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

STS-1 at night

This is one of the finest pictures of Space Shuttle Columbia from its first mission. It is featured on the page for mission STS-1, taken by Kennedy Space Center crew and added by Triddle. - Kitch 17:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. First vote here - Kitch 17:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. ed g2s • talk 20:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support What can I say! - Adrian Pingstone 22:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Beatiful and striking? Support. Mgm|^(talk) 22:20, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I have this one on my wall. Of course I support. Denni☯ 00:41, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
• Support. Awesome. -- BRIAN0918  01:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak support. Seems small a bit grainy... like someone used a scanner. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support, although I must say I am suprised its not already a featured picture. TomStar81 09:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak support, its a great picture, but perhaps not better than Image:Shuttle.jpg which is already featured. There are quite a few excellent space launch images from NASA. I wouldn't want to see them all in Featured Pictures, so we might want to consider whether we want two shots of the same mission. -- Solipsist 09:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent photo, very dramatic. --Fir0002 10:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hi-res version is quite grainy. My hamfisted attempts to clean it up were unsatisfactory; is anyone with a bit more competence willing to try? —Korath (Talk) 19:09, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Slight cleanup would be nice, yes, but necessary. James F. (talk) 23:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support, looks great to me. --Spangineer ∞ 02:51, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• To counter objections of graininess, I've sharpened the photo somewhat. JoJan 15:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted. +12/-1. ed g2s • talk 16:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chicago Skyline at Sunset

I think it's a great picture that I took of Chicago. I believe it is of FP quality. - AllyUnion (talk) 13:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Self-nomination and support. - AllyUnion (talk) 13:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Slightly out of focus, and there are some horizontal lines, but its dramatic enough that little quibbles don't really matter. If you could include more water it might be better. -- BRIAN0918  14:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If you take a look at the originals, which are linked in the image, you'd see that I end up with more boardwalk or that pier thingy. This was taken during the Winter, so going down to the bottom of the steps at the level of the water would be dangerous for me, so I did the best I could. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very impressive - Adrian Pingstone 14:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Dramatic, nice composition. Duk 16:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A worthy image. Denni☯ 16:38, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Support. Dramatic, striking, nice composition --> Perfect! Mgm|^(talk) 19:28, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent panorama with emphasis on the fact that it's on Lake Michigan. --Kitch 17:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Looks a little ragged on the full resolution view, but that is simply because the image size is so large. Composition and colours are very nice. -- Solipsist 01:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is a great skyline shot taken from the best vantage point in the Chicagoland area. I believe I've stood there myself too when I was up there. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:53, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Nice picture, nice job! WB 05:14, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted. +10/-0. ed g2s • talk 16:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two International Finance Centre

Striking angle and well offset against the cloud cloud cover. Used in International Finance Centre — BesigedB

• Nominate and support. — BesigedB 22:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support The image is clear and striking. Zantastik 22:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic picture.Jersyko 23:18, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Badly blurred. Too bad - the lighting is awesome. Denni☯ 02:27, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
• Support A little camera shake, but it isn't so noticable at medium resolutions. The other photo of the International Finance Centre, is pretty good too. -- Solipsist 10:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Makes me want to support it (oh i love these night shots), but yes, the blurring is a little too noticeable when you view the original image, which is what we're voting on, not the automatically resized one. Enochlau 08:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Denni and Enochlau--Fir0002 09:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Bah. The bluring is not noticible unless you expand to the full image and look for it. Support. -SocratesJedi | Talk 08:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • When you vote to list a picture on FPC, you vote to list the original version. Enochlau 04:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • NOT Promoted. +5/-3 --brian0918™ 23:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mackerel sky over Orlando, FL

I feel it's a good photo of a mackerel sky.—Boarder8925 03:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Self-nomination and support.—Boarder8925 03:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not particularly striking. Also, sun overexposes part of the photo excessively. Enochlau 10:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. An interesting pic but not good enough for Featured (a little out of focus and just a little boring) - Adrian Pingstone 22:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose There's not much here to write home about. Denni☯ 00:47, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, I will have to oppose also. We already have a rather nice FP Mackerel sky in Image:Mackerelskybig.jpg, excepting that that image is rather small by current standards. More to the point, this picture doesn't appear to be illustrating an article at the moment. -- Solipsist 01:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose --Fir0002 10:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • NOT Promoted. +1/-5 --brian0918™ 23:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep

A Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis), courtesy of PDphoto.org. I love the expression on the sheep's face. Neutrality^talk 04:07, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Neutrality^talk 04:09, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great use of the blurring of the background to focus on the subject. Enochlau 10:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support, although it could use some contrasting to make the sheep stand out more. -- BRIAN0918  18:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry to spoil the party but, although it's a very good pic, I would want the animals body to be in focus for a Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 22:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jpeg artifacts (particularly along the horns), without even having the benefit of a jpeg's smaller size. —Korath (Talk) 23:11, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think its a good photo. Even if the goat's coat is patchy. --Fir0002 10:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with Korath about jpeg artifacts, uninteresting crop --jacobolus (t) 23:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Busy background makes it harder to see detail on face and horns. Jonathunder 19:12, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
• Neutral. It's undeniably a portrait of the animal as opposed to a non-creative illustration, which is cool, but it's not got a lot of personality. I'd like to see a crop showing the full length of the animal, though that might put the focal area uncomfortably far from the center. Matthewcieplak 05:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • How is a neutral vote included in the final count? If it's ignored, wouldn't it be better, Matthew, to decide one way or the other? Just a thought - Adrian Pingstone 13:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just a bit dull. Mark¹ 04:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Bevo 19:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • NOT Promoted. +4/-6 --brian0918™ 23:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tower of Hanoi

Whilst following up on a previous Feature Picture, I noticed that User:Aka has some other impressive pictures, including this animation of the Tower of Hanoi puzzle. - Solipsist 10:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support - Solipsist 10:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Although I think 4 discs would probably be better for illustrating the recursive nature of the solution, I think this is an excellent illustration. →Raul654 10:50, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I agree that more discs would be an improvement, but this still got an "Oh. Oh, wow." out of me. —Korath (Talk) 16:40, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • And even more support for the four-disc version. —Korath (Talk) 20:09, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support the 4-disk version. -- BRIAN0918  18:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Pretty cool but would be heaps better with more counters--Fir0002 09:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support contributes to the article, nice colorful animation. Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very cool, but an extra disc is needed. — Matt Crypto 16:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support only if done with 64 discs...
    • Support. — Matt Crypto 22:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• support although i would like to see the ground marked showing that there are only 3 positions on which they can sit 19:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• support titillating pic. Agree it would look even better with a 4th disc, though. Circeus 22:08, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Does it move? It appears to be still on my screen. BrokenSegue 14:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ayup. Do you have gif animation disabled in your browser? —Korath (Talk) 15:19, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• comment After reading the comments above, I have created another version with four discs. I dont see this as a replacement for this one. It is more like an extension, because the colors of the upper three discs are the same, which shows the recursive nature of this solution. Now I'm waiting for comments asking for a version with 7 discs :) .. (please keep in mind that you need 2^(number of discs)-1 steps for the solution and most of them require two to four frames) -- Aka 19:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think seven is quite necessary. (Though if you could do a version with 64...) —Korath (Talk) 20:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey, with full SVG support, 64 would be doable; the user gets to wait for it to finish and find out whether there are world-ending graphics. --Andrew 05:32, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support the four-disk version as FPC, although viewing the two side-by-side is quite compelling. -- Seth Ilys 21:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support four-disc version (though side-by-side does, indeed, look "quite compelling" in demonstrating recursiveness). James F. (talk) 23:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Well, strongly oppose. The rendering is too sophisticated for the subject. Most importantly, it lacks smoothness, so it is hard to look at. If the goal is too illustrate the strategy for the Tower of Hanoi, then something simpler would be sufficient. We could put more frames in the animation without the file becoming too large. If the goal is to illustrate lighting and soft shadows, the image has nothing exceptional. --Bernard Helmstetter 00:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support either, but especially the 4 disk version. Spangineer ∞ 01:26, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I like the idea: it's a nice illustration of the solution method (bonus points if you create one using the non-recursive solution (color disks alternating black and white and add the rule that two disks of the same color may not touch)) but the graphics are more elaborate than necessary and the animation is somewhat distractingly jerky - a fine illustration, but not necessarily featured quality. --Andrew 05:32, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no indication of position... no "pegs". And the four disc version is grainy over the three disc version. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering the pic is a gif (otherwise no animation is possible) with complex color gradients, some graininess is to be expected. Circeus 16:40, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Support four-disc version. Mark¹ 02:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support 4 disc version Leonardo 21:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Overwhelming support, 4 disc version promoted. --brian0918™ 23:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scanning electron microscope

This image illustrates well the capabilities of a scanning electron microscope (SEM). This is a magnification series for a snow crystal, from 93x to 36,000x magnification, using a special low-temperature SEM (LT-SEM) [1] to preserve the crystal. -  BRIAN0918  18:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support either version. -  BRIAN0918  18:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I think this would work better if there were only a single column, instead of following the successive magnifications in the current zigzag fashion. I'll fiddle with it later today or tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. —Korath (Talk) 19:00, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • You asked for it and you got it. I actually like this version more, both because the progression is more natural, and because I didn't have to crop each individual pic to make them all the same size (adds about 300px vertically to the image total). The only downside was that I had to compress it slightly more to get below the 2MB mark. -- BRIAN0918  19:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I also created another version with rectangles indicating what part of the image was magnified. It's not 100% accurate, especially in the skewed one and the higher-magnification ones, but it isn't as necessary at those magnifications anyway. -- BRIAN0918  20:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Support either single-column version, preferring the one without rectangles. —Korath (Talk) 21:12, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support image with rectangles. Denni☯ 21:22, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
• Support columnar version with sub-magnification rectangle highlights. James F. (talk) 23:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support columns with or without rectangles. Holy balls, that's the most intense snowflake I've ever seen. Matthewcieplak 05:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support What Matthewcieplak said. AngryParsley 05:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support all. -SocratesJedi | Talk 08:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Promoted 3rd version --brian0918™ 23:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Von Kármán vortex street

