Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/April-2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured picture tools

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

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


Hypervelocity impact

[edit]
A simulation of space debris hitting an orbital craft
Edited by Vanderdecken.
File:Hypervelocity impact mk2.jpg
2nd edit by Spaully

An incredible NASA photograph from the space debris article. Brilliant and adds significantly to the article.

  • Nominate and support. - CapeCodEph 00:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nice. -Ravedave 05:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose An incredibly dirty scan, dust, smudges, etc. Check it in full-size before voting! Needs a major photosoup job to be a FP. (Looks like somebody already tried and botched it, see the black "brush marks" in the upper & lower right corners.) --Janke | Talk 08:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Adds significantly to the article. However, I also agree with Janke that quality should be improved. Yet it is a very rare shot and a good illustration that is helping to grasp the destructiveness of a hypervelocity impact. Mikeo 09:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try a cleanup on it, but don't expect a sudden transformation. I agree the mark in the bottom right corner is awful, that doesn't even look like a cleanup - somebody scribbling there for fun. I'll try smartening up the NASA original, although I can't see any difference visually. And the scribble isn't a botched Wikipedia job, it's on the NASA one too. There's also no way it needs to be that kind of resolution - about 3/4 of that'll do, probably. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 15:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit added. Not too good if I do say so myself, but as good as I could do in a pinch. Looks great at thumbnail and image page, but even I notice imperfections when you download the full version. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 17:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for 1st edit. Heavy cloning stamp artifacts in upper right corner. --Janke | Talk 18:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second edit added - not meaning to insult Vanderdecken as that edit seems good, I had made this when there was only one copy but had been unable to upload it. It's not perfect, and I left some of the flecks in as I think they are reflections of the flash but they could be removed. Open to the vote, |→ Spaully°τ 14:53, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Oppose 2nd edit - too heavy filtering smudges details. --Janke | Talk 15:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, not doing this just because I have a rival edit, but I do also believe that too much detail is lost with the blurring - one of the reasons I just selectively blurred the walls of the tunnel etc. And I see what you mean by those clone stamp marks, I'll have another bash tomorrow. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 15:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair points, I'm not that hot with pic editing so was a bit of a learning process. If you have another go though there are still a few scan errors in your edit that might bear cloning and some more cloning marks in the bottom left corner where the curve of the tunnel becomes straight. Otherwise I agree that yours preserves more of the detail. |→ Spaully°τ 17:14, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Support which ever one wins. Or has the most votes. Which ever happens first. TomStar81 07:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hypervelocity support - This is awesome! It's like straight out of science fiction!

--Cyde Weys 07:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Hypervelocity Impact Demonstration.jpg This nomination was well liked. However, the first one had some visual flaws. The third image seemed to have some slight opposition by Janke and Spaully, so that leaves the 2nd image. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Crossing the Delaware

[edit]
Wahington Crossing the Delaware
File:Washington Crossing the Delaware II.jpg
Version 2

One of the more memorable portaits of President George Washington, this one depicting him crossing the Delaware River during the American Revolutionary War.

  • Nominate and support - TomStar81 00:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Beautiful historic work of art and illustrates an article.--Dakota ~ ° 07:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We should get a better scan than this for FP. It looks like it is scanned from a book, with raster aliasing, and a light bar in front of GW's head that might be the white space between two pics on the other side of the page, also, a bit small - it is just under the "magic 1000" - but here, I think details are so important that it needs to be at least 1600 or even 2000.--Janke | Talk 08:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for version 2 - only a tad larger, much better general quality, but it is less sharp. Can we do even better? --Janke | Talk 07:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
’Fraid not. This was the largest size I could find on the net. TomStar81 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandelbrot Set

[edit]
The Mandelbrot Set

This mathematics picture depicts the chaotic nature of fractals. In my opinion, this image is flawless and deserves to hold the featured picure status. I am well aware that other images of the Mandelbrot set are featured, however, this is a worthy addition.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Percival Lowell

[edit]
Percival Lowell observing Mars

I nominated this photograph due to its great historical relevance. This picture was taken in the observatory that Percival Lowell established in Flagstaff, Arizona. In addition, there is proper copyright information.

Not promoted There wasn't a consensus one way or the other. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this picture is on a "History of America" trading card (Card # 57-06, offered by subscription only In 1979-1981) with the following caption: "Lowell The Gifted Author & Astronomer Observing The Planet Venus During The Daytime." Great Story Of Him On The Back Of The Card.

Typeset writing examples

[edit]
1. A Specimen of typeset fonts and languages, by William Caslon, letter founder; from the 1728 Cyclopaedia.
2. Edit

Articles: Alphabet, Language, Typography, Writing, Writing system, Typeface, Written language, Letter (alphabet)

3. Fixed damaged part
4. Original color scan

I found this highly informative plate in the 1728 Cyclopaedia. It seems that the author asked a letter-founder to provide him with a specimen of typeset fonts and writings systems to illustrate his encyclopedia entry on letters. It is used in several Wikipedia articles which were without pictures, and provides perfect examples for all of them.

Support Have uploaded an edit, but wouild support either --Fir0002 www 23:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still prefer edit's but would support any version --Fir0002 www 09:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original color scan The nominator forgot to mention that the author of this specimen, William Caslon, is one of the most famous type designers. –Joke 23:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC) (edited to support original color scan Joke 15:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose. Does no one see the error (paper fold) near the left side? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've uploaded a fixed version. I found another copy of the page and pasted its undamaged section over the original damaged section. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-22 02:20
  • Comment. I prefer the "tone" of the original (first image), actually. I think the "fix" (second and third) loses some important details. Look at the "faded" part above the tear on the original and the same spot on the fixed copy... see? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot figure out what you're talking about. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-22 06:24
      • The faded text reads "consules defumus", it is above the tear area, a little to the right. It is above the "Q R S T" in Pica Roman. If you compare the first and second (or first and third) images, you will see that there is some loss in the fine detail. Also, the "fixed" version just seems "stark" to me... it looks more like a poorly digitized scan than a photo-realistic representation. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's also quite possible that I'm nuts. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright, I see what you're referring to, but can't really fix it without reverting to the original version, which would include the tear. It would be more difficult to fix the original verison, since its background is not nearly as white. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-22 09:02
  • Comment - I'd really like to see the color scan of the old document here (see my comment in Warship), too - these edits are good, but too clean, for images being from 1728. --Janke | Talk 10:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original color scan. As seen in Warship above, after the original color scan was uploaded, voters favored that. So, I upload and support the original again. The imperfections in the paper and printing are of historical significance, and should not be edited out. Nuff said... --Janke | Talk 14:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What historical purpose do they serve? To show that the text is old?? I highly doubt Caslon wanted to present a browned, damaged, see-through page as his best work. This picture is used in articles about alphabets, languages, and fonts, not articles about water damage and paper aging. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-23 15:35
    • In this case I'm not sure that they are significant. Since the candidacy focuses on the typefaces themselves, I'm not certain that the age of the paper itself is an issue. Nevertheless I'm supporting that 4th version as it is unquestionably the clearest and most detailed of the available options. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that they are not necessarily particularly significant. On the other hand, they don't detract from understanding the image as a type specimen, and give it historical context. The sample was printed with lead type on paper almost three hundred years ago. It is pointless and dishonest trying to make it look as though it was laser printed yesterday on unnaturally white paper, and looking closely at the processed image is off-putting: the letters are rough but the contrast is so high it seems like a black and white image and it is difficult to register they are rough because it was printed with metal type. I don't like the lack of any texture in the three other versions. I say, unless there is a clear argument to the contrary, it is best to use the least manipulated image. (With that said, it is regrettable that the text behind is visible in this image.) –Joke 17:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original colour scan I mean, Wow! the detail is beautiful, the depiction of the early typefaces loses nothing whatsoever from the ageing of the paper, and the cross-print from the other side of the page is neither ugly nor encyclopedically irrelevant. There is no contest here, it has to be this version IMO ~ Veledan • Talk 21:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Caslonsample.jpg After weighing everyones' opinions, it seems that the last one was the favorite. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warship diagram

[edit]
Diagrams of first and third rate warships, England, 1728 Cyclopaedia.
Edit
The original, showing faded paper in color

Articles: Warship, Naval warfare

Another great find from the 1728 Cyclopaedia. It's like an anatomy chart for 18th century warships. The image could probably handle a little more cleanup, but as it stands, it's a highly detailed and informative diagram.

Support Have uploaded an edit, but wouild support either --Fir0002 www 23:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Did you just increase the midtone contrast under the Shadow/Highlights option, or something else? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-20 00:03
Levels --Fir0002 www 21:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: You all realize that this picture is not used in any article? It can't really be a featured picture until that happens. Mstroeck 10:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I looked at the edit instead of the original picture :-) Mstroeck 10:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Both informative and stunning. Would support having the initial image replaced with the edited version (without the artefacts). - Mgm|(talk) 11:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, this is the original image. I didn't just upload it without attempting to clean it up first :) — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-21 13:23
  • Support color original per above. –Joke 23:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC) (added "color original" Joke 18:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Support. Stunning (both pictures). — Webdinger BLAH | SZ 02:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Support ~Linuxerist L / T 05:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edited - cool. Ha, they called it a "cock pit". --Deglr6328 05:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original color file only. You know, I'd really prefer the the original file, showing the faded, brownish paper. The edits are just so clinically antiseptic looking! If a document is old, I'd like to see it in the scan, too. Struck out my vote further above. --Janke | Talk 10:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Support colour version only. Agree with Janke, gives more character. |→ Spaully°τ 14:10, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Support colour original only I knew it looked wrong for some reason. Much better. chowells 13:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the cleaned up versions are closer in appearance to what the image was originally intended to be, not browned and damaged with time. The image is supposed to be for educational purposes, not historic purposes. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-23 14:06
    • Personally, I find the color version the most legible, and the most "cleaned up" version the least. –Joke 18:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original colour scan Per my vote on the typefaces, there is no contest here IMO. The edits sharpen at an unforgiveable cost in detail ~ Veledan • Talk 22:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit. Artifacts are basically gone in the edit; the "character" of the original color version is only nice at huge size, while at the size it is in the article, the grey is just hard on the eyes. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're discussing the images here, though, not the thumbnails! With that said, for some images (such as this one) it would be nice to have a different crop and levels for the thumbnail sized reductions. –Joke 16:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original only. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original only. The edit is not that bad, I compared the versions side by side for quite some time. But still some characters with very fine lines are more legible in the original and the tones of the fill patterns look nicer in the original. --Dschwen 09:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any version; it's a wonderful plate. A "translation" of the descriptions in the image into wiki-text on the image page would make it even better. –Gustavb 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, awesome pic! --Cyde Weys 07:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice detail. Prefer the original. Covington 08:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: not a fan, While it's a beautiful diagram, the huge number of labels are unworkable. For this to be useful in learning it would need mouse-over labels. I don't know how you'd do that within the MediaWiki framework. Note: I'm being slightly hypocritical here as I've been doing the labels for Haeckel's images in commons. —Pengo 09:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Imagemaps aren't possible in the software, although it might be possible to make a table with the image as the background, and put links in the table. The problem is getting this to work at all resolutions. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-1 16:16

Promoted Image:Warship diagram orig.jpg The colored version seems to have the edge. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prix Motorcycle

[edit]
Contemporary Grand Prix Motorcycle

Articles: Motorcycle, Grand Prix motorcycle racing and KTM

I nominate this photograph as a featured picture. Enlarged to full size (the details are not too apparent while viewing the image as less than full size), it contributes to various articles by showing good technical details of contemporary racing motorcycle like the extensive use of carbon, "cut off"-footpegs, adjustable gear lever, data gathering system, steering damper and the like. Hence, it should be informative in various contexts. In addition, being able to see such details of contemporary world championship level factory (KTM) bike is pretty rare.

I also belive that considered just as a picture, this should be rather interesting. The bright orange paintwork should be eye-catching with various articles. When enlarged, the reflections created by spotlights in the steel platform and the fairing of the bike should make it a bit different photograph of a motorcycle.

Although I do have the original file, the full JPG converted from RAW is 5.5 MB. As I do not want to waste Wiki's disk space for nothing, I decided not to upload that file. However, if somebody thinks that such full file would be beneficial for postprocessing or like uses, please leave me a note. The image on nomination page has been compressed with "save for web"-function and resized from original dimensions of 3519 x 2345 pixels.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Flower

[edit]
File:2004 0510Image0011.JPG
Caption goes here

This is a good photo that I took with great colour

Not promoted As per discussion on Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. Also, the image will most likely be deleted very soon since it lacks any source info after a week. However, if the image does get the correct source info, the image may be relisted on FPC. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flower

[edit]
File:2004 0423Image0026.JPG
Caption goes here

I took this photo.

Not promoted As per discussion on Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. Also, the image will most likely be deleted very soon since it lacks any source info after a week. However, if the image does get the correct source info, the image may be relisted on FPC. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset & Tree

[edit]
File:2004 0515Image0007.JPG
I took this photo

Nice Photo

Not promoted As per discussion on Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. Also, the image will most likely be deleted very soon since it lacks any source info after a week. However, if the image does get the correct source info, the image may be relisted on FPC. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton and Jiang

[edit]
Jiang Zemin and Bill Clinton.

Articles: Bill Clinton, People's Republic of China , Jiang Zemin , Sino-American relations , and 1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal.

This very dramatic picture has a lot of personality to it. On the one side is the serious looking Clinton addressing the audience, while the other side shows the pervading smile of Jiang. Behind the two leaders are the flags of their perspective countries standing in line as a symbol of cooperation and friendship. This amazing picture captures the emergence of a peaceful China as a key player in global affairs; seeking the friendship of countries around the world. The picture is in the public domain because it is a work of the United States federal Government.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venus de Milo

[edit]
The Venus de Milo, front view

Articles: Venus de Milo, Louvre, Marble

I would like to nominate this photo as a featured picture. The Venus de Milo is one of the most famous and beautiful sculptures in the world, and this image shows it off to its best. Few featured pictures are actual works of art, and this picture is an excellent showcase for the work itself, the Louvre museum and the medium of sculpture as a whole.

The Venus de Milo must be one of the greatest examples of classical sculpture in the world, and is surely a fantastic example of Wikipedia's articles and portal on the Arts.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iguassu

[edit]
Iguassu Falls from the Argentinian side

Articles: Iguassu Falls

I really like the persepctive of this picture, it gices a sense of the size of the waterfalls. I took this photo while on Holiday in August 2004.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Aprilfools}}

Ceiling Cat

[edit]
File:Ceiling cat 00.jpg
Ceiling cat

User:Samguana took this all-too-common scene of a cat poking through the ceiling, and with one stroke (no pun intended) created a masterpiece. We need to make this the POTD soon, to remind the world that we can all still agree on some things - such as this caption being fucking hilarious! What would Colbert say?

  • Speedy neutral. I'm fully in favor of this image remaining promoted or being successfully unlisted at WP:FP. It is a prime example of what pixels can look like when placed near eachother. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-2 03:02
Indeed, it does look like Pixel, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls - even though it's a ceiling, here! --Janke | Talk 09:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Closing the joke nom. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Wall of China

[edit]
The Great Wall of China, in 1907, as photographed by Herbert Ponting (1870-1935).
Original, larger size.

Articles: Great Wall of China

This breath taking photograph captured almost a hundred years ago by Herbert Ponting (1870-1935) is a wonderful depiction of the wonders of the great wall. The Chinese in the foreground are all wearing hanfu and the Great Wall is in need of repair. The wall's lack of care represents how vulnerable China is at the time to invading forces. It is also clearly shown in the photograph that the Great Wall is no ordinary wall in that it rises and falls; following the curvature of the mountains. This amazing photograph is "re-encoded, color corrected, resized and sharpened" by Zanaq, which is released under the Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License.

Source: http://www.geocities.com/blackinkal4/RoyalGeographicalSociety_Asia_2.html

http://images.rgs.org/herbertponting.aspx
If the larger version is chosen here, I'll put that version in the article. --Janke | Talk 09:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Greatwall large.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi and Jinnah

[edit]
Gandhi and Jinnah

Gandhi and Jinnah together in Bombay, September 1944. This is an important historical photograph, with the Father of the Nation of India and Pakistan together ; The historical importance of this image makes it a good FP candidate. The image appears in Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan and Attempts to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Ghant one of Gandhi's helpres

Woolworth Building

[edit]
View of Woolworth Building and surrounding buildings
Cleaned up, cropped and adjusted levels
"Fixed" version

This image illustrates the Woolworth Building in New York City, which is of great historical importance and generally considered to be the first skyscraper. It was the tallest building in the world for 17 years, and almost a century later, it's still in the top 50 highest buildings in the US. The picture is striking: the streets are full of horses, and the building fits in architecturally with 19th century New York, but it just dwarfs everything else - truly the dawn of a new age. Take a look at the resolution and level of detail - it's stunning.

Promoted Image:View of Woolworth Building fixed.jpg The "fixed" version. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock Tailfeathers

[edit]
A close up of the feathers of an Indian Peacock.
Revised version.

Whenever people think of peafowl the immage that comes to mind most often is that of the male of the species, the peacock. The most prominent feature of the peacock is it's amazing tailfeathers, especially the eye like patterns. I think that the picture is very visually pleasing and quite interesting. It appears in both the Peafowl and Indian Peacock articles.

(I revised the image based on the criticism it received) RyGuy17 00:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, the sharpening has grossly oversaturated the color. --Deglr6328 01:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT. The nominee blanked this nomination, so I assume that meant s/he is withdrawing it. However, I am not sure of the normal procedure, if there even is one, for this situation. I posted a comment on the FPC talk page. Either this nomination will be archived or the closing date will need to be extended. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Closing withdrawn nomination per discussion --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastrock02

[edit]
The Soldiers and Sailors monument atop East Rock in New Haven, Connecticut.

This is a self-nomination for a picture of the Soldiers and Sailors monument on top of East Rock in New Haven, Connecticut, USA. I think the picture is eye-catching and adds substantially to the quality of the East Rock article.

Comment How large is a good size for consideration?--StAkAr Karnak 13:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Check out File:Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica Jan 2006.jpg . Not all the older FPs are of that quality, of course, but I think we have been privileged more recently to have photography to match or better the finest examples found in the world's periodicals, but one consequence is that it makes the competition extremely stiff! ~ Veledan • Talk 20:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insanity

[edit]
Agnolo Bronzino, Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time (1540/45), Detail

Thought I'd try this and see what people think. A high-resolution image of a small detail of a famous painting, I think it really enlivens the otherwise bare Insanity article.

If by insanity you mean Insanity as a capitalized, symbolized concept, parallel to Truth or Time or Folly, then it probably doesn't portray insanity. (But it might - the article states that the image is unidentified, but may symbolize syphilis, which can cause insanity!)
If by insanity you mean not a corporeal symbol of it but the state of mind, the mental disorder - well, insanity is not a concept in the discipline psychology or psychiatry. It's a everyday term (or a legal one), and, in this respect, the image also fits. I think it's fair to say that the person depicted is clearly, in popular parlance, insane. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The common interpretation seems to be jealousy rather than insanity. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The incredibly high resolution and detail add considerably to the Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time article, where this image now resides. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I think that'd fit better under Existential crisis than Insanity. But that's my personal opinion - at any rate, this image isn't on Insanity anymore, it's on Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time. zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pet peeve warning. The more "scholarly" interpretations of Munch's piece are that the Scream referenced is not any sound made by the figure, but rather a scream to which the figure is reacting (a metaphorical scream resounding throughout the world). Also, as stated, the figure isn't represented as insane but as filled with despair, anxiety, and angst. YMMV. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Angelo Bronzino 003.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Not promoted This was a huge oversight by me. This nomination should not have been promoted. 11/16 is NOT a consensus. I will make a much better effort to avoid mistakes like this in the future, but it is still good for others to double check closed nominations. Thank you Mdd4696 for catching my error. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • condiitonal Support. If slight zoom out is possilbe. furthermore it's far better than the current article's picture.

Kikuyu Woman

[edit]
Kĩkũyũ woman in traditional dress

A striking photograph of a Kĩkũyũ woman in traditional dress. According to a message left on my talk page, this is not often seen in modern-day Kenya, most Kikuyu people wearing Westernized clothes. Image is by wayfaring stranger on Flickr and released under a cc-by-2.0 license.

Not promoted No consensus either way. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leonhard Building

[edit]
Leonhard building

I understand this isn't the Eiffel Tower or anything, but I don't think it's going to be possible to get a picture of this subject that's much better than this one. Suggestions on how to do so are welcome, however. I have the original TIF, so if there are JPEG artifacts or something like that, they should be fixable. Illustrates Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering.

