Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/May-2011

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.

DNA Structure

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2011 at 13:02:37 (UTC)

Reason: Clear representation of the structure of the DNA double helix including several key features relevant for biology; elemental content, base pairing scheme and position of the minor and major grooves.
Articles in which this image appears: DNA
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
Creator: Zephyris

Support as nominator --- Zephyris _Talk 13:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support :P Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

awww For reference, see previous nomination [1]. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as I promised last time. Chick Bowen 20:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I support either. I wonder if there's an in-between: a line with some transparency. But we've already demanded enough work from Zephyris. Chick Bowen 03:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Iamthedeus (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think given the level of realism this is trying to go for, the orange spirals are slightly misleading. Support anyways. Nergaal (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the orange helices are important for getting the eye to work out what the 3D structure is - I would struggle without it anyway. Time3000 (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I really want to support, but I agree with Nergaal. I feel that if we're showing the molecular stuff, the orange spirals should be removed. Spencer^T♦C 17:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually already made a version of this without the orange backbone, although it is currently on a computer in a different city! I was planning on uploading it at some point... - Zephyris _Talk 16:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to support that. I mean, this version isn't bad enough for me to oppose, it's just that I find that if we're looking to be as realistic as possible, the nominated version has this one flaw. Spencer^T♦C 20:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the no backbone alt. - Zephyris _Talk 23:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt. Spencer^T♦C 22:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt only The orange line is pointless and misleading. Razum2010 (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support either~~, I don't think the orange line is especially misleading, at least no more so than portraying elements as coloured circles is. I'm happy with either though. Cowtowner (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for not noticing that voting had ended. Consider the above a comment. Cowtowner (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another post-voting comment. I haven't looked at this closely enough to vote anyway, but if it's going to be promoted I definitely prefer the version without the orange line. --jjron (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:DNA Structure+Key+Labelled.pn NoBB.png --Jujutacular ^talk 00:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V-22 Osprey

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2011 at 13:30:41 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality (in line with other FPs of this category) image showing the aircraft in flight. Dramatic backdrop and good propellor blur. We already have a |FP of the Osprey, landed and in the helicopter position. This complements that nicely and has distinct EV.
Articles in which this image appears: Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, Powered lift,
FP category for this image: Vehicles>Air
Creator: US Airforce

Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome and nice background. Brandmeister t 19:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This will compliment the other you mentioned in my growing rotation of backgrounds! I love the other one, but in many ways this one is much cooler! Nicely done... gazhiley.co.uk 22:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sanko (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the background is very distracting and in full resultion as sharp as resp. more sharp than the aircraft. The crop at the left and right is too tight. The image is heavily oversharpened and small for a 10 MP camera. --kaʁstn 10:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A question of principle: if taken with a worse quality camera, would you think that the image quality was acceptable? Cowtowner (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons as Carschten. Also, the article is about the aircraft; the background should not be competing for our attention. This picture comes nowhere near the standard of the picture of the landed craft. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support' - I do think that the background is a tiny bit distracting, yet the background seems to compliment it in some ways too. Nice job. --Another Type of Zombie ^talk 14:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's something strange going on to the left of the propellers. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's distortion from the heat coming out of the engines. Cowtowner (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. That's what I figured. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support fantastic! --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:CV-22 Osprey in flight.jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 14:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Arts Centre Spire, Melbourne

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 09:39:17 (UTC)

Reason: High res, high quality, detailed and sharp. Amazing what turns up on your hard drive at times, I'd forgotten I'd even taken this. Am also surprised (given the number of 'Melburnian' photographers through here) that we didn't already have a decent shot of this building, or in fact an FP of it. (Just to pre-empt, in case anyone mentions it: the trees very slightly in the way at left are pretty much unavoidable, unless the Council gets their act together and cuts them back - this was the clearest view available. Otherwise, to avoid them completely, you'd have to get closer at ground level, and then be shooting up, and therefore losing a lot of detail and get perspective problems. As it is, taken at this time of year, the trees don't really impact the view of the building. And FWIW this shot is no longer possible, as the building it was taken from is currently undergoing major renovations.)
Articles in which this image appears: The Arts Centre (Melbourne)
Culture of Australia
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: jjron

Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ However the buildings and flagpoles at bottom right have got a little bit too much lean on for my liking - however they are such a small part of the picture it won't affect my vote... Otherwise excellent picture... gazhiley.co.uk 15:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're totally right - the pano creation caused more distortion than I noticed. Edit1 uploaded; I believe it fixes this issue. --jjron (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nicely done... Support Edit1 gazhiley.co.uk 16:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit1 per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (both) ~~stitching error(s),~~ noisy, poor light (the white parts are heavily blown out, an image without sunshine would be better) --kaʁstn 09:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please advise where the stiching errors are? gazhiley.co.uk 10:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found one, but it could be that are some more. I annotated it on Commons. --kaʁstn 11:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for identifying the minor stitching error. I had missed that one. Have uploaded a new version of Edit1 that corrects that. As for your other points, well, they're your opinion, though I feel "an image without sunshine" would be rather drab and tend to lack details. --jjron (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why should "an image without sunshine" tend to lack details? Currently there are hardly details on the tower beacuse it's blown out. And maybe then it's drab. But it's better to have a well exposed image with overall details as a picture which has just at some parts much details and is blown out. Regards --ka ʁs tn 17:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        What details are you expecting on something that's completely white? This is not off-white to reduce reflections, as are the tiles on the Sydney Opera House for example. And if you can't see the necessary details on the tower other than the parts are just white anyway, well frankly you may want your eyes checked. --jjron (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. A well-executed photo, nicely lit, with a laid-back human scene at the bottom to give it some scale. However, the trees at the left, and the sculptures at the right, do interfere a bit. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad(talk) 13:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 17:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<5 support. Jujutacular ^talk 17:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf tissue structure

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 May 2011 at 00:35:03 (UTC)

Reason: A high quality representation of a simple but extremely important piece of biology.
Articles in which this image appears: Leaf, Epidermis (botany), Palisade cell, Plant cuticle
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others, Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
Creator: Zephyris

Support as nominator --- Zephyris _Talk 00:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A good example of what is possible with SVG. Brings back memories of high school biology. This is actually an inset of File:Leaf Structure.svg and I'd like to propose they be voted on as a set.--RDBury (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The upper epidermal cells seem strangely large. See 1, 2, 3. Spencer^T♦C 23:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the diagram is only supposed to represent a typical angiosperm. The details will vary from species to species so it's possible that large epidermal cells and small ones are both correct.--RDBury (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This diagram is loosely based on Arabidopsis thaliana which I believe does have large upper epithelial cells. As RDBury says, however, this is just a representative diagram; there are a great many variations to this structure which can, and do, occur, including size of upper epithelial cells. - Zephyris _Talk 10:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Spencer^T♦C 20:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A wonderful diagram, assuming the content is accurate. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but you really should drop the number of required votes to 4. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Leaf Tissue Structure.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Peacemakers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 May 2011 at 20:19:30 (UTC)

Reason: High Ev as lead image in main article. Featured on Commons. Was nominated before, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Peacemakers, but didnt pass as it had one support and no Opposes.
Articles in which this image appears: The Peacemakers, David Dixon Porter, River Queen (steamboat), George Peter Alexander Healy, American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, Alfred Van Santvoord, Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: George Peter Alexander Healy

Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. This is a massive painting; the reproduction could, (should?) be much larger. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really been impressed with these White House Historical Association reproductions. This one is better than the Lincoln one we recently considered, but like it, it is simply too dark. We often refer to digitizations of paintings as scans, but that is not actually accurate: they are photographs, ideally made with a large-sensor camera, often using a series of separate exposures stitched together. Like any photograph, they need to be lit properly. The WHHA seems not to be doing that. Chick Bowen 20:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not a great painting and/or not a great photo. There are a lot of flaws, cracking etc., in it, especially noticeable at bottom-right. The arrangement of the buttons on the right-hand man's jacket is strange; the left-hand man's right shoe is unnatural; etc. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good US Civil War image with high EV as shown by its usage. IMO 'flaws' in images like this (that are historic in their own right) should not be repaired unless they're in the reproduction, as opposed to in the original painting (e.g., cracked paint) as they're part of the history of the painting. Chick's concerns notwithstanding, I'm not sure this is a poor enough reproduction to oppose. --jjron (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QR Code Structure

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 May 2011 at 02:06:32 (UTC)

Reason: The image adds to the QR code article significantly
Articles in which this image appears: QR code
FP category for this image: Engineering and technology
Creator: Zephyris

Support as nominator --—James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:06pm • 02:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original version of the image has errors in it, I have made and uploaded a new version which fixes these issues. - Zephyris _Talk 08:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt This is very imformative to someone technical desiring knowledge on the subject. I was curious if we could have the decoded version and format information displayed somehow to improve the usefulness. --Chrismiceli (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt JJ Harrison (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Alt. An excellent illustration, assuming the content is accurate. However, item no. 4 in the legend is accompanied by a little 4x4 chequered pattern, which kind of suggests that the pattern is a required pattern, which does not seem to be the case. And the green border should be toned down a bit; it's a bit strong. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt as above, but I agree about the green border. For a quiet zone, that's a pretty loud colour. Cowtowner (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why does the font look so terrible in the new version? The kerning is horrible. Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the original image the text had been converted to paths, in the new one it is actually a text object. Blame Wikipedia's .svg rendering if you don't like the kerning :) it does, however, keep it very readable even at small sizes. - Zephyris _Talk 12:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:QR Code Structure Example 2.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is fucking genius!:!

Bufonaria perelegans shell

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 May 2011 at 09:27:15 (UTC)

Reason: Featured on Commons, good quality, good EV, used in other national Wiki.
Articles in which this image appears: Bufonaria perelegans
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others
Creator: George Chernilevsky

Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I note with appreciation and approval that the image page includes a size reference. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support because it's only part of a 4-sentence stub. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The shells have a wonderful well-lit high-rez texture, but the background is too stark; a bit of context would be nicer. Also, there are some white pixels in the black background, which could be easily fixed. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done White spots removed -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support As per nom. SMasters (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bufonaria perelegans 2010 G1.jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 16:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Simonon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 May 2011 at 13:48:11 (UTC)

Reason: High quality image with interesting perspective and good use of DOF.
Articles in which this image appears: Paul Simonon
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Rama

Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^talk 13:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer the edit, thanks karstn. Just to note, in my opinion the microphone that is slightly in front of his face increases EV. Jujutacular ^talk 17:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe, but as Alt1 shows the photographer was able to get a very good shot at the same event without it. --jjron (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Alternative is not bad, too. But the quality isn't as good as on the Original, there's a dust spot and I don't really like the smog... --kaʁstn 08:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I think the nommed version is better quality, having said which the Alt is featured on Commons. --jjron (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (weak). Not someone I'm familiar with, but very good image. I personally think there's too much headroom though, and suspect the photographer locked on the centre focus point and didn't reframe (thus the cutoff arm at the bottom and excess headroom at top). Would probably change to full support with a bit of a crop (just trying it, I'd probably take it off just above that light on image right). The microphone obscuring part of his face is a slight issue too perhaps. --jjron (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crop some of the top off and then we can talk :P Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: A good picture but the mike in front of the face is a deal breaker for me. It seems to me that the EV requirement implies that we should expect to see the person's entire face.--RDBury (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit Still could have a little more taken off. In terms of the microphone, the man sings for a living, it's not really surprising that he's got a mic in front of him. You could make the case that it increases the EV. Cowtowner (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. First thing that struck me on seeing this picture was the line of lights sticking out of his head; very distracting. The depth of field is very poor; the guitar and mike should be in focus. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ. I think the depth of field is actually very well managed. The whole subject is in focus and given the low lighting (requiring shallower focus) at many concerts this is impressive. Also, I think having the guitar and mic in focus could be rather distracting as they'd draw our attention away from Simonon. Finally, a wider depth of field would have made the background lights sharper and likely more distracting. Cowtowner (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "depth of field is very poor; the guitar [...] should be in focus" lol, that's funny. --ka ʁs tn 10:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 --ka ʁs tn 08:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 or Alt 1 Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. I've been thinking about this one for a while. As a portrait I think it's successful. I'm not really sure about the alt: it seems kind of over-dramatic, unless that's what this guy is actually like (I'd never heard of him before this nomination, so I don't know). Chick Bowen 15:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1: Very good portrait. Don't like the Alt, wrong expression. Maedin\^talk 06:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Paul Simonon mg 6692 crop.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single Red Arrow

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 May 2011 at 18:16:16 (UTC)

Reason: An excellent addition to the Red Arrows article. High resolution and captures the aircraft in flight while not losing focus.
Articles in which this image appears: Red Arrows
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
Creator: Arpingstone

Support as nominator --Harrison49 (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Excellent resolution, nice clear background. However, the framing seems very confining; there should be more space in front of the plane, and the full exhaust trail should have been captured. A more panorama-like format would be better, to give a greater sense of direction and speed. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would prefer a bit higher resolution for more detail in this image, and the framing lacks lead room. Jujutacular ^talk 16:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not that well done, but I've had a go at extending the sky at the front-space of the plane. Bob talk 13:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks very good to me, thanks for the edit. Still lacks detail of course, in my opinion, but I have replaced it in the article. Jujutacular ^talk 03:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eurofighter Typhoon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 17:15:21 (UTC)

Reason: Excellent resolution. This photograph has captured the aircraft in flight but gives the impression it isn't really moving at all.
Articles in which this image appears: Eurofighter Typhoon, Austrian Air Force, Austria
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
Creator: poter.simon on Flickr

Support as nominator --Harrison49 (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Excellent picture, but it just barely scrapes through the size requirement of 1000 pixels. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice postcard; size restricted EV. Boring centered composition. Nice motive though --ka ʁs tn 17:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing RC-135

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 21:17:11 (UTC)

Reason: Excellent resolution, and a view of this aircraft that not many people would get to see normally.
Articles in which this image appears: Boeing RC-135, Royal Air Force, List of active United States military aircraft, Signals intelligence operational platforms by nation
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
Creator: Master Sgt. Lance Cheung of the US Air Force

Support as nominator --Harrison49 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's excellent resolution in the picture, and the angle is (IMO) eye catching. There's also good EV, as well as the fact that airplane images of this quality are hard to come by.--Nanoman657 (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cowtowner (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support < 5 Makeemlighter (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Korean War Refugees

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 09:10:08 (UTC)

**Original** - With her brother on her back a war weary Korean girl tiredly trudges by a stalled M-26 tank, at Haengju, Korea. June 9, 1951.