Von Kármán vortex streets formed as clouds pass over mountains or islands. A detailed example, and an animation of the phenomenon. I couldn't decide which to support, so I'll let you choose. -  BRIAN0918  22:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  22:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm currently trying to get proper permission for this animation, which might even be better for the article. Any comments? -- BRIAN0918  23:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support -Pic #1. A fantastic example of vortex shedding!--Deglr6328 06:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Number #1. Very good illustration for the article. The article itself could use a little help though. -- Solipsist 13:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support #1 animation Denni☯ 21:18, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
• Support striking and illustrative. Circeus 17:07, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support #1. Very interesting image. Jonathunder 19:06, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
• I just got permission to use Image:Vortex-street-animation.gif with credit, so I'll add it to the FPC just in case someone wants to vote for it.
• Support the animation; the stills, while prettier, weren't especially helpful to me in figuring out what was going on. —Korath (Talk) 22:29, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support animation and first image. James F. (talk) 23:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support first image and animation together. Sandover 03:04, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support. I have studied this phenomenon and find it fascinating. A landsat photo of Von Kármán vorticies adorns my desktop.-Casito⇝Talk 07:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Promoted animation. --brian0918™ 23:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sahara satellite.jpg

Not a self nom. I definitely think this image fills the striking/impressive, as welll as the beautiful/fascinating. The image is used at Sahara and demonstrate well the actual immensity of the desert, which many geographical maps does not quite carry over. - Circeus 13:17, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Circeus 13:17, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is actually a satellite-falsecolor composite as part of the Living Earth] project. It is manufactured. --Kitch 17:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed a satellite false-color image, as are Image:Mars_Valles_Marineris.jpeg, Image:Antarctica_satellite_globe.jpg, Image:Eagle_Nebula_-_NASA.jpg, and Image:Sunspot_TRACE.jpg (all featured already). There are many other mosaics, false-color images, and evendiagrams, if you can imagine, that have been featured. I don't think "manufactured" (presuably meaning by a more sophisticated process than capture by photographic film, development, scanning, cropping, and photoshop editing) is a reasonable criterion by which to judge potential Featured Pictures; no such criterion appears anywhere on the instructions. This picture provides an accurate and striking representation of the Sahara desert. --Andrew 21:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Note particularly the image Image:PearlHarbor_Sm.jpg (already featured) which is a false-color composite image of a geographical region. (Much less striking in my opinion). --Andrew 21:14, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Good God, what have we done? --Andrew 21:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • We have done nothing. The desertification of Northern Africa is an entirely natural process, and is no more under our control than the glaciation of once-tropical Antarctica. Denni☯ 00:44, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Upon further reading I see that the issue is certainly not as clear-cut as I thought it was. Oops. This discussion doesn't belong here anyway, so I'll drop it. In any case, the image is certainly striking! --Andrew 02:52, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Support I don't care how it was produced, the one question is : Does this pic illustrate particularly well the extent of the Sahara Desert. Answer YES! - Adrian Pingstone 22:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support -Oh heavens it's "manufactured"! What exactly was he expecting, a handpainted watercolor by astronaut? It's a very good image.--Deglr6328 00:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- BRIAN0918  02:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support -So the picture is manufactured. So what? The machine that took the picture was manufactured. For that matter, so is the machine that we are all viewing it on. I don't see what the big deal is. TomStar81 09:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support False-color image does not negate the extent of desertification in north Africa. Denni☯ 21:05, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
• Support. If it's a false-color image, that should be mentioned on the image page, and perhaps in the caption, but it in no way decreases the impact of the image on the article. —Korath (Talk) 19:14, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 23:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support OK, it's a false colour image... Note on the description page and some captions should be enough. WB 05:13, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• support --SPUI (talk) 08:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: An uncropped, immense (8460x8900) version of this image showing the whole of Africa is at commons:Image:Africa satellite plane.jpg. (There's a much smaller version at that name here, currently on IFD.) —Korath (Talk) 01:20, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• • Promoted. +12/-1 --brian0918™ 23:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adult citrus root weevil