  • Self-nominate and support. - Spangineer[es] (háblame) 04:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Dullsville, baby. I'm sorry but this picture has no chance of passing. Now that there is a featured picture visible on the front page every day and we're really getting alot more 'meh' pictures here I propose we put a note at the top of the page STRONGLY urging potential submitters to look through already featured pictures, see what's FP 'material' before they post one thier own. --Deglr6328 05:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, you're right, this is a rather boring picture, but if this is the way that FPC runs here, why do we bother? Aren't we just duplicating the effort of commons:COM:FPC? The only nominal difference I can see is that images here must appear in an article, but that's easily solved for virtually anything by jamming the picture into a semi-relevant article. Wouldn't a model consistent with FAC be preferred, where any subject that isn't deletable be potentially featurable? We're here to write an encyclopedia, not create an image gallery. The images we feature should be the ones that best describe articles, not necessarily the ones that are the most beautiful. The main page issue is a potential concern, obviously, but again, why not just use the commons POTD for that purpose? </soapbox> I have a feeling I'm proposing a radical shift in the way WP:FPC works, so I'll stop now =). Anyway, sorry for wasting people's time, but in my four previous FPCs, I've never had one rejected for not being interesting. I guess I thought this was more like FAC than it really is. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 21:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Maybe, as you say, it is not possible to get a better picture of this building. But This building is uninteresting and unimpressive. To be featured, not only must the picture be well composed, but the subject should of some interest. Glaurung 07:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dull subject, just a building. --Janke | Talk 10:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry, this a really nice pic, dead upright, well-exposed etc. but just not special enough for FP - Adrian Pingstone 18:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the encouragement; I'll plan on continuing to attempt to take excellent pictures of boring subjects, but you won't see me any more on FPC =). —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 21:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be annoyed, FP is for pictures that are a bit special. Your pic has no faults at all as a picture but it's not special to me. I have to judge if it agrees with the FP criteria and I (and the responders here) don't think it does. Don't take the FP process too seriously, only 5 of us have commented out of the worlds population of 6,500,000,000 so not much of a sample! Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 10:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, no, I'm not annoyed; my pride isn't hurt at all. No one has said that the picture is bad or whatever, it's just that no one is interested. Can't do much about that. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 11:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, a photo of a building which looks like similar to buildings I see every day is not particularly exciting :) Take photos of unique buildings, for instance, and you have more chance of support. chowells 13:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Right, though again, I fail to see the difference between WP:FPC and COM:FPC. But don't worry about it, I don't care much about FP status. The fact that people think the picture itself is good is enough approval for me.—Spangineer[es] (háblame) 13:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • There is certainly a great overlap between COM:FPC and WP:FPC, but I don't see why this is a problem. WP:FP might almost be thought of as a subset of COM:FP: those pictures aesthetically striking enough to deserve Featured Status, which also make a significant encyclopedic contribution ~ Veledan • Talk 21:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nothing too special, like other people have said. --Thorpe | talk 19:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I agree with the nominator. We must be careful not to turn FP into an art exhibition where an informative photo of a boring topic has no chance to be featured. I think we have to judge primarily on (1) informative (2) technically excellent execution, incluidng composition, exposture, etc. (distant 3rd) how striking or unique the subject matter is. As the nominator says, it would be very difficult to take a better picture of this subject: no distracting cars or people, sky is not quite bland yet doesn't distract from building... There is just that one shadow to the right, and a slight wide angle effect on the vertical walls. Worthy of FP in my opinion. Johntex\talk 01:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Building is average, picture is superb. I think this is featureworthy.-- Chris 73 | Talk 13:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too boring... Bertilvidet 15:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm opposing not becuase of its boring subject, but becuase the picture isn't eye catching or striking in any way, which is criteria for a featured picture.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spizzma (talk • contribs)
  • Strong oppose I can't see any reason whatever in favour of this candidate. The building is architectually uninspired; the photo itself in no way exceptional. If the building were the site of some exceptional important discovery, that might add lustre. But (as near as I can tell), it is in no way distinguished from similar facilities at any universities in the United States. --Philopedia 22:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm sorry, but I don't think this meets any of the feature criteria. Even the most masterful photography (and this comes close) can only do so much with a prosaic subject. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 06:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it is a pretty good picture, I wouldn't go as far as calling it superb. To nit-pick a bit: it could use some slight perspective correction (while the left edges of the building are perfectly vertical, the right edges lean to the left). Also the resolution is good, not superb. We had some recent examples which warrant this distinction. --Dschwen 07:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror

[edit]
The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror

A strange and unique building would make a great featured picture. Have you ever seen a building like this before?

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SR-71

[edit]
Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird flying above the snow-covered southern Sierra Nevada Mountains of California.

Great shot of the plane, great background, very high res, best pic in article, also fits in the backgrounds category.

Promoted Image:Lockheed SR-71.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move the featured picture tag to Image:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird.jpg, which is the same image, except it's 2.8 times larger, and it's on the Commons. How is it that no one who voted noticed that the picture that was nominated was only a thumbnail? Anyway, I'm then going to update links to the thumbnail and nominate it for deletion. User:dbenbenn 19:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toda Hut

[edit]
A hut of the Toda tribe of the Nilgiris, India.
Warmer coloring, cropped excess on right

May not be a photographically gleaming shot. But thought it would have some encyclopedic importance.(Pl. see the large image)

The hut of a Toda Tribe of Nilgiris, India. Note the art at the front wall, and the unusually small door. The huts, of an oval, pent-shaped construction, are usually 10 feet high, 18 feet long and 9 feet wide. They are built of bamboo fastened with rattan and thatched over this. Each hut is enclosed within a wall of loose stones. The front and back of the hut is usually made of dressed stones (mostly granite). Hut has only a tiney entrence at the front – about 3 feet wide , 3 feet tall. This unusually small entrance is a means of protection from the wild animals. The front portion of the hut is decorated with the Toda art forms, a kind of rock mural painting.

Promoted Image:Toda Hut.JPG ~MDD4696 23:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insecurity

[edit]
vexel created with photoshop

This image is eye-catching, uses a nice color combination!

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Isabel

[edit]
Hurricane Isabel as seen from the International Space Station

This amazing shot of Hurricane Isabel was taken by astronaut Ed Lu on board the International Space Station on September 13, 2003. I believe it speaks for itself. It's being used in Hurricane Isabel and List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. Public domain NASA image from [2].

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • SupportVery good picture. It clearly shows detail, and from what I can tell, the picture has good resolution. I was going to nominate this picture myself until I found this page. I am glad that this picture is an FAC. Juliancolton 17:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate

[edit]
A caricature of a stereotypical pirate.
Not really meant for vote. Example of Piratey as SVG via semo-automatic conversion via Potrace. This image should look ok when printed. It could be possible to do a better job than this. This version is missing some important detail, and edges could be cleaned up a bit. Feel free to download it and clean it up (e.g. in Inkscape), or try converting it yourself using the original :) —Pengo 05:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redrawn vector version.

Two of J.J.'s other creations, Mad scientist caricature.png and Villianc.jpg are already at featured status, but I've always thought this his finest work. It functions in the same way "Mad Scientist" and "Villain" do: a perfect realization of the stereotype, illustrative in all senses of the word. As you can see from the list of links, it's already quite popular on Wikipedia, far beyond the piracy article from whence it came.

Er... this is not animation, even though it's a cartoon... --Janke | Talk 06:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I sometimes mix up the terms "cartoon" and "animation". GizzaChat © 10:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wrong image format. This is a knock-out criteria for me. --Dschwen 18:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have dozens of FPs in jpg format. What is "wrong" about it? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-25 22:24
      • I think he referring to the fact that its animated and in jpg, really should be SVG or PNG-Ravedave
      • This type of image content, plain colors, sharp edges can ideally be represented as an SVG image. It was probably created using a vector-based program. JPG is the format of choice for Photos or photorealistic images. due to the nature of its compression algorithm. I'll try and find the pages where this matter has been discussed already and link back. --Dschwen 11:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • While it can ideally be represented in another formatted, it can be represented just fine in JPEG as long as the compression is very low. This isn't a valid complaint, since the image doesn't have JPEG artefacts. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-26 15:27
          • Please read Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Format, hope this alleviates the need for further discussions. --Dschwen 19:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It says "preferably" and "should", not "must" nor "shall". That leaves some room for judgement by voters. --Janke | Talk 10:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah, well, obviously it is not a felony to upload in a wrong format ;-). And neither am I voting to remove the nomination or let alone delete the image. Let me quote myself: This is a knock-out criteria for me. So I really do not get why there is so much discussion about the voicing of my opinion going on here :-). And replying to Brian with a quote from Janke: That leaves some room for judgement by voters, so it is a valid complaint. --Dschwen 10:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • You would have a case if the image was grainy due to high compression. This is not the case here, so I don't know what your rationale is beyond using an efficient format. The guideline you cite also says: "In general, if you have a good image that is in the wrong format, convert it to the correct format before uploading. However, if you find a map, flag, etc in JPEG format, only convert it to PNG if this reduces the file size without causing artifacts." — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-27 19:51
                  • Let me cite what is a featured picture: [It should...] Be of a sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions.. I just don't get why you are so unruly insisting on JPG beeing the appropriate format for an image most likely created using a vector-based drawing program. This is counterproductive. I'll go ahead and assume that it would be easy for the original author to provide an SVG version (if not I'm sure he could convince me otherwise). Just accepting a tiny image which could benefit so much from an appropriate format sets a wrong precedent. Just think poster-size prints without visible pixeleation. It is not just about artifacts! --Dschwen 20:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I am not being "unruly", nor am I insisting it be in the JPEG format. I am simply saying that there is nothing wrong with the current JPEG version. If you can find a problem with it, beyond its 3 letter extension, feel free to let me know. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-28 14:43
                    • Timeout, fellows! You both have a right to your own opinion - and FP voting is mostly opinions, anyway... Of course it would be nice if this could be in SVG, and in fact, I've asked J.J. if he can supply it in that format, but if not - well, consensus will rule. --Janke | Talk 22:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - size & not encyclopedic (maybe a kids encyclopedia) I am dispmayed that all of the size-ists suddenly disseapeared. In my opinion the above buffalo picture is much more interesting, yet it is being opposed on size. -Ravedave 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a photo, low resolution means a loss of detail. For an illustration, it usually does not. In this case, the relatively small size of the image doesn't result in any loss of information. bcasterline t 23:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm glad we have contributors to make stuff like this but I don't see this particular image as being that notable. --Deglr6328 01:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is notable in its flawless realization of the stereotype. As for the sally that this belongs in a kids' encyclopedia, the stated criteria for featured pictures include "add significantly to articles...by illustrating article content particularly well". The caricature idiom is encyclopedic in this case because, as with villain and mad scientist, this is an illustration of stereotypes. An actual picture of a pirate or a quote-unquote "more serious" depiction would detract from the purpose. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 06:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Top job on the artistry (is that even a word?), but the res is too small, especially considering this is probably a vector. --Fir0002 www 10:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as per Deglr6328. --P199 21:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support vector version. I will change to support if a vector version is provided. It's a great illustration but the low-resolution rasterization makes it hard to reuse (especially for printing). Furthermore, a minor problem with jpeg is that artifacts appear when the image is resized as in the thumb above—even if it's free of artifacts at its original resolution. –Gustavb 22:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no way for someone to convert this image to SVG format? Surely this is possable? Raven4x4x 01:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to do it (i.e. redraw it), but only if J.J. can't provide the original in vector format. It takes some work to make a good conversion, so I don't want to redo something that already exists. –Gustavb 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to redraw it, perhaps consider using a tracing tool like poTrace (available within InkScape, which could cut down your work. Though redrawing completely may give better results. I've uploaded an example of a traced image I made in Inkscape, but I had some trouble getting it to keep all the detail, and yes, the original does have JPG artifacts. —Pengo 04:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually prefer redrawing it from scratch. Maybe it's just me being bad at tracing, but I always end up with too many nodes in the wrong places and too few where I actually need them. Another drawback with tracing is that strokes are lost (everything ends up as unstroked paths). Since it seems like J.J. hasn't got a better version [3], I redrew it — It's not a perfect match compared to the JPG, but it might be close enough… –Gustavb 13:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks for fixing! –Gustavb 14:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To really pick the nit, J.J. originally released it without a license, and others added a PD tag... --Janke | Talk 15:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 1, is infinite resolution not enough for you? ;) –Gustavb 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it'll have to do. |→ Spaully°τ 15:19, 1 April 2006 (GMT)

Promoted Image:Piratey.svg Deciding if I should promote this nomination or not was very difficult. I spent quite a bit of time reading everyone's comments and taking every opinion into account in making a decision. There were 18 support votes, 7 opposes and 1 neutral. 18/25 = 72%. With 72%, I probably wouldn't have promoted this. However, two opposes cited the image size as the only problem. Since the image was redrawn as a SVG after these votes, I have chosen to discard them. Fir0002 said "Oppose Top job on the artistry (is that even a word?), but the res is too small, especially considering this is probably a vector." MDD4696 also opposed because of the small size and it was a vector, however both of these issues have been fixed. So, that brings the vote total to 18/23 = 78.26%. Wikipedia:Consensus states that 60-80% and above is usually a consensus. However, the people who promote FPCs tend to be much stricter and be on the high end of the scale. I for one don't think I have ever promoted anything under 75%. In the end, I decided to promote the image. If anyone disagrees, feel free to bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates instead of the talk page for this nomination as that page is more visible. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mainland China

[edit]
The highlighed area in the map is Mainland China

This image appears in the article "Mainland China" in the English Wikipedia, as well as the corresponding articles in several other languages. It clearly illustrates that the terminology "Mainland China" refers to the actual area controlled by the People's Republic of China, excluding the special administrative regions (Hong Kong and Macau).

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bison and Wolves

[edit]
An American Bison standing its ground. By doing so, it avoids playing to the collective strength of the wolf pack (running), thereby increasing its chance for survival.

I'm nominating it because, even though it's not what I would call an aesthetically pleasing picture, it is relevant to the article on the Gray Wolf insofar as it demonstrates how they behave and how the pack dynamic functions for them in the wild. I have been fascinated with it for some time.

The image was created by: User:Sango123 but is actually the work of a National Park Service official and exists in the public domain.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington

[edit]
George Washington, First President of the United States
Please vote on this version! Portrait of President Washington by Gilbert Stuart

A very important person of American history. Illustrates George Washington, United States , created by Gilbert Stuart.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crepuscular ray sunset in Pearl Harbor

[edit]
Crepuscular rays is a term used in atmospheric optics for rays of sunlight that appear to radiate from a single point in the sky. The name comes from their frequent occurrences during twilight, where the contrasts between light and dark are the most obvious.

I took this picture at Pearl Harbor on Ford Island in Hawaii, USA, on 8/9/2005. People told me the image was spectacular, so hey, I decided to nominate it for the featured picture candidate. I hope it gets in!! I would be so happy. :D This picture is seen in the article Crepuscular rays.

  • Nominate and Support -- Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 12:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, sorry, but I agree with Diliff. The gallery in that article should be moved to commons anyway, no matter how pretty those pics look. --Dschwen 18:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see you moved the gallery, so, technically, this image isn't even eligible for FPC anymore... However, I do like the rays diverging in all directions. --Janke | Talk 08:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, but lets still wait till the official end of the voting period. And this particular picture can be reinserted in any case, I just thought two pics (both featured) were enough for this amount of text. --Dschwen 09:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I feel strongly that this image deserves a place in the article, even if it has to be at the expense of one of the existing FPs. I went along to move the gallery myself a few days ago, but didn't because I concur that the article can't really support more than 2 pics, and given my support for this one I had too much of a conflict of interest to trust myself to remove one of the existing FPs (effectively debarring it from featured status). But I still disagree with the removal of this picture from the article, when the two images left behind (though super quality) are less informative ~ Veledan • Talk 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - all has been said. --Deglr6328 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree this isn't quite as striking as the other two, but I give this one the ticket for encyclopedic value because (unusually) you can see crepuscular rays in both directions at once. I remember reading the article last time we had a crepuscular ray pic nominated, and after seeing the previous two FPs wondering how crepuscular rays could appear to diverge from a point only about a mile above the earth's surface when they ought to look parallel coming from the Sun: it was this picture that made me understand the perspective illusion. ~ Veledan • Talk 17:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NeutralIt's a lovely image but I have to agree with the above comments. It's very similar. --Fir0002 www 10:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too boring to be a featured picture. BWF89 16:47, March 27 2006
  • Oppose as per Diliff. --P199 21:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dollar Bill

[edit]
A US Dollar Closeup

I'm not the originator of this image, I happened to come across it in the Dollar article, and found it striking and appropriate.

Not promoted by nominator via the snowball clause.

Thousand year old egg

[edit]
a Thousand year egg

A striking image conveying the exoticness of Chinese cuisine. This image was created by User:Kowloonese and appears in Thousand year egg.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Strike

[edit]
F16 after a bird strike

It's not the most artistic or high-quality of images, but it is of fairly high resolution, pretty big size, and it is incredibly illustrative and very interesting, to say the least. Let's see what people think. Depicts Bird strike.

I wouldn't say the subject is chopped off, because the subject isn't the airplane. It's the window. But it is, obviously, extremely grainy and noisy. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas Monorail

[edit]
Las Vegas Monorail at the Sahara Hotel station.

This is a great picture of the monorail pulling into the Sahara station on a beautiful desert spring day. This image appears in the Las Vegas Monorail article. It was taken by Robert Misiak. It would be a great featured picture not only because of the quality of the picture, but because it would link to some interesting topics, such as Las Vegas and Transit (transportation).

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weimaraner

[edit]
Weimaraner puppies at home dominating their owner

I, Christopher Erickson (aka User:Guðsþegn), took this photograph of my beloved Weimaraner puppies. In the article it helps communicate what is said in the section on temperament, particularly the Weimaraner's fast, powerful, playful, and energetic nature. One dog illustrates well the "silver ghost" moniker given to Weimaraners, and the other pictures the steely and striking stare that is so unique and characteristic about Weimaraners. I took the picture with a cell phone camera. It is less than the standard resolution, but I think that its other qualities (artful composition, striking content, etc.) make it a worthy featured pic.

While the background is not beautiful, it does not take away from the subject, and it helps communicate the temperament of weimaraners, specifically their powerful and playful nature. The ceiling fan makes it clear that the photographer is looking up with the dogs standing over him (they were waking me up from sleep).    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 19:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's obviously not going to pass, but for the record that is not overexposure from any flash (it was a cell phone, duh), just natural light in from the window; and it's not "unsharpness" but movement (more of that Weim temperament)    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overexposure is overexposure no matter what causes it. Standards are high for FPC and as the photographer, you are ultimately in control of the environment so you can't just say "Oh, but I didn't use a flash, it isn't my fault". As for "unsharpness", movement is one of the things that CAUSES unsharpness, along with lack of focus. Janke was completely correct. You just have to be realistic. We're not saying that the photo contributes nothing to the article, but you need to appreciate the high standards set for a featured picture, and that this photo is simply not good enough according to a number of criteria. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Postage stamp size, highly distracting background, blown highlights, excessive blurring, noisy, compression artefacts.--Deglr6328 00:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose entirely too small. I'm sure the blur might have been intentional, but it is too much. Search4Lancer 02:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The intentional blur is a great artistic effect, but it doesn't belong in a featured picture in an encyclopedia. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 06:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose no chance, starting with the fact that it's tiny. chowells 13:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Is this a joke? A picture taken by a cell phone as a FPC? Low resolution and very poor optics qualitiy makes most cell phone pictures unsuitable as FP. Glaurung 05:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sarcastic insult has no place in votes for featured picture candidates while constructive criticism does. Guðsþegn obviously worked hard to take this photograph, and kicking away his effort as such will get him nowhere. — Webdinger BLAH | SZ 06:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me for butting in, but I don't see the comment as "sarcastic". It is obvious the nominator is unfamiliar with the accepted criteria for FP, or he would not have nominated this. "Working hard" - that's a joke - it's a cellphone snapshot! Nice for dog lovers and thus for the article, but not a FPC in any conceivable way. Even the colors are weird, due to the cheap lens & CCD chip in the cellphone. Look at the archived FPs in full size and you'll understand - no offense intended. --Janke | Talk 07:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is exactly what I meant. The question is not about the subject of the picture, but the material used to make it. Camera on cell phones are very handy to take every day pictures as you always have it with you, but you have no chance of taking pictures with the quality standards of a FP. This is absolutely not an insult or sarcasms. If Guðsþegn has access to a better camera (which souldn't be too difficult. If he does not have one, I am sure he has some friends who do), he will be able to take a very nice picture of his Weimaraner puppies which could be nominated here. (Though I would recommand to find a better background). Oh, and one last thing about the Working hard term : as a dog owner, I do agree that you have to work quite hard to take nice photos. It is indeed not easy to have them stand still long enough, especially when they are young. Apparently this wasn't a concern here... Glaurung 12:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It does not show the full body of the animal, extremely blurry pictures where detail is absent is useless wikipedia. You may love your dogs but I do not feel this is an appriopriate place for them to be.--Andeee 22:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already. At this point it's just piling on.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, take it easy! We're not criticising you personally, we criticise the image and the techique by which is was created. FPC is a hard test, and it goes on for two weeks. In the past, other images have been shot down much more brutally than this. In fact, you can learn a lot on this page - it's a free course in photography! Take note of what is said, for and against any picture, and use what you learn to shoot better pictures in the future - yes, you may one day have a featured photo on WP! --Janke | Talk 20:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Bad background Leidiot 03:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union lineout

[edit]
A rugby union lineout, showing 5 stages

5 photos showing a line-out in the sport of rugby union.

  • A featured picture should:
  • Be a photograph, diagram, image or animation that exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work. It should represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet. Haven't seen a photo like this on any other website
  • Be available under an acceptable free license (i.e. not fair use). I took the photos
  • Be useful, accurate, and pleasing to the eye. Yes, it accuratly shows stages.
  • Useful: Adds value to an article and helps complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not. Yes, shows how complex a line-out is in that article
  • Accurate: Supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page. Yes
  • Pleasing to the eye: Taken or created in a manner which best illustrates the subject of the image. The picture should make a reader want to know more. I think a reader would be interested by this image
  • Be displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption. Have a look, click on the image
  • Be of a sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions. (Currently, images under 1000 pixels are seldom supported, unless they are of historical significance.) I think it is big enough.


Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Barrine

[edit]
Photo of Lake Barrine taken from the lake's cruise

I took this photo of Lake Barrine, Queensland, Australia in 2004 from the lake's cruise. I personally think it's got a great view - the sky and water are a lovely blue and the surrounding trees give it a feel of a beautifully secluded natural environment.

