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curlew

[edit]
Long-Billed Curlew, Fishing Pier, Goose Island State Park, Texas

Another terrific image, sharp, well composed and shows great detail of the bird - what more could you want?

  • Nominate and Support --Fir0002 22:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More source info, for one thing. I checked the site and I coudl not find anything on it that indicates that the images are under a ShareAlike 2.5 license. If the photographer released it under that license in the eamil, could you copy it to the discussion page? Hbdragon88 08:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the front page of their web site, in the first paragraph: "We consider each image to be in the Public Domain with the proviso that their use conform to the general spirit of the rules governing Attribution-ShareALike 2.5 as described by Creative Commons in their summary deed." I have copied this statement into the image description. -- Moondigger 12:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense, since PD means you can't put any restrictions on it. Maybe someone should suggest they simplify the statement one way or the other (PD or CC-BY-SA). --Davepape 14:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I sent them an e-mail requesting clarification of their licensing terms. Their response indicated that they wanted their images used in compliance with CC-BY-SA 2.5. The ambiguity of the statement on their webpage notwithstanding, the license Fir0002 applied to the image is correct. -- Moondigger 14:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To expand on that a bit... they do seem to be a bit confused, as they equate "public domain" with "CC-BY-SA 2.5." But the terms they require are equivalent to CC-BY-SA 2.5, so I believe the license Fir0002 specified is valid. -- Moondigger 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm the one that suggested to Al that a CC license might be more suitable than public domain, since it "ensures" attribution. He then asked for my opinion about the new language on his web site, and I said what has been identified above. Also, technically, all current images on his site (until he adds a new gallery) were already released into the public domain, so I suggested that he make that clearer on his web site... eg. galleries 1-x are PD, and galleries x+1 onward are CC. Maybe I'll go check my email to see if he responded. Also, Fir, hit FPC with too many bird pics at once and people will stop supporting them!! I was going to put up some Gannets next but I think we're good for birds right now. :-) Outriggr 23:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent photo. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-24 01:22
  • Support. Excellent depiction of the animal. (And Outriggr is right about too many similar pictures at once. People start comparing them to each other). --Tewy 19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Purty. - echidnae 21:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose The bird is too far to the left. Jam01 10:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's ok. Sometimes it is deliberate to place the subject on the side of the image opposite the direction toward which it faces. It provides a space into which that subject looks dliao 2006 August 30 06:19 UTC.
  • Support. Lovely. --Nebular110 17:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent pic, particularly the composition - Adrian Pingstone 07:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Curlew - natures pics.jpg Raven4x4x 09:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Pelican

[edit]
Edit 1 - Brown Pelican, Fulton Harbour, Fulton, Texas
Original - image I was sent

Another great image from Nature's Pic's. A mid flight shot is very hard to get, and a perfectly focused one like this is exceptional.

Not promoted . Quite close, though. Raven4x4x 09:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earthrise

[edit]
Earthrise
Earthrise colour image for comparison

For your consideration, the first-ever photo (by humans) of the Earth rising above the surface of the moon, taken on December 24, 1968, during the Apollo 8 mission by Bill Anders.

Comment LOL! Now that I see the color image i would support that one rather than the black & white one (can I do that by the way?).Nnfolz 02:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support The colour image is better because it shows the contrast between the two bodies. One is uninhabited and the other is full of life. It is also a great picture because of its sharpness and greyscale. --midnight_rider 01:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise.jpg Raven4x4x 08:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mecca pilgrim

[edit]

I really like the composition of this. I know there's a blown highlight on the top of the guy's head, but this picture has such great encyclopedic value that hopefully that can be overlooked. Used in Mecca, Pilgrimage, Hajj, Islam, Prayer, Haram, and Saudi Arabia.

It's featured on Commons, not here. -- Moondigger 00:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Not promoted Mikeo 10:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chihuly in Miami

[edit]

Note image text linked due to fair use status HighInBC 20:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chihuly in Miami.jpg A glass sculpture by Dale Chihuly. Notice the floating sculptures in the backround.

A unique photo of a Chihuly glass sculpture in the Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden in Coral Gables, FL. Cannot be retaken as the exhibit was taken down in May. Perhaps someone could edit the picture to reduce the amount of shade.; appears in Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden and Dale Chihuly, Uploaded by Reywas92. Taken by his grandfather.

If that is the case, then a fair use image should not appear on any page except the articles about it, including this one. HighInBC 19:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Systems of the World

[edit]
A map of the different writing systems of the world colored by orthographic category.

This is a highly informative map of the world beautifully and intuitively displaying the different scripts in use today, their orthographic relationships, and their geographic distribution. It appears in Writing system and List of writing systems. It is free and GNU licensed and many people have colaborated on it. Most recently Nickshanks has improved on work by Denihilonihil and Kwamikagami.


  • Nominate and support. - Chris Quackenbush 22:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose looks confusing Reywas92 23:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets every criteria of WP:WIAFP. It's illuminating on the subject of languages throughout the world, something important for the wikipedia being the multi-lingual site that it is. --Mitaphane talk 04:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Mitaphane. Glaurung 05:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The map shows Hokkaido as using katakana in solid red, Honshu as kanji and kana in yellow with a red outline, and Kyushu and Shikoku in solid red. A person who looks at the map might conclude that (1) Hokkaido uses katakana (written side to side), but neither kana nor kanji; (2) Honshu uses kana and kanji (written vertically), both of which are different from katakana; (3) Kyushu and Shikoku use red (syllabaries) but not yellow (logographies). All three conclusions would be incorrect. Certainly, the map would have to communicate more accurately the writing systems of Japan in order to be featured. Fg2 07:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work - it's pretty messy at the moment, and the different sized fonts are distracting. I also noticed the katakana thing, and found it odd that I had to search everywhere until I hit South America to see what script England and Australia use. The legend at the bottom left is quite oddly arranged, and would be better if it had the examples of the different scripts there. The mass of unlabelled scripts around India is just too much - a better way of presenting that is needed. The overall idea is great, but it needs polishing. Stevage 09:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with all the objections above. In addition, I don't see why the Chinese characters are unlabeled and why there isn't a example of writing for Yup'ik. A sharper, antialiased version of the world map should also be used. Redquark 14:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Great idea, but still needs work. The map its to busy and i'm having a hard time figuring everything out I would suggest correcting the color so that they look more diferent (and don't put similar colors next to each other) and removing all the examples from being on top of the countries and instead placing them on a more elaborate leyend.Nnfolz 14:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose regretfully. This is something that would be wonderful, if the map was large enough to hold all the text, it is too cluttered. Also the reported errors by Stevage concern me, as accuracy is essential in a FP diagram. HighInBC 15:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Stevage. It's way to cluttered in Asia, and overall it's just too confusing. And SVG, again, would be nice as well. --Tewy 04:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with all of the above. It's an interesting map, but not good enough to be featured. Chacal 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Weak Support Neutral Iranians and Persians writing is far more different than ARABIC. Go learn something The image needs a lot of work as mentioned above. Ok I'll be civil. I still believe that Persian writing has changed a lot during centuries from Arabic. It's my opinion. Even if I'm wrong (which I think I am, lol) this map is very busy and too small for such a great number of writing used in the world. Arad 18:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. From Persian language: The Persian alphabet adds four letters to the Arabic alphabet, due to the fact that four sounds that exist in Persian do not exist in Arabic, as they come from separate language families.. So Persian writing really is not very different from Arabic writing, imho. Could you elaborate? --Bernard 23:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image formation from pixels

[edit]
Pixels become prominent as we go closer to the screen.

Self nomination. Inspired by the FPC below. Pic shows how an image gets progressively distorted as an observer gets closer to the screen. Used in LCD and pixel articles. Picture shows difference between the image we view and the image actually displayed. The top and bottom images are not the same size, its actually been magnified several times to make the pixels visible and then scaled to match the original.

Difference between image pixels and screen pixels
  • Oppose I don't get that 1x = 64x and 8x = 512x. The images are clearly at the same magnification... This is rather confusing -Glaurung 05:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Neutral I get it now. Second image and second caption are much clearer. Glaurung 06:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what's happening is that in the bottom image, the graphic was actually zoomed out, then a photo taken with a big zoom in. It's weird, but look at the concentric circles in the 1x image - clearly, the circle is very round, and at least 100 pixels wide. The image below it is of a much "smaller" circle - around 25-30 pixels wide. Other that that, I really have no idea what the image is trying to show. Stevage 09:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Author comment I agree, the magnification factors were confusing (although they were accurate) so i have removed it. The purpose of the image is to show the differece in the pixels that store color information in an image and the pixels of a screen which displays the the image. Hopefully this will make it easier to understand. Please take a look at the image again and reconsider your vote -- PlaneMad|YakYak 11:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still very unclear what the relationship is between the image pixels and screen pixels, which seem to be at unrelated sizes; and the image of the screen is still not sharp. And why are the colors so different? And your image is not yet accepted in any article, is it?
The top image is a screen shot while the bottom one is a photograph of the screen, so it really is not possible to match the colors. There doesnt have to be a relationship between the two, it just illustrates the role of pixels to store and diplay color information (which is why i removed the misleading zoom factors). -- PlaneMad|YakYak 14:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: this is obviously an LCD screen, it's probably worth mentioning that in the image description/caption etc. A CRT screen would look completely different. Stevage 09:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The "dot" on the 'i' is composed of only 9 pixels in the blown up image, but far more than that in the "large" image. What gives? This is not a valid comparison if the resolution of the image is different left to right. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset at Grain Elevator

[edit]
Picture of a beautiful evening sky featuring the cresent moon next to the planet Venus over a grain elavator. The photo was taken outside Champaign, IL on August 8th, 2005 shortly after sunset
Edit 1: Grain reduced.

It's a beautiful, GNU Free Documented image; Appears in Illinois,Venus, Twilight, Evening Star, Observations and explorations of Venus, created by Shakil Mustafa.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Each pixel on an LCD monitor consists of three discrete colors.
  • Weak oppose. Mostly because the original image is grainy. Since just about any image could be used as the original in a remake of this picture, I think one of those (such as a current FP) should be used instead. I will support a version with a better original image, but for now, I don't think this is FP material. --Tewy 03:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it's a poor choice of image for this example, because the large amount of action in the background is distracting from the small piece that depicts what's actually being shown Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You cannot see the pixels here, only colored stripes. You really need an authentic micro image of the pixels, showing the small "dots" of transistors, too. There are black lines between the pixels in an actual display, missing here. --Janke | Talk 05:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose. Get it more like the previously featured picture, without much action or anything else distracting, just without anything that may have bee copy righted. Then properly display the pixels and it will be near perfect. say1988 02:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. At first glance I thought it was a poorly cropped image of a shuttle. Then I noticed a oddly looking "building" behind the shuttle. Only after reading the title I realized that it is about LCD. One should immediately understand the context of the image (at least vaguely) when seeing it, without the need of zooming.--JyriL talk 22:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless man NYC

[edit]
Homeless man, New York City
Edit 1, a tiny bit less noise and less "whiteness" on the ground.
Edit 2, rotated entire image of Edit 1 so that the column is perfectly vertical.

A well-composed b&w portrait of a homeless man in New York City by User:CGP. Used in Homelessness in the United States, Poverty in the United States, and Social conflict theory. Yes, it's tilted, but the angle of the shot is such that the pillar and the line separating the black and white glass panes cannot both be straight vertical.

Comment What kind of monitor are you using? I can see the head clearly in thumbnail view. HighInBC 19:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is obviously impossible to align the image without cropping it, as white edges would have appeared at the corners. -- mcshadyplTalk Cont 18:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that's why my point was: Don't align it! --Dschwen 18:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anole

[edit]
Green Anole Lizard on railing in Hilo, Hawaii
Edit 1 - Noise reduction performed
Edit 2 - Sharpening

Technically excelent macro image of a Green Anole Lizard on a railing in Hilo, Hawaii. This appears in Polychrotidae, which contains no other images of this detail. I am the creator of this image. I avoided cropping the image further so as to show more of the full form of the creature. I am open to suggestions of cropping to show more detail in smaller renderings of the image.

That's unavoidable. To keep everything else in focus, stuff that's not on the same plane will have to get out of focus. - Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The prime focus spot is actually the eyeball; you'll notice if you zoom the image that the bright ring near the edge of the eyeball is very sharp. The center of the body just happens to be at the same focal distance. Certainly the eye is the nearest part of the face and the shallow depth of field unavoidable is many macro shots like this does mean that the more distant parts of the face are soft. However, I believe it's generally best to ensure good focus on a subjects eye for images such as this. Phirst 04:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's exactly what I thought! Phirst 04:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Anole Lizard Hilo Hawaii edit.jpg +12/-5 with most of the support going for edit 2 or showing no preference. howcheng {chat} 22:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Sea Lions on Pier 39

[edit]
Hundreds of California sea lions sunbathing on platforms at Pier 39 in San Francisco.

An interesting photo of sea lions with the one in the middle standing up; appears in California sea lion and sea lion, Created and uploaded by Reywas92.

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 22:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arge Bam

[edit]
I took the photo. It's Arge Bam before Erathquake. Bam, Iran
Edit 1 by TSP

I think it's a well taken photo with a good quality which deserves to be FP in my opinion. It apears in Bam, Iran, Arg-é Bam, Iranian architecture articles and in wikimedia commons. I created the photo.

Thanks in advance for your votes.

The building is currently destroyed by the 2003 earthquake and is pending for reconstruction. It was built some time before 500 BC. It's the largest adobe building in the world
  • Oppose. Very blurry, and there appears to be a "halo" effect around the building (artsy, but not appropriate here). The composition is nice, as is the lighting, but the technical issues mentioned above are too large for the image to gain my support. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment but the halo is because of the Citadel's nature of refelcting the light. It's an adobe building. Arad 19:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. The other images on that page don't have problems with a halo so I'm inclined to think that it can be photographed without a halo. I find the halo annoyingly distracting and unnatural looking so I'll have to Oppose edit 1. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Observing the same blurriness as Pharaoh Hound, I've uploaded a 50% downsampled, sharpened, level-adjusted version as Edit 1. It's probably not the best edit possible, but it improves it a lot for me, and it's still over the minimum size (if people feel it's too close to the mark, I can see if I can do the same with a less severe downsample). TSP 19:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, in my opinion, you improved it a lot. Greatly appreciated. if you could just make it a bit bigger (so it'll be 1000 X 1000 it'll be much better since some users don't like it under this). It's good anyway. Thanks again. Arad 19:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a play, but the main chunk of 'magic' seems to be in reducing the resolution by 50%; this means that every block of 4 pixels turns into 1 pixel, dramatically improving sharpness. Using any other ratio means that pixel values have to be interpolated, which re-introduces some blurriness. The size criterion, though, is for at least one dimension to be over 1000; so this should still be satisfactorily large.
What I did, for the record (all in Adobe Photoshop) was:
- Selected just the sky and did a three-pixel remove dust and scratches, to get rid of various errors (not sure whether they were dust on the lens, JPEG artefacting, or what, but the sky was pretty speckly in places).
- Resampled down by 50%, using bicubic resampling.
- Did an auto level adjustment (I always check the adjustments before applying and see if the default is what I really want, but I almost invariably find that it does better than I can).
- Applied a lightish unsharp mask across the whole thing (40%, 1 pixel, no threshold, I think).
TSP 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not sharp at 1000px then it's not meant to be. It's not sheer pixel size that counts, but size vs. sharpness. --Dschwen 12:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1. A beautiful picture of a noteworthy and now vanished building; fit to replace the fair use picture which currently heads its article. TSP 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The composition half sky half Bam is a bit suboptimal. When did you take the pic and what kind of camera did you use? In front of the gate a bit of a car can be seen, which looks very old. Also the whole picture has the feel of a toy model shot, and I cannot quite figure out why. --Dschwen 07:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that is exactly a car, but the photo was taken a few months before the earthquake. The reason it looks like a toy, which I agree in a way, is that the building it self is well preserved for 3000 years and is an adobe building. it's easier to make a nicely formed adobe building than a stone one. About the car, maybe it's because people living there aren't as rich as those living in Tehran or other major cities. Thank you for your comment. Arad 12:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what kind of camera did you use? --Dschwen 12:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you believe I don't remember? When I moved to Canada, I left many things behind. Sorry Arad 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
forgot to mention that both images are good. Edit 1 has a better contrast. Babayi 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
actually the first one is untouched and the edit 1 is just a bit sharpened and downsampled. Thank you for your vote Arad 12:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please Note: This is an ADOBE building. The natural look of the castle is bright not overexposed. Arad 13:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Due to quality. This photo is looking as if it was photographed through a window. The object might be a bright one in reality, yet this cannot be a reason for this odd, unsharp, unreal- and overexposed-looking caption. It is not at all pleasing to the eye. Mikeo 14:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean from "looking as if it was photographed through a window". And "odd, unsharp, unreal" are not a factor for FP. thanks anyway for the vote. Arad 17:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not least (although also for the reasons given by others above) because I'm a little concerned as to the provenance of this image. I'm pretty sure the object near the gate is a car, but it looks like a very old one indeed - my guess would be 1930s or earlier - even if this is a poor region, it still seems unlikely that you'd come across a vehicle that old in everyday use. Secondly, if you look at the original version uploaded to commons here, a moire pattern reminiscent of the methods used in printing books and magazines is evident in the dark areas. Thirdly, the overwhelming impression I get when looking at this and other images on Arad's page is that they were taken using an old camera and old processing methods, but by someone who knew how to operate that camera - although not up to normal FP standards of quality, they are pretty reasonable exposures (particularly the night-time ones) for what looks like fairly antique equipment. This seems out of sync with Arad's assertion that he "can't remember" what sort of camera he used - even though he only took the photo around 4 years ago. I don't wish to jump to conclusions, and I'll gladly apologise if Arad can prove he owns the copyright to these images, but I'm reserving the right to a little skepticism for the time being. --Yummifruitbat 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting point you've raised there - I've actually noticed that as well. --Fir0002 05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, you've got A REALLY GOOD POINT. Intelligent one indeed. Yes, my camera was old. I liked it, actually it was my dad's. I left in Iran and now i bought a Digital camera. The photo's are mostly older than 5 years old. Then because my camera wasn't digital, I had to scan my images (quality will get reduced for sure). So I had to edit the scanned one for a better quality. As you said, the original version has noise, that's because of my "old" scanner I had. I'm not sure if the car everyone is talking about was a car or a "kiosk", you know, information and etc (because thrust me you see wierd things in Iran) or just a old car left there for some reason. It's not a region so poor to use such cars but sometimes you can see one or two maybe the owner like old cars. No one can be sure as we can't see the car for real. (If the photo is taken in 1930 then the image wouldn't be in color). It's possible some of the pictures I've uploaded on my name are taken by my father, which also gives all the rights of his works to public. I hope I've answered your questions. No offence was taken from your comment (I liked it actually). Thanks for the comment and even your oppose because you've taken your time to vote. Arad 14:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention because I travelled with my father and we took photos with same camera, i cannot tell you for sure which one of the images are mine or my father's. Arad 14:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing. I think I figured out what is the car. It's a Patrol (somthing like a Jeep) which has an old look but it isn't that old. It's for sure not the Godfather movie sort of car. Arad 14:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love it when my works become controversial. It's obvious not that this image's chance of being FP is low, but the discussion we had was great. Thanks again for your votes. Arad 14:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those who want to know, the camera used, was probably Canon AE-1 lens mounted. Arad 18:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 22:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nagasaki Explosion

[edit]
The Fat Man mushroom cloud resulting from the nuclear explosion over Nagasaki rises 18 km (11 mi, 60,000 ft) into the air from the hypocenter.

