Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/September-2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured Picture Tools
Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons What is a featured picture? Featured picture candidates on Wikimedia Commons Featured picture thumbs Featured picture archive Picture of the day Picture of the day archive

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

• For promoted entries, add {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}} to the bottom of the entry, replacing FILENAME.JPG with the file that was promoted.
• For entries not promoted, add {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} to the bottom of the entry.
• Do NOT put any other information inside the template. It should be copied and pasted exactly, and only the first one should have FILENAME.JPG replaced with the actual filename.

	Older 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
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Contents 1 African Hawk Eagle 2 Two Towers of Bologne 3 Chopsticks 4 Half Dome Side View 5 Canada Goose in Flight 6 80486DX2 200x 7 United States Quarter 8 Leaf structure 9 Christus Ravenna Mosaic 10 Curlew 11 Brown Pelican 12 Earthrise 13 Mecca pilgrim 14 Chihuly in Miami 15 Writing Systems of the World 16 Image formation from pixels 17 Sunset at Grain Elevator 18 LCD Pixels (Public domain version of previous featured picture) 19 Homeless man NYC 20 Anole 21 Cal Sea Lions on Pier 39 22 Arge Bam 23 Nagasaki Explosion 24 ThirteenthGreg 25 Herzegovina 26 Île de la Cité 27 Alpine Marmot 28 Burnt Tree 29 Jimbo Wales 30 Earth-Moon.png 31 Moulting cicada 32 Honeybee 33 Solar eclipse 1999 34 Baghe Eram Shiraz 35 Peterhof Cascade 36 Giant planes comparison 37 Female Mallard 38 StanfordCampus 39 Two International Finance Centre 40 St.Paul 41 Ticonderoga class cruiser 42 Sakyamuni Buddha 43 Cassilis Historical Area 44 Triangulum nebula full 45 Wadi Rum Images 46 Wadi Rum Image 2 47 Sens de circulation 48 World Trade Center remants 49 Radial Engine 50 Ford Fiesta 51 Comet Hale-Bopp 52 Wisconsin Capitol Building 53 Times Square 54 Giza pyramid complex 55 Sydney Opera House 56 Dingle Peninsula 57 Anticosti Island 58 Matterhorn 59 Andriyivskyy Descent 60 Visoko in 1973 61 Red Rock Trail at Glacier National Park 62 Golden-Mantled Ground Squirrel 63 Pyrrhosoma nymphula 64 Ciudad de las ciencias noche 65 Kwakwaka'wakw big house 66 EmperorPenguinChick 67 Bologna italy duomo 68 Cheetah 69 Metung Wharf 70 Station 13 of the Tokaido (Numazu) 71 Nude on beach 72 The Great Wall of China 73 Ulysses S. Grant 74 The Great Wave of Kanagawa, by Hokusai 75 Colony of King Penguins 76 Hills of Kurdistan Province 77 Near Infrared Tree 78 Rogue River, Oregon 79 Orion Nebula mosaic 80 Georgia Aquarium Tropical Tank 81 Northern Gannets 82 King's College Chapel West 83 White Tigers 84 Salt Lake Valley from space 85 Pioneer Plaque 86 Angel of the North 87 Touched by His Noodly Appendage 88 Mohammed Alim Khan 89 Perimeter 90 Map of Sealand with territorial waters 91 Venus de Milo 92 Kremlin Cathedrals 93 Chocolate 94 Hagia Sophia 95 F-14 Tomcat Launch Preparations 96 Mt. Rainier National Park 97 Fields of gold 98 Mt. Rainier 99 Clouds over Hills. 100 Colony of King Penguins 101 Red-headed Rock Agama 102 Butchers Creek, Omeo, Victoria 103 Harry S. Truman Flight Deck 104 The Tulip Stair 105 Salmon larva 106 Crab Nebula 107 The Clock Tower of the Palace of Westminster 108 Canada goose gosling

[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.

• Nominate and support --Peta 04:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Good photo, I'm a little disappointed with the legs cut off. Is there a way to get them? --WillMak050389 04:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose primarily due to the subject being cut off at the bottom of the frame, and the tight framing / cropping at left and right.-- Moondigger 05:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Cutting the legs off wrecks the picture - Adrian Pingstone 07:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Subject unfortunately cut off, so it's not encyclopedic enough in my opinion. --mstroeck 09:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose regretfully, due to cut off legs. HighInBC 13:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. It's so sad to see opposes because there is one thing wrong with an otherwise featured picture. I think this image could do good in showing the wing, but of course, as everyone else has said, the full animal isn't shown, so I'm neutral. --Tewy 01:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose His legs are not in the picture, and he is too far in the bottom right corner. Dinosaur puppy 01:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Very, very, reluctant oppose. The legs and tail are cropped off.--JyriL ^talk 22:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Two Towers of Bologne

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.

• Nominate and support. - ZeWrestler ^Talk 02:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Tilted, neighboring building in the midle of the subject. Distracting stuff at the base of the building (bicycles, people, etc.).Nnfolz 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Nnfolz, and I find the wires a little distracting also. --WillMak050389 03:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose A good pic but spoilt by the wires and the dark building on the left - Adrian Pingstone 07:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose due to poor framing, and obstacles. HighInBC 13:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above, and an overexposed sky. --Tewy 01:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Wires, dark building on the right does not help the picture --Digon3 16:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Chopsticks

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

• Nominate and Support. -- TomStar81 21:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose too plain. needs to be jazzed up somehow. -Ravedave ^{help name my baby} 02:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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

[edit] Half Dome Side View

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

• Nominate and support. - Reywas92 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all due to dull colors. The color edit looks better, but the colors look as though they were brought out from an understaturated picture. I think rephotographing the subject is the only solution in this case. HighInBC 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • To me it looks more like an old Ektachrome slide in terms of color balance -- like something taken 30 years ago and only recently scanned. (Not saying that's what it is -- only that it looks like it.) -- Moondigger 13:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, too hazy. SteveHopson 22:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I made a couple edits. I wasn't happy with the sky in the color version, so I tried converting to black & white. The sky still doesn't look right to me. However I think both images are improvements on the original. -- Moondigger 04:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Edit 1 is still better but colors kind of make it look clustered. 24.254.92.184 12:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good shot, but the colors are beyond fixing IMO. --Tewy 19:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• Support Edit 1. Jesse 20:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since I've just been there last weekend and yet have pictures to upload which I think are better than this one. --Dschwen 22:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all. Like HighInBC says, I don't think this pic is salvageable. howcheng {chat} 18:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all. Not salvageable. I think I've made better ones during my visit there last year. Mikeo 01:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Canada Goose in Flight

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)

• Nominate and Support --Fir0002 22:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good composition, lighting, and image quality. A crop might improve, but it's fine the way it is right now. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Support edit 2. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Artisticly and technically excellent. Encyclopedic, a good FP. HighInBC 01:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit #2 Another great upload by Fir0002, very artistically displayed bird, and encyclopedic with a caption on Canadian geese. --WillMak050389 03:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Pharaoh Hound that cropping may enhance the image, but excellent regardless.--Melburnian 06:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • update support to edit 2 for cropping and tweaking of noise. --Melburnian 00:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2. Very nice image - I agree it could be slightly sharper and could be cropped at the bottom slightly (quite a lot of out-of-focus wasteland underneith the bird). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I've done a cropped version for all those interested. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry for duplication Pharoah Hound, I just noticed that the background could also do with some slight noise reduction, but thats just a minor thing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 — Much more clear now that the noise has been reduced. ♠ SG →Talk 20:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 Nice goose. - echidnae 18:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2. The image speaks for itself. --Tewy 19:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2. Beautifully captured. Halsteadk 21:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 Kudos to Pharaoh Hound & Dilliff for great edit work on the image! Jam01 10:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 very nice shot and the edits take care of any issues I'd have with it. Cat-five - talk 08:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. I don't care about which edit because I haven't been able to find any noticeable difference, but the original owner and/or uploader should be mentioned in the edited version and you can't release the edited with the GFDL when the original author only used a CC share alike. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wonderful image. Original is good, editing is not needed.--JyriL ^talk 22:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] 80486DX2 200x

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 ([2]), 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)
  • 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)

Let me see what I can do with that image in photoshop. HighInBC 04:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)

• • • 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)
  • 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)

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

[edit] United States Quarter

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)
• 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)
• Support. Just a good overall image; about the same quality as the featured penny image. --Tewy 01:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, nice. Cat-five - talk 07:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not special coin, not special photo. In principle, this coin has few details to be interesting.Olegivvit 11:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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 [3]?

    • 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)
      • Note the first two word is that quote. say1988 02:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
        • 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)
          • 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)
• Support Beautifully photographed, I love it! - Adrian Pingstone 16:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Encyclopedic, high resolution, good image quality. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Hmmm I bet you could make that lighting effect with a flexible piece of reflectic mylar. HighInBC 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • Skim through these Google images (or [4] or [5]) and you'll find some photos exhibiting this effect, such as [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. There are also examples on eBay, such as [16]. 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)
  • I'm pretty sure they do it with the paint bucket and gradient tools in Photoshop. That's what I mean when I say they're not really photographs. -- Moondigger 13:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very well photographed, high resolution, and deserving of featured status. Hello32020 12:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Shiny support - Shame that there are no shiny coins like that on American streets. Iolakana•T 13:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per moondigger --Vircabutar 16:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Moondiger, it looks artificial. What's so special about this pic again?Nnfolz 22:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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 -- mcshadypl^{Talk Cont} 03:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • 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: [17].
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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
        • A statement which remains true despite your objection. See my comment above, beginning "No, as I explained below..." -- Moondigger 00:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

[edit] Leaf structure

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.

• Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 14:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain - It reminds me of the drawings they had us draw in high school. Very encyclopedic and useful to wikipedia but I don't think it is as visually interesting as a FP should be. HighInBC 14:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I think that it's nice that it is reminiscent of drawing in textbooks - it is certainly of that quality. It's svg as well - if the English is a problem, the numbered version might be better to consider InvictaHOG 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And the words/numbers can be altered in the SVG format. --Tewy 01:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly! I guess I didn't make that so clear. InvictaHOG 01:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. A bit on the dull side, but gives a good, simple model of the structure in SVG. I prefer either, but I like the white background on the second, numbered version. I personally don't know if having words on the diagram is better or worse for a FP, though. --Tewy 01:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A solid design, well-executed, and in a flexible format. This is the kind of thing we need more of.--ragesoss 15:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I like it in principle, but this just isn't that good a diagram, especially when compared to Image:Ant worker morphology corrected.svg. Just doesn't look that proffessional/clean --Fir0002 12:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The diagram could be a lot better. It reminds me of something done with Paint. Jesse 20:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The diagram could be far improved. My main issue is the way that the cells overlap a little at the top. Adenosine | Talk 03:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christus Ravenna Mosaic

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)
• Support Historic, and beautiful. HighInBC 05:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Clear, historic image that is impressive even at thumbnail size--Melburnian 06:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• 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)

comment The PD seems valid, why should it matter if a wikipedian scaned it or not? HighInBC 16:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Support. I don't think those are artifacts at all; that's what tiles look like. I don't think we should discriminate against images not created by Wikipedians. --M@rēino 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Look in the bottom-right corner. That's where it's most noticible. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-26 02:13Z
• Oppose, artifacted, blurry (look around the eyes) and cut off on the right side. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I personally don't think it's large (high-resolution) enough for us to see the details of the artwork. Although I think it's a beatiful artwork, the shot seems rather ordinary --Vircabutar 07:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Curlew

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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
• 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)
• Support. Purty. - echidnae 21:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose The bird is too far to the left. Jam01 10:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
• Support Excellent pic, particularly the composition - Adrian Pingstone 07:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Brown Pelican

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.

• Nominate and Support --Fir0002 08:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support That is incredible. Little uglier than ours though. --liquidGhoul 09:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent. Ugly bird though. --Billpg 09:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great shot.--Melburnian 09:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Its a good pic, but when i first saw it the first thing i noticed was a kind of weird light glow around the bird, i was just wondering what it actually is?? Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 10:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• I can't see it, do you see it at full size? --liquidGhoul 11:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Awesome Renata 11:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose this version, it's suffering from severe shadow/highlight haloing. Would support a version that hasn't been so heavily photoshopped, if we can get hold of the original. --Yummifruitbat 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason as Yummifruitbat. I've noticed in just about all of this contributor's images that the shadow detail has been overcooked. Shadows appear too bright and false. Otherwise I would support it, but it just doesn't look natural to me - something pretty important in a nature photo. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support agree with Fir0002. Stevage 12:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support Wonderful picture, but is it just me or is there a glow about outside of the wings?? HighInBC 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral It is a very nice image, but the halo around the bird is a bit distracting. Could be due to shadow/highlight carelessness, but looks more like what you get when you aren't careful about local contrast enhancement. -- Moondigger 15:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Beautiful Imaninjapirate 16:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per moondigger--Vircabutar 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've uploaded the original image Nautre's Pic's sent me. The image I initially uploaded I applied some contrasting as I felt the original a little flat. But anyway, see what you think - the "halo" may not be as visible in the original. --Fir0002 22:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right, the 'original' is quite flat, but I don't believe that it is straight out of the camera. As I mentioned before, the shadows appear artificially lifted (a little is fine, but too much is a Bad Thing) and contrast is lacking (in both copies). I admit that shadows are not as strong towards sunset (and this image has sunset-like light), but it still doesn't look like it should, and as I mentioned also, I have noticed other images by this contributor that exhibit this issue, so I don't think that it is my imagination. Ah well, post processing is always a very subjective exercise, but I think he does need to be a bit more careful of the result. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 — Very nice photo, and very difficult to capture with such precision. ♠ SG →Talk 22:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not as good as the goose pic. The edit is exagerated. --Dschwen 02:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. This photo is amazing except for the haloing, but I think the exceptional quality makes up for that. --Tewy 02:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Earthrise

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.

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 21:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 21:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose it looks dull. The gray surface of the moon doesn't make it too apealing IMO.Nnfolz 02:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support either/both I love it! I'm not sure how you could spruce up the moon's surface - plant flowers? The gray surface juxtaposed with the earth is part of what really draws me to the picture. InvictaHOG 02:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Comment This is undoubtedly an historic image, but I think it doesn't have the emotional impact of the colour image taken a short time later, which I believe (and according to the article) is the more famous image. Seeing the contrast between the stark, barren and monochramatic moon and the colour and life of Earth, as well as seeing our home planet rendered as something so tiny had a profound effect on how we regarded the planet from that point onward.--Melburnian 02:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, I like that one too. I guess it's a question of historic significance (first photo) or greater cultural impact. I could go with either. howcheng {chat} 03:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  Both are nice, in my opinion - InvictaHOG 03:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. may not be color, but historic, clear, and nicely framed. Outriggr 05:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support either Glaurung 06:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support colored image per Melburnian's reasoning. --WillMak050389 15:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support either. Historicaly notable. --Billpg 15:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support color image; Weak oppose black & white. The color image is more famous for a reason -- it's a much more compelling image, IMO. -- Moondigger 21:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support color image; Oppose B&W The color image is more appealing and just as historically relevant Rtcpenguin 21:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support color image - more historically "iconic". --Davepape 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support colour image -formalising vote as per my earlier comment--Melburnian 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support monochrome image, but strong oppose color — The color image is far more blurry than the monochrome, plus, Earth is further out. The reason the monochrome version was nominated was because of the sharpness and position of our planet in the photo. Beautiful art doesn't have to be colorful. ♠ SG →Talk 22:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support grayscale. Like SG said above, the color has some technical issues, while the grayscale is sharper, more historically significant, and the position of the moon is better. I like the color for its contrast of grayscale and color, but that's all I like about it. --Tewy 01:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The difference in sharpness isn't nearly as dramatic as implied above, and the position of Earth w/r/t the moon's horizon is a subjective matter -- I prefer it up and away a bit, which makes for a more balanced composition in the color image. The sharpness of the color image could easily be tweaked with unsharp masking. -- Moondigger 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wonderful picture, much detail, good subject, etc. Generalnonsensecomic 19:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support either/both, especially colour one. --jjron 07:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Colour image, Oppose B&W. Excellent framing on the color version, poor framing on the B&W. Both are historically significant, but the colored version highlights the "pretty blue marble" by the very nature of being in color. Autopilots 04:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Mecca pilgrim

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.

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 00:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The subject of the photo seems less like a pilgrim than a leader, given his position high above the majority of pilgrims. Also, the description on the image page calls him a "supplicating" pilgrim, which seems a bit strange in context. -- Moondigger 00:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • At full res, you can see other people standing at the top level of the building across the plaza, so it's my assumption that due to the angle of the photographer, you just can't see the other pilgrims standing to either side of this person. howcheng {chat} 06:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Overblown sky, crowd is just a bunch of dots(I know, it's a crowd and crowds look like dots.). Good shot though, I am sure it improves it's article. HighInBC 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Guy blocks the shot, people blurry, and too much sky. --Digon3 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Above --Fir0002 12:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose because of sky, fuzziness, etc. I think the man adds something for certain articles. gren グレン 02:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, due to the leader impression you get from the shot. The crop should be wide enough to include more people. The photographer probably made his descission because he assumes his viewership knows about the mecca pilgrimage, but for an encyclopedia I'd prefer a different version. --Dschwen 14:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dschwen --Billpg 23:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The image page for this photo states that this picture is already a featured picture. --Billpg 23:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Chihuly in Miami

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

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.

• Nominate and support. - Reywas92 00:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - nice sculpture but the top is cutoff with the current framing and the shadows greatly detract from the overall impression - Peripitus (Talk) 04:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Spectacular sculpture. I am sorry that the lighting was not right as this is a fatal flaw in my opinion. Once something is made into a jpeg, it becomes very hard to brighten shadows, something that is hard even on a raw image. Trying to get detail where there is none in a picture usually results in heavy noise. HighInBC 15:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. A neat subject but unfortunately all the shadows are way too distracting. --Nebular110 15:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- ineligible, unless the statue was donated to the public domain. Under US copyright law, statues and other 3-D artworks are copyrighted (see Commons:Derivative works). Additionally, you cannot declare this photo GFDL-self. Please use the {{Statue}} fair use tag instead. howcheng {chat} 18:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose Not eligible for FP because of lisencing issue. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Fair use is not an applicable liscnece for FPs. Sorry :-/ TomStar81 02:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Copyright issues. besides i find the sculpture ugly.Nnfolz 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Writing Systems of the World

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)
• Oppose looks confusing Reywas92 23:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support Per Mitaphane. Glaurung 05:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• Support - A very interesting and well-done map. I've never seen the world's different writing systems laid out geographically. You can learn a lot just by looking over this graphic for a minute or two. If a picture is worth a thousand words, how much is a picture of a thousand writing systems worth? Kaldari 03:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Way to busy. Numbered with a legens would be FAR superior. say1988 17:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice idea, poor implementation. The information is not presented in a terribly clear and easily-understandable fashion. But, I do like the core concept. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - a similar FP: Image:Langs N.Amer.png. howcheng {chat} 22:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - how about simply colouring the map and using {{legend}} in the caption? That would make the image useful as a thumbnail. Zocky | picture popups 10:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image formation from pixels

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.