Not promoted Withdrawn by nominator. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankfurt panorama

[edit]
Panorama of Frankfurt, Germany
edit

I think this is a great image. It was taken by Scaengel on the German Wikipedia from the Maintower. It is used in both the Germany and Frankfurt articles. The only flaw I see is that the first skyscraper on the left is partially cut off on the top. The aspect ratio may make this article a little tricky to put it on the front page, but if it is supported, we could probably figure out a way to do it.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santorini

[edit]
Satellite image of the island of Santorini

Articles: Santorini, Thera eruption, Atlantis, User:Hurricane Devon/Images

This NASA image of the Aegean island of Santorini adds substantially to a number of articles, and therefore I think it should become a featured picture. This picture is also a great example of the NASA images on Wikipedia, and is, I think, visually impressive in itself.

Not promoted --Arco Acqua 15:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Way 2005

[edit]
A NASA artist's conception of what the Milky Way would look like if seen from its axis.

This image was created by NASA and taken from a NASA website or publication. NASA copyright policy notes that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". This is used in the Milky Way article and as the "galaxy stub" image. IMO a really great uncopyrighted image of the Milky Way, quite large and clear, illustrates what its article is about, and comes from a fairly reliable source.

  • Nominate and support. - Procrastinator-General 21:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (until licence clarified). It's not at all clear that it is public domain. The image credit is NASA/JPL-caltech (SSC). SSC is the "Spitzer Science Center", which is part of Caltech. If the image comes from a contract that's solely funded by the US Government, then the image is PD - but if it comes from a project that's jointly funded by another body (such as Caltech) then it isn't. We need to find out which of these pertains in this case. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support provided the licence is okay.--Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 00:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Striking image that is both detailed and clear (as an artist's drawing of natural phenomena should be, I suppose). Useful in a number of capacities. bcasterline t 02:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great image, so long as that license holds. Staxringold 03:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Merely an artist's CG guess at what it may look like. I don't find it particularly special. There are far more striking REAL astronomical images.--Deglr6328 05:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As above. I prefer real astrophotos over artist's conceptions. We don't have any photo of the Milky Way, so this image is just an approximation based on other data, not a true, factual image. Also, it looks a bit too symmetrical, and the central bar is "cleaner" than in real photos of other galaxies. --Janke | Talk 06:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think we do need artists conceptions, and we should respect a good artists conception. --Fir0002 www 10:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't find the little red dot that says "You are here". Pengo 12:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment: Spending a few moments on Google Images, I found several artist's conceptions that I feel are graphically more striking than this straight-ahead "mug shot" (some even with the "You are here" dot... ;-) : [6], [7], [8], [9], but alas, they are not free licence nor large enough. --Janke | Talk 15:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Deglr6328 above. There are artist conceptions much more stunning than this. --P199 21:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose See no need for an "artist's conception." Fake looking, ugly. Plenty of real photos of spiral galaxies (obviously not ours) look better to me. –Joke 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose An "artist's conception" is merely an artist's conception - is there anything here that is actually based on the appearance of our galaxy? Agree with User:Joke137, not appealing even as "art", and not as illustrative as if it were 3-dimensional. User:Tejastheory 206.110.185.23 00:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text suggests that the image (referring to the version with the Sun pointed out) isn't a random drawing: "This artist's rendering shows a view of our own Milky Way Galaxy and its central bar as it might appear if viewed from above. An arrow indicates the location of our Sun. Astronomers have concluded for many years that our galaxy harbors a stellar bar, though its presence has been inferred indirectly. Our vantage point within the disk of the galaxy makes it difficult to accurately determine the size and shape of this bar and surrounding spiral arms. New observations by the GLIMPSE legacy team with NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope indicate that the bar-shaped collection of old stars at the center of our galaxy may be longer, and at a different orientation, than previously believed. The newly-deduced size and angle of the bar are shown relative to our Sun's location. Our Milky Way galaxy may appear to be very different from an ordinary spiral galaxy." Procrastinator-General
  • Our Milky Way galaxy may appear to be very different from an ordinary spiral galaxy - that seems to go a bit against the cosmological principle - of course the Milky Way looks different to us, were inside it, with no hope of getting a true outside view... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that appear is used as a synonym of 'seems' in the way of "he appears to be smarter than we thought" or something like that. Procrastinator-General
  • Oppose As an astronomer I agree with the opposing arguments already brought forward. Roger McLassus 15:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very detailed image Leidiot 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An artist's conception is the most humans are ever going to have (barring light-speed travel). And although I don't have anything in particular to support this, I don't think that NASA would publish something like this unless the "conception" is based on facts about the galaxy. I doubt that the artist just whipped this up out of his imagination; I would suspect that this conception is based on what we know the galaxy might look like. Dylan 20:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re accuracy Here's another, completely different artist's impression, also from NASA [10]. The dense galactic centre completely blocks our view of a large chunk of the galaxy and some sources indicate the guessed area (I'm looking at the excellent artists' impressions in October's Scientific American right now). The creators of this pic state openly that Our vantage point within the disk of the galaxy makes it difficult to accurately determine the size and shape of this bar and surrounding spiral arms[11]. This nomination is attractive but I'm not sure we should choose it over drawings of other galaxies that we can depict with much greater certainty. It's a pity the ones in Sciam are copyrighted :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 18:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We've all seen a million of these images, and this one is not particularly stunning. It's a bit "ho hum". If it was a Wikipedian who had made it, that might be interesting, but it doesn't have any particular context, timeliness, new techniques or whatever to make it particularly remarkable. Stevage 13:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. bored. pschemp | talk 06:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Valuable image for an encyclopedia - even if it is just presenting one way the Milky Way could look like from that position. Mikeo 14:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haeckel hummingbirds

[edit]
"Trochilidae" from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Nature.

This colorful lithograph from 1904 shows a variety of hummingbirds and appears in Hummingbird. Thanks to User:Pengo, it also sports a key showing the species name of each bird (4 of which have their own articles).

Promoted Image:Haeckel Trochilidae.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the Rock

[edit]
Panoramic image looking south from the upper deck of the 'Top of the Rock' observation deck on top of the GE Building at Rockefeller Center.
Edit 01 - just did some noise reduction on the sky
Edit 02 - Lightened slightly

Articles: Skyscraper, GE Building, and a cropped version appears as the above-the-fold picture in New York City

Visible features from left to right include the Chrysler Building (behind the MetLife Building), Manhattan Bridge, Brooklyn Bridge, Verrazano Narrows Bridge (on the horizon), MetLife Tower (with the white illuminated pointy top), the Empire State Building (illuminated red and green for the holiday season) and the Condé Nast Building (with the large spire).

Lower deck is visible on the right edge of the frame.

Promoted Image:NYC Top of the Rock Pano.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg Snow Storm

[edit]
A photograph of a freak snow storm that occured May 11, 2005 in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

I photographed this freak May snow storm that occurred in Winnipeg. It appears it in the Winnipeg article. The picture is quite interesting as it shows an open outdoor swimming pool, with snow surrounding it.

  • Nominate and support. - TDS (talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I live in Ottawa, and freak snowstorms are really fun (no school!) but really freak lol. Its a nice pic! I like the trees in the background, and the tree that is really leaning in. It shows how bad these storms can be. My only suggestion would be that the picture is too low. Instead of having a large amount of just snow at the bottom of the picture, the picture should have been taken in a higher angle, so how abit more of the height of the trees. It just makes me feel confined. But i still like it paat 21:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed - boring! A FP is not about how freaky storms can be but about the photo quality and composition. Adding it to the Winnipeg article is even a stretch. --P199 21:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A swimming pool, brim full with water (and a floating air mattress to boot), all snowed in is not boring. This is much more eye-catching than the New York storm nominated a while ago, where nothing indicated it was "freak". The composition, with the angle formed by the flowerpots and stairsteps, focuses the viewpoint on the pool - a slight cropping of the bottom might improve it still. Quality is good enough, even if not tops. It does illustrate the climate in Winnipeg - much like here in Finland, where we also may get a freak snowfall in May or even early June... --Janke | Talk 21:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Half of the photo is snow-covered patio. An interesting addition to the Winnipeg article, but, in my opinion, not really FP stuff. bcasterline t 22:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted |→ Spaully°τ 21:26, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

Chick

[edit]
Day old chick looking to the left (its right)
Day old chick (cropped)

I rather like this image (obviously or I wouldn't be nominating it ;-), black background sharply defines the feathers etc, and provides a nice background. Effect was achieved by firing a flash from a relatively close distance and have a high shutter speed value (thus when the flash light dispersed all the background became underexposed, or black)

No, it will just be slaughtered, gutted, cooked and eaten. A much better destiny... ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it might end it's days a very old chook - depending if it's a rooster or a chicken. If it lay's eggs, we don't use if for meat but for eggs, obviuosly if its a rooster... --Fir0002 www 21:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its latin name, like that of all chickens, is Gallus gallus. I'm not sure why the location is important: any context has been removed and it's a domesticated animal. —Pengo 05:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC) (not the nominator/photographer)[reply]

Promoted Image:Day old chick black background.jpg - Promoted original. Decision between the two was tricky due to lack of preference, but we had 3 in favour of original (Janke, Mooveeguy, Veledan) and 2 for cropped (Dschwen, Mgm). |→ Spaully°τ 21:41, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

Agave Oven

[edit]
distillery oven loaded with agaves at the El Jimador tequila factory close to Tequila, Jalisco, Mexico

This image is of an interesting and unusual subject, and the quality and composition of the photograph are excellent. It is located in the article on tequila. I believe it meets the criteria of a featured image.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's Ark

[edit]
A painting by the American Edward Hicks (1780–1849), showing the animals boarding Noah's Ark two by two.

It is a beautiful painting by Edward Hicks which is located in the article Noah's Ark. It is very crucial to this article because it is the only picture in it that has an image of the Ark itself. I believe that this picture meets all the criteria of WP:WIAFP; of course this is up for argument.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iris xiphium

[edit]
File:Spanish-iris.jpg
Iris xiphium
File:Spanish-iris-v2.jpg
Iris xiphium (crop+color edit)
File:Spanish-iris-crop-only.jpg
Cropped only

I'm nominating this image as I believe it shows the Iris xiphium in all it's glory.
This image has been edited around the edges to highlight the white in the flower.
I believe it is an eye catching image that provides a great example of the Iris xiphium.

Promoted Image:Spanish-iris-crop-only.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wormhole in Space

[edit]

I nominated this article because I found it informing and very interesting to look at. I hope you will see it the same way.

  1. Support Hmm, I liked it... --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 01:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemist's laboratory

[edit]
Original version
Version by User:Jorge Stolfi
Version by brian0918

We've all seen the stereotypical alchemist's lab (or maybe not?).. but how about a 16th century illustration of an actual one? This is from Heinrich Khunrath's most famous work, Amphitheater of Eternal Wisdom, painted by Hans Vredeman de Vries, c. 1595. The image conveys the well-known connection alchemists had between spiritual and physical research. The image is used in Alchemy. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-29 00:27

  • Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the modified version--K.C. Tang 00:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either version. The original is too dark; the modified is too bright. But it's still an interesting illutration, which makes a valuable contribution, in either case. The writing is especially intriguing -- it'd be great to get some more of that translated. bcasterline t 01:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've uploaded what I think is a "juuust right" version. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-29 01:24
  • Oppose The image exposure (the first version too bright, the second dark almost to the point of being unrecognisable) is certainly an issue, although this may be resolvable. More problematic is the image content: The miniscule and crowded table in the centre shows a small number of tools, and leaves the viewer to guess their significance. The image conveys very little about the alchemists approach or outlook. Rather it seems to be an exercise in interior perspective. --Philopedia 01:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the whole thing is explained in the text that surrounds the entire image (not shown in the image, but on the linked page). But, the text is in Latin. There are also Latin phrases in the image which explain the contents. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-29 01:35
    • I disagree. I think it says quite a bit about alchemists' approach and outlook, especially, as brian0918 said, with regards to the mixture of science and mysticism. Note that I've improved and expanded some of the translations, which make that connection more explicit. bcasterline t 02:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support brian0918 version. -Ravedave 01:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I see historical relevance here, as alluded to in the nomination. I would hope that someone knowledgeable about the subject would write a paragraph in an article, maybe Heinrich Khunrath, explaining the image (addressing Philopedia's concerns). Look at the images full size before deciding on a version. I prefer the original, as the edits lose color and texture, most noticeably in the floor. ~MDD4696 02:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's a great image, but I think the version with the text would be more appropriate. In any case, the text is poorly cropped out in this version; you can see the edges of it around the circle. I won't support any of these versions, but I would enthusiastically support it with the text or I would reluctantly support a better-cropped version.--ragesoss 03:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with the version with text is that the illustration is much smaller, and all just to gain some Latin words that really don't add to the image (unless this were the Latin Wikipedia). I was waiting for someone to complain about the cropping, so I'll go about fixing it now. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-29 04:32
  • Support now (Brian's edit). I didn't realize the text version was so small.--ragesoss 05:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too dark Leidiot 03:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which version is too dark, and which is too light? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-29 04:25
  • Support Brian's edit. That "Festina Lente" on one of the jars is just great! That could be adhered to here on FPC, sometimes, too... --Janke | Talk 06:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Brian's version. Nice find, great repro.--Eloquence* 07:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Brian's edit What a fantastic nomination! Different and extremely interesting, attractive and informative all at the same time. ~ Veledan • Talk 10:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Old illustration seems to have higher rates of success than photographies at FPC these days XD Circeus 16:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think that's only true because the many nominations that fall far short of the FP criteria tend not to feature more obscure/academic media like old woodcuts. In real numbers, only 4 pics in the last 50 FPs promoted have been 'old' and the ratio is much lower if you look back further. Personally I'm pleased as Punch that we have a couple of experienced editors sifting through old PD sources to find us these splendid plates (and I know you are too Circeus, don't think I misunderstood you) ~ Veledan • Talk 17:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Brian's edit) Judging from the University of Wisconsin pages, the image itself (rather, the book it is from) is be notable. More detail about it would certainly make for an interesting article. It would be nice to know, roughly, what the text around the image says. –Joke 16:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Original or Brian's edit or Original less text cropping. A wonderful period image of very high quality. I can't think of a better illustration for this topic. – Meersan 19:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. ooh. double, double, toil and trouble :) pschemp | talk 06:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Alchemist's Laboratory, Heinrich Khunrath, Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae, 1595 3.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that promoted image was deleted as a duplicate of Image:Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae - Alchemist's Laboratory.jpg. MER-C 10:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChinchillaMaria.jpg

[edit]
Maria the chinchilla

I think this would be a good featuerd image, it's high-res, free-licence, good quality, and I also think Maria's pose (the chinchilla) is quite.... eye-catching.

  • Oppose, I'm afraid. Very cute photo, but not up to featured quality in my opinion. There's a very heavy shadow on the right-hand side. Also the upper piece of wood is rather distracting. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cenotaph Hiroshima

[edit]
The cenotaph at the Hiroshima Peace Park is inscribed with an ambiguous sentence: "Rest in peace, for this mistake will not be repeated." This construction, natural in the Japanese language, was intended to memorialize the victims of Hiroshima without politicizing the issue.

In my opinion, this is an important picture for an encyclopedia. It is showing the Cenotaph in Hiroshima, Japan built in memory of the victims of the nuclear bombing. It is also showing another memorial, the A-Bomb dome. This picture was taken by me (Michael Oswald) and is used by the following articles: Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and Cenotaph.

Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huli Wigman

[edit]
A Huli Wigman from the Tari region of the Southern Highlands of Papua New Guinea

Here is a picture I took whilst living in Papua New Guinea for two years. It is of a Huli Wigman from the Tari Region of the Southern Highlands. The man is dressed in his traditional finery or bilas, including the wig made of human hair.

  • Nominate and support. - Nomadtales 23:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a larger version than this? If it was larger I would expect it would easily become a featured picture. |→ Spaully°τ 00:05, 6 April 2006 (GMT)
  • Oppose looks like a very nice image, but I'm afraid it's just much too small. chowells 23:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support awsome.I think this is an exceptional case and the size can be excused, though a larger size would be great. -Ravedave 01:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice colors, and it's plenty large enough for use in any article (I doubt anyone will be making thumbnails much larger than 600px). — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-6 01:44
  • Oppose. Nope size cannot be excused, especially not if the photographer still has a larger version which he just did not upload yet. I'll change to support once he did that. I'm sure he didn't take his 0.51498 megapixel camera to papua new guinea. As I said earlier, it is policy to upload highes quality possible. And for the thumbnail argument: WP:WIAFP mentions quality reproductions so I'm afraid tha standard is a little higher than quality thumbnails. And what abut the consent of the depicted person (I remember at least two cases (geisha and girl on tram) where this becam a major issue during the discussion)?. Apart from that: great shot :-) --Dschwen 06:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the image history I can see that the version uploaded first just had 300x400, so this is definately a step in the right direction, but let me repat it again just upload full-res. --Dschwen 06:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support. I cannot say I'm enthusiastic about the whole image size discussion, especially considering we have contributors who do upload high quality pictures at super-high resolutions. IMHO uploading limited resolution copies of your works seems like halfhearted commitment to free licensing and I fear this might set a precedent to other contributors. But I cannot force anyone to upload full res and the picture certainly is quite good, hence a weak support. --Dschwen 09:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (see below --Dschwen 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support. Anything that doesn't fit my monitor in its full resolution is big enough. Image has nice colors and detail on the man's skin. What if the photographer doesn't want a higher-res image released under a free license? That shouldn't mean we exclude a perfectly fine image. - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I have to comment on that. I don't want to exclude the picture, merely motivate the uploader to provide a higher res version. And if that is not possible I think it should not become a featured picture. Secondly, at the risk of sounding sassy, but the resolution of your monitor is not the standard by which FPCs are to be judged. WP:WIAFP 5. states the need for sufficient quality for reproductions. Why should we limit the quality of the images and decrease their usefullness as lets say illustrations for WP print derivatives (i.e. WikiReaders). --Dschwen 11:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if they don't upload a higher resolution you are excluding it. That's the effect an oppose vote has. Besides, as far as I can determine, a picture that fills my screen is sufficiently large to reproduce on a piece of A4 paper. Are we going to cater to people who want to make A2 posters? - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as long as a higher resolution picture is not provided, would support larger version - see comments of Dschwen. Mikeo 10:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support Size problem is now almost fixed. I agree with Dschwen that we should not motivate contributors to upload smaller resolution versions of their pictures. Mikeo 15:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Higher resolution version does exist, but it is not with me at the moment (on a cd back at home). I am loath to upload as I really don't want to contribute a high-res version under a free licence. I think it is a nice photo and would hope to one day be able to sell it. If I had checked the feature picture criteria first and read the "more than 1000px" part then I would have made it fit that .. but I didn't and 900x600 is the best i can currently do until I get back home on the weekend. I am not that far out from making the criteria at this stage. Nomadtales 04:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps this isn't the best place to discuss this, but seeing as it has been mentioned now, I assume that you would still be able to sell this image even if you gave it a free licence. As I understand it, the issue would simply be that someone could take the image on wikipedia and print it instead of buying it through you.. However, since I would imagine most photography is sold as a print, for example at a sunday market, your potential to sell an image that you have already released on a free licence may not be that diminished..? Or have I understood it incorrectly and you would be breaking your own licencing agreements by using selling an image you have previously released? ;) Just wondering! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that 1000px is an absolute minimum. I tend not to support such small images. chowells 19:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a minimum for you, but clearly not for others. So, it is not an absolute minimum. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-08 03:01
  • Support, excellent photo. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can excuse size for an image of this quality. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 00:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is big enough for me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. Please do upload a larger version when you get the chance, even if it isn't the full resolution.--ragesoss 17:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Version Uploaded. It is bigger and fits the criteria. Hopefully this will sway the opposition. Cheers all. Nomadtales 09:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should clarify that I actually don't have a super-duper high-res version of this image. The original is a Kodak Elitechrome slide (remember those?) and I need to get it rescaned at something more than 1200dpi. I am afraid this is the best I can do until then. Nomadtales 22:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although still a bit small, it's big enough. A wonderful addition to the Papua New Guinea article. ~MDD4696 22:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support also, nice photo. |→ Spaully°τ 22:52, 10 April 2006 (GMT)
  • Support. At the bottom end of ideal resolution but very high quality photography overall. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's certainly striking and the size is fine IMO. --BillC 21:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Huli wigman.jpg Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malé

[edit]
Malé, capital city of the Republic of Maldives, located in the Kaafu Atoll
Resized edit

Author: Shahee Ilyas. View of Malé, capital of the island nation Maldives.

Promoted Image:Male.jpg -Ravedave 03:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sing Sing Warden

[edit]
Warden T. M. Osborne in a cellblock in Sing Sing prison.

I find the picture striking and I belive it definitly adds to the Sing Sing article, and if there was a cellblock article it would add there as well. It is a library of congress image uploaded by user:Daderot.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse from Valladolid

[edit]
Photo taken in Valladolid (Spain) during the October 3 2005 annular eclipse

Apart from being a major photographic reference in the article Solar eclipse, this picture looks quite outstanding in my opinon. It looks quite surreal with the bird flying overhead. This image was uploaded by Rapomon late last year and I'm surprised why it wasn't considered a featured picture earlier.