One of the sharper insect images in the ARS gallery. Currently featured at Curculionidae. The coloring has been changed from the original version that I uploaded, but I'll support either. -  BRIAN0918  02:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  02:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support -THIS is the beetle pic I was waiting for to support! :)--Deglr6328 06:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very good. Enochlau 08:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Fir0002 10:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Good stuff. Longhair | Talk 11:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful! Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Cool bug. --jacobolus (t) 23:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice. Jonathunder 19:37, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
• I wavered and wobbled on the weevil, but now Support it. Sandover 03:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Promoted. +9/-0. --brian0918™ 22:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mites

Three particularly striking images of various mites created with a low-temp scanning electron microscope (LT-SEM; see snow crystal series below). I emailed the group and they gave me access to high-res versions for addition to Wikipedia (images are public domain). Please place them in order of preference for promotion (or we could always promote more than one of them). One or all of them can be placed in at least mite. -  BRIAN0918  22:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  22:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support #3, #2, neutral #1, oppose #3. At least, I hope I oppose #3, since it's on the basis of the scale: a 120mm bar would make the tick more than a foot long, and I don't even want to think about that. —Korath (Talk) 23:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've sent them an email about it. It's probably supposed to be micrometers. Vote assuming that it will be corrected (and if it isn't, we'll just look at your votes for the others) -- BRIAN0918  23:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was trying to be amusing. I'll support #3 as well if it's corrected. —Korath (Talk) 23:29, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support number 1, What a cute little feller! Denni☯ 01:32, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
• Ick factor partially mitigated by color schemes. I support the third, as well as the second image. Sandover 06:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aceria, Brevipalpus, Tuckerella is my order of preference, but all of these mites deserve to be better known. Sandover 04:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support all (if mm scale is corrected). Order of preference: 2, 1, 3. Junes 20:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support - 2, 1, 3. Are these false-color images? I'm not sure how electron microscopes work (time for me to check out the article). Ground 22:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • They are indeed false color, as all SEM photos with color are. So there are some aesthetic considerations to be taken here as well :) Denni☯ 00:18, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
• I uploaded the fixed version of #3. It was micrometers. -- BRIAN0918  22:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support any, but three featured pics of mites would be excessive. No order of preference. Mark¹ 02:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support 2 (showing the most depth, nice composition), 1 (because of the color), 3 (too flat, still great ick factor). 3 featured mite would be too much indeed. I think it's best to promote the pic that comes out on top. : ) Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The scale is unreadable when the image is thumbnailed. (Should be easy to fix.) Gdr 13:43, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  • Why should it have to be readable in a thumbnailed version? Isn't the point of a thumbnail to prevent the page from being overly large in filesize? These ones aren't even thumbs, but 200px wide. I doubt you could get the text to be readable at 150px. -- BRIAN0918  14:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It needs to be readable at the size the image appears in the article, say 300px. I mean "thumbnailed" generically, not specifically 150px. Gdr 16:54, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
      • I don't agree that it needs to be readable at the size shown in the article. There doesn't even necessarily have to be a scale with the image, if it is stated separately in the article (see the spider example below, and other insect examples). -- BRIAN0918  17:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support #1 strikingly beautiful Circeus 23:26, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support in order of 1,2,3. I don't think that it matters that the acutal scale value be readable. There could easily be a sentence in the caption that states the white line represents x um. Also, is it stated what the surfaces that they were taken on were? --Aqua 17:17, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • The first one is a tea stem. The others, it doesn't say. -- BRIAN0918  18:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support in the order 1,2,3. I have absolutely no problem with the scale. Even on a thumbnail it is clear that it is a scale and you can click through to see the figures or put them in the caption. Increasing the font size for any potential scaling would spoil the large scale views. And oh how complicated multiple nominations get. This one will be a real headache to figure out which image to promote. -- Solipsist 07:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Hehehe.. that's why I do it. I actually put them in the order i preferred. Even though 2 or 3 is probably the better picture (you see the mite's structure), I just really like the first one. -- BRIAN0918  22:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support 1 2 3. Wow. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 22:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support 2,1,3. Very nice --Fir0002 23:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Peacock mite, Tuckerella sp.jpg. Barely beat #2. --brian0918™ 22:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ambersweet oranges