Reason: An interesting image of war refugees during the Korean War. I think its FP material, but then I have little if any luck with this venue so I'll leave it to the more qualified among you to determine its worth in technical terms.
Articles in which this image appears: Korean War
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military
Creator: Maj. R.V. Spencer, UAF. (Navy)

Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 09:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Eye-catching, inimitable. Quite grainy however, any chance of denoising? Brandmeister t 21:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure, to be honest. I just nominate images I think can be FPs, but for the resolution of technical issues I'm totally dependent on others for opinions, assistance, etc. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not crazy about denoising film grain (I think it's fine to digitally eliminate noise which was digitally created in the first place). The thin, horizontal white lines, on the other hand, look to me like creases on the negative (dark creases, of course, render as white) and would absolutely be fair game to edit out. I don't have time tonight but will do this in day or so if someone else doesn't get to it first. Chick Bowen 04:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (currently). If this were cleaned up, per Chick Bowen, I would consider supporting. Still, I don't know how crazy I am about this level of quality from Korean War era. Jujutacular ^talk 03:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry II of France and Catherine de' Medici

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 21:32:01 (UTC)

Reason: High encyclopedic value, presents its topic in an interesting way
Articles in which this image appears: Henry II of France, Basilica of St Denis
FP category for this image: Sculpture
Creator: Roi Boshi

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although it is a wonderful photograph of a topic which clearly does have some note, I worry that, as used currently, it is lacking in encyclopedic value. It's just another tomb picture in the basilica article (though the most eyecatching picture in the list) and while the tomb is mentioned in the article on Henry himself, the article is somewhat crowded with illustrations and the tomb picture gets the impression of being stuck on the bottom. I want to support this, I really do, I just don't think I can with good conscience right now. J Milburn (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your helpful comment. What do you think should be done to fix this? Tomer T (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, thanks to your comment, I've made some styling editing in the article Henry II of France, and I think that now the pictures in the article are displayed in a more elaborating way to the readers (and I also believe the discussed picture doesn't seem "stuck" anymore). --Tomer T (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not generally a fan of galleries in articles, but it does now look much cleaner- no doubt it will eventually be expanded, and some of those pictures can find their way back into the main article. In any case, I am happy to support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Milburn (talk • contribs) 15:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. While the composition is artistically excellent, showing the tombs head-on would have more EV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you mean head on? I think the "profile view," for want of a better term, is probably the most reasonable angle we can expect. From the feet or behind the heads wouldn't show much of anything and from above likely isn't possible in the setting. Cowtowner (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAaadddaaammm (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at this image again, it's actually not bad. Changing to weak support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 23:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4.5<5 supports. Jujutacular ^talk 23:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tjarda van Starkenborgh Stachouwer and B.C. de Jonge

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 22:33:41 (UTC)

Reason: historically significant as it shows two last Governor-generals of Dutch East Indies, representing the last period and peak of Dutch colonization in Maritime Southeast Asia
Articles in which this image appears: Dutch East Indies
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People
Creator: Tropenmuseum

Support as nominator --Awewe (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this from the bottom to the top of the FPC page (note instructions). This is rather smaller than our stated minimum (see Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria), and the highlights are a little overexposed. Unless its encyclopedic value is really extraordinary, those shortcomings will be tough to overcome; it probably doesn't have a great chance here. Chick Bowen 00:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but far below our technical requirements, and IMO not a particularly good picture regardless. Given that it is not even used in the two individuals' own articles I can't see that it has such enormous EV to overcome the obvious shortcomings. --jjron (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry, I have to agree. It would really have to be something special to pass FPC when it is that small. J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with the others. It's too small to qualify. – SMasters (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 23:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration for the term Ecchi

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 11:48:25 (UTC)

Reason: The image is considered one of the best images at German, Spanish and Turkish Wikipedia and was Finalist of Picture of the Year 2008 at Wikimedia Commons. It is used to illustrate the term ecchi. It was nominated once in the past with no clear result.
Articles in which this image appears: ecchi, global usage, global usage of exported png version
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Drawings
Creator: Niabot

Support as nominator --Niabot (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why has this been nominated separately when it is already under discussion? J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the voting below does not differentiate between both versions. All mixed up and unusable. --Niabot (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close on procedural grounds. We are perfectly capable of considering two closely related alternative images at the same time. We do it every day. Chick Bowen 19:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as per Chick. J Milburn (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per above. I think this is a misunderstanding case and not in bad faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 23:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily closed - image already under discussion. Jujutacular ^talk 23:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetable Lamb of Tartary

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2011 at 23:05:57 (UTC)

Reason: A good picture of the Vegetable Lamb of Tartary. It is high quality and provides much historical context.
Articles in which this image appears: Vegetable Lamb of Tartary, Cotton
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
Creator: Mgiganteus1

Support as nominator --InverseHypercube 23:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the image, any chance of a higher quality scan, though? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV and decent scan. Higher resolution would be nice indeed. I'm thinking April Fools next year? Jujutacular ^talk 18:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the support! I didn't upload the image, so I can't get a higher-resolution scan, nor can I see how it would benefit the image much. Out of curiosity: what does EV mean? Expected value? Thanks. InverseHypercube 06:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic V. Nergaal (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose At 902 pixels small indeed. Brandmeister t 12:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ok now. Brandmeister t 09:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ support this is soooo eyecatching... but the quality is much lower than ideal. Nergaal (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Original uploader here. I can get a better scan tomorrow, although I'm not sure there's much detail to be gained. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! More resolution is always better. Looking forward to supporting it! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Higher res scan uploaded. mgiganteus1 (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. This is a 19th-century copy of a Renaissance original. The original book survives in a number of rare books libraries around the world. Since I think the original would have greater value than the copy, I can't support this one, even though the visual concept is such an arresting one. Chick Bowen 16:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note on authorship: can we assume that this was originally drawn by Johann Zahn, the author of the 1696 work? Or is authorship unknown? Jujutacular ^talk 20:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My source (Tree Ferns by M.F. Large J.E. Braggins) only has this to say: "Figure 6. The barometz or vegetable lamb, from Lee (1887), redrawn from Johann Zahn's Specula Physico-Mathematico-Historica Notabilium ac Mirabilium Sciendorum, in Qua Mundi Mirabilis Oeconomia,...Norimbergae, 1696." mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's a simple drawing, I don't really see much improvement on the image's clarity with the new scan. Though the higher quality scan makes it more in line with the rules.--Nanoman657 (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of authorship before closing, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mgiganteus1 left a note above, it seems we have no way of being sure of authorship. Jujutacular ^talk 03:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Vegetable lamb (Lee, 1887).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Arms of the United Kingdom

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 01:18:57 (UTC)

Reason: visually stunning representation of a very widely used image on wikipedia
Articles in which this image appears: See Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (St Edward's Crown).svg here
FP category for this image: link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)
Creator: Sodacan

Support as nominator --Thanks, Hadseys 01:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not happy with the copyright information here. It would need to be demonstrated that the design was public domain, and then, as far as Commons is concerned, the file would be public domain, as per the usual. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this version was a picture of the day on wikipedia at one point so I don't think that the coat of arms are copyrighted else they would surely never have been allowed on the main page, would they? --Thanks, Hadseys 22:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up. This document provides more information on Crown Copyright regarding the use of the Royal Arms. It would appear that we need the consent of the Lord Chamberlain's office. --Thanks, Hadseys 23:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of a prior version of this Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom in 2008 - seems the same discussion was had then. --jjron (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem on copyright, I don't think. Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems was written by Lupo, who has a very long history of being extremely thorough about this sort of thing (and also being upheld as right), and I think that essay pretty well describes the situation here: it's not under copyright, and any use that is clearly illustration would not fall under the usage restrictions. I note also that, though we have previously considered a similar image, this one certainly seems sufficiently different to be considered. So with that said, I think we can begin the discussion about featuring it, on which I have no opinion. Chick Bowen 04:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you are going to hold that the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom belongs to Sodacan and has been released under the GFDL and various CC licenses, then you must surely accept that the copyright information on the file page is incorrect. Pointing at other pictures with questionable copyright statuses and essays (and, as an aside, I really don't see the purpose or relevance of that essay- while a few issues may crop up in the copyright status of emblems, each is going to have to be considered alone, as with any type of image) is all well and good, but while this image has such clearly incorrect and incomplete licensing, it is very clearly not eligible for featured picture status. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The license information on the file description page is accurate: Sodacan holds the copyright to his interpretation of the CoA definition. Trademark is separate from copyright: the image is subject to trademark restrictions, but the original definition of the CoA is in the public domain, as it is very old. Jujutacular ^talk 19:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me reiterate, J Milburn: I see no problem with the copyright status of this image. Since it is not a contentless copy, the author can indeed copyright a vector trace of it. He does not, of course, possess the underlying rights to the image, but it doesn't matter: as an image, it is in the public domain. As an emblem, rights are restricted, but that is not relevant under US law as long as we remain within the purposes of illustration. So, no, I don't think the licensing is "clearly incorrect." Chick Bowen 20:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The documentation should provide evidence that "as an image, it is in the public domain". If the image is in the public domain, then, surely, any reproduction of it is, too, as per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. What am I missing here? J Milburn (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bridgeman v Corel "ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States". This is not an exact copy of a public domain image. It is an original artistic interpretation of a public domain CoA definition. Jujutacular ^talk 01:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, fair enough, but so far as I understand, Wikimedia policy on the matter that "A mere mechanical reproduction of some other image, such as an unmodified photocopy or scan of a drawing, cannot attract additional copyright protection over and above that of the original, as it lacks originality: it is a bare copy, no more." "Sweat of the brow" does not confer copyright in the US- would you not consider this a "mere mechanical reproduction of some other image"? J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        See also this. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I don't see it as a "mere mechanical reproduction". Artistic choices were involved. Jujutacular ^talk 17:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        In that case, I would not feel comfortable supporting it, as we should use the same version as is used by the royal family, not a version created by a Wikipedian. And, to reiterate, evidence that the underlying design is public domain is still needed on the image page. J Milburn (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support like I did in the Commons POTY.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White on white is a bad choice --Niabot (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rhinoceros

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 03:52:46 (UTC)

Reason: High quality, well composed image giving a pretty complete view of the species. Used in a prominent capacity (taxo box). While some may want the feet to be shown, it's important to remember that no one mows the Savannah.
Articles in which this image appears: Black rhinoceros, Rhinoceros, Ngorongoro Crater
FP category for this image: Animals>Mammals
Creator: Ikiwaner

Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, EV and Well isolated from background. --Muhammad(talk) 05:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Love it! Perfect (but still interesting) composition, love the shallow focus, great res, etc etc etc... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A really good shot of a subject living in the outdoors, but I don't think it's perfect. I agree the composition is nice, and the quality is good. But I don't like the hard shadows and the hooves are missing, so I don't think the EV is humongous. The image seems also a bit ccw tilted. --ka ʁs tn 11:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the other photos in the article (except the zoo one), it compares very well in the "how much of the animal is visible" stakes. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take a peek at our FP gallery of large African mammals and you'll see that a number of them have their feet obscured. It's the reality of the environment. You'll probably see the same thing with hard sunlight. Cowtowner (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit1 added - tilt corrected version (note: I also tried a minor sharpening and think it would benefit from that, but the only edits I've done here is the tilt correction and then cropping back to rectangular). --jjron (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure about use of this image in Ngorongoro Crater. My image, much worse quality (scanned film image)shows the crater's walls. This one does not. So, yes, it is a good image of a rhino, but I am not sure it is a valued image of rhinos in the crater.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say any of the animal images in that article are pretty peripheral and exchangeable, unless there happens to be a species that is endemic to the crater, and I don't think that's the case (not for any of the large animals shown). If that was the only article it was in then it would certainly lack EV. --jjron (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  It is what I meant, EV of the this image used in Ngorongoro Crater is less than EV of the other image. Otherwise it is a good image with a good EV, and I Support it, but I believe it should be replaced in Ngorongoro Crater with an old one that was used to be there before.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that there's weak EV there, I wasn't aware of a previous image (this one had been in the article when I came across it). Cowtowner (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  It was replaced here, but I guess I will replace it back, when the nomination is over.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason not to replace it there now. The EV for this is clearly in the Rhinoceros articles, so it wouldn't impact the nom. Discussion about which one is better in that article then really belongs on the article talk page. --jjron (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% with jjron. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice quality, good composition. Jujutacular ^talk 19:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit1 per nom, though as I said above, it could be sharpened. Unfortunately the horn itself, such a key characteristic, is particularly lacking in sharpness (and, no, that's not just a pun). --jjron (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Checks out on my criteria sheet. SMasters (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support like I did in the first round of POTY on Commons.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody okay with the edit? Makeemlighter (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care; prefer both.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the edit. Looks to be correct orientation. Jujutacular ^talk 23:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ngorongoro Spitzmaulnashorn edit1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Layton

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 05:19:55 (UTC)

Reason: Exceptional-quality image that I came across while browsing, used as the main image in the subject's article. The angle of the shot is great, and in my opinion frames the leader of one of the three primary parties in Canadian federal politics in a very recognizable pose. The angle is very stately, but again, just my personal opinion. I figured it didn't hurt to give it a shot.
Articles in which this image appears: Jack Layton
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People
Creator: Matt Jiggins

Support as nominator --ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like it! Noise exists but is not distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - was surprised when I found that this was available, like others had said above, it has exceptional quality. Connormah (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, noisy and over-compressed. Very bad quality --Muhammad(talk) 00:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it the second. The background is noisy... but unsharp and overcompressed? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, it's definitely overcompressed - 6MP and only 577KB; you're unlikely to be able to do that unless there's big stretches of uniform colour. The 'noisy' background is actually more artefacting. I'd like to see a less compressed version of this, because, again as Muhammad says it is unsharp, but that may be partly a consequence of the over-compression, because it looks quite good at image page size. --jjron (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message for Matt on the photos flickr page to see if he has a uncompressed or less compressed version. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 10:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can message him if you'd like - that's how I got him to release the colour version - it had originally been uploaded as black and white. Connormah (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got a response already. He has an uncompressed tiff version that I will convert to png and upload - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong (probably am here), but isn't .jpg best for storing photographic data? Connormah (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no, but for use on Wiki it's recommended to use JPG. Just apply a low compression setting (for example if using Save As... in Photoshop, use a quality setting of 11 (or 12 if you really want to)). --jjron (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

jpg does not handle high quality gradients when thumbnailed. Causes all sorts of whacky artifacts. As long as its under 12.5 million pixels, png is definitely the way to go, IMO. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose storing photographs as PNG for several reasons: 1) Just because we can go up to 12.5 MP doesn't mean that extra filesize is warranted. The larger the filesize, the more difficult it is to load. 2) Important EXIF metadata is lost. 3) JPEG quality 100 is virtually indistinguishable from PNG except at boundaries with computer-generated sharpness. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Floydian: WP image guidelines, as I said recommending JPG. Hmm, given that 90% of our FPs are JPGs, I'm not sure what you're suggesting, because I'd reckon most look OK. And what's the issue with 12.5MP? --jjron (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The php files that generate thumbnails are based on oldschool programing from the days when 2 megapixels was WHOAAA! If a png has over 12.5 Mpx, then no thumbnail shows up, just a written error message. I can show you the problem with jpgs using an image I've uploaded. See the talk page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I guess the fact that no one has done anything about that problem from years ago is a general indication of how PNG is regarded though. --jjron (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice shot; we don't have many high-quality free content images of prominent politicans, so it's great to have one. Neutrality^talk 05:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to me there is no encyclopaedic value in the neck skin details of a person. Any un-staged pose with a less unnatural facial expression or in a meaningful context has higher EV. --Elekhh (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As above. There is a disturbing alien look in this face and the image quality is way below FP standards. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Staged portraits make up a large number of the FPs of people that we have. Also, I don't think the facial expression is unnatural. Cowtowner (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't have to be the slaves of the past though. Anyway they tend to make it to the main page via the news section, regardless of quality. --Elekhh (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major wind rose of Cantino planisphere

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 15:05:05 (UTC)