• Nominate and support. - ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Why the confusing enlargement numbers? 64x is the same size of the original image as 1x... The first two don't even show the LCD pixels at all. --Janke | Talk 12:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Nice idea, but 1x = 64x and 8x = 512x. per unclear subject. I think a picture should be understandable without the caption. HighInBC 14:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have reworded the caption to make it less confusing, also added arrows to the image -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 17:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose -- I removed it from the pixel article, put it into the talk, and asked for clarification and got none. It's probably better to nominate pictures that are at least tolerable in an article. Dicklyon 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC) -- and now I reverted it from Liquid-crystal display, too.
• Oppose, bottom right picture quality is poor, not FP standard.--Andeh 03:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

[edit] Sunset at Grain Elevator

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

• Nominate and support. - -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 00:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose becauaw it's too fuzzy and the lights are all blown... although, I suppose that is part of the effects... gren グレン 02:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Grainy, too much sky, and does not depict the subject(s) well. About the only good place for this would be in evening star, and even then there could be a better picture for FP. --Tewy 03:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I posted an edited version with reduced grain. I kind of like it because of the moon and Venus, though I agree it's not a particularly encyclopedic image of a grain elevator. -- Moondigger 04:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I love the fact that a photo of a grain elevator had to be altered because it was too grainy. TSP 21:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Illustrates the Evening Star rather well. Dr Zak 04:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blurry, jpg artifacts. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very little data, subject is not clear for either grain evelevator or evening star. HighInBC 14:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose too much sky, too dark Reywas92 23:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] LCD Pixels (Public domain version of previous featured picture)

• Nominate. - Noclip 23:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What is the source of the original image? NASA? Whatever the source the status of the original image needs to be cleared up on the image page. HighInBC 23:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support It's a good look at how LCD pixels operate -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 00:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Oppose. Image:Liquid Crystal Display Macro Example zoom.jpg illustrates the subject much better. Dr Zak 04:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• That one was stripped of featured status because it isn't fully free--it contains the copyrighted wikipedia logo. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Unless a picture displays the details that that picture shows it can't be featured. Dr Zak 21:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Oppose. Too busy. The concept is sound, but this choice of base image is inappropriate. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Homeless man NYC

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.

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 16:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 Despite minor noise. Good picture, well expossed and encyclopedic subject matter. I like that he is shown in situ. Also, not a bad example of the rule of thirds HighInBC 17:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting composition. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 18:11Z
• Support — Nice picture, but I've also uploaded an edited version to reduce some noise and not make the ground so bright. I support either version, though. ♠ SG →Talk 19:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. In thumbnail size, I had trouble picking out features like the man's head. --M@rēino 19:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment What kind of monitor are you using? I can see the head clearly in thumbnail view. HighInBC 19:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support the original photo. IMHO, it looks better than the edit. TomStar81 22:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support original photo. Interesting, adds great value to the article. --vineeth 06:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, artsy composition detracts from encyclopedic illustration of the subject. Most of the image is occupied by the background, crowding the subject against the bottom and left. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Nice image, looking good should be a reason for supporting it, not opposing it. Iorek85 08:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Either version with preference for edit --Fir0002 12:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Per Night Gyr. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Night Gyr --Vircabutar 16:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support original or edit 1. Per Night Gyr, and the fact that there are some blown highlights in the shoes and such. Otherwise a very aesthetically pleasing picture. --Tewy 18:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Pic is tilted. Correcting the slope improves it greatly so I do not understand the remark above, saying that the tilt can't be corrected. I've brought it into my graphics program and correcting the tilt is easy and greatly improves the look of the pic. I've not uploaded it here because I'm too lazy - Adrian Pingstone 22:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 00:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 I rotated the Edit 1 version of the image so that the column is vertical. If requested, this can easily be done to the original image, as well. -- mcshadypl^{Talk Cont} 03:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Original, Oppose edit 1,2. Edit 1 just blurs the pic, edit 2 ruins the composition by cropping to close to the feet, plus in a pic like this the collumn doesn't have to be exactly vertical, the slight slant emotionally intensifies the picture. As for the original, great picture, the background is absolutely needed, I creates a feeling of desolate lonelyness. --Dschwen 13:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment It is obviously impossible to align the image without cropping it, as white edges would have appeared at the corners. -- mcshadypl^{Talk Cont} 18:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why my point was: Don't align it! --Dschwen 18:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support either of the three with preference for the original. Definately meets enough Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? critera to warrant it becoming featured.--Jersey Devil 18:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Its amaizing how an image that is both artistic and encyclopedic looks. Id rather have the second edit without so much croping, the feet are way to close to the edge of the picture. if none can come up with it original is better.Nnfolz 21:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all. The original is an interesting attempt, but is cropped a bit too closely in the lower left and the sneakers and cart contents are almost completely blown. It's also more of a subtle political comment (given the prominence of the flag) than it is an encyclopedic image of homelessness. Something that shows a homeless person asleep in a doorway, on a steam grate or in a shanty would work better to illustrate homelessness. -- Moondigger 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fantastic shot, but WAY too much grain/noise (film or digital?) for FPC, IMO. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above and the other people who have voted oppose and there is also some blown highlights.. this image is OK but not an FP. Arad 23:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Artistic and encyclopedic. - Darwinek 22:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Artsy depiction detracts from the plight of homeless people, which should be what an encyclopaedic pic focuses on. --jjron 06:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above: not encyclopedic. Good candidate for the same category in Commons though, which it already is. —Jared Hunt September 4, 2006, 22:49 (UTC)

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

[edit] Anole

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.

• Nominate and support. - Phirst 04:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, despite cut off tail and out of focus foot still a great picture with awesome resolution. --Dschwen 06:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 2 Support due to it being a great picture, the weakness of my support is due to the face and tail being soft on focus, and the foot being out of focus. HighInBC 15:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Right rear foot is somewhat out of focus but the quality of everything else kind of overrides that in my opinion. --Nebular110 17:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Support Edit 1. Great image - good detail and composition, although as mentioned by others, the whole tail would have been better. Edit 1 is a minor (but justified) improvement. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The focus is in the wrong spot - center of the lizards body, hence the most important part (head) is out of focus. --Fir0002 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Support. A full depiction of a really long tail would (in a likely scenario) take away the nice detail. –Outʀiggʀ 00:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - that's exactly what I thought! Phirst 04:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - from the article, it seems that the green anole is the same as the Carolina anole? It shouldn't really affect voting here, but the Carolina anole page contains a picture of the lizard which is already a FP (which I personally prefer, though not enough to oppose this one) InvictaHOG 04:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 2 good detail and colors --Luc Viatour 07:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Tail is cut off. Head is out of focus. Mikeo 10:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 Jesse 22:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very clear and contrasting. My only concern is that the image is incomplete because of the missing tail. --Midnight Rider 04:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice pic, but IMO cut-off tail precludes this from being FP. --jjron 06:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2. Good detail, saturation, the edit has good sharpness. I'm not particularly bothered by the cut-off tail. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Missing tail spoils encyclopedicity, too shallow DOF. --Janke | Talk 16:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The detail is great, but at the resultions it will be most seen at (thumbnail and the medium resolution on the image page), the vices stand out and the virtues are still hidden. The tail is th biggest problem.--ragesoss 17:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support per Pharaoh Hound--Vircabutar 23:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Don't care about which edit. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Cal Sea Lions on Pier 39

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.

• Nominate and support. - Reywas92 20:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose over exposed. chowells 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor lighting and composition. Can't see any detail on the sea lions themselves.Nnfolz 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose by nnfolz, lighting is too harsh, environment too artificial. Sorry, looks rather like a tourist snapshot. --Dschwen 06:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Stylistically and technically it has some problems, but the content I think is good. It doesn't matter if the environment is "too artificial" because its a picture of one of San Francisco's most famous (though certainly not the most famous) tourist attractions. Anyway, these are wild animals behaving as they do in the wild choosing to sun themselves here without being baited, what’s artificial about that? I say a shot like this with a little better composition and a lot less glare would make a great FPC.--Niro5 13:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice subject, encyclopedic, but the technical issues preclude me from supporting this. Specifically the underexposed shadows and the glare off the animals. HighInBC 15:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per nnfolz. howcheng {chat} 15:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. per all oppose. Cropping, composition, and lighting are poor. --Nebular110 17:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not pleasing to the eye. Sorry Babayi 21:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE: User's only 6 edits are to FPC nominations. howcheng {chat} 23:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above --Fir0002 23:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tourist snapshot. Mikeo 14:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Arge Bam

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.

• Nominate and support. - Arad 18:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

So what kind of camera did you use? --Dschwen 12:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose. The other two pics in the article add more to it. (although quality and choice of format are worse) --Dschwen 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support It`s an amazing photo from a building that is not in a good shape anymore which makes it more rare and important. It's good quality and well taken. It`s a FP. I prefer Edit 1 QAZ 14:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE: User's only 3 edits are to FPC nominations. howcheng {chat} 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Overexposed. howcheng {chat} 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I would use a bit of Photoshop to touch-up the picture for optimized contrast.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zereshk (talk • contribs)
• Weak oppose. It's a really nice pic but there are just too many other issues (somewhat low-res, the car (or whatever it is) in the lower right) for me to support even though the structure is now gone. --Nebular110 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support The edit 1 looks good and the building itself is very old. the car doesn't bother me non. The quality is good too. I think it qualifies as a FP. 66.36.155.198 21:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Six of user's seven edits are to FPC nominations. howcheng {chat} 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like the mix of the colors. I think the blue sky and Bam look good in this picture. And it represents the Persian Architecture too. Babayi 21:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

forgot to mention that both images are good. Edit 1 has a better contrast. Babayi 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• • NOTE: User's only 6 edits are to FPC nominations. howcheng {chat} 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Blown highlights - looks like it has had a bit of Diffuse glow applied to it in Photoshop. --Fir0002 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Support it desreves Featured Picture--Pejman47 12:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good pic for the article, but appearance of being overexposed detracts from its appeal as an FP. --jjron 06:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Note: This is an ADOBE building. The natural look of the castle is bright not overexposed. Arad 13:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

That's an interesting point you've raised there - I've actually noticed that as well. --Fir0002 05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose. It's overexposed and haloed. —Keenan Pepper 04:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

• Oppose. Both images suffer from clear distortions in the cloud and probably elsewhere too. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Nagasaki Explosion

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)
• 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)
  • It is a historically significant event. The picture is a prominent illustration of the subject. Mikeo 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • The criteria reads "be pleasing to the eye". It is not pleasing to my eye, you can say whatever you want, but that is my opinion.-Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
• Support. Extremely unique, and historically significant (totaly irreplaceable). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support as Pharoh Hound said above. Reywas92 20:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Strong support, mainly to offset ravedave. --Golbez 11:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • Objections on "moral" reasons will be ignored - scary statement in any context. –Outʀiggʀ 00:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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 [18] or [19], 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose per users above. - Darwinek 22:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support Well said jjron. --Fir0002 09:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose has historical significance, but as a picture itself there is nothing noteworthy about it. Michaeln36 11:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I have always found pictures of mushroom clouds striking. PPGMD 23:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

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

[edit] ThirteenthGreg

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.

• Nominate and support. - ThirteenthGreg 12:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blown sky, distortion around the edges, poor saturation, the buildings take up more of the image than the subject itself. For me it also fails WP:WIAFP criteria 7: be pleasing to the eye. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Everything Pharoah Hound mentions, and there is quite poor stitching between some segments (most visible on the brown building left of centre and on the water). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As Diliff sys, the awful stitching on the brown building rules it out for me - Adrian Pingstone 14:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Stitching? This is just a few pics pasted next to each other. --Dschwen 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poor stitching, not pleasing to the eye. Chicago god 20:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Very overblown sky, other issues but the sky is enough to oppose. HighInBC 15:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Herzegovina

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)

• Nominate and support. - HarisM 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. I do like this picture in technicallity (though I should note the powerlines), but I'm not sure what the subject is. Maybe you could enlighten me and get a support. --Tewy 03:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I would like that original photo stays, and if someone like please support it. HarisM 08:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• Weak Oppose, agree with Diliff, Strongly Oppose edit IMHO this modification does definetely go too far. --Dschwen 14:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose per Adrian Pingstone Jesse 22:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Sweet photo. It isn't ordinary in any way in my view. - Darwinek 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

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

[edit] Île de la Cité

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)

• Nominate and Abstain. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • How does the edit look? It doesn't look hazy to me, and the clouds are atmospheric imho ;), but I agree that it could have been a little brighter. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support Most excellent in every respect - Adrian Pingstone 14:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support Well composed, good exposure. Encyclopedic content. HighInBC 15:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose. While sharpness is excellent, lighting is poor. Grey sky, grey buldings - not pleasing to the eye. Mikeo 10:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

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

[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.

• Nominate and Support. - DevAnubis 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nice picture, but soft focus on the animal. HighInBC 18:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - while soft focus may be appropriate for such a cute little bugger, I have to agree focus is a problem, as well as the shadow that obscures much detail. Debivort 20:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Out of focus. Also blends in too much with the background. Mikeo 20:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above. --Tewy 03:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - looks like digital zoom was used, or it was blown up afterwards to meet the size requirements. Stevage 08:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose Blurred - Adrian Pingstone 14:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The shadow is very distracting. The composition isn't exceptional either. Saurabh Rahurkar 20:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Burnt Tree

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.

• Nominate and support. - Jake (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose From an aestetic point of view it strikes me as nice, but it has limited encyclopedic value and there is little detail on the tree itself(I know it is supposed to be black). HighInBC 00:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. From the position of the tree (near a hot spring) I would suppose that this one was rather killed by a change in activity of that spring, causing it to be exposed to volcanic gases at a higher degree than before. In these cases the tree trunks usually turn black or grey. You can see this in Yellowstone National Park (besides the many burnt trees resulting from the big fire). Besides that I do not like the composition. The tree in the center of the picture is making it look very dull. I also would like to see more details of the tree. Mikeo 01:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above; more detail in the actual tree would be better. --Tewy 02:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Here's a cut version. --Jake (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't get the point of this pic. A burnt tree is not, in my opinion, a worthwhile addition to the Yellowstone Park article. Much better to keep that space free for an informative pic of the park. - Adrian Pingstone 13:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with most of the previous comments. It isn't a significant enough addition to the article to be considered FP. As Adrian Pingstone mentions, I'm not sure if its even significant enough to be in the article at all. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Wow, big deal.Arad 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unencyclopedic (all it tells you about Yellowstone is that it has trees and forest fires), boring, not pleasing to the eye. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not striking. Jam01 06:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Jimbo Wales

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.

• Nominate and support. - - Jack (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There is nothing that makes this picture special, other than Jimbo. HighInBC 23:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - not FP material. Renata 23:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with the above, this is a nice shot but even technically it's flawed by the skewed centering, and there's hardly anything significant to this shot other than that it is of Jimbo. Cat-five - talk 00:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Subject not prominent, too much background, a lot of noise (could be fixed), and not very interesting; if you look at this image from the standpoint of the subject being a typical person, the image is quite boring. And this better not end up like Wikipe-tan did (but that was far better than this picture). --Tewy 02:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bad composition. Focus of the image is hard to see in thumbnail. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Colour balance is off, framing could be a lot tighter, poor focus and slightly motion blurred. 1/25s exposure at ~100mm focal length is asking for trouble. Not the best choice of lens for this situation. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm learning a lot from this image. hmmm very encyclopedic. This guy is very handsome, is he friend of my teacher or brother of my neighbor? (Per above) Arad 02:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

by the way Wiki-tan is another mistake of being nominated. Arad 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose He is too far to the right in the image. Jam01 06:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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)

• Strong oppose Does this pic have to be FP just because it is of Jimbo? There are already too many pictures of him already.He is the only significant thing in this picture.--Chili14 03:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, not FP material. Punkmorten 07:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Earth-Moon.png

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.

• Nominate and support (Orig or Edit3). - Billpg 17:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support (Edit 1). I prefer it with the moon's line, as it shows how much the moon's distance changes, but even without the lines, its still good. --Billpg 22:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support (Edit 2). Edit 3's lines look better IMO. --Billpg 12:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 1 - While the white lines are explained in the image talk page, on the image itself it is confusing. I would support a version of this without the lines. I like it, alot of blank space, but that is accurate. HighInBC 19:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, per HighInBC. Also, the white line below the moon forces the image to be wider than it needs to be - Jack (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 - Jack (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Copied description of white lines from Image page. I'll have a go at cropping the white lines later. (If anyone else wants to do it, please do.) --Billpg 21:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Done - Jack (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• Support original version. Give a good comprehension --Luc Viatour 04:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Submitted as Edit 2 for your consideration. --Billpg 08:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• Support original only - I agree the lines are a distraction. Kaldari 02:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support original or edit 2. I prefer edit 2 slightly.--ragesoss 05:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support original, oppose all edits. The original is an ok illustration I like how instructive it is vs. just describing the distance verbally. The edits all just step it down though. --Dschwen 14:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support original Reywas92 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. great pic! Jawed 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Perhaps my point is somewhat OT, but if the image shows relative sizes and the distance of Earth and Moon correctly, perhaps it should show also their relative brightnesses. Earth's surface is as much as three times as bright as Moon's (hard to believe at the full moon). Note that Moon in the last image is far too bright relative to Earth. But probably Earth would be too bright and Moon too dark making the image hard to view. Maybe another image is better (with other Solar system bodies included to give an idea how dark Moon actually is).--JyriL ^talk 21:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Original only. Interesting image, although I find the cropping on the LHS of the earth too tight --Fir0002 23:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 3 Jesse 22:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, no preference for edit number, although I would like to see the vertical version as featured pic (which is on the Moon article). --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 05:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nominator's comment. Personally, I prefer the horizontal version, but I'd be happy to throw this version in as Edit 4, but it seems rather late in the day for this new one to get a fair hearing. I suppose we could abandon this discussion and re-nominate, but I'd like to get opinions from those who have been doing FP discussion for aeons on the best course to take. (This is my first FP nom.) --Billpg 11:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This could never be featured on the main page or in any portal becuase of it's Wack proportions. Tobyk777 06:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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.

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 17:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Good one, --vineeth 17:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose A, Support B—B is easier to interpret and better in technical quality. the amount of shadow and the graininess are problems. –Outʀiggʀ 23:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC) & Outriggr 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support Shadow is a minor problem, and the grain a little less minor of a problem. But the photo is very depictive of it's subject and you can see detail throughout. HighInBC 19:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Grainy, blurry, bad lighting. On the other hand, it is very encyclopedic. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Just a few technical issues (grain, lighting, etc.). Otherwise good. --Tewy
• Support Awesome picture. RyGuy17 03:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per above oppose--Vircabutar 06:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, a few technical glitches, mostly blurring, but otherwise illustrative and encyclopedic to a degree I find the glitches too minor to object for. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I don't see how pic a is better than pic b. And both pictures do not clearly show that the cicada is moulting (i.e. crawling out of its old skin) they could be two animals behind each other. If that point were clearer I'd support either. --Dschwen 15:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • At least in the first picture, if you look near the head you can see that the animal is indeed "crawling out of its old skin", because part of the actual animal is in front of the skin and part is behind. --Tewy 21:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ...And in the second picture, you can see a bit of the actual animal through the semi-transparent skin. I guess it does take some examination, though. --Tewy 21:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support first picture, an interesting subject Reywas92 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Lack of sharpness, lighting --Fir0002 23:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Honeybee

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

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Despite narrow DOF and barely meeting size requirements, it's good, and illustrative. Outriggr 17:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Support I love this beautiful picture - Adrian Pingstone 19:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support Good profile of a bee, and excellent depiction of pollen in situ. HighInBC 19:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice detail. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-28 21:53Z
• Support. It has a narrow DOF, but still displays the bee and the pollen very well. --Tewy 03:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice lighting --Luc Viatour 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support -Glaurung 05:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice! --Vircabutar 06:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support very nice. Cat-five - talk 08:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. Vibrant colors; excellent subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The wing looks broken off, and the bee looks dead and dried. Olegivvit 10:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Support It's true the wing is broken but the image is well taken. I hate bees, this image is an exeption. Arad 18:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, love the detail. Stevage 08:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I find it anoying that half the subject is out of focus, to me it's artistic, not encyclopedic. Still, props on taking the time & effort to shoot stuff like this.Nnfolz 22:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment If the subject is pollen, then it is in focus. HighInBC 22:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's true Arad 23:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Fantastic macro shot! --Fir0002 23:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Magnificient picture. - Darwinek 22:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, very nice picture, and good macro. —dima/s-ko/ 22:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. One of the best insect shots to come along in a while.--ragesoss 17:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose due to the too-shallow DOF and the damaged wing. -- Moondigger 00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strog support. Awesome! --Deon555^talk_Review 08:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Solar eclipse 1999

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

• support. Already a FP at Wikipedia Commons.Spikebrennan 14:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I'd have nominated this one myself, but I thought it was already featured. -- Moondigger 14:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. A very good example of a solar eclipse. Good job with the noise reduction. HighInBC 15:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice. Great capture of the corona. --Nebular110 15:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I was getting around to nominating this myself. howcheng {chat} 16:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support - perfect - Jack (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Overall very nice. Unfortunately grainy, but as there's basically no sharp details to speak of in the image the graininess could be readily fixed. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. I've reduced some of the grain and feel this is a more aesthetically pleasing image now. There are still some artifacts around the edges that could be cleaned up, but I didn't want to be tinkering with actual details. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. The edit is making this very encyclopedic picture more pleasing to the eye. Mikeo 01:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral on edit 1. Some bad artifacts around the edges, but very good otherwise, so I'm not sure where to stand. --Tewy 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: The artifacts existed in both images, but just stand out a bit more when the grain is removed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose on edit 1. the "grainy" belongs to the original document, it is film. And it once gives a structure printed on paper.--Luc Viatour 05:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This is true, but it is the resulting information that concerns many wikipedians, not the original document that the information is on. I can appreciate both arguments though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • if a wikipedians prints the picture, the picture is more “real” with the grain (sorry for my English) --Luc Viatour 07:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't agree that a photo is more 'real' if it contains the imperfections inherent in the capture of the image. I think that what should be determined is what is, visually, the most representative of reality. In this case, I don't think you could say that the grain is part of what makes the image 'real'. Just my opinion though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Imperfections caused by the medium are something to be avoided in a clear illustration in my opinion. I think film grain is just as distracting as jpeg artifacts and are both equivilent. HighInBC 17:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Either versions are fine. The subject is very difficult to photograph at such detail, good work.--JyriL ^talk 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 --Fir0002 23:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support consensus version. --jjron 06:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Baghe Eram Shiraz

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.