The original version of this image was low-res and had some weird artifacts. So, I cleaned up the source version and uploaded over it. Currently featured at orange (fruit) and Vitamin C. -  BRIAN0918  11:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  11:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It looks a little too much like stock-art to me. What makes this striking enough to be featured? I mean, the lighting is fine, the arrangement is unoffensive, but beyond that... ? --Fastfission 14:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The detail, I suppose. See Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs for other examples which aren't necessarily striking but are high in detail and illustrate articles well. -- BRIAN0918  14:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice pic, but not striking enough for Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 18:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "Striking" is just one of the possible criteria. How can a picture of an orange ever be considered "striking"? The orange isnt gonna shoot ninja stars at you and do roundhouse kicks. What does Image:Plums.jpg have that this is lacking? -- BRIAN0918  18:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose have to agree, not striking, since you asked. It's a bowl of oranges, the plum pic is 1. on the tree still giving it a more lifelike/less posed feel 2. vibrant in multiple colors. 3 character is added by the water droplets. I do think that there exists a striking pic of oranges somewhere in this world, but this is not it. Cavebear42 19:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I would say the droplets give it a visual quality. Demi ^T/_C 19:54, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  • That's strange, the pic has no droplets on it! - Adrian Pingstone 20:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The ones I see are covered in water drops. Maybe increase the gamma/contrast/brightness on your monitor -- BRIAN0918  20:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • There are definitely droplets there. BrokenSegue 21:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm strongly biased to very high-resolution images like this one, and I don't see any technical flaws, and it's a good illustration for the orange (fruit) article, but the arrangement is boring - the four split halves are just too many - and the more interesting details aren't at all visible except at full resolution. I think OrangeBloss wb.jpg is a better composition and Blood oranges.jpg has more interesting subject matter than this, though neither of those are up to featured quality. In Vitamin C, an image with more than just one kind of citrus fruit would be more appropriate. This falls into the grey area where I'd support it if it were taken by a Wikipedian, but since it's from an outside source, it's not quite good enough. —Korath (Talk) 22:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Odd arrangement. Junes 20:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I love the detail, but it just doesn't meet featured pic criteria. Enochlau 01:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I like the detail and the colours. Halibutt 08:16, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Bevo 19:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support BrokenSegue 21:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted . +4/-6. --brian0918™ 21:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sprinkler

Although they aren't special sprinklers in that they are your common or garden type, but I think the lighting on the water droplets looks pretty cool

• Support. No. 2. Self Nom --Fir0002 21:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, they do absolutely nothing for me. Denni☯ 00:15, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
• Oppose. — Matt Crypto 01:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose No way could this be a Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 13:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think this is fairly common sight... it doesn't need to be a featured picture. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -Boring/uninteresting.--Deglr6328 06:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - nothing special Brookie 10:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted . +1/-6. --brian0918™ 14:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Common whipping

This diagram, contributed by User:Hella, is used to illustrate common whipping, and I think it's simple, effective and elegant. There are actually five images here (helps with the captioning, I guess) but I suggest they be treated as a single image (they could easily be concatenated, of course). — Matt Crypto 01:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and Support. — Matt Crypto 01:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Should first be combined in a single pic. Until then, oppose. An informative and clear diagram. Support Circeus 23:28, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, unless some way can be found to make this image any of beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant. Merely illustrative is not adequate. Denni☯ 18:46, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
• Well I'll take the opposite tack - support - lovely illustration. But I don't see how it could be promoted and used on Pic of the Day unless the images were combined into one for this forum (the combined image wouldn't have to be placed on the article). -- Solipsist 06:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • uploaded a combined version (as it was drawn originaly anyway) - but I prefere them (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) separate in the common whipping article (easier to arange text around). --Hella 10:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC), who feels honoured to be nominated (but I did it only for illustrating/tutoring, not for winning anything)
• Oppose. Good but not great. ed g2s • talk 14:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm usually a firm defender of diagrams as featured pictures, but this not very special. Junes 08:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - this is a good diagram, not the best of W/P, but nevertheless is clear, and informative. Oliver Keenan 16:38, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) Oppose having considered the authors (Hella's) comments above. Oliver Keenan 16:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +3/-4/0 Leonardo 04:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Navajo sheep and weaver

Just a historical photograph. Wikipedia always needs more pictures of non-Euro-American cultures.

William Pennington took this photograph sometime between 1904 and 1932. Digitally provided by the Denver Public Library.

Used on the Navajo Nation article. — ishwar  (SPEAK) 01:38, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. First vote here - — ishwar  (SPEAK) 01:38, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
• Oppose; fair-use image. —Korath (Talk) 04:41, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry, don't find it to be particularly filling a criteria. Oppose Circeus 23:29, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fair-use images aren't elligible for Featured Pictures, although I'm not so sure that the license is correct. It could be old enough for ((PD-art-US)) or similar, though this isn't clear. However, although it is historically interesting, I don't find it a very captivating image, and it seems to have been removed from the Navajo Nation article. The Image:Navajo medicine man.jpg there is rather good, but I recall seeing some other marvelous Edward Curtis photographs of tribal chiefs. It is surprising they are not already on the Curtis article, but they could be other articles in Wikipedia already (and yes we have recently had Curtis' Image:Zuni-girl-with-jar2.png). -- Solipsist 07:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +1/-3/0. Leonardo 04:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Book of Hours