From that I assume you've seen an annular or total eclipse - does the sky colors really look like in this photo? I'd like to know, the only chance I ever had to see a total eclipse was spoiled by clouds and fog - I went up into the water tower in Hanko, Finland with 200 other crazy people who also hoped the cloud cover would disperse... --Janke | Talk 09:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's hard to say for sure, as I was in the desert and there were no clouds (or birds), and I've only seen the one total eclipse. But the sky became like twilight, and not dark as night. This image gives me a similar impression. —Pengo 00:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the picture pretty stunning too, despite the technical limitations and the aerial. And no, pictures don't need to be postcard-perfect to make a valuable and welcome contribution to the encyclopedia, but this is Featured pictures, and here all nominations should strive to represent the very best we can offer. The Opposes have to be understood in that context. It doesn't mean some of the same people wouldn't say "Wow what a geat pic!" if shown it under other circumstances </soapbox> ~ Veledan • Talk 19:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -Ravedave 04:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse from Krasnoyarsk

[edit]
Caption goes here

This morning's solar eclipse, uploaded by new user Dmz krsk (Trofimov Alexey), and used in the fledgling article Solar eclipse on 2006 March 29. Much more striking than the average circular eclipse picture!

Not promoted -Ravedave 04:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantastoria in Korea

[edit]
File:Cantastoria korea.jpg
Cantastoria

The people, their actions, the colors and pictures - and lets not forget the view in the background - capture the essence of a universal theatrical art form that reletively few people know about. Incredible photo! Appears in Cantastoria article. Photo provided by Clare Dolan for use in the article.

Sure, it is a nice image, and without it I'd probably never have seen a korean cantastoria in my life. No one is saying that the image is worthless, or even questioning wheter it is a valuable contribution to wikipedia. I just don't see it as a featured picture. Without doubt there have to be people in the photo, but those two in the foreground are not really nescessary. And there are several other issues with the picture which you haven't adressed. --Dschwen 06:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Beach Pier

[edit]
Ocean Beach Pier at sunset

One of my photos from the Pier article.

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Games Opening Ceremony

[edit]
Delta Goodrem performs as a fireworks display takes place in the finale of the Opening Ceremony of the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

I took this picture at the Opening Ceremony of the 2006 Commonwealth Games on March 15, 2006. It has appeared on the main page at the time of the Games, and also features on the Commonwealth Games portal. Thanks. Harro5 05:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uninhabited Island

[edit]
An uninhabited island in the Lakshadweep archipelago

Striking image, good compistion, great colors, the water makes me want to just dive in. Used on Lakshadweep and uninhabited island. Created & uploaded by User:Lenish

No, I see greenish blue water and pallid blue sky. compare with strking color of sky on above image.--Deglr6328 20:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy's Hut

[edit]
Kennedy's Hut
Fortunately I took this pic as an exposure bracket

Other version are availible here. (I kinda like the sepia effects)

That's how eucalyptus trees look like! --Fir0002 www 03:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral for now. the large tree is distracting. pschemp | talk 05:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support version 2 Looks better in full size. The blown-out sky doesn't disturb me, and it's unavoidable in this type of lighting - the hut is deep in shade, and the bright, cloudy sky is behind the trees. Apparently, it's not unavoidable - or is this a clever composite of two bracketed shots? --Janke | Talk 07:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You got it the second time :-) --Fir0002 www 11:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeThe sky is completely burned out. Also pic 02 looks better than this (at least no huge patch of burned out sky). --antilived T | C 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose very messy Leidiot 09:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose doesn't grab the attention. --BillC 10:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I disagree with a lot of the other opposing reasons though. I think the composition is pretty good. Its impossible to have a bush landscape without it looking 'messy', but that doesn't mean messy is a bad thing in this context! Thats how bushland is! I just question the image's significance to viewers as a potential featured picture. To be honest, I don't really know whether that is a valid reason to oppose according to our guidelines, but I think it probably should be a factor, at least. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it just doesn't have the richness of colour that other featured pictures have; I don't think it's worth including. BigBlueFish 16:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Studland

[edit]
A view of Shell Bay (at the north of the Studland peninsula) towards the south-east

Articles: Beach, Studland, Marram grass

This photo of Shell Bay (the northern part of the Studland peninsula) in Dorset, England, UK adds substantially to a number of articles. This photo was taken not long after a storm had flooded the beach, and I think it shows just how beautiful the area is. It would encourage people to investigate Dorset further if it becomes a FP. I took this image myself.

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Looking over Marin

[edit]
Looking north from San Francisco over Marin.

This is a rare angle of this region that other pictures haven't captured, including many landmarks (Golden Gate Bridge, Alcatraz, San Francisco City Hall, Golden Gate Park, Angel Island, the Presidio, and many more. This picture, and more info on the North Bay can be found in the North Bay (San Francisco Bay Area) article.

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bauhinia blakeana

[edit]
Bauhinia blakeana

Bauhinia blakeana flower is the symbol of Hong Kong. I took this picture by myself in Hong Kong. The good thing about this picture:

  • It has a large-enough resolution.
  • The angle allows people to examine the stigma of the flower.
  • Only the flower itself is focused.
It doesn't really have a large enough resolution
The stigma isn't really more clear than in any other photograph of a flower
Nothing is in focus

--Phoenix2 21:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Robinson EVA

[edit]
Steve Robinson in an EVA (notice the extended arm).

Great high quality image of Steve Robinson on an EVA. NASA image, for more information go to [15]

Uploaded by Kingstonjr

  • Support. "Look, ma! No hands!" — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-29 22:25
  • Link I began a translation of the page but there were too many technological terms I'm not familiar with. In the end I found this link before I found my dictionary. (Also some of the info on the Italian site is contradicted by the NASA site so I'd remove the Italian link) ~ Veledan • Talk 17:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sts114 033.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wildflower with morning dew

[edit]
File:Dew 11 bg 060103.jpg
Wildflower with morning dew

One of my photos from the Dew article. More depth of field would have been nice, but I feel even so the photo is striking enough to be considered.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mendenhall Glacier

[edit]
Rayleigh scattering due to many tiny air bubbles causes the distinctive blue tint in glaciers, such as the recently calved Mendenhall
Foreground cropped.

Great, striking image of the Mendenhall Glacier. Shows (1) recent calving, (2) Rayleigh scattering, and this is minor, but it shows the truly typical weather for the region, being rainy about 250 days a year. The fog and cloud hole allowing a shaft of light to get through add some artistic balence. Taken by Andrew Pendleton, he has released it under the GFDL after an email exchange, he wanted to make sure he retained attribution under the liscense.

--Justthefacts 11:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)I agree with the 'do not oppose' - Sure it might need some tweeking, but hey, just imagine being there when 'you'took that shot! It really states the diverse complexities and simplicities of our 'intelligenly designed' world. We are looking at the finger of God.

I always thought the finger of God would look something like this - JPM | 03:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - no doubt very impressive in real life but not in this picture. Poor lighting, too much shadow. -- P199 20:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm the person who took this picture, and I agree that the lighting wasn't the best, however, I'd just note that because of some physics that's a bit beyond me, the blue color of the ice doesn't really show up well under direct sunlight (in fact, you can see it in here in the well-lit upper portion of the picture, where the ice appears white). So, while I agree that the picture would probably have been better under better lighting, the glacier would have looked white, and, hence, lost its encyclopedic value as relates to an article on Rayleigh scattering, where the blue color is really the relevant attribute of the picture. ABPend 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. It's informative, but I'm afraid it doesn't do anything for me visually. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc statue, Notre Dame

[edit]
A statue of Joan of Arc in the Notre Dame de Paris.

It's a pretty nice image overall, high resolution, no major problems (as far as I can see, but then again I'm not a professional photographer). It's in the Notre Dame de Paris article.

Promoted Image:Joan of Arc-Notre Dame.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Garden

[edit]
French formal garden in the Loire Valley

Good, colorfull photo that demontarates Formal garden well. Taken by User:Daderot

Too phallic? Yes, it distracts a bit... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USMC War Memorial

[edit]
United States Marine Corp War Memorial
File:USMC War Memorial Night-edit.jpg
Reflections toned down a bit
UPDATED Version 3: Lighting removed

The USMC War Memorial, which depicts Joe Rosenthal’s legendary photo Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. I think this is an awesome shot, well detailed, and adds to the article USMC War Memorial.

  • Weak Support I do like the picture, but agree the lighting takes away from it. I tried to remove it and touch things up as best as I could, but it still needs a lot of work. The white light still reflecting all across the wall along with the shadows on that wall still detract a bit too much. - Wdwic Pictures 06:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great work. On close inspection, I can see that it's been modified -- especially the grass along the base on the left. But it's not obvious. Definitely the best version yet. bcasterline t 16:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are also cloning stamp marks just outside the right edge of the base. Remove these imperfections, and I'll support your version over my own! ;-) --Janke | Talk 17:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The version without the lights in it is missing the 'S' in "Semper" - and it's rather obvious as well. The original version and first edit are OK, but the light is distracting. If someone comes up with a version like the third one, but with the 'S' back in place and a simple blur tool run over the clone marks, I think it'll be good to go. ----WindRunner 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't believe I missed the "S." It was very faint so I guess I missed it. I uploaded a new version over it. I tried to get rid of some of the things mentioned. I also reduced the noise in the sky some. It still needs work though. Wdwic Pictures 14:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nice picture, but if this isn't good enough for FP, neither is this one. (In short, a little lackluster in content.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know what you mean; I voted support for the bridge and it still failed. I remember putting this photo through here and wonder why on earth it did not become featured. Sometimes its the things just outside your reach and control that mess everything up. If I were you I would consider rerunning the bridge, sometimes a second time submission gets through. Ya never know... TomStar81 07:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree about that B-2 nomination. I liked it and feel the reasons for opposition were a little aribitrary. I don't like the white balance at all on this image though. Another supporter below me exclaims "Just look at that sky!" but it is not that accurate looking. The human eye compensates far better for sodium lighting than a camera can! It looks artificial and badly balanced. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just look at that sky! --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 04:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't find this all that interesting. I also don't like the brown sky, nor the way that the left-hand side of the plinth is cut off. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't like the perspective. The brown sky looks like severe light pollution in a big city. On a clearer night it would have been fine. Mikeo 11:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Poor white balance. Agree with previous comment that it would have looked better on a clear night, but light pollution CAN look OK if the photo is white balanced to a more neutral colour. Your eyes can do a better job of doing it automatically than a camera can, so you need to compensate manually, preferably before pressing the shutter, or before converting the RAW image if you're forward-thinking enough to use RAW. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Maybe if it appeared in an article about propaganda? --Philopedia 14:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunflower

[edit]
A Sunflower

I believe that this photo should be a featured picture, for it is clear and displays the sunflower well. I found it in the Sunflower article.

Devils Tower

[edit]
Devils Tower National Monument

Photos illustrates Devils Tower National Monument well, is well composed and has nice background. Created & uploaded by User:Colin.faulkingham cropped by User:Plumbago.

Yes, the sky is a little bit blotchy, but that's about it. What other issues besides the sky do you see? Most other photos are tiny in size... Nothing like featured quality. =- Mgm|(talk) 08:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quality is my main objection: it loses the advantages it might gain from having a high resolution and doesn't satisfy the criteria. And since the article is replete with photos -- some of which, I think, better depict the igneous intrusion by providing a more informative perspective -- this photo isn't of especially high encyclopedic value, either. (Not that it's a bad or useless photo. Just not FP.) bcasterline t 16:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

30 St Mary Axe

[edit]
The top of 30 St Mary Axe

An innovative shot of one of the world's most amazing buildings.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M136 AT-4 Rocket Launcher

[edit]

This picture caught my eye a while ago and I have decided it could probably be a featured. It's not perfect but I think it's pretty darn good. Although it's perhaps a little underexposed, I think that it better conveys the heat of the exhaust. Also, the projectile is somewhat blurred, but I think that is understandable.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aktfoto

[edit]
Naked girl laying down

This is a beautiful picture of the human body and it adds to its article, Nudity. It seems to be appropriate for younger viewers and for the Main Page because it isn't really pornography at all, just a little suggestive (better than FHM, for example)

Not all featured pictures go up on the main page and in accordance with WP:NOT along with that fact this is not a valid reason to oppose and will most likely be discounted by teh closing admin. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 11:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Padaung Girl

[edit]
A Padaung Girl in Nothern Thailand
File:Karen Padaung Girl Portrait edit.jpg
Edit -- brightened the girl; revised @ 06:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC) -- less brightening and excluded the orange from the selection

As taken from the original comments on this image: This is an image I photographed at a refugee camp in Northern Thailand of a young Padaung hilltribe girl from Myanmar. I didn't originally intend to photograph her as I didn't want to appear insensitive and touristy. I tried to communicate with smiles and hand signals but her expression never wavered. She looked quite unhappy and at that point, I felt I had to capture this emotion.

I'm not sure how you guys are going to feel about this image, given that it has clear encyclopaedic value as well as being quite a personal portrait of a young girl whom I didn't get explicit permission for the photo (it was impossible due to communication barriers, however, she did not react either positively or negatively to the camera). That said, I feel this is a pretty high quality photograph of a fascinating ethnic group, and adds significantly to the article.

Promoted Image:Karen Padaung Girl Portrait.jpg. New edit is good too but there is more support for the original ~ Veledan • Talk 15:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boat

[edit]
The original version that shows much detail about the surronding environment
A cropped version that focuses more on the boat
A version that is more heavily cropped

This is a picture of a "sampan" - a type of boat - carrying passengers from the Sai Kung Peninsula to the offshore islands in Hong Kong. It is an important mean of transportation in the area. The photograph was taken by myself, and appears in the articles boat, sampan, Sai Kung Peninsula and Sai Kung District.

Criticism on the uncropped version:

→ It seems that some users like the photograph to focus more on the boat. Now, I have uploaded one more version. Which one do you guys like better? - Alan 03:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after the cropped version is uploaded:

  • Oppose (both). The cropping reduced the image size (at 1000 px it's on the border of being acceptable) but the sharpness isn't good enough. A picture shot from a closer location would be sharper. Also, the angle the sampan is shown from is a bit unappealing. --Janke | Talk 06:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 11:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stone sphere

[edit]
Stone sphere in the courtyard of El Museo Nacional

A fascinating piece of history, carved by hand over 2000 years ago! The image is large and composed well. From the Stone spheres of Costa Rica article, taken by User:WAvegetarian

  • Nominate and support. - Fxer 22:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - maybe fascinating history, but not a fascinating picture. -- P199 22:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A worthy subject but this is a touch overexposed and a bit unsharp. Also, I find the background distracting. Given that there are over 300 of these ancient stone spheres, I think a better picture must be possible ~ Veledan • Talk 23:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Veledan. Interesting subject, but the background is fairly distracting and doesn't draw attention to the stone sphere. bcasterline t 00:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would rather see the sphere where it was originally found. This image might give people the false impression that the sphere was originally on the pictured pedestal. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-08 02:56
    • Comment. I would like to quote the article in defense of the illustrative nature of the photo: Some of the dynamited spheres have been reassembled and are currently on display at the National Museum in San José. This text was added previous to andnot in connection with the photo of, what do you know, a stone sphere in the national museum. As the article states, the stone spheres were moved from their original locations. Please do your research before making decisions. Being uninformed is grounds for your opinion being discounted. Saying it isn't as high quality a photo as some of the other featured pics is fine, but attacking it for the location it's in is completely ridiculous. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 18:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with Veledan. Mikeo 00:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I took this photo before I considered myself a photographer. In truth, it is a vacation photo from a high school spring break trip. The extreme depth of field is because it was shot with auto everything. It wasn't really taken with the idea of illustrating the stone sphere, rather it was to illustrate the sphere in the place I was at. Ideally it would have a much shallower depth of field and include the full shadow at the base, or be shot at a time other than high noon such that the sphere was better illuminated. It is true that it would be nice to have a picture of a sphere in its "original" position, but given how old they are it is absolutely ridiculous to think that any of the known ones are in the position the creators left them in. Given how relatively rare a phenomenon and how little studied they are I find it highly unlikely that a free image will be found of higher quality than this, barring someone taking a photo for this express purpose. As for it being overexposed, I will have to respectfully disagree. This photo accurately depicts the coloration of the sphere. The grass and sidewalk are over exposed, but the sphere is not. I have seen featured pics both much better than this and slightly worse. I think it is a good picture and one of my best from that time in my life, but shows many flaws of the beginning photographer. I didn't nominate it myself as I have taken much better pictures and now have much better skills. I don't particularly want to oppose my first nominated picture, however, so I neutrally offer this commentary. If I should happen to be in San Jose again (unlikely) I promise to take a much better picture. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 04:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 11:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crater Lake aerial view

[edit]
View of Crater Lake from the air

First of all, it certainly needs a new file name, but apart from that, here's a great aerial shot of Crater Lake in Oregon (it's used in the article). Taken by Semionk. It's sharp, has good color balance. Maybe could stand a little bit of cropping out some of the clouds in the top half too. Also being used in Mount Mazama and Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway.

Support: --Fxer 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Beautiful image of the only national park in Oregon[reply]

  • Oppose oppose per howcheng :-) But seriously, there are vile compression artifacts in lower part of the picture. And featured content is supposed to represent the very best Wikipedia has to offer. I think you should have corrected the faults you mentioned in the nomination (how hard is it to move the filename?) before nominating ~ Veledan • Talk 23:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I was trying to gauge others' opinions on this image. I can certainly take a stab at it Photoshop and see what I can do, but there may be others (hint hint) better at me at touching up these images. howcheng {chat} 00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can't correct the kind of compression I complained about I'm afraid: there is more artifact than detail and nothing can repair that. You need a less compressed original from the photographer :-( ~ Veledan • Talk 00:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Quality is fairly poor, and I don't find the image particularly striking. The cloud cover gets in the way. bcasterline t 00:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too many clouds. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. Important picture for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the quality at full resolution is not good at all, showing many artefacts. Probably from post-processing or compression - sea surface ist really bad. The cloud cover is OK - as almost the entire lake is visible. Without cloud cover, it might have been a rather boring picture. I would support a higher quality version, if it existed. Mikeo 09:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the clouds don't bother me as much as the compression artifacts. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 23:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Personally I really like the clouds -- it gives the pic a lot of character, especially considering the lake is entirely visible. I've asked the uploader for a new version, but considering his/her only two edits were to upload the file and insert into an article, we may not be able to get a better image. howcheng {chat} 06:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 11:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idly Vada

[edit]
The South Indian staple breakfast item of Idly, Sambar and Vada served on a banana leaf.Note the stainless steel plates & cups characteristics of south Indian dining tables

Staple breakfast item of South India: Idly, Sambar and Vada served on a banana leaf.

Not promoted Mikeo 11:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edsel

[edit]
1959 Edsel Corsair convertible.

As I was reading about the Edsel, this image stood out, because its depth of focus (am I saying this correctly?) makes the car "pop" against the greyish, out-of-focus background. I had to do a double-take to see if it was a real car or a model. The focal point of the image seems crisp and bright and adds nicely to the article. Plus, I haven't noticed any car photos as Featured Pic recently, so this one might be nice. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of the top cropped away, but I'm not even sure that's necessary. Well-framed, well-lit, good angle & general composition.

"Photo by Morven, taken at the Garden Grove, California Main Street weekly car show, Friday April 16, 2004, and released under the GFDL."

Not promoted Mikeo 11:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictorial cancellation

[edit]
This post box is located at a historical site Somnathpur in Karnataka, India. The special postal cancellation is to act as a publicity /commemoration media for this tourist site. The special cancellation is done at no extra cost. But the only letters posted at this box located in front of the Kesava temple would get the special cancellation. The cancellation logo is the sketch of the temple.

Though not a photographically special shot, I thought this image contribute substantially to the article it’s attached. The article deals with postal cancellation.

Why? StephenFalken 21:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 11:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Caption goes here

I feel that this photo exemplifies the concept of an animal shelter in an endearing and provokative manner. In addition, it is sharp, selectively focused, and available in a large format.

It appears in the articles dog and animal shelter. I took the photo in Washinton, Iowa at the Paws and More No-Kill Animal Shelter.

Not promoted Mikeo 11:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooty railway station

[edit]
Ooty railway station at Nilgiris, India. An excited crowd receives the Nilgiri Mountain Railway. A view from the driver's cabin.

Thought this captures the essense of this railway station.

Not promoted Mikeo 11:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Bauhinia

[edit]
The Golden Bauhinia and the urbanized Hong Kong

Bauhinia flower is a symbol of Hong Kong, and appears on the Flag of Hong Kong. The photograph shows the golden statue of a bauhinia flower sitting at the heart of highly-urbanized Wan Chai District in Hong Kong. It is a famous tourist spot. In the photograph, we can also see the skyscrapers in the background, as well as the night view of the urban area of Hong Kong.

The photograph was taken by myself, and appears in the articles Hong Kong, Wan Chai District, Wan Chai and Golden Bauhinia Square.

Not promoted Mikeo 11:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade combat team

[edit]
Brigade combat team

A very cool image I found surfing Army news releases, quite high res and stunning IMO. Staxringold 00:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've added it to Camp Shelby (where the unit was departing from) and the "Field marching" subsection of Marching band, as although it is not a marching band it very clearly shows field marching (making shapes on the field with large numbers of people). Staxringold 11:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unless Camp Shelby consists of a field of grass and not much more, this doesn't do a good job of pictorially representing it. Also, as you say, it doesn't illustrate the article content of the marching band article as they aren't a band. It is an impressive feat to pull off, but I have to agree with Mikeo. I hope they didn't spend all their time learning how to do field marching; this would make a rather poor combat formation. :)—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 20:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 11:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Place

[edit]
A portion of the sculpture Another Place
Edit without a rounded bottom right corner. Also reduced in size slightly.
Edit of 2 with less sky

I belive this image is striking, well composed, has good background & colors, and adds siginicantly to the Another Place article. Created by User:Chowells.