This is a historic photo already used by many articles (War, Nuclear weapon, Nuclear warfare, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ...) at a prominent position. It definitely deserves to be an FP due to its historical significance.

  • Nominate and support. - Mikeo 15:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I'd perfer not to "feature" a picture that represents the killing of 40,000 people and wounding of 25,000. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a historically significant event. The picture is a prominent illustration of the subject. Mikeo 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said it wasn't either of those, I still strongly oppose. It is not "pleasing to the eye" to me. I also object on moral reasons as well that are out side of the FPC criteria. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 16:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "pleasing to the eye" criteria has exceptions for historical images which make your first objection invalid. There is nothing in the criteria that deal with "moral issues", and it's a personal feeling towards the event, which is not what we're supposed to be judging images on. A "moral" objection is no more valid than opposing an image of a bacteria or a maggot because the subject is hideous (if the photo is well executed). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The image, if it's real, is very rare and is historically important. Which I think makes it FP. Neutral as I think again it's true, why are we told that if a picture is historically significant then it should be FP? This image has nothing special and the only reason people are voting is because they are told to do so. Arad 23:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and am a little surprised to hear opposition based on a moral argument. Perhaps a reconsideration of the wording "pleasing to the eye" in the criteria could be considered for future images. InvictaHOG 18:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't find it pleasing to the eye. It't not all that special, there are better mushroom cloud images. The "historical" argument doesn't really work for me as there were hundreds of nucular mushroom clouds. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe it's not unique for mushroom cloud, but it's certainly a unique image for the bombing of Nagasaki, a very important historically in its own right. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right about the criteria as it currently stands. I understand that you don't find it pleasing to the eye. A separate discussion will have to be had about any changes to be made to that wording if the community feels the "spirit of the law" is not being adequately conveyed. As it is, I respect your opinion on the matter. InvictaHOG 20:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Extremely unique, and historically significant (totaly irreplaceable). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While historically significant, probably not as much as the bombing of Hiroshima. There are better pictures of bombings, nuclear mushroom clouds, Nagasaki (before & after bombing), nuclear destruction, etc, etc, etc. Whatever is trying to be "featured" here simply isn't. Chicago god 20:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as Pharoh Hound said above. Reywas92 20:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The level of Grain (or is it called noise?- please correct me cuz i'm no good with these technical terms) in the backround is to much for me. Can it be corrected. if it is i will support. By the way: disagreeing (is that spelled right?) is nto a valid reason to oppose I think that particular vote shouldn't be counted.Nnfolz 22:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This picture is not only an important picture historically (one of the first atomic bombs to be used) but it is also a pretty appealing picture.--midnight_rider 01:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is a great historic picture --Luc Viatour 04:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per ravedave and Redquark. Image doens't have enough 'Nagasaki' or historical context to distinguish as an FP --Vircabutar 07:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, mainly to offset ravedave. --Golbez 11:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Where as I agree with ravedave that the killing of 40,000 people prevents this from being "pleasing to the eye", it's that unpleasantness that make this FP-worthy. FPs can't all be flowers and sunsets.--Niro5 14:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Despite technical problems with photograph, this is a very important picture. It is precisly that so many people were killed that this is an important photograph. To forget would be a greater violation of morality than to feature it(imo). HighInBC 15:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. Quality of this just isn't enough. If this was the first test explosion or Hiroshima the historical significane would increase enoguh to be a weak support. But as it is, the quality just isn't high enough for me. Don't bother responding saying that historical photos are exempt from quality/size requirements, because I look for a balance in them (as in historical photos must meet lower standards, but still meet them). say1988 17:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support & Comment. This is the best (detail and proximity) image taken of the bombing. In addition, the photographer was aboard Bockscar, the B-29 that dropped Fat Man. I am highly surprised by the unreasonable comments made by Ravedave. Objections on "moral" reasons will be ignored. No where in FPCriteria does it entail judging an image based on moral fiber. However, images of great and historical images, such as the the image in question, are almost guaranteed entree into FP. Personal emotions and unrelated comments of this kind are not suitable on this page or on Wikipedia as a whole. I highly suggest a closer examination of FPCriteria and all users who boast their personal opinion of the event, instead of the photograph, to restrain from commenting at all. -- AJ24 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If we aren't told by a caption that this is the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, there's no way to tell it apart from any other nuclear explosion. So I'm not sure where the supposed historical value is. (For pictures with geniune historical value, see for example [17] or [18], which tell us a lot about their eras.) We should feature more recent, higher-quality pictures of nuclear explosions instead of this. Redquark 03:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to be missing the point of historically-important images. It is usually necessary for there to be a caption to explain the content/importance of the image. See any of the other historically-significant FPs (such as the only known photo of Chopin, the first photograph ever, or the map of Lewis and Clark's trail). Those images are all historically important, and it is precisely their captions that convey their importance. This situation is no different. Your claim that high-res, modern photos of atomic bomb explosions are better completely misses the point of historical significance. If an image is trying to be FP based on aesthetics alone, then of course we should judge it on its resolution/clarity. This is not one of those images. We could have an FP of a high-res explosion as well another FP of a historically-significant explosion. There's no limit to the number of FPs on a subject, especially when they illustrate the subject in different ways. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-01 03:59Z
      • I'm not missing the point; we just disagree. This criteria seems to me analogous to treasuring some dirt just because a famous person walked on it. It's just dirt, indistinguishable from any other dirt, but if you mention that the Beatles walked on it, suddenly it's supposed to be special. From my point of view, if it has no informational value, then it has no historical value. (Note also: all of the examples you gave convey more information about their unique historical subject than this one does about Nagasaki, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose them. This picture looks much like any other similarly-sized nuclear explosion.) All this image illustrates is what a nuclear explosion looks like in general, and therefore one with more color and detail would be superior to it. Redquark 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree; i don't think the image has enough 'Nagasaki' or historical context to be an FP--Vircabutar 07:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose agree with Redquark. My impression is that many of us can't wait to cast our "Support" vote when we're told that something is "historically important". For idiots like me, who have no idea what is "historically important", the label doesn't mean much, though.--K.C. Tang 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While historically-significant photos are given a lower bar to to meet, there's a big difference between lowering the standard (proportional to the image's historical significance) and totally ignoring aesthetic and technical considerations. I don't believe this image has the historical importance or the informational content (such as some visual indication of a city below) necessary to overcome its technical and aesthetic deficiencies. -- Moondigger 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As for opposition based on "moral" concerns -- people here are asked to give reasons for their oppose votes. Ravedave gave his reasons, though he didn't have to. He could have just said "Oppose" and left it at that, or could have lied and gave some other reason for his oppose. We have to remember that ultimately, these are subjective considerations. If the criteria were totally objective, there would be no need to collect opinions (votes) at all -- somebody with a good understanding of the criteria could simply promote images at will. Ravedave's vote should count equally. -- Moondigger 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per users above. - Darwinek 22:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good photo of this event, and not something we want to be repeating to try to get better photos. --jjron 06:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well said jjron. --Fir0002 09:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this picture is FP-worthy. Remember that even though this picture is not nessisarly a happy picture, it is historically significant. Under the critira for a FP picture, it mentions that quality can be sacrificed if the picture is significant. I agree that "FP pictures can't be all sunsets and flowers. bfissa. 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose has historical significance, but as a picture itself there is nothing noteworthy about it. Michaeln36 11:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have always found pictures of mushroom clouds striking. PPGMD 23:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, There are lots of pictures of nuclear explosions, and while this is one of the few of the nagasaki bombing, it doesn't illustrate that event very well because there's nothing to indicate in the image itself what is occuring. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. +13/-11 howcheng {chat} 23:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThirteenthGreg

[edit]
This is a 180 degree panorama shot of Repulse Bay (Hong Kong), taken from the well-known building with a hole through it.

This photo is a clearly-constructed panorama photo of a well-known bay in Hong Kong, famous for its view. What makes it additionally interesting is that it was taken from the building up on the hill which has a hole through it - another Hong Kong landmark. It has been used to support the Repulse Bay article.

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 23:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herzegovina

[edit]
Herzegovina in spring
File:Hercegovacko Neretvanski kanton - edit.jpg
Edit to remove powerlines

This is my image that i took during my visit to Herzegovina. Truly beutifull landscape that everybody should see, and even visit! It appears in Herzegovina article. It is geographical, historic and beautifull region! Subject of the picture is to show how beutifull Herzegovina is, and there is no much words to explain that - image tells 1000 words, and i want to express that everybody must see and visit!

I, HarisM, created this image.

Thanks in advance for any vote!

Note: Some of this debate seem to be on another page: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hezegovina, I have moved content from there to here. HighInBC 01:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just uploaded and linked up a version without the powerlines in it, though that may be going to far in terms of how far an FP should be edited in post production. Cat-five - talk 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For once I don't support the removal of the powerlines. I think taking them out is really distorting reality too far - it's one thing to get rid of an ugly man standing in the corner of the shot or a couple of tiny pink poles. It's another to get rid of what is obviously a permanent, and prominent feature of a landscape. Stevage 08:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like that original photo stays, and if someone like please support it. HarisM 08:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. I like the photo but I don't think it contributes enough to an article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose, agree with Diliff, Strongly Oppose edit IMHO this modification does definetely go too far. --Dschwen 14:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A very ordinary (although beautiful) scene, it could have been taken in dozens of countries. So, even though I like the pic a lot, I don't think it's FP material - Adrian Pingstone 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Sharp shadows in forground, hazy in background. Nice photo, but the content of the photo contains nothing I can see that is unique to it's subject. HighInBC 15:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's a very nice picture. I don't know, but i prefer the Edit. But it's true, the power lines are a reality. Arad 18:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry, but although is a beautifull ladnscape it's nothing special. it doesn't illustrate the subject well either simply because there is no defining feature that really tells us its hezergovina. if i wanted i could take a bunch of pictures that would look almost the same and i'm sitting on the other side of the world.Nnfolz 22:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Good picture, but I agree with Nnfolz. Strong oppose edit. Image manipulation in the form of adding or removing objects cannot be accepted in this kind of pictures.--JyriL talk 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Adrian Pingstone Jesse 22:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sweet photo. It isn't ordinary in any way in my view. - Darwinek 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose edit. The edit was presumably intended to remove non-natural features - however, several have been modified (hedges/bushes have grown/disappeared) near the closest pylon. On these grounds, the edit is incomplete as there appears to be a pylon just right of the second-from-left foreground bush. The edited version is 3x larger (in KB) than the original, presumably because the original was JPG and it was re-saved with minimal compression to minimise quality loss. I would expect any re-touching of FP images to have been done by working on a non-lossy master. Halsteadk 23:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 23:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Île de la Cité

[edit]
Notre Dame de Paris on Île de la Cité, in Paris, France
Edit 1 - Image brightened a little.

I'm a bit hesitant to nominate this one given the recent disagreements regarding self nominations. I don't think there was any clear consensus there, though, so I'll continue to put images up every now and then for your consideration. :) This image contributes to Notre Dame de Paris and Île de la Cité. It is high resolution, of a pleasing composition and does a pretty good job of showing the shape of the island, notwithstanding a diagram or map, I suppose. Its a 4 segment panorama taken by myself with my Canon 5D and trusty 24-105mm f/4L IS. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominate and Abstain. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A good, sharp, and high resolution image. I would prefer to see it on a sunnier day, though. --Tewy 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support edit - full support for a version with slightly higher contrast - thr weather looks hazy and rather ugly here.--Janke | Talk 05:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit - sharp, high quality, encyclopaedic image of an interesting subject - unusual angle, too. Even with the weather, I really like this photo, and nice composition with the bateau mouche on the left. Stevage 08:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I love the angle and the composition. It would be nice if we could get the same with better weather! InvictaHOG 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most excellent in every respect - Adrian Pingstone 14:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's very good. And it's good quality so i vote for it.
  • Oppose Sorry, but this just does not do the subject any favours. It is an unappealing photo of something which has millions of photos of it. There must be a pic out there with better weather, without the bateau mouche (which is too far away to get detail but too close to ignore) and without the sign in the foreground. It's just not a pretty picture. Witty lama 01:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Plus i find the picture a little bit too busy (with the people here and there)--Vircabutar 07:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well composed, good exposure. Encyclopedic content. HighInBC 15:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Techinically great as usual, but for a subject inherently beautiful like the Notre Dame, an extra element is needed in the photograph to make it special. Particularly since this is a building and going nowhere fast, it would have made a huge difference to have had it in better lighting. Even though Image:Notre-Dame-night.jpg has perhaps worse composition it has better atmospheric lighting. Just as a side issue, I wonder if you could consider uploading all your future images in a more web compatible format - it's nice to have all the dashes etc in the right place but it does play merry hell with the address bar, not to mention the fact that often you are unable to "flashgot" the image to a download manager - something very handy when downloading your super high res images! --Fir0002 23:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While sharpness is excellent, lighting is poor. Grey sky, grey buldings - not pleasing to the eye. Mikeo 10:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not pleasing to the eye, I think. The almost cut off spire somehow ruins the composition for me. --KFP 16:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine Marmot

[edit]
Alpine Marmot

A closeup shot of an alpine marmot on the mountain side in the Massif des Écrins national park. Used in the Marmot gallery and the Alpine Marmot page. I took it myself.

No, digital zoom was not used, nor was the picture blown up. To be fair the camera isn't exactly perfct for this kind of use, and I wasn't really expecting this picture to do really well. Thanks for the criticism though. DevAnubis 09:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 23:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Tree

[edit]
File:Burnt tree.jpg
Burnt Tree from a forest fire at Yellowstone National Park.
File:Picture2.jpeg
Cut version

I think this would be a good picture because it is not too crouded and it looks pleasing to the eye. This appears in the Yellowstone National Park article. I took it myself.

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 23:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales

[edit]
The king himself
Edit 1 - proportional analysis

Iconic shot of the man who "makes the internet not suck". Appears in Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia, History of Wikipedia and FOSDEM. If Wikipe-tan can make it, this certainly can.

by the way Wiki-tan is another mistake of being nominated. Arad 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He is too far to the right in the image. Jam01 06:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm gonna go out on a limb here and try and explain why this composition works for me. The offset nature of the subject creates a more dynamic image - the eye is drawn to the right and creates movement. The space to his left is important, looking at his expression one imagines what he might be dreaming of in that space it's a big implied think bubble space. Proportionally I've had a stab at breaking it down into the golden section - the proportion of the image itself is a little out from the golden section (1:1.5 rather than 1:1.6) but it's pretty close, stay with me here - if we discard some backround above the image - call it border - take a look at the Edit 1. For all here calling for better composition I'm curious to learn what criteria for this 'bad' composition might be - yes it breaks symmetry, but for me creates something more dynamic and alive. But hey it's late at night, I'll probably regret this tomorrow. Please address hostile posts to erm......User:JWales. :-) Mcginnly | Natter 00:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't think my comment was hostile, what I mean from my comment is that the image is not encyclopedic. Arad 23:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, we really are worried about WP:NPA aren't we........The above post was pretty tongue in cheek all round (A golden section proportional analysis of Jimbo Wales? - Come on, we can have some fun here) Really no offence taken. --Mcginnly | Natter 08:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth-Moon.png

[edit]
Earth and Moon to scale. Line below Earth represents distance of Earth's centre from the system barycentre. Line below the Moon represents perigee and apogee with the moon at the semi‐major axis position.
Edit 1 - both lines removed and image cropped, but still to scale
Edit 2 - Original image with thickened white lines.
Edit 3 - Higher brightness, thickened colored lines, less tight cropping.
Edit 2 shown at default thumb scale.


Shows the relative distance between the Earth and Moon to scale. Most pictures of the solar system (understandably) show a vastly reduced relative distance. This picture shows how much empty space there really is between us and our nearest neighbour.

Appears in The Moon's orbit. This picture wonderfully (IMO) illustrates the concept.

Done - Jack (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1 modified version. Excellent illustration of the subject. The lines in the original, and in edits 2 and 3 require too much explanation. Edit 3 is way too bright. Mikeo 01:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1. A sharp, dramatic depiction of the distance. Be sure to include that that is the mean distance wherever the picture is shown. --Tewy 02:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original version. Give a good comprehension --Luc Viatour 04:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 3, Edit 2 or original. White line brings interesting information and is quite self-explanatory, so there is no need to add text on the picture. However, I think the image would benefit from a thicker white line, which can be seen on reduced images. I had to see the image full-size to notice the line. Glaurung 05:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original version or edit 2 I think the white lines are necessary since the image importance is because it's precise and if you don't put the lines, then why do you bother putting such a big empty space between earth and moon? The original or edit 2 are best ones. And I love it even more since Iran is in the centre of the image. hehe. Arad 18:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I realize the lines are pretty informative, but I think they're a little distracting as far as the aesthetics of the image go. Anyone else agree? For instance, the thickness of the lines on edit 2 seem a little over the top. And is it really necessary to see the lines on "reduced images", as Glaurung said? --Tewy 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better if the line was visible at least on its image page (which is not the case for the original nomination). There is no need, however, to have the line visible on the default thumbnail size. Glaurung 05:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Image:Earth-Moon.png This one seems to be the most popular. howcheng {chat} 23:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moulting cicada

[edit]
A moulting cicada

A moulting cicada, by User:Jodelet. Used in Ecdysis Cicada.

Here's another one by the same photographer... I think it has fewer technical problems, but I like the framing of the first better.