• Nominate and support. - Arad 12:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• oppose - Blownout highlights, jpg artifacts along the top left of the photo. Nice looking place though.--Niro5 13:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice pic. Deserves to be a FP. Good job. QAZ 14:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE: User's only three edits are to FPC nominations. howcheng {chat} 23:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Over compressed resulting in jpeg artifacts. Wall is so overblown it bleeds through the fence. HighInBC 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Niro5 and HighInBC. howcheng {chat} 15:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. That's a pretty good shot actually. The building area is always saturated with tourists, and the suns angles make it difficult to get a good shot like this one. (Unsigned by User:Zereshk 2006-08-31 18:34:30))
• Oppose. Overexposed central part, blurry in full size. --Janke | Talk 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Downsampled edit uploaded as Edit 1, as per the Bam photo. I couldn't do as much for this one, though. For what it's worth, there aren't any substantial blown areas of the photo in the technical sense; though there are quite a few that skim the top of the histogram for a pixel or two. TSP 19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support As have already mentioned Zereshk, This garden is always full of tourists and once I tried, the results were disappointing. Support either. Good job. 66.36.155.198 21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Six of user's seven edits are to FPC nominations. howcheng {chat} 23:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support It does what it says, elements of Persian Garden. I say good. both are good but edit 1 look a bit better (not much) Babayi 21:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE: User's only 6 edits are to FPC nominations. howcheng {chat} 23:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too washed out, too out of focus -- doesn't convey the information that it should. SteveHopson 22:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose--Vircabutar 07:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The pierced wall below the two columns is far too bright, spoiling the picture for me - Adrian Pingstone 07:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• weak support--Pejman47 12:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the water and the wall are severly blown out. Hbdragon88 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Peterhof Cascade

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.

• Nominate and support. - Tokugawapants 03:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This might sound silly considering there are tourists all over the place, but those people in the lower left really bug me. howcheng {chat} 16:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose not just because of the people since considering the location that probably can't be avoided, but more because of the odd angle the shot is taken from giving it a weird view. Cat-five - talk 21:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The angle and the lighting are both weird. People in shots don't bother me, but these people are looking away giving the impression that the scene is uninteresting. SteveHopson 15:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I know people can't be avoided, but people in the foreground can be, and the ones on the left spoil it for me. HighInBC 17:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Cat-five. Mikeo 15:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Giant planes comparison

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.

• Nominate and support. - - Jack (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I really liked the prior version (had seen it before it was nominated) but understood that png was less desirable than svg. However, now that it's svg, I say it's a wonderful diagram deserving of FP! InvictaHOG 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The text runs into itself on the length captions, and the first width caption. Also, the "m" is cut off on the height captions. --liquidGhoul 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the Mediawiki thumbs look ok, but KSVG and Inkscape reveal the problems. Weird. --Dschwen 07:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

I think on a wiki, ease of editing the text should take priority. Redquark 16:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• Support. Looks great; if there are technical problems, just upload a PNG copy as an alternative. Fredrik Johansson 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a png version right here, didn't make the grade, though - Jack (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support nice image. chowells 19:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Quite comprehensive; caption would need links to the articles on planes. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 14:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, less cluttered and improved colour over the last version.--Peta 05:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very encyclopedic. Pleasing to the eye. Professional-looking. Mikeo 16:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Why non-existing Boeing 747 Intercontinental listed here ? Was there any flight tests to measure it's actual size ? This seems to be violation of NPOV as it's very pro-American. If used non-existing why not 747-8 Freighter ? Use existing aircraft version and remove wildcard notes. --TAG 18:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's well-known what size the Intercontinental will be; Boeing has released full statistics on it, and prototypes have been built. There is no particular reason to exclude it from the image. (Also, the Frieghter and the Intercontinental are the same plane; the Intercontinetal will have a different interior as it is a passenger plane, but the exteriors will be identical.) —Cuiviénen 23:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If this is well-known, what is the reason for wildcard in image ? As well - if we are listing here future aircrafts - how long in future we can look ? BTW, One of original JPG/PNG images was for 747-400. --TAG 00:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The length of the 747-8 is not yet set in stone, and won't be until 2007. I drew the diagram with the same length as the 747-8F, relying on the latest industry news [20], which says the passenger model is all but certain to be the same length as the freight model. I find it amusing that this would pass as pro-American lack of NPOV, when leaving the 747-400 would have led to complaints that I was showing the smaller 747 (anti-American lack of NPOV). Bottom line: I drew this with the best and latest information I could find. --Ctillier 01:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
        • four largest aircraft ever built ? --TAG 09:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, great pic, illustrates the subject very nicely. Tempshill 04:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Giant planes comparison.svg Raven4x4x 09:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female Mallard

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

• Nominate and Support --Fir0002 09:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Lovely pic, great focus and colour. I know some will object to the off-focus ducklings but remember that the subject of this photo is the mother - Adrian Pingstone 09:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - very nice. Renata 11:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Awwww duckies! --Billpg 11:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice saturation and composition (not to mention being insanely cute!). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Awwwwwwwww. And good technical quality. HighInBC 17:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Simply Flawless. The Best of Wikipedia. Nilington 17:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Surely this image has already a foot in Featured Pictures and congradulations. But I find it grainy. If that is the case, then do you need an edited version without noise? I like this image too. I had little duckies when I was a kid. I gave them to a farmer because the I felt their place was too little. Anyway I'll be more than happy to reduce the grain. Arad 21:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2. I actually think the composition is slightly busy, particularly in the thumbnail, but the detail is good and the scene is natural. I agree with Arad, I noticed the noise/grain as well and have uploaded an edit which fixes this issue. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Support. Sweet. - Darwinek 22:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Comment Awwwwwwwwww kitties! --Billpg 03:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Comment Sadly as a result of global warming, the lake was evaporated and this is the condition of the unfortunate duckies: [21]

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.

• Strong Support A very colourfull and detailed picture. It is very clear and it shows both the hen and the ducklings very well. --Midnight Rider 04:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2, or any. It's all been said already. --jjron 06:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Here, the image quality is the "wow" factor. --Janke | Talk 16:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support as per Jjron Michaeln36 10:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support whichever edit. —Jared Hunt September 5, 2006, 21:07 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2. Or any. Per Adrian Pingstone. Nauticashades 16:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 Awww, i Want one. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support any edit. It's an amazing picture.--Húsönd 19:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Do I have to add my support too? Arad 22:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] StanfordCampus

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.

• Nominate and support. - Beachman3 05:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Are those buildings really curved? Or is that distortion? HighInBC 17:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The buildings are distorted, plus the sky is blown out on the left. —Keenan Pepper 19:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It's distortion. I was married there and the photo doesn't do it justice. Another photo from the same vantage point (Hoover Tower, I assume) would be better than this. InvictaHOG 22:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think the "distortion" point needs to be extra stressed. --Midnight Rider 04:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. It's a good picture, but the distortion is too much. Nauticashades 18:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Two International Finance Centre

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

• Striking angle and well offset against the cloud cover. It's good quality and used in International Finance Centre, Hong Kong and Central, Hong Kong. Thank you.
• Kindly donated by Stewart Johnston.

• Nominate and support. Arad 04:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Top is out of focus. HighInBC 17:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose per HighInBC and because we can't see the bottom part or anything interesting. —Keenan Pepper 19:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Above. I don't think it's out of focus, it's just suffering from motion blur. --Fir0002 22:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Oppose. Camera shake and bottom left corner. --Dschwen 11:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Opppose per Dschwen. chowells 19:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. Just out of interest, what do people think of Image:Two International Finance Centre (1).jpg? There's no motion blur... but there is a street lamp :( enochlau (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Ok :) enochlau (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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

[edit] St.Paul

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.

• Nominate and support. - Appraiser 22:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry but the subject is too far away, blurry, bad composition and uninformative. Witty lama 00:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Hazy, there is a park in the way of the subject. Soft focus on city. HighInBC 00:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Pic needs anticlockwise rotation - Adrian Pingstone 09:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per HighInBC. --대조 | Talk 10:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per HighInBC, but I'd support if the picture was used for the park. --Billpg 11:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per HighInBC. Would have been nice if you went a bit farther away. —Jared Hunt September 4, 2006, 22:43 (UTC)
• Oppose Not only is the picture hazy and blurry, but it is also really boring and doesn't focus on anything in particular. --Midnight Rider 23:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per HighInBC. Nauticashades 17:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Ticonderoga class cruiser

Since adding this photo some monthes 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 illistrate the port side of a naval vessel, and I feel that the photos placement in that article signifigantly adds to the quality of the article. Therefore, I am nominating this for FP status.

• Nominate and Support TomStar81 21:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, blurry at full res, can't make out a lot of detail on the ship. It's not a very spectatular photo, and it doesn't really show enough information to make up for it. I'm sure there are better pictures of ships out there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Blurry at full res. An often photographed subject requires higher standards. HighInBC 00:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Strongly agree with Night Gyr - Adrian Pingstone 09:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per Night Gyr. Nauticashades 17:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Sakyamuni Buddha

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.

• Nominate and support. - doniv 12:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent example of what a good encyclopedic picture looks like. HighInBC 15:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - The severe perspective distortion makes this uncomfortable to look at.--ragesoss 17:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Perhaps, but it's still problematic, in my opinion.--ragesoss 00:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Wonderful focus, great colours, excellent picture - Adrian Pingstone 20:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent shot. I think the perspective works well. --Davepape 03:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ragesoss. I'd like to see a pic of this as an FP, but I find this one awkward as well. --jjron 02:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Is there anything that can be done to correct the photograph?. The real problem here (as is with most other gompas 123) is that this is a huge statue (26 feet) in a confined space.
  • Sure, take a picture using a perspective correction lens. howcheng {chat} 06:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I was hoping for software :) Anyways, I tried with Hugin but couldn't quite manage to get the desired results. Hopefully someone else would be willing to take a go - doniv 08:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• I think what he meant was clear and simple. This image has no hint where is this old "historical" mine is located. 66.36.132.147 00:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Nice picture, but the subject is not clear without further explanation. I think a FP should make the subject clear within the image itself. HighInBC 15:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support pleasing to my eye. background full of small beautiful trees, adds to the subject.Henry A-W 18:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The largest version of this picture has a grainy look characteristic of too heavy a hand on the sharpening. Fir, am I right? - Adrian Pingstone 20:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose the background makes this very hard to discern. 24.31.9.226
• Oppose An interesting picture perhaps, but lacks the "wow" factor. --Vircabutar 04:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per HighInBC. —Jared Hunt September 4, 2006, 17:49 (UTC)
• Weak support. It's quite representative of its subject I'd agree, but the background makes things slightly hard to discern... but that's how it is. enochlau (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Unique subject for a panorama! Has a 'wow' factor for me - most people with a camera aren't going to leave with this. I find the contrast very high, but can live with that. –Outʀiggʀ 03:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As per nomination. I also think we should give this a chance. Nauticashades 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Triangulum nebula full

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.

• Nominate and oppose support withdrawn - lets wait for a better nebula picture then hey? - Michaeln36 11:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Despite being very encyclopedic and interesting, it has many visual flaws. The square of higher detail in the upper right and the christmass tree light look of the starts detract from it in my opinion. Astronomical photos can be alot better. HighInBC 14:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The dark rectangle is a small irritation but such missing areas are fairly common in astronomical photos. What rules it out as FP for me is what I think is serious grain on the highest resolution version of this pic (I don't think they're all stars!) - Adrian Pingstone 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It looks like it was scanned on a dirty scanner.Nnfolz 15:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Adrian Pingstone. --Tewy 00:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Adrian Pingstone. Nauticashades 17:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as others. If you want a really good nebula shot, I'm uploading a 6K version of STSci's recent Orion Nebula composite, and could nominate that next. --Davepape 19:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Wadi Rum Images

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)
• 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)
• 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)

I have seperated the nominations. --Eshcorp 17:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - stiching is readily detectable as areas of detail duplication. Debivort 17:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Debivort. —Jared Hunt September 4, 2006, 17:46 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Per above opposes, and it looks oversharpened on the left. Otherwise it's good. --Tewy 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Debivort and Tewy. I also don't find it that interesting. Nauticashades 17:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Wadi Rum Image 2

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).

• Nominate and support. - Eshcorp 17:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• support edit - I like the blue/orange contrast and the depth as conveyed by the haze, but it is blurry at full resolution. I sharpened, downsampled, degrained sky and distant layer of rocks, and did a minor level adjust. Debivort 18:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 1. Much better than the original, but still hazy. I also wonder if the picture would be better with less sky shown. --Tewy 18:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Could be of higher quality and resolution. --Hetar 05:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Support original. Edit lost resolution and clarity. What where they trying to edit anyway? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Was trying to sharpen the original by downsampling it => lower res. Also degrained a bit, but I doubt that could have been done at high resolution. Debivort 16:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The edit is worse than the original. Is it just me, or does the presence of an edit magically compell people to support one of the versions, just because they prefer it over the other version? --Dschwen 11:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well for my vote at least, I actually did like the edit by itself, not just because it was better (as a weak support). --Tewy 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per hazyness and softness. HighInBC 14:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a nice, interesting landscape, but the image is unfortunately flawed. Noise is a problem (as in most landscapes), although this could be removed. Colour balance is also wrong, as I can't imagine a scene with purple tinged shadows. These issues could, in theory, be resolved but other issues such as softness would remain - its just too flawed for me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Sens de circulation

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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

[edit] World Trade Center remants

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).

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 21:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, the remains are out of focus, and most of the picture (including a digger which would help the image) is heavily shadowed. It would be a great pucture for the article Back of a fireman's head, but in my opinion, is only a mediocre picture of the WTC ruins - Jack (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support, iconic, historical, very very encyclopedic. But has many technical failings, including shadow, soft focus, underexposed midground, and while it does meet the 1000 pixel limit, I prefer that both dimensions reach atlest 1000pixels. HighInBC 22:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have just uploaded a bigger version (1312x2000) Mikeo 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well framed. PPGMD 22:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The WTC remnants are out of focus. Focus is on the fireman. Mikeo 23:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Despite all the drawbacks, this picture is an important one. Mikeo 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A good picture but the two dark buildings are a distraction, the image is a bit grainy and a little too small. Arad 00:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Here is the high resolution version: Image:WTC-remnant_highres.jpg. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 00:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blurry, fireman detracts from it. I see nothing special abotu it. say1988 00:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Framing is just awfull.Nnfolz 00:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support The picture is good but the buldozer behind the firefighter ruins it for me. --Midnight Rider 02:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Framing with the buildings is nice, but other details (blurriness, shadow, head in front of truck) not so great. Also, the presence of the firefighter at first made me assume it was from Sep 11 itself, not the subsequent cleanup, which somehow makes it feel almost staged. --Davepape 03:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a similar version without the fireman, and better focus. Maybe you're gonna like this one better. Mikeo 06:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I was going to nominate that one first, but the one with the firefighter was being used in the article and IMHO his presence adds significantly to the picture. Without him, it's just a ruined building. He is a human presence and although you can't see his reaction, it only makes you wonder/imagine what it might be. howcheng {chat} 15:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Exactly the human presence add scale that adds to the photo, if a photo editor for the New York Times was choosing between the two photos for his above the fold picture slot, he would pick the photo nominated, not the alternate suggested. PPGMD 19:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support An important historic relic which overrides concerns about quality. That being said, I find the framing and presence of the firefighter and equipment to add to, not detract from, the interest of the photo. SteveHopson 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jack. --KFP 10:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Edit looks better without distracting objects in the way, but its too dark and tilted.Nnfolz 13:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per users above. - Darwinek 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support The firefighter and front end loader add to this highly significant image. This one needs to be the September 11th image of the day! I oppose the altered image. Royalbroil 01:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • FYI, it's not altered; just a different shot from the same photographer. howcheng {chat} 06:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Framing makes it look like the fireman is looking at a picture of the building. For something so widely photographed it seems to be asking a lot to overlook the many flaws. --jjron 11:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per Jack. --HarisM 20:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jack. —Jared Hunt September 9, 2006, 04:05 (UTC)
• Support This image is an inspiring reminder of what happened on 9/11. Both images capture the destruction of what happened on that day. Although I actually prefer the original Image. I feel that the bulldozer and firefighter remind us of what an undertaking it was to save people and clean up the area. —bfissa September 9, 2006, 14:48 (UTC)
• Support version with firefighter --I think it adds more to the effect of the image to have the firefighter--ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm concernd that people are voting on the topic rather than on the image it self. This posting sumerizes my worries: "An important historic relic which overrides concerns about quality". IMO if a picture is poorly framed it shouldn't be supported regardless of how emotional it may be. On another note: the edit looks blurry.Nnfolz 07:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Radial Engine

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

• Nominate and support. - Mikeo 20:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, wow that's one great animation. howcheng {chat} 21:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - brilliant - Jack (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-06 22:46Z
• Strong support - Good animation, worth 2000 words. HighInBC 22:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Just a good overall animation; displays the concept well. --Tewy 23:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Pretty dang awesome! InvictaHOG 00:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Very good animation along with a good representation of what happens in a radial engine. --Midnight Rider 02:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Nice, clean animation, but I think it would have more encyclopedic value if it included something of the gas flow & combustion, like Image:4-Stroke-Engine.gif, to show the cause & effect. As-is it almost looks more like a kinetic sculpture than explanation of an engine. --Davepape 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The two images perfectly explain what's going on. Perhaps a link could be provided? The animation would be too busy if they were combined - Jack (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, adding the gas flow would confuse the image. This simple animation was what made me understand how a radial engine actually works. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Suppport Very informative. --Janke | Talk 06:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Typical FP material. - Darwinek 13:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. very informative --Luc Viatour 14:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Very smooth and informative. It's spartan in details, though that makes it easier to understand. --Lewk_of_Serthic _jkycontrib ^talk 15:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Per Lewk_of_Serthic. Nauticashades 17:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent! It's good for pupils! --HarisM 20:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support As well as being informative, it looks good as well!! Jam01 01:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent! —Jared Hunt September 9, 2006, 04:08 (UTC)
• Support What more needs to be said? --Fir0002 12:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - very informative. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 19:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good point by Davepape about gas flows. But I think that would be an enhancement of what is already, in my opinion, of featured quality. Shushruth ^{\talk\contribs} 15:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose A very boring topic. The picture is not appealling or exciting. --Midnight Rider 02:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support Very nice! Good stock shot --Fir0002 12:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great shot. Encyclopedic, well-composed, well-executed.--ragesoss 02:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

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

[edit] Comet Hale-Bopp

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.