Reason: High quality and good resolution replica of an old wind rose, showing clearly the details of the painted original. Colours were reproduced as faithfully as possible and minor drawing imperfections were corrected.
Articles in which this image appears: Cantino planisphere
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Drawings
Creator: Alvesgaspar (talk)

Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any value to retaining the face from the original? And a small thing, I would prefer to see the image centred on the red square (not as it currently sits in the corner) Cowtowner (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided not to include the face because it would look somehow fake, but I could still try. As for the framing, this is a svg image, meaning that the background is just an empty and transparent space. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For me, that would probably be a condition of my support. If you have the time to try, I'd like to see the results. Cowtowner (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Misleading; claims to be a specific reproduction, but lacks details that appear in the original. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To simple to meet the original, nominate this instead --Niabot (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruines of the Château de Coucy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 19:19:45 (UTC)

Reason: Illustrative & appealing; high enc value & high quality
Articles in which this image appears: Château de Coucy
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Roi Boshi

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. There's nothing wrong with this image, but it doesn't have much "wow" factor, i.e. it does not "illustrate the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more." Quality images would be where this belongs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are the bricks in the foreground the ruins? or the larger wall behind? If the latter then I would Oppose as subject cut off... Just viewed article (always a good idea to do that first!) and it is refering to larger structure as well, in which case I Oppose due to incomplete image... gazhiley.co.uk 14:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eiffel Tower reproduction in Bloemfontein

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 13:04:15 (UTC)

Reason: An impressive and appealing picture; a nice representative of photos depicting replicas of the Eiffel Tower.
Articles in which this image appears: List of Eiffel Tower replicas, Bloemfontein
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Leo za1

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that's a very good example, that a super camera means not only super photos. Completely wrong focussing, the only thing what's sharp is the façade of house on the left. A wide open aperture engenders a very short DOF. Furthermore perspective distortions... --ka ʁs tn 15:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sharpness is lacking. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, another oppose due to the poor focus. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacking sharpness – Wladyslaw (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White House Situation room for Operation Geronimo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 15:34:45 (UTC)

Reason: Without doubt one of the most powerful and significant pictures that has emerged in recent times. This view has been expressed in many media outlets such as CNN [2] and the featured picture peer review had two response, with an unqualified support and an ambiguous response.
Articles in which this image appears: Death of Osama bin Laden, Osama bin Laden
FP category for this image: American history
Creator: US Government

Support as nominator --TheWilliamson (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I was thinking of nominating this myself earlier today. The quality may not be perfect but it is indeed a powerful image reminiscent of scenes from 24. May need a light denoise --Muhammad(talk) 16:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Head bottom left, blown pixels at the top, poor composition (lack of focal point, hugely unbalanced), ambiguous focus, and noise. Yeah it's a important moment in american politics, but I'm not feeling it's an outstanding photograph. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ambiguous response at peer review was pretty much an oppose, btw. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose On the basis we don't actually know the meaning of the image and there is no focal point in the image. Media outlets report they were watching the infiltration unfold in real-time,[3] whereas Leon Panetta refute that saying Obama didn't watch via a head-cam,[4] so what exactly they are watching/hearing on the Situation Room screen is unknown. Although an intriguing photo, without clarification of what exactly they are watching, it goes against the grain of photography and is too ambiguous to be a featured picture - in my view anyway. Stevo1000 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the quality isn't perfect, but I would suggest that the historic significance of the photograph is enough to over-ride those concerns. The atmosphere in the room is almost palpable. Bob talk 22:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The historical value is undeniable, though as others have said, it's somewhat diminished by the fact that we're looking at people looking intently at something, but we don't know exactly what they're looking at. But I think what we're summarizing as "quality concerns" actually go deeper than that. The noise derives from working without flash in available light, and I sympathize with that. But it was an odd choice not to try to include the president within the depth of field; it kind of makes me wonder what Souza imagines this as a photograph of. And, though I understand why the document in front of Clinton had to be pixelated, it doesn't make for very compelling photography. I've just sifted through Commons:Category:Photographs by Pete Souza and was left feeling like, even given the situation, this is not his best work. Chick Bowen 00:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Compelling, encyclopedic. Neutrality^talk 05:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hasn't been in the article for a week - per stevo we are still learning about it. Frankly though this is an easy support after that week - it's one of the more valuable images available on the topic and has been widely printed in the media with good reason (including my own local newspaper). JJ Harrison (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting image; when I saw it in the newspaper I was fascinated at those fascinated people. Tomer T (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support While this image is new, I think it is clear that it will have lasting EV. The role of the Obama administration will not diminish over time. There is little doubt that this is a critical scene from the operation. It effectively shows the tension in the room (despite the obvious flaws) and it is a situation which will not be repeated. Cowtowner (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The noise is too great in this photo, as well as the pixelated document (which appears to be a photo of the compound) on top of the laptop detract from the overall subject. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While this is a valuable and useful photo, it isn't of particularly high technical standards and the uncertainty over what the people in the room were looking at limits the EV. It might be worth nominating this as a valued picture. Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Seriously? The quality of this is terrible. -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 03:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I can't comment on the quality of this image, I do think it the picture represents an important moment in modern history.--Forward Unto Dawn 04:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the pixelated documents detract from the composition. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What composition??? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

ZING! --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 13:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Support Noise is acceptable to me - Blieusong (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose fails WP:NOTCENSORED; see documents.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose fails in so many aspects. It's well known, but not good. --Niabot (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Historically important image, notwithstanding the technical shortcomings. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzanian Church

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 09:28:24 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality, res, historic church in Bagamoyo
Articles in which this image appears: Christianity in Tanzania, Bagamoyo
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 09:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Trees... While the shorter one nearest the church cannot be helped, a slight sidestep to the right should remove the overhanging trees from shot... Other than that, great picture... gazhiley.co.uk 15:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a lot of dust spots, halo around the church, strong sharpening halos --ka ʁs tn 10:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A fine photograph, but we've gotta stop going in the direction of valued images. This is probably the best image we have of this church, but FPs need to be truly extraordinary. To more specific, I'm not so keen on the perspective and composition. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on EV grounds. If we had an article on the church, or even an article that discusses it at length... J Milburn (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Slavery Society Convention, 1840

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 11:21:10 (UTC)

Reason: This historic painting by Benjamin Robert Haydon is already a Featured Picture on Wiki Commons. Copying Dcoetzee's rationale from that nomination, "this is a high-quality, 10 megapixel image of a famous painting from the National Portrait Gallery, London which depicts in arduous detail the pivotal 1840 Anti-Slavery Society Convention with an elderly Thomas Clarkson speaking. It contains 136 identifiable persons, and details of it have been used to illustrate over 28 different articles, many of which have no other known portrait of the subject."

Since that nomination, it has been added to many more articles, and has an added bonus that on some articles (i.e. Anti-Slavery Society), a clickable grid has been created which allows a user to identify and read about the people at the conference by moving their cursor over the painting. So in summary, high quality, historic context and demonstrates the Wiki format to its best abilities. This is about as encyclopedic as it gets, really.
Articles in which this image appears: A huge number of articles link to this image, but the key ones are probably Thomas Clarkson, Anti-Slavery Society, Anti-Slavery International, Abolitionism, plus many of the individuals on the painting. It's probably better to look at the list on the image page, to be honest as it's rather long.
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
Creator: Dcoetzee

Support as nominator --Rob (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High-quality and encyclopedic, as it adds to dozens of biographies. Neutrality^talk 05:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support very interesting --Thanks, Hadseys 23:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I get this feeling that it has been cropped tightly though. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this engraving is accurate, it looks like a little sliver is chopped off at the left: you can see the end of the scroll in the engraving, but not in our reproduction of the painting. Chick Bowen 00:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at a picture of the original in its frame here, it doesn't look like it's been cropped, unless it's by the edges of the frame? Rob (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, it may have been reframed some time after the engraving was made. Chick Bowen 15:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I initially had some concerns about cropping, but as this does not appear to be the case, I have no reservations. High EV and quality. SMasters (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The Anti-Slavery Society Convention, 1840 by Benjamin Robert Haydon.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evacuated Pichilemu fishing boats after Japanese earthquake

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 20:25:24 (UTC)

Reason: I think it meets all of the FPC criteria, it has good composition, is of great quality, is free, and has not been manipulated digitally (except to fix the contrast, otherwise I would've uploaded the original).
Articles in which this image appears: 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami
FP category for this image: History
Creator: Diego Grez

Support as nominator --Diego Grez (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry Diego. The article says, "The surge in Chile was large enough to damage more than 200 houses, with waves of up to 3 m (9.8 ft)." A more encyclopedic image would show that, rather than what looks to be five little boats dragged up the road just off the beach on a quiet Sunday afternoon in Anytown. There's nothing to tell us it's Pichilemu (the signpost is chopped off), it doesn't really look like the boats were left there due to the earthquake. One might wonder why the boats aren't moored in a dock somewhere, but I've seen boats left on the street in little fishing seaside towns before and that's what this looks like. While it may be a nice local history photograph, I don't see anything that makes it outstanding. I think it's a bit dull and underwhelming actually. So yeah, really sorry but this just doesn't do anything for me. :( Matthewedwards : Chat 03:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think this fails WP:FP? #5 (adds value) and #3b (compelling). PS, my wife thinks my above comment was mean, but I'm just trying to be as clear and explanatory as possible. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The caption of the image in the article explicitly says what is it about, however, the article does not contain much information on what happened in Chile. "Boats dragged up the road 'just off the beach' [they weren't that near to the beach anyways]" aren't common to see, and as it is described on the image caption, they were "evacuated" because of the quake and tsunami. Pichilemu isn't a "little fishing seaside town" so I don't get the comparation (if you read the city's article, you'll notice it is not even important in the area). Maybe 'local', but I did not really come here because of the "historicallyness" of the image, but its quality, composition, and quality (did I say quality already? :P). That's it. Diego Grez (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diego, I know what the caption says, I just don't think the picture adds sufficient EV to the article because it doesn't show much. I can't look at it and say "Yes! This photo clearly shows that those boats were evacuated because of the earthquake". It just does look like some of the little fishing seaside communities I've been to where I've seen boats kept or left (I'm not sure which) on the oceanway roads. That's not me saying Pichilemu is a "little fishing seaside town", it just reminds me of experiences in those kinds of places; however, "dragged up the road just off the beach" does seem like an appropriate statement because if I'm not mistaken, there is sand in the background and those look like beach houses on a road leading down to the beach. Matthewedwards : Chat 05:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Composition and quality are a bit lacking in my opinion. Quality: quite noisy, with bits of chromatic abberation throughout. Composition: if the light poles and and signpost were not there, it would have nice composition. As it is, the power lines lead the eyes up to nothing. The cutoff signpost distracts. Overall decent work, but some limiting factors make me oppose. A favorite book of mine regarding composition that you may enjoy is The Photographer's Eye. Jujutacular ^talk 03:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as above. A little lacking for FPC, I feel. J Milburn (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've uploaded a different photo I took the same day to the same boats, it shows the signpost completely, and also the light poles. Diego Grez (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Milowka, underwater cave explorer

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 01:15:49 (UTC)

Reason: Portrait of Agnes Milowka, internationally-renowned underwater cave technical diver [5], double stunt on Sanctum movie blockbuster [6], who recently died in similar circumstances. Watch that smile... Quality photographic work, where the essence of the person character has been well captured.
Articles in which this image appears: en:Agnes Milowka pl:Agnes Milowka
FP category for this image: People
Creator: James Axford, Melbourne

Support as nominator --Cm224 (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, love it. J Milburn (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality portrait with lots of EV Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per nom. Even her teeth are white!--Nanoman657 (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment EXIF data would be nice and very interesting --ka ʁs tn 15:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent photo. Great use of DOF causes her face to stand out, even from her legs, as she leans forward! Gabeguss (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 03:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A perfect portrait! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent portrait. SMasters (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A touch too much space at left for my taste, but a good portrait. --Avenue (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Left space - it was intentional, the dive fins on the table are part of the picture story. Cm224 00:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My only complaint is the space above her head plus cutting off her feet. To me it makes it look like the camera was held too high, but I still like it. Anoldtreeok (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this was to include the beach in the background, putting her in fantastic context. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Agnes Milowka by J Axford.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sea foam

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 May 2011 at 03:42:36 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality, adds value to the article
Articles in which this image appears: Sea foam
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others
Creator: Mbz

Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there are strange wedge-shapes extending from the top left and bottom corners, perhaps as an artifact of when you rotated the image. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for noticing.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried about the eyecatchingness. Two of the images you removed from the article ([7] and [8]) I find much prettier than this photo, although not as good EV. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of them shows sea foam. It was the only reason I removed them. I could take the same "prettier" pictures every single day. I saw such amount of sea foam only once. --Mbz1 (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK that may be true that this is a lot of foam, but I oppose due to poor composition (strange ratios; strong, irrelevant focal point), washed out (underexposed?) colours, little sense of scale on the foam, and the generally strange appearance of the foam. Maybe a candidate for VI, but absolutely not up to FP status. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's still something going on on the left edge towards the bottom. J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I am sorry about this. Should have seen it myself. It came from the rotation of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support both. Very illustrative, nice quality now -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~. It's a little dark, but I appreciate that if it was any lighter, it would probably be overexposed. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per JM. Jujutacular ^talk 03:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I'd be okay with the alt, no real preference between the two. Jujutacular ^talk 17:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons as Adam*3. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad(talk) 13:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support either alt has better composition in terms of showing waves as well --Muhammad(talk) 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As the person who did a lot to improve the quality of this article, I'm not terribly happy that this photo has been used to replace several other images. While I don't dispute that the image I contributed was "low quality" (it was after all only a 200dpi scan of the original 35mm print), at least it was more edgy - dynamic and somewhat ambiguous (the enjoyment of the dog as it loped along the water's edge, the half-hidden hazard of the driftwood in the foam) - in a way that echoed themes in the text.

And it's certainly not true of the other two images removed by mbz1 that "none of them shows sea foam". At least they help to illustrate the processes that lead to the formation of sea foams (which I intend to expand on once I get time to dig out the references).

While this image by mbz1 has a certain surreal quality to it, it also has a very static quality due to the separation from the surf zone where the foam was created. Eye-catching perhaps, but not as spectacular as some of the photos in the external links to the Queensland events where the foam was metres-thick.

In short, a welcome addition as part of a gallery of examples, but not to the exclusion of the other images.

I note that the other (close-up) photo currently remaining in this article is also by mbz1. Bahudhara (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other image (close up) by me has been in the article for a very long time.