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 23:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honeybee

[edit]
Honeybee collecting pollen

A honeybee collecting pollen. Photo by Jon Sullivan and used in Bee, Honeybee, Palynivore, and Pollination.

Think of the size requirements as more guidelines than rules and it won't be an issue :) Cat-five - talk 08:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI - The bee was alive and buzzing, but it was late in the summer and all the bees there seemed to be pretty beat up. Not sure why that was. But this was a chance shot in the park, and handheld with a very tight macro, so I had to take what I could get. Out of nearly 100 shots this was one of only three that came out well at all. The broken wing is certainly annoying. I actually like this photo from the same session better, but the DoF is even worse there. Oh well.--y6y6y6 19:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the subject is pollen, then it is in focus. HighInBC 22:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's true Arad 23:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bee Collecting Pollen 2004-08-14.jpg howcheng {chat} 23:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse 1999

[edit]
Solar eclipse 1999
Edit 1 by Diliff - Noise reduction performed.

Self nomination. Hi encyclopaedic interest Corona ,Eclipse , Sun, Stellar atmosphere, Allais effect, Skygazing, Solar eclipse --Luc Viatour 04:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Solar eclips 1999 4 NR.jpg howcheng {chat} 23:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baghe Eram Shiraz

[edit]
Eram Garden, Shiraz, Iran
Edit 1 by TSP

It's a photo of good quality taken from one of the most famous Persian Gardens in Iran. It represents the elements of a Persian garden. It Appears in Shiraz, Iran, Persian Gardens articles and I took the photo.

I don't understand what you mean from washed out. The building is white, doesn't mean it's washed out. And the focus is fine in my opinion, specially on Edit 1. Arad 23:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peterhof Cascade

[edit]
Peterhof cascade in the summer

I believe that this photograph does a good job of illustrating what the palace and fountains look like. There was a recent nomination of a photo this part of Peterhof, but there was a lot of concern about an overexposred sky; this version overcomes that with the help of a clear day and a polarizer. Dependign on what computer I'm on, the highlights may still seem a little overexposed, but I can fix that.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant planes comparison

[edit]
An overlay diagram showing the four largest aircraft ever built

A while ago an png version of this file was nominated, but failed because there were too many objections to the filetype. Here is an svg version, improved significantly from its predecessor. Authored by Clem Tillier, and appears in Aircraft, Boeing 747, Airbus A380, Hughes H-4 Hercules, Antonov An-225, and List of large aircraft.

Yeah, the Mediawiki thumbs look ok, but KSVG and Inkscape reveal the problems. Weird. --Dschwen 07:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any of the problems you mentioned. I'm using firefox under XP and in wiki software, none of these problems arise. Is there any way the problems you say exist can be fixed? - Jack (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I have spotted one further problem that does show up to me. Under the word "scale" the image states that 10px = 1m. Even a novice like myself knows that SVG images don't use pixels. This should be removed - Jack (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - some technical problems, as above, plus: In firefox/Mac, the full size doesn't get any text in the wing span! Also, there's a credit line in the right edge, not comme-il-faut for FPs... Fix the problems, and I'll support.--Janke | Talk 05:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Oppose - for above technical reasons. I myself have never had much luck with fonts in SVG. Can an SVG expert address these problems at some point? I think it may help to embed the used fonts in the file. Debivort 18:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have fixed the scale, and removed license text from the image. Hopefully closer to comme-il-faut, but I have no idea how to fix the fonts. I created it in Inkscape on XP and it renders fine on Firefox/XP. I would appreciate any help from the SVG font gurus out there to make it work across all platforms and viewers. Thanks. --Ctillier 20:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A further thought: I could convert the fonts to path objects... kind of a crude solution, because it would prevent editing the text (such as for translations), but it would force the correct text rendering. The text is fairly minimalistic and translation needs would probably be limited to the word "scale" and perhaps some commas instead of periods in the numbers.... as in all things in life, it's a trade-off... all opinions welcome. --Ctillier 20:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think on a wiki, ease of editing the text should take priority. Redquark 16:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've looked into the font problem, and it appears impossible at the moment to have SVGs where text is guaranteed to look exactly the same on all platforms, since SVG fonts are not yet supported by major SVG editors like Inkscape. So unless we resort to the ugly workaround of replacing text with paths or require all FPC nominators to have an array of different computers around to test on, the font problem seems insolvable. We can't start insisting that nominators use SVG and then shoot down the nom when they do because of technical problems associated with the format, so I think the only technical requirement should be that the SVG appears correctly when converted to PNG by Mediawiki. Redquark 17:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks great; if there are technical problems, just upload a PNG copy as an alternative. Fredrik Johansson 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a png version right here, didn't make the grade, though - Jack (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Giant planes comparison - Updated.svg Raven4x4x 09:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Female Mallard

[edit]
Female Mallard and ducklings
Edit 1 by Diliff - I've selectively removed the grain from around the duck to preserve details (which are less obvious in the detail anyhow), so out of focus areas have stronger noise reduction performed.
Edit 2 by Fir0002, further reduced noise, particularly in shadow above ducklings heads

Not only is it an excellent illustration for Mallard Duck, it makes a good illustration for motherhood.

Commnet Nice job Diliff, but if we're gonna go with the silky smooth bg, may as well go the whole way. I've uploaded another edit which futher reduces noise, particularly above the ducklings in the shadow. See what people think --Fir0002 22:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commnet Please vote on the image and the quality of it, not because it's cute. if that is the case, I'll upload tons of cute cats for FPs tomorrow. Arad 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Awwwwwwwwww kitties! --Billpg 03:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm busing taking photo from the neighbors' kitties. You'll see a new series of Featured Unbleivable Cute Kitties (for kids under 18 please do not focus of the upper case letters) by tomorrow. Arad 04:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sadly as a result of global warming, the lake was evaporated and this is the condition of the unfortunate duckies: [20]
The above comment was just for fun and with no other intentions. The neighbors cats or the ducks of the lake are safe and alive.

Promoted Image:Female mallard nest - natures pics edit2.jpg Raven4x4x 03:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StanfordCampus

[edit]
Stanford University campus from above

Striking image of the Stanford campus, consisting of many individual images composited into a single panorama. Appears in Stanford and created by User:Jawed. See the full-sized version for very high detail.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two International Finance Centre

[edit]
Edit 1 - Some problems fixed. Please keep this nomination longer so people can change their vote. Thanks you.

This image was once a candidate and the voters liked the image a lot. But because of the blur and noise it had, it failed to be approved. I fixed the problems and renominated it. Here is a link: Two International Finance Centre

It's not out of focus. It's because the top of the building has different glass color. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.36.148.132 (talk • contribs) .
There's definitely motion blur. —Keenan Pepper 23:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about the image being FP or not but looks like people have changed from few months ago. In the last nomination this image failed to be FP because of one vote, now no one likes it. Anyway, the votes are appreciated. Arad 02:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that FP standards are going up as we have access to more and better pictures. Look in the delisting section to see what used to pass as FP. HighInBC 14:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image you've linked in your comment has a very poor lighting, very grainy, a very distracting details, and a very very distracting lamp in the middle. This one is far better. Arad 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok :) enochlau (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose probably enough oppose votes anyway. Per above. —Jared Hunt
  • Support Well I have to disagree with you guys. Indeed it's not a perfect picture but it's still one of the best taken from below 2IFC I've seen so far. It gives a sense of awe. --Húsönd 19:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 9, 2006, 04:16 (UTC)

  • Exact same reason that I nominated this pic. I don't think anyone can get a better picture with such a lighting. It's sad that they don't like it. Anyway thanks for the votes. Arad 22:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St.Paul

[edit]
St. Paul, MN

This is a view of the skyline of the city of St. Paul, MN with autumn colors. Special features include the State Capital dome, the skyline of the city of Minneapolis in the background, the Mississippi River with barges, and a typical 1900-era home in the foreground; it appears in Minneapolis-St.Paul and was taken and posted by me.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ticonderoga class cruiser

[edit]
The port side of the guided missile cruiser USS Lake Champlain

Since adding this photo some months ago it has migrated to the commons and to a handful of other pages here on the English Wikipedia. One of those pages, Port, uses this image to illustrate the port side of a naval vessel, and I feel that the photos placement in that article significantly adds to the quality of the article. Therefore, I am nominating this for FP status.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sakyamuni Buddha

[edit]
The earliest form of the Buddha worshipped in India, the Sakyamuni Buddha depicts the moment he attained enlightenment

Shamelessly nominating my own picture. This is a photograph of the 5.5 8 mtr high gilded statue of the Buddha in Tawang Gompa. This depicts the Sakyamuni Buddha, the moment at which he attained enlightenment. The Buddha is seen in a "ground-touching" pose, where he touches his lotus with the tip of his hand and with a serene expression on his face. I've added this to the Buddha article, since it was lacking a picture from a well-known Gompa, and especially one in this state (pose). Do see the picture in it's full size - there's a lot of beautiful detail which is not apparent in the resized version.

You mean how you are looking from the ground upwards? I believe that is what the artist had in mind. HighInBC 18:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it's still problematic, in my opinion.--ragesoss 00:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted although it's awfully close. It's a pity more people didn't comment. Raven4x4x 02:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassilis Historical Area

[edit]
Remains of the King Cassilis Mine, Cassilis Historical Area

I nice image of the Cassilis Historical Area. Shows the ruins well, and to my mind captures a very Australian Outback scene.

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's seriously not pleasing to the eye, the background if full of small ugly trees which is a big distraction and the image itself has nothing special to tell me it's a gold mine in Australia. Plus that, I can't see anything historical or specific. It's not even close to a ghost town. Arad 13:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A matter of taste of course, but those "small ugly trees" are what make this such a characteristic image of the bush. And I can't see what more you can want from a ghost town. If you look at the article on Ghost towns you'll see that a ghost town doesn't necessarily mean empty houses and shops. And I can assure you, this is a ghost town.--Fir0002 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the voters agree, this is not pleasing to the eye. The trees, beautiful or not are a distraction. I'm not saying a ghost town is full of houses and shops, I'm saying this is more like a shack where people dump their junk. And it's not at all like a gold mine either. Plus it's nothing historical and the subject with or without explanation is not clear. Maybe a Kangaroo somewhere in the image could be a hint that this picture is taken in Australia. . Arad 16:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment about kangaroos is a little unwelcome I think in that you are suggesting that the picture would look better if it conformed with the stereotype of Australia as perceived by international viewers. enochlau (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No - it's an exposure bracket which probably does some contrasting to the image - this may introduce grain. Other than that I can't see how you could get a grainy look out of it. Personally I can't see the effect you describe. --Fir0002 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triangulum nebula full

[edit]
The Triangulum Emission Nebula NGC 604 lies in a spiral arm of Galaxy M33, 2.7 million light-years from Earth. This nebula is a region in which stars are forming.

Although slightly cliched for a featured picture, I think this picture has great visual and encyclopaedic qualities, and would make a great featured picture. This picture appears in the nebula article. I'm not sure about its clarity though.

Not promoted Mikeo 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wadi Rum Images

[edit]
A panorama of Wadi Rum

The image:

  1. is of high quality (if we neglect the slight noise, which I don't this is a problem here)
  2. is of high resolution
  3. it looks very good, and presents the great natural qualities of wadi rum.

Article it appears in: Wadi Rum (there are other nice pictures there).

Note: no the image isn't tilted, the right portion of the land is "hill shaped".

  • Nominate and support. - Eshcorp 16:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Hm, a double nomination, I'd support the panoramic (but might have a tilt judging from the far sand-mountain transition line). Pic 2 doesn't do it for me. So if the question was FP status for both, then I'll have to oppose. --Dschwen 16:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC). Upon close examination I reconsider my opinion on this image. I must have been blind not to notice the prominent stitching faults in the center of the image. Sorry, but for me this disqualifies a pano as an FP. --Dschwen 11:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentOppose Two images should really have two seperate nominations, I have seperate opinions of each one. Per stitching faults. HighInBC 14:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have seperated the nominations. --Eshcorp 17:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 22:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wadi Rum Image 2

[edit]
A sandstone monument in Wadi Rum
edit 1

I have made a seperate nomination for the other image


The image:

  1. are of high quality (if we neglect the slight noise, which I don't this is a problem here)
  2. are of high resolution
  3. they look very good, and present the great natural qualities of wadi rum.

Article it appears in: Wadi Rum (there are other nice pictures there).

As could anything else, but we need to keep our friend on dialup in mind too. And at some point conventional screens won't fit the image anyway. Are you sure you aren't talking about the lower-res edit instead of the 1800x1200 original? - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sens de circulation

[edit]

Illustrative image from Driving on the left or right. Good summary of which side of the road is used around the world.

  • Nominate and support. - Billpg 11:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A list of countries would be more informative, the image is very plain. Not pleasing to the eye. HighInBC 14:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Somehow it's just too simple. I really don't know how that could be improved (maybe a larger image?). It certainly points out which countries drive on the left and which countries drive on the right, but not much else. Maybe the information of which countries drive on what side of the road just isn't best depicted in a map form, because there's little correlation between the geography and the side of the road the country drives on. I guess what I'm trying to say is what HighInBC said about this information being best displayed in a list form, rather than a map form. --Tewy 18:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. There's nothing wrong with the image, but it's just the information from a list compiled into a simple map. Not striking or Wikipedia's best work. Redquark 18:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. It is a valuable addition to the article. Nevertheless, it does not really resemble the very best in Wikipedia. It is just a nice illustration, not being particularily striking. Mikeo 21:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a geographic aspect to driving on the left or right, as countries driving laws tend to cluster. Look at the blue cluster in South-East Africa. Most of those are former British colonies, except Mozambique which was a colony of Portugal. This country is left-driving because all of her neighbours are left-driving. Elsewhere in Africa, former British colonies of Gambia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Ghana are all right-driving as they are surrounded by right-driving nations. Source --Billpg 22:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, per Mikeo. Image:Driving standards historic.png is a more informative image (but still not very pretty) - Jack (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jack. Informational content is superceded by other image and it's simply not striking enough. - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose informative and encyclopedic, but not really striking enough to be a FP. —Jared Hunt September 6, 2006, 13:01 (UTC)
  • Comment I also would suggest renaming this image as well. —Jared Hunt September 6, 2006, 13:13 (UTC)
  • Oppose, featured pictures should not have been made exclusively with the flood tool. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Center remants

[edit]
Firefighter looks upon the remnants of the South Tower of the World Trade Center
Alternative version, from Commons

A powerful image of the remnants of the World Trade Center, September 14, 2001. Used in Collapse of the World Trade Center. Photo by Photographer's Mate 2nd class Jim Watson (U.S. Navy).

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 18:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radial Engine

[edit]
Radial Engine in a cut-away view

Illustrates the subject Radial engine very well. It really does explain more than a couple of hundred words. Smooth animation, created by User:Duk.

Promoted Image:Radial engine.gif howcheng {chat} 18:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Fiesta

[edit]
Ford Fiesta

I found this one on Ford Fiesta while going through car articles to remove tag fair use images for replacement and thought it was a promotional Ford product shot, but guess what, it's by User:Yummifruitbat. It's a great angle on the car with a nice background and beautiful lighting.

  • Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 16:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We may be running short of FPs, but I hope we don't have to drop to using ads. SteveHopson 16:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support It is not an ad, there would be no mud on the side if it was an ad. Good photo, depicts subject well. My support is weak because it is just a car. HighInBC 16:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notability of the subject of an image is not grounds for opposing the image as a FP. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-06 18:21Z
      • Really? I can't oppose a FP because I find the subject to be uninteresting? Please have a look at Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? as several standards would seem to contradict your statement. In particular, we are told that a FP "should represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet." I don't find an ad-type picture of a car to be particularly unique and oppose this photo for that reason. SteveHopson 18:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The evidence you provide has nothing to do with your claim. If you believe photos of cars are uninteresting, fine, but you can't object simply based on "it's just a car" or "cars are boring". If you find the image to be too much like an ad, then that might be a valid objection. See here for a related discussion, in which people tried to oppose based on "it's just a coin". — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-06 19:48Z
    • I would not call that much of a discussion, only one person(you) disagreed with his opinion that it was 'just a coin'. Furthermore, the criteria that states that it should be wikipedia's best gives plenty of room for people who disagree because they do not find the image interesting. HighInBC 00:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was not talking about notablity, I was refering to it's lack of visual appeal and the fact that it does not impress me much. Both of these things I expect from a FP. HighInBC 19:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We should take this discussion to the Talk page, but I must say that notability is certainly a criteria that is implied in this whole process. A great portrait of my neighbor is meaningless to Wiki unless that person is notable enough to have an article. Since we only vote on photos used in articles, notability is inherent in all of our discussions. SteveHopson 03:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Whether it's actually an ad or not, it will appear as such on the front page. It just doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. -- Moondigger 17:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not terrible as a photo, just cropped a bit tight. But the encyclopedic value is diminished by the distorting angle. --Dschwen 17:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. (No pun intended ;-) ) From a photographic standpoint this is a fairly good shot; it's a little on the dark side, but it uses color well and is at an interesting angle. I'm just a little more careful voting on these so-called "ad shots" because they're not of rolling hills or fuzzy animals. I think that most of the technical subjects should be displayed in an informative, encyclopedic mannor, rather than at an "interesting angle". So just like buttons on a camera, or words on a coin, I think this image should display the parts of the car. I don't think it does a good job in doing this, because the headlight and tire are the most prominant objects in the photograph, and you can't make out many other parts on the car (try drawing a diagram of from this). Anyway, there's my lengthy opinion; please correct me if my argument isn't valid. --Tewy 23:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A very boring topic. The picture is not appealling or exciting. --Midnight Rider 02:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (even though it's my own photo!) - Thanks for the compliment, howcheng, but I don't think it's featureworthy either. As far as encyclopaedicity goes, I didn't take this with the intention of putting it on Wikipedia, I just happened to be in the Brecon Beacons taking some other photos and thought it looked quite good in that light (it's my own car). When I looked at the Ford Fiesta article, I noticed that there was no image for the Mark 5 model, so I uploaded this one. In fact, the angle doesn't really make it any less encyclopaedic because the only significant externally-visible changes from the Mark 4 Fiesta were to the headlights/radiator grille. If I had planned this shot, though, I would have made sure the car was a little cleaner; taken it about half an hour earlier when it wasn't quite so gloomy; and turned the wheels the other way so the wheel design was exhibited better. --Yummifruitbat 11:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very nice! Good stock shot --Fir0002 12:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great shot. Encyclopedic, well-composed, well-executed.--ragesoss 02:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose may look like an ad even though it isn't, better to keep safe and "encyclopaedic" and stay away from photos like this. Michaeln36
What do you mean "safe and "encyclopaedic"" - point to one element of this photo which is unencyclopaedic --Fir0002 23:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 18:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comet Hale-Bopp

[edit]
Photo of the Comet Hale-Bopp above a tree. To the lower right of the comet the Andromeda Galaxy is also faintly visible.
Edit 1 - Noise reduced but a down-sampling is preferred..