  • I know what you mean, but it really is a difficult thing to photograph because the subjects are so sparsely distributed. With that in mind I think the composition is about as good as it can be, and I find the picture grows on me! StephenFalken 23:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Another_Place3_edit2.jpg the third picture (edit 2) Mikeo 12:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon row barns

[edit]
Mormon row barns
File:Barns grand tetons edit.jpg
Softened edges somewhat

One of my photos from the Grand Teton National Park article. A classic view point in the park.

  • Self-Nominate and support. - y6y6y6 14:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • reluctantly oppose, this version suffers from pretty severe JPG artifacts. Also it is a little on the small side, I'm sure your digital camera has more than one megapixel. It is highly encouraged to upload as big and high-quality as possible (as long as image sharpness allows it). Space is of no concern on the upload servers. --Dschwen 14:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak support original, oppose edit. Yeah, much better, still some slight artifacts but I think I can live with them. It wouldn't hurt reducing the compression factor until you get a 2MB file, this would still be perfectly acceptable. --Dschwen 06:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2mb file for a 2 megapixel image?! That's ridiculous! As hard as it is for people with broadband to imagine, there are people who have to wait 2 min for even an 800kb file. I've got nothing against quality, but you have to remember this photo should be usable for everyone. --Fir0002 www 08:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it is not ridiculous if the 800kB version still has artifacts. You cannot base the filesize estimat only on the megapixel-count, it is the details in the picture that require space. And the picture is usable for people with slow lines. They can look at the downsampled versions. The originals however should be uploaded in maximum quality. Sorry, but I did not make up this policy. --Dschwen 08:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The downsampled version however is proportional in size. I know whenever I look at a downsampled PNG file I have to wait like 5 mins! --Fir0002 www 10:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki does a perfectly good job of downsampling large images to smaller sizes for those on slower 'net connections, ensuring that those that want high quality images and those that want quick downloads are both satisfied. I therefore do not see a problem chowells 23:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Spectacular shot, though. If you still have the original, which should be superior in quality, I'd support it. bcasterline t 15:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Very nice, but far too highly compressed. I will support if a less compressed version is uploaded. chowells 17:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can't see the compression that others mention above, even the hires pic looks fine to me. I sometimes wonder if my votes here mean anything if I see nothing wrong with a pic others are most unhappy about! Beautiful picture - Adrian Pingstone 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have a look at the detail in the trees. It is somewhat hidden due to the random scattering of trees, but you can see subtle square shaped patterns. They're JPEG compression artifacts. You can also see it quite clearly (although they are somewhat hard to avoid unless you set extremely low compression) on the edge where the mountains meet the sky. I wouldn't say they are that obvious that they ruin the image, but if a higher quality image could be provided, so much the better. So many images are spoiled by bad processing. I suppose we have higher standards here than most people do. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best way to understand what people are talking about when they mention compression artifacts is to view the photo at 200% zoom. In this photo you'll see major problems at that zoom level. And even in the normal view you can see problems on the diagonal rooflines. Once you see these artifacts enlarged it's easier to see them at normal zoom. Also keep in mind that different people will literally see the same picture in different ways. Different gamma, brightness, and contrast settings on your monitor will make the photo look wildly different. In addition, if you have a large monitor with a relatively small resolution (for example - a 19" monitor set at 1280x960 resolution) everything will effectively be zoomed to some degree. What I'm trying to say is - Don't be discouraged because you don't see what people are talking about. Oddly, both parties can be right in this case. Also - I'll get a better version up tonight. --y6y6y6 20:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Better version uploaded. --y6y6y6 05:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Beautiful. There are still some compression artifacts at the roof top and on the mountain's crest, but I think we can live with it... Glaurung 05:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lovely Photo. Good job! --Fir0002 www 08:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have uploaded an edit where I've tried softening the skyline --Fir0002 www 08:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any improvement in the edit. Did you try removing the artifacts? That would have better been done with a blue brush, because in the edit the mountain tops look washed out in direct comparison and seem to have lost detail. Actually the sharp jagged horizon line is pretty essential to the picture. --Dschwen 08:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I can't see any artefacts. But I understand your comment. Looking at them side by side the original looks better. Viewed on it's own the edit is a little better in the skyline IMO --Fir0002 www 10:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Barns grand tetons.jpg Promoted original, not enough support for the edit ~ Veledan • Talk 12:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner Plain

[edit]
Dinner Plain is almost deserted during summer

Nice photo, and shows how a ski resort such as this one virtually shut down in the summer months.
Other Version: Image:Dinner plain summer pano.jpg

Really, I'd gladly live there over the summer :-) Search4Lancer 20:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Dinner plain summer pano02.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 12:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Sofia

[edit]
File:AlexanderNevskiCathedral.jpg
Alexander Nevsky Cthdral, Sofia
File:AlexanderNevskiCathedral-1.jpg
Edited

I agree that photos edited, other than contranst, etc. to make them clearer, are not appropriate, David R. Ingham 05:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 12:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leadenhall Market

[edit]
Leadenhall Market
Leadenhall Market - rotated 0.7° ccw

Leadenhall Market is one of the oldest surviving marketplaces in London, having been used continuously since the 14th Century. The architecture dates to the late 1800s when it was re-developed into the form in which it exists today. I believe this is a reasonably good shot of a scene that is difficult to photograph, as the market is shaped in a cross (+) shape and therefore hard to include the entire scene. This image is a spherical panorama of 3 images taken in portrait format, to maximise the angle of view while keeping detail high and the perspective sensible.

All together now, Promoted Image:Leadenhall_Market_In_London_-_Feb_2006_rotated.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 13:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Machu Picchu

[edit]
Machu Picchu Sanctuary and the Sacred Valley, showing the prominent peak of Huayna Picchu.
Downsampled, sharper version.
Restitched, brightened, and slightly downsampled version by Rubyk.
While we wait for Diliff, here's a stitch by me
And here's its edit
Diliff's re-stitch, slight crop, and adjustment of highlight detail
Another stitch which hopefully addresses the glitch issue
Downsampled, darkened clouds
Darkened, converted to sRGB from Adobe RGB instead of just assigning sRGB through save for web option

An awesome Machu Picchu panorama by User:Rubyk, from Ravedave's list on FPC talk - just one random click there, and this came up! (If the wiki server would be faster right now, I'd have a look at some other pics in the list...)

  • Nominate and support. Note: The original image is over 2300 by 8300 pixels - and it is not too sharp at full resolution, and shows some artifacts. I downsampled it by 40%, and it became sharper - I prefer that version, even though it is smaller. I also did one other, subtle thing - can you find it, and do you approve? --Janke | Talk 16:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hah what you removed was one of the things I thought was bad about the pic. I knew what it was before I even looked :) Great job photoshopping it BTW.-Ravedave 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose. It has a lot of potential but there are some extremely obvious stitching marks in the image. I'd love to get my hands on the original files and stitch it myself. ;) If I could correct the poor stitching, I'd support. For the record Janke, I'm usually pretty strict on touching up images and removing details, but you did a good job and in this case I do approve. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader/photographer is currently active on WP, so I've asked him if he can provide the original shots. We'll see... --Janke | Talk 20:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose edit. Not out of spite or plain principle. But when I consider what bothers me less, a duffelbag in picture which is full of people anyways, or having a retouched picture in an encyclopedic article, I'll go for the first option. By the way a slight blue shadow is still visible and it is clearly noticable where you took the replacement stone from. Irritates me! --Dschwen 09:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support downsampled and dufflebagless edit (its removal is clearly marked using Dschwen's template). Diliff can you help me spot the stitching errors you refer to? I'm having trouble finding them and I'm willing to hold my hand up and plead ignorance! ~ Veledan • Talk 17:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind, I spotted the repetitions in the vegetation at the bottom. Sorry, I have to withdraw my support, though I think it's great otherwise and I would fully support a re-stitched version :-( ~ Veledan • Talk 18:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not note the stitching "doubling" either, until it was first pointed out. Shall we withdraw this nomination, while waiting for Rubyk's reply? --Janke | Talk 19:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am willing to support the unedited. The stitching problems so far as I can see are mostly in the cloud areas. There are some problems with focus etc. but its got to be very hard to take a panorama like this IN the clouds, they're MOVING! The other blurred interpolated stiches at the bottom are mostly in unimportant areas of forest. The image is huge and the subject is interesting. --Deglr6328 23:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find the stitching more problematic below the clouds, personally. If you follow the stitch marks on the clouds vertically down, you will see duplication of features in the landscape due to poor stitching/feature matching in whatever software was used to create it. To be fair, they do blend in somewhat (mainly because the eye overlooks things that seem to appear normal. They aren't immediately visible, but they are definitely there on close inspection. It helps to know what to be looking for. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can't for the life of me find stitch marks on the edited version. However, I am perturbed by the blue left behind where the dufflebag was. I would support the unedited. Nevermind, the stitch marks are indeed terrible! Search4Lancer 00:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Poor stitching. ~MDD4696 16:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A subject deserving so much detail. The thumb on this page seems too small in relation to the others. David R. Ingham 05:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I appreciate you nominating my photo of Machu Picchu. I support the nomination, and am uploading a new version of the image without the stitching artifacts, slightly brightened, downsampled, and cropped to remove the duffle bag that has been bothering people. --Rubyk 14:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the brightness increase is not really an improvement. Now the clouds are even more blown-out. --Dschwen 15:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If you can upload a restitched version with the same brightness/contrast as the original, you'll get my immediate support for that. This is an awesome photo, and I'd really like to see it featured! --Janke | Talk 17:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry to to say the stitching artifacts are still very much visible. Not as prominent as the previous version but they are most definitely there. Rubyk, I suspect it is the software you are using. I am confident I can create a higher quality stitch if you can provide the originals. I also agree that the brightening is not really an improvement. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of seven sequentially numbered source images.
  • Thanks, Rubyk! Suggestion: When Diliff has made a stitch he considers perfect ;-), we could delete this nomination and put up a new one. As the nominator of this one, I'll happily withdraw it when a better one exists. --Janke | Talk 06:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Image:Peru Machu Picchu Sunset.jpg is already a featured picture. Although this picture is very good, is there really need to have two FPs of the same subject? Arco Acqua 15:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with that. Each FPC should be considered on its own. Cf. the lithographs by Haeckel, a fifth is on its way to FP status. --Janke | Talk 17:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support one of these, but I'll wait until all versions are in before placing my vote. Current preference for the edit of my stitch --Fir0002 www 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhh.. well. I feel like its almost not worth adding my stitch - it would just get lost in the list! Your stitch seems technically pretty good, but I don't really agree with your edit though. You always tend to over-brighten images (IMHO) and they lose the sense of atmosphere. Sometimes 'muted' is the actual (and intended) vibe. My edit is a slight crop, and attempts to restore some of the highlight detail in the clouds, but is otherwise left as-is. Should we re-nominate this/these images so we can get a proper vote?

Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went with the brightening because so did the photographer, and I guess that was the "vibe" he wanted - not the dark versions. --Fir0002 www 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Diliff version, oppose rest. Diliffs edit resolves two issues I had with the image, the stitching fault in center near the bottom of the frame to the right of the big rock (most likely a touch up, but barely noticable) and the blue bag. Fir's edit is a bit too bright, too big for the sharpness of the original material and still has the glitch. Especially the clouds look much better in Diliffs version. --Dschwen 20:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which glitch? I can't see any problems - prehaps upload a small temp file with the problem circled. And as you yourself have often vociferously said, bigger is better and there is virtually no limit to the space on the server. --Fir0002 www 22:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for the glitch check this magnification. As for the vociferously saying bigger is better, please differentiate. Sharpness matters as I said here. When asking for bigger versions of small but sharp images I tend be optimistic and hope for the larger version to be sharp as well. When I have the choice between an unsharp big version and a sharp slightly smaller version I wouldn't ask for the big version. And I definately wouldn't ask vociferously for that matter. --Dschwen 22:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dunno, it may have been too strong an adjective but "The originals however should be uploaded in maximum quality" is one of your recent remarks --Fir0002 www 08:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hate edit conflicts. ;) I'll leave my comments as is for the record, though: This glitch[17]. The foreground grass on the left segment has separated from the right segment. I agree that perhaps Dschwen has been a little contradictory there. However, I think he has previously said (and I completely agree) that it should as large as possible, but only where it does not visibly impair perceived sharpness. In the case of this image, the original files were quite soft, and downsampling resulted in an equally detailed but more aesthetically pleasing image. The scenario where Dschwen was advocating the 'bigger is better' mantra was where the image was obviously too small. Experienced photographers/editors like you and I can use our experience to dictate how far we can happily downsample. For the average contributor, I think its probably safer to request the original files and they can subsequently be modified to suit if need be, as the original image is always going to contain the maximum possible detail and we will never have to go through the laborious process of getting back to the original author to request a better version. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Diliff, there's significant posterizing in the clouds in your stitch... what happened? ~MDD4696 23:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree - looks pretty horrible, noticeable banding in the sky. Too much "curves" or level correction in the sky area? (I see you darkened the sky a bit.) The sky in Fir's version doesn't have that problem. --Janke | Talk 05:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have a point there. Its more a matter of taste, though. The sky was very overexposed to begin with, so I had tried to make the most of what detail was available in the sky. I could have left it as it was, and thats fine, but I just tried to get a bit of texture out of the lower part of the clouds. At my end, the transition is reasonably subtle, but you would see a lot of banding if (for example - I'm not implying this is definitely the case) you had your colour settings set to less than true colour, but I don't see banding at all. I admit that due to the enhancement of the highlights in the clouds, there by logic must be more obvious steps in the luminosity of them, but I don't see it in the image at all, to be honest. I've viewed the cloud area at 300% and enhanced the levels on that crop by a factor of about 5, and while that results in an incredibly contrasty cloud ;), I don't see ANY significant banding... If the issue is not to do with your colour display settings, perhaps you could crop what you're refering to and show me? Alternative, I can simply upload the stitch without the cloud enhancement. I always knew that would be subject to taste, but I didn't (and don't) see banding. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Posterization in the sky
                • Interesting. I'm at a work computer right now, and the LCD monitor has 8-bit colour so I can definitely see the posterization here... But as for whether its the monitor or the image itself, its impossible to say for sure (I see posterization on a lot of images with subtle transitions on this monitor). I see your point, however, because I've viewed both your image's clouds and I've viewed mine, and mine is clearly more visible. I'll revert it tonight and re-upload! This is really dragging on a bit but I'm glad we're making the most of the potential of this image through feedback. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yeah it certainly makes for a good final result! I mean once we've finished with it, I'm sure it will be as close to perfect as is possible. On that note I've uploaded two more versions, another stitch (to fix the glitch in the original) and an edit to bring out the clouds. Like you did, I experienced problems with posterization but I think I've been able to make a pretty good compromise. --Fir0002 www 08:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I like what you've done with the clouds and I think that is the best version overall, but, nitpicking here, the scene does look slightly washed out and I'd like to see it a little darker and closer to the original. For that matter, I'm not sure that the excess of bushes on the right really helps either, and I'd like to see it cropped on the right. Otherwise, I like it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's another interesting difference between Diliff's and Fir's stitches - the perspective rendering. Look how the edge of the grass curves more strongly in Diliff's version - also visible as a steeper diagonal edge on the left. How come? (I do prefer the less steep curve of Fir's stitch.) All in all, this has been a very interesting and educational excercise for us all! --Janke | Talk 15:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. I did notice the perspective difference after comparing the two. I think I can explain this by the fact that the centre point isn't set correctly in one of the two stitches and the vertical perspective is shifted to different degrees. In viewing the two stitches sequentially, I have to admit that I PREFER the perspective of Fir0002's, but if you look carefully, the tree in the middle of the ruins is not vertical, whereas it is vertical in my stitch. Make of that what you will. Without any other perspective cues, it is very difficult to tell which is the more accurate - perhaps the tree actually does tilt in reality, although it doesn't appear to in the original images! Janke, seeing as you have been following this closely, can you see really posterization in the clouds in my image? I'm looking again on my home PC with what I consider to be a pretty high quality monitor, and I cannot see any banding or posterization at all. As I mentioned earlier, due to the modification I made to bring out the detail in the clouds, there will be a small amount of luminance (eg, approximately 10 steps at most) spread out over a greater range, but on my monitor, it appears quite well dithered and even when enhancing the clouds further and zooming to 300%, I still see dithering, not banding/posterization. I'm not saying that three different people are 'making it up', but I find it puzzling that they are seeing something that I am not. Is your display definitely set to 32bit/true colour? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:MPTEST2.jpg
Left: Diliff, right: Fir. Top: Original, bottom: contrast increased
        • Diliff: I use a G4 Mac, which is supposed to have good graphics... I definitely see the banding in your edit (top left), but not in Fir's (top right). Here is the proof, I cut out the same part from both images, put them one beside the other, and made a contrast enhancement. A pretty obvious difference, I must say. I also wonder where the "granulation" in your version comes from (only visible in the enhanced example, though.) Hope this helps you solve this mystery! (Maybe Fir has some secret trick, and that is the mystery? ;-) Greetings, --Janke | Talk 06:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I finally see it, and it could be that my LCD screen IS a little washed out at the top end of luminosity, because if I tilt the screen at an extreme angle (which essentially darkens the entire image slightly) I DO see the banding, but when viewing it straight-on, I see very subtle variances of the almost-white level and no discernable banding. Seems to be only in the 250-255 range of luminosity, but that is a little worrying.. Something to be aware of in future! As for the "granulation", I'm not sure. It almost appears that his version has had noise reduction applied, as the tip of the mountain's detail seems a little softer, too. That could be as a result of the stitching though, or the fact that he didn't 'pull' the sky's detail as far as I did. I have no idea. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I propose closing this as a failure, then opening a new FPC for the final edit, anyone agree? -Ravedave 16:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No result per above comments. Nomination would have failed based on vote count, but the image has obviously changed and improved a lot. Someone please select/create the new candidate soon — I want to see this an FP too! ~ Veledan • Talk 13:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military aircraft

[edit]
X-31, F-15 ACTIVE, SR-71, F-106, F-16XL, X-38, Radio Controlled Mothership and X-36.

A collection of military aircraft. NASA PD.

  • Oppose Although I like it because it shows relative size, it's way too fuzzy. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 19:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nice constellation of outstanding aircraft. The quality is horrible - just look at the SR-71. Has this been a 256-color picture before? Not FP worthy. Mikeo 00:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. though I would also add that I do not see any reason behind these aircraft in it. They are not all of a typ, or active at the same time or even all used by the military. just seems random to me.say1988 01:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Severe image quality problems. --Janke | Talk 06:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on, hold on - that image could be quite decent if we can track down the Nasa original (taken 1997 by the way) and enhance it. I can't seem to find it after a few quick searches on the NASA Dryden site, and the link on the image desc page is broken. If we can, I'm sure we might be able to help the quality. I've found the Wikipedia original, and I'll try to do something with that, but several things struck me. That version has been edited (an apparently lossless crop) in an old version of Photoshop, on a Mac with a weird colour space. I might be able to do something. Until then, if you find an original, post linkage here. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 19:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction before I've even saved the page: I've found the closest NASA original here. I't the image description page with accompanying text, credits, and four versions. Incrementally sized JPGs, with one huge PSD, which I'll try to do something with. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 19:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hout Bay, Cape Town

[edit]
The Cape Town suburb of Hout Bay as seen from Chapman's Peak.

This is my first featured pictures nomination. I took this photograph at sunset of the Cape Town suburb of Hout Bay. Not only is it a beautiful photograph, but it shows the topography and geological featured of the Cape Town area, as well as giving a good illustration of the suburb and its location. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 07:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 08:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haeckel Chiroptera Lithograph

[edit]
"Chiroptera" from Ernst Haeckel's Artforms of Nature, 1904

Interesting lithograph that appears in the bat article, and shows a variety of facial structures of certain bat species.

Promoted Image:Haeckel Chiroptera.jpg

Sydney Opera House

[edit]
The Sydney Opera House is one of the most iconic landmarks in the world, and since its opening it has become a symbol of Sydney

The Sydney Opera House is easily one of the most famous buildings in the world and a great example of 20th century architecture. This picture is currently used, most notably, as the picture for the picture relating to stubs that are about Sydney geography and was origionally taken by User:Enochlau. I came accross it on the Sydney Opera House page origionally and was struck by its beauty. hi this is bob

*Oppose reluctantly due to size and photo issues though it's a great subject and would be all for supporting a more suitable image of the opera house. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 17:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alprazolam 2mg

[edit]
Alprazolam 2mg tablets
(generic for Xanax)

A lot of people like Xanax; It is in the articles Alprazolam and Benzodiazepine.

Photograph by John Delano of Hammond, Indiana

A guess: check this discussion --Dschwen 15:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 22:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LCD Pixels

[edit]
Wikipedia's logo displayed on an LCD monitor. Note that when magnified, each pixel actually consists of 3 discrete colors (red, green, and blue) in varying proportions.
An alternative image.
Diliff's example attempt.

Demonstrates how pixels are drawn on an LCD monitor, which most people don't know the workings of. Aside from that, nothing remarkable.

I tried it before, but Redrave is right, the concept of this picture with the magnification as an inset is actually pretty good. Maybe I'll try again as well, but my macro lens is not with me right until after easter. --Dschwen 22:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is on the monitor should probably be pondered as well. I think that text or images dont look good, maybe four solid colors (CMYK?,RGBK?,RGBKW?) with the zoomed region being the middle? I too will have my camera after easter, lets see if my poor old Canon PowerShot S500 is up to it. You guys make me want a 5/20/30D now.-Ravedave 04:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Withdrawn by nominator. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Hills of Vernon, New Jersey

[edit]
File:Rolling hills of Vernon, NJ off Route 94.jpg
Rolling hills of Vernon, NJ.