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 16:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose edit -- introduces too many artifacts around the stars. howcheng {chat} 16:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I am concered about the status of the copyright of this image, I have made my concerns clear here: Image talk:Comet-Hale-Bopp-29-03-1997 hires adj.jpg HighInBC 17:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've emailed the photographer for clarification. howcheng {chat} 17:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Got the reply. His astronomical photos are licensed under Creative Commons. We're all good. howcheng {chat} 20:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yay! I am so glad when an image reaches public freedom. HighInBC 21:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is an excellent picture of the comet that shows how bright and large it is, for someone who had not seen the real thing it is a great way to see it Z 17:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support original pending copyright verification. Excellent picture showing it's subject very well. I give full support despite the motion blur on the stars caused by the 2 min exposure, unavoidable due to low light and the fact that rotating the camera in time with the stars would have blurred everything else. The noise reduced one has some nasty artifacts around the stars, the original is better.HighInBC 18:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support provided license OK. Some dust specks could be removed, and a little downsampling to get rid of the grain - no loss of info in say, 60% size. --Janke | Talk 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Horribly grainy, but who cares! These things don't show up every day, you know. Actually, I really would prefer to see an edit on this to reduce the grain. --Tewy 23:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support original. It seems like an edit to reduce the grain would be difficult. --Tewy 22:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support A nice picture of something that only comes around once in a few hundred years. This picture is not only very encyclopedic but also very appealling. --Midnight Rider 02:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A few thousand years would be more accurate for this particular comet. HighInBC 02:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support the original, nice picture of Comet-Hale-Bopp --Luc Viatour 14:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very eyecatching image of this phenomenon. --jjron 11:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. —Jared Hunt September 9, 2006, 04:14 (UTC)
• Support Original --Fir0002 12:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Quality image. would make great addition to featured pictures. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• Support. It's all been said. Nauticashades 19:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Wisconsin Capitol Building

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

• Nominate and support. - Royalbroil 04:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Big Tree in the way.Nnfolz 15:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose BLocked by trees. there may be other problems, but I don't see the need to even click the thumbnail and look.say1988 16:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Big tree blocking subject, soft focus near top, washed out surfaces. HighInBC 17:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Without perspective control, it looks like the Capitol is collapsing backwards. SteveHopson 18:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The tree... - Mikeo 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Per above about the subject being obscured, and I also think it's a little blurry. Not bad though. --Tewy 23:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't show the whole building. I'm sure there is a better picture for this building and it is worthy of my support. --Midnight Rider 02:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The big tree is part of the place, and worries me less than what's not shown, which looks to be a fair chunk of the building. --jjron 11:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per HighInBC and Midnight Rider. Nauticashades 17:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, what Steve said about perspective control Also, it would be great if you could take a more full shot and maybe have them cut down those trees for you. gren グレン 18:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Times Square

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.

• Nominate and Support. Wikipedian27 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too small, too dark. --Dschwen 21:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. --WillMak050389 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose too small -- may well support if a larger version is supplied (maybe 1600xsomething). chowells 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Does not really convey the atmosphere at Times Square. Nothing special - rather a tourist snapshot. Insufficient size. Mikeo 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too small. HighInBC 01:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too dark and busy for its size. It looks like someone's vacation picture. --Midnight Rider 03:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can appreciate the difficulty of a photo like this. Expose for the scene and the lights are overexposed. Expose for the lights and everything else is too dark. The ideal time to photograph Times Square is at twilight (as are most evening scenes) where the ambient light is approximately the same luminosity as the billboard lights. Either way, the image just isn't good enough to be FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sadly it's too small. Would support a larger version. --Tewy 23:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's too small, to dark, to busy, and I just don't like the lampost in the center. Nauticashades 16:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Does not do the subject justice. A panorama is needed, and some expertise in dark-light, high contrast, and motion photography. --Bridgecross 00:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose but a promising start. I don't think we need a panorama but we do need someone with a camera that can get high quality low-light shots. Since it's such an accessible place a picture of Times Square has to be the best of the best unless recording a unique historic event. gren グレン 18:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[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)

• Nominate and support. - Paul 20:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. —Jared Hunt September 5, 2006, 21:04 (UTC)
• Support Wonderful diagram. One thing, the North arrow seems to be missing a line? Not a big deal, it is very encyclopedic and easily read. The SVG format makes it really groovy in my opinion. HighInBC 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. High value work, clear and relevant, just what wikipedia needs. --Dschwen 21:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary Oppose Some Capital Letters would be nice in the labels. Will support if this is rectified. chowells 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I believe they have in fact been fixed now. Nauticashades 13:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • I believe that all exampls of "Sphinks" have been changed to "Sphinx". Nauticashades 17:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • I believe it has been. Nauticashades 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • weak support. Please, if you could, upload a version with numbers, which would likely be much less cluttered. say1988 04:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • Support new version. Informative, attractive, and encyclopedic. --Tewy 21:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose--Vircabutar 02:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support. Per HighInBC. Nauticashades 13:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Sydney Opera House

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.

• Nominate and support. - Michaeln36 09:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Great subject composition, excellent as an encyclopaedic photograph - doniv 09:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per doniv --대조 | Talk 10:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Iconic and well composed. However, there is quite a bit of grain in the sky and it's somewhat blurry. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support Soft focus(or ccd), noisy sky. Well exposed, good subject. HighInBC 14:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose both. Exactly per Pharaoh Hound. But I also think that for such a famous building, there are better pictures out there, without the grain and blur. --Tewy 18:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The edit on such a famous structure still isn't good enough for a FP, in my opinion. --Tewy 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some grain and blur. For such a famous subject better pictures will come along; there's no reason to compromise. Redquark 18:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I like the composition of this former Opera House FP much better. howcheng {chat} 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support This is a great subject but I feel that the picture just doesn't do justice to the building. --Midnight Rider 23:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Redquark.--ragesoss 00:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Outstanding photo. Very close to perfection. If someone were to sharpen it with a light touch, it just might become the perfect photo of the subject. Fg2 07:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Comment Just sharpening the original image simply brought out the noise around the edges of the sails. However, my typical panacaea of a 50% downsample (leaving it smaller, but still over the 1000px mark), despeckling the sky, sharpening (60%), and adjusting the levels has brought out a sharper, though smaller image. I've uploaded it as Edit 1; though I don't doubt that someone else could do better. TSP 12:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree with downsampling because it's probably best to leave as much detail in a picture as possible. The automatic resizing on the image page should suffice if people want to see a smaller version. enochlau (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I knew this picture looked familiar. This was a former failed FPC. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SydneyOperaHouse. howcheng {chat} 15:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I wished people would tell me when my pictures get nominated :P I only happened to wander onto here because I'm rather bored at the moment. Umm, support (of course), but in all fairness, I think we've had this discussion before. However, the people who are opposing on technical reasons might want to see what the Photoshop whizzes around here can do first. enochlau (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • But of course the "Photoshop whizzes" haven't given us another edit to vote on, so the opposes remain. --Tewy 22:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • There's edit 1 above... enochlau (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I wasn't clear: I meant "another edit" to be one besides edit 1 (an even better one), because I weak oppose edit 1 along with the original (See above reasons). I'll add a little note that to my vote. --Tewy 22:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Edit 2 or any. Per HighInBC. Nauticashades 17:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support Edit 2 Per above votes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arad (talk • contribs) .

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)

[edit] Dingle Peninsula

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)

Comment: Kanchelskis is not the author. Steve Ford Ellis (from Flickr) is. howcheng {chat} 21:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Darwinek 13:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, rather nice panorama. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 15:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Some minor problems (contrails, people, blur, exposure), but the view is too nice to pass up. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-07 15:39Z
• Support - Wow, very nice; where have all the trees gone?! how barren drumguy8800 - speak 04:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support- A great panorama. Certainly a worthy feature photo!. Ackatsis 06:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, uhm, the sky. Looks pretty uneven to me?! --Dschwen 08:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I can't see anything wrong with it, I don't mind very small flaws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshcorp (talk • contribs) Raven4x4x 10:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Olegivvit 11:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Yeah, some problems can be picked out, but pretty spectacular view. I wonder whether this wouldn't benefit further from cropping say about 10% off the right-hand side; neither the sky nor the land over there are doing a lot for the image, and it may also give it a better balance. --jjron 11:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit 2 - well done. --jjron 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support edit 2 Dispite exposure problems on the right it is a great picture. HighInBC 13:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 (my crop). Strong oppose Edit 1 -- you may have edited out the people, but you forgot the shadows. And besides, it's nice to have them for a sense of scale. howcheng {chat} 16:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2. The second edit improves the picture greatly. Not only does it balance the image, but it also gets rid of the the blown sky and the distracting land mass. Nauticashades 16:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Any version with preference for Edit 2 --Fir0002 11:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 - Great pic, and the crop does wonders to it - doniv 16:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 2. Per Brian0918, and the cropping really helps the sky. --Tewy 20:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 well done. —Jared Hunt September 11, 2006, 07:12 (UTC)

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

[edit] Anticosti Island

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.

• Nominate and support. - PYMontpetit 22:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Landsat covers the entire planet with imagery similar to this. There's nothing in the proposal that convinces me that this particular scene is special compared to all the others. Moreover, the image is significantly lower resolution than Landsat 7's full resolution; a lot of detail is lost. --Davepape 01:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Davepape, nothing special. —Keenan Pepper 03:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Plus, the other landform in the lower left is distracting. howcheng {chat} 16:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Davepape. Nauticashades 16:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Davepape and Howcheng. HighInBC 21:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Davepape and Howcheng; nothing special. --Tewy 23:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Matterhorn

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)

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 17:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support either, with preference for the original uncropped version. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-07 18:07Z
• Support both though I prefer uncropped. I was going to say that I preferred one with a village that I'd recently seen, but it's already featured! InvictaHOG 19:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Original only, compared to the existing cropped version. However, I would also support a "better" cropped version. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Anyone who wants to make an attempt on a better crop, please feel free to upload right over mine. I just felt the original had far too much sky. howcheng {chat} 19:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, didn't mean to denigrate your crop, I just felt that the result was too "squat"... I like the original ratio better, although I agree that your vertical framing is an improvement. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. original only - it is good already. Mikeo 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. - Darwinek 22:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. --Davepape 01:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. --Eshcorp 09:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. HighInBC 21:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. --Tewy 23:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Original --Fir0002 11:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support original -- Per everyone else, I like the original better. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support SteveHopson 23:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support original, or a better cropped version. Kaldari 17:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support original, or a better cropped version. Nauticashades 18:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. Sky and water stretching above and below actually make the mountain more impressive. Agree cropped version looks squat. Also like deep color of sky in uncropped version. --Bridgecross 19:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support original --Ineffable3000 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Original TomStar81 (Talk) 00:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Andriyivskyy Descent

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)
• Oppose, due to size. Too small. « amiИa . skyшalkeя (¿Hábleme?) 15:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I contacted the uploader. Perhaps a larger one can be found. howcheng {chat} 16:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, due to trees on picture and nothing notable pictured. --TAG 16:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• Oppose per Diliff. Nauticashades 18:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• Oppose Per Diliff HighInBC 21:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Diliff. --Tewy 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, because none of the opposition makes even the slightest bit of sense.--SB | T 04:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose Beautiful image, shame about the resolution. Would support higher res --Fir0002 11:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose i would support it if it was a higher res --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I can try to contact the photographer to ask if he would like to give us a higher resolution picture... —dima/s-ko/ 16:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I like the picture; with higher resolution, I'll support.--Riurik ^(discuss) 05:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like the angle and the color. AndonicO 18:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Just like the size is not that important for FAs, I don't think resolution is crucial for FPs. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As per Ghirlandajo. Odessaukrain 15:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. FAR too small. At this distance, all of the interesting detail in the architecture is lost. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose low resolution - Marmoulak 00:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC).

• 'Comment. I am currently awaiting a responce from the author of the photograph. —dima/s-ko/ 00:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted

[edit] Visoko in 1973

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)
• Comment -- image has no source and is now pending deletion from Commons. howcheng {chat} 17:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
• 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)

Not promoted

[edit] Red Rock Trail at Glacier National Park

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

• Nominate and support. - drumguy8800 - speak 03:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Really nice, beautiful colors and great subject. Very sharp too.--enano ^(Talk) 05:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I hate to say it, as it is otherwise quite a good panorama, but it is clearly missing a lot of landscape below the horizon and looks a bit unbalanced. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Dillif, and the washed out haze look with the blown out sky bothers me. --Dschwen 08:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support, it is a very nice picture, but would have been better if more of the landscape below the horizon appread. Eshcorp 09:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blown out sky. howcheng {chat} 16:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. per above. Mikeo 19:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above; could use a better exposure. --Tewy 23:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Nice scenery and very sharp image, but over exposure and too tight a crop on the bottom (particularly dislike the cut off river) of the image spoilt it for me unfortunately. --Fir0002 12:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose overexposed, cropped river showing almost no land in the middle. HighInBC 21:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted

[edit] 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.

• Nominate and support. - Arad 02:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Squirrels rock. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 03:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Ravedave, they definitely do rock. And this is a pretty high quality image as well. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support quality and nice environnement --Luc Viatour 14:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good composition, pure encyclopedic photo. This squirrel looks like: "Hey guys, I'm gonna make it to the FP". - Darwinek 17:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Per Darwinek. Nauticashades 11:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Perhaps being a bit more side on would make it more encyclopaedic, but a lively and vibrant shot of a squirrel. --jjron 11:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good shot, and I agree with Ravedave ;-). I'd like to point out the blown highlights directly above the squirrel though. --Tewy 00:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice composition. Does suffer somewhat at full res from the small sensor this image as taken with --Fir0002 11:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support so cute --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support for cuteness. Good photo. Aye-Aye 21:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Pyrrhosoma nymphula

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

• Nominate and Abstain - Luc Viatour 12:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Amazing choice for PoTD on February 14! Support. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good photo, encyclopedic. HighInBC 13:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. A good choice for Valentine's day, but not up to quality standards. It's blurry, and it looks like it's been artificially sharpened in excess. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Agree with Pharaoh Hound, its a nicely photographed image but looks a bit overcooked with processing/sharpening. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The image is almost entirely green. Royalbroil 01:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This strikes me as a very strange reason to oppose the image. Debivort 05:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I mean that there needs to be more variability in color. Too much of a good thing. Royalbroil 13:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Eye-catching subject and high resolution. In response to the two criticisms so far: the photo is not blurry, only the background is out of focus because of the Depth of Field. It gives the background has less clutter and makes the subject pop. Viewed at maximum size the wing veins are crystal clear. As for the color complaint, this is just odd. A vivid and beautiful color theme really makes this image for me, and provides good color contrast with the red insects. Thumbs up. --Bridgecross 22:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure Pharaoh Hound wasn't referring to the background, but rather that a blurry photograph had been oversharpened. But you're right that the DOF is good in this image. --Tewy 00:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That pretty much sums up my oppose Tewy. I wasn't complaining about the background (I know that it's intentionally blurry), but that it's obviously artificially sharpened in excess, which leaves it looking somehwat blurry as well as low quality. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Fairly good composition, but not good enough technically; oversharpened. --Tewy 00:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Above --Fir0002 11:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Good photo, i just find a little unnatural. Arad 01:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted

[edit] Ciudad de las ciencias noche

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.

• Nominate and support edit 1 or any. - Arad 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Nice composition, high qaulity and interesting subject howevert it is a bit blurry - particularly at the left hand edge of the far building. Witty lama 02:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe it's because of noise reduction. Please check the file history and look at the older version. I appreciate your opinion on that one too. Arad 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would suggest running an unsharp mask on it. This typically does not add much noise and makes the lines very crisp.. I hesitate supporting when its so blurry. drumguy8800 - speak 05:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- you should have uploaded your NR attempt as a different file. The original is a Commons featured picture and it's probably not a good idea to mess with it. howcheng {chat} 16:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• I fixed the blur a bit but I can't do better. Arad 19:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• I reverted the first photo back to the original upload. Bypass your browser's cache if you can't see it. howcheng {chat} 21:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per noise and soft focus near left hand side of building. HighInBC 21:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 2. Despite the technical problems, this is still a very good image. --Tewy 23:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2. Nice lighting and a good job considering the camera it was taken with --Fir0002 12:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: I wouldn't be surprised if the lighting is like that every night - in that case, it should be easy to get a better picture than this. It's blurry and seems to me to be slanted to the right. Useful for its article but certainly not FP material IMO. --Yummifruitbat 19:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2. Per Fir0002. Nauticashades 19:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks for your fix, Fir0002, but whether you compressed the image too much or it was your process but it made the image very pix elated in full res especially on the main building. Can you fix that? it looks like Jpeg artifacts. Arad 21:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 per Fir0002. --jjron 02:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Yummifruitbat. --KFP 22:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• If you guys think you can get a better shot go on and try it your self. Arad 00:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Support Fir0002s Edit TomStar81 (Talk) 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted

[edit] Kwakwaka'wakw big house

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)

• Due to a lack of voting I am mentioning this page on the talk pages of the articles this image appears on. HighInBC 13:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - HighInBC 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Needs perspective correction, but I'd like to see this pass just so I can put Kwakwaka'wakw on the Main Page. :) howcheng {chat} 23:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Good technical picture, but I'm not sure what the subject is. And is the building on the right part of the subject? If not then it's distracting. The building in the background is a little distracting --Tewy 23:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• The building on the right is the Royal British Columbia Museum, it contains alot of exhibits relating to natives including the Kwakwaka'wakw, but is not really part of the subject. I cannot think of a way to get an image of both the big house and the totem poles at a reasonable angle without getting the museum. HighInBC 23:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- Great quality --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd say this is a near miss. The photo has some strong FP qualities, but the lighting does not highlight the main subject and other elements seem to distract too much. SteveHopson 21:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• The reason I'm not voting it's because I don't find the image FP but on other hand, I find it not that bad. So if I have to vote, I'm Neutral. I think it's the same case for others who have not voted yet. Arad 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Perspective problems, not engaging. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Overexposed section of the sky, not a very striking subject. Also the setting with the green lawn etc looks somewhat unnatural - could be wrong about that tho. --Fir0002 02:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

1. ^ Thunderbird Park – A Place of Cultural Sharing. Royal British Columbia Museum. Retrieved on 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

[edit] EmperorPenguinChick

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)

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.

• Nominate and support. - ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Cute? yes. Artistic? maybe. Encyclopedic? not so sure. Is the picture black and white or are the colors really that ugly? I think it looks grainy too.Nnfolz 17:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, noisy. —Keenan Pepper 19:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Blurred and grainy - Adrian Pingstone 19:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good composition, but too grainy. --Tewy 20:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too grainy, and a larger picture would be prefered, especially with grain. HighInBC 21:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons already stated. SteveHopson 21:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• I liked the new version Arad.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 22:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, it was my pleasure. Arad 22:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support Edit 1Support Edit 1 or 2 Good picture now that the grain is removed. Arad 22:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Way too grainy/blurry (the edit isn't grainy, but it's still very blurry). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• How can you see blur in any of these images? It's almost black and white. 66.36.135.18 13:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• What does that have to do with it? It's blurry because you can't make out any fine detail. —Keenan Pepper 15:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose both edits: they don't really help, they just make it look unnatural. Edit 2 looks like it was taken through a window in the rain. I wish this were TV and we could use that magical "enhance" function. =P —Keenan Pepper 15:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support because of relative rarity. gren グレン 18:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. If this has been made black and white in an edit, I oppose it. If the colors are really like that or the original is uploaded, I might change my mind. I support any of the three. Nauticashades 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• It might have been better off in color, but it can't be helped, so I'll change my vote to Weak Support.