This is a Commons featured picture of the Comet Hale-Bopp. Also used in Comet and Auahitūroa, although I'm not sure what relevance it has to the latter. Taken by Philip Salzgeber and released under a CC-BY-SA license.

  • Reducing grain on this is close to impossible. Because removing so much grain causes other problems and even if it doesn't you may even take a star or two. Arad 22:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Comet-Hale-Bopp-29-03-1997 hires adj.jpg howcheng {chat} 18:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Capitol Building

[edit]
Wisconsin's state capitol building

Beautiful example of the state capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin, from the Madison, Wisconsin article, image taken by Dori


Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Times Square

[edit]
View of Times Square at Night

I think this picture is eyecatching and deserves to be a featured picture; the pages it is on are Times Square and Town square. Image created by Bartek Roszak.

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giza pyramid complex

[edit]
Giza pyramid complex

The picture is highly detailed, informative, and interesting. It's also SVG, which gives it scale independence. (I am not the author, MesserWoland is.)

I fixed most of problems. MesserWoland 12:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Very informative. Capital letters may confuse what are official titles with what are simply descriptions. One problem: is "Sphinks" a typo? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-05 23:15Z
  • Support. Very detailed. Glaurung 05:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until minor problems are fixed, such as: Ugly typography (yes, needs Capitals in some Labels), Sphinks/Sphinx inconsistency in spelling. Otherwise, great image, very encyclopedic indeed. --Janke | Talk 06:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary Oppose. "Sphinx" and not "Sphinks" is the usual English language spelling. Also (and this is a question, rather than an objection) from a design perspective, is this west-top orientation preferable to the more conventional north-top orientation?Spikebrennan 14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I will oppose until capitaization (is that even a word?) of the letters is corrected and spelling is checked.*Nnfolz 15:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong oppose. Will change to weak support IF BOTH spelling is corrected AND cpitalization is completed and fixing te Norht arrow shouldn't be a problem while you do that.. I would prefer if numbers were used with an integrated key. Would give strong support to a version with that, capitalization and correct spelling. The words going in all directions confuses me and is difficult to read, especially on a computer where I can't rotate it to be righted. say1988 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The shading on the lightest sides of the pyramids is too close to the background shading, so the 3D effect is largely diminished. Titles of objects should be capitalized according to convention. The more prominent features should be labeled with heavier fonts than some of the features of lesser importance (the eastern cemetary label is currently heavier, larger, and therefore appears more prominent than pyramid of Khufu label). Also, if possible, the image should be rotated so that North is at the top. It's a cartographic convention and the orientation of the pyramids is significant. Justin 16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, possibly strong support, if above comments are addressed. However, I'm not sure if the orientation of the map should be corrected or if it was intended to be that way for ancient Egyptian purposes (star alignment) (I have little or knowledge on the subject, so I cannot honestly say which is better, but I obviously prefer the "correct" version). --Tewy 00:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, way too messy, the labels make the map hard to read. It's a cool map, though, and I'd vote for it if cleaned up. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose--Vircabutar 02:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most of the previously mentioned issues have been cleaned up. Image provides good perpective on different elements of a famous site, and how they sit in relation to each other. Informative, encyclopedic. Would change to strong support if there were a little better contrast between colors. --Bridgecross 19:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per HighInBC. Nauticashades 13:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Giza pyramid complex (map).svg Most of the oppose votes were because of errors in the diagram which were fixed after they were cast. howcheng {chat} 18:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Opera House

[edit]
Sydney Opera House, clearly showing the outline of its "sails".
Edit 1 by TSP
Edit 2 by Fir0002 - couldn't do much with it though


The Sydney Opera House is one of the most distinctive and famous buildings worldwide. It is an extremely aesthetically pleasing architectural masterpiece, and is a hugely popular tourist attraction. This photo captures the majestic beauty of the building, displaying its brilliant 'sails' perfectly.

If no one else does, I will give improving it a go. While the composition of the former FP is great, this has some additional encycloepdic value, there's no reason we can't have two of them. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. This one is a close call, but many of the supports were weak supports, so I gave them a little less weight. +4 support/+4 weak support/-3 oppose/-1 weak oppose. howcheng {chat} 18:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dingle Peninsula

[edit]
Dingle Peninsula, County Kerry, Ireland
Edit 1: People are removed
Edit 2: About 1000px cropped off the right side.

Spectacular view of the Dingle Peninsula in Ireland. Taken by User:Kanchelskis. Appears in Dingle Peninsula and County Kerry articles. - Darwinek 13:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kanchelskis is not the author. Steve Ford Ellis (from Flickr) is. howcheng {chat} 21:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 2 - well done. --jjron 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted -- tariqabjotu 02:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anticosti Island

[edit]
Anticosti - Landsat photo

From the Anticosti Island page. I think photo would be a great featured picture. Its deep blacks mixed with the almost electric blue of the water and the light green of the island are very eye-pleasing and the lines created by the waves, the island itself and the shore give the photo a very interesting dynamic.

Not promoted. -- tariqabjotu 02:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matterhorn

[edit]
Cropped version
Original version (a Commons featured picture)

A cropped version of a Commons featured picture (removed excess sky and tried to make it more symmetrical), to replace the likely-to-be-delisted Image:Zermatt and Matterhorn.jpg. Can be seen in Matterhorn. howcheng {chat} 17:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Matterhorn Riffelsee 2005-06-11.jpg -- tariqabjotu 02:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andriyivskyy Descent

[edit]

I found this image while looking at Andriyivskyy Descent and I thought it illustrated the subject very well. I personally find it stunning, and the dip of the "descent" visually intriguing. The colors are clean and clear and the brush near the bottom of the image isn't too distracting.

Created by User:DDima.

  • Nominate and support. - Keitei (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, due to size. Too small. « amiИa . skyшalkeя (¿Hábleme?) 15:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, due to trees on picture and nothing notable pictured. --TAG 16:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability of a subject is not a valid opposition if the subject has an article, and both those buildings do. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-10 16:30Z
      • Castle has no own article - it's mere a section. While I can agree that one of my reasons is invalid - second one still apply - trees is an issue. --TAG 19:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me explain: I don't believe it needs to have a separate article. The picture shows four main (out of many) famous attractions of Kiev: Zamkova Hora (or is it Lysa Hora, doesn't matter because both surround the descent), Castle of Richard Lionheart, St. Andrew's Church, and the descent itself. Also, you really cannot get another picture like this very easily because you are standing on top of a hill in the middle of a woody forest...unless you are in a helecoptor, chances of which are very small. IMHO, the photograph is better with the trees, because the give the overall atmosphere of the neighnouring area and the descent...otherwise it would look too empty. —dima/s-ko/ 19:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nice scene but too small, trees obscuring too much of the frame and significance of the image is perhaps questionable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Diliff. Nauticashades 18:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Actually it is not my photo, I got it from an author who gave his permission to use his photographs. I do like the photo very much, which is one of the reasons I put it into the Andriyivskyy Descent article:)) I disagree with the above comment nothing notable pictured by TAG.Odessa. You may not think there is nothing notable there as you are from Odessa (I may not know of anything in Odessa, as I was never there), but basicly everyone in Kiev knows of the descent (it is a popular destination point for tourist), the Castle of Richard Lionheart (on the left), and the St. Andrew's Church, designed by Bartolomeo Rastrelli. —dima/s-ko/ 20:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every location in the world has own history. History make each of then unique. But not every location then pictured is unique. This one is nothing but set of houses and church - thich can be found anythere else and people will hardly recognise it then will see next time. In my opinion Odessa Opera Theater picture will NOT be notable, but Potemkin stairs, Odessa Port or Sydney Opera House will be. It's just my opinion - this is why we have voting here, not a commitiee. --TAG 21:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is too small, but I agree that it is an absolutely lovely picture and, even if I've never heard of the place, it sure seems like a nice place to visit and worthy of a FP if larger. InvictaHOG 10:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted

Visoko in 1973

[edit]

Visoko is historical region where the first Bosnian state was formed. Picture shows Visoko valley where the kings were crowned and burried, and on the top of Visočica hill, once was medieval stronghold (where the bosnian kings ruled, and all around Visoko valley which was political and cultural centre of medieval Bosnia) built on Roman stronghold which was built on Ilyirian stronghold, and even some pepople think it is Bosnian Pyramid! Amazing. And it goes in even further, it shows building that were constructed during Austrohungarian monarchy, Yugoslavian kingdom, and SFRJ, Socialist, period. Pretty amazing for this, geographical small region;

It appears in Visoko and Bosnian Pyramid articles. It is also on wikicommons in article Visoko.

  • Nominate and support. - HarisM 16:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- image has no source and is now pending deletion from Commons. howcheng {chat} 17:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check again. Even the original photo has no copyright I put LGPL. Source is from towns library of Visoko. --HarisM 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you have some documentation proving this, you should add it to the image's talk page. howcheng {chat} 18:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't have any psyhical proof, as i got pictures on CD from man that works for home museum and library. He said that i can use any picture i find usefull for article that I wrote (Visoko). I must mention that picture was taken in time of SFRJ, in 1973. Maybe I'm wrong, but if the copyright was there (since i doubt, as there is no informations, and only information I got is that i can use pictures) it should expire. Ok, if anybody see this picture, and can prove that is copyrighted, i would be responsible, even in justice court in Bosnia or elsewere. Till then, i don't see reason for removing picture. --HarisM 18:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can't just declare it to be licensed under the LGPL because you aren't the creator (who is most likely the copyright holder). Now I don't know what the copyright laws in SFRJ were or how they transferred (if at all) to Bosnia-Herzegovina, but the most common form is that copyright expires 70 years after the creator's death. You don't have to register for copyright; it's automatic. So just because there's no information about the copyright doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We worry about copyrights not just to cover our ass, but because the goal of Wikipedia and Wikimedia is to create a freely distributable encyclopedia that can be used by anyone for any purpose (including commercial). For this reason, this image is a prime candidate for deletion from Commons. What you need to do is (1) figure out the copyright laws in Bosnia for images taken during the SFRJ period; (2) figure out who the current copyright holder is (if any -- could be the library); (3) if the images are still under copyright, get the copyright holder to release them under a free license (public domain, GFDL, Creative Commons License -- BY or BY-SA). After all this is done, then come back and we'll talk about Featured Picture status. Yes, I understand that this is difficult, but it's important. howcheng {chat} 21:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, i will see then what can i do. Just, i realized mistake for LGPL, as i thought that covers only picture as GPL license, without making mention of creator. Once again my enlish wasn't on level. Probably, my source also doesent know who took photograph, i will ask, but i don't promise. As far for picture I know it wad redistributed in media in Visoko without any restrictions, so i thought it is okay, but in same time i wanted to make some kind of license, because putting it to no copyright would be too simple. If I don't find any information regarding creator of image, i will remove this candidate. I doubt I will, but I will ask. Thank you on comments at first. Cheers. --HarisM 22:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I'm going to vote despite the copyright issues. I think this is historically significant and, with a caption, explains a great deal of the area's history. The biggest problem is that it isn't a clean scan; there is some dirt on the image, most apparent in the sky, and it's almost significant enough for me to weak oppose. --Tewy 23:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted

Red Rock Trail at Glacier National Park

[edit]
Panorama from the Red Rock Falls Trail near Many Glacier in the Glacier National Park division of the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park in Montana.

I think it is sharp, detailed, and attractive. It appears in the Glacier National Park page and was created by me, Drumguy8800.

Not promoted

Golden-Mantled Ground Squirrel

[edit]
A Golden Mantled Ground Squirrel

A high quality picture presenting perfectly a Golden Squirrel in it's natural habitat ; It appears in Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel and lot more pages in commons , Author K.lee.

Promoted Image:Golden-Mantled Ground Squirrel, Mount Rainier, July 2006.jpg

Pyrrhosoma nymphula

[edit]
Pyrrhosoma nymphula

Picture of the day for Saint Valentine's Day (on February 14)? illustrates the page Large_Red_Damselfly

Not promoted

Ciudad de las ciencias noche

[edit]
Ciudad de las ciencias noche
Edit 1 - Fixed the grain and blur and keeping the quality. by Arad
Edit 2 by Fir0002, sharpening/noise reduction

A high quality photo which also represents the modern architecture. A good choice for FP and Pic of the day. Author: Chosovi. It appears in Ciutat de les Arts i les Ciències article.

  • I think you agree that this one is much better than the old file. I didn't mess with it and i wouldn't upload it if i thought that it's not better than the original. Arad 19:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arad, that's not a helpful response. The fact that nobody happens to have uploaded a better picture is not grounds for featuring a substandard one. It just strikes me that the location has been designed to be photogenic, so the fact that someone has taken a shot with 'nice lighting' is to be expected. An FP of these buildings would have to be of very high quality, and this one isn't - it doesn't even appear to have been taken using a tripod. --Yummifruitbat 06:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say "The fact that nobody happens to have uploaded a better picture is not grounds for featuring a substandard one.". I said this picture is very well taken and having a better shot is going to be very difficult. Perhaps the lighting is the same every night, but this has a good quality in my humble opinion. Arad
  • I'm not sure that was precisely the tone of your comment, but civility notwithstanding, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree about the quality of this photo - I suspect that, were someone with a high-quality camera and a tripod to have a go, the result would be considerably better than this... and as this building is unlikely to be going anywhere in the near future, I'd like to hope that someone will at some point, and upload their photos here. Then perhaps we'll have a featureworthy picture - until then we've just got a reasonably attractive building, not especially well portrayed - in my humble opinion. --Yummifruitbat 13:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted

Kwakwaka'wakw big house

[edit]
Wawadit'la, also known as Mungo Martin House, a Kwakwaka'wakw "big house", with heraldic pole. Built by Chief Mungo Martin in 1953. Located at Thunderbird Park in Victoria, British Columbia.[1]

This image is used in the articles Kwakwaka'wakw, Potlatch, Culture by region, Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, and Thunderbird Park. I think it best depicts the Kwakwaka'wakw. It depicts a Kwakwaka'wakw big house and three Kwakwaka'wakw totem poles. The structures range in date of creation from 1953 through 1981. The image has a good caption with a wonderful citation. This is one of my own pictures, so this is a self nomination. HighInBC 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Thunderbird Park – A Place of Cultural Sharing". Royal British Columbia Museum. Retrieved 2006-06-24. House built by Mungo Martin and David Martin with carpenter Robert J. Wallace. Based on Chief Nakap'ankam's house in Tsaxis (Fort Rupert). The house "bears on its house-posts the hereditary crests of Martin's family." It continues to be used for ceremonies with the permission of Chief Oast'akalagalis 'Walas 'Namugwis (Peter Knox, Martin's grandson) and Mable Knox. Pole carved by Mungo Martin, David Martin and Mildred Hunt. "Rather than display his own crests on the pole, which was customary, Martin chose to include crests representing the A'wa'etlala, Kwagu'l, 'Nak'waxda'xw and 'Namgis Nations. In this way, the pole represents and honours all the Kwakwaka'wakw people."

Not promoted

EmperorPenguinChick

[edit]
Baby Emperor Penguin sticking its head out from under its parent.
File:EmperorPenguinChick edit.jpg
Edit 1 - If noise is the only problem, it's now fixed by Arad.
Edit 2 - Noise and blur gone. by Arad.


I stumbled across this picture when I was looking at some changes made to the Emperor Penguin penguin article. The quality of the picture clearly stood out to me and I thought the baby penguin was very cute, so I thought I'd nominate it. --ZeWrestler Talk 15:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mtpaley You are stuck with the grain, it was taken on black and white film and what you see on the original unedited version is an accurate scan of the original. Edit 1 looks reasonable enough but Edit 2 has been pushed a little too far and looks artifical. I will try and track down the original negative (somewhere in my unindexed mountain of negatives) but I am pretty sure that the grain comes from the source not the printing.

  • For what it is worth I can tell you that this photo was taken using black and white film then printed and scanned, it is a photo taken and uploaded by me. On a purely technical note it is not blurred but the grain of the film limits the resolution. Mtpaley 18:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might have been better off in color, but it can't be helped, so I'll change my vote to Weak Support.

Not promoted Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Persian rugs.jpg

Bologna italy duomo

[edit]
Picture of the San Petronio Basilica in Bologna.
Original Version

I uploaded this picture of the San Petronio to the commons about 10 days ago to replace the lower quality image Image:Bologna italy duomo distance.jpg that was in the Bologna article. This image is higher quality than the former picture and I believe it also meets the standards to be a featured picture. The only problem I see with the image, which will probably be pointed out, is the top of the other building that is partially blocking the San Petronio. While some might consider it distracting, I believe that it adds to the image. This can be seen in both images, and therefore cannot be taken out. It is part of the scenery adds to the character of the image. --ZeWrestler Talk 15:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted

Cheetah

[edit]
Cheetah

Another high quality picture of a Cheetah; It appears in Cheetah article and lot more pages in commons , Author: Source, Image by schani

Hehe, looks like you have to be faster next time. Good luck. ;-) Arad 21:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe this picture is not meant to show the body of the cheetah, instead focusing on the head details? Maybe a running cheetah wouldn't be in such a perfect position. Arad 20:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cheetah4.jpg Arad 23:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metung Wharf

[edit]
Metung Wharf on Bancroft Bay, Gippsland Lakes, Victoria, Australia

An attractive small panorama of Metung Wharf, at Metung on the Gippsland Lakes, Victoria, Australia. Visually pleasing image, good quality, adds significantly to its articles.

Promoted Image:Metung-Wharf-Pano,-Vic.jpg

Station 13 of the Tokaido (Numazu)

[edit]
Woodblock print of Numazu from the 1850 edition of the 53 Stations of the Tokaido by Hiroshige.

Of all the Featured Pictures that are artwork, I haven't seen any by Asian artists yet. Here's one by Hiroshige, which comes from The Fifty-three Stations of the Tokaido series of woodblock prints, 1850 edition (there are a number of different editions, each with different images he did each time). This one seems to be a good quality scan with no noticeable artifacts, although there appears to be some vertical banding. Used in Ukiyo-e.

  • Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 23:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I would like to see more information about it, in the caption perhaps. Specifically, what the text on the image means in english. HighInBC 23:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text in the box on the right is "13th Station of the Tokaido" (literally, it says "Tokaido 13"), then to the left is "53 (something -- the character means 'next' but it might mean something else in this context)". To its left is "Numazu" (the location). I can't tell what it says in the box on the far left, but it appears on all 53 images in this series (see the other prints at [21]). howcheng {chat} 00:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the characters are 廣重画, that's the signature of the artist. 廣 is the traditional form of 広.--K.C. Tang 06:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. When it's calligraphy like that I can hardly read it, but I did figure it was his signature (although I was also thinking that he would have used a seal instead). howcheng {chat} 06:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The character 次 ("next") in this sense is usually translated "stage": one of the post towns on the highway. Thus the 53 stages of the Tokaido (and varying numbers of stages on other highways). Fg2 07:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted

Nude on beach

[edit]
Nude seasitting in France.
File:Nude on beach edit 1.jpg
Edit 1. (Flattened horizon. Rotated by 1 degree, then cropped.)

Nice picture illustrating Nude beach and Skinny dipping. Woman in picture is (IMO) attractive. Background is out-of-focus but this would be difficult to achieve without losing focus on the woman. Picture does not show any "naughty bits" that some consider pornographic without resorting to black bars or pixelisation.

Not promoted

The Great Wall of China

[edit]
The Great Wall of China

This image appears in the article on China and the Great Wall. It is high resolution and very clear.

Not promoted

Ulysses S. Grant

[edit]
Ulysses S. Grant sometime between 1870 and 1880, by Mathew Brady or Levin C. Handy

A Commons Featured Picture of the 18th President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, taken sometime between 1870 and 1880. Note the clarity on his face.

  • Well, duh! Anything that's a historical photo is too historical. In order from least historical to most historical: A picture of a dead president. A picture of a wagon wheel. A picture of Shakespeare riding a dinosaur. A picture of Buddha listening to Nirvana on his iPod. A picture of a caveman dragging Wonder Woman by her hair to his cave. Get with the program! :^P -- Moondigger 17:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Promoted Image:Ulysses S. Grant 1870-1880.jpg

The Great Wave of Kanagawa, by Hokusai

[edit]
The Great Wave of Kanagawa, by Hokusai

Another Japanese woodblock print. This one is the iconic "Great Wave of Kanagawa" by Hokusai, from 36 Views of Mount Fuji, 1832.

Support it seems to be the best version one can find on internet.--K.C. Tang 03:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've used it as wallpaper, owing to its high resolution:)--K.C. Tang 06:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tsunami by hokusai 19th century.jpg

Colony of King Penguins

[edit]
That's a whole lotta penguins.

A Commons Featured Picture of approximately 60,000 breeding pairs of King Penguins, South Georgia Island. Photo by Commons:User:Pismire and licensed under the GFDL.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hills of Kurdistan Province

[edit]
version#2
Edit A

Landscape in Kurdistan Province of Iran, near Sanandaj. This photo was taken by Kourosh Anbari. I emailed him asking for permission to use the photo and he agreed and sent me a version of the photo with high resolution (see his photo gallery: http://www.chawshar.panjare.org/). This beautiful image, demonstrates the landscape of Kurdistan province very well, which is mostly mountainous and covered with scattered jungles.

  • Nominate and support. - Marmoulak 23:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Mardavich 23:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support #1 From the first moment I saw this photo, about few months ago, I put it on Iran and Kurdistan Province article because I knew it deserves more. I've been searching for a higher resolution for FP nomination and here it is. thanks for the higher resolution Marmoulak. To the technical part, this lovely photo has a great qulity, a great mix of colors of a great landscape. Very good encyclopedic value because it describes Kurdistan Hills and ofcourse, Hills of Iran in general. Perfectly taken at spring, and thanks again. Arad 00:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still prefer #1 over the edit. #1 is truly Number 1.

دوست عزیز!

از نظر من هیچ ایرادی نداره که عکسی که گذاشتید در ویکی‌پدیا باشه.ولی اگر لطف کنید و ویرایش جدید همان عکس را آنجا بگذارید بسیار سپاس‌گزار خواهم شد.من برای شما ویرایش جدید با کیفیت بهتر می‌فرستم و آدرس فتوبلاگم را هم می‌توانید داشته باشید تا از آن استفاده کنید. با احترام کورش عنبری

Translation: I see no problem with the use this photo in wikipedia. I am sending you a high resolution version of photo, you can also use other photos on my website.
His email address is: anbari@panjare.org (Marmoulak 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
He has to explicity state what license the images are released under. Permission isn't good enough. Furthermore his website should not be conflicting this desicion (with (c)'s). The implications of the free licenses should also be explained to him. --Cat out 00:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the type of license in my email to him and he agreed, as simple as that. The license reserves some rights and the photographer will be credited if the photo be used outside wikipedia. Your objection base on copyvio is unacceptable and the photo, as mentioned already, was take from a landscape in Kurdistan Province, near the city of Sanandaj. (Marmoulak 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Why is the website seen as "conflicting"? It's a different image, with a size not available on the website, lacking a copyright declaration that obviously hasn't just been cropped off. They're two different things, so they don't conflict. Not to mention that a copyright tag on the website does not, in itself, contradict CC (IANACL). –Outʀiggʀ 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously This size is not available on the website because I asked for a higher resolution version and he sent it to me. The photos on his website have that copyright tag to prevent others from taking credit for the photos. He has no problem with the photos being used if he is credited as the photographer. (Marmoulak 01:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
see the content of email here
He has to explicitly state the license and remove the (c) notice from his website. We can't have license conflicts. Images can and will be deleted in the absence of this.
"Ir Kurdistan" is a large area (assuming it ment to referance to "Iraninan kurdistan") and a vaigue deffinition. Thats like saying "Un Florida". Is it not posible to identify the location with greater detail? Do the hills have a name?
--Cat out 01:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any justification for saying that he must remove the copyright notice from his website. He does retain the copyright; releasing something under a Free licence does not mean disclaiming copyright. He is also free to release the same content under multiple licences; the licencee is free to use any they prefer.
It is the case, however, that we need to be sure that the photographer has understood and agreed to the GFDL. TSP 02:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He can't retain "copyrights". He can retain "ownership" (and he can do this conditionaly with licenses like GNU or cc rather than PD) so (c) is a license conflict. He can tag them with whatever license he agrees to. --Cat out 03:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The author can use different license for the same material, please state a law or policy to prove your claim. Nevertheless, the photo that has the (c) tag is a different version and is different from this one. Marmoulak 05:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both images are practicaly the same. It's just that the ones on wikipedia are slighly larger... That's not something creative enough to be considered something new so old copyright still applies. Normaly such a thing would be deleted in seven days. (c) means the image is copyrighted and is not in any way free. You can't use someone elses image on wikipedia unless it is either under {{fairuse}} or the creator follows this procedure. See Wikipedia:Copyrights (and linked pages). Issue has been discussed to death there.
I am actualy doing you a favor, I could have simply left the image alone had I not been in awe of it and it would be deleted eventualy.
--Cat out 05:30, 12 September 2006
Wikipedia:Copyrights clearly states, if "you own the copyright to the material you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the versions you placed here: that material will remain under GFDL forever."
I talked to the author through Yahoo Messenger and reminded him that the version that I have uploaded on wikipedia under 'cc' license can be use by anyone and will remain under this license forever. According to him this image is free as long as the author is credited. Of course the author can "republish and relicense the photo in any way he likes", ie. licensing it under (c) on his website. Marmoulak 14:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I told you, thats not good enough. Please do not argue as this is the procedure folowed on all images retrieved from the web. Your word, while I trust it, does not satisfy the procedure. Free license allows the creator or anyone to republish in any way they like. For the images to stay with a free license we need a written permision explicitly stateting the license. This should be sent to permissions@wikimedia.org. Furthermore you really want to avoid license conflicts. He can simply state that images are avalible with a free license on his website for instance on the bottom of the page (this would make your and my life easier). All this is basicaly to avoid something like this and not to violate authors copyrights. --Cat out 00:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out that this version of the image (high resolution) is not retrieved or retrievable from web, all the versions around the web are low resolution ones. Mr. Anbari sent the high-resolution version to my email. -- Marmoulak 20:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to resolve this issue with permissions@wikimedia.org . My oppose is an official one. No copyvio can be a featured picture. --Cat out 04:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although this image is definitely not a copyvio and doesnt need any additional written permissions, to prevent any problems I asked Kuresh Anbari to sent an email allowing the use of this image under 'cc' to permissions@wikimedia.org and he did:
Hi,
I allow the use of the following image:
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Hills_south_west_of_Sanandaj_near_the_village_of_Kilaneh.jpg
under creative commons license, in Wikipedia as long as my name is credited as the author.
Regards,
Kuresh Anbari,
-- Marmoulak 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image was and will be a copyvio until permissions@wikimedia.org says otherwise. Note that the actual copyvio process (7 day deletion) is not being observed as I am looking the other way... --Cat out 05:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cat, there is no ambiguity in 'Kurdistan Province' as there is only one Kurdistan Province and that is a province in Iran. As I mentioned earlier this landscape is an area near Sanandaj. According Mr. Anbari, This an area located in the south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kealaneh.(Marmoulak 03:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I dont see it in the filename... Should be someting like File:Hills south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kealaneh. Still the copyright issue stands. --Cat out 03:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the filename. Marmoulak 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I adjusted my objection accordingly. --Cat out 04:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The steps taken satisfy the copyright requirements of wikipedia. The same image in different size can have seperate licenses. And the same image can have multiple licenses. And once released the CC the author can claim anything he likes and it does not nullify the CC declaration. HighInBC 13:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright criteria wont be satisfied until permissions@wikimedia.org says so.
The same image in different size can have seperate licenses, this is true. Not because of size differences, but because the author released either one with a different license. CC would apply to both since the images are too similar (actualy identical)
You can have multiple licenses but it will cause problems. Full copyright and CC license conflict each other (The two licenses are the opposite of eachother). This will be very problematic on the long run. Every image on authors webpage is tagged with a (c). This is rather unusual for a person who can easily release images under CC yet be overprotective with (c) tags. Does the author understand that I can copy this image in any way I please for any purpose?
Cleanest way is that the author present the multiple licenses and disclaimer on his webpage. This not only verifies the authors intent but also serves as a future referance. If author is really releasing the images under CC, there shouldn't be a problem doing this.
--Cat out 22:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, first, when an assurance of CC declaration is made, we assume good faith on that until evidence is provided to the contrary, we don't wait for permissions@ to give us the go ahead. Also you seem to be confusing (c) with 'All rights reserved'. When you put something into the creative commons you still hold the copyright, you have just given permission for it to be used. Also, if someone releases an image to CC and then later shows a contradictory license, it is still CC. CC cannot be taken back. HighInBC 16:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AndonicO 17:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you had actually looked at the photographer's website you would know that this photo was taken by a professional photographer and there are also several photos from the same landscape:
http://static.flickr.com/34/124256307_62d25b9626.jpg?v=0
http://www2.flickr.com/photos/kureshanbari/124220236/
http://chawshar.panjare.org/index.php?showimage=31
Just because this photo is beautifull doesnt mean it is fake!!. - Marmoulak 21:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry, it looks like a lame screen-saver Aye-Aye 21:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose all versions Oversaturated even in Edit A, sky/clouds are flat as though they've been heavily de-noised, weird smudging on mountains, foreground is grainy. Also there are some patches under the trees to the right (middle-ground) which look as though they've been badly cloned, although that could be my imagination. Certainly not featured-quality anyway, IMHO. --Yummifruitbat 23:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per above, particularly Yummifruitbat. --Fir0002 02:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thinking about this image then looking at others on the photographer's website, the images of this location look almost like false-colour IR photos, particularly this one. Has anyone asked the photographer if the 'Ir' in Ir_kurdistan.jpg really did stand for Iran? --Yummifruitbat 03:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that Ir stands for infrared, but someone could ask the photographer. --WikiSlasher 03:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I named the photo Ir_Kurdistan when I uploaded it, not the photographer. This photo is not an infrared photography and I dont know what you mean by false-colour but I have visited Kurdistan Province and this picture reminds me of the landscape of the province, I clearly remember the scattered jungles and the pink colored trees. - Marmoulak 03:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That settles it then. --WikiSlasher 05:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that this picture has a very good quality. It also shows a very beautiful part of Iran that may interest many Wikipedians. Wikilo12 05:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The colours look a bit un-natural - it's obviously been 'enhanced', but it'll do until a better one comes along. Would it be possible to ask the photographer to get hold of the original exposure that doesn't look like the whole landscape has been anfaled - or was that by design?

Promoted Image:Hills south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kilaneh.jpg

Near Infrared Tree

[edit]
Near Infrared photograph of a tree, taken with a Hoya R72 infrared filter. This is NOT Ultraviolet NOR is it Thermographic
Edit 1 by Ravedave combined both images. Infrared photograph of a tree, taken with a Hoya R72 infrared filter above a Visible spectrum photograph of the same tree.


This is a highly instructive and attractive image used in the article Infrared photography and also in at least one foreign-language Wikipedia for an article on the same subject. It meets all of the featured picture criteria. There is noticeable noise at full resolution but this should be left alone -- when you severely limit the spectrum of light being captured, the duration of the exposure and the necessary ISO setting result in side effects like additional noise. To remove it would be to lessen the pedagogical value of the image. I'm surprised this isn't already a featured picture. Taken by User:Dschwen.

Promoted Image:Tree example IR.jpg

Rogue River, Oregon

[edit]
Foot bridge over the Rogue River

This is a Commons featured picture of a foot bridge over the Rogue River, Oregon, USA. It's got beautiful colors and great composition. Photo by Hamad Darwish (from Flickr), licensed CC-BY.

I don't pretend to understand all of the discussion above, but I think it's pretty neat that you can actually see the graffiti carved into the rocks InvictaHOG 14:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Rogue River Oregon USA.jpg

Orion Nebula mosaic

[edit]
The Orion Nebula, mosaiced from 520 Hubble photos
Same image, 9x larger.
Full size comparison from the original to the right and the 9x larger version to the left. Click to see full size.(The closeup is of the bright blue star on the lower right)
Edit 1 by Fir0002 - how's that for supersaturation!

A Hubble Space Telescope composite picture of the Orion Nebula, the closest region of star formation to Earth. NASA's press release describes the nebula as "one of astronomy's most dramatic and photogenic celestial objects"; this image includes more than 3,000 stars of various sizes. The image, called "one of the most detailed astronomical images ever produced", was created from 520 original Hubble images, with some ground-based photos to fill in details as needed. The full size image is an 18000x18000, 385 megabyte TIFF; I've uploaded the 6000x6000 JPEG version

  • Browsers are not designed for such large images. It needs to be loaded in a proper image handling program. I use photoshop, but GIMP is a good free alternative. Another solution is to go to the sandbox and use the image markup to render a smaller version of it. eg: [[Image:Orion Nebula - Hubble 2006 mosaic.jpg|6000px]] HighInBC 15:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • GIMP nearly froze when I tried to load this photo (my computer is not exactly state of the art). It might be a good idea to link to the 6000x6000 version from the image description page. --KFP 15:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The command [[Image:Orion Nebula - Hubble 2006 mosaic.jpg|6000px]] does not seem to work for sizes >= 6000... --Bernard 20:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is my browser (Mozilla) that blocks images above 6000 pixels wide, when they are included in html. --Bernard 00:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a note about the huge size and a link to the gallery of different sizes of this image at NASA. HighInBC 17:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. --KFP 18:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not reasonable to have a 18000x18000 image on Wikipedia, imo. People will click on it (even with warnings), and since it needs almost 1GB in memory... With 512MB RAM, my computer froze for a long time. The link to NASA should be sufficient for those who want the large size. At least download under a different name and keep the 6000x6000 image. --Bernard 19:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone else agree that it is not reasonable to have such a large image here? It is simply a file that not everyone can load, you can still right click and save as. If you want to move things around, I won't mind, but I think the wikimedia software is designed for such large file. If people don't read the warning at the top, I can't really help them much further. HighInBC 20:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you said you were going to post a full-resolution version, I assumed you meant as a separate upload, with an "other versions" tag on the 6000x6000 image page pointing to the 18,000x18,000 version. I would suggest reverting to Davepape's original upload and making the 18,000 pixel version a separate file. -- Moondigger 21:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the 6Kx6K and 18Kx18K should probably be saved separately. In addition to the problems stated above, the original 6Kx6K JPEG will be better than one that wikimedia downsamples from another JPEG. And saving both on wikimedia is handy, in case hubblesite gets rearranged in the future and the links break. --Davepape 21:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about downsampling from the smaller jpeg. The 18000x18000 version was made by a lossless tiff so no double encoding happened. The extra pixels lets imagemagick(the program that wikipedia uses to resize) have more sampling points. If you have a good monitor you will see the thumbnail of the larger image has more range of color. Also, wikipedia caches downsampled images, so only the first time an image is called in a new size will it cause an increased load. HighInBC 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your 18000x18000 version does have more range of colors, but downsampling or compression is not the cause. Among the many versions available from NASA, most of them look like the 6000x6000 version, but the files web_print.jpg and xlarge_web.jpg look more like your 18000x18000 version. Strange, isn't it? As for the two tiff files, when I tried opening them and downsampling them, the result was similar to the 6000x6000 version. It seems that your software didn't process them the same way as mine (I tried with gimp and tifftopnm, under Linux). Tiff being a complicated format with many options, some of them poorly supported by software, something could have gone wrong... --Bernard 01:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I used photoshop, and was able to preserve the color profile from the tiff into the jpg. HighInBC 02:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be the other way! How do you know you got the correct colors? --Bernard 03:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I imported the color profile from the tif, then saved the same profile into the jpg. No way to know what the correct colors are, as it has been filtered an color corrected by NASA. With my eyes, it seems that my encode almost identical in coloring to the tiff. HighInBC 04:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, moving the large image to another page and linking them. HighInBC 21:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done! HighInBC 22:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you seen the image that compares the two versions? There is only 1/9th(~.11x) the detail in the smaller one, and the smaller one has more washed out colors. Is your opposition based on the image, or the current average capacity of computers? HighInBC 22:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The smaller versions look fine on my computer, even with the Wikipedia auto resizing, as computers become better the image can be updated with larger versions, the Featured Image should be the smaller one IMO, and made larger as standards and computers get better. PPGMD 23:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The warning at the top of the image seems to be enough, the best car can be more dangerous to drive, but some people can still use it. The smaller one has only 11% the information of the larger one, and some star clusters simple cannot be seen in it, this one of the most detailed images of space ever constructed. I know people may ignore or not read the warning, but you cannot save everyone. HighInBC 02:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is borderline insulting. When I open an image in full size, I often don't read any text before. Compare the amount of warning here and at the NASA site. --Bernard 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that is even borderline insulting, if such an image is available for download, and you put a warning and it is downloaded anyways then I don't see how to save them. This is not a judgement of the person, and certainly not of you. I have started a discussion about this in the appropriate section Wikipedia talk:What is a featured picture?. HighInBC 15:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People regularly ignore warnings, the image still looks great 6,000px or less, sure you maynot be able to get as detailed when you zoom in, but thats what the 18,000px version is for. And as quality standards improve it's rather easy to simply upload a larger version in place. PPGMD 15:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the current criteria does not have limitations on size, and existing policy(Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Rules_of_thumb point 5) says larger is better, this would be better discussed on Wikipedia talk:What is a featured picture? than on the voting page for this image. HighInBC 15:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the policy was written to expect an 18,000px image nominated when the normal picture put out my cameras is 2-5k pxs. I can vote how I want, I support the original, and would support the Fir edit if sized down to the orginal size. PPGMD 19:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has made any sort of response the me bringing this topic up at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured picture?. Perhaps the matter has been dropped? HighInBC 13:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Also a FPC on Commons when I last checked, and is gathering support there. I can only see the 6000x6000 image, which is striking enough, but I think the full-size one should be featured (with links to the scaled one displayed on the description page). --ais523 11:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the 6000x6000 image, with a link to the 18000x18000 image downloaded separately. It would be better to have color consistency between the two versions, and the colors of the 6000x6000 version seem closer to what NASA wanted, based on the count of their versions that look similar. --Bernard 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which version were you comparing the colors to? I used the master tif that all the other images were created from for my comparison and they looked pretty much identical to me. Some of the smaller websized one's(including the 6000x6000 one here) provided by NASA do have different coloring, notably a greyish background instead of a black one, but this is in contrast with their own master image. HighInBC 18:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 16 versions that can be found here and here, all of them, except web_print.jpg and xlarge_web.jpg, but including the tiffs, look like the 6000x6000 image on my computer. I would like to understand, but I agree with any color version after all. --Bernard 21:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentther's a zilion Nebulas and astronomical photos.I don't now how many are alredy fetured in wikipedia.But we shouldn't feature all the nice ones,or we will be overwhelmed.--Pixel ;-) 00:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Orion Nebula - Hubble 2006 mosaic 18000.jpg

Georgia Aquarium Tropical Tank

[edit]
A tropical display tank at the Georgia Aquarium

Just a good overall picture in my opinion (hence the nomination); it has good colors, and displays the concept of an aquarium well, with the fish, visitors, and brick housing; appears in Aquarium, and Diliff created the image.