The two images I replaced show no sea foam. They show the ocean as it looks every single day. it is not an accident that sea foam is also called beach foam. There's no beach foam in the images I removed from the article. This image of mine shows better the development of sea foam because it does show some sea foam and not only a normal surf, but I am still not sure it should be in a short article. About your image being more dynamic, well, maybe, but we're concern more about EV, aren't we? this image of mine is more dynamic because it even shows some sea foam in flight, but still I believe the nominated one has a better EV. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prefer this user’s alternative picture as it shows the churning sea as well as the foam. This alternative gives the context of what’s happening. TehGrauniad (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. It might have a sense. After all this single image has everything that the two images I removed (because they show no sea foam) + sea foam.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, both are excellent, and in my opinion the original meets the 8 criteria, I think that Alt 1 would meet them too if it were used in the article. TehGrauniad (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My support above for both versions --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, mbz1, but you simply cannot say that the images you removed "show no sea foam". The only difference is the quantity and persistence of the foams produced under varying conditions - and I think that it is important to illustrate the contrast, e.g. between normal, lower-energy conditions which produce only small quantities of short-lived foam, and those under which excessive, persistent foam is produced. In the latter case, the foam is potentially toxic to human health if it is derived from the breakdown of a harmful algal bloom, or if there is contamination from polluted urban stormwater runoff, floodwaters, or sewage directly discharged into the ocean. To concentrate purely on the aesthetics is to trivialise the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahudhara (talk • contribs) 02:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I removed those images not because they prevented me from adding mine. I removed them because IMO those image show a usual sea conditions like I see every single day. There are hundreds of images in category Pacific Ocean for example that show the ocean under different conditions, but there are only few images that show sea (beach) foam. I do not mind adding the images I removed back to the article, if you find corresponding sources to describe those, but as it is now, Sea foam is a small article, and I felt as adding one good image of sea foam to it.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the editor who is going to close the nomination All oppose votes were made before the alternative was added.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Alt1, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all editors who supported the image, supported both of them, but opposers did not comment on alternative probably because they like it not enough to support, but enough do not oppose :-)So, it looks like alt 1 should get promoted.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe renom the alt so it can get discussed properly. I agree it's much better than the original, but I'm pretty much neutral on it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment,Aaadddaaammm, but what is the point of renominating it, most of all after you kindly specified that your vote for alt is neutral? IMO it is a proper thing to do to promote alt at this point.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer relisting since the Alt was only up for a few days and needed prompts to get people to vote on it. As far as I can see you only asked supporters to take another look. To be fair surely you should also ask the opposers? --99of9 (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why you are talking abut Muhammad Mahdi in plural "supporters"? I used to think about Muhammad as only about one user. Are there more than one :-) So, I asked only one supporter, to be exact. One of the opposers user:Bahudhara commented on the nomination after the alt was added, and apparently chosen not to vote on alternative, the other one user:Aaadddaaammm expressed their opinion. Even, if the third one user:Rwxrwxrwx is to oppose, the nomination still should be promoted. But please do as you wish.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll strike the plural. I only checked the vote that came in after the official vote closing time. --99of9 (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sea foam at Ocean Beach in San Francisco -1 on 3-25-11.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Sebastián

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2011 at 15:36:26 (UTC)

Reason: High quality and EV, already featured on Commons and 3 other 'pedias.
Articles in which this image appears: San Sebastián, Spain, Louis Emmanuel Rey
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator: Keta

Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^talk 15:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice panorama, educational -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support.~~ Nice picture. A bit soft, esp. given the size, but good composition, lighting, etc. --jjron (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per jjron. The sky feels a little over-processed/too dark. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Gives a fantastic impression of the area. A great photograph. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ -- I love it but the picture is oversaturated. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- Until the oversaturation is fixed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(strong) Oppose poor detais, heavily oversaturated, a lot of overexposed parts, posterized. --ka ʁs tn 08:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as is Really oversaturated/overprocessed and artificial-looking. (Dark sky, sand a color that does not occur in nature, etc.) This probably could be fixed with some easy editing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone care to edit this? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've messed around with the contrast/saturation, but it never seems to be an improvement. Jujutacular ^talk 02:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, personally I think to 'fix' it (if you agree with the oppose reasons) you'd have to do so from the original/s. So, IMO, the closer needs to make the call based on the reasons given and the current version of the image. (Though I'm sure someone might prove me wrong ...). --jjron (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added alt. Any better? I could make it more saturated or less saturated by request.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a bit of colour/contrast change about a quarter way across the image, possibly resulting from not locking in manual settings when it was taken leading to a change of exposure, or by different modifications being made to the images prior to stitching. I think that has been exacerbated by the edit. As it looks like (a) no one is going to actually close this as promoted based on the current votes, and (b) it's not going to be reprocessed off the originals (which as I said above is what would be needed to fix the various issues stated in a number of votes), in the interests of getting it closed I will shift to a Weak Oppose (if that's allowed these days; if not, change me back to support!). --jjron (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the alt, thanks Mbz1. I don't particularly see the color change mentioned by jjron. Jujutacular ^talk 15:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see a sharp colour change in the sea (I presume due to cloud reflections), but not in the sky. --Avenue (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose but only due to the color change. It's really obvious to me and distracting from what would otherwise be a very good photograph. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TV tower, Sofia

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 20:47:03 (UTC)

Reason: Quality photo that presents the entire tower which is among the symbols of the city.
Articles in which this image appears: Borisova Gradina TV Tower, Tourist attractions in Sofia
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: MrPanyGoff

Support as nominator --MrPanyGoff (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why don't they just cover the whole thing in antennas? :P Nice quality and EV. Composition nicely shows the surroundings of the tower without distracting. Jujutacular ^talk 03:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject. Biggest problem is the close distance and short focal length leads to unpleasing distortion. The fence and trees in the lower left are skewed. The sky is grainy. The antennas at the top are not clearly defined by poor contrast against the sky. Gabeguss (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic mackerel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 May 2011 at 22:11:26 (UTC)

Reason: A well illustrative photo of high quality (a quality image on commons)
Articles in which this image appears: ~~Stockfish~~ Smoked fish, Atlantic mackerel
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
Creator: Lviatour

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well done photo -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if you clone out the shadow bottom right. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, good EV and makes me want to make lunch. SMasters (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Dead fish cadaver. Surely insulting to every vegetarian. --Niabot (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joke? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like the others, concerning the mainpage issue. --Niabot (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good, just clarifying... :) Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niabot is trying to make a point concerning Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ecchi 2. As a vegetarian, I can assure you that I am not offended... J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support (prefer edit) -- good EV, good technical quality. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support original or edit; a lovely dead fish. Chick Bowen 22:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support fishy. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fish is not just 'dried'. Fatty fish like mackerel is smoked to be preserved. This is how it gets its golden hue. There is some information missing in the description. Lycaon (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. It's actually in the file title: "Maquereau fumé." Chick Bowen 02:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support if a size reference is added (which could simply consist of the image page containing text that indicates the size of this specimen. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Maquereau fumé Luc Viatour edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar Späth

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 May 2011 at 15:39:50 (UTC)

Reason: A great portrait with high ev
Articles in which this image appears: Lothar Späth (if promoted)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: Felix König

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral too tight crop at top, a little bit cw tilted – otherwise a superb portrait --ka ʁs tn 15:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The crop is too tight and very odd. Why is there so much more space on the left side remaining? -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 03:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a rule of thirds composition. Also, with his head and body facing slightly to camera left, the image provides lead room for the eyes to follow his line of sight. It is a compositionally pleasing image imo. Jujutacular ^talk 14:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fantastic photo - with personality and I find the composition refreshing and dynamic. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added the image to the article. Generally speaking, it is preferable for the image to be in the article already for some time before nominating at FPC to give a chance to article editors to access its use. In this case however, the photo is of much higher quality and the article is not a very active one. Jujutacular ^talk 15:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't see it wasn't in an article. But whatever, we all know it's going to be stable in that article. Someone should add this image to the other article in other languages... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I don't think the crop is to tight - it's a portrait photo. -- Felix König ✉ 18:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Its a little dark. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cowtowner (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support < 5 Makeemlighter (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serra da Estrela

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 14:27:59 (UTC)

Reason: A high quality panoramic depiction of a well-known view of Portugal (Serra da Estrela) and of a geological formation (Nunatak) adding to the articles. Second try of a previous nomination (here) with an improved version of the picture.
Articles in which this image appears: Nunatak, Serra da Estrela, Portugal, Serra da Estrela Natural Park
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Alvesgaspar (talk)

Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too dark (dark snow looks drab), don't see a "wow" factor here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King of Hearts. A shame the weather didn't cooperate :( Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I must be weird, the darkness and poor weather attract me to this picture. So, personally I like it, but I think it does a good job showing what it's meant to be showing. Anoldtreeok (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this contrast and shadow. Very impressive -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Native copper

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 08:17:28 (UTC)

Reason: Beautiful picture, interesting to see how copper looks like in native form; even though not 1000px, still excellent (quite high resolution). Before cropping from File:Native Copper Macro Digon3.jpg, was 4000 x 2688 px, but too much whitespace. Alternative FP File:Cu-Scheibe.JPG isn't as interesting as this, and this picture is considered more encyclopaedic than Cu-Sheibe.JPG. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles in which this image appears: Copper, Native metal, 2000s commodities boom
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science
Creator: Materialscientist

Support as nominator --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose –- sharpness is very poor. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the idea, but the depth of field is too low. Parts are in focus, and other parts are not in focus. You could try some focus stacking. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now it is > 1000x1000 px. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality isn't up to our normal element pictures, Copper is super easy to obtain so getting a high quality image is achievable, third, we have copper FP, although it's a crystal pattern. And finally this isn't pure copper, it's native copper, so it should not be in the infobox for the element page. — raeky t 16:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Great potential; I like the specimen (if that's the right word?) and it has clear EV, but I just don't think the photo is up to scratch, technically, as above. It doesn't really compare with our other element FPs. J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration for the term Ecchi

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 09:16:17 (UTC)

Reason: It is already featured in many projects and was under the finalists of Picture of the Year 2008 from Commons. It's last nomination in 2010 was denied because of bad composition (dutch angle) and that it would be to revealing for the main page. As no consensus could be found, i was told to renominate it after some time again. Instead i'm going to nominate this version of the image, which does not make use of the dutch angle. Notice, that this image is also available as an SVG version. I nominate the the JPG export instead because the wikimedia svg renderer (librsvg) has it's issues to render the image correctly.

Note: I added this image 3 weeks ago to the peer review, which seams to be abandoned.

Articles in which this image appears: Ecchi
FP category for this image: Drawings
Creator: Niabot

Support as nominator --Niabot (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support like I did before it had a dutch angle.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 09:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the image which you have nominated isn't used in any articles. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just switched the version. There are four versions of more or less the same image) --Niabot (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't see how it is too revealing, an image like this would appear in any Japanese kids show. Unless the original image is a lot more revealing? And I think it's a good representation of the subject matter, to give a reasoning for my support. Anoldtreeok (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Again from the past howcheng has stated he'd probably allow it on the main page, and I feel this subject, a sexualized image of a young girl thats hinting at nudity, does NOT belong on the main page. That in addition too the EV this is contributing to the sole article it's used in is minimal at best, that article is so nondescript and basic it's hard to say if this really applies or doesn't. Third, this isn't even the version that has been recognized or nominated in the past File:Anime Girl.svg is the one, which is a SVG, this is a JPG that has virtually no global use. Finally, this version's camera angle is less appealing than File:Anime Girl.svg. — raeky t 16:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other oppose "reasons" aside. This image is also available as SVG and nearly identical to the first version. The reason to nominate the JPEG export is because of rendering bugs inside librsvg used by Wikimedia software. But i also guess that it doesn't matter which version does get nominated. Because of reason #1 it will always be the wrong version of this image. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something can be featured and not go on the main page. That's not a reason to vote against it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melodia, normally, you would be correct, but as Raeky explained, it has been determined that this image would go on the main page if featured. As so, in this case, Raeky's argument is a reasonable one provided we agree that this does not belong on the main page (I am not sure whether I do, but that doesn't mean I am going to pretend that the argument is not reasonable). J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a voting about images or moral issues? --Niabot (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to wonder that keeping in mind that wikipedia is Not Censored, and votes should be about the image at hand here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of WP:NOTCENSORED was a picture (although not on the English Wikipedia) on the main page in the German Wikipedia, a picture of a vulva (which was Today's Featured Article). Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes- all hell broke loose, with Jimbo and others criticising the choice. Niabot, making a call about whether something is suitable for the main page of this website is very different from speaking out against the subject; I think you are somewhat prone to take this to heart. I think we can all agree that a picture of two adults having consensual sex in the missionary position would be inappropriate for the main page, but that would not be to make any judgement about the act or the fact that it was photographed. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your only reason for your current reaction? That would be shamefull, indeed. The kind of comparison is more then shamefull. --Niabot (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I am not sure what you mean. I am not trying to compare this image to a photograph of people having sex, I am merely using that as an example of an image we would all, I hope, agree does not belong on the main page. Could you please stop jumping to these conclusions? J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an bad example to do so. Since it implicates a very different case, which some might see much more offensive, distracting from the actual subject. --Niabot (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you accept that it would be inappropriate to have that image on the main page, yes? J Milburn (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are speaking not about my opinion. We speak about the opinion of other participants which i can't predict. What i can predict is, that this example is used to build the opinion of others which have not dicided yet. In my case any picture is valid as long it is in the right context. --Niabot (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? I really do not understand why you are being so evasive about this. We (I think) agree that there are some images which are inappropriate for main page use (or, if you do not believe that, your view is way out of touch with the views of Wikipedians generally). We know that this image in particular will appear on the main page if promoted. Therefore, if this image is inappropriate for main page use (as Raeky believes) then that is a perfectly good argument against its promotion. This is not me making a judgement about the image, nor is this me comparing this image to pornography. This is simply me explaining why that argument is a reasonable one. You continually attack anyone who uses this argument; if you disagree with Raeky's judgement about the appropriateness of this image for the main page, fine; I am personally unsure. However, dismissing Raeky's vote outright is not at all reasonable. J Milburn (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly offended by such thoughts, since they are contradictory to science and knowledge. Anything should be treated equal in its own right. You don't even know how many viewers would actually be offended by this kind of image. The only thing that i surely know, that some votes on FPC can't be representative for this kind of question. It's not up to FPC to decide whats need to be censored and what not. Thats why this is no legitimate argument. --Niabot (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In saying that "Anything should be treated equal in its own right", are you claiming that you feel that anything would be suitable for use on the main page? If you are, then I suppose that it's no surprise that you find the argument difficult to follow. J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im saying that anything can be put on the mainpage under the basic conditions of legality and neutrality. --Niabot (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, for instance, you would have no problem with hardcore pornography appearing on the main page, as long as it was legal and presented neutrally? J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I can't see any reason against it, if it's in relation with an article or topic, using this image as illustration. Thats what you can call uncensored truth. Nothing bad about this. It happens every day worldwide. No need to deny it. Citing the The Economist it has an revenue of over 20 billion dollar per year. Now count the number of people involved and tell me why this is not important enough to have it's rightfull place among other topics? --Niabot (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it is unsurprising that you have no time for Raeky's argument. I can assure you that your view is very much contrary to that of many Wikipedians, and very much against current consensus on the matter. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long you don't count european and turkish contributers as Wikipedians, this could be true. In case of the German Wikipedia we even have a rule (Meinungsbild closed with 233:13) that forbids this kind of censorship for the mainpage (Hauptseite). --Niabot (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We even had this or this image on the mainpage. Did it caused problems? Some nice discussions maybe. But nothing else. --Niabot (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about the German Wikipedia. Clearly, the way the main page is treated there is different to how it is treated here. J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am telling you the last time, that i do not give a shit about your manipulative, censored, happy pink bunny mainpage. All i want is fair judgement without the mainpage as an ostensible reason, that is of course "not the reason". Got it? --Niabot (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Just drop it - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niabot, whether you give a shit about it or not, this is actually the English Wikipedia, and so the main page here, whether it is "manipulative", "censored" or even "happy pink bunny", is the one that matters. As has been repeatedly explained to you, the main page argument is, in this case, a legitimate one- if you don't care, that's fine, but there are, clearly, some who do. Equally, whether or not John the photographer cares about the resolution of his images, it would be perfectly legitimate to oppose his thumbnails if he nominated them here... J Milburn (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are telling me, that you would do anything to protect your happy pink bunny mainpage. But you also said, that this is not the main reason to oppose the image (see below). I guess we can quit debating at this point. Otherwise you would make a fool out of yourself. (See your conclusion below)

You (J Milburn) definitely opposed for this reason. No question about it. (You made it very clear in this discussion)
Raeky doesn't want to see it at the mainpage. (First and of course the major reason from him in this and the first discussion)
Muhammad Mahdi Karim seams to have different names or multiple accounts. At least i can't find his signature in the archived first discussion. He blamed it on canvasing. Did you see any mass voting from the anime project?