• Support I like the capture. PPGMD 18:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all. Original is far too grainy for FP. Unfortunately, removing the grain also erases the finer texture of the feathers & fluff. --Janke | Talk 14:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • So i guess its a loss-loss situation for this one. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Bologna italy duomo

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)

• Nominate and support. - ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Besides the other building being in the way i don't like the lighting. Was this taking in the afternoon? it seems the sun was setting or something because its way to red. The colors in the original look better.Nnfolz 17:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I edited this one before uploading it. I thought the sunlight was too strong. would you like me to upload the original unedited one to show you? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was wondering the same thing about the colors. Both that and the grain are the reasons I don't think this is FP material. I don't think the other building blocking the San Petronio is too significant, but the picture would definitely be better with the whole subject shown. --Tewy 20:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I just uploaded the original version to the site. I'm not as much of a fan of the coloring in this image, but maybe you guys are.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a pretty hazy original. I'm not sure if it's salvageable for FP, at least in my opinion. But I do think that your edit does a pretty good job at removing the haze, so I prefer it over the original. --Tewy 22:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
      • At least I know the my photoshop skills arn't that bad. Thanks --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tewy. HighInBC 21:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I find the framing to be distracting. The photo seems to neither highlight the Duomo or the city. SteveHopson 21:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per many of the comments above. -- Moondigger 19:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted

[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

• Nominate and support. Arad 03:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I nominated this for FP on the Wikimedia Commons yesterday, and I was going to nominate it for FPC here, but Arad beat me to it (oh well). High resolution, good colours, nice composition, very clear for something that appears to be taken with a telephoto. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, looks like you have to be faster next time. Good luck. ;-) Arad 21:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very good photo per Pharaoh Hound. HighInBC 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support fine picture, natural environment --Luc Viatour 14:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - a great picture technically and artistically. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 15:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although I agree with everyting above I feel that the composition is too tight. You don't get an impression of what a sleek animal the Cheetah is from this image - It is not an adequate representation of the whole. Witty lama 02:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Witty lama, since it cuts off the body doesn't really show much about the species.--Peta 04:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with above. It's a nice enough photo, but for some reason it lacks something, there's just no life to the animal. --jjron 11:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. We're seeing just half a cheetah. It is the athletic shape of the cheetah's body that is making it a special animal. A running cheetah would be even better. Unfortunately, this one shows neither of these. Mikeo 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• If it were focusing on the head details, just show the head, not half the body. This one is not good for any purpose, the way it is. Mikeo 08:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Wonderful picture, but I'd still like to see either more of the face or more of the whole body. --Tewy 00:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - yes, a full image would be better, but it is a still a great picture none the less --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Its a great headshot. it doesnt illustrate the whole animal, but then again it doesn't have to.Nnfolz 18:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Is it me, or is that cheetah pink-ish? Nauticashades 19:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Pink-ish? maybe your watching pink panther. Arad 21:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support per Tewy. Perhaps cropping the lower 1/3 helps? AndonicO 18:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Cropping 1/3 of this wonderful image kills it for me. I rather keep it this way. 66.36.144.252 23:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Metung Wharf

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.

• Support. I've tied my yacht up to that exact jetty many times and i think it is a good photo of possibly the nicest place in Victoria, AUS to holiday.
• Self-nominate and support. - jjron 03:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Blurry. It doesn't illustrate the subject clearly. It just looks like an ordinary marina.Nnfolz 07:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with the reasons stated by Nnfolz. SteveHopson 17:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Actually, Diliff brought up a good point, so I changed my mind. Nauticashades 18:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. I don't see the blurriness mentioned by others. Good color & composition. However I agree about the lack of "wow" factor - there doesn't seem to be anything to distinguish this particular wharf image from most others. -- Moondigger 19:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Good technical quality, but the subject is unclear. HighInBC 01:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Find the comments of the subject being unclear a little strange. How much clearer can the subject be without adding a huge sign in?! Like the composition with the boat on the LHS framing the wharf on the RHS. However little concerned about the houses near the RHS - do they really curve like that? Like the Mackerel Sky - how appropriate :-)! --Fir0002 11:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• FWIW the curve is real, not a stitching error, and quite appealing IMO (though I actually asked myself the same thing when I did the pano and rechecked the originals). You can see it if you look carefully in the 'normal' shots Image:Metung-Wharf, Vic.jpg and in the distance in Image:Marina-Bancroft-Bay,-Metung-Vic.jpg . --jjron 12:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Reminds me of vacations. AndonicO 18:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I know its a late vote, but I've had another look at it and I can't see any reason to oppose. Highly informative, pleasing to the eye and technically sound. It may not have the 'wow' factor but that is not the sole factor in FPs in my mind. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Per above. the quality is good but lacks the WOW factor. Arad 11:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Station 13 of the Tokaido (Numazu)

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)
• 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)
  • 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 [22]). howcheng {chat} 00:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Weak oppose Suffers from colored moiré stripes (vertical yellow bands) over most of the image. Would support a better scan witout this artifact. --Janke | Talk 13:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. I would give this picture my full support, but Janke brought up a valuable point. However, I don't believe this makes it un-featureable. Nauticashades 17:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose would support an edit, or scan that removes the moire. PPGMD 22:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Janke, but would support a better scan. --S0uj1r0 04:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Janke; for these art FPCs, it's crucial to get a good scan, or else there would be a lot more art FPs. --Tewy 23:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted

[edit] Nude on beach

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.

• Nominate and support. - Billpg 21:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I can just imagine the discussion this one is going to spark. But I'll just say; tilted horizon, uninteresting color scheme, not so sharp. Not up to FP standards visually. It does illustrate the subject topic, but not in an eye-catching manner. --Bridgecross 22:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'll have a go at slightly rotating the pic later. (I confess, I missed it. If anyone else wants to do it, please do.) I am confused at what you mean by "uninteresting color scheme". (I could turn her into a green alien from Star Trek perhaps.) As for the other points, alas, I'm not original photographer. I've left a note on the uploader's talk page pointing out this discussion. --Billpg 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment You're right I have nothing to base that criticism on. I still think that, though it illustrates the article content adequately, it does not do so particularly well (from the FP standards above). --Bridgecross 00:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Barely meets size requirements and although technically it's well done, it just doesn't say Featured Pic to me. howcheng {chat} 00:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Edit 1 uploaded for your consideration. --Billpg 14:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Per Howcheng. Otherwise, it's a pretty good picture. Nauticashades 16:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support The women is attractive enough not to be repulsive but doesn't look fake or the like subject of a 'glamour' or pornographic photo. It manages to illustrate a taboo subject without socking readers. The only problem is that it could be larger. The background being out of focus helps the picture by bring attention to the subject. Seano1 00:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I guess I have to oppose because of the low quality (it's really on the limit if not under), it's not the BEST of wikipedia and it lacks the encyclopedic part. Also this image doesn't really make me read the whole article because it's not that special or eye-catching. IMHO. It's not a bad shot though. Arad 03:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Arad and others above. --S0uj1r0 04:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - The size requirement is what's keeping me from supporting this. If it was a higher res, i would then agree with Seano1 --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Doesn't scream featured pic to me either. --WikiSlasher 13:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support --PYMontpetit 14:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• weak oppose. I just don't see the encyclopaedic value, the low (though passing) doesn't help either. 65.93.214.9 17:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, seems I forgot to sign in when i typed that. BTW following "(though passing)" should be "reolution". say1988 17:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support The image is tastefully done. It does an awesome job of illustrating the subject without being offensive. I hesitate only because of the image size. Royalbroil 13:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yawn. Aye-Aye 21:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The girl is nice and all of that,but i don't see why it schould be featured.--Pixel ;-) 00:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support per Royalbroil: I don't think the issues are serious enough to disqualify what is an otherwise excellent image. -- JDH Owens 12:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose No "wow" factor, rather a mundane back of a woman. Composition and colors arent too hot, either, and it just barely passes the size standard for a FP. No Go IMO. --Janke | Talk 20:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose only mildly erotic Calibas 00:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted

[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.

• Nominate and support. - Judgesurreal777 16:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Opposet. I find the lens flare to be distracting and the photo to have a lack of focus. SteveHopson 17:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The sun.Nnfolz 17:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sun ruins it for me. Colors are nice, though. Mikeo 17:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Pic tilted, needs 3 degrees of anticlockwise rotation (look at the 2 distant watchtowers and the line of the mountains) - Adrian Pingstone 20:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Besides the lens flare, the subject of the photo really seems to be this set of stairs. The rest of the wall is in the shadow and you don't really get a good sense of the immense scale of the whole thing. The background of the hills is very nice, though. howcheng {chat} 00:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the sun. —Jared Hunt September 12, 2006, 03:26 (UTC)
• Support Nice sunlit image. Would prefer a downscaled version to eliminate some of the grain/noise --Fir0002 11:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per SteveHopson and Howcheng. Nauticashades 16:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like the colors and texture of the foreground, but the background is indistinct, and the sun and resulting lens flares are overly distracting. --S0uj1r0 04:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Same opinions as Fir0002. Lens flare hardly makes an impact to me. --WikiSlasher 13:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support The scenery is nice, and enough of the wall is to be seen; the colors are also admirable. The sun does not seem to be a hindrance, it serves as a reminder as to how many sunsets/sunrises the wall has been through. AndonicO 17:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Did anyone look at it at full res? It's not "very clear", It's extremely blurry/grainy. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I remeber walking on the Great Wall while in China; it was quite an experince, and this photo really brings me back to it. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• comment If you crope the sky you still have a nice effect on the ground.--Pixel ;-) 00:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support the picture is very clear and shows a beauty of some sort to the wall, and I do not feel that the slight glare takes away from it. --216.233.172.247 10:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted

[edit] Ulysses S. Grant

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.

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 23:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support encyclopedic, clear, striking, great-quality. What more to say? —Jared Hunt September 12, 2006, 00:28 (UTC)
• Support good quality for an image so old. Gnangarra 01:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wow, what a dusty shoulder! HighInBC 02:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Considering the time period, a great image; very encyclopedic. --Tewy 03:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Notable historical figure. Good pic. --Billpg 03:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per all above. A photogenic fellow, he was. --Bridgecross 04:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Looks good --Fir0002 10:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. How about doing something about all that dandruff... ;-) To me, it looks like the background and some other parts of the photo have been cleaned up, but dust spots and blemishes are very prominent in other places. --Janke | Talk 13:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It's all been said. Nauticashades 17:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I will for sure support if we can do a little cleanup. Is it possible? (The dust on the image) Arad 04:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Classic photograph. Those spots appear to be water stains on a wool suit rather than dandruff. Could use a little dust and scratches cleanup, though. --S0uj1r0 04:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too historical NegativeNed 16:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• User only has votes on his or her user page, talk page, and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. See Special:Contributions/NegativeNed. --Tewy 23:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• How can something be "too historical", anyway? Nauticashades 07:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• Support. Nice image -- good technical quality considering the era; historical value. -- Moondigger 17:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice. My only quibble is with the caption "...sometime between 1870 and 1880". Surely can't it be dated a bit more precisely? I mean it's not simply some random old photo of just anybody. For some reason I have a feeling this shot dates from his Presidency, but I don't have any evidence for that to hand (and admittedly it only slightly reduces the date spread anyway). --jjron 12:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Since this an historical photo, I would oppose any photoshopping of the image. I think is it is very good just the way it is. I agree with Jjron that it could be dated a little more accurately --rogerd 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the Library of Congress isn't any more specific than that. howcheng {chat} 02:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Too bad, thanks for checking. --rogerd 15:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - One of the best black and white photographs that exist. In my opinion, history adds quality to a picture. --Ineffable3000 02:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Ulysses Grant 1870-1880.jpg

[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.

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 00:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Artistic importance and quality of scan --Bridgecross 00:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Bridgecross and that it illustrates this type of Japanese painting very well. —Jared Hunt September 12, 2006, 00:30 (UTC)
• Comment this print can be found on internet easily, not sure if this one on Wiki is of particularly high quality.--K.C. Tang 01:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Support it seems to be the best version one can find on internet.--K.C. Tang 03:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've used it as wallpaper, owing to its high resolution:)--K.C. Tang 06:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Which article does this represent? What is the subject? I want to support this, but the name is tsunami, and the description says it is not a tsunami, this makes the subject unclear. HighInBC 02:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment according to the Hokusai article, the name of this painting should be In the Hollow of a Wave off the Coast at Kanagawa from Series of Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji. Somebody should rename the title. —Jared Hunt September 12, 2006, 03:23 (UTC)
    • There's some discussion about the translation of the name on Talk:Hokusai. Basically, "In the Hollow of..." is a really fancy translation. The title is "Kanagawa okinami ura" which literally would be "Behind the Kanagawa big wave." I asked on the talk page for a citation of that translation. howcheng {chat} 23:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, ignoring the possibility that there may be other images on the web. If better images of the same or higher quality are found with a suitable license, I will oppose this image, but for now, I think this is a good scan on a famous piece of art. --Tewy 03:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Iconic image and good scan. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As per Bridgecross and Ravedave. Nauticashades 17:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good scan of a good peice of art. PPGMD 22:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good scan, classic piece. --S0uj1r0 04:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - great image --T-rex 05:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I've never seen a scan of this at comparable quality. mstroeck 12:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose due to what looks like amateurish retouching of parts of the sky (dust or spot removal) - see the blotches that eradicate the underlying paper texture? --Janke | Talk 13:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per superbness Aye-Aye 21:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment um, i don't know if anybody's aware or not...this image is already an FP--Vircabutar 19:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I see that it's featured on Commons, and there was a duplicate nomination for FPC here, but I can't find any evidence that it was ever featured on the English Wikipedia. Where are you seeing this? Commons featured picture criteria are different from Wikipedia featured picture criteria, if that's what you mean. --Tewy 21:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Calibas 00:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Tsunami by hokusai 19th century.jpg

[edit] Colony of King 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.

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Very impressive upon first glance, but the more I look at it I see little quality issues such as blurriness and blown whites that prevent it from gaining my full support. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This picture doesn't look like penguins and its pretty boring. --Midnight Rider 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, if the goal is to show what a penguin of this species looks like, then you're correct in that this image fails to do so. But this image shows what a huge colony of penguins looks like and you wouldn't be able to accomplish that with one or two penguins filling up most of the frame. howcheng {chat} 06:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Awww, penguins! (Nice pic.) --Billpg 03:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor image quality at full res. I think a pic with snow in it would be more iconic. --Fir0002 11:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Iconic? King Penguins are found in temperate islands including the Falklands and Tierra del Fuego. True, the stereo-typical image of penguins is that with snow, but that doesn't decrease the encyclopedicness in any way. Is that part of your oppose based on that it's somehow less visually apealing without snow? --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support and agree with Pharaoh Hound that different penguins are found in different climates and therefore don't NEED to be featured on snow. Then again, I disagree that a photo needs to be iconic to be featured anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. As per Pharaoh Hound and Diliff. Nauticashades 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support That's a whole lot of penguins. PPGMD 22:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't think the lack of snow is a problem - and these obviously look like penguins. However, the picture overall just doesn't seem to be quite up to FP status. The little quality issues such as blurriness and blown whites mentioned above, along with the fact that it just isn't that eye-catching, ruin it for me. --Hetar 04:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support --As per Pharaoh Hound about the minor details --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fantastic subject, but I agree with Pharaoh Hound about the blur and blown highlights. More of the colony should be in focus --Tewy 00:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Pharaoh Hound. I don't think FP had to be iconic anyways. —Jared Hunt September 14, 2006, 08:37 (UTC)
• Support The huge mass of penguins is eye-appealing and almost unbelievable. Definitively not something one sees every day. AndonicO 17:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose A lot of penguins, but unfortunately not a lot of image quality. Pity it's so expensive to get to South Georgia :( --Yummifruitbat 01:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I've got to vote Support. The image is high enough resolution, the penguins on the bottom are clear enough, and this subject matter would simply be impossible to properly capture with "high quality" on all those penguins. You can't identify faces in a crowd shot. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Hills of Kurdistan Province

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)
• Support per nom. --Mardavich 23:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

• I still prefer #1 over the edit. #1 is truly Number 1.

• Comment. Edit A is a less-saturated, but still very saturated, alternative, with better color balance and less "burntness" IMHO. –Outʀiggʀ 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose,
  1. too ambigious of a filename (where is this landscape taken at) Duplicates should be deleted. --Cat out 04:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. It is a copyvio apperantly based on above comment and this link.
     • Did "Kourosh Anbari" agree to release it with a free license?
• 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 anfaledby saddam - or was that by design?
  1. • If so why are the images still (c)'ed?
     • As it is, image is a copyvio and can be deleted in seven days.
  2. Also this is a duplicate of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Ir kurdistan.jpg --Cat out 04:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  --Cat out 23:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  This is the email I sent him: I was wondering if you would allow the use of this photo taken by you under creative common license similar to these ones:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Esfahan.jpg

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sio_se_pol.jpg.

  His answer:

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))

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)

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))

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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)

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))

I dont see it in the filename... Should be someting like Image:Hills south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kealaneh. Still the copyright issue stands. --Cat out 03:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the filename. Marmoulak 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I adjusted my objection accordingly. --Cat out 04:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Strong Support --alidoostzadeh 05:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support any version. Per Arad. While all of you discuss copyright issues, I'll go ahead and laud this superb photograph. Nauticashades 17:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support third rendition. This image is beautifully surreal. --S0uj1r0 04:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice vivid photo with acceptable quality. --WikiSlasher 13:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral for Edit A; Oppose all others. "Edit A" is the only version that approaches reality in color saturation, though it too is a bit overdone. AFAIK, none of these images appears on any article, though. -- Moondigger 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification: the one that appears on the Iran article is a fourth version, Image:Ir_kurdistan.jpg. "Edit A" shown above is the best version, though. -- Moondigger 17:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support I think Edit A is the best of these, although the top one is not bad either.

AndonicO 17:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The first two clearly have color problems; the third looks realistic but we don't really have any way of knowing how far off it actually is.--ragesoss 20:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose Sorry, it looks like a lame screen-saver Aye-Aye 21:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose Per above, particularly Yummifruitbat. --Fir0002 02:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

I doubt that Ir stands for infrared, but someone could ask the photographer. --WikiSlasher 03:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

That settles it then. --WikiSlasher 05:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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?
  • What do you mean by anfaled? That thing redirects to al-Anfal Campaign which doesn't make any sense. --WikiSlasher 13:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it is a referance to the gas attack in Iraq ruining nature as well as people which really has nothing to do with Iran. --Cat out 13:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Near Infrared 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.