If TV shows can get away with a black bar over people's eyes than this is fine. Did you get a release from the people in your Havasu falls image? You'd have just a good a chance of identifying them. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a far better chance that somebody could be identified in this particular image than in my Havasu Falls image, but that's basically irrelevant. I'm not opposing on that concern. -- Moondigger 14:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These people cannot be identified. HighInBC 14:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose That said, whether the people are identifiable or not I think their presence in front of the tank detracts from the image. The tank itself is beautifully photographed, but the people block large sections of it. I think I would prefer a version without the people, showing off the tank itself. Maybe one silhouetted person off to one side to provide a sense of scale would work. -- Moondigger 04:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer the people in this shot because it shows off the purpose of an aquarium -- to display the fish to people. SteveHopson 04:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, also when people are in an image for "sense of scale" it usually ruins the image. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just imagining a version with a person (perhaps a child) silhouetted on the left or right, looking into the tank, but with most of the tank visible. -- Moondigger 14:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm suggesting this image should be nominated either, but I think that the people (particularly the little kid) in the photo do contribute and aren't really getting in the way of the image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Moondigger 02:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Gannets

[edit]
Northern Gannet pair.
Edit 1 by Fir0002
Edit 2 for spot removal by Outriggr
Edit 3 by SG for contrast/color (using Outriggr's version).

The birds are back. Artful composition illustrating two Northern Gannets, likely an example of pair bonding also. 1440x960.

Promoted Image:Two Gannets edit 2.jpg Support for this image is obvious, but picking the version to promote is difficult. There is some support for Edit 3, but I'm concerned that its increased saturation and/or contrast doesn't represent reality, an important consideration for an encyclopedia illustration. Therefore I'm promoting Edit 2. -- Moondigger 03:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King's College Chapel West

[edit]
Chapel seen from The Backs. Clare College Old Court is on the left. A group of people punting along the River Cam can be seen in the foreground.

University of Cambridge, Cambridge, punting and River Cam link to this image. I think it is a nicely balanced picture uploaded by Solipsist, which illustrates a pretty famous, if not important English landmark. It appears to be large enough, with no obvious (to this non-expert) technical faults. I have tried to address the peer review comments as well as I was able.

Not promoted -- Moondigger 02:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Tigers

[edit]
Extremely rare White tigers.
Edit 1, cropped and colors slightly adjusted. -KFP
Edit 2, Blur reduced and a little touched up. By Arad


Behold the white King. A WOW quality photo of an extremely rare animal (around 100 +/- worldwide) in a semi-natural environment. Showing the animal in great detail. With such rarity and quality, I'm proud to nominate it on FPC. Thanks in advance for your votes. It appears in Singapore Zoo and of course White tiger. Author: Nachoman-au.

  • Support - Very impressive shot of the tigers. I love the way they're framed against the background. bob rulz 02:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Wow!, Magnificent. Marmoulak 03:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see more FPs of rare animals, but this one just doesn't do it for me. My opinion is similar to that of the Cheetah nomination, about the subject not being fully shown. I'd prefer to see either the whole animal or a detail on the face. This image shows the face, but it's also blurry at full resolution, which is the reason for my weak oppose. Downsizing might correct the problem. I also don't like the framing too much, with the subjects on the right. --Tewy 03:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The focus on the eyes and face is good, but there's not much DoF and the outlines of the bodies and contrasting stripes are definitely a little blurred. I also prefer to see the entire animal or a close-up of the face; the right edge just appears to end so abruptly. The background has little contrast, and the large leaf on the far left center draws my eye away from the subjects. --S0uj1r0 04:00, 13 September 2006

(UTC)

  • Support. Although this picture is pretty good as of right now, I would like to see what a good edit could add to it. Edit 2 looks good. Nauticashades 11:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Absolutely gorgeous creatures (can you tell I'm a "cat person"), but alas, the image quality is too low for my support. It's poorly composed, a portrait of just one of them would work much better, even a picture of both in a different pose could look better. My eyes just sorta' drift off of this, the composition doesn't hold them. The cropping in the original and the edit are cut too close to the standing one's head for my liking. I know they haven't, but it almost feels like they've been pasted into the edit from seperate photos or something, oddly enough. The colours seem to be off slightly, the whites are slightly blue to me, as though it was taken on a cloudy day (which would also explain the annoyingly "flat" lighting). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all respect, your comment doesn't make sens. This image has non of the technical problems you mentioned. The position of the tigers is perfect and the beauty of the picture is partly subjective. The colors are not blue at all. Maybe your monitor needs a little fix. Arad 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is obviously blurry: at full size fur detail and texture should be descernable, which it isn't (yes, my monitor works fine for sharpness, and no, my glasses aren't out of date). The composition fails criteria 7 of WP:WIAFP for me: the composition is very unpleasing, it's too busy and nothing is positioned well in the frame. If there was just one tiger it would work fine, but they "compete" with each-other for interest, which makes the image not very eye-catching. You may be right about the colours, I wasn't sure about that. The lighting also detracts from the "pleasing to the eye" criteria: it appears to be highly difused, which shows no texture. Tigers have loads of texture, but they might as well be cardboard cut-outs for all the texture that's shown in this photo. If you don't see blurriness, then try comparing to this featured picture. In my example almost all of the feathers are distinct and sharp, you can pick out an individual feather from the plumage. The hairs in this nom are totally indistinguishable from their neighbours, aka blurriness (if you don't see it, than perhaps your monitor needs a little fix). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this image pleasing to my eye. As I said criteria number 7 is subjective. Of course you know it by heart but just to remember you: The more historically-important an image is, or the rarer or more significant its content, the less aesthetically-pleasing it may be. And again, i have no problem seeing every single hair on the tigers body. Exept the one who's sitting because half of he's body was not meant to be in focus. Arad 23:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this isn't a rare image or showing significant content. These tigers live at the Singapore Zoo. It wouldn't be hard to get a Singaporean Wikipedian to go take another picture. It's not like someone went to Siberia and shot the image in the wild or something. howcheng {chat} 23:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Tewy. Arad, you and I could probably argue forever about this image and still not agree, so I won't continue to fight with you (I find it stressful, and as I said, it's probably futile anyway). I will still oppose, and if my arguement is valid (which I obviously believe it is) the Admin closing the nom will count my vote. If not, than my vote will be disregarded. I feel that leaving it up to the closer is the best use of my time. (though it is perhaps worth pointing out that several other people opposing have noticed the quality and composition issues that I have opposed for) --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't take it like that. I really appreciate your comments. And we're not fighting. I liked the conversation we had and I wish the best for you. Your oppose is for sure valid, you gave your opinion. Arad 02:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Like others have said, the framing bothers me. It's unbalanced -- there's too much tiger on the right and too much empty space on the left. The right-most tiger, we can only see half its body. The composition of the crop is better because it puts both heads near hot spots, but now it's too tight. Like Pharaoh Hound says, it's a little blurry too. There is not one portion of the image that's crystal clear. howcheng {chat} 23:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original. Focus not perfect, framing a bit tight, but still good. --Bernard 02:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Original, yes the focus is a little soft, but it is a wonderful picture. I don't like the way edit 1 is cropped or edit 2 has had artificial sharpening. HighInBC 14:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The rareness of the subject doesn't contribute to the rareness of the photo as they're in a zoo and probably photographed hundreds of times every day. This particular photograph suffers from blur and a poor composition, cropping just draws attention to the blur. --Yummifruitbat 01:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because of extensive care, these tigers are usually shown in particular days sand are usually rented. The quality of this photo also adds to it's rarity. Anyone who has a white tiger in his city's zoo is welcome to have a try and we'll see the result, right? Have you ever seen a white tiger in your city zoo? 66.36.144.252 01:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Arad, will you please stop making "let's see you do better then" comments? Featured Pictures are not 'the best photo of x subject that Wikipedia has at the moment', they're supposed to be the best images on Wikipedia, full stop. As several others have commented above, the quality of this photo is not especially good, so that's certainly not adding to its 'rarity'. I don't know what you mean about the tigers often being rented but the fact that they're on display in a (major) zoo nullifies any argument about rarity of photographs - whether my local zoo has a white tiger is utterly, totally irrelevant to this discussion. --Yummifruitbat 01:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oops. Sorry! Didn't mean that. Yes maybe a bit blurry but i find a good quality. (maybe I'm out of date in technology). And well, If a Panada comes to my city zoo then is rented from China. Same for white tigers. (In the article it said that for desplay around the world, they are brought for only few days). I didn't said it's 'the best photo of x subject that Wikipedia has at the moment'. It is the best photo of white tigers I've seen on Internet. And i prefer to close the discussion here and thank you for the comment. And let's have a bit of fun in discussions, can we? And your not at any position to command me to what should I say. You can give your opinion.Arad 11:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus you take this whole thing too serious dude. you can take a break if your wikistress is high.
  • Thanks for your concern, Arad, but my wikistress isn't high at all. I take the FP process reasonably seriously though, because the outcome of these discussions dictates what ends up on the front page labelled 'the best Wikipedia has to offer'. I don't think it's helpful to the project if the nomination process is reduced to 'a bit of fun'; there are plenty of forums on the web for chatting and joking about photos we like but that's not what FPC is for. Of course I can't command you to say or not say anything, and I wasn't trying to, but I must admit that I find your tendency to dismiss or combatively dispute others' valid objections and make sarcastic comments rather irritating, so I politely request that you try not to do so. If this discussion has to continue any further it should move to the talk page. --Yummifruitbat 12:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope Yummifruitbat won't get angry at me this time, but this user's oppose doesn't make sens. I'm not sure if his sarcastic, if he is, he seriously needs to work on it, but this is not a reason to oppose. Anyone has an idea if this person is serious or not? Arad 22:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (+7.5/-5.5, ignoring vote/comment by NegativeNed) -- Moondigger 02:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Lake Valley from space

[edit]
Salt Lake Valley from space

I believe this is a great and informative space shot that shows the geography and settlement patterns of the area very well. It's of high resolution and makes you want to know more about the area (well, if I didn't know about it already it would). It's used in the Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Salt Lake County, Utah articles and was created by User:SEWilco.

Not promoted -- Moondigger 02:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Plaque

[edit]
The Pioneer plaque.
original
original tilted 0.728296953076438 degrees clockwise

Perfectly illustrates Pioneer plaque. Historically notable, humanity's message to the universe. Also used in Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11 and Template:User contact reasons. (Includes a naked woman. All FPs should include a naked woman.)

OK, the line drawing is in the articles. What do we do when most people here prefer the original? Substitute it in the article? Maybe not the best option, a line drawing fits better there... --Janke | Talk 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. I'm new at this. I'll raise it on the talk page. --Billpg 13:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original. —freak(talk) 12:59, Sep. 12, 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the white one- "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." The original is not used in articles, and therefore doesn't add significantly to the articles that it is not in. --Rory096 13:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the article. This is Wikipedia, you know... ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doh, should'v thought of that. HighInBC 15:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Pioneer10-plaque.jpg Clear support for the original version. -- Moondigger 03:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angel of the North

[edit]
The Angel of the North
Edit 1 done in peer review -Outriggr

An impressive photograph by Dwclarke of Anthony Gormley's most famous creation, the Angel of the North. I particularly like the primary coloured contrast created between the sculpture, the grass and the sky - it reminds me a little of the XP wallpaper "Bliss". The figure also illustrates the size of the sculpture well without being intrusive. The image has gained a lot of praise on the peer review, which can be found here. The image currently appears as the main image at Angel of the North, although probably ought to be on the Anthony Gormley page as well.

  • Nominate and support. - Bob talk 21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose (provisional). Is there a version of the pic where the "body" isn't so much in silhouette? The wings are well-lit by sunlight, so it feels like there should be an angle where the body is as well-lit. If someone will state that this is the best we can hope for, without significant re-positioning of the camera, I will switch to Support as I do like the composition of this photo, only let down by the time of day the photographer was there. --Billpg 22:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the original photographer uploaded the image and has not edited since, so it is probably unlikely. I think part of the problem is that the texture of the body casts its own shadows over the rest from this angle, so a variant is unlikely. Bob talk 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a thumbnail, try clicking it :P Vitriol 14:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, yea, I did, what's your beef? --rogerd 03:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
You inserted your support in between Delgr6328's comment and Vitriol's, so it appeared as though it was directed at you, but it wasn't. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC) you are right, my bad, I have refactored to fix it --rogerd 19:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Fly-Angel.jpg -- Moondigger 03:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Touched by His Noodly Appendage

[edit]

Iconic image illustrating the FSM. Well drawn, making the appearance of the FSM look as if it were part of the original painting, down to the style of art and the cracks running along the image. Also uses the Sistine Chapel ceiling to great effect. This drawing has become the "typical depiction" and has achieved an iconic status among those who recognise it.

This image also adds value to Parody religion, as it illustrates perhaps the most recognised such (supposed) religion.

This image uses the Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat copyright tag, with the provision that "a link to Bobby Henderson's site remains". This tag appears in WP's list of Free licenses and the provisions are no more onerous than CC-attribution. For this reason, I don't think there is a copyright issue preventing FP-hood.