Thats why i said at the end, that you make false and to early conclusions, just to make a point. --Niabot (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not telling you that I would "do anything to protect" the "happy pink bunny mainpage"; I am saying that your vision of a free-for-all on the main page does not hold on the English Wikipedia. There are some things that should not and will not appear there (whether this image is an example of that is another matter). And, no, as both Knowledgekid87 and I pointed out, very few of the opposes (just Raeky?) are actually related to the main page issue. As I have repeatedly said, I am not opposing for that reason (note my oppose vote...), and I am, in fact, not sure where I stand on the issue of whether this image is appropriate for the main page. All I have done is defended Raeky's oppose as a reasonable one. That's a very different thing from agreeing with it. Whether or not there has been "mass voting", your post to the anime WikiProject could easily be constituted as canvassing. Canvassing does not necessarily need to be successful in order to be against policy. Finally, you have said repeatedly that I "make false and to early conclusions", but you still haven't actually pointed out what they are. It seems that the majority of things you think I have said (for instance, your claim that I "definitely opposed for this reason [the main page issue]"), I have not. I don't know whether this is a language problem, or whether you're muddling me with someone else, or what, but it's getting a little tiresome... J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear. I was not canvasing. I was asking for help on special questions. If you call that canvasing, then call it that way. This was never my intention. (So far about good faith)

In your position i would do the same. Argumentation that it is not the main reason while it is. But whats about Muhammad's "same reason as last time". Does he have multiple accounts? If he does not, then i must ask: What are his reasons from last time? The only option would be the mainpage issue. That are now at least two out of four. --Niabot (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I can believe you that you had no intention to canvass, but, regardless, perhaps that was not the wisest choice of words. Concerning my oppose, I should hope that I am intellectually honest enough to admit why I am opposing an image. Honesty about my views has gotten me into trouble on Wikipedia in the past... In this case, I can assure you that I am not opposing due to any perceived impropriety. Concerning Muhammad, I am not able to speak for him, though, so far as I know, he has no alternative account, and, I suspect, he means "the arguments given last time" rather than "the arguments I [Muhammad] gave last time". If it is worrying you, I advise you ask him. J Milburn (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have been to alot of anime conventions and have seen the art, this image captures the ecchi image nicely without giving away too much, a fine wikipedia example here. For those who also do not know images such as these tend to be drawn to look youthful that is Japan's culture when it comes to anime/manga, no place does it state that this is an image of a child. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The SVG version of this was already nominated and generated a huge amount of argument after which there was no consensus. Nominating the JPG version of the same file seems like deliberate trouble making. Can we just assume that there isn't going to be an agreement here and move on?--RDBury (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a different version. That are two different images. Both of them have a SVG versions and i was asked to nominate the image again after some time, since no consensus could be found last year. --Niabot (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem strange though that you didn't nominate the one that is a FP on three other projects... Clearly that one has more global consensus and use? I do agree with RDBury here that I think there was at least some attempt to bypass the previous discussion by not nominating the same image that is linked to it. — raeky t 20:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you accuse me of bad faith, just because i created this version as the result of the last criticism on the use of the dutch angle? Very interesting maneuver. --Niabot (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I propose you (Niabot) add the first image as an alt. Then we can simply decide which one is better.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 20:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, the last voting did take place last year. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original version we last time couldn't decide over, because of the, in my opinion non existent, "mainpage issue". In any way the exported version should be used inside articles, just because the currently used renderer sucks and is great in destroying valid SVG images at different output sizes. --Niabot (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the image to the top of the page, as is usually done with alts. J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. The tilting of the image does not matter too much to me I am leaning towards this one though as it shows more of the picture and detail. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for closer: This is Knowledgekid87's second vote in this nomination. J Milburn (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't want to make assumptions, but I think Knowledgekid87 was supporting alt this time around, and just didn't make that clear. Anoldtreeok (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually J Milburn deleted the section for votings on the alternative itself and is no discrediting Knowledgekid87 to have voted two times. Nice tactic and great afford of fairness. How does it come, that I'm assaulted to do canvasing and he himself destroys candidatures? In short: He is an asshole. --Niabot (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I formatted this nomination consistently with how FPCs are always formatted. We don't create subsections for each alt added to the page. How, precisely, that makes me an asshole is beyond me. I was not meaning to "discredit" anyone, I was just making sure people realised not to count Knowledgekid87's vote twice. J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Anoldtreeok is correct I voted twice when there was two seperate discussions for the two images, now that the discussions are combined I have struck my second vote here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case it wasn't blindingly obvious, there has been some canvassing for this nomination here, with a request that WikiProject members "correct some misunderstandings" that may arise... J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for some support about knowledge, wich was evidently missing in other votings. Whats wrong about it, to inform the people of a project that are well informed about this kind of art? --Niabot (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how doing that is any different to when people on project pages link others to moves and deletion discussions which are relevant to that project, in hopes of achieving a particular outcome. That seems pretty accepted. Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One can argue that this may seem offensive to conservatives. What if I were to go to religion portals and ask "for some support about" morality "wich was evidently missing in other votings"? --Muhammad(talk) 04:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anoldtreeok, take a look at our guideline on the subject. If one is to request input to a discussion like that, it should very specifically not be "in hopes of achieving a particular outcome". J Milburn (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is about things considering the anime/manga style. Did i mention with any of my words that they should support this image or not? I just see the constant assuming of bad faith and denunciation of myself. Great job you idiots. --Niabot (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looking over the guideline, I see where you're coming from in regards to canvassing. I'd still argue posting links to deletions or merges proposals on project pages is in the same league at times, but either way, other people doing something doesn't make it OK. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?). Anoldtreeok (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per last time and canvassing --Muhammad(talk) 04:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Valued and Quality image --minhhuy*= (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After reading the article I can not find the EV of this image. Also, I would like to see this as a SVG or at the very least a PNG. JPEG is a horrible format to have drawings is.--Guerillero | My Talk 06:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also available as and SVG. Since the Wikimedia renderer is going nuts on valid images, i nominated the export, to ensure it looks right in the thumbnails. Thats why this files are marked to use the JPEG/PNG instead the SVG - currently. --Niabot (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. While this is a stronger image than last time compositionally, it really should be svg or png. However, I am still opposing for the reason I did last time- after reading the article and seeing this image, I am not sure I am any the wiser. I do not think that this image aids reader (specifically, my) understanding of the article in any real way, which is the most important criterion for a FP. J Milburn (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read anything about this nomination? I nominated the export of this svg version, because of rendering issues caused by librsvg used by wikimedia projects. --Niabot (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

svg or png would be more appropriate, regardless of your opinion of Wikimedia software. In any case, as I said, that is not my main reason for opposing. J Milburn (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

while the other reason is only hypothetic. Ok right... --Niabot (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you want to call it, it is an important part of the criteria... J Milburn (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image at hand here shows the reader an example of ecchi in anime and manga which is what the article leans towards, there are images out there that are similar but show the girl completely covered and not in a sexuial pose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you are keen to please both sides ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 11:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am, but thinking about it I go for an unconditional Support. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support either, prefer alt. Good drawing, seems to illustrate the article well (although I don't know much about manga or the term ecchi). I don't think Main Page appearances should concern us; they're not our call. --Avenue (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but we know that this image will appear on the main page. However, it's worth mentioning that the majority of opposes here have been unrelated to the main page issue. J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't come to conclusions while voting/argumentation is still in progress. --Niabot (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No unwarranted conclusions have been reached. Howcheng has said that this probably will go on the main page if promoted, and the majority of oppose votes at this time are not related to the main page issue. Simple. J Milburn (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Niabot I only see one Oppose vote that is related to the main page issue, it is something that should just be dropped on both sides as it is not important, the closing admin will decide the outcome of that arguement. What should be focused on is the other aspects of the picture and not focus on the main page issue which as pointed out is not up to us to decide. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Var. 1 - JPG
Var. 1 - SVG
Var. 2 - PNG
Var. 2 - SVG

@At the closer: Please consider that both variants of this image are available as JPG and as well as SVG. Nominating the JPG was done because of rendering issues with the current implementation of librsvg inside the Wikimedia software. The renderer often makes various mistakes at thumbnail sizes and even at original size in this case. This is no issue of the images itself, which are valid SVG. I want you to consider both, the exported version and the original, as the same image, ignoring the claims of some, that this is the wrong image. --Niabot (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Like most of the above, I'm not concerned about this appearing on the main page. But, having read the article and this discussion, I can't see any tangible EV For the image. If someone takes the time to properly integrate the image into the article with valid sources, then we may be in business. Also, I agree that this should be SVG. Cowtowner (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are this four alternatives. Choose one if you like. --Niabot (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now better? --Niabot (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I have no qualms with the angle or its appearance on the main page. I am opposing the image on its grounds that its caption isn't supported by sources from the article and I'm not exactly certain it is the best example of ecchi. For the caption, it describes items which aren't found in the article as examples (wet clothing is mentioned, but the clothing does not appear to be wet). For the latter, given what descriptions are in the article, the image while it does have semi-transparent clothing, doesn't appear to meet any of the examples given:
This can be conversations with sexual references or misunderstandings about sexuality in dialogs (double meaning, words taken out of context), misunderstandings in visual depictions (the position or pose of a character is suggestive), clothing (underwear, cosplay, fethish clothing, etc.), nudity (ripped apart clothing, wet clothing, clothing malfuncations, etc.) and the portrayal of certain actions (touch or look at parts of the body). This kind of sexuality is commonly used for comical effect. A typical example scene would contain a male protagonist that accidentally enters a women-only bath or trips over a female character, leaving the impression of sexual harassment.
That paragraph appears to sum up what kinds of actions are considered ecchi. The image doesn't seem to be any of those. If its the intention that clothing what it is an example of, using the etc (as it doesn't appear to be cosplay nor is it apparent that this would be undergarments or fetish clothing), using the all encompassing etc as a catch call can't be used here; in addition the as i previously mentioned the clothing does not appear to be wet so its not a clothing malfunction category either.陣内 _Jinnai 01:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not sum up what is considered ecchi, it gives an overview over some of the repeating patterns, which transparent, tight or short closing are as well. --Niabot (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources that state that in the article.陣内 _Jinnai 17:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the original and all of the variations/alternations/different file types. I’m sorry to be so negative and boring, but I don’t think this picture satisfies criterion 5, in that it doesn’t help me understand Ecchi. TehGrauniad (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Per Knowledgekid87. P. S. Burton (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Quantum harmonic oscillator: nomination for "featured diagram"

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 17:02:35 (UTC)

**Original** - Some trajectories of a harmonic oscillator (a ball attached to a spring) in classical mechanics (A-B) and quantum mechanics (C-H). In quantum mechanics, the position of the ball is represented by a wave (called the wavefunction), with real part shown in blue and imaginary part in red. Some of the trajectories, such as C,D,E,F, are standing waves (or "stationary states"). Each standing-wave frequency is proportional to a possible energy level of the oscillator. This "energy quantization" does not occur in classical physics, where the oscillator can have *any* energy.

Reason

this animation illustrates key concepts about the solutions of the time independent and time dependent Schrödinger equations better than anything I've ever seen before, and therefore has exceptional educational value. Specifically,

it is a good illustration of the complex nature of the solutions, implicitly explaining why the probability density of a stationary state is constant over time,
it shows the existence of non-stationary states for bound particles, which are often ignored in education but are key to a complete understanding of quantum mechanics
is demonstrates that a superposition of stationary states is not stationary
it illustrates how a coherent state resembles the classical description

The resolution is appropriate for embedding on wikipedia pages; see "Articles in which this image appears" below. Demanding a higher resolution would be unreasonable because

the current version is just below the 12.5-million-pixel limit for animations in wikipedia articles;
animated gifs cannot be scaled.

Also refer to the featured diagram File:Snells law wavefronts.gif, which is similar in technical and educational qualities.

Articles in which this image appears

Schrödinger equation, Stationary state, Quantum harmonic oscillator, Quantum mechanics

FP category for this image

Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams

Creator

Sbyrnes321

Support as nominator --OneAhead (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't get it either. As far as I understand, A and B are physical illustrations of the oscillations while C-H are mathematical representations (that is what I understand from "real and imaginary parts"). If an image is worth 1000 words, this doesn't seem to be the case here... Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is contrasting classical physics (A and B) and quantum physics (C-H); they are all physically real but C-H occur at quantum scales and A and B occur at classical scales. Real and imaginary parts refers to the real (number) and imaginary number solutions to the time dependent Schrödinger equation, both of which are physically real and relavent to real life... - Zephyris _Talk 19:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that very often physicists use complex math for their models because it is a powerful tool. However there is a fundamental difference between the two sets: while the first illustrates the physical phenomenon, the second illustrates the mathematical model. I know very little about quantum physics but maybe there is a better way to graphically illustrate the standing quantum waves rather than with sinosoids. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second doesn't illustrate a mathematical model, it really does show what actually happens in the quantum physical phenomenon. Unfortunately there probably is no way to illustrate a quantum wavefunction intuitively. - Zephyris _Talk 21:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this figure is about as close as it gets to an intuitive illustration. OneAhead (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvesgaspar: for systems that are dominated by quantum effects (like covalent bond stretching in molecules), it's exactly the opposite: C-H represent physical reality, and A and B are simplified mathematical models which make it easier for the human mind to think about and for computers to calculate (Quantum Chemistry vs. Molecular Mechanics). OneAhead (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a great representation of something extremely hard to explain, let alone illustrate. - Zephyris _Talk 19:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To Zephyris, those aren't separate real and imaginary solutions - they are the real and imaginary components of a single complex solution. I agree that this is a subject very difficult to explain if the reader doesn't have a background in differential equations. For a reader without the appropriate background, the quantity $|\Psi |^{2}$ $|\Psi |^{2}$ is the important one. $|\Psi |^{2}$ $|\Psi |^{2}$ is a probability density function giving the "chance" that a particle is in a given place. Whilst the graphs have this information implicitly, it isn't really immediately visible as it should be for a simple explanation. For the reader with more background it is $\Psi$ $\Psi$ that is important (particularly with regard to the superposition of solutions) so you need both graphs. For such a reader I'd really like to see a lot more information about each solution (such as which eigenvalue each corresponds to). The information desired is probably implicit in the code. I'm also concerned that Quantum harmonic oscillator largely talks about the time independent Schrödinger equation, but this includes wave functions which are not solutions to that equation, but I have not read that article in detail. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The corresponding animation for the probability density is also on the "Stationary State" page; the current picture illustrates something different. Additionally, I don't agree that background in differential equations is required - some basic high school-level understanding of functions and complex math should suffice. Indeed, the whole point of this picture is to intuitively show how the solution to the time-dependent Schrödinger equation behaves, without requiring intimate familiarity with differential equations or analysis of complex time-dependent functions. As for the Quantum Harmonic Oscillator page, I agree that it is eligible for improvement, but that shouldn't affect a judgment call on the quality of a picture on the page. OneAhead (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: not promoted because almost nobody understands quantum physics, and what fools are we to attempt to try to make people understand?! OneAhead (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photon noise