• Nominate and support either, but prefer original. - Moondigger 19:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good illustration, particularly by having the visible color version as well, and by being a shot of foliage. --Davepape 20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Prefer original (IR by itself), but support either. --Davepape 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - not pleasing to the eye --Ineffable3000 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, that's a subjective one... it's pleasing to my eye. -- Moondigger 21:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Original - Neutral Edit - The subject is not clear without further instructions. At first i thought it's a toy or something. Then i saw the full res and I said, what an ugly fake image. Until i read the information. Anyway, no wonder it's not FP. Good picture for it's article but it's not FP material specially with that blur. Arad 21:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• The edit is much better since It explains better. Arad 01:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• • It is a highly instructive near infrared image. The fact that you didn't know what it was led you to read more about it and by your own admission, you learned something about the topic you didn't previously know -- one of the primary criteria for FPs. Your objection is as if somebody objected to an image taken on black & white film because it doesn't show red, green or blue tones, and therefore looks "fake." -- Moondigger 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW, the "blur" is another attribute of infrared photography at wider apertures (oversimplification, but nonetheless...), due to the nature of how those wavelengths diffract in lenses designed for visible light. In other words, the blur has additional pedagogical value, since it accurately represents the topic. -- Moondigger 22:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support with preference for the original -- an excellent example of IR photography. howcheng {chat} 03:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1, Oppose original. It's much more striking when in contrast. It also looks like a cool Diptych. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support either version. Prefer Original Glaurung 05:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support either version. —Jared Hunt September 11, 2006, 06:34 (UTC)
• Support edit 1, very informative/encyclopedic. --Janke | Talk 07:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The images can be combined in presentation, as they were in the article, without actually being combined in Photoshop. Either way works for me, with a slight preference for the original. -- Moondigger 10:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Contrary to others I don't think it is that encyclopaedic. say1988 14:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It would be more interesting to have an IR photograph where we can see details that we can't see otherwise. Aren't there flowers that look white in visible light but look different under IR light? (or was it under UV, I don't know...) Or is it possible to capture the IR emission from people or animals? Another problem is that we don't know how the false colors correspond to the IR light. It has some artistic appeal, but I don't find it sufficient for FP. --Bernard 17:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The flower example you're thinking of is for UV light, not IR. Of course foliage looks different (brighter) in IR light than it does in visible light, which is why this is such a good image, IMO. But the particular flower example you're probably thinking of has nothing to do with IR light.
  • The IR from people or animals example would be more appropriate for far infrared (thermal imaging), not near infrared. This is an ideal image to demonstrate near infrared photography, given the copious amounts of foliage present in the image. I hope you'll reconsider your vote given these explanations. -- Moondigger 17:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Neutral. Ok, I'm ready to believe it is a good example of IR photography. Thanks. --Bernard 18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Suppport Edit, Oppose original The comparison is much better at illustrating the subject than the original, we can apreciate the difference much better.Nnfolz 17:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit - I like the juxtaposition. InvictaHOG 17:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Week Oppose. This looks too much like a rotation of colours. I'd like to see (say) an animal in the picture shown as very bright. However, from the selection for voting, I prefer the two images against each other. (Even though this is a weak-oppose vote.) --Billpg 03:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sigh. An animal shown very bright would be thermal imaging -- far infrared. This is near infrared, for which foliage (as shown in this image) is a "classic" subject. I give up. I won't withdraw the nomination, but I'm not going to spend any more time defending or explaining it. -- Moondigger 04:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW, does that vote mean you'll oppose for a week, then support? :^) -- Moondigger 04:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Abstain. I'm a naughty boy for posting in haste and not reading. *slaps wrist* :) --Billpg 14:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. Per nomination. Nauticashades 16:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support both, prefer edit 1. PPGMD 21:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support either, but I prefer the original. --S0uj1r0 04:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 1, unless the two images can be put together some other way (just grouped in seperate thumbnails or something). But since that sounds more difficult than a single image, i.e. edit 1, I prefer edit 1. Per above. --Tewy 03:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support either (having been asked to choose) original. –Outriggr § 23:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC) & –Outriggr § 23:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support either.with preference for the original.--Pixel ;-) 09:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 impressive - Marmoulak 00:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC).
• Support either, preference for Edit 1. --jjron 12:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Tree example IR.jpg

[edit] Rogue River, Oregon

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.

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 07:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Those colors are just simply amazing. Wish I were there...InvictaHOG 07:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/Question Are the colors accurate? Are the stones supposed to look THAT orange? did someone tweaked witht he red balance of the picture?Nnfolz 07:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Per nom. Nauticashades 07:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It looks like image deconvolution has been performed (heavily) on this one in order to reduce blurriness. Unfortunately this has introduced some structures (at the size of the tree leaves - due to the chosen parameters of the point spread function) on the wall surfaces, in the water, and elsewhere that would most probably not be on a high-quality picture of this scene. The introduction of this additional structure is making this picture look sharper than it actually is. Mikeo 09:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Mikeo. Main features in photo not as crisp as other FPs. --Bridgecross 13:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose per Mikeo. Also, it has a painterly quality (sometimes good but sometimes not, as in this image) due to the substitution of color contrast and saturation for luminance contrast (which can't be boosted without blowing out most of the highlights). -- Moondigger 19:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mikeo HighInBC 02:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice colors/composition. --Fir0002 11:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Great image, but I because the photographer has changed the lisencing on the source, Wikipedia policy would be to delete the image if he asks, thats a bad position to be in with a Featured Pic IMO. PPGMD 22:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Support PPGMD 23:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • See Commons:Image talk:Rogue River Oregon USA.jpg. I don't think that will be a problem in this case. howcheng {chat} 22:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong SupportI like the colors of both the rocks and the water. AndonicO 18:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Makes me homesick for my native Pennsylvania, it looks like the image could have been taken there. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Rogue River Oregon USA.jpg

[edit] Orion Nebula mosaic

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

• Nominate and support. - Davepape 04:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - A beautiful picture InvictaHOG 07:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wow!Nnfolz 07:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Nnfolz. --KFP 10:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per everyone else. Evocative image, looks almost 3D. --Bridgecross 13:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very impressive. SteveHopson 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support 18000x18000, 385 megabyte TIFF? Hahaha. Cool. Arad 17:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Quite impressive. Mikeo 17:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Either original or edit. The 18000 version is a little over the top, if you ask me. Nauticashades 18:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. One might quibble with the somewhat aggressive color saturation the Hubble team chose, but the results are spectacular nonetheless. -- Moondigger 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support large version I am downloading the full quality tif and I am going to make a larger one close to the 20meg file size limit. HighInBC 01:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have encoded from the tif and uploaded the 18000x18000 version which has 9x as many pixels. HighInBC 04:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• My computer has considerable difficulties displaying this version. --KFP 14:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Ok, thanks. --KFP 18:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It could be the other way! How do you know you got the correct colors? --Bernard 03:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Ok, moving the large image to another page and linking them. HighInBC 21:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Done! HighInBC 22:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. WOW many times over! --Janke | Talk 07:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Any version. Brilliant image. --Fir0002 11:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support original, would support edit 1 if resized to orignal nominated image size or less. Some users may (foolishly when dealing with NASA images) have there settings to it shows the fullsize rather then a scaled down image. Oppose the huge 18,000x18,000 image. PPGMD 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Are you suggesting a maximum size criteria for featured pictures? This seems to go against the Wikipedia's best criteria. Which size should we limit the pictures to? HighInBC 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am suggesting that if we can help it, our best shouldn't lockup or even crash computers who selected show full size pictures in thier preferences. PPGMD 02:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• Oppose Too reddy, I would prefer this in green or blue, mabye a different shape. NegativeNed 16:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I assume this is a joke? HighInBC 16:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed it is. Look at his comments for Ulysses S Grant and White Tigers above. Snore. Are votes counted if the member uses Tor services for anonymity? Also, does somebody check opposition votes for relevance before counting? --Bridgecross 20:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm leaving notes on each of the pages so the vote will be checked. --Tewy 23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
        • When I close nominations I do take the comments into account. Most of this user's comments seem to be jokes, and I probably would not tally them. -- Moondigger 05:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Bkkeim2000 Excellent picture. Super resolution and should be on wikipedia. Also as an easter egg, zoom in on the almost exact center, it looks as though there is something there like a black hole or asteroid.
• Support 6000x6000 version Rtcpenguin 17:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I really hope that the featured picture does not have less than 12% of the detail than one that is available. Not one person has responsed to my attempt to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured picture?, yet people still see too large as some sort of bad thing. The preference for a less detailed image does not seem to fit into existing criteria, nor does anyone seem to be trying to make it a criteria. HighInBC 19:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Whole_world_-_land_and_oceans_12000.jpg is FP, Image:Whole world - land and oceans.jpg is not. HighInBC 19:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Support the original image - Marmoulak 00:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC).

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

[edit] Georgia Aquarium Tropical Tank

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.

• Nominate and support. - Tewy 03:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good job! Beautiful shot with good colors, nice framing and good use of silhouettes. Well illustrates article and worthy of FP status. SteveHopson 04:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure this can be licensed for commercial use... There are people in the image, who may be identifiable, and have probably not signed a release. -- Moondigger 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

These people cannot be identified. HighInBC 14:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Support Vibrant colors, and it does show what an aquarium is for. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Rather a tourist snapshot. Mikeo 06:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Moondigger. One silhouetted person would accomplish the same effect of communicating the purpose of an aquarium without also blocking out most of the tank itself. Also, it appears to need a bit of perspective correction. howcheng {chat} 06:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Impressive quality (particularly for ISO 1600) but agree with above. Would have perferred a photo taken infront of the people with just the aquarium scene. --Fir0002 10:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, looks like MST3K. —freak(talk) 12:53, Sep. 12, 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't completely agree with all criticisms but I don't really think its one of my best images either. I can do better. :) Maybe next time. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Per Moondigger. Nauticashades 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like it, a flash would be nice to light up the crowd. Model release issues, though I think is valid, it's not the norm for Wikipedia. PPGMD 22:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The silhouetted figures are too great in number and definitely distracting. Fantastic colors, though, and I like the way the brick walls frame the shot evenly. --S0uj1r0 04:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The people just block too much of the tank. say1988 15:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose People blocking subject, either the tank is curved or there is lens distortion. I took one like this at the Toronto Zoo and I would not vote for that one either. HighInBC 14:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support hypnotic photo. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Northern Gannets

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

• Nominate and support edit 2, particular object edit 1 (loss of file size, spots not yet removed) or 3 (unnecessary saturation, poorer bokeh). - –Outʀiggʀ 04:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Either version. Love the monotone background! --Fir0002 10:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great detail, crisp, endearing interaction between subjects. --Bridgecross 12:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support original version. —freak(talk) 12:51, Sep. 12, 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Fir's edit (increased contrast?). However, Fir, can you please clone out those small circular "smudges" on the background? One just left and down from center, and the other left and up from the left bird's head. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, there's at least four smudges now that I look closer. Anyone else see them? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I do. Nauticashades 17:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed them. I worked from the original so as not to lose image data, and then re-applied something close to Fir's edit as well. –Outriggr § 00:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Clarifying, my current support is for edit 2 or 3. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Edit 3. Per nomination and Bridgecross. Nauticashades 17:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support both, Edit 1 and 3 but edit 1 makes the colors pop a bit more. PPGMD 22:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support both, but I prefer the original. Some P. Erson 22:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 per above reasons and because the problem is fixed now. Arad 03:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2. Wonderful colors. --S0uj1r0 04:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 3 or Fir's edit 1. I made the third version by using outriggr's edit 2, modified to be closer to Fir's version with respect to contrast and color (though with a tiny bit more saturation). Like PPGMD said, the colors should "pop a bit more." ♠ SG →Talk 05:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, we're all getting the chance to alter this picture to our tastes, which is great. I'm sticking with edit 2 because I don't feel the colors need to "pop". There is a subdued beauty in the blues and yellows of 1 & 3, especially the relation between eye color and the bokeh. Now, additional saturation turns these gannets' heads into the color of a heavy smoker's fingers, if you will. :-) –Outriggr § 05:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 by Outriggr. --KFP 19:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 3 HighInBC 14:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 -- very nice shot of subjects, and subtle color TotoBaggins 20:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 - colouration is closer to reality than the contrastier/saturated versions. A lovely photo. --Yummifruitbat 01:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Background is blurry NegativeNed 16:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • User only has votes on his or her user page, talk page, and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. See Special:Contributions/NegativeNed. --Tewy 23:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• • This user is seriously not funny. Arad 03:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Just don't worry about it. Their vote simply won't be counted if it's not valid. --Tewy 03:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I think he's pretty amsuing. Its ovbious that his votes aren't going to be counted so don't pop a roid. This is FP not congress. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Edit 3, background looks great in #3. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 18:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I like edit 3. It is a nice image, is exceptionally clear, follows the rule of thirds, and has interesting symmettry. -FloridaJosh 13:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 3 Aye-Aye 21:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] King's College Chapel West

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.

• Nominate and support. - Terri G 10:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, boat and occupants barely discernable in thumbnail view. —freak(talk) 12:50, Sep. 12, 2006 (UTC)
  • but we are not judging the thumbnail! - Adrian Pingstone 16:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - the chapel doesn't look particularly sharp to my eyes, and I'd have liked to see the boat coming towards the camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CountdownCrispy (talk • contribs) Nauticashades 19:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Though a nice photo, it is not a FP. Another photo of this scene can be taken with relative ease perhaps with more punts. A different angle (further to the left) would also cut out the tree on the right which is distracting in this photo. Witty lama 02:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for User:CountdownCrispy's reasons and the large amount of JPEG compression artifacts surrouding the spires. Also, the shadowy tree on the right is very distracting to my eye. --S0uj1r0 04:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply I see what you mean about the artifacts, but unfortunately I didn't take the picture, so I can't do anything about it. I suppose Solipsist might have access to an original, although he/she didn't take the picture. I chose the picture because I liked it, but I'm fine with the idea that other people don't agree, afterall I didn't take it. Terri G 10:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Jpg artifacts, and too small. I know it meets(barely) the minimum size requirements but most of the image is low detail blue sky. HighInBC 14:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] White Tigers

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.

• Nominate and support. - Arad 23:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• As Nominator, I don't like the edit much. It just takes the body of the tigers off and destroys a lot of detail.Arad 11:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, although I'm a bit worried that some careless viewers of this photo may be eaten... --KFP 00:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I love your comment. yeah better watch out! Arad 03:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• Support - Wow!, Magnificent. Marmoulak 03:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

• Come on. Blury? this shot is magnificent. But thanks for the vote anyway. Arad 03:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless my monitor is way off, they look blurry, especially the lower one. If you look around the edges of the tigers, you should see what I mean. I just don't think this is quite good enough for FP. --Tewy 03:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that's because of the focus. I actually like it. IMHO. Arad 03:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• Sorry! I guess I misinterpreted your comments and overreacted. I meant no rudeness, and I apologize if I came off as rude. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Your comment wasn't rude at all. it was polite enough and thanks again. Arad 01:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• Support original. Focus not perfect, framing a bit tight, but still good. --Bernard 02:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

• • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• your second comment is reasonable enough. Thank you. Arad 12:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• oppose I don't think anything that is capable of eating a person should be supported! NegativeNed 16:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: User only has votes on his or her user page, talk page, and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. See Special:Contributions/NegativeNed. --Tewy 23:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• Looks like this user is a little, how you say it? I can't understand anything from his vote and he has a bad credit. Arad 03:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - Pictures of tigers should be amazing to become featured. I do not believe that this is the best picture of White Tigers that exists. --Ineffable3000 04:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great image! Some P. Erson 22:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[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.

• Nominate and support. - bob rulz 02:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Google Earth has better quality with a more fun program to look around. right? Arad 03:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Google earth images are ineligible for FP status due to copyright issues. --Hetar 04:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Dude I know. I meant that I can just go to Google earth and have more fun. This picture is not the Best of wikipedia.
• Comment Yes it is informative, yes it is somewhat pleasing to the eye, yes it does well illustrate the articles in which it is included. So I should support... My only concern is that you could take almost any satellite picture of an urban area or important geographical/geological features and it would also meet those criteria. A while back someone nomiated a national flag saying it met the criteria for FP, but again if one national flag gets a FP status, then all flags should get it too. That is why I am abstaining to vote for this nomination. It lacks uniqueness. -Glaurung 05:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Almost all satellite images of cities look roughly the same. I've uploaded a whole bunch of them into Commons and while this is definitely nice, it's just par for the course when it comes to these types of images. howcheng {chat} 06:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. A featured picture has to represent the best in Wikipedia. I do not think that an ordinary satellite image is anything special. If I wanted those, I could easily go to Google Earth - also getting a 3D view of the valley. Mikeo 06:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just a plain sattelite picture. Can support only if landmarks were clearly marked on it. --TAG 10:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per Howcheng and Mikeo. Nauticashades 11:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As above, nothing special here. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing special; it needs something extra, such as TAG's suggestion, to make it FP-worthy. --Tewy 23:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Since the invention of Google Earth. Arad 03:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Arad. —Jared Hunt September 14, 2006, 08:34 (UTC)
• Oppose There are literally millions of sattalite images of cities, and some are very impressive, this one seems rather ordinary. HighInBC 14:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Looks awesome to me. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Pioneer Plaque

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.)

• Nominate and support. - Billpg 03:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support (Original). I personally prefer the line drawing version, as I feel the background distracts from the drawings. --Billpg 13:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• (Support original.) I'll support it, but isn't the original a bit more encyclopedic? –Outʀiggʀ 03:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• support Original; for historic and visual reasons. I just like it better with that metal grain texture. --Bridgecross 04:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. I just hope that ETs are smarter than me :-) -Glaurung 05:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. Mikeo 06:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. That's what the plaque actually looks like. howcheng {chat} 06:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. One of the few artifacts of mankind that have left our Solar system. NOTE: It seems it is not in any article at the moment - some other version, perhaps? Needs to be looked in to. --Janke | Talk 07:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

I have no idea. I'm new at this. I'll raise it on the talk page. --Billpg 13:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• That can be changed. Nauticashades 17:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support original (but not tilted version). It's all been said. Nauticashades 17:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support either, but I really wish the "original" had a better source than a Star Trek fan site. All I can find so far is a lower-res copy at Ames. --Davepape 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Done. The file has been re-uploaded from NASA. It lost ~600k worth of file size, which appears to be useless data, the result of someone sharpening and saving at too-high quality. –Outʀiggʀ 23:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support top one. A photo of the actual metal plaque would be preferred though. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support The bronze version, more like the one launched. PPGMD 23:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support original Excellent historical value. My understanding is the image is designed to be understood by aliens with no knowledge of our culture. So someone should be able to tell me what those lines with the ticks on the mean. hehe HighInBC 02:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just read the article. This is Wikipedia, you know... ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Doh, should'v thought of that. HighInBC 15:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support for the original coloring/texture, but it should be rotated a degree or so to make the lines truly horizontal/vertical. --S0uj1r0 04:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I still support the original, by rotating it, I was forced to crop it too tightly at the top. Perhaps someone should go get the original plaque and rescan it(joking). HighInBC 05:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support the original. —Jared Hunt September 14, 2006, 08:35 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 00:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support the original and I hope it gets posted on an appropriate anniversary. Aye-Aye 21:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support The original,it seems that it's decided.--Pixel ;-) 00:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support either, preference for 'original'. --jjron 12:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support the original tilted version. --Ineffable3000 03:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment While I do not think the anatomical correctness or a lack of thus is therefore a major issue, it could be claimed that this image sent out to the rest of the universe on spacecraft depicts only "Caucasoidal" features as a representation of humanity. Yet it also historically significant to note and see that this image was chosen to be sent out into space at the particular time it was chosen to do so. Sudachi 08:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Angel of the North

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)
• 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)

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)