Although this is not the most fanous Book of Hours (that would be the Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, I like this image because it gives the viewer a much better feel of the "bookness" of an illuminated manuscript. Too often pages are reproduced in isolation as if they were painted on canvas and hung on a wall. This is used in Book of Hours (Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, Cod. 470). I scanned the image from, Illuminated Manuscripts: The Book before Gutenberg by Giulia Bologna, and uploaded it. - Dsmdgold 02:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Dsmdgold 02:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Very reluctant oppose. I don't think ((PD-art)) applies. The additional pages keep this from being strictly a reproduction of a two-dimensional work. See Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation. —Korath (Talk) 04:48, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support if the tag can be agreed as appropriate. Circeus 23:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• reluctant oppose. Unfortunately I agree with Korath. Its may be a grey area between 2D and 3D, but the inclusion of a frame in a photograph of 2D painting is considered a problem and this situation is similar (more accurately, I suspect that the inclusion of 3D elements in the photo makes the Bridgeman Art ruling less applicable, although it probably hasn't been tested in a court case). We could try nominating Image:Les Tres Riches Heurs F2r.jpg instead, but I'm not convinced there is sufficient quality in that scan. -- Solipsist 07:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• After some consideration, I'm afraid I agree with Korath also. I'm going to switch the tag to ((fairuse)) and am withdrawing this nomination. I also don't think that Image:Les Tres Riches Heurs F2r.jpg is a good enough scan to be featured. Dsmdgold 13:33, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted , withdrawn Leonardo 04:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

F-15 Eagle

Pretty simple. An F-15 Eagle. Striking/beautiful/fascinating/etc. -  BRIAN0918  05:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  05:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Nice shot! TomStar81 05:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic! --Fir0002 07:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Wow ! JoJan 10:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very impressive. Could use a caption in the article, though the source doesn't give much to go on. (Here's a link to the relevant back issue. Interesting reading.) —Korath (Talk) 11:25, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

• I did some research, and have a bit more infromation, I will be updating the picture. PPGMD 15:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Are you sure the photo is by that person? I know that's what it said in the back issue, but I thought they were talking about the photo OF the back cover, not the photo ON the back cover. Do staff sargents normally go up in planes and take pictures? No clue. -- BRIAN0918  15:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• If the Staff Sargent's role is as a photographer, he typically does up on a regular basis. And here's where is says, that he took the photo [2] PPGMD 15:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support, that's what I call striking! Mgm|^(talk) 21:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 07:53, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• support --SPUI (talk) 08:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful. --Spangineer ∞ 20:13, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm surprised that no one has complained that the horizon isn't flat ;-) Well alright support - the horizon is about 5° off, but it doesn't really bother me that much. I dare say the F-15 can climb vertically even if this one isn't quite managing it. -- Solipsist 07:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very good pic. --Electricmoose 17:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Incredible! --rlwelch

Promoted Image:F-15 vertical deploy.jpg +12 / 0 -- Solipsist 16:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Parachuting

Interesting pic that shows the sequence of motion involved in a static parachute jump. Currently featured at parachuting. -  BRIAN0918  07:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  07:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Striking and well composed. Dysprosia 07:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Full-res is impressive; however, at the size presented in the article, this contributes less than any of the other three pictures. —Korath (Talk) 08:11, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Made the pics larger. If it's still not satisfactory, please be more specific. -- BRIAN0918  08:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's an improvement. But I still feel the other pictures illustrate the article better. Sorry. —Korath (Talk) 08:33, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • I like it more because it actually shows the parachute deploying in 3 steps. -- BRIAN0918  08:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support to cancel out the evil photonazi cabal. --SPUI (talk) 08:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? —Korath (Talk) 08:33, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Good first person view. TomStar81 08:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support What SPUI said. AngryParsley 08:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Wow! - Adrian Pingstone 08:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The photo takes me right into it. Support. Sandover 09:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Cool --Fir0002 09:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support very nice. Gentgeen 21:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support not outta spite, b/c its a good pic and worthy Cavebear42 21:12, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support nice action shot. -- Solipsist 07:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Nice illustrative shot. Janderk 15:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:C-130 EODMU-11 static jump 2004.jpg +10 / -1 -- Solipsist 16:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whitewater kayaking

A much better image for Whitewater kayaking than the original low quality, ((unknown)) photo... even if the guy's got an odd look on his face. I'd probably be doing the same thing in that situation. :)  BRIAN0918  08:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  08:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support, kayaking Hitler beats photonazis any day. --SPUI (talk) 08:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Superb detail, particularly the clarity of the water droplets --Fir0002 09:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Suport I usully only vote on wiki original photos but these 2 navy pics are awesome. Cavebear42 21:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I concur about the water droplets. Enochlau 01:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. This one is a bit like the earlier surfing nomination - its a nice action shot but the lighting is little disappointing. In this case, the framing is a bit of a problem too. -- Solipsist 08:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Apart from the very sharp water, it doesn't have much going for it. Too much grey. ed g2s • talk 14:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Definitely brilliant. Circeus 23:47, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm sorry, but that guy's face simply detracts me from the image too much. Junes 12:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The cropping is not of a featured level and I would like to see a more impressive rapid for such a picture. Janderk 15:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too-tight cropping, an unimpressive thumbnail, and the comical expression are all minor issues, but taken together, they keep this from featured quality. —Korath (Talk) 14:07, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Bevo 15:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +6 / -5 -- Solipsist 16:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apricot blossom detail