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 12:00:02 (UTC)

Reason: High ev picture which provides a good illustration for its topic
Articles in which this image appears: Shot noise
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
Creator: Mdf

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Sorry. Any unbiased renderer with a random sampler produces such images with a clearly better looking end result. Meaning, that it isn't hard to create, while the actual motive could be something better. Why does it need to be black and white? --Niabot (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now Strong Oppose. The image isn't physically correct. White parts should provide much more spots in the first place. A film has a logarithmic response, meaning that there should be much more hits/photons inside bright areas as suggested by this image. Also it has to be noted, that the result would have much more photons hitting the actual film. Meaning that there should be a median exposure used for every step. This image shows both effects. Longer exposure and dots. In the result it is actually wrong. The result should be comparable to that of a physical renderer like LuxRender which they aren't. An animated example how it should look like: File:Luxrender-Reihe-animiert.png (this is an APNG, may not be animated in all browsers) --Niabot (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone else that knows about this stuff confirm that it's wrong? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just look at the first image. It has bright spots. That would imply that the steps are normalized (first frame: extremly high ISO + very short exposure Last frame: low ISO + long exposure). But the mean brightness of the images is different. This does not illustrate the real effect in a good way. All frames should have the same median brightness if it should illustrate noise reduction due to longer exposure. Unbiased renderer's, simulating single lightrays/photons for physical correct rendering, using the same method and are able to keep the brightness very stable, while reducing the noise over time. --Niabot (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I believe this image accurately illustrates the problem of shot noise. In the top left image, each pixel is receiving 0.001 photons on average. If it was a 1 Mpix image then there would be ~1000 pixels with one photon, maybe a couple with two (these are the lottery winners :). It appears each image has the contrast adjusted so the pixel with the most photons is pure white. It's common to take this approach to try and discern the content of an image at the shot noise limit. The image in the bottom right is receiving an average of 100,000 photons per pixel, so each pixel will collect between 0 and ~200,000 photons. Again the pixel with the maximum photon count is set to pure white. My problem is the shot noise issue is usually encountered in science, for instance astronomy where the light levels entering a telescope from a far away galaxy are so low that it's difficult to discern an image at reasonable exposure times. Why not use an image of a galaxy as the source? Nobody has shot noise problems taking pictures of the beach, you just set your camera to something like 1/100s and click perfect image... Gabeguss (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flares over Fort Lee

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 08:13:38 (UTC)

Reason: Good lighting I think
Articles in which this image appears: Military simulation
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Weaponry
Creator: Spc. Venessa Hernandez

Support as nominator --Marcus Qwertyus 08:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I guess I'll knock up an article for Best Warrior later today. Marcus Qwertyus 09:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - If only because this image isn't in any article, so I can't look and see what EV it has. It might be a fantastic representation of its topic, but without an article, I'm not sure. The image itself is nice, but there are some things that are a bit distracting, which might be forgivable in context, but again, no article. Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Pure propaganda, leading to killed innocent people and in support of the weapons lobby. Not representable at the mainpage. --Niabot (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ^{[citation needed]}-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 12:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Choose any adequate book about German history. --Niabot (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Colt is an American company. Marcus Qwertyus 03:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not in use in any articles and it is not clear where it would be useful anyway. J Milburn (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Though it has now been added to an article, I really don't see what it's adding to that article. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose But only due to it not being used in any articles. Can I ask you, Niabot, on which of the criteria are you basing your oppose? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pure propaganda, showing a nice view of war instead of the ugly truth doesn't need to featured. --Niabot (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're going for 6: "Is accurate. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page, or is from a source noted for its accuracy. It is not created to propose new original research, such as unpublished ideas or arguments."? It's probably worth mentioning, that the caption (that is the words under the image) clearly states that it's not a photo of war, but rather of the Best Warrior competition... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be fair, based on the caption, it's not from war, but from a training test. I would hardly say it gives War a pretty view anyway, does it need to have bloodied bodies scattered all over the ground to give an accurate depiction? EDIT: And it seems Aaadddaaammm said the first bit already. I really should read what was written in edit conflicts.Anoldtreeok (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not from a war, but it glorifies it with is posture the nice view over a war scenario. This is the definition of propaganda that is done trough media like Wikipedia and other pages. Great that we support with such "nice" images the recruiting of so far innocent children, bending their imagination and leading them to real wars in the future. If there is anything good about this, then try to put some good arguments on the table. --Niabot (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Um, noone is supporting it so far... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Keep getting into edit conflicts with Aaadddaaammm, he's just much quicker at typing I guess. An image of War that depicts War the way you see it Niabot (And I agree with your P.O.V. of war) so as to influence people's views of War in the negative would be equally propaganda. I don't think it's a fair reason to oppose it. Anoldtreeok (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A picture made by the US-Army which is making the most profit out of such kind of imagery is not influencing and sourced one sided? Why does the US-Army create such pictures anyways? Are they to study tactics, being at the best spot to get hit? Or are they to show how nice it is to be inside the army and participate in this death machine? --Niabot (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Not the place for debating the politics of war, guys. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I assume that this is the right place, since discussions and votings are basically about suitability for the mainpage and not the image itself. --Niabot (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Didn't think I was getting into one, just stating I don't think his reasoning for opposition is all that fair. In terms of what it is showing, a training match, I don't see how it is in anyway inaccurate in depicting its subject matter. I'll leave it at that, hopefully clearing up the point I was trying to make. And I think I'll leave it at that, to stop it potentially getting too off topic, and as I've not once been able to edit without getting into an edit conflict (though I agree with what Niabot just said, the anime image further down seems to be getting even more off topic and onto these things). Anoldtreeok (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A training match depicted like an actual war scene, with same lighting as usual for video games. I don't see anything about training inside this picture. Actually it shows one soldier at a very open place under unrealistic conditions. At least they have done anything to make this picture look cool for kids. Nice work of propaganda. Maybe it should be included inside this article. Then it would be in the right context. --Niabot (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no EV, propaganda --– Wladyslaw (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously in the minority here, but I think I could wrap my head around a support for this being in kneeling position. Cowtowner (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ I would support on a technical level, but as others have commented, it is not represent any topic that we have an article on. I'm unfamiliar with military terminology, but would this be illustrative of Military simulation? -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 12:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be --Guerillero | My Talk 14:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And it would be still propaganda from the US army. --Niabot (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not willing to entertain any political arguments for or against any picture. I am interested in finding out if it meets WP:WIAFP. I have been bold and added it to the military simulation article, and will throw my Support behind it.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 14:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no idea how come everybody is getting so into this discussion. It may not have any EV whatsoever, but it still if a fantastic and beautiful picture. Thus, it earns my support.[User:Pteronura brasiliensis|User:Pteronura brasiliensis]] (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No new votes can be added now, but I'll just point out that my oppose was on the basis that it wasn't in an article, which it now is, so if you want to count it as a support it is. If this is considered too late to point that out, than an oppose it stays. Anoldtreeok (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hunicke

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 00:34:35 (UTC)

Reason: Wonderful portrait, really stands out from the crowd. Composition, expression and resolution are all great. This would, I believe, be our first video game related FP.
Articles in which this image appears: Robin Hunicke
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Charlie Chu

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fantastic portrait. The only possible complaint in my opinion would be the shallow DOF, but it is certainly an artistic choice. I'd like to request the closer leave a note on the Flickr file page if this is promoted (or let me know and I will). Jujutacular ^talk 03:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, about video game FPs, we did have this one. Jujutacular ^talk 03:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support The shallow DOF enhances the portrait drawing all focus to her. The color of this is stunning: her hair and her irises in particular. At full zoom I can not find any lighting issues or blurring issues. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Yes it is an absolutely stunning portrait. But the background is completely inappropriate for the person, she's standing in front of a tree as she designs and produces computer games? See the diver nom below for an example of a great background. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that not perhaps the point? She's hardly the stereotype. J Milburn (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, take a look at our article on Thatgamecompany, for which this photograph was taken; this is a company that produces games about petals, clouds and deserts, not about guns, swords and cars. J Milburn (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - All I'm saying is that when she's doing the thing which is the reason she has a wikipedia page, she is probably not standing in front of a tree. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - File:Maggie Roswell.jpg, File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal edit.jpg, File:Thomas Edison2.jpg, File:Donald Pleasence Allan Warren edit.jpg, File:Vexi Salmi.jpg, this one has an even clearer tree --Muhammad(talk) 15:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The first 4 have very plain backgrounds, acceptable for almost all portraits. The last guy is a musician, but from his portrait I don't get a feeling of this, making it a poor portrait, just like this one. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If a plain background is acceptable then why not an OOF tree which is not distracting? --Muhammad(talk) 17:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I had no idea it was a tree, just looks like an interesting backdrop to complement her face for a portrait. Jujutacular ^talk 19:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite shallow DOF and odd top crop. --Avenue (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very good portrait despite the extreme dof solution. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(strong) Oppose: bad background because of an akin hair color and it's disturbing in general, very noisy, too short DOF, head poorly cut off at top (--> limited EV), ... --ka ʁs tn 12:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF is too shallow, her chin and ears are out of focus. Ahirwav (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Muhammad(talk) 13:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the top of her head's missing, the chin's not defined, ears are out-of-focus. Maybe this is arty, although I think not.TehGrauniad (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is too tight. Gabeguss (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as above, I think that this is fantastic. Cowtowner (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, as I think the picture is great. I wrote the thatgamecompany article, but have not touched her article or picture. --Pres N 18:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Robinhunicke 240x160 August2009.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the current cut off for consensus? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Sprouse

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 May 2011 at 10:40:02 (UTC)

Reason: This is the best images I has received OTRS permission. It's clear, sharp, and high resolution
Articles in which this image appears: Dylan and Cole Sprouse
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Daniel Ogren

Support as nominator --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strongly overprocessed. Definitly not one of the the better portrait images. It also shows more hair then the person itself. Sorry, but this is not a good portrait photograph. --Niabot (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The watermark should be removed. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Watermark removed--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry. I just don't think this is on a par with our other featured portraits. The crop's a little heavy, the lighting rather strange, and I'm not wild about the composition. J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree J Milburn.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 12:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple harmonic oscillator

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 May 2011 at 11:50:05 (UTC)

**Original** - The oscillation of an undamped spring-mass system around the equilibrium is a sine wave.

Reason: A simple, yet effective animated demonstration of a simple harmonic oscillator.
Articles in which this image appears: Simple harmonic motion, Harmonic oscillator, Effective mass (spring-mass system), Sine wave, Oscillation, Vibration
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Mathematics
Creator

Support as nominator --—James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:50pm • 11:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' -- Effective in illustrating the phenomenon but lacks sophistication for reaching the FP bar. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can it be made to be a little slower? It hurts my eyes to watch... Jujutacular ^talk 23:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't actually illustrate much about simple harmonic oscillators in my (pretty well informed) view. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. I am not qualified to comment on the science, but I certainly agree with Alvesgaspar's view of the sophistication of the diagram. Really lacks the umph. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The opposes above seem to be for aesthetic reasons, but they don't give any specific suggestions. I would like to make some specific suggestions for how this picture might be improved:
- Slow down the mass.
- Include graphs of displacement, velocity, and acceleration versus time. (It may be better to rotate the picture so that the mass is moving sideways, then stack the picture of the mass on top of the graphs.)
- Include graphs of kinetic and potential energy versus time.
- Include a picture of the motion of the mass in phase space.
Including all of these might be too much. But hopefully these ideas give you a place to start. Ozob (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Piano Diagram

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 08:38:52 (UTC)

Reason: High quality SVG showing good schematic of piano design. Used on about 30 wikis, and featured on Commons. (Note: I know stuff all about pianos, so if this has some glaring problems please point them out, but going on how widely it's used I assume it's pretty accurate.)
Articles in which this image appears: Piano
FP category for this image: Diagrams or Culture and lifestyle
Creator: Polish User Orem (Orem on Commons)

Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a separate diagram for the action. Should they be considered as a set? Otherwise, it's a little weird not to have the parts of the action labeled. Chick Bowen 22:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shrug. You've exceeded my knowledge of pianos. I've added the other diagram to the nom if that helps. --jjron (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a bit odd that the two diagrams are facing in opposite directions. May one should be flipped to make them easier to follow.--RDBury (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know, I know this was my idea, but now that I look more closely at them, they're actually not the same. There's no capo bar on the action one. Of the various action diagrams floating around, none of them matches up perfectly with the diagram of the whole. The more I look at these, the more I think they're basically composites and not based on any particular instrument. Chick Bowen 19:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as set. Good, high-quality illustrations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any good reason that the action is the mirror image of the piano? I find it a little disorienting. Cowtowner (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments: The action diagram isn't actually in the Piano article now it's only at the bottom of Action (piano). Also, these two diagrams of other sorts of actions are currently in the article and probably of equal quality. Cowtowner (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per nom. SMasters (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per SMasters and JJ Harrison. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Fortepian - schemat.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only piano schematic, since there weren't enough comments on the action image. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Focus Stack Microscopy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 09:26:59 (UTC)

Reason: Great EV, high res, really interesting. Note previous successful nomination for focus stacking photographs Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Focus_stacking_Tachinid_fly.jpg. IMHO, this nom explains the technique much more clearly.
Articles in which this image appears: Focus stacking
FP category for this image: Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
Creator: User:Zephyris

Support as nominator --Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous related nom [9] Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Quality isn't really up to date, but it illustrates the subject well. --Niabot (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The leading picture in the article (the fly) illustrates the concept much more clearly. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And? They can both be within wikipedia's best work... The fly is already a FP, btw. PS. I don't agree that the fly illustrates it more clearly, but you're entitled to your (wrong) opinion. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they can both illustrate well the concept and reach FP status! But I find this picture unnecessarily complicated and aesthetically poor (an important component). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, if they both serve to illustrate the same thing, they should not both be FPs. Just because one portrait of an actor (for instance) has high EV, does not mean that they all do. Of course, the actor at different stages in his or her career, or at important moments, or in character, or whatever, could be featured in addition to the initial portrait, but pictures serving the same encyclopedic purpose... I'm not saying that that is the case here; I have no opinion on this image at this time. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was bit flippant with my remarks, I agree with you 100% that 2 images with the same EV should not be both FPs. But this image shows a differnt a application of focus stacking - namelt micrographs (vs photographs for the fly image). I think there's heaps of room for both as FPs. Also I disagree, respectfully, that the fly is the better image. I feel it's misleading how images are pre-blended, and I really like how this image shows which parts of each image are used for the final product. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gabeguss (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and informative. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:FocusStack BrightFieldLightMicroscopy DiatomaceousEarth.jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 03:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warty crab

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 May 2011 at 07:12:53 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality and resolution, Featured on Commons. EV: This photo shows an animal in the wild nature (surf zone).
Articles in which this image appears: Eriphia verrucosa
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others
Creator: George Chernilevsky

Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is that seaweed it's resting on?--Nanoman657 (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The background is a natural stone, covered with seaweed -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom--Nanoman657 (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a really good photo, I love the detail of the bristles (probably not the technical term!) on the crab, and that the drying seaweed is kept in focus showing its texture. Definitely meets the 8 criteria. He's a funny fellow isn't he? I think he's looking at us! TehGrauniad (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a good photo, fantastic detail on the crab, good pose, etc. But something's bugging me with the background. I think it's just that it's such an ugly colour, it's not stimulating my interest in the crab. Sorry, especially for having such a bad reason. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good pose on the animal, good technicals, natural background. I can't ask for more. Cowtowner (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great detail on the crab, however the background is, as Aaadddaaammm said, quite ugly and, I think, terribly distracting. The composition is not great either. Sorry :( Cdg123 (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Less than ideal lighting. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Eriphia verrucosa male 2009 G5.jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 04:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5/7 ~= .71% -> promote. Jujutacular ^talk 04:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: put in category "Crustaceans" rather than "Others". Jujutacular ^talk 04:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen glowing

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 May 2011 at 09:06:08 (UTC)

**Original** - A 1×5 cm vial of glowing ultrapure oxygen. Colour produced by electric discharge in oxygen. Glass tubes, with a wire wound over each (which directs the plasma flow).