• Support - Per nom. This reminds me a lot of the Windows "Bliss". nice photo and good composition. i prefer the original. Arad 02:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• License issue - the statue is recent (1994), making this (and the other photos of it) more likely Fair Use than CC-able. --Davepape 03:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, this statue is in England, which was freedom of panorama for statues as well as buildings. There is no licensing problem here. howcheng {chat} 06:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay - that's great to hear. --Davepape 13:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. (Here I go again with over-saturation concerns (the colors in the original are truly over the top I feel), but in peer review I produced Edit 1. I'll support whichever. Furthermore, the notion, regardless of law, that one cannot distribute a picture of a sculpture displayed in public is absurd.) –Outriggr § 03:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Under US copyright law, statues and other 3D artworks can be copyrighted. See Commons:Derivative works for more information. howcheng {chat} 06:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I get that, but it is absurd to imagine that a huge outdoor public sculpture cannot have its picture distributed. I mean, when will property law require us to poke out our eyes after viewing a copyrighted work? A reasonable man would understand that if he constructs an extremely visible, non-private work of art, people can take pictures of it and do anything with them. </derail> –Outriggr § 23:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Look at it this way: if I create a 2D artwork and hang it in a store window or put it on a billboard for public display, it's copyrighted. Why should my 3D artwork, which could require a lot of effort to sculpt, be any less protected? howcheng {chat} 03:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
        • By putting artwork in a public space (different to hanging in a store window) such as a park, you're basically giving it to the public (morally, if not legally). The design of the artwork is a different story - if someone copied the design and tried to sell replicas, that would be completely different to merely photographing it. Perhaps the artwork has already been purchased for the park, in which case the creator would not have rights to the physical sculpture anymore anyway, only copyright to the design, I assume. Regardless, a photo of artwork in a park will not detract from the ability to sell it or further derivative artwork. The publicity from photographs of it will only add to that ability, if anything. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
          • To be clear, I don't disagree at all. I was just playing devil's advocate. :) howcheng {chat} 16:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like the human at the base to give it a sense of proportion that would otherwise be lost. HighInBC 14:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As per nomination and HighInBC. I absolutely love this picture. Nauticashades 18:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This sh... tuff is like the Total Perspective Vortex. Vitriol 03:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - am I looking at the right image? way small. --Deglr6328 07:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a thumbnail, try clicking it :P Vitriol 14:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support very nice image, good composition, lighting, interesting subject --rogerd 23:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Duh, yea, I did, what's your beef? --rogerd 03:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Support strange and beautiful Calibas 00:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Severely uneven polarization, "body" of statue in shadow. A better image of this subject shouldn't be difficult to obtain. -- Moondigger 23:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Touched by His Noodly Appendage

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 amoung 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)
• Support as per nom Seano1 00:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - would be nice to see some humor on the main page as well. Debivort 02:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support Lol!Nnfolz 04:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I must admit the whole thing is quite amusing, but not yet of Historical significance -Glaurung 05:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course, historical significance is not a requirement of an FP, and historical novelty is not a disqualifier. Debivort 06:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support — Quite a unique image, and surprisingly free! ♠ SG →Talk 09:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with Diliff. I'll always support a good cause... ;-) --Janke | Talk 11:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't seem significant, nor is it striking. PPGMD 13:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • Of course it is a mockery. And yes, nudity is allowed on the main page. Nauticashades 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • The Creation of Adam is a Christian icon. A parody of The Creation of Adam illustrates religion parody in a general context. Seano1 22:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • 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,[23] 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)
              • 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)
                • 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)
                • 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)
                • 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)
                  • 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)
                • 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)
                  • 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 [24]) 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)
                • 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)
• 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.
  • See my comment 4 bullets above yours. Debivort 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Anyone active on the featured article page? How do they deal with articles about a POV written in a NPOV way? Debivort 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • Diliff is right. By your logic, Fir0002, this painting is a shameful joke and horrible defamation, as opposed to an important ouevre of dadaist artist Marcel Duchamp.
      • Well I would describe that as a "shameful joke and horrible defamation" not to mention unimaginative and tasteless. I hope I can say that I have a good sense of humour, but there is a line, and that's just not funny. --Fir0002 08:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

"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)

• Oppose Bias against noodles! NegativeNed 16:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • User only has votes on his or her user page, talk page, and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. See Special:Contributions/NegativeNed. --Tewy 23:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Done on his talk page. Wonder if he'll chime in. Debivort 20:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)

Eh, I'm unswayed.--Deglr6328 03:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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).
  • 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)
    • 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)
• Support for immediate viewer appeal. What a fabulous icon. Aye-Aye 21:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support for technical quality and concept. mstroeck 23:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

However, I think we'd better not feature any Mohammad cartoons... --Janke | Talk 16:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Strong Support:This is devastatinly funny.And well made.--Pixel ;-) 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Well made image. Iorek85 05:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Per Diliff. BeSherman 09:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support particularly given the arguments made by Debivort in long discussion above with Moondigger. Dylan 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • "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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • I can't believe this debate is proliferating again! Debivort 06:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
            • A failure on my part to resist rejoining the discussion. FWIW, I got back into it to point out the Catholic Church's statement on evolution after another poster implied that Christian churches don't support evolution. That's at least a new topic, but of course it reverted to the original discussion before long. -- Moondigger 13:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
              • I assume we didn't get any feedback from the powers that be? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
                • None that I am aware of. -- Moondigger 13:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
                • Yah. A not so helpful 4-paragraph thread on Jimbo's talk page, but nothing from him, or any other bigwigs I recognize. Debivort 15:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • If you're looking for a non-neutral FP, just look at this one [[25]]. 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: [[26]]. 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)

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)

• Support - nice picture. i can't see any reason why it could not be a feature picture. Period. PYMontpetit 19:15 20 september 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Seems to meet all of the FP criteria to me. Kaldari 23:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Answer mstroeck. I personnaly think that comment broke WP:Civil. I personally am not a creationist, and if you do not want to waste "energy", DON'T! As for NPOV, I agree with Moondigger. Also please do not call us fellow Wikipedians "Idiots" if you can resist the temptation. | AndonicO 23:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but for once I couldn't. mstroeck 08:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Mohammed Alim Khan

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.

• Nominate and support. - KFP 12:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There are some strange purple dots and hairs on this image, most noticable on his chin Support I did not realize the discoloration was inherent in the medium, I thought it was a scanning glitch. Support per historical reasons. If there is a PNG version why not use that? HighInBC 13:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support In addition to historical significance, this has technical significance too. Consider - it's a full color photo from 1911, 20 years before Technicolor! It's a triple exposure on three glass plates - the dots are defects on one of these negatives. --Janke | Talk 14:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - A truely brillant picture! --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 15:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Excellent SteveHopson 15:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Janke. Outstanding quality for the year it was taken. Mikeo 16:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Almost 100 years old full color photo + historical significance. - Darwinek 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I swear we already did this one... does anyone else recall? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe you're thinking of the Commons featured pic, Image:Prokudin-Gorskii-19-v2.png, which is a PNG version? howcheng {chat} 21:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Per Janke. I think I would consider supporting this even if it wasn't historically significant. Nauticashades 17:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Per above --HarisM 20:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support As above --Fir0002 11:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Absolutely stunning, especially for its age. -- tariqabjotu 23:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great. --jjron 03:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Historically significant, technically significant (it was originally hi-res black-and-white, and colorized using modern techniques, I believe - sorry, I'd site my sources but I'd need to really dig), and one of a kind.--Paul 02:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• Support For being nearly 100 years old it's amazing quality. PPGMD 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Perimeter

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.

• Nominate and support. - Tim Horton 03:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The blown highlights in the sky and elsewhere are the main problems, along with the picture being fairly blurry/grainy. The angle is good, but the technical aspects of the picture ruin it as a FP. --Tewy 03:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Tim, I think that the other image in the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics article is more qualified for FPC than this image. If you would like to nominate a picture of this building, I would suggest the version that was taken from the front and has a better saturation of colors, has less grain, etc.. --Tewy 03:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• OpposeBlurred - Adrian Pingstone 07:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per poor technical quality. HighInBC 16:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blurry and grainy. Angle is OK, position is not. 207.87.51.122 01:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - poorly focused. --Ineffable3000 02:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Boring. That pretty much sums it up. --Midnight Rider 04:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I actually agree with Tewy, the other image in the article is much nicer (though I think the trees may keep it from passing FPC). Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Map of Sealand with territorial waters

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.

• Nominate and support. - Billpg 00:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Commenting on the image itself I'm opposing due to the pixelated lines and because I think it would be much better as an SVG(which I don't think should be hard to do). HeartOfGold 00:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Boring and unencyclopedic. What is Sealand anyway? --Midnight Rider 02:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose. Explains the concept well, but is of relatively poor quality (as HeartOfGold said). Would prefer to see this in SVG. --Tewy 03:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per aliasing on image, and if a map is going to be a FP it needs to be amazing. HighInBC 16:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is just a typical map. There are thousands of them on Wikipedia. There is nothing unique about this one and it is not eye-catching. It's only purpose is to illustrate a point in an article. --Ineffable3000 03:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I love the Sealand article, and this image is perfectly fine, but it is NOT a FP. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Venus de Milo

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.

• Nominate and support. - --PYMontpetit
• Oppose Per, low detail, stitching error near her waist, missing portions in the lettering. HighInBC 19:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for lameness Aye-Aye 21:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Dull, this [[27]] picture illustrates the subject more clearly.Nnfolz 22:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose because of low detail, dullness, and because the text below the picture would be unreadble on front page. --Ineffable3000 23:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• Support - I agree with Debivort, though an image without the arms cut off would be nicer :} Gnangarra 00:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I didnt notice the stitching error, support the edited version Gnangarra 09:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• Comment Why run a drawing of the sculpture for FPC when you actually have a photo?Nnfolz 17:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
• Support edit 1. The sharpness pushes it over the top nicely. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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

[edit] 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.

• Nominate and support. - Húsönd 22:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support This is a nice photo, but the spires are (IMHO) too shiny. Although I'm not an expert editor, perhaps darkening the image might help? AndonicO 23:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The domes have poor contrast with the sky. The composition is framed poorly, with a chunk of the building sticking out stage left. The people in the foreground add nothing to the depiction of the building. This seems like a standard tourist photo. (aside; I've been to this site myself, 10 years ago. Much better photos are possible). --Bridgecross 00:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Bridgecross HighInBC 01:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not featured quality. Hardly any contrast between the spires and the sky. Bad composition. Mikeo 08:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It's hard to get them all in the picture, especially now that Ivan's Bell Tower is under construction. However, there are better images of the Kremlin available. InvictaHOG 15:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good effort, but ultimately I don't think it was quite successful enough for FP. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose not better than a postcard Aye-Aye 21:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose because of blurness and lack of sharpness. --Ineffable3000 23:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bridgecross. Nauticashades 09:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone. Just too blurry. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Chocolate

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).

• Nominate and Support AndonicO 18:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose. I'd say it appears in more than "several" userpages :) It's nice, but it just isn't exceptional. I don't like the lighting, it seems to be lit from below which looks strange. For something as common as chocolate I think that we (the Wikipedia community) could get a higher resolution photo. This res isn't small, but it doesn't feel big. I don't know, something about this image makes it lack the "wow, what a beautiful, cool, exceptional image!" that FPs should have. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I agree that a picture of something so common should be a very good image indeed. This is a good picture, but it could be larger, and the lighting is a bit flat. HighInBC 20:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. The resolution is great, but something about the presentation isn't doing it for me. Maybe it could be lit better. Pictures of food should make my mouth water, and it's not! --Bridgecross 20:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - First of all the reason it's on many user pages is because of a template which has nothing to do with choclate and therefor the subject of it is life. Back to the image this is like a advertisement for Alpia chocolate first. After that the quality is really on limit and then again it's only a chocolate. Lacks the WOW factor and it's surely not the best Wikipedia has to offer. The only reason a photo of a food can get FP is that (as mentioned above) is mouthwatering. composition is not nice either in my opinion. Arad 23:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support - The detail of the chocolate in high resoultion comes through nicely, but having only one brand isn't really representative. It may be useful in some instances (i.e. - when discussing bars of chocolate). --FloridaJosh 12:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unexceptional. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - as nom --Ineffable3000 23:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above. A picture of something so common should be exceptional to qualify for FP. --Tewy 03:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose A good photo but not a great one. Tobyk777 05:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per HighInBC; good, but not great --rogerd 23:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I actually like the idea, but I'm opposing for what FloridaJosh said. A proper chocolate FP should be more a cornucopia of cocoa powder, maybe some cacao beans, and a variety of chocolate brands/forms. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - If this is intended to illustrate chocolate, I'd prefer a different arrangement. Also, current arrangement is not pleasing to my eye. Not really special, frankly. doniv 18:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Hagia Sophia

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).

• Nominate and Support AndonicO 17:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The composition is ok but the image is overexposed, very blurry and has some serious compression artifacts. --KFP 18:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Major jpg artifacts/graininess. This image feels like a tourist snap-shot: nothing exceptional. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Pharaoh Hound HighInBC 20:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Strange appearance (grain, oversharpening?) -Adrian Pingstone 22:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Long been one of my favorite monuments but this image's quality is very poor. Arad 22:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose overexposed, a good, but not great image of a very photogenic place --rogerd 23:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have seen much better pictures of the Hagia Sophia. --Ineffable3000 02:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Just not too great a photo. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Outstanding Monument Poor Picture!!!! Abdullah Geelah 19:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] F-14 Tomcat Launch Preparations

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.

• Nominate and Support TomStar81 (Talk) 07:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose This is a great perspective, but it's a bit dark and not so sharp. I like military photos with lots of crisp detail. --Bridgecross 17:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support Great photo, both the steam and the rocking of the boat add realism to it. My only complaint is the flight director, (please correct me if that is not what they are called), is cut off.AndonicO 13:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Wonderful subjects, but often photographed. Opposing per cut-off person to the right, and not much going on in picture. HighInBC 14:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a very good example, try searching for 'f-14' here for a lot of pretty good photos of this subject. --Yummifruitbat 00:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. If anything, this picture [28] should be uploaded and nominated. Nauticashades 10:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Anyone can photograph a plane in the air, which is why I try to shy away from those types of photographs. This one stood out because the F-14 is not in the air, but rather preparing for launch. The fact that the photo was taken on a carrier, as opposed to runway at a ground facility, led to believe that this was different enough to warrent a try for featured status. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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 _talk^contribs 15:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[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

• Re Nominate and support. - Arad Arad 12:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A tiny bit grainy, but otherwise a very beautiful picture. Nauticashades 18:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor lighting, too much focus on foreground trees, and I'd like to see a larger picture for something that isn't going anywhere anytime soon. HeartOfGold 18:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Cluttered, no clear subject, mass of trees in the foreground, quality standards. --Bridgecross 19:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bridgecross. -- Moondigger 19:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bridgecross --Ineffable3000 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Copyright staus. [29] clearly says "© All rights reserved" Other photos will need to be checked. Rmhermen 23:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, but his userpage [30] clearly says "© This photo is public". Nauticashades 15:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • On Flickr, "public" means anyone can see it, as opposed to "private" photos which are limited to people the user specifically designates. howcheng {chat} 16:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Many of his other pictures have Creative Commons liscenses. I doubt that he would selectively pick some to share, and some not to share (however, I could be wrong). Nauticashades 15:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In that case I would contact him. Many photographers, when asked, are willing to release their pictures an a license wikipedia can use. Garion96 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Howcheng, why don't you email him? That way, we could sort this issue out once and for all. Nauticashades 16:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, email sent. howcheng {chat} 21:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Let's keep our fingers crossed, then. Nauticashades 12:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose This picture doesn't focus on any main thing and it is a very ordinary picture. --Midnight Rider 03:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Ineligible -- licensing. howcheng {chat} 00:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • After email communication, photographer has changed licensing to cc-by-sa. howcheng {chat} 23:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you Victor! i told you guys, victor is way too nice. Arad 12:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Good, now we can actually discuss the image itself, as opposed to copyright issues. Just wondering, Howcheng, did he let Wikipedia use his other pictures? Nauticashades 10:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Providing the licensing works out, the picture is a good one and presents the subject well. --WikiSlasher 14:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bridgecross HighInBC 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support The trees in the foreground help in understanding the image better. The colors seem a little dull on the right, however, but it is still a better image than many FPs. AndonicO 16:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not really grabbing my attention; a bit average (and not very big) for a potentially stunning subject which isn't going anywhere in a hurry. --Yummifruitbat 00:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above. Nothing striking and on the small side in size. --Tewy 03:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose most books I've read on composition say that landscapes should not show equal parts sky and ground, the image should either have its main subject be one or the other --rogerd 23:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks to me at least 60% ground --WikiSlasher 07:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very very weak oppose Basically neutral, but if I'm the tipping point I'd say oppose. Nice photo, somewhat dull subject matter, and just not striking enough to overcome that. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Now that the licencing it done and the picture has a home, I have no problem with this image. Don bertone 13:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Bridgecross doniv 18:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Fields of gold

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

• Re Nominate and support. - Arad 12:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Neutral - Image page lacks any useful information, such as what sort of crop this is, and where it is. Also, who is Victor Szalvay? These images by him don't seem to have enough source information to support the claimed CC licensing. --Davepape 18:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is obviously a wheat farm. 66.36.144.252 23:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In answer to my own question, the source appears to be flickr [31]. However, the page there says that this particular photo is "all rights reserved", not CC-BY-SA. --Davepape 20:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose per Davepape. Also, not up to the size and resolution of most FPs. However I love the photo itself, with the sun through the grain and hypnotic rolling landscape. Provide more info and a new version and I'm in. --Bridgecross 19:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Also, the sky is totally blown on the right side. -- Moondigger 19:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - overexposed sky --Ineffable3000 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Overblown sky, too small. HighInBC 02:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Ineligible -- licensing. howcheng {chat} 00:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • After email communication with the photographer, he has changed the licensing to cc-by-sa. howcheng {chat} 23:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wheat fields are common here, and this image has far more eye appeal than any wheat field I've ever seen. Breathtaking! Royalbroil 12:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support I am very suprised this is getting so much opisition. This is the best photo of a field I have ever seen. Tobyk777 05:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great picture; makes something I would usually consider dull and boring more visually appealing. Mitch119 07:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Visually appealling, but I wish it were bigger. enochlau (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Visually Stunning picture, not much else to say.Araxen
• Support ...and we walked in fields of gold. Sting would be proud ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• I was thinking about that when I uploaded the image too. Arad 15:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very nice photo, my only issue is that it could probably be used in more places beyond just the basic agriculture article! Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - could use more photo information and larger resolution. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• Oppose - Not detailed enough to be FP-worthy at this resolution. Might support a higher resolution version, but the blown sky is also an issue and the overall impact isn't spectacular. --YFB ¿ 02:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I find the quality pretty good. And i love to see it on main page too. Babayi 16:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• As noted during the Arge Bam and other nominations (see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Possible_socks, this user (along with QAZ and a series of 66.136 (Montreal) IP addresses may be sock- or meat-puppets of Arad. --YFB ¿ 19:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Mt. Rainier

Great picture which also describes perfectly Mt. Rainier National Park. Good choice for FP. This photo is of a peak just east of Chinook Pass. It appears in Mount Rainier National Park and it's taken by: Victor Szalvay

• Re Nominate and support. - Arad 12:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Its beautiful and descriptive. Some haze around the base of the peak, but this is unavoidable and forgivable. My only question: Is it really Mt. Ranier? I've never seen any photos with so little ice and snow on the summitt. SteveHopson 17:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• My fault, I changed it (The Description). Arad 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Per SteveHopson. Nauticashades 18:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Odd framing; this one seems (to me) like it should have been a landscape or square composition. Haze in mid-foreground seems strange -- I think it could be eliminated in Photoshop, but that might throw off the near foreground and top of the photo. Uninteresting foreground. -- Moondigger 19:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support meets my personal quality standards and in my opinion those of the FP criteria. Cat-five - talk 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It's presently not used in Mount Rainier National Park, because it's uncertain if the mountain is in the park or not. The only peak east of Chinook Pass that's in the park is Naches Peak, and the map I've got doesn't show it as being that heavily forested. --Carnildo 04:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: The image's source [32] says that it is copyrighted. --Hetar 04:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Could be of higher resolution/quality, lighting is a little off. --Hetar 18:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The second page of his userpage [33] clearly states, "© This photo is public." Nauticashades 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That isn't a licensing statement. If he intends it to refer to licensing, he should make that clear with a valid licensing statement. The "©" symbol is contrary to the free licensing schemes Wikipedia requires. "This photo is public" could mean other things unrelated to copyright or licensing. -- Moondigger 20:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • On Flickr, "public" means anyone can see it, as opposed to "private" photos which are limited to people the user specifically designates. howcheng {chat} 21:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Many of his other pictures have Creative Commons liscenses. I doubt that he would selectively pick some to share, and some not to share (however, I could be wrong). Nauticashades 15:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
          • His profile page says clearly, "Some of my photos are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5." So he does pick and choose which ones to share and those he shares are under an incompatible license anyway. howcheng {chat} 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Oh, I did not see that page. Well then, let's hope that he agrees to let us use them in an email. Nauticashades 12:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Ineligible -- licensing. howcheng {chat} 00:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • After email communication with the photographer, he has changed the licensing to cc-by-sa. howcheng {chat} 23:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nothing particularly special, composition is awkward and not currently very useful as the subject is unidentified. Could also do with a more descriptive name. --Yummifruitbat 00:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing special. Lighting is weak. The top of the mountain is more boring than an average Rocky Mountain. Royalbroil 12:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, but the pic on the bottom right of the mount rainer national park page looks like it's FP quality. If you want a FP of mt rainer nominate that one. Tobyk777 05:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• That one was nominated not very long ago, but not promoted. There is already an FP of Mount Rainier though, here, albeit not really up to today's FP standards. --Yummifruitbat 12:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support If and only if it finds a home in an article. Like the other Ranier image it's a bit small for my taste, but HQ enough IMO. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• I added the image to mount rainier national park article. Arad 15:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nothing would've made me happier than to strike the weak to make that a full support, but please please please don't edit other people's votes. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry. I'll never do that again. I'm glad to see it didn't upset you. Sorry again. Arad 04:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Per nom and per above. Don bertone 12:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Royalbroil - doniv 18:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Clouds over Hills.