I took this pic a few weeks ago and uploaded it to commons. Brian0918 cleaned up some of the problems in the sky, and I really like the result. The image is used in Apricot. - Gentgeen 09:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Gentgeen 09:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Not your average flower pic (1 flower in focus per pic). I'm still not sure how some of those shadows were made.  :)  BRIAN0918  15:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Mmmm, not bad. Support. --SPUI (talk) 15:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's just something not appealling to my eye about the positioning of the flowers... a little too cluttered. Enochlau 01:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it is the fill-in flash that makes it look a little odd to me. There also appears to be a drop shadow against the sky, which is presumably a digital camera artifact. The composition on the non-falsh version is nicer, although this one is more successful overall. -- Solipsist 08:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This is just a run-of-the-mill photo, certainly not FP standard. There are much better photos of flowers to be found. Just take a look at List of Orchidaceae genera, where some strikingly beautiful photos are to be found. JoJan 15:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks artificial. Junes 08:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +3 / -4 -- Solipsist 16:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grass flower head

Meadow Foxtail grass Alopecurus pratensis

Took this photo near a river I was going to go swimming in.

Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support Circeus 13:16, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• I couldn't resist trying to clean up such a nice pic. It'd probably be best if you uploaded a much less compressed version from your camera; this one looks really artifacty. I'll support either version, though. -- BRIAN0918  15:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks Brian for your edit. I've uploaded the original, but the jpeg quality on that isn't too impressive as my camera isn't all that great. If you want to waste any more time on this pic here is the original Original Meadow Foxtail grass head
• Oppose I do not find this any of beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant. Since these are the criteria... Denni☯ 18:40, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
• Support. I like the detail in the grass stem. Very instructive. Enochlau 01:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you to User:MPF for identifying my misnamed canary grass as 'Meadow Foxtail'--Fir0002 04:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing special. ed g2s • talk 14:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Just not striking - Adrian Pingstone
• Support original version. Looks dull as dishwater until you look at the high-res version. Lupin 22:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support either version. Junes 08:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - nothing special Brookie 10:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +4 / -4 -- Solipsist 16:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Radome

Nicely illustrates Radome. -  BRIAN0918  16:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  16:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful! Mgm|^(talk) 22:12, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Execelent! TomStar81 23:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good. Enochlau 01:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very nice--Fir0002 04:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Passes my desktop wallpaper test with flying colors. —Korath (Talk) 04:47, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- Solipsist 08:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The red light is blurry. The people are blurry and too dark. Definitely not a quality photo. Support. --SPUI (talk) 15:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Joke or mistake? Mark¹ 02:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, that support was not a mistake. No comment on the rest. --SPUI (talk) 02:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Ha ha. Mark¹ 05:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support- The red light is blurred because it's so much brighter than everything else it became oversaturated and the people are blurry because they're walking! Unavoidable consequences of a necessarily long exposure shot. --Deglr6328 17:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The red light is jarring. Mark¹ 05:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Of course. ed g2s • talk 14:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support Never mind the blurry red light. JoJan 15:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Navy-Radome.jpg +10 / -1 -- Solipsist 16:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crimson Sunset

A beautiful sunset

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 04:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support #2. Magnificent shots. Circeus 15:17, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Can you upload a less compressed (larger file-size) version of the 2nd image? If so, I'll support that. -- BRIAN0918  15:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. They are both good shots, but neither has the definition or drama of your own FP sunset Image:Sunset.jpg (although the tinge of purple in #2 is nice). There's also an unnecessary number of pictures on the sunset page. I've uploaded image:CambridgeSunset.jpg on Commons, but couldn't see a space for it on that page. -- Solipsist 21:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Solipsist - a sunset picture has to be mighty good to make the cut, and while this is pretty, it's nothing special compared to what we've seen before. Denni☯ 23:42, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with above. Enochlau 09:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - colours are nice but nothing special --Brookie 10:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Like 2nd pic most, colours are amazing. --Electricmoose 17:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +3 / -4 with preference for second. -- Solipsist 16:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Chicago top down view.png

Self-nomination. Used on multilevel streets in Chicago. I made it because I could find no map, commercial or otherwise, that accurately shows this street layout. I'd like any comments, positive or negative. I had hoped to get help on improving it from Commons, but FPC there is almost as dead as BSD.