I nominate this picture because it is a beautiful photograph that it would look great on the main page. It appears in the article on Vernon, New Jersey and I created the image It also has a great contrast between the colors in it with the light grass in the front, the darker green in the mountains behind that, and then the blue sky with clouds.;

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hibiscus

[edit]
The Hibiscus flower.

Hibiscus flower with buds at various stages and leaf structure.

Not promoted Mikeo 17:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creole Food

[edit]
Creole food
File:CreoleFood edit.jpg
Edit
Edit #2

Here's a nice find: A professionally shot photo of food that's free use. This image shows dishes typical of Louisiana Creole cuisine. The composition is nice, it's sharp, and I don't see any significant JPEG compression artifacts. Also used in Louisiana, Cuisine of the United States, and Cuisine of the Southern United States.

Not promoted ~MDD4696 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grasshopper

[edit]
The Carolina Locust (Dissosteira carolina), a common American grasshopper.
Brighter, whiter.
Edited with Photoshop's levels tool. Black and white points set.

This is the frontispiece from Insects, their way and means of living, R. E. Snodgrass. When I saw it I knew Wikipedia had to have it. Used in the article grasshopper. Dissosteira carolina does not yet have its own article.

  • Nominate and support. - —Pengo 02:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good addition to wikipedia. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 03:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, support! (first edit, 2nd is too contrasty) Could be inserted into other articles, too. --Janke | Talk 05:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The accuracy, detail and size are all more than adequate. but...so drab. Kinda ruins it for me. sorry. looks like it'll pass anyway though. --Deglr6328 06:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's underexposed. White is grey. Looks like someone using that $8,000 camera made some really poor exposures (in manual even), for reproduction work! I suppose it could be adjusted for exposure in Photoshop but quality will suffer slightly. Ziggur 06:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I personally prefer the drab colours, but I've uploaded a brighter version. The camera work was done by the University of Toronto scanning center as part of a high volume book scanning pilot project in association with the Internet Archive. It's actually one of the better works done by the project. —Pengo 07:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I prefer the drab version too, the the colors in the bright one look very different. It's a watercolour/drawing anyway, so I can't see how it can be "underexposed", the grey background is a legitimate artistic choice of the artist.--Antone 12:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I really doubt the publisher (it wouldn't be the artist's call) would print on grey paper like that. It kind of looks like the person who photographed the page (and probably all the others) took a metering off a white surface. Camera meters assume anything it's looking at is a neutral scene equal to what's called 18% grey, so if you meter from a white surface, a camera will underexpose it and make whites grey, and colors underexposed and "drab." Ziggur 15:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support my edited version. Check the picture page for full editing details. Ziggur 02:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This one is not used in any article so far. - And I can't think of any article for which this picture would be especially descriptive. That is no FP for me. Mikeo 08:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's used in the taxobox of grasshopper. It would also be used in the Dissosteira carolina article if there were one. —Pengo 09:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~MDD4696 22:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 66

[edit]
Interstate 66 in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Maybe too low quality but I like the coloring. Links to stub in need of some work and featuring would certainly get the views.

Not promoted ~MDD4696 22:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamarack Miners

[edit]
Miners in Copper Country
Original "sepia"-toned version

Here's an interesting image that caught my eye. I really like how the miners are stacked up in a pyramid that matches the pile of rocks. This is a scan of a very old photo and I cleaned up a lot of dust/hair/scratches and what looked like a fold in the original print. It's used in Copper Country.

Promoted Image:TamarackMiners CopperCountryMI sepia.jpg ~MDD4696 22:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Union Jack

[edit]

WITHDRAWN since this obviously has no chance of suceeding. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 07:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Union Jack, the official flag of Great Britain

I think this article is a great illustration of the national flag of the United Kingdom. It is used in a huge number of articles but most relevant and notable United Kingdom and Union Jack. It is an illustration not a photo and should be judged as such.

  • Nominate and support. - Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support! --Elephantus 00:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Illustrations of flags (as simple as this one) require little effort. ~MDD4696 01:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this curious logic. James F. (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find many things about that logic but WP:NPA and good taste precludes me saying any of it. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 01:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not really a valid to oppose. Just because the flag isn't extremely complex doesn't degrade it as an image or as a featured candidate. If you have an issue with their choice of flag I suggest you take it up with the Queen of England. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 01:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My problem with this image is that although it is of the highest quality, there is nothing remarkable about it that makes it stand out. There is nothing that distinguishes it from other images; nothing to suggest that it is Wikipedia's best. A more informative image of the flag would include dimensions and measurements, show the flag in some sort of historic or otherwise significant context, or perhaps show a juxtaposition that is not inherently obvious to the reader. Surely, the Euro FP's subject is as bland as most flags, yet to me it stands out as being an extremely useful and exemplary illustration.
    The best diagrams and images require significant effort and skill or knowledge to produce. In general, I see no point in featuring images that can be produced by anyone with a little time on their hands. What would be the use? Wikipedia's featured pictures make me proud of the wiki community, and it would disappoint me to see a drop in our high standards for both aesthetic and informative content.
    I believe many others feel the same, but I'd also venture to guess that there is a fair share that see the FP criteria the same way you do Pegasus. We're here to generate consensus, and I don't see why voicing opposition should alienate anyone from the discussion. There will always be disagreements, but that doesn't make people's opinions any less valid. ~MDD4696 03:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Can't really be said to be exemplary of Wikipedia's best work, which is a requirement. I don't find it pleasing to look at either: the diagonal red stripes are uneven. bcasterline t 02:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments in the nom about it being an illustration of an existing flag. As such whether it's pleasing or not shouldn't really factor into it, it should be whether it exemplifies the article or not and is accurate which I think it qualifies in both measures. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria are the same for every featured picture. Naturally it exemplifies its subject perfectly, as do many other illustrations of flags, I'm sure; I'm not going to use that as the sole criterion. In any case, I think my first objection is the stronger. bcasterline t 02:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose- we'll probably have to draft specific policy on this- but if we allow the Jack we have to allow ALL national/state/district flags. There is nothing exceptional about a flag. Borisblue 02:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference though in allowing all flags and allowing only good images of flags. So your statement is incorrect, we wouldn't have to allow all flags just good images of flags. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose meh. It is not striking or very pleasing to the eye and most definitely does not "represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet". And I stand by the idea that no image is exempted from any requirement. I see different types of images are judged differently, but follow all requirements. say1988 03:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. At first, this image does not exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. It can easily be reproduced with little effort. It fails to represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet - you can get this one about everywhere. It is just a flag, nothing special at all. We might as well be starting to nominate simple elements like dots, lines or similar for FP. Where would that lead to? Mikeo 03:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What a strangely similar comment to my own... =P ~MDD4696 03:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't read it- it was way too prosaic. Try to focus on the important things. Mikeo 04:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If this nomination becomes FP, shall all flags be FP? This one is technically just as good - and even more stunning in its simplicity! I agree with all other opposes. --Janke | Talk 04:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my reasoning above that they wouldn't have to be and I'm actually somewhat surprised that people are using such shallow and quite frankly wrong reasoning to oppose this nomination. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this image remarkable enough to be considered exemplary? I see little reason to promote this image to a status above other images. Janke is right: looking through the list of sovereign states, there are numerous (though not all) flags that are of equal quality to the Union Jack. But there's nothing special about any of them. Am I missing something? bcasterline t 05:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your missing the fact that a flag is a flag and it is illogical to compare all flags to each other because if you do then yes non of them will stand out since flags by design are roughly the same, however since this is a diagram and not a photograph the quality and the significance to the article should hold more importance then the criteria of it "standing out" which doesn't really apply in the case of a diagram. What you and the other oppose voters are proposing is the entire disqualification of an entire category of image and if that happens I will make sure to add in bold letters on the FPC page that flag images are not wanted as FPC's because that's sure the response I'm getting on this nom. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 05:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see why this flag would be featured and not the one of the 200 other sovereign states. Regarding quality, it wouldn't be difficult to find good SVG files for all the flags. Good quality is not the only criterium for FP. If we go that way, why not start featuring good quality road signs, or good quality company logos? To be featured, representation of symbols must bring some additional information, such as the recently promoted Euro symbol [20] which contained all the necessary information to draw it. Glaurung 06:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because votes like yours and everyone else's oppose votes exclude any flag diagram (photos of actual hanging flags are somewhat different) from every becoming FPC's just because a group of editors are stuck on the point that flags are two dimensional images based on a set of shapes and colors and represent a country. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support any logo, symbol, flag or diagram that doesn't contribute significantly to the article, or the understanding of the subject. Most, if not all, of Wikipedia users know what the Union Jack looks like. If you want it featured, it should be a diagram showing the proportions, the exact colors, official dimensions, etc. Make that, and I might support it. (I said this about the Euro symbol: Great diagram, very informative. But... not a FP in my book, sorry) Voting for FP is all about opinions (you are definitely entitled to yours), but please check yourself, and do not try to impose your views on others. Thank you! --Janke | Talk 06:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not imposing my views on you I'm trying to sway your views to the fact that your view is both contradictory and illogicial as well as excluding a huge number of images from ever becoming featured due to some percieved deficit people see in photos. What's next, you gonna oppose pictures of non living objects because they aren't lively enough, or pictures of sports or other action for being too lively? Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see little difference between imposing my views and trying to sway your views. As for logic, that goes both ways. "A huge number of images" never have had, and will never have a chance to become featured. You just have to accept it. End of discussion on my part. --Janke | Talk 06:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you and those who agree with you are pretty much saying that if it isn't a photo then we don't want it as a featured picture since anything less (at least from what I've seen from various FPC's in the past and this current one) is that non photos are not worthy of FPC status unless they are absolutely amazing. That's an extremely narrow minded view to take on what deserves to be a featured picture. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois River Cruiser

[edit]
Illinois River Cruiser (M. illininoiensis)

A macro shot of an Illinois River Cruiser (Macromia illinoiensis). It's sharp, has good coloring, nice symmetry, fine detail, no visible JPEG compression artifacts. Used in Macromiidae and Dragonfly. Photo by Ted Lee Eubanks, Jr./FERMATA Inc., attribution required.

Not promoted Mikeo 04:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nepenthes rafflesiana

[edit]
Ant drinking nectar from a N. rafflesiana pitcher

Decent photograph of an unusual plant. Taken in natural habitat by me. Let me know what you think. =)

Oops. Forgot to mention - it's in the Nepenthes rafflesiana article.

I don't think you should take this person's votes seriously. He's slightly *confused*. :) HelloSvilen 23:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and remain civil. The closing admin will make the decision. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 20 April 2006 @ 01:35 UTC

All together now, Promoted Image:Nepenthes rafflesiana ant.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 15:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coupe iran

[edit]
Cup with hunters drawn from the 12th-13th centuries in Iran

An image of a cup with hunters during 12th-13th centuries in Iran, taken from Louvre Museum. It appears in the article, Islamic pottery and the credit goes to a French Wikipedian, Fabos.

Not promoted Mikeo 04:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Ard Gorge

[edit]
Loch Ard Gorge Panaroma

Absolutely beautiful image of Loch Ard Gorge in Victoria Australia, with very high detail (8704 by 1552). Shows what the sea can do! Created by User:Deanpemberton (talk.

I can see all four so no problem with shadow definition on my (CRT) monitor apparently - Adrian Pingstone 11:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nice picture. too noisy and too dark Mikeo 10:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It rained on your lens. The spot near the top of the image is repeated in each frame. The stitching boundaries are clearly visible, the sky has different hues in each frame. What did you use to stich, and what camera to cpature the original frames? --Dschwen 11:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Poor stitches between frames and underwhelming exposure and composition. I have to admit partiality towards my own panorama which is also on the very same article ;). Also, for the record, I don't believe that image is actually OF Loch Ard Gorge itself! Rather, it is of the Loch Ard Gorge region, so it is somewhat misplaced in the article to begin with. My image, on the other hand, is of the gorge itself. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Nice image. The stitching is actually not that bad, it's just the sky that is the problem area. The sea is done surprisingly well considering it is a rapidly moving object. --Fir0002 www 11:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you are right. There are no visible geometric misalignments, but the blending between the frames could be improved. Restitch? I'd give it a shot using Enblend if I had the originals. --Dschwen 12:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 04:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beartooth Mountain

[edit]
Beartooth Mountain, near Red Lodge, Montana

This is a photo I took while visiting Red Lodge, Montana

Not promoted Mikeo 04:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HDR Capitol Dome

[edit]
File:Capitol Dome (HDR).jpg
The United States Capitol as seen in a compressed high dynamic range.

A photo of the U.S. Capitol dome brought in from HDR. Illustrates both topics.

  • Nominated. - Noclip 15:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You can't support your own images. Also this image is currently ineligible because it is not used in any articles. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I like the image but prefer this one. Mooveeguy 16:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The picture is fuzzy and the quality of the sky is fairly poor. It's also slightly tilted. bcasterline t 17:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The sky is very grainy. It also seems to have some sort of smudge just to the left of the statue on top of the dome. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Here we go again, what's happening to FPC! Very low standard pics are common now. Weird colours, fuzzy, no contrast - Adrian Pingstone 19:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is a very poor example of HDR in my opinion. It is very soft, contrast is washed out, yet the statue at the top of the dome is almost black without any detail or texture. I don't think it really demonstrates HDR at all as this seems to be a scene that could have been captured (presumably better!) with just one 8 bit image. To properly demonstrate HDR, I think its important to show the individual images that combine to create a HDR image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not very sharp, and not very illustrative of HDR either. --Dschwen 20:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. grainy sky, slightly tilted, bad contrast, should never have become FPC 219.101.32.82 22:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am sick of hearing people say thing like 'Why was this nominated?' etc. Not everyone has the same opinions. If you dont like the picture just give your reasons, there is no reason to critsize for nominating. If you think you know what an FP is, nominate some. What happened to WP:BITE? This especially pisses me off because it's not the people that are spending their time removing the nominations that are complaining AND I dont see any nominations in the last few months from EITHER of the two complaining . We need to be accepting of new FPCers rather than scaring them off. -Ravedave 04:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been contributing images to WP for 3 years now (1300 so far) and voting in FP since it started so I believe I know a good pic and a bad pic. Recently we've had some pics that should never be here. How hard is it for the person to first scroll down through the other pics here and get an idea of the standard? Notice that opinion on this pic is in agreement with mine, I just expressed myself more forcefully. I don't usually write so harshly but just recently I lost my cool over the pics we've been seeing and so I wrote from the heart. I believe it needed to be said. (By the way, there is no requirement for voters to also add pics (assuming you're talking about me) I just prefer adding pics to WP itself, and I wonder how you would have voted?) - Adrian Pingstone 08:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just stop biting the newbies. It doesnt take much of your time to scroll past the picture. If it bothers you that much leave a nice note on the nominators page offering to help them pick pictures to nominate. If you 'know' what a good pic is lets see some nominations from you, it looks like you do lots of editing here so you should see lots of pics every day. Before I started posting here I had no idea what 'blown out highlights' were and didn't realize that a 2 degree tilt could even be noticed by anyone. I have been trying to fix the problem by improving Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? to make it clear what is needed rather than just complaining. -Ravedave 14:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have a point Ravedave, but I really think that a lot of the newbie FPC contributors don't actually read any of our instructions or guidelines, as demonstrated by the aquarium nomination above. ;) Although we should be welcoming to newbies, it would be nice if there was a little questionaire that newbie FPC'ers had to get through to demonstrate that they had read and understood the guidelines before they could get to the FPC page. :) Ah well, we can dream, can't we? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have decided to be bold and I've removed this image from both the Capitol article and the HDR imaging article. Both articles had far higher quality images that better described the subject and I found this image's inclusion as unnecessary. Apologies to the original contributor and nominator, but an image has to have a purpose to appear in an article, let alone be a FPC. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sucks.--Deglr6328 11:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Agree with above. Alr 17:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose - I thought HDR images were meant to look better than standard photographs? As it is, this is awful. If you want to see HDR properly, look at the chapel picture below or cs_militia on a high spec machine, not this. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 11:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, HDR images are not automatically better looking than standard photos. The art of compressing an HDR image into a displayable image is not an easy thing, and if you're not careful, the image will look extremely fake or lacking in contrast. Its difficult to make a deep shadow look deep while still having useful visible detail, for example, and requires precise curves/settings to create a realistic image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose, kind of washed out. Not a particularily good example of HDR at this stage, maybe it could be improved in some way. Also, not in an article. -Fadookie Talk 13:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 23:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine de' Medici

[edit]
Catherine de' Medici

I like the detail, and the image demonstrates the article's statements about her impact on fashion when she banned "thick waists at court attendance" and popularized the corset.

Not promoted Mikeo 23:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Locomotive

[edit]
The main moving parts of a steam locomotive with Walschaerts valve gear: 1 - Link, 2 - Eccentric crank, 3 - Radius rod, 4 - Lap/lead lever, 5 - Crosshead, 6 - Valve, 7 - Cylinder, 8 - Reach rod

A detailed animation of the exterior working parts of a steam locomotive. This animation is from the commons, and is already a featured picture there..

More info: I've studied hundreds of pictures of steam loco valve gears, but I've never seen one with a support like that - the stem is always supported by a sliding crosshead, not a rocking lever. (Also, I've built this 1:8 scale model, which has the same Walschaerts motion.) There's actually another error, too: The bell crank at the end of the reach rod is not at the right ange - it would interfere with the link when the engine is set to reverse. Also, this animation shows avery uncommon form of outside admission piston valve - usually, they are all inside admission. <rant mode off> ;-) --Janke | Talk 21:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was unaware of the error in the picture; If I had that it was not factually acurrate I probably would not have nominated it here. In light of this sudden development, which of the images from the Walschaerts_valve_gear article would you recomend for consideration as an fpc? TomStar81 00:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd say this one (too large to show below the nominated one), my only gripes are that it has a very conspicious creator signature, and that the bell crank is positioned a bit awkwardly behind the link - it may be an exact depiction of some loco, but it's less clear. To compare, here's the 1914 drawing I used when building my own loco model... --Janke | Talk 09:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I like you version better than I like the current one, so if it is possible to vote for that one instead of the current one I think we should do that. (Also, yours is factually acurate ;) TomStar81 09:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:Walschaert gear forward.gif
      • It's not "my" version, it's just one that I found while perusing WP. But here it is (unfortunately, it can't be scaled down nicely...) Yes, I'd support this one. Can we do something about that signature? --Janke | Talk 11:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Should we start again with a new nomination for this image? It's not just an edit to the old one, so it seems to me that the above votes aren't really relevant any more. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it above. --Janke | Talk 10:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 23:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lavoisier conducting air experiment

[edit]
Lavoisier conducts an experiment on human respiration in this drawing made by his wife, who depicted herself at the table on the far right.
Version 2: Lavoisier conducts an experiment on human respiration.

I am nominating this picture as sample of scientific partnership between husband and wife, and also because the picture shows an experiment that Lavoisier conducted while he studied the human respiration and oxygen in 1778;

An assistant takes the pulse of the subject while Lavoisier gives directions to his wife on her drawings, another assitant collects the gas which has passed through water. Probably the iron ball in the middle and the inverted flask are a device intended to measure the oxygen pressure.

In 1771, Lavoisier married 13-year-old Marie-Anne Pierrette Paulze, the daughter of a co-owner of the Ferme Generale. With time, she proved to be a scientific colleague to her husband. She translated documents from English for him, including Richard Kirwan's "Essay on Phlogiston" and Joseph Priestley's research, she created many sketches and carved engravings of the laboratory equipment used by Lavoisier and his colleagues.

This picture appears in Antoine Lavoisier article. The artwork has more than 100 years old and is in public domain.

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 16:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Ard Gorge Panorama

[edit]
Alternative Panorama of Loch Ard Gorge

If there is any confusion, I apologise. I originally inserted this image into the previous nomination for Loch Ard Gorge as a comparison, but it has been pointed out that it would be best to nominate it separately and let the chips fall where they may. This is a 4 segment panorama from a lookout point above the gorge. I will insert the previous chatter relating to this image.

Promoted Image:Loch Ard Gorge Panorama July 2005.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 18:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mt Hotham Summer Scenery

[edit]
About 20km from Dinner Plain
Edit
Cropped, see discussion - I find this more effective as a picture Stevage 11:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following the relative success of the Dinner Plain panorama, here's another from Mt Hotham.
Alternative version: Image:Mt hotham summer scenery.jpg

Promoted Image:Mt hotham summer scenery02 edit.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 21:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Third of May, 1808: The Execution of the Defenders of Madrid, by Goya

[edit]
The Third of May, 1808: The Execution of the Defenders of Madrid by Goya.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by YOYOKER (talk • contribs) 10:31, 15 April 2006 UTC.

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 22:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Street Trinidad Cuba

[edit]

I am nominating this picture because it depicts the movement and life in the little town of Trinidad, Cuba.

Street of Trinidad, Cuba

This stitched 360 panoramic view was created by (c) Jean-Pierre Lavoie using a Canon Digital Rebel XT camera.