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

• Re Nominate and support. - Arad 12:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. A beautiful photo with rich colors, but one that does not well illustrate its stated subject. SteveHopson 17:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Per SteveHopson. Nauticashades 18:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Slightly tilted(unless that's just me), not enough focus on the subject, and I'd really like to see landscapes especially in larger size. HeartOfGold 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose See my comments for Fields of Gold above. Landscapes need big scale, give us more than 1000 pixels across. Still, love the photo itself. --Bridgecross 02:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Severely uneven polarization; no clear subject or point of interest; tilted horizon. -- Moondigger 19:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Tilted - Adrian Pingstone 22:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Subject unclear, and not really big enough to show something as large as a hill HighInBC 02:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose subject matter very weak, its a decent photo though Michaeln36
• Ineligible -- licensing. howcheng {chat} 00:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • After email communication with the photographer, he has changed the licensing to cc-by-sa. howcheng {chat} 23:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tilted horizon, dark patch in the top left corner for some reason. --WikiSlasher 14:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support This picture has lovely colors, and illustrates well what a hill is (there are few hills where I live so I should know). However, more information about the clouds should be given. This image is comparable to the FPs View from Connor's Hill panorama, and Great Dividing Range. AndonicO 16:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Tilted, no particular subject, heavy polarisation in top left is distracting. A bit feeble as a representation of Hill (although that article seems to be lacking a good illustration). --Yummifruitbat 00:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think this looks beautiful. I may even adopt it for use as my background. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's certainly better than the default Windows XP background. --WikiSlasher 09:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Somewhat pretty, but not really that encyclopedic. Maybe it could find a more appropriate home in the landscape art article? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Good idea, I've done that. Arad 15:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Good photo for a hill. Also a good example of cumulus clouds(?). I find it a very good quality too. Don bertone 12:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Colony of King 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.

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Very impressive upon first glance, but the more I look at it I see little quality issues such as blurriness and blown whites that prevent it from gaining my full support. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This picture doesn't look like penguins and its pretty boring. --Midnight Rider 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, if the goal is to show what a penguin of this species looks like, then you're correct in that this image fails to do so. But this image shows what a huge colony of penguins looks like and you wouldn't be able to accomplish that with one or two penguins filling up most of the frame. howcheng {chat} 06:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Awww, penguins! (Nice pic.) --Billpg 03:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor image quality at full res. I think a pic with snow in it would be more iconic. --Fir0002 11:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Iconic? King Penguins are found in temperate islands including the Falklands and Tierra del Fuego. True, the stereo-typical image of penguins is that with snow, but that doesn't decrease the encyclopedicness in any way. Is that part of your oppose based on that it's somehow less visually apealing without snow? --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support and agree with Pharaoh Hound that different penguins are found in different climates and therefore don't NEED to be featured on snow. Then again, I disagree that a photo needs to be iconic to be featured anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. As per Pharaoh Hound and Diliff. Nauticashades 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support That's a whole lot of penguins. PPGMD 22:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't think the lack of snow is a problem - and these obviously look like penguins. However, the picture overall just doesn't seem to be quite up to FP status. The little quality issues such as blurriness and blown whites mentioned above, along with the fact that it just isn't that eye-catching, ruin it for me. --Hetar 04:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support --As per Pharaoh Hound about the minor details --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fantastic subject, but I agree with Pharaoh Hound about the blur and blown highlights. More of the colony should be in focus --Tewy 00:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Pharaoh Hound. I don't think FP had to be iconic anyways. —Jared Hunt September 14, 2006, 08:37 (UTC)
• Support The huge mass of penguins is eye-appealing and almost unbelievable. Definitively not something one sees every day. AndonicO 17:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose A lot of penguins, but unfortunately not a lot of image quality. Pity it's so expensive to get to South Georgia :( --Yummifruitbat 01:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I've got to vote Support. The image is high enough resolution, the penguins on the bottom are clear enough, and this subject matter would simply be impossible to properly capture with "high quality" on all those penguins. You can't identify faces in a crowd shot. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Red-headed Rock Agama

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.

• Nominate and support. - Carrotmonster 23:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment link to previous discussion here -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose all Blown highlights (on snout, back, rock), they simply can't be fixed... --Janke | Talk 06:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good colours. The blown highlights don't really affect the image much at all, since the scales in particular are shiny so it is not so much blown highlights. Compared to other repitle images this is probably the best. Anonymous unsigned vote (86.132.123.212)
• Oppose. Cool lizard, distracting background. -- Moondigger 18:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - the background is distracting the viewer from the lizard. --Ineffable3000 02:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blown highlights and distracting background, as others have said. --Tewy 03:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak oppose edits 1 and 2. The edits do wonders to the distracting background, but there's little that can be done to fix the blown highlights. --Tewy 21:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Kudos to Moondigger's edit (viewed in the thumbnail), but unfortunately if you look at the edges you can tell that work has been done to it. --Tewy 02:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You're absolutely right... I hadn't looked closely enough at the edges, especially the head. I fixed it now -- the edges are much improved. You may have to clear the browser cache to see the updated version, as I overwrote the first one. -- Moondigger 16:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose A little bit of blurring on the background would fix any distraction there for me, and I'm not so convinced those blown highlights are a lost cause. Try fixing it up a bit. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1 There ya' go! Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

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

[edit] Butchers Creek, Omeo, Victoria

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)
• 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)
• Oppose Nothing too special. I like the other pic better.Nnfolz 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Nice shot, but I agree with Diliff. --Tewy 23:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This could be anywhere, branch in foreground. Not an example of wikipedia's best. HighInBC 16:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Technically good photo, but composition is spoilt by the branch. IMO not special enough to be FP. doniv 17:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, Weak Support Alternate. As per Diliff. NauticaShades^(talk) 08:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The first one really looks bad and the branch is like the main subject of the image - Support Alternative The Alternative on the other hand is much better with more colors and quality. Arad 22:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: It's a pretty good photo, however I think it doesn't show the full picture. Support alternative.  Orfen ^{User Talk} 00:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Right now, it's only used in Stream, but does it really illustrate a stream well? The main subject of the photo seems to be the waterfall, but that article is full of pictures already. howcheng {chat} 23:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Harry S. Truman Flight Deck

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.

• Nominate and Support TomStar81 (Talk) 01:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Small, blurry, and unclear. There are better pictures of this exciting event. --Midnight Rider 04:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose A good pic but not FPC. I think the pic needed to have been taken from higher up, the aircraft are not seen clearly - Adrian Pingstone 08:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Interesting, but badly cropped (either in camera or elsewhere) on the left, and far too many artefacts at full size. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Adrian Pingstone and Staxringold. Like Midnight Rider said, there are definitely better pictures of this out there. NauticaShades^(talk) 17:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Adrian Pingstone --Ineffable3000 23:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blown sky, JPEG artifacts, and low angle. --Tewy 23:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Subject shown poorly, blown sky, jpeg artifacts. HighInBC 16:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] The Tulip Stair

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

• Nominate and support. - Mcginnly | Natter 23:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support - Edit 2. A wonderfull image. However, it could be centered more, and the depth of focus does not cover the whole subject. As for the depth of focus, that may be technically difficult to deal with given the position of the floor. HighInBC 23:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support. The subject is a bit unclear, as a result of the angle, but that and some grain are minor to this being a very interesting image. I personally don't mind how the middle of the stairs are off-center; I think it creates interest. --Tewy 03:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support This eye is catching! A nicely composed shot of historicaly significant architecture. --Janke | Talk 05:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent pic - Adrian Pingstone 08:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very effective at capturing the subject, good quality as well. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support As above JanSuchy 10:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. As per HighInBC. I would fully support a better cropped version though. I support all three versions, with slight preference for edit 1. Nauticashades 16:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no edit 3, there is the original and edit 1 and edit 2. I assume you meant edit 1 and edit 2? HighInBC 16:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, of course. I fixed it. NauticaShades^(talk) 15:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2. This image has a lot going for it- the evocative name (why tulip?), the article and fine building it is connected to, it's hypnotic pictoral qualities. Considering the array of Architectural FPs, in thumbnails found here, this makes a nice addition. DVD+ R/W 18:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "The first reference to the iron balustrade design as 'tulips' was in 1694 and the name 'Tulip Stairs' dates to the 18th Century. Despite this the flowers are probably sylized French lilies (Fleurs-de-lys) in compliment to Queen Henrietta Maria, for whom the house was finished" quote from 50p guide by Pieter van der Merwe with acknowledgements to Gordon Higgott.--Mcginnly | Natter 19:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd add this to the article under the section ==The Tulip Stair==. DVD+ R/W 19:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Support A beautiful picture that in my mind could be a featured image. SOADLuver 02:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 It looks beautiful, sharp, and now that it's centered, perfect for FP. | AndonicO 14:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Salmon larva

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.

• Nominate and support. howcheng {chat} 23:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Seems a touch oversaturated on my display, but otherwise meets all criteria. Interesting and informative. -- Moondigger 23:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support as nom --Ineffable3000 02:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support amaizing.Nnfolz 03:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Interesting and beautiful. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Encyclopedic. Scientific. Fantastic. --Bridgecross 15:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Nice image, well-done InvictaHOG 16:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very impressive. Enclyclopedic, sharp, and beautiful. What a cute fry! --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Per Pharaoh Hound and Bridgecross. Nauticashades 17:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Encyclopedic, anatomic, artistic. What else could I want? HighInBC 23:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As above. --Tewy 03:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very good and also quite rare to get something this detailed for subject matter so small on a free liscense. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per above. It's good and encyclopaedic. —Abraham Lure 22:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice work --Fir0002 05:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I've never seen that before. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Can I Support it twice? Beautiful image. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 06:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC) (my RfA)
• Support - Excellent illustrative image, and great photograph too. doniv 18:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Can't believe I'm the first person to say "Wow!" --YFB ¿ 01:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. FP at its best. - Darwinek 17:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Crab Nebula

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.

• Nominate and support. - Ineffable3000 21:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It appears that this is a re-nomination on a duplicate image. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crab nebula and the image, Crab Nebula High Res.jpg. The other image (not this nomination) was featured on the main page for its article, Crab nebula. --Tewy 22:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The Crab nebula article being featured does not automatically disqualify the Crab Nebula picture from becoming a Featured Picture. --Ineffable3000 02:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I was mostly telling voters that the other version, which could be found in that article (and therefore might be more widely used), existed. I think that if an image has a duplicate, the more widely used or more important one should be the FP. --Tewy 02:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • We can always merge the images into one once FP status is achieved. --Ineffable3000 03:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. It's obviously a great find compared to some other FPCs, but as far as these astronomy pictures go, this one isn't exceptional. Of course I like the colors and composition, but I think it has too much grain for a FP of this type. --Tewy 22:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support This image is stunning. FWIW, I don't think it should be compared to other astrophotographs unless those other astrophotos are of the Crab nebula. This is a great image of the Crab nebula, and meets/exceeds all FP criteria. -- Moondigger 22:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That's what I tried to say in my vote. This definitly meets all criteria for FP if one ignores that there are many better "astrophotographs" out there. I guess my question is whether you can judge a FPC based on its type or by comparing it to similar images. --Tewy 22:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I try to apply the criteria to each image as it stands, without consideration of other images in a similar vein. So I might compare one photo of the Crab nebula to another, but I'm not going to compare it to an image of the Ring nebula, for example. There is, of course, a grey area when it comes to these things, but I try to err on the side of judging an image on its own. YMMV. -- Moondigger 22:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is a great photo, definatly a FP. | AndonicO 17:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Per Moondigger. I would change it to full support of someone does a good noise-removing edit. Nauticashades 17:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. I am supporting this image despite lack of sharpness, and noise due to the unique value of this image. Along the same lines, if a better image of the Crab Nebula is made available, I will probably nominate this for delisting. HighInBC 23:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 01:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support As both a great and pretty historic/famous shot. A noise reduction could be nice, though. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I dont think there are better pictures of Crab Nebula available, nevertheless this image is good enough to be a featured one. - Marmoulak 23:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC).
• Support per Staxringold's comment --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Lovely image, meets all criteria - doniv 17:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Stunning. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 14:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support A truly excellent image that is without a doubt featured images material. SOADLuver 22:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support I have seen this before and it is beautiful and awe inspiring.__Seadog--fly on....littlewing 23:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] The Clock Tower of the Palace of Westminster

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.

• Nominate and abstain. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent quality. I enjoyed watching at all the crisp details that can be seen in full size. It is good to have such high quality pictures here - this really exemplifies the best in Wikipedia. Mikeo 11:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great detail, nice resolution, clear and crisp. It would be nice if it was taken in clear skies, but it's still excellent. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As per nomination and Mikeo. It might need to be slightly rotated, though, as it all looks rather titled. Support edit 1. Oppose edit 2. Nauticashades 15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• a very nice picture that I shall support. Couple (very minor) things though, Is it just me or is the clock tower leaning slighty? It could well be my eyes (or my computer could be on an angle :p). Also might it not be better to centre the tower? The rest of the buildig is so small I don't think cuting a bit off would matter, though we would end up with an awfly narrow image... say1988 16:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Extremely crisp high detail. I did a test in Photoshop, and the Clock Tower is indeed not leaning at all, though it appears to be to naked eye... — Abraham Lure 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great Photograph! | AndonicO 17:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support very nice composition, lighting --rogerd 19:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent detail. Good framing. FP! --Bridgecross 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is a wonderful, encyclopedic image. It appears to lack something in thumbnail, but it's stunning at full resolution. Re: tilt -- The left front corner of the tower is plumb, but due to perspective distortion common in architectural photos, the right front and left rear corners are not plumb. None of this is a problem IMO -- he's done a wonderful job of composing to minimize the effects. -- Moondigger 23:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I wasn't too impressed until I saw the full image. Really nice shot of a very common building which I've seen hundreds of (less detailed) photos! InvictaHOG 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent. Wow. chowells 19:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Amazing detail. It just reminds me how much I'd like to go there and see it myself, in its surroundings. --Paul 20:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Does not look amazing in thumbnail, but at full resolution I found myself looking all over the little details. Excellent depiction of the subject. HighInBC 23:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, although it looks to me like the photo may be slightly tilted to the left. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Exceptional detail at full size. --Tewy 03:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great image, and by cropping in on just the Tower you get far more detail for the Big Ben article (rather than the entire building/complex with just a note as to what is Big Ben). Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support: looks great! --Bhadani 23:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I must say that this is the most extreme example of a really bad thumbnail from a really good full size photo that I have seen on Wikipedia. Is there anything that can be done to have the quality of the thumbnail better reflect the quality of the original? The Blackfriar 23:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic detail on the full res image! I think the illusion of the tower leaning is due to the angle the image was taken at I've uploaded an edit for consideration. --Fir0002 05:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Not bad, but the edit has shifted the perspective so that the roof on the right side is now tilted. I know the original image looks a bit peculiar but it is perspective distortion as moondigger said - something that can't easily be perfectly corrected. You often end up robbing peter to pay paul, as in this case. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Edit 2 added. –Outriggr § 01:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Edit 2 removed. –Outriggr § 20:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support Amazing picture but in thumb, it looses the details. but still very good. Don bertone 13:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 - Lovely photograph. doniv 18:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - can't decide on an edit - as usual Fir's has lovely vibrant colours but I suspect the original is closer to reality; they both look slightly tilted to me but the longer I look at them the less I can tell which is better... great image though --YFB ¿ 01:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - An absolutely astounding photograph! At first glance as a thumbnail the image looks like any other image taken of this Famous Landmark in London. Seeing the whole image at full size though took my breath away, and it takes a lot for me to say ‘wow’ with such sincerity! This picture should most certainly be featured on Wikipedia! User:Sean the Spook

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

[edit] Canada goose gosling

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.

• Nominate and support. - ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support. This picture is relatively good quality and pleasing to the eye, but the shallow depth-of-field is a bit too much for me. NauticaShades^(talk) 07:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. It's nice, but not great. As Nauticashades mentioned, the DOF is a bit too narrow. I would like it to be higher resolution, I concede that it's well above the requirements, but it feels quite small (perhaps because a lot of the resolution is horizontal). The "flat" lighting doesn't help either, it looks as though taken on a cloudy day, and it doesn't show texture well. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support It looks amaizing. One of the few pictures in wich the shallow DOF actually improves the understanding of the subject. I wasn't aware that goose had teeth.Nnfolz 14:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too-shallow DOF and cropped/framed too tightly, both of which hurt the informational value of the image, IMO. An image that shows an entire gosling in focus would be more encyclopedic. Side note - geese don't have teeth. I don't think any birds do. -- Moondigger 15:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Similar picture of a cheetah head was just promoted. So i don't see why a shot cropped of only a gosling head can't. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It was a close nomination, however. NauticaShades^(talk) 16:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't say this picture couldn't be promoted. I oppose it for the stated reasons, but others support it. At the end somebody will evaluate the "support" and "oppose" votes along with everybody's comments and will make the decision. Also, it doesn't matter whether other superficially similar images have been promoted or not. We evaluate each image on its own merits. You'll note I didn't vote on the Cheetah image, but might well have opposed it if I had. -- Moondigger 17:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't mean that as an attack against you Moondigger -ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't take it as an attack. I apologize if the way I worded my reply made it seem that way. -- Moondigger 17:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Pretty good quality, detailed and of an appropriate size. It also does a good job of illustrating a gosling, which is most important. 213.106.164.150 19:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Note: Votes/comments from anonymous posters are not counted here. Please login and re-sign your entry with ~~~~ to have your vote counted. -- Moondigger 19:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Moondigger.--ragesoss 20:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Basically there's a lot of minor things that I think prevent this from being FP material. With just a little bigger size, a little better focus, a little larger DOF, and a little more of the subject shown I would support. But since that's not the case, I'll have to oppose. --Tewy 23:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Shades --Ineffable3000 15:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Narrow depth of focus, subject is overly cropped. HighInBC 16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Moondigger doniv 17:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Moondigger. Also, the Cheetah image mentioned has far more of the Cheetah in the shot than this does. I still think it's cropped unencyclopedically, but it provides more information. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The DOF doesn't bother me, but I don't like how the background is almost the same color. I think it needs a little more contrast. howcheng {chat} 21:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Looking at the criteria, it meets 1,2,4,5,6,7 & 9. Partially meets #8 - it could use a more descriptive caption on the image page. #3 always throws me - best work? It's the only gosling photo in either the Goose or Canada Goose articles. It's high enough resolution to see detailed ridges on the beak. Is that unique enough? Criteria count: 7.5 out of 9 is a full support. — Zaui (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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