  • Nominate and support. - Billpg 22:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom Seano1 00:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - would be nice to see some humor on the main page as well. Debivort 02:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - granted that it is uniquely appropriate in one or more articles, I can't support an FPC that gets its merit from being a very young political "meme". Beyond the meme, what is this picture, really? –Outriggr § 04:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lol!Nnfolz 04:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I must admit the whole thing is quite amusing, but not yet of Historical significance -Glaurung 05:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support though quite unique and different from the below and above, that's why I support. —Jared Hunt September 14, 2006, 08:32 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an image that was so puzzling and bizarre that I couldn't help but read the article. If that isn't the purpose of FPs, then I don't know what is. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Quite a unique image, and surprisingly free! ♠ SG →Talk 09:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Diliff. I'll always support a good cause... ;-) --Janke | Talk 11:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Doesn't seem significant, nor is it striking. PPGMD 13:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am not sure it illustrates the subject of Parody religion clearly, or any subject for that matter. I am familiar with the image, but I don't think it has the historical importance that would offset the difficulty in determiining it's meaning(yet). HighInBC 14:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again does an image need to have any historical importance at all? It illustrates Parody religion as a representative of it. For example, national flags illustrate their nations by association and definition, rather than by content. Notice also that the nominator stressed its technical quality as an image, and pertinance to the article, rather than anything having to do with historical value. No one is judging Angel of the North based on its historical value, or "what the sculpture is supposed to mean;" the image is being judged on its photographic merits primarily. Debivort 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I made it clear when I said any historical importance would offset the fact that it's meaning is not apparent to the casual viewer. It would also establish notability. As an image alone it does not pass, historical importance would have offset that. I only mention it becuase it has the potential to have historical importance. Dig? HighInBC 12:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Although I'm not convinced that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is significant enough to warrant a featured picture, it's a great image -- well executed, funny, and illustrates Flying Spaghetti Monsterism well. howcheng {chat} 16:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Is this meant to be a mockery of Michelangelo? Also, is nudity allowed on the main page? AndonicO 17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per Diliff and Howcheng. I don't see why everyone is complaining about Historical Significance, as this is not a must for Featured Pictures. Nauticashades 17:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Re: "Is this meant to be a mockery of Michelangelo?" No, it's meant to mock religious belief. Re: Nudity -- Wikipedia is not censored. Re: "Iconic status amongst those who recognize it" -- Anything that requires "amongst those who recognize it" as a qualifier has not achieved iconic status. An icon is an icon because even those uninterested or without much knowledge of a given topic recognize it. Santa Claus, Albert Einstein, the golden arches, the Mona Lisa -- all iconic. "Touched by his noodly appendage" -- not iconic. -- Moondigger 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Outriggr. Also, it seems to me that an image designed to mock atheism or agnosticism wouldn't even be nominated, no matter how fine it might be from a technical perspective. Featuring this picture would (I think) make it the only FP that violates WP:NPOV. Comments above about "supporting a good cause" support that contention -- "causes" are not the business of an encyclopedia. -- Moondigger 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to say, I disagree with some of those points. I don't think Janke necessarily meant that he was supporting the mocking of religion, I believe he was supporting a picture that raised curiosity of the article and encouraged further reading. Also, I don't think it violates NPOV - it is just representative of an idea that is not NPOV - there is a big difference. Otherwise it would be violating NPOV to feature an article about ANY topic that is controversial in any way, such as the Holocaust, or Palestine. As long as the article is factual, cited and NPOV, it would be censorship not to feature a technically worthy picture (as judged by peers) that represents that article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me clarify. I think that featuring this image would be a violation of NPOV. That wasn't clear in the way I worded my previous comment. As per Janke's comment -- I think it's pretty obvious what he was referring to -- not necessarily the mockery of religion, but support for the cause of promoting atheism or agnosticism. (I should say here that I am not personally offended by this image or anybody's comments.) Also, the difference between a featured article about a controversial topic and featuring this image is that featured articles are carefully edited to achieve NPOV -- this image isn't. It clearly takes sides in a controversial topic. Featuring it would result in a non-NPOV featured picture. -- Moondigger 18:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wonder how reasonable it is to expect that images be NPOV. If we look through the collection of FPs we might conclude that sunsets are pretty, the Warsaw Ghetto was oppressive, Hell is an unpleasant place, suburbs are monotonous, slums are tragic, or President Grant was very stately. Strictly speaking all of these are not neutral POV conclusions. If a picture illustrates a topic that is potentially non-NPOV, it is unreasonable to insist that the picture not convey a POV. Furthermore, if you would insist that FPs be NPOV, would you also insist that non-featured pictures be NPOV (as it is a general wikipedia requirement)? Should we flag this image for deletion because it is not NPOV? Debivort 19:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree with your reasoning. The vast majority of neutral observers have concluded that the pictured Warsaw ghetto was oppressive -- it's not like there's a significant contingent of people claiming that conditions there were happy and pleasant. The hell described in Dante's Inferno is unpleasant -- that's a fact and is undisputed. Where is the controversy in any of your examples? This nominated image takes sides in a fierce debate about religious belief. Where's the controversy in the sunset, suburb, or Grant images? None of those images mocks a controversial belief. With the examples you gave, it is possible for a given person to interpret them in a non-neutral way. With the Flying Spaghetti Monster image, there is no way to interpret it any other way -- it is clearly and unambiguously non-NPOV.
          • To answer your other questions, no -- I do not believe individual images necessarily have to be NPOV, as they serve the purpose of documenting a given topic. But as I explained previously, elevating such an image to featured picture status serves the purpose of promoting one side of a controversial topic. It would be "supporting the cause" as Janke so accurately pointed out. I would be equally opposed to the promotion of an image mocking athiest beliefs. -- Moondigger 20:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regarding Moondigger's statement that "it seems to me that an image designed to mock atheism or agnosticism wouldn't even be nominated." I would draw his or her attention to the Christus Ravenna Mosaic nomination which presented a positive icon of christianity, and therefore, indirectly, an anti-atheism (and anti-judeism, anti-islam ...) image. Please note that all of the supports, opposes, and comments are justified with comments about the image, rather than its content. Debivort 19:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Come on, that image doesn't mock athiest beliefs. It documents a work of art. That the subject is a Christian icon is irrelevant -- the image doesn't make a statement about belief (or a lack of belief) in the Christian god. The Flying Spaghetti Monster mocks Christian belief, and its promotion to FP status would be an endorsement of one side in a controversial debate. -- Moondigger 20:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh my, how my little tongue-in-cheek comment - did anybody notice the ;-) ? - generated a heated discussion! IMHO, it is definitely FP-worthy: a great spoof of classic art (religious connotations aside), well executed, eye-catching, and, as Diliff said, it definitely makes you want to read the article. That's enough FP criteria for me - I think the NPOV discussion is rather moot, since we're talking parody here - hey, the Wikipedia front page needs some humor, too! --Janke | Talk 20:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Has there ever been a FP that was a parody of a controversial belief? The "oh, don't let it bother you... it's only parody" or "we need more humor" explanation doesn't negate the fact that the image mocks religious belief. Imagine a picture that depicts athiests as goofy-looking blind apes worshipping Charles Darwin's gravestone. No matter how technically excellent the image might be, and how funny/humorous religious people might find it, there's no way in Wikidom it would ever become a featured picture.
              • Again, I don't have a personal issue here... I believe evolution is valid and backed by overwhelming evidence,[22] oppose creationism, and am appalled at the Kansas Board of Education decision that sparked this whole meme. But that doesn't mean that a photo mocking the personal beliefs of all Christians and most religious people should be a featured picture. -- Moondigger 20:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • All I would like is that the image be evaluated based on the explicit FP criteria. And as far as I can tell ... illustrating a POV topic with an image that illustrates that topic in a neutral way is fine, and has been done before. The topic being illustrated here is not "Christianity versus Athiesm" (if it were, the image would certainly not be NPOV). The topic is "Parody Religions" which it does illustrate objectively. I feel like your objection would have been analogous to opposing the Warsaw Ghetto image because it "negatively portrays German people"; If it had been nominated as illustrating an article on "German People" it would have implied a POV, as an illustration of the Warsaw Ghetto, it was NPOV. Debivort 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I can see your point of view on this, but still don't think the example applies. The Warsaw ghetto image's purpose isn't to mock German people; the primary purpose of Bobby Henderson's FSM was to mock belief in the Christian god as a protest against the Kansas Board of Education's decision to teach evolution in science classes. (Side note: his aim's a bit off, IMO -- I think he had a better shot at changing minds if he attacked the idea of teaching non-science topics in science classes, rather than attacking the core religious belief of the vast majority of Kansas residents.)
                • PS - I'd like to add that I think your hesitance is completely reasonable, and I'm only challenging it because I don't think follows from the FP criteria. Debivort 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Note that criterion #9 in the featured picture criteria says, Be neutral, An image should not put forward a particular agenda or point of view, but instead should illustrate the subject objectively. Specifically images of maps should be uncontroversial in their neutrality and factual accuracy" It doesn't make exceptions for views we may find agreeable, and it doesn't make exceptions just because it might be an accurate portrayal of a given side in a debate. Put this image into featured pictures visible or make it POTD on the front page and see how much more criticism Wikipedia garners in the press and from the Britannica folks. Again, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to take sides in a debate. -- Moondigger 21:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ah, I see what you're getting at here. (I've edited my comment above to include the entire text of criterion #9). You're saying that because this is an illustration on the article Parody religion, and it objectively illustrates that topic, it's compatible with the NPOV rule. I disagree, for a couple reasons. First, because I fail to see how any image could ever fail criterion #9, if this is a valid counterargument. A middle-eastern map that failed to show Israel would be a blatant violation of NPOV according to the quoted rule. But wait! This map that doesn't show Israel on it can still be a featured picture because it's being used to illustrate an article about the Palestinian political philosophy. Wait! This image that depicts abortion doctors as serial killers can still be a featured picture because it's being used to illustrate an article about the beliefs of extreme Right-to-Lifers. Make it POTD! Wait! This image that depicts some political figure in an obviously biased manner can still be a featured picture because it's being used to illustrate an article about Rush Limbaugh's or Michael Moore's beliefs.
                    • (haha 10 asterisks!). With the rules as they stand, I would say yes, provisionally, to all of these possible examples. If this is so bothersome, then the rules should be clarified. A simple way to do this would be to say that the article the FP illustrates needs to be NPOV. That would eliminate all of these as legitimate nominations, as well as the FSM. Debivort 01:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Oh, and to answer your question, in my view an image would fail criterion 9 if it inaccurately represented the article, i.e. Warsaw Ghetto to illustrate "German people" or frankenstein to illustrate "Abortion doctors." I really do think fixing the rule to say that the article linked by the image must not be about a POV, would adress your concerns, which in this case seem to be that the image would bring attention to the FSM articles. Debivort 01:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The second reason why I don't think it can work is because an image can be applied to any article now or in the future. You're saying it's 'kosher' as an FP because it's not being used in an article about Atheism vs. Theism. But it could very easily be applied to such an article, now or the day after it becomes featured. Do we delist it then? My point is that when it comes to NPOV concerns, the article it's currently used in is irrelevant. If the image itself clearly takes a side in a controversial debate, then it's not a valid FP image. -- Moondigger 22:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • This is simple to address. When a POTD appears on the main page, it is linked to a primary article. That is the article it illustrates, and should illustrate without POV. Other links that come later could be treated the same way we already to with FPs. A picture (such as [23]) promoted because it illustrates pollination wouldn't be delisted as an FP if someone linked to it from an article on flower whorls, even though the image wouldn't have survived nomination if the latter was the only article it linked. Debivort 01:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I appreciate Moondigger's comments. The ensuing discussion is why I emphasized the recency of the image and its theme in my objection. Other images that might imply a POV have at least passed a historical test. Again, I ask, beyond the FSM meme, what is this image? It doesn't stand on its own. Evaluating it on aesthetic criteria alone, an important component of the FPC criteria, I would have objected even faster. (I'm not saying it isn't executed well, because it is.) –Outriggr § 23:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm backing out of the indentation frenzy... eleven asterisks just seems like too much. ;^) Debivort, your latest posts boil down to changing the rule in such a way that NPOV images could be FPs as long as some outside agent -- namely, the article(s) they're used on -- are NPOV or objectively describe a given topic. It just doesn't work for me. I'm back to the question I asked earlier: how could any image ever fail criterion #9, especially if it's changed to read as you suggest? Consequently, what's the point of even having criterion #9 in the first place, if there isn't an image that could ever fail to meet the criterion? NPOV is one of the four key policies of Wikipedia -- and as such, it shouldn't be tossed aside casually just because we're talking about an image instead of a block of text in an article, or just because many of us find this particular NPOV image important or amusing or compatible with our personal beliefs. I find it hard to accept the idea that an image portraying the opposite POV (mocking Darwinists in a way that religious people might find amusing but would surely offend most Darwinists) could ever have a ghost of a chance of achieving FP status here.
  • Since pictures are not chained to articles, and featured pictures are presented in several galleries all on their own, without an accompanying article, it just can't work. The article can be NPOV, but when somebody's browsing Featured Pictures Visible, they're going to see it standing alone.
  • I believe I've covered my opinions on this topic about as thoroughly as I can... we're to the point of repeating ourselves. Therefore I probably will not chime in again, unless some truly new aspect of the discussion arises. I understand and appreciate your opinion on this, but I don't agree with your conclusion. Thanks for reading and thinking about what I wrote -- that's not something a lot of people do in debates like these. Cheers... -- Moondigger 04:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, and think any conclusion would most likely follow from an infusion of outside perspective. In the mean time I think you should humor me and oppose because of "bad composition" and "blown highlights." Debivort 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't think of it as that offending. It is just a joke, after all. If this image was nominated, I would support it (provided it met the other criteria, of course). Both images illustrate a point of view, but within a NPOV artcile. In my opinion, neither are offending. Nauticashades 10:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with Moondigger. Not to mention the fact it's a horrible defamtion of a great painting. I mean what would Michelangelo think if he so this thing!! And what will people looking on the mainpage think of Wikipedia when this gets up for POTD! The shame! It will make Wikipedia look like a joke - and not a very good one either. I look at it and shudder. I mean it's tantamount to sticking Garfield into the mural on the sistine chapel! Enough said! --Fir0002 06:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nurse! Quick! we're losing him! I need a syringe with 50cc of A-Sense-Of-Humour NOW! Prepare the vein for immediate injection! (Suffice to say, I disagree with Fir0002's sentiments and think he needs to consider the context and the fact that it is a parody, and not intended solely to deface art.) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - good image quality. NPOV can't be applied to individual images. And if it was possible to agree on "objective point of view" , it would be better than NPOV. It is enough if pictures, like individual statements, are correctly attributed, and the description provides context, and relevant links. So the viewer may judge on his own. I won't oppose featuring the image that depicts abortion doctors as serial killers, if it was correctly attributed to Right-to-Lifers, and was good image/photograph. I also don't nominate Image:Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore.jpg for delisting, because it isn't just an 'objective' photo of a plane, but photo of the Air Force One from very patriotic point of view, literally. Created by US Air Force. Yes, it may hurt the feelings of some terrorist bubbling with anti-americanism... so? --Wikimol 09:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"NPOV can't be applied to individual images" - Then why have criterion #9 at all? Why specifically mention disputed borders on maps as an example? By your reasoning, such maps could be featured despite being non-neutral simply by placing them in an article about a border dispute. Images like this one, even if correctly attributed to an article, are not NPOV. But then, I'm repeating myself. It's all been covered previously. -- Moondigger 22:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bias against noodles! NegativeNed 16:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I find the FSM hilarious I think it is too POV, just like the atomic bomb pic from the other week. "Featuring" items like these is just not a good idea. Maybe we should ask Mr.NPOV himself, User:Jimbo, to see what he thinks. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 18:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ravedave and Moondigger. Although I can see both sides here, I too think it is POV. Featuring stuff like this would take us down a path that I don't think we want to follow. It's not that unique of an image anyways and I don't believe we need more controversy than we already have. --Nebular110 01:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I don't get it. Are people truly so out of it that they can not understand the difference between presenting a subject which is inherently pov in a factual and unbiased manner (not a problem) and an inherent pov of the author/presenter of such material (problem)?--Deglr6328 07:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try reminding yourself of WP:CIVIL. Disagreement with your opinion does not make one "out of it." The answer to your question is that an image is not chained to an article -- it can be applied to any article now or in the future. That necessitates consideration of the neutrality of an image taken on its own, divorced from any article it may be used in. Otherwise it would be impossible for any image, including (for example) a map of the middle east lacking Israel, to fail criterion #9. Featured pictures are presented in various galleries divorced from the articles that might put them in context, with a link to such articles that one might or might not follow. All of this has been covered already (and in greater detail) in the long discussion above. -- Moondigger 14:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'm unswayed.--Deglr6328 03:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. Too controversial and POV for featured pic. The image doesn't excite me in any way. I don't find the image either funny or offensive, just strange. Royalbroil 12:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed to full oppose based on criteria 7: I don't find it "pleasing to the eye", but instead I find it too dull and uninteresting to be a FP. The community can do better than this for a FP. Royalbroil 03:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Featured pictures should help to bring clarity. This image doesn't clarify the image. Instead, you have to read the article to understand the image. Also, since the copyright permission was given with the provision that "a link to Bobby Henderson's site remains" it feels like a commercial rather than a legitimate attempt to explain something. -- FloridaJosh 13:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Well, could you explain what "This image doesn't clarify the image" means? ;) Featured images contribute to an article, they don't 'clarify'. There are very few featured pictures that you can look at and immediately identify the location/species/whatever from the image alone, so I don't think you have the right idea about what a featured picture is. As for the provision, it sounds like normal attribution to me. A link to an external site isn't necessarily the norm, but I don't think it is explicitly disallowed, either. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect that FloridaJosh made a typo on the second word "image" and Josh meant "article". Then Josh would be commenting on criteria #5: "Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not." Royalbroil 03:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for immediate viewer appeal. What a fabulous icon. Aye-Aye 21:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for technical quality and concept. mstroeck 23:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What is the problem with featuring something controversial? Nobody would oppose the Darwin/Ape-carricature brought up earlier "because it wouldn't be popular with evolutionists". If you think your religion (or a dead white man who made pretty pictures, for that matter) must never be mocked, not even in a good-natured way, you just might deserve to be mocked for your somewhat childish beliefs ;-) mstroeck 23:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, I think we'd better not feature any Mohammad cartoons... --Janke | Talk 16:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I've seen are pretty lacking in both execution and concept compared to this one. If there was one of comparable quality and somebody sumbitted it on its artistic merits, I would probably support it. mstroeck 22:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here for me is not controversy. The problem is that this is a flavor-of-the-month subject that I'm sure will see a featured picture review within a year or two. Does this mean that everyone who does a cute Photoshop job can submit it for FPC? I think we should be thinking a little longer-term. I would be embarassed to see this on the front page, not because it's not well done, but because the featured page of an encyclopedia is not the right place for it. –Outriggr § 02:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support:This is devastatinly funny.And well made.--Pixel ;-) 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well made image. Iorek85 05:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per Diliff. BeSherman 09:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support particularly given the arguments made by Debivort in long discussion above with Moondigger. Dylan 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Moondigger.This is a terrible mockery of Michelangelo, but especially, of Christianity. Would the Mohammed Cartoons achieve FP status? Would a racist statement (not something of the past like the Nazis, but of the present) be publicly announced as, "The Best of Wikipedia"? Remember, Wikipedia is, "The free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". We should not be insulting "anyone" unless they have repented, (as the Germans, who will probably never commit genocide again). If the Christian Churches would accept the theory of evolution, then this could be featured. In the meantime, is Wikipedia meant to undermine others? Certainly not. Should this Image be featured, it would be a disgrace; it would have to be unfeatured before it is POTD. We are on the brink of becoming the most widly visited web-circus on the Internet! Another Uncyclopedia! Imagine that! | Luita 20:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If the Christian Churches would accept the theory of evolution, then this could be featured." I'll point out here that the Roman Catholic church has already done so; Pope John Paul II stated that evolution is more than just a theory and that it is compatible with Catholic doctrine. (Catholic doctrine holds the story of creation as figurative -- 6 days of creation not actually being six 24-hour days, etc.) My opposition is not based on any question of evolution vs. creationism. My opposition is because this image is an obvious violation of featured picture criterion #9, in that it is non-neutral on a controversial topic -- belief in a deity. -- Moondigger 22:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There is no such thing as a neutral picture. Good pictures say something. When was the last time you heard someone say of a memorable picture, “That image shows all argument in an equal way.”? If we applied a strict NPV to all pictures, we would have to effectively disallow pictures about controversial topics. Your not going to find interesting pictures that tells all points of view. Seano1 23:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neutral does not mean "shows all points of view equally." This image fails criterion 9 for the same reason that a map of the middle east lacking Israel fails criterion 9 -- because it takes sides in a controversial debate, equating belief in Michelangelo's (Christian) God with belief in a flying monster made of spaghetti and meatballs. Whether you think a belief in the Christian God is equivalent to belief in the FSM or not, you must admit that an image equating them cannot logically be considered "neutral." None of the current featured pictures takes sides in such a debate, and even though some of them might depict certain subjects in a positive light, they do not actually denigrate opposing viewpoints. If no picture can be considered more or less neutral than another, then what is the purpose of criterion 9?-- Moondigger 23:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I didn't address this: "If we applied a strict NPV to all pictures, we would have to effectively disallow pictures about controversial topics." We don't apply strict NPV to all pictures. We are actually pretty casual about it. My point here is that this isn't subtly non-neutral. It is a rather obvious/extreme example of non-NPV. So images that might portray a given subject in a positive light might be slightly non-neutral, and we may let them slide because the topic they're slightly non-neutral about isn't particularly controversial. Or perhaps we let slightly non-neutral images become FPs because even though they portray a given subject in a positive light, they don't actually mock or denigrate the opposing viewpoint. This image mocks and denigrates theist belief. That's not slightly or subtly non-neutral -- it's a blatant example that clearly and unambiguously violates the neutrality criterion. If you can show me another FP that is so blatantly non-neutral, I'll concede the point. -- Moondigger 00:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you're looking for a non-neutral FP, just look at this one [[24]]. It is a picture of the Lindisfarne Gospels, a copy of the Gospel of Matthew, nothing less. It's interpretation and depiction of "homosexuality" have been a real debate, as illustrated in this article: [[25]]. PYMontpetit 19:15 20 september 2006 (UTC)
            • That image is nothing like the FSM image. The image itself simply documents how a particular book looks. The image itself does not mock or denigrate opposing viewpoints. The FSM image does. It baffles me that people might genuinely not understand how these images differ. More likely they recognize the difference but will not admit so. -- Moondigger 02:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The real problem here is not NPOV, it's systemic bias. There is no "debate" about evolution in any part of the educated world except for the USA. Once the people of the US have a government grounded in reality again, one that does not actively support pseudo-science, the entire "controversy" you have over there will hopefully go away. Even the catholic church has long confirmed that it thinks Evolution and the Big Bang are reconcilable with religion and most likely an accurate description of reality. If anything, all of you should SUPPORT this to battle systemic bias. Creationism is regarded as utter bullshit by the vast majority of people visiting this website, and there is absolutely no need to be neutral on this topic. I'm actually beginning to think that a more professionalized fork of this project is a good idea. How many energy is wasted here every day fighting idiots? (Yes, I mean you, creationists, no need to ask. This debate is over for me.) -- mstroeck 17:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)mstroeck 17:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good grief. This image says NOTHING about evolution. It equates belief in the Christian concept of God with belief in the flying spaghetti monster. The controversial issue is atheism vs. theism, not evolution vs. creationism. -- Moondigger 02:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The image was created as a reaction to the Kansas School Board's decision to teach creationism alongside evolutionary theory, as I'm sure the POTD capture would have pointed out. -- mstroeck 08:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I know that's why it was created, but the image itself doesn't address that topic. The image itself equates the FSM with the Christian (actually, Catholic) concept of God. As funny or biting as some might think it is, Bobby Henderson's reaction to the Kansas school board decision is off-target. First, because it says nothing about evolution vs. creationism; second, because it parodies a Catholic icon, and Roman Catholicism is one of the few Christian religions that recognizes evolution as valid. -- Moondigger 13:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Quite clearly illustrates the subject in a striking and dramatic fashion. High-quality image that sparks controversy. What more could we ask from a featured image? FCYTravis 21:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we do not want an image which sparks controversy (see point nine in FPC criteria). Being controversial is a good reason against it becoming a FP --Fir0002 21:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (+21/-12, ignoring vote/comment by NegativeNed, and considering everybody else's comments carefully.) I realize that as a vocal opponent to promotion of this image, closing the nom myself might be seen as fishy. Therefore I would encourage anybody who is concerned about it to review the vote count and my reasoning here. We can discuss it on the FPC talk page if there are any concerns.