  • Nominate and support. - Jplavoie 13:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very nice, there is a minor stitching fault with the power lines at the very top of the frame, and on the far left of the frame just to the right of the balcony support. Otherwise, very nice, and very different! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Provides a great feel of the place, even with the clones and some quality issues. (The shadows beneath the roof of the green building are fairly grainy, for example.) It should also be noted that the article it represents is a stub. bcasterline t 16:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nice. The 'stiching fault' in the window on the left is actaully the way the window looks, take a look at the windows on the right. -Ravedave 22:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Having been in that town myself, I can tell that this photo is nothing special at all. It does not really tell the story of Trinidad and its people (looks almost deserted on that picture which it sure is not - where are the little shops, the kids playing or selling things on the street, the old men sitting in front of their houses, the old Chevys,...). Being a panorama, there should be at least some of those things on the picture. It is just a usual tourist snapshot - not a good one either. Mikeo 22:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's ironic then that all of the things you list as wanting in the image are cliches of tourist snapshots! this is different, that is why it's good.--Deglr6328 23:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyway, with those things missing, it does not look like Trinidad for me. I guess for an encyclopedia, this should be important. When I said 'tourist snapshot' I was rather indicating the randomness and carelessness of how the subject was chosen. Mikeo 07:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - good. though the two walking at the left/center where the seem to be in the exact same step except for they switched the walking stick is kinda freaky!--Deglr6328 23:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: nothing spectacular, and I'm not a big fan of the colors in this. --Hetar 04:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Clones are unacceptable for me. ~MDD4696 17:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Nice quality, sharpness and exposure are good, the stitching is quite ok too, it would have been an extra effort to shoot some frames twice to suppress the cloning. But the subject itself is not that thrilling. I'm torn. --Dschwen 15:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand it is not less thrilling than that deserted australian ski-resort we seem to be having two featured pictures of shortly... --Dschwen 15:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 22:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yakiniku

[edit]
Yakiniku, a traditional style of Japanese barbecueing

This image is a well composed, visually interesing, high resolution image that illustrates Yakiniku well. It appears in that article, Yakiniku. The image was created by User:Marubatsu on the Wikimedia Commons and he has released it into the public domain.

|46]]96 03:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Looks delicious but still not striking enough for FP :)Spizzma 02:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks guys! for nominating my picture and for taking time to vote for or against it. It's just a picture I took with my shiny new digital camera at my birthday party and I quickly edited it in photoshop (and messed up on at least one detail). But the fact that some people would think it's worthy of being a featured picture means alot to me and gives me inspiration to upload more photos. Thanks! Marubatsu 16:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 22:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===[[Wikipedia:Featured picture }}

Notre-Dame basilica of Montreal

[edit]

This is the interior of Notre-Dame basilica in Montreal. Image created by (c) Jean-Pierre Lavoie.

Notre-Dame basilica, Montreal

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 23:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzly in Denali Park

[edit]

I am nominating this picture of a grizzly bear wandering in Denali National Park, Alaska. The scene was taken in autumn while the tundra of the National Park is colorful.

Grizzly bear in Denali National Park
Diliff's edit - rotated 3 degrees CCW, cropped, reduced in resolution slightly and sharpened.
Fir0002's edit. I've kept the slope on the image as I the impression I get is that it was taken on a hill
Wider crop, also rotated 3° (Dschwen's edit)

Image created by (c) Jean-Pierre Lavoie using a Canon Digital Rebel XT camera.

  • Nominate and support. - Jplavoie 16:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. The original image is not cropped enough IMHO. I've uploaded an edit that I think makes better use of the frame. The tradeoff is significant resolution, but I don't think the out of focus expanse around the bear really contributes to the image, and isn't necessary. I don't know whether the image is special enough to be FPC though. I may reconsider! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think I actually prefer the less cropped version.
  • Support original. The coloring of the picture is great, and it illustrates its subjects (both Grizzly Bear and Denali National Park and Preserve) well. I also prefer it less cropped, but the cropped version is also fine. bcasterline t 23:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support orig or larger crop. The blurry plant in the foreground sorta bothers me but given the subject matter and the great colors I can deal with it. Also it makes me think of the photog hiding behind a tiny plant trying to keep the bear from seeing him, which is funny. The crop makes it so you can't tell what the blur is. (Is that good or bad???). Also the crop looses some of the great purple colored plants. -Ravedave 23:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the bear in focus, you can't have the foreground in focus as well. - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either version right now, but I'd prefer a less-extreme crop for this picture. - JPM | 04:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I appreciate that this is a hard subject, the photo itself isn't up to scratch. The head and rear are blurred, and you cannot see the bottom half of the bear. If this were a picture of a cow, it wouldn't be passed. I commend the photographer though, it is a good photo, and you wouldn't see me taking it. :) --liquidGhoul 04:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blurred? The bear is in perfect focus for me. Perhaps the environment blur is distracting you. - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Great pic but, for me, not enough Bear showing - Adrian Pingstone 06:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Almost good. I personally like the second edit. However, I don't like the grass in the foreground. Mikeo 07:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My Edit. Nice pic, some problems, but with wildlife such as grizzly bears, you gotta make some exceptions. --Fir0002 www 10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original or Fir0002's edit. Highly expressive and illustrates the subject well. I suggest ignoring any minor technical deficiencies in light of the subject. -Fadookie Talk 12:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose edit, oppose crop. The crop is a little too tight. The original bothers me not that much. Neutral there. I don't think a picture that needs retouching should even be nominated here, and a photoshopped pic should not be promoted. WP is an encyclopedia not a Photoshop-friday. --Dschwen 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm... what exactly is that supposed to mean? It's blurred out background! And if you think that the photographer couldn't have moved in front of that object and achieved the same photo as I made through cloning, you have got to be joking. There is no policy whatsoever that prevents the use of Photoshop to improve a photo. --Fir0002 22:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to admit, I don't think that cloning it out was necessary as it wasn't that distracting to me. However, I can't see how there is a difference between cropping an image in photoshop and twisting the zoom on a lens. Presumbly in this case, the photographer was at the telephoto end of his lens, or I suspect he would have done just that. Fir0002, what Wikipedia presumably does have in policy (and I haven't checked, I'm making the assumption here!) is that it prohibits misinformation. The lines probably become blurred when the touching up is of incidental background details and not the subject of the image but the question remains.. Why is touching up necessary when it doesn't affect the subject? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the problem was that the plant was in the way of the photographers line of sight, and he could have moved a metre or so right or left to get ride of it, but that might have scared the bear away. I don't think the image I created s providing misinformation at all as it is probably more realistic than having the blurred plant. And as you say, the subject was not affected at all, so the purpose of the photo remains intact, it has just become more aesthetic IMO. Anyway I created it because the plant was bugging some people, so it was just a valid way to remove that problem they had. --Fir0002 www 23:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree. All the subtleties (cropping (good) vs. retouching (evil)) have already been discussed in great length and I do not intend to repeat all points. --Dschwen 12:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing against retouching in the rules. Besides, most pictures are retouched anyway. If done correctly, that doesn't distract from its encyclopedic value. - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fir's edit. - Mgm|(talk) 08:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fir's edit. Just the right balance of the background/foreground non-subject material and the bear himself. Staxringold 15:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fir's edit.--Dakota ~ 21:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Fir's edit. Butting in late, had not intended to vote at all. But my vote is also a statement of my views re. touching up a photo. This is not falsifying an image, it's just about making it look better. I see nothing wrong in it if the retouch (and its rationale) is described on the image page (you didn't do that, Fir, so I did! - We should always state what has been edited in a retouched picture...) --Janke | Talk 06:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Allow me one last comment on that matter. One argument that repeatedly comes up is that the photographer could have waited a few seconds or that he could have steped to the left a meter. Why didn't he? Because every photographer is not always lucky, or makes bad judgements sometimes. Tough luck, the shot didn't turn out to be the perfect picture. It could have been, true. But it hasn't, so should it become a featured picture? Should we vote on what a picture could have turned out to be, or on how it actually turned out. Is wanting to make a picture something it just istn't just to make it pass FPC really a valid reason to retouch it? This is an encyclopedia after all. Feel free to move this to the talk page later on.--Dschwen 08:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thats where I agree with Dschwen. IMHO, good photography is about capturing everything in the moment, not substituting and retouching later on. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't want to start an argument, but IMO a FP can be something else than "good photography" - if a slight edit removes a trivial but distracting defect, I feel the image's encyclopedic value is actually increased. With today's technology, not everything needs to be done at the click of the shutter. Aren't all the wonderful stitched panoramas "edits", too? As long as we are honest (i.e. clearly state what's been done, and leave the original accessible), I wouldn't oppose edits like this one (or the duffel bag... ;-) Yes, feel free to move this discussion to the talk page later on. --Janke | Talk 15:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fully agree with Janke, I mean it's the same as sharpening/saturation/cropping isn't it? If you go by the argument that " Tough luck, the shot didn't turn out to be the perfect picture" and that you should only vote on the output on the original picture, than goodbye cropping, sharpening or anything else. That's completely wrong, no photo should be presented straight out of the camera. All proffessionals post-process their images. --Fir0002 www 12:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. About Fir's decision to keep the tilt... the rationale was that since the shot appears to represent a sloping hill, the tilt is "appropriate". If we weren't cropping the image to remove the surroundings, I might agree. But, since we seem to have a consensus of sorts that the close-up is preferable (since we're illustrating a bear, and not "a bear in its surroundings") then I don't know that keeping the tilt is still important. In this case, I think that maybe we should "straighten" the image, seeing as how the subject at issue is "bear", not "bear on hill". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yep, I added another edit. My crop is a little wider giving the bear more room to breathe to the right. It also does not cut the foreground plant. I think this way it is not just an irritating blur, but rather a distinguishable foreground feature. --Dschwen 22:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support dschwen crop. --Dschwen 11:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't want to get too personal, but that's pretty hypocritical of you. You've ben arguing that it's tough luck if the photographer didn't move out of the way of a weed, but then you say that it isn't tough luck if he couldn't hold the camera straight. --Fir0002 www 12:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Feel free to shoot, I realize that I'm not very demure when it comes to argueing either. But I disagree on the hypocricy. There is a difference between pixel-pushing (modifying select areas of an image) and full-frame manipulation. I tried to lay out my point of view in the discussion we had a few weeks ago. Basically sharpening, perspective correction etc. just compensate for inadequacies of the capturing apparatus (camera). However compensating for inadequacies of the capturer (photographer) should not be a reason to retouch. Ok, and there are two levels to this whole discussion. One is retouching encyclopedic pictures in general. I can now understand Jankes view (correct me if I'm wrong), who is thinking of the retouched picture as an illustration, rather than a photo document. Although it must be immediately clear to the viewer, that he is looking at a modified image! The second level is retouching on FPC. I just don't see why! We have such a load of images who are perfectly fine and wouldn't need maniplulation to make it as a FP. So why are we bothering with retouching? --Dschwen 08:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Interspersed in the thread:) Yes, you got my point correctly. I consider most - if not all - pictures on WP as being illustrations for their respective articles. And as a corollary to that, FPC is not a photo competition, as many seem to believe... --Janke | Talk 13:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Probably should have moved all this to the discussion page by now but anyway. I notice you conveniently left out rotating/cropping out of your "full frame" manipulation argument. Neither of these commonly used tools are compensating for the inadequecies of the capturing apparatus. They would belong in the same category as "pixel pushing". As I see it all photos (except perhaps those of historic significance) are just an illustration not a photo document, so improving the photo is like fixing a grammatical error in a sentence - you're changing the sentence but it doesn't alter the subject.
Retouching on FPC why not? We (mainly me actually) are bothering because we wanna help people out. Why do you bother rotating? Same reasons apply. The images which don't need manipulation, those that are perfectly fine, don't get it. But those that need it they can get it. People can then comment, and then any other adjustments can be made. --Fir0002 www 11:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't leave it out of convenience, I just got too carried away with my other points. You are actually right, the rotation I applied to my crop is actually questionable, and it should actually be up to the original photographer to judge what's tilted and whats not, if there are no known verticals (like buildings) in the picture. --Dschwen 13:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my vote to weak support for Dschwen's crop - this is the most pleasing framing of them all. --Janke | Talk 08:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Dschwen's crop per Janke ~ Veledan • Talk 11:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Grizzly Denali edit.jpg This was a tough call. Impossible to draw a concensus from the comments, but Fir's edit had the most overt support. ~ Veledan • Talk 23:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Hood

[edit]
Mount Hood

Mount Hood as reflected in the waters of Trillium Lake. Photo from Oregon's Mt. Hood Territory (not exactly sure what type of organization that is) and released to public domain.

Promoted Image:MtHood TrilliumLake.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 18:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain biker

[edit]
Mountain biker

Photo of a mountain biker in Mount Hood National Forest, Oregon, USA. Great angle, sharp, good colors. Used in Mountain biking too.

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haeckel Lacertilia

[edit]
Lizards

This image is a lithograph from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur, showing a variety of lizards. It is in Lizard, and the talk page includes links to the articles for several of the species pictured.

Not much is as pleasing as the sea anemones. But yes, as a real rhino illustration (rather than an historical one), the Dürer would never do. But anything by Dürer, if high quality images sources were available, would deserve FP status as far as I'm concerned, as long they found their way into any article. I was actually sort of surprised about the bats being nominated (and unanimously supported)... that was fairly low on my list of the Haeckel lithos; I guess humor goes a long way. But even if an accurate contemporary illustration or composite photograph was availabe as the main "lizards" image, don't you think this one would still have a place in the article (granted, the muted colors may be a turn-off for FP)? --ragesoss 16:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might support this if it was in a Haeckel article, but now it's in Lizards, where it is not very "accurate" or encyclopedic. Sure, it's a nice image in the taxobox, but only two of the lizards in the image have their own articles... --Janke | Talk 17:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually five of Haeckel's eight lizards have articles (the "two" links are to commons pages). I've updated the image page so they're easier to find now. But I agree that this plate does not contain the most accurate of illustrations. —Pengo 22:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Machu Picchu 2nd nom

[edit]
Machu Picchu, Fir's edit
Cloned edges from original stitch
Machu Picchu, image cropped by Dschwen

As per previous discussions, I re-nominate the Machu Picchu panorama - this is Fir's edit. Yes, the duffel bag is retouched, but I feel having the left wall intact gives a better balance to the image.

I fixed that (with clone brush, not cropping), and uploaded over the old file. However, I suggest Fir re-does it, from his original file. I didn't dare lower the jpg compression, so the file got bloated... --Janke | Talk 06:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My own support is for the uncropped version - I like the symmetry of the "smile curve", which is lost in the crop. Please everyone, state your preference - in this case, a simple majority should rule... --Janke | Talk 14:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:MachuPichuSacredValley fir000202 edit.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 18:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer generated image

[edit]
Image generated programmatically with aid of a computer.

As per discussion below, I nominate this awesome, completely "synthetic" image. It looks so natural, with all reflections and refractions, that you really have to look hard to see it's artificial. It's in POV-ray. (And, it's actually excellent as a still life, too!)

NOTE re closing this nomination: We are still waiting for two new renderings. Should we keep this here long enough to include them?

Hey, many real life objects can be completely made up of primitive shapes combined via CSG, like dices indeed. There are dices without round corners, you know? And i don't see the pouring thing you're talking about. A truly photorealistic work, if you ask me... (namekuseijin (at) gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.40.20.130 (talk • contribs)
I have asked the artist, User:Gilles_Tran, who created this image, to reply here. --Janke | Talk 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nomination (though people looking for a real still life master working with POV-Ray should have a look at Jaime Vives Piqueres' work)! The picture took a little less than 2 days to render at 1024*768 (blame the focal blur). I've put a resized version on line to smooth out some of the graininess in focal blur and some of the poor antialiasing, but the original version is available here. Of course, folks with better hardware than mine (P4 3Gz) can also re-render it at a larger size. When POV-Ray 3.7 is out (with true multiprocessor support), it will be even possible to give the scene code to a render farm and render a giant version of it. --Gilles Tran 10:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to two "supercomputers" (32 Xeon 2.4 GHz CPUs inside) that run Linux. Is POV-Ray going to get a multiple-processor version for Linux soon? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the Windows version serves as a platform for the beta version and there's no Linux and Mac 3.7 beta available. There has been massive changes to the core of the program (to add multiple-processor support among other things) so debbugging it gets top priority. Once the core is out of beta, the POV-Team should roll out the OS-specific versions (and the source code), including of course the Linux one. No deadline set though. Note that there are ways to run POV-Ray scenes on several machines, but there has been some issues until now with scenes using radiosity like the "glasses" one. 3.7 should solve that. --Gilles Tran 19:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to try and render the image at 3200x2400 on my Athlon64 3000+ (1.8GHz). It should be done in 2 days a long time. ~MDD4696 23:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We'll be waiting for the upload! --Janke | Talk 09:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Be sure to use an appropriate assumed_gamma value otherwise the image could be too pale. The scene uses assumed_gamma = 1 because I'm working on LCDs with a display_gamma = 1 in the POVRAY.INI file. --Gilles Tran 09:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, shucks. I had been rendering it without a Display_Gamma in the php.ini and with assumed_gamma 1. It looked fine on the rendering system, but was too light on my Windows laptop (which I know has a gamma of 1). The Linux system I am rendering it on has a really crappy monitor and video card (PCI!), so using gamma.gif as a reference I would say it has a gamma of 3.2. I have now set Display_Gamma in php.ini to that. I tried reading the documentation, but I'm still not sure what to set display_gamma to. Should I leave it at 1? For comparison. ~MDD4696 17:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try to have assumed_gamma = display_gamma and see what happens (the doc says "POV-Ray allows you to specify in the scene file the display gamma of the system that the scene was created on"). Not that I'm sure that is going to work... The gamma problem in POV-Ray has been a sore point and is currently being addressed in the next version to make it more manageable. --Gilles Tran 18:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In general, computer monitors have a gamma of 2.5 or so (Macs are 1.8), so maybe that would be the right value? You can test your own monitor with the scale in the gamma correction article. --Janke | Talk 07:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, things are chugging along fine now. The first 252 lines (out of 2400) took 10:26:50 to render. ~MDD4696 06:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not release date set per official policy, as tentative release dates have been proven unreliable and problematic in the past (real life keeps getting in the way). The current beta expires on April 1st so we may have a better view then --Gilles Tran 13:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the index of refraction that gives it away; for real ice it's 1.31, and in the render it's 1.33 (the same as water). I think the problem is that real ice cubes are very imperfect; they have cracks, parts that scatter a lot of light, etc. But I agree — despite the ice the image is very convincing! —Deadcode 19:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can assume amazing means support... ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed as of 06:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC). Additional comments may be made below.

  • sorry, man. bad luck: it's way too dark. start over... ( namekuseijin (at) gmail.com ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.40.20.130 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 31 March 2006., referring to MDD's rendering
  • I can no longer say that no highlights are blown... the highlights in the stems of the glasses are extremely bright. —Deadcode 19:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting... my render has now passed MDD's percentage-wise, even though I'm only running a 32-bit binary on my Athlon64 4000+. MDD, you have antialiasing turned on, don't you? I have it turned off. The only difference I notice is that your render has a smoother highlight along the left side of the cone of the right wine glass. I have to admit that your higher resolution makes up for the graininess of the focal blur; I should've gone your route instead of increasing blur_samples. —Deadcode 22:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really don't know much about POV-ray, so I couldn't tell you if I had antialiasing on. Reassuring, huh? I installed it, and then hit render. The only thing I tweaked was the assumed_gamma. I saw your note about posterizing in the history view. You're right--anything above a minor gamma boost produces significant posterizing. Would I have been able to render the image with a higher-bit color, had I known? ~MDD4696 02:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just saw that you rendered the image with 3.5 and this is what causes the differences in highlights/brightness: the clipping of bright (> rgb 1 white) radiosity data was removed in 3.6, making possible HDR-like images with typical "burnt" highlights (caused by a bright sky for instance). Note that when focal blur is used antialiasing has no effect so it's unecessary to turn it on (for all versions including 3.6).--Gilles Tran 09:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of 2006-04-11 21:59 (UTC), my 2048×1536 render has finished. It took 560 hours. (Note that I changed the ice cube's index of refraction to 1.31 like real ice, but this doesn't make it look any more realistic.)
Here is a version matching Gilles Tran's render in luminosity, with its linear gamma and strong clipping of highlights
Here's one with very conservative clipping of highlights, lightened for monitors that have a gamma anywhere near 2.3 or so
Here is the raw linear render in 48-bit color, at 1/4 the brightness of Gilles Tran's render to reduce clipping of highlights
Suggestions on what kind of version to finalize would be welcome. —Deadcode 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see the finished pic! Personally, I'd go for the original version with the stronger highlights since this particular effect (due to the non-clipped radiosity values new in 3.6) was part of the demonstration and it will be less confusing for users if the image matches the available scene code. In fact it's often the rule in certain 3D circles that scenes must not be post-processed, so that viewers can appreciate fully the abilities of both the rendering engine and the 3D artist, otherwise it's a demonstration of image editing skills rather than 3D ones. Of course, this "rule" doesn't make sense when the image is meant to be appreciated independently of its technical origin (for commercial or artistic reasons, particularly). In any case, if people prefer the clipped version from an aesthetical point of view, I don't see that as a problem as long as a link to the straight-from the-renderer, unprocessed version is also provided.
The problem with the original version is that it has a gamma of 1.0, and most people use their computer at a gamma of at least 2.2. The only postprocessing I did was to apply a tone curve and boost color saturation; surely that doesn't count? It's nothing more than digital cameras do, even professional ones. —Deadcode 17:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the ice cube, it can be made more realistic by adding some surface normal perturbation. I'm testing that right now (on the ice cube zone only of course), but the render times go through the roof due to the extra calculation so it won't be finished until tomorrow. The ice cube render zone is +sc0.275 +sr0.665 +ec0.395 +er0.82 and the additional code I'm testing is normal{agate 0.25 scale 0.5} (to be inserted in the T_Ice texture definition). BTW the fact that testing glass scenes takes ages is also one of the reasons why it's relatively low in detail... --Gilles Tran 13:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a new version with a (possibly) better-looking ice cube as described above. I just rendered the ice cube (9 hours...) and pasted the rendered part on Deadcode's version.--Gilles Tran 14:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice paste job, but I don't think that looks any more like real ice. I think what is needed is to give it an unevenly frosted interior (subsurface light scattering). Can POV-ray do that? (BTW, what's the best way to render a crop like you did, such that the pixels correspond?) —Deadcode 17:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The media{} feature in POV-Ray is meant to give an interior to objects (these icecubes use media (and photon mapping aka caustics)). The drawback of media{} is that it's extremely slow to render and difficult to tweak, so that tests alone are likely to take hours. Unfortunately, the features that would make the ice cubes more realistic (scattering media, blurred reflections, photon mapping) are also among the most render-intensive, and using them in a scene featuring glass, radiosity and focal blur is really asking for trouble...
To render a partial image, use the +sc/+sr/+ec/+er values given above (+sc = start column, +er = end row ; the value is given either in pixel or in percentage/100). In Windows, the partial output coordinates can be set automatically by shift-drawing a rectangle in the render window.--Gilles Tran 19:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. That is a stunning picture, if I didn't know in the first place, I never would have guessed it was a rendering. Nhandler 06:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Looks like nice ray tracing but not very interesting. No obvious use of more interesting computer techniques. Not much detail. Needlessly imitates small camera with limited depth of field. David R. Ingham 06:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • More interesting techniques such as? Buddy13 00:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Small cameras have lots of depth of field. It's the large cameras that allow you to have a shallow depth of field (or more precisely, cameras with large sensors and big lenses). Of course, they don't force it on you — the lens's iris can be closed down for a wide depth of field. But close it down too far, and the picture actually gets blurrier due to diffraction (POV-ray doesn't simulate this, incidentally) which means in reality, you can't have everything in perfect focus at once. So with no focal blur at all, the render would look unrealistic. At issue may be the amount of blur, but IMO it makes this render look like a photo taken by a professional camera. What I would criticize is that POV-ray forces the aperture to be square-shaped, whereas it should be circular. —Deadcode 18:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of remarks about David's criticism: the picture was conceived in 2004 as a demonstration scene for POV-Ray users that would feature HDR-style radiosity (but without a HDR bitmap) and focal blur. It has an educational - rather than artistic - purpose and is voluntarily limited in features and detail so that POV-Ray/Wikipedia users can test and modify the scene easily (in fact, the objects were originally created for this scene). It is not meant to be a demonstration of state-of-the-art CG, something that would require more powerful (and expensive) tools, and should not be presented as such if the image ends up as a featured picture. It is just an image that anyone can create using a free raytracer.--Gilles Tran 14:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vehemently and fiercely oppose, delist even - I dislike this image intensely, it's an awful demonstration of POV-Ray. Seriously though, support. Even though the other two have a 6-day headstart, I started rendering a 1280 x 1024 version of the image for a desktop background about 12 hours ago. 15% complete. ;) Nippoo 10:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

[edit]

Since I originally nominated this, I feel a responsibility to get the nomination finished, too.