**Version 2** - Same, but photographed from a different angle.

Reason: Very encyclopedic. As all these gases are transparent in their unexcited state, this is the best way to get an image for them. Given the subject, the resolution is ample. Similar to the old Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Five Noble Gases. It's just that this one (by the same author) wasn't yet uploaded when that FPC took place.
Articles in which this image appears: Oxygen
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science
Creator: Jurii

Support as nominator --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn support, see below. Oppose until true colour of O₂ glowing is found out here. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Small and still not sharp. It also misses the color profile, which would be important in such a case. --Niabot (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...care to explain to non-photo-savvy folk like me? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first point is the size of this image. In comparison to other images it is small. It only has about 1 MP (1000x1000 px), but is still unsharp. Since a standard camera was used, we could expect at least 4-6 MP. On to of that the image is somewhat blurry, which reduces the effective resolution/quality even further. The second point is the color. A colorprofile embedded inside the image guarantees the correct colors on calibriated displays. In this case it is of importance, since pure gasses have their characteristic color spectrum. This would be the only usefull information for the reader, since anything else is in the dark. --Niabot (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gabeguss (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support — raeky t 09:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Personally, I don't see what more resolution would add in this case. It's a pretty undetailed subject. Cowtowner (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cowtowner. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this is a fake. We don't see glowing oxygen becouse simply in the main glowing "water = moisture" from inside of the wall of the tube. The tube wasn't dry or not dry enough before filling with the ultrapure oxygen. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we hear more about this? I'm not sure I understand. Also, I see you've taken other similar pictures of different gases, and they look different from those we have previously featured; for example, your File:Hydrogen discharge tube.jpg looks very different from File:Hydrogenglow.jpg, which is featured. Can you explain? I have never voted on these kinds of pictures because they are so far outside my area of expertise, but your allegation of "fake" is a serious one and I would like to understand. Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is simple: this isn't a manufacturer sample. Amateur work: "take a test tube, fill it with low pressure oxygen gas and melt it close". Ready is the fake sample. All the glas that you see and know contains moisture at the surface. You have now a closed test tube with oxygen gas inside and a lot of moisture from the glas wall. If you now use a high frequency high voltage power supply then it is more easy to ionize the water then the oxygen gas inside in that glas ampoule/vial. It is important for an oxygen sample to have realy dry test tube. The test tube must be first heated off, for several hours and >= 450°C. I hope you can understand it now. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC) P.S: and sorry for my bad english.[reply]
    - You know, that doesn't mean it's "fake", just unprofessional. "Fake" would mean those artist's impressions and photomontages. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think what Alchemist meant (if I may) was not fake as in deliberately deceptive, but false: that is, that we are not seeing what we think we are. Chick Bowen 04:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was invited here and my first comment (from a public terminal) is do not close this nom as successful until there is a solid proof there is no water in there. Minor contaminations do change discharge color a lot, so as gas pressure and electrical parameters of the discharge. We need to dig into literature and have a proper evidence on the color of the oxygen discharge (or/and a discharge spectrum - intensity vs. wavelength). I'm afraid image alone can't be such an evidence. Materialscientist (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Materialscientist: your are right with: "... gas pressure and electrical parameters of the discharge ...", but it is simple: take a photo of his spectrum and you can see the water spectrum lines ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks ('twas I asked MS to comment here). Oppose on this basis. Chick Bowen 05:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it possible for me to change my vote to "oppose" even though I am the nominator...? And what about the H, He, N, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe images: will they also have to be "de-featured"? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you look at the Oxygen page it has a spectrogram (on the right) of Oxygen with lines in the blue and purple which line up with the color in this image. Any water vapor in the tube would be split into Hydrogen and Oxygen and the Hydrogen spectrum would contribute to the color, but unless there was extreme contamination probably not a lot. The image is still a great image to draw you into reading the Oxygen article which itself is excellent. Could the caption be changed to reflect the fact it may not be "ultrapure" Oxygen?Gabeguss (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - This: "Any water vapor in the tube would be split into Hydrogen and Oxygen" is false or not realy right. You have not a Chemical decomposition because only a ionization. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that at least some of Alchemist-hp's tubes are good. I've seen some of the noble gases glowing before and the colours match perfectly, so I definitely have good reasons to change my vote like this, even though I nominated this picture in the first place. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are indeed withdrawing your support, you might want to strike it out up top (<s></s>) to make it clear for the closer. Chick Bowen 20:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 16:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three Country Bridge:

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 May 2011 at 14:34:08 (UTC)

Reason: nice view and high quality picture of the bridge at blue hour
Articles in which this image appears: Huningue, Three Countries Bridge, Dietmar Feichtinger
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Wladyslaw

Support as nominator --– Wladyslaw (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice and has good EV -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ But you can change my vote! The problem is it's only used in 1 article, and it doesn't have very high encyclopedic value in it. If there was used in more articles, it would probably get my vote. If you can German you could translate the article for the bridge, which is a reasonable length on .de wp. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just translated the (shorter) French article, but unfortunately I don't know German. I think the main problem at the moment is not the length but the fact that the article doesn't have many references. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaadddaaammm: is there a critetia for FPC "pictures have to illustrate more than one article"? --– Wladyslaw (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah you're completely right, there isn't such a criteria. But even you have to admit, this image doesn't add much to the article Huningue. Thrilled to see it's included in 2 more articles now, I'll have look in the morning and hope I can change my vote then. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why this image does not add much to the article Huningue?. This is a bridge between the two towns Weil am Rhein and Huningue. So, what´s wrong to show this bridge in this articles of this towns? But this "problem" is already solved. Now it has an own article and I added the picture also in the article of the architect. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, now that it's in Three Countries Bridge, I Support. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Left side of bridge cut off... gazhiley.co.uk 10:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That just adds to the picture... Lets it seem limitless, methinks. It gets my Support (Pteronura brasiliensis) (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh? This isn't a "pretty picture" gallery - it's pictures that carry high EV and are high in quality to the extent that they can be considered a "featured picture"... Saying that by cutting off the left side makes it better is kinda against the point of this process... Might be an idea to read to criteria fella... gazhiley.co.uk 12:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per gazhiley. JJ Harrison (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I got the argument right than a featured picture has always to show whole buildings? An argument I can not comprehend with. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not always - depends on if a shot can be obtained that does include the whole building... Let's just say the building no longer exists, or other buildings around prevent the ability to get the shot perfect, then that can be accepted... But based on other pictures around of this area, then a shot taken a bit further back, or stitched to include more of the picture to the left, means this picture isn't good enough... Can be re-taken by anyone visiting that area to include whole bridge... Hope that makes it easier to comprehend... gazhiley.co.uk 20:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, might be worth looking though all FP nom's of buildings that failed - this is a common reason... gazhiley.co.uk 20:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is not really easier to comprehend. The ramp of the bridge on the left side and the right side are nearly the same. This bridge is symmetric to its vertical line. There is no bigger profit on perception if you would see the left ramp of the bridge, but the dymanic of the image would be not so impressive. And if you would look at other bridge-pricture like Diliffs File:Tower bridge London Twilight - November 2006.jpg you can also see that there is no reason to show obligatory the whole building. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        True, but the perspective also doesn't really help the viewer "get" the shape of the bridge. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        And so this one do. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "The ramp of the bridge on the left side and the right side are nearly the same" - how do we know this if it's not in the picture? If we have to guess, or research to find this out, then it's not good enough... gazhiley.co.uk 12:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You are not able to answer my question. And how we could know this in this File:Tower bridge London Twilight - November 2006.jpg picture? Further featured pictures that are not showing the whole bridge: File:AcueductoSegovia edit1.jpg, File:Tower Bridge London Feb 2006.jpg, File:Ggb by night.jpg, even JJ Harrisons Harbour Bridge is not totally showing File:Sydney Harbour Bridge from Circular Quay.jpg all of the ramps. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Oooh, touche! I think this really does require reconsideration of some of the votes already cast on this nom. As an aside, the 2 FPs of Tower bridge should not both be featured, yeah? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed, neither seems to be adding anything that the other does not. As an aside, File:Tower Bridge London Feb 2006.jpg is used only in the gallery. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Fair enough - yeah maybe previous noms may need to be looked at... Certainly nowadays when a subject is cut off it normally gets rejected without good reason... All the ones you have mentionned are between 2 and 7 years old now... gazhiley.co.uk 12:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find the above debate a little frustrating. There's a difference between a subject that's partially represented and one that's cut off. There are lots of good ways to represent a bridge, but I find this composition a bit awkward. The problem to me is not that the right-hand ramp isn't included, which is not a big deal, but that the curved structure cuts off at an awkward point; if it is symmetrical with the other side, then it's cut off right at the point that the curve increases, which makes it confusing. All that said, I think this is a good picture; I'd say weak support. Chick Bowen 23:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only 4.5 of 5 required supports. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cabiria 1914 poster restored.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 May 2011 at 18:49:21 (UTC)

Reason: Very good scan
Articles in which this image appears: Cabiria, Turin
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others
Creator: N. Morgello (uploaded by Jujutacular)

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support JJ Harrison (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about the scan quality-- the tone of the yellow at the top looks uneven to me-- was the original document faded, or is this a scanning issue, or is this so in the original? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tone is about as even as I could get it. Compare with the original: File:Cabiria_1914_poster.jpg. Jujutacular ^talk 15:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just so we're clear on the copyright status, am I right in thinking that this is the American poster for an Italian film, first published in America? Presumably, a different poster was used in Italy? My concern is that while this is clearly PD in the US, it's copyright status in Italy is not mentioned on the file page. J Milburn (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LOC gives a publication location of New York. Chick Bowen 14:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I'm quite sure that this poster was made for the US specifically, given that it is in English. Jujutacular ^talk 21:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cabiria 1914 poster restored.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Beach, San Francisco

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 03:21:02 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality, adds value to the article
Articles in which this image appears: Ocean Beach, San Francisco, California
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Mbz1

Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not crop it a little tighter on the left? You've got a lot of undifferentiated, essentially black rock over there, and it interrupts the nice diagonal line of the beach. I'd crop it a little bit past the last house. Chick Bowen 05:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I added crop. Is this what you meant?--Mbz1 (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 1. Chick Bowen 16:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support both versions. Nice photo -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition suffers from the sky being so tightly cropped. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to avoid the composition being too centered, and I believe there is enough sky, the crop is tight nowhere.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Preference Original - I prefer the original one, but I support both. I don't have an issue with the small amount of sky. Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Been mulling over this one all week... If this was specifically in an article about Ocean Beach at sunset, then I'd support, but the lack of detail and glare from the lights due to the time of day affect the ev for Sunset beach for me... You can't see what the buildings look like in the majority of the picture, there seems to be detail on what appears to be a sea wall, but it's too dark to make that out... Very pretty yes, composition yes, but as a good representation of Ocean Beach, the darkness spoils it IMO... gazhiley.co.uk 13:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that during light hours the light is not right to take such image. The sun is always in the way.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about at midday mid summer? Surely it's at it's highest point in the sky and would be outside of this crop... gazhiley.co.uk 00:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but still the light would not be great, if one is taking an image against even high sun. The light for photography is generally better during low sun conditions. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insulin Action on the cell

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 03:03:36 (UTC)

File:BIOE Article Pic.svg

Original - Insulin action on the cell

Reason: The image is very informational and has neat representation of some complex biological processes. The image is high resolution .svg image as well
Articles in which this image appears: Insulin signal transduction pathway and regulation of blood glucose
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Sciences/Biology
Creator: Bioesharm

Support as nominator --Bioesharm (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - diagrams should be svg files. While this is an svg file it seems to consist of a single embedded bitmap image. - Zephyris _Talk 11:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per Zephyris (good catch btw). The file was generated by Adobe Illustrator, not familiar with it myself but I would hope that a commercial program like that would export to actual SVG and not an SVG encapsulated bitmap, unless the image was originally scanned or converted from another format. You can definitely see the edges blur at high zoom. One advantage of SVG is that you can easily convert the text to other languages, but in this case the text is part of the image so you would need to redraw it to make this kind of change.--RDBury (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. If you are going to redraw it, can I also recommend that the capitalisation is sorted? Sentence case is best for this kind of thing, to Save Random Capitals Appearing in the Text. J Milburn (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are also many inaccuracies and typos.

The insulin receptor is labelled innaccurately; both the alpha and beta subunits are part of the receptor.
The alpha subunit of the insulin receptor should not be shown penetrating the membrane; the beta subunit has a transmembrane domain while the alpha subunit is purely extracellular.
The insulin receptor is actually a dimerisation of two alpha and two beta subunits and should probably be shown as such
"Sub-unit" does not need to be hyphenated.
The "Phosphorylation of enzyme" next to the tyrosine kinase is innaccurate as largely signalling proteins rather than metabolic enzymes are phosphorylated by the kinase.
"Sythesis" is misspelt.
"Cell Survival" is not the same as "Proliferation", and I am not quite sure what is meant here; does PI3K signalling promote stem cell proliferation?
The thing labelled "GLUT-4 Vesicle" is not a vesicle; it is a passive glucose transporter.

Comment He is correct in implying that GLUT4 is translocated to the cell membrane downstream to activation by insulin, and GLUT4 is sequestered intracellularly in vesicles when insulin levels are low. This is an important point, and I feel that it should be incorporated into this image, although presently the labeling is incorrect, as Zephyris mentions.-- mcshadypl ^T ^C 21:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cycling of glucose transporters to and from the cell membrane via vesicles is not clearly illustrated at all; the glucose transporter shown in the cytoplasm should be associated with a vesicle's membrane.
"Excess extracted glucose" and "Extracted glucose" are shown originating from the glucose transporter vesicle. This is incorrect, the transporter, once sequestered in vesicles, does not transport glucose. The glucose transport occurs via diffusion when the glucose transporter is embedded in the cell membrane.