By straight vote count, this falls short of a 2/3 supermajority by 3 support votes. Also, many of the comments accompanying the support votes advocate ignoring the NPOV requirement in the FPC criteria, for various reasons. I can understand why some want to ignore that criterion, given their comments above. However the fact is that Featured Pictures are supposed to conform to the FP criteria whether we might personally disagree with those criteria or not, especially if no consensus to overturn all or part of those criteria was reached. -- Moondigger 03:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Alim Khan

[edit]
Mohammed Alim Khan in 1911

An excellent early color photograph taken in 1911 by Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii. Appears in Mohammed Alim Khan, Social aspects of clothing and a few other pages. This is a compressed version of Image:Prokudin-Gorskii-19-v2.png (not currently used in any article). The photo is apparently from the U.S. Library of Congress collections.

No, it's a triple exposure, which could be projected in color back in 1911, but more difficult to get on paper (but possible with a dye transfer process). Today, scanning the 3 negatives and putting them into the RGB channels digitally is easy. But this is NOT colorized - the colors were captured in 1911! --Janke | Talk 07:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this image needs any support. In case here is my support. But I don't like the guy's attitude. He's not like a king. His Manghit Empire's rise to power was only because of Nadir shah's death. No doubt he's Genghis Khan's decedent. Anyway, that has nothing to do with this photo, (actually because of this photo I learned more, thank you.). And please don't get offended. Arad 04:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For being nearly 100 years old it's amazing quality. PPGMD 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. -- tariqabjotu 03:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perimeter

[edit]
The Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics

I nominate this image because it is particularly striking and draws attention immediately, as well as because it illustrates the reality of Perimeter in a way words cannot possibly. Picture was taken by Tim Horton.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Sealand with territorial waters

[edit]
Map of Sealand and the United Kingdom, with territorial water claims of 3nm and 12nm shown.

Map describing the overlapping territorial claims of the micronation Sealand and the UK. This image illustrates the dispute, showing Sealand's position in relation to the UK's changing claim of territorial waters.

To summarise (see Sealand for full discussion), Sealand claims legitimacy as it was in international waters when it was founded - at the time, the UK claimed only 3 nautical miles. Sealand matched this claim of a circle of 3nm around Sealand, until the UK announced it would claim 12nm in 1987. Sealand also expanded its own claim to 12nm the day before.

This map is neutral. None of the lines are actually labelled as territorial border, just showing the distance from the UK or Sealand.

This image is also used in Territorial waters as illustration of overlapping claims.

Just read the article, this is Wikipedia, you know! ;-) Oppose by the way - if this is FP, then any locator map could be. Sealand as a FA would be OK, but this picture isn't up to FP standards. --Janke | Talk 07:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venus de Milo

[edit]
Drawing by Debay of the statue with the missing inscribed plinth published in 1821.
Edit 1 by User:SG to clean the image, darken the lines and remove the "stitching."

From the Venus de Milo article. I think this image is very clear an clean. The art is great and when you read the article, you can't help to constantly look at this image and compare it the other "missing arms" depictions.

  • Support - I have to say, some of the above justifications pain me. "lameness?" The detail seems relatively high to me - how much larger would you like to see that cross-hatching? I think the lettering was missing because it was found missing - or am I wrong about that? Readability on the front page? Dozens of labeled FPs have failed that criterion. Debivort 14:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I agree with Debivort, though an image without the arms cut off would be nicer :} Gnangarra 00:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the stitching error at the waist is more than ample reason. Can that be fixed? gren グレン 04:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1 — I have uploaded a new version without the stitching problem. My version also cleans the image a bit and darkens the lines, which helps with legibility in particular. ♠ SG →Talk 08:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why run a drawing of the sculpture for FPC when you actually have a photo?Nnfolz 17:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the relevance of this remark? We are being asked to vote on the drawing, not on a photograph (even though photos exist) - Adrian Pingstone 21:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason why this drawing rather than the photo, is because this image illustrate the sculpture as it was originaly found. Notice that the left arm is not completly missing as it would on any photo you might see. The text (witch is complete) says: "discovered in the Milo Island, in the month of febuary 1820, given to the King the 1st march 1821, by the Marquis de Rivière, his ambassador in Constantinople". The mystery of its missing arms as been a constant subject in popular culture. PYMontpetit
  • Support - Very nice picture, it would make a great FP. Metabaron5 00:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1. The sharpness pushes it over the top nicely. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, call me uncultured but it's a boring drawing to me, regardless of the technical quality. —Pengo talk · contribs 06:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.255.126 (talk • contribs) (Anonymous)
  • Support - The stitching error noted above is original to the drawing. It was intended to display the meeting point of the two larger blocks of marble that form the torso and draped legs of the statue. As for the technical quality of the drawing, while it is not essentially great art itself, it is a valuable document that shows the statue as it appeared freshly reassembled before it went on public display, including the enigmatic missing inscribed plinth and the now detached upper left arm. This drawing is also crucial to illustrate how the statue has actually been changed in just the short period of time from its discovery until it went on public display. - Jerry7171 11:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kremlin Cathedrals

[edit]
The Kremlin Cathedrals.

This is the first time I am attempting to have one of my pictures become featured. Cathedrals and golden domes, I tried to catch them all in the same picture. I am looking forward to hear the critics in order to improve my future picture editing skills.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate

[edit]
Varied Chocolates.
This picture looked both sharp and good enough to eat, making it a candidate. It was taken by Andre Karwath and appears in Chocolate, as well as several User pages (probably chocoholics, therfore sincerely asked to support).

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hagia Sophia

[edit]
The former church and mosque is now a meuseum.
This Picture shows the Hagia Sophia at an angle, with trees at it's base. The Hagia Sophia is an important symbol of the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and of Turkey; it also inspired the architecture for many churches and mosques. I think it is a good picture of an interesting subject and I therefore nominate it. This image was taken by Robert Raderschatt and apears in more articles than I can count (mainly Mosque, Hagia Sophia, and Istanbul).

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F-14 Tomcat Launch Preparations

[edit]
An F-14 Tomcat is preped for launch on the flight deck of the carrier USS John C. Stennis

This photo shows an F-14 Tomcat being preped for take off from the flight deck of the carrier USS John C. Stennis. Aside from the slight tilt to the right I think this photo has the potential to go featured, so I am placing it here to see if others concur. Image is from the commons, where it is listed as Public Domain (US Navy photo), and appears in the article aircraft carrier.

  • Comment - I don't think Nauticashades' example is particularly spectacular. However, there are better pictures of launch/capture and manoeuvring on deck among the 900 or so photos returned at my link above. I'd recommend having a thorough browse through those to see if you can find a better candidate. AFAIK, all the images on that page should be PD as they're created by US military personnel in the course of their duties. --Yummifruitbat 01:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose It's a pity, I like this one, but the little things add up. The angle isn't great (not dead on the nose, angle shows very little wing) the guy on the right is cut-off, and things get a bit blurry as you go towards the top of the photo. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Rainier National Park

[edit]
Mt Rainier National Park

Striking image of Mt. Rainier National park. Definitly a FP. It appears in Mt. Rainier National Park and it's taken by: Victor Szalvay

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fields of gold

[edit]
Agricultral Field

Amazing panorama of an agricultural field. (obviously young wheats) It appears in Agriculture and it's taken by: Victor Szalvay

In answer to my own question, the source appears to be flickr [30]. However, the page there says that this particular photo is "all rights reserved", not CC-BY-SA. --Davepape 20:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to neutral, as my bigger concerns were dealt with; I like the picture, but there are still the technical problems others point out (though they don't bother me quite as much, hence the neutral vote). --Davepape 13:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very nice photo, my only issue is that it could probably be used in more places beyond just the basic agriculture article! Staxringold talkcontribs 15:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - could use more photo information and larger resolution. --ZeWrestler Talk 05:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's true that this photo makes a usually boring subject, interesting. Even the blown sky is nice. Don bertone 12:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - Lovely photo, inspite of the blown out sky on the right. A high-res version would make it look extremely immersive. Will change vote to Support if a high-res image is uploaded. Also, cropping a little from below might help the composition. doniv 18:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I don't know wikipedia much, i use it frwquently but i don't edit much. I use flickr a lot and then i just saw this image on wikipedia. I liked a lot when i saw it on flickr and when i saw it here, i wanted to support. Is this how i should support?
  • No, if you want your vote to be counted you'll need to sign it by typing ~~~~ at the end. If you don't already have an account on the English Wikipedia, it's possible your vote will not be counted by the closer anyway, as it might appear that you are a sockpuppet. --YFB ¿ 02:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:William O. Douglas Wilderness.jpg

Clouds over Hills.

[edit]
Hill

Impressive image of high quality. Describes a hill perfectly and also a good weather with Cumulus clouds. It appears in the Hill article and it's taken by: Victor Szalvay

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colony of King Penguins

[edit]
That's a whole lotta penguins.

A Commons Featured Picture of approximately 60,000 breeding pairs of King Penguins, South Georgia Island. Photo by Commons:User:Pismire and licensed under the GFDL.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red-headed Rock Agama

[edit]
File:Red-headed Rock Agama.JPG
Original: Red-headed Rock Agama
Edit 1: Background more heavily blurred
Edit 2: Background blurred even more than edit 1

I found this the other day, i think a version of it has been nominated before, but more work has gone into it, and i really think that it should have been featured before anyway. It is a brilliant photo of an agama, which adds to all of the agama articles immensly.; Currently used on Agama (lizard), Agamidae, and Agaminae, taken by user chris_huh.

  • Support Edit 1; Neutral on Edit 2; Oppose original. I provided an edited version with a less distracting background, and a second version with even more blur in the background. (Changes to the background are more evident in the full resolution photo than in the thumbnails.) Unfortunately I can't do anything with the blown highlights. I like the edits better but not enough to push my vote to "support." This lizard has "grown on me" over the past couple days enough that I'm supporting Edit 1. -- Moondigger 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would like to see more documentation on the description page. Presumably Agama agama? I also assume this is a male? (Males lizards often have brightly coloured heads). Can anyone confirm? —Pengo talk · contribs 02:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The species is Agama agama and it is a male, the female is a browner colour, although the males can change colour slightly to be less bright it is clear to tell the difference. 84.9.151.53 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1 I just realised that this was up for nomination, i don't know if i can add a support vote to it, but i support Edit 1, i think Edit 2 is too blurry, and begins to draw the eye towards the top again. I had myself tried to blur it out a bit before i uploaded it but couldn't get it right, well done Moondigger. chris_huh 17:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 23:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Butchers Creek, Omeo, Victoria

[edit]
Butchers Creek Alternative
Butchers Creek

A really beautiful scene from a remote mountain stream (Butchers Creek) in the Alpine region of Victoria.

Alternative image: Image:Butchers creek - omeo07.jpg

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 23:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. To be honest, not really particularly beautiful. The brach in the foreground on the right is a big distraction and it just doesn't stand out as an image to me - most small waterfalls look comparable to this one. I prefer the alternative image but I don't really think either are feature worthy, sorry. Diliff |

(Talk) (Contribs) 08:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 17:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry S. Truman Flight Deck

[edit]
Multiple F-18 Hornets prepare for launch from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman

Following Yummifruitbat’s advice I went searching for a better photo of launch preperations on an aircraft carrier. This particular photo was one of maybe thirty or so that I found that stand the best chance of passing through the FPC process (by which I mean there are no people obstructing the objects, no wierd angles, no bizzare effects from light reflections, etc). This particular photo shows the flight deck of the supercarrier Harry S. Truman, with three F/A-18 Hornets preparing to launch from the deck with the aid of an aircraft catapult. This image originates from the commons, and is an official US Navy photo.

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 17:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tulip Stair

[edit]
The Tulip Stairs and lantern at the Queen's House in Greenwich by Inigo Jones. The first centrally unsupported stairs constructed within the first wholly classical building in England.
Edit 1 - Centralised vertically
Edit 2 - Centralised vertically and horizontally

Self nomination - displays the lack of central support and beauty of the first classical staircase in England.

I've added 2 cropped edits for your consideration. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC) My thoughts on which edit is best remains (predictably) the original. I think there's a greater range of shade between the white to the bottom right of the lantern and the shadows to the top right, left and bottom left of the image. I also agree with Tewy that the off centre nature of the focal point creates interest - an old lecturer of mine once explained that the eye, when scanning an image, will always look at the centre first and then move to the next point of interest - keeping the focal point off centre provides this movement that makes the image seem more alive - so that's my ha'pennies worth any how. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the spiral has plenty of movement on it's own, and that intentional off centering doesn't suit the subject as well. It is such a radial structure that the more encyclopedic depiction, seems to me, to be right down the middle. This is not a depiction of shadows and gradations of light, but of this stair- which is not careening off center but is in fact plumb and vertical. Makes me wish Spiral staircase was not a dab. DVD+ R/W 18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think I'm the only one to feel this way but the subject it not really clear and it has some quality problems too. It is indeed a good photo but does not qualify as FP for me. I hope i do have the right to oppose with so many supports. Arad 22:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A beautiful picture that in my mind could be a featured image. SOADLuver 02:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 2 It looks beautiful, sharp, and now that it's centered, perfect for FP. | AndonicO 14:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:TulipStair QueensHouse Greenwich.jpg (original version) howcheng {chat} 18:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salmon larva

[edit]
Salmon larva hatching

Photo of a salmon egg hatching (more complete caption on the image description page). Excellent yellow-on-black composition where you can clearly see the internal organs of the salmon fry. Photo by User:Uwe Kils and used in Salmon, Egg (biology), Spawning, and Nature.

Promoted. Image:Salmonlarvakils.jpg howcheng {chat} 18:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crab Nebula

[edit]
The Crab Nebula is an expanding cloud of gas created by the 1054 supernova.

I nominate the picture for WP:FP because:

It is of high quality.
It is of high resolution - (2224x2212).
It is Wikipedia's best work.
It has a free license.
It is used to improve the quality of several popular articles: Star, Supernova, Stellar evolution, Supernova remnant, and Astronomy.
It is accurate.
It is very pleasing to the eye.
It has good caption
It is neutral.

Promoted Image:Crab Nebula.jpg howcheng {chat} 18:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Clock Tower of the Palace of Westminster

[edit]
The Clock Tower of the Palace of Westminster (otherwise colloquially known as Big Ben) in London, England
Edit 1 by Fir0002

I took this image the other day as a replacement of the existing image for this subject, as it improves both the angle and the context. I feel this image is of very high resolution/quality (2662x5500)and although it isn't immediately stunning to the eye, I feel it adds good value to the article (as the intricate detail is very visible at 100%) and is iconic enough for FP.

Promoted Image:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006.jpg howcheng {chat} 18:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada goose gosling

[edit]
Head shot of a baby Canadan Goose.

Stumbled across this image of the head of a baby canadian goose in the Canada Goose and Goose articles. The picture is of high resolution and clear crisp quality. I believe it perfectly exemplifies the featured picture criteria.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/September-2006&oldid=290634224"