We now have five versions to choose from:

  1. Here is a version matching Gilles Tran's render in luminosity, with its linear gamma and strong clipping of highlights
  2. Here's one with very conservative clipping of highlights, lightened for monitors that have a gamma anywhere near 2.3 or so
  3. Here is the raw linear render in 48-bit color, at 1/4 the brightness of Gilles Tran's render to reduce clipping of highlights
  4. new ice cube version
  5. An edited version of #2: slightly higher contrast, brighter highlights(now overwritten with promoted version, see comment below the closing statement.)

MDD4696's long-awaited version is not ready, and since he's had some problems, he said to go ahead with the finalizing.

N.B. A few people have asked for a slightly larger (but not huge like the above renders) version of this image. I've rendered a 1280x1024 version for those people, available here. It's not really meant for voting, as I don't *think* it's got anything special about it; if you do find it visually pleasing feel free, though :P Nippoo 10:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nippoo, but that's waaaay too light on my calibrated monitor... --Janke | Talk 06:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree... probably nothing not correctable with some balance correction. But let's not pick nits; I'm sure this rendering was for the experience of rendering it, not necessarily for improvement. After all you could easily scale down one of the larger versions for a desktop. BigBlueFish 15:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this image is already chosen for FP, please only state your preferred version below, and if possible, the reason for your choice.

Maybe we ought to remove the dice, too? ;-) Technically, #4 really shouldn't be here - it was not the version that received 100% support - the ice cube was changed after the nom was suspended... But, if the new ice cube does get a lot of support, I could transfer it to version #5, if no-one opposes that. --Janke | Talk 08:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer #1; the version that got the support. I don't see anything wrong with it. #5 is my second choice (unless the ice cube gets imported). Ice cube #4 looks like a cube of water rather than a cube of ice... talking about fake. Besides, the changed versions weren't the ones that got the initial wave of support. As soon as changes were made, support dropped. I think that initial support should be counted. We don't need this extra poll. - Mgm|(talk) 08:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer #1 - Mgm is right that it's the one that got the support in the first place. I also prefer the light balance of this one to the others; the slightly high contrast I think adds to the beauty of the image; #5 doesn't have enough dark areas and looks just a bit more artificial. As for the ice cube, after lots of flipping back and forth between the two versions I decided the original works better. Neither look more like real ice than the other, more like different sorts of ice (leave a large smooth ice cube to melt for a little and you get the original, some machines give you ice cubes with the rough surface of the new version). The original looks more in place in the scene; the new even stands out a bit too much due to the roughness. I'd rather see the new ice cube than the new colour balance though. BigBlueFish 20:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer #1 The light is noticeably better, especially on the tall thin glass to the right (looks like a champagne glass but it appears to have wine in it). Staxringold 14:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • #1. The clipping just "works" somehow. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1, seems the most realistic, at least on my monitor. |→ Spaully°τ 23:24, 20 April 2006 (GMT)
  • 4, which is identical to 1, but for the better ice-cube. ed g2s • talk 12:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1. The ice cube on #4 looks like it has had more of a chance to melt, but there isn't any water collecting at the bottom. The ice cube in #1 looks fresh, and there isn't any water underneath it, which is logical. I also prefer the stronger highlights.. though they appear blown, that's how the human eye interprets light from the sun. drumguy8800 - speak? 21:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 The modified ice cube looks dodgy. --Fir0002 www 08:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer #1 Mikeo 10:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 A lot could be done to improve it of course, but in any case I prefer the higher contrast of this version. --Gilles Tran 09:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer 5 or a synthesis of 4 & 5. The highlights seems to glare in #1. Let's not get hung up on procedure... the point is to select the best possible image among a set where any one would have passed FPC voting. Future viewers are not going to care whether they look at the "original", but they may care about the ice cube and the highlights.--ragesoss 16:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. Better highlights. It's not unrealistic for an ice cube to look like that, especially if it's wet. bcasterline t 01:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 5 number 1 has terribly blown out highlights (the rest have at least some blown out...), I can't belive anyone is supporting it. -Ravedave 14:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted Image:Glasses 800.png ~ Veledan • Talk 17:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Just a note: The original file was temporarily ovewritten with # 5 during the poll, but is now overwritten with # 1, the one promoted. --Janke | Talk 05:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Gravity Probe B

[edit]
One of the most perfect spheres ever created by humans. A fused quartz gyroscope for the Gravity Probe B experiment which differs from a perfect sphere by no more than a mere 40 atoms of thickness as it refracts the image of Einstein in background.

Very encyclopedic and a good picture as well, good contrast, framing, sharp, and large size. Great concept showing the refraction in the sphere. It appears in Gravity Probe B and Sphere, The image was created by NASA.

  • Nominate and support. - Ravedave 04:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Subject is too small. It is not apparent that this sphere is the most perfect sphere ever created. Looks like an ordinary ball-lens to me. --Dschwen 06:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bad scan (from slide?): Many dust specks, fuzzy in full size. Intriguing subject, though. --Janke | Talk 06:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse self - I uploaded this but I'm not sure I'd nominate it for FP. anywho, while we're all here maybe someone can clear something up. I marked the image as showing a sphere which is only surpassed in perfection by neutron stars [21]. anon 85.70.2.56 however, says that "according to recent numeric simulations, neutron stars are far from spherical shape due to extreme magnetic field" which would seem to qualify this little quartz ball as being the most perfect sphere in the known universe. which is correct?--Deglr6328 16:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Anyone know where I can get one of these? ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I do hope that the image is a scan, or a very dodgy photo, otherwise it seems that the most perfect sphere in the universe has a piece of fluff stuck to it! The subject is indeed very intriguing, but the image quality doesn't make the grade. BigBlueFish 21:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Terrific image. I cannot spot any dust or fluff on close examination of the close-up. So-called "dust" may be in fact the grains of the Einstein photo. Bwithh 00:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is, in fact, a significant amount of dust. Just look in the upper left hand corner, to start. ~MDD4696 01:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Note in particular the fibre-like speck on the sphere itself (or at the position of the sphere), near the bottom right corner of the inverted image of Einstein, about in line with his hairline. It's too sharp to have been part of the background image. --86.136.18.25 16:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, I had thought about nominating this myself but there are obviously some problems with the dust. the wub "?!" 23:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment </Wikibreak> I have uploaded over the orig a de-specled version that is slightly smaller (yet still 1280 pix tall). If you cant zoom way the heck in you can't see the dust. -Ravedave 01:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much better - you got rid of the dust, but there are still issues, the ball still looks soft (should be really crisp if it's so perfect), and the support is tilted. Changing vote to neutral. --Janke | Talk 05:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed tilt, all .55 degrees of it :P. Cant fix the blurry sphere, it probably isnt FP quality. I may start using Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review -Ravedave 03:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 17:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walschaerts gear

[edit]
File:Walschaerts motion.gif
Walschaerts valve gear in a steam locomotive. In this animation, the red color represents live steam entering the cylinder, while the blue represents expanded (spent) steam being exhausted from the cylinder.

This nomination reflects the discussion in the recent (aborted?) Steam locomotive nomination.

I edited the original image thus: removed the registration mark in the upper left corner, slowed down the animation just a tad, removed the signature (the author is credited on the image page, to which I also added his numbered, explanatory drawing). This image is in the Walschaerts valve gear article. (Note: Please don't resize the image, it breaks the gif animation.)

It's not your computer... The animation consists of 12 drawings, displayed at 4 frames per second, thus it is intentionally slowed down so individual details can be studied in motion. The only way to get smoother animation is by using more drawings (which we don't have) and a faster display rate, which would require more computer power. (See persistence of vision for more info.) --Janke | Talk 05:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, then it is my computer to a degree, I'm getting closer to 2 frames per second. (it's a rather old computer...)--Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 19:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. But the caption here is different from what it is (was) in the article. Actually, there's a description on the image page itself. There, I moved up the caption to below the animation, and clarified the wording, and also added it to the caption here, and in the article. Thanks for pointing this out - as a steam buff, I seem to take some things for granted... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted Image:Walschaerts motion.gif unanimously ~ Veledan • Talk 17:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara1.jpg

[edit]
Both the American and Canadian parts of Niagara Falls, viewed from Canada.

A panoramic picture of Niagara Falls, both the American and Canadian sides of it, seen from Canada. I think the picture's just gorgeous, and shows tremendous detail.

The picture appears in the Niagara Falls article, and it was filmed by User:Kurianperayil.

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 17:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Sisters in a Barrel

[edit]
A picture of the three sisters Isra, Diana and Malak in the village Fandakomia /Palestine. By Thameen Darby

This picture is of three sisters, Isra 8 years old, Diana 10 years old, and Malak 5 years old. They live in the village Fandakomia in Palestine. They came to me to take their pic. I was in a visit to my family in the village. We went to the roof and I saw this plastic barrel that was there to dry off after my mom washed it. The girls wrre so happy in their unusual setting.

I felt this pic is special because it symbolizes the closeness of the sisters. Somehow the tightness of the barrel makes them one. It is cool, weird and innocent.

My name is Thameen Darby.

I hope you will like it too.

Not promoted - Withdrawn by nominator. Was also not going to get support. |→ Spaully°τ 10:37, 27 April 2006 (GMT)

Goosenecks State Park incised meanders

[edit]
The Goosenecks of the San Juan River in Goosenecks State Park in Utah

This image is from the Gooseneck State Park article. The canyon of the goosenecks is over 1000 feet high. The River is the San Juan which is tributary of the Colorado River and upstream of the Grand Canyon. No photo can really do this sight full justice, but the image here is quite good. Click on the image to see it at a better resolution.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Afternoon Yarra River Panorama

[edit]
Melbourne's Yarra River is a popular recreational area, with facilities for rowing, cycling, jogging/walking and picnicing along the banks

This is a similar nomination to a failed one I have submitted many months ago, so I don't have high expectations of it. However, I think I have improved the composition slightly with this panoramic view, showing both the city skyline and the parkland and cycling/walking paths that run along the banks. The left-side foreground has been enhanced to show detail as it was originally quite shadowy and dark, however, I feel that I have preserved the detail reasonably tastefully. It looks a little oversaturated on my monitor at work, which surprises me, but if that is a problem, obviously it can be toned down. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support I really feel like the image would be better had the camera been rotated maybe 15 degrees to the right. The trees on the left are much darker than the opposite bank and the cars behind them more distracting and fuzzy. It still does a very effective, high quality job of displaying the river and the surrounding area (having the city as the background is nice). My condition for full fledged support is cropping along the left side to get rid of the straight section of path (essentially, crop just to the left of the female jogger down the path). Staxringold 14:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another condition On looking over it again, this image definetly needs a more detailed encyclopedic use before it can be considered a featured picture. Being thrown into the top of the Melbourne article because it is a river in Melbourne does not make it contribute signifigantly. 14:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • To say it is thrown into the top of the article is a bit harsh. This view of the city skyline is somewhat iconic and I felt it was a good image to illustrate/contrast both the urban city skyline and the recreation nearby. But fair enough. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I actually think the first one, albeit somewhat ordinary, was better. It's a nice view of the city. But the park on the left and the expanse of water along the bottom don't add anything except a dark shadowy area which crowds out the brighter upper-right corner. At least, I would crop out everything below (along the bottom) and to the left (along the side) of the female jogger. bcasterline t 15:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry, I just don't see that there's anything especially extraordinary about this shot. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with your original misgivings, Diliff. Personally, I don't fancy the muddy colors. (This is not one of your best. In addition to the normal FPC criteria you're competing with yourself, here - not that it affected my vote... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know if you still have the material, but I'd like to see this picture cropped just below and to the left of the pedestrian in the foreground and extended to the right (but thats just curiosity). --Dschwen 06:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lack of contrast i.e too murky, and the focus is not good - Adrian Pingstone 08:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The focus is just fine. The only part of the image out of focus is the absolute foreground near the water's edge. Thats like opposing the bear nomination because the background is blurred! :) This is a stitch of four 12 megapixel images that were focused on infinity, you cannot tell me that it is not in focus. Consider the size of the image, not just the absolute sharpness. That said, I can appreciate your other reasons for opposition.
    • Apologies, I hadn't opened up the big image. The focus is indeed OK - Adrian Pingstone 09:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment speaking as a Melburnian, I love seeing Melbourne photos here :) It would probably be better with a bit more sun (a big ask in winter, I know :)), and it might be nicer panned a lot to the right, focusing on the right bank (trees are prettier than the bike path), with the CBD thus towards the left of centre. I would also be inclined to give more weight to the sky than to the water (even though the Yarra is looking much prettier than normal) ;) It's a nice photo, but damn we're picky here. :) Stevage 09:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, is there an article on the Yarra Trail? It would go well there. (apparently not..yet) Stevage 09:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose doesn't look particularly special to me. chowells 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry Diliff, its just sorta dull. Colors arent very bright. Maybe try morning or noon time?-Ravedave 03:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with above, the LHS doesn't really work. I'd actually rather see the sky scrapers in the far left and more of the road that is on the RHS --Fir0002 www 11:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Fir. I don't like the left part in shadow. enochlau (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't like the colors. The darker left part dominates the picture, which is rather distracting. Mikeo 16:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I like this photo, but i dont think it captures what the Yarra can really be like, and from what i have seen, it can be magnificent. It is a nice image though, --Ali K 03:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bahá'í World Centre

[edit]
The Bahá'í World Centre in Haifa, Israel

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Eye Twilight April 2006.jpg

[edit]
The London Eye in twilight.
Alternative image. Longer exposure (30 seconds), tighter aperture (f/14), and sharper left side of the frame.

As well as being very beautiful, this image illustrates well our article on the subject, especially as it is the only image of the wheel in darkness - something for which the Eye is particularly well-known.

The first one is better IMO, despite the focus problem. In that one, you can still discern the individual pods. --Janke | Talk

Promoted Image:London Eye Twilight April 2006.jpg. The first seems more popular, although both are indeed worthy photos. Raven4x4x 07:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F-16 Fighting Falcon

[edit]
A F-16 Fighting Falcon flying over Iraq
Edit
Pointing out weird artifacts

A fantastic image of the F-16 jet which is shown in the article F-16 Fighting Falcon. The credit for the image goes to a Norwegian Wikipedian, Duffman.

Surely credit to the Air Force photographer? ed g2s • talk 12:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 17:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset2

[edit]
Sweet Sunset
Not for voting: an existing Featured Sunset, also by Fir0002
Not for voting: another of Fir's existing sunset FPs for comparison

This awesome picture is on the color page. Who doesn't like a picture of a sunset! Photo taken by User:Fir0002 --Xerxes2004 • Talk

Note: I have moved this to it's own page per procedure, and left a note for Xerxes2004 -Ravedave 03:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The fact that there are previous versions is irrelevant and is not a valid reason to oppose, now if degrades the relevancy of this sunset to the article that would be a valid reason but your reasoning falls wayyy outside all reasoning within the guidelines for what a featured picture should be. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 23:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As such, not very encyclopedic. Beautiful, even though I don't likle that dark cloud at left. (The photographer could have moved a few hundred meters to the right... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm surprised its not photoshopped out already, ha ha ;-). I like the cloud, makes the sky more interesting. I'd support it, if it were to replace FP#1. I think no topic should be overrepresented at FPs. --Dschwen 06:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are previous versions is irrelevant and is not a valid reason to oppose, now if degrades the relevancy of this sunset to the article that would be a valid reason but your reasoning falls wayyy outside all reasoning within the guidelines for what a featured picture should be. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 23:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are previous versions is irrelevant and is not a valid reason to oppose, now if degrades the relevancy of this sunset to the article that would be a valid reason but your reasoning falls wayyy outside all reasoning within the guidelines for what a featured picture should be. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 23:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 19:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOUREFFIGIES

[edit]

Currently only in Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, but that will change. Created by User:Mcauburn. This image shows a longevity span and the changing of UK coinage and money around the throne.

OK. I've heard all. What if the images were taken from 4 different coin images, where Crown copyright applies, edited & combined by a user with an external app, and reuploaded. The finished product could then be claimed by whatever copyright the user wishes? Joe I 12:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. This would be copyright infringement. At best, you could use it with the "fair use" tag but it would still be ineligible as a FP. --dm (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thnx ya'll. I've removed it from the list. Joe I 02:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban boys

[edit]

Cuban boys playing in Trinidad, Cuba. I feel this image documents the life and joy of young cubans.

Cuban Boys playing

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 21:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Dividing Range

[edit]
The Great Dividing Range, as seen from near Mt Hotham

Another from the Alpine Country of Victoria. Great "top of the world" kind of feeling. Illustrates the article much better than either of the other two images IMO.

File:Mt hotham alpine range scenery retouched.jpg
This version has a modified color and contrast.
This version was imported in Photoshop, assigned Adobe RGB profile and then converted to SRGB
Comment I've uploaded an edit, but on my monitor I think the original was the best. --Fir0002 www 11:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - there's even more cyan in your edit, so I still prefer the original. --Janke | Talk 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite get the import export thing? Without using the propper ICM color profiles (which would require you to use RAW and import with a Canon EOS 20D profile) this is basicly just alchemy, isn't it? --Dschwen 07:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mt hotham alpine range scenery.jpg per Fir's wishes and general concensus for original version ~ Veledan • Talk 21:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfly

[edit]
Yellow Striped Hunter

A nice image IMO of a dragonfly.
Alternative versions: Image:Yellow-striped hunter dragonfly06.jpg (he's smiling!}, Image:Yellow-striped hunter dragonfly08.jpg, Image:Yellow-striped hunter dragonfly10.jpg

asnatu 20:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 21:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gottlieb-Jews Praying in the Synagogue on Yom Kippur

[edit]
Maurycy Gottlieb (1856--1879). Jews Praying in the Synagogue on Yom Kippur, Vienna, 1878.

I photographed this out of a book on Jewish Art. It struck me as particularly powerful. Worth viewing full-sized. Illustrates Judaism, Jew and Yom Kippur. (It'd illustrate Maurycy Gottlieb as well, but there's not enought text yet, so it's on the Talk page for now.)

  • Nominate. - grendel|khan 13:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just wonder has ever a painting been featured? or it there any consensus among us that should a painting be featured at all? forgive me if my questions are impertinent...--K.C. Tang 09:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I like the picture enough that I've read the articles it's in looking for a good reason to support and so I have learned something about Yom Kippur, but I thought the article could have benefited more from a contemporary photo. This is an attractive painting that repays inspection, but what with the Yorck Project donating 10,000 high quality public domain art scans in addition to the thousands we already had, we set a high threshold for Featured art. What makes this stand out as being particularly good for an encyclopedia? ~ Veledan • Talk 17:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC) p.s. If I were you I'd go ahead and put this on Maurycy Gottlieb in place of the existing self-portrait. It's a pity the small pic there is his prizewinner or that would be the obvious one to remove. As it is, this is a much more illustrative self-portrait as long as you mention the fact in the caption ~ Veledan • Talk[reply]
  • Support. Very descriptive work of art relavant to Yom Kippur.--Dakota ~ 18:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted not enough support ~ Veledan • Talk 21:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/April-2006&oldid=128504545"