Notably the illustration of regulation of the glucose transporter's location, its sequestering in internal vesicles, and how this results in control of glucose uptake have major fundamental problems which make this diagram inaccurate. - Zephyris _Talk 12:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per above. Additionally, the arrows appear to be hand-draw via computer, and I would expect something of a little more quality in an FPC. Spencer^T♦C 13:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Luise von Quistorp

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 04:24:07 (UTC)

Reason: Very high ev as lead image. It is festured on Commons. Good restoration
Articles in which this image appears: Maria Luise von Quistorp, Wernher von Braun
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good portrait.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time. It seems likely that this article will wound up merged to the article on her husband, as her own notability is somewhat questionable. I am not convinced that the EV would be high if used only in her husband's article. J Milburn (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Article is definitely ripe for merge per Wikipedia:Notability (people) - being married to someone notable doesn't confer notability. There is nothing in the article to indicate independent notability. This reasoning therefore seems logical. --jjron (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anadarko Tower

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 09:16:30 (UTC)

Reason: Impressive photo of high quality and a good illustrative value
Articles in which this image appears: Anadarko Tower
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Jujutacular

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My only disappointment with this photo was the exposure: very large blown highlight in the cloud on the right. Jujutacular ^talk 16:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its actually only a small patch and not significant in my view. The more annoying thing is that the lower part is focussed on the foreground water instead of the building. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support due to out of focus lower section, but the rest is high enough quality, and cloud doesn't appear blown on my screen so no issue there... gazhiley.co.uk 12:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose information: high resolution isn't the same as high quality. The image really lacks sharpness, especially at bottom. The composition is constrained, too. --ka ʁs tn 14:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a good capture. The blue of the sky blends beautifully with that of the building. Hariya1234 (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STS-134 Mission Poster

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 20:12:37 (UTC)

Reason: Draws you into a great article of historical significance. Excellent layout of quality images.
Articles in which this image appears: STS-134,Mark_Kelly_(astronaut)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Getting there
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator --Gabeguss (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. This is weird. This was obviously made before the Giffords shooting (since it was uploaded before the shooting). The angle of Kelly's head in this shot is often called by film buffs the "Kubrick look" and is understood to be menacing. Is NASA still using this poster? I feel like their more recent promotional efforts have been quite different, given the circumstances. Chick Bowen 00:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This poster is from the Space Flight Awareness program in NASA which is aimed at employee moral (as far as I can tell from the website). They have another series of posters from the Kennedy Space Center which are different and maybe aimed at the public. Gabeguss (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Can't see any value inside this image. On top of that, the mainpage is not an advertisement board. --Niabot (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the featured picture on the mainpage advertise the articles available on Wikipedia? Gabeguss (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- the poor resolution of the satellite above their heads is quite a big flaw, in my view, I'm afraid. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. I'm not convinced that this is FP material, and the EV seems somehwat lacking. I really don't know what to make of this- I think it's a little embarrassing... Does NASA have nothing better to do? J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phasia hemiptera

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 May 2011 at 16:37:31 (UTC)

Reason: A beautiful picture of high quality and high ev
Articles in which this image appears: Phasia hemiptera
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: Richard Bartz

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: high quality. --Dэя-Бøяg 14:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Unsharp and undetailed. Way below the present 'bug bar' (and to Richard's standards) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Wonderful composition, but the bar is very high for these kinds of images. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bishōnen

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 May 2011 at 15:22:48 (UTC)

Reason: High quality original artwork with good EV
Articles in which this image appears: Bishōnen
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Drawings
Creator: KishiShiotani (user on the website of Animexx)

Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^talk 15:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noone wants to start the voting on another Japanese artwork nom? :P I have no idea how typical this is of the style it's meant to be portraying, but it's high quality, and I like oranges, so I Support it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bishōnen is not really a style. It's the depiction of a good looking boy, a typical character type. The style is usually associated with the anime and manga style, but not entirely necessary. --Niabot (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the article: "Besides being a character type, bishōnen is also a distinct art style not usually forgotten in books about drawing manga". -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not understanding what meaning the oranges have... --Golbez (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I'm not sure what we should vote on: the original work of art (which maybe shoudn't be brought here) or an illustration of a certain manga style? Anyway I find it too kitschy for my taste. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose against Alvesgaspar Bishōnen is no manga style. In fact, there is no such thing as a manga style. Please grab some books and get some knowledge about the topic, before pooping out nonsense. --Niabot (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought that this forum (unlike COM:FPC) was free of such kind of rude behavior from manga fans. I was wrong. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is rude to judge about things you don't know anything about. --Niabot (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If I've understood this correctly, the image is by a non-notable artist in the genre, which, for me, makes it basically OR. If this were by an established artist, I might reconsider. Cowtowner (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bishōnen is no genre. Please read the article or its sources. --Niabot (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Poor choice of words. An aesthetic or a style. That doesn't change the issue with OR. Cowtowner (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not about aesthetic or a style. Read the text an learn. --Niabot (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - From the lede: "The term describes an aesthetic ". Cowtowner (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If Bishōnen is a Japanese word expressing an old asiatic concept of human beauty, I wonder how a kistchy manga-type image showing a non-asiatic boy surrounded by orange trees can illustrate the idea. In other words, what are we really assessing here: the artistic qualities of the illustration (we should not imo) or its added value in illustrating an asthetical concept? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's common character archetype in manga and anime, which is not directly related with the original wording in japanese language. Did you read the article? I doubt it. --Niabot (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm wondering who really needs to learn here: to learn how to respect the opinion of others however silly you consider it to be. That is a fundamental quality to participate in a civilized forum like this. If you consider yourself not able to do it, please stay out. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it's also uncivilized to put an opinion on the table without an argument. It gets even worse if you leave comments that are factually wrong. It would be comparable to an illustration about quantum physics. You telling me that it is wrong, even so it would fit all given sources. --Niabot (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cowturner. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This just isn't impressive or spectacular or iconic or anything like that. DS (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Though I think this is quite well-done, and a good example of the subject, the bulging of the hand muscles around the orange are odd, and other slight issues. James F. (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Bush Presidential Library

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2011 at 02:26:34 (UTC)

Reason: High quality, good EV
Articles in which this image appears: George Bush Presidential Library
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Jujutacular

Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^talk 02:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a bit dark and lacks contrast. Also the composition doesn't show the building very well. Laurent (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laurent. J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laurent... I assume by the colour of the building and the reflection of the sun in the windows that this was taken at either sunrise or sunset - suggest maybe reshooting at a different time of day so the sun is at full brightness and we get more natural colours... Plus composition wise is there an elevated position available for this building to show the size of it better? If not then composition is as good as it's going to get for me... gazhiley.co.uk 12:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, this was taken very close to sunset. In fact, this image was taken about 10 minutes later. I'm pretty certain that this is the best possible angle to shoot this building. Stepping back gets a trash can in the way, there's no elevation anywhere near, the rest of the building (to the right) is pretty nondescript anyway. Jujutacular ^talk 20:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, then composition wise this is the best we are going to get until proven otherwise... Just a shame about the time of day... gazhiley.co.uk 22:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree that this having been taken at sunset is a bad thing. I think it adds a little spice to our architectural collection, which features too few examples taken at this time of day. upstate NYer 20:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but it doesn't help bring out the details and softens the focus... But each to their own... gazhiley.co.uk 00:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The sunset provides an atmosphere that I think is appropriate for this building. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laurent. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woman playing the koto

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2011 at 03:49:18 (UTC)

Reason: High quality scan with good EV
Articles in which this image appears: Koto (musical instrument) Danmono
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art
Creator: Settei Hasegawa

Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^talk 03:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I want to support it, but I am not sure I understand why this is not stronger than a modern photograph showing the same. Is the artist notable? Perhaps an article could be knocked together for him/her? J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He seems notable. I can find plenty of prints you can buy of his work, but in depth texts on him seem to be scarce, or offline only. Jujutacular ^talk 21:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- good resolution, good EV, nice picture. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urupukapuka Island, Bay of Islands, New Zealand

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 May 2011 at 21:40:12 (UTC)

Reason: This image provides a high quality and high resolution illustration of the natural landscape found in Bay of Islands area in New Zealand, adding depth to the worded description found in Wikipedia entry.
Articles in which this image appears: Bay of Islands
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Stephen Brown

Support as nominator --User_talk:Brownfish (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Strikes me as heavily overprocessed (colours look quite unnatural). Can you comment, or is there a less cooked version around? --jjron (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated and horizon isn't straight. - Blieusong (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose maybe the same issue as above but, just to the right of the closest boat, there apears to almost be a fold in the picture - everything dips down and then goes off at an angle - how I would expect to view this if in a book where the picture stradles two pages... gazhiley.co.uk 15:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seam is one big stitching error. It looks almost like the photographer moved between taking the pictures left and right of that point... - Zephyris _Talk 22:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sardinian Warbler

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 May 2011 at 22:23:30 (UTC)

Reason: Beautiful colours and composition, shows the bird wonderfully.
Articles in which this image appears: Sardinian Warbler, list of birds of Italy
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Andreas Trepte

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of extensive color manipulation. Strongly indicated by the white blurring artifacts around the bird itself. Do birds glow nowadays? --Niabot (talk) 07:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suspect that the halo that Niabot mentioned is from sharpening, not colour manipulation. It's not significant enough for me to decide against supporting the image which has good EV and otherwise good quality. Cowtowner (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My bet is shadow-highlight reduction. At thumbnail it looks like a sharpening halo. The solution is to use fill flash instead. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Television cameraman

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 May 2011 at 07:14:56 (UTC)

Reason: While some may delight in pointing out some minor technical issues here - blown highlights on the chair legs in the background, slight loss of sharpness due to the rain and mist - I believe the EV more than compensates.
A rare opportunity where a TV cameraman for a national broadcaster is shown concisely, without the identity of the individual distracting from the shot. I also like some other details which add to the EV, such as recording in the rain rather than from under shelter and the treatment of the equipment in those circumstances, and positioning himself alongside a tree to help stop people potentially bumping into him in one of Sydney's busiest locations.
Articles in which this image appears: Camera operator
Network Ten
Ten News
Sachtler
FP category for this image: Not sure; Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment?
Creator: jjron

Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to Sachtler as well (which points it towards the FP category you suggested). I guess I'm not completely convinced that a faceless portrait has more EV, but I do find it an interesting occupational shot. Support. Chick Bowen 14:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but I find the background messy and distracting. Reducing DOF might have helped. --Dschwen 16:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already F/5; there's not much further to go while still trying to keep enough of him and the equipment in some sort of focus. --jjron (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the image quality is not stunning. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually thought this was pretty good EV and compositionally wise. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dschwen. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maid of the Mist

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 May 2011 at 15:11:09 (UTC)

Reason: Technically good, eye-catching, illustrative
Articles in which this image appears: Maid of the Mist
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
Creator: Saffron Blaze

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support –- great picture, good find. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A wonderful shot, completely appropriate for this subject. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- Excellent composition. A pity that image quality is not better. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from author -- Having just scrutinised this photo for the first time in years I understand Alvesgaspar point about quality. I just went back to the original JPG and tried to see if I could correct the faults as I saw them (noise and dust spots). The sensor dust spots were easy but not sure the selective noise reduction made for a better picture File:Maid-of-the-Mist.jpg Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a stunning photo, but the quality just isn't there. There's not nearly enough resolution on the boat, which is, really, the EV in the image. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that the image shows something more important. This boat is not famous because it is a marvel of engineering, it's famous because of where it is and what it does, and this image shows that beautifully. J Milburn (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cowtowner (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first I thought that the composition was not right, and didn't offer much detail on the boat. However, the mist is a significant element, having been there myself, and wouldn't be visible with a tighter crop. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This is amazing. To criticise (and I'm no photography expert) the starboard side of the ship looks overexposed (if that's the right term), there's little information left there but pure white. But the detail on the water, the disorientating mist and rainbow are beautiful. TehGrauniad (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Maid of the Mist - pot-o-gold.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bread bowl

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 12:40:28 (UTC)

Reason: It's not the best photo technically, but it's a charismatic, eyecatching picture of something a little unusual (at least, something I haven't really seen before). The various textures in the photograph contrast well, and it's beautifully composed- a lot more interesting than just another studio shot. Finally, it would add something a little different to our rather spartan food category.
Articles in which this image appears: Bread bowl, Boletus edulis
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Creator: Jason Quinn and Anna Iwanicka

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The napkin/tablecloth (can't tell which) in the upper right corner is a bit distracting. EV for Break bowl is good but EV for Boletus edulis is marginal; can anyone spot an actual mushroom in the stew?--RDBury (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as creator: Hi. J Milburn notified me of the nomination. It is a table cloth in the upper right. The mushrooms are the darker blobs in the soup. In hindsight, I do wish they were more visible. I just took the photo as the soup was served. The lighter blobs are thick, square noodles. The plate is also noteworthy. It is a simple example of Bolesławiec pottery, which is a distinctive style from the city of the same name. I updated the description of the photo on Commons about this. That article lacks a photo, so I might add it there too. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

verlynS: this photo lacks purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VerlynS (talk • contribs) 03:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the background. Tomer T (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a clarification: I don't like the background not because of the tablecloth, but because of the table's colors which don't combine very well with the colors of the dish itself, making the whole picture somewhat faint colored. --Tomer T (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I personally don't mind the napkin(tablecloth?) in the upper right corner. I think it's a decent photo, and a considerable improvement on the previous images we had for bread bowls. However, there's little EV in the Boletus Edulis article. Would be nice if there were some more uses for it.--Nanoman657 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This looks great, I think we should also give featured status to the chef! I don't have a problem with the background, it doesn't affect this photo meeting the 8 criteria, I think we have to accept that everything has a context; here it's a dinner table. TehGrauniad (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support My only issue is that the white balance may be a tad cold. The background, for me, is fine. It's a reasonable context to find this in. Cowtowner (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lighting is too murky. --jjron (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have to agree with jjron --Muhammad(talk) 15:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah, have to agree with jjron - the light source is too low and consequently leaves a lot of the bowl contents in shadow. That and the distracting bit of table cloth are enough for me to oppose. Its a pity, since we do need more food. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose bordering on "neutral". This looks a lot more appetizing than the recently nominated Couscous, but unfortunately too much of the bread bowl is in the shade. The tablecloth doesn't bother me because, as has been said, you're likely to find such an item where this is served. The tabletop is pretty ugly though! It's a shame the ceps were chopped and not sliced to preserve their shape because it would definitely have upped the EV for Boletus edulis. You can't really determine that they are ceps from the photo. Matthewedwards : Chat 06:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chromodoris nudibranch

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 14:32:51 (UTC)

Reason: High quality, excellent colour balance and contrast.
Articles in which this image appears: Chromodoris joshi
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Molluscs
Creator: Nhobgood

Support as nominator --Saxophlute (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support For an underwater photo, amazing! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. J Milburn (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not technically perfect, but with due allowances for it being underwater, it's a good shot with good colours. --jjron (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a fantastic photo, everything about it's great, if it weren't for some of those small floating beasties (which I'm glad haven't ben photoshoped out) I wouldn't have known it were underwater. TehGrauniad (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose It is really good that we are getting a regular supply of underwater shots. However the lighting on this one is not so good and the sharpness is lacking (comparing with other Nhobgood photos). JJ Harrison (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chromodoris nudibranch komodo.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]