• Nominate and support. - SPUI (talk) 11:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support a cool nd clear map. Circeus 15:19, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- BRIAN0918  15:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. More extensive comments on SPUI's talk page. —Korath (Talk) 18:01, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments and suggestions; I've made some changes to the diagram/map. --SPUI (talk) 19:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Suppport #1 original now. A clear and informative diagram of a very unclear and confusing area. —Korath (Talk) 22:26, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose #2 version with shadows. Good idea, poor execution. West-to-east level transitions (such at Lake St and Beaubien Ct), the rail on Wabash Ave, and address numbers are especially jarring. —Korath (Talk) 11:08, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a good diagram all right, but I fail to see how it fits any of the criteria of beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant. Denni☯ 18:15, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • "Taking the common saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article." I could easily write a thousand words to describe what this picture shows. Anyway, I'm looking for suggestions for improvement - do you have any or is it your opinion that a diagram like this can never be a featured picture? --SPUI (talk) 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • See also Image:Mtl-metro-map.png, which is mostly an adaptation of the official Montreal metro map. Circeus 16:33, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, it may not be striking, but the informative factor wins it here. Mgm|^(talk) 22:20, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - if anyone's interested in photos of this area, see commons:Multilevel streets in Chicago. --SPUI (talk) 01:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nicely done. ed g2s • talk 14:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose #1, (Support #2 below). Nicely done, but the most effective way to illustrate such an item is not with a 2d representation - a 3d representation or some 3d-ness to the image would be far more effective instead of a colour key. Enochlau 09:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It is represented three-dimensionally. The view is almost top-down, but angled slightly to offset the levels. In reality the different levels are directly above each other. If that is not clear from the picture, could you suggest a way to change it so that it is? — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very striking, very informative, beautifully drawn. Very worthy of FP status. Well done! - Adrian Pingstone 14:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I have made an attempt at giving a 3D-representation by applying sideways shadow on the red and yellow levels. Perhaps this will satisfy Enochlau and make him change his mind. JoJan 14:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Eek. That makes it look like all of old LSD is a path, and makes the path crossing the river really hard to see. And the orange ramps looks seriously weird. Nice try (not in a sarcastic way), but... --SPUI (talk) 16:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I support the one with shadows added. What do others think? Enochlau 11:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. — Matt Crypto 23:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support #1. Clear and informative. Junes 14:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support #1 2nd one is not as good, first must have taken hours! --Electricmoose 17:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Chicago top down view.png #1 +10 / -2   ( #2 +8 / -2 ) -- Solipsist 16:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Hemispheric of Valencia, Spain

Self-nomination, now used to illustrate Valencia, Spain. It surprised me to see that there were barely any images of this magnificent monument by Santiago Calatrava, so I uploaded this self taken one.

• Nominate and support. -- Shauri 17:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I've uploaded an auto-leveled, auto-colored version, with some despeckling in the sky. -- BRIAN0918  18:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your nice edit, Brian, I've even swapped the one used in Valencia with the newer version. *Ahem*, does that mean you support either of them? Thx! :) -- Shauri 18:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Image requires a rotate of about 4 degrees, as in version 3. Support rotated image. Denni☯ 23:40, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Support version 3. -- BRIAN0918  01:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I like version 3 better myself. I withdraw the former 2 versions and I'll ask for their deletion, while shifting my support to version 3. -- Shauri 03:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The image description page lacks any descriptive text or licensing information. Enochlau 11:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That happened because it is an alternate version of the one originally posted, which had that information, and indeed the newer version wasn't updated. It now contains all description/license details. -- Shauri 12:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • In any case, oppose. The building in the background (left hand side), and the black bushes in the foreground (bottom right) are distracting and lessen the appeal for this particular picture. It appears that the building is itself magnificent, but perhaps the positioning and the framing of this particular photo is not the best. Enochlau 09:14, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. An adequate pic, but without that WOW factor for a Featured Pic. Sorry - Adrian Pingstone 14:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with Adrian Pingstone. Junes 09:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +3 / -3 -- Solipsist 16:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Multiple Sunsets

More sunset photos which for more variety to the current FPC's, crimson sunset.

• Support 'Dramatic Sunset'. Self Nom. --Fir0002 21:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Must regrettably oppose, as one criterion for FPs is that they accompany an article. None of these do. If you can find a way to get 'dramatic sunset' to fit with an article, I'd be glad to support it. Denni☯ 23:30, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

I added it to the Rayleigh scattering article which I think adds to it well --Fir0002 08:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Good. Then I change my vote to support dramatic sunset. Denni☯ 03:22, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

• I support the grasshead picture, and oppose the others. I think the grasshead one utilises silhouette quite effectively, while in the others, the black overwhelms the picture instead of making it look nice. Enochlau 09:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I will have to oppose. The pics shows too much graininess and artefacts for me. Circeus 03:42, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Support dramatic or golden sunset. No artefacts on my end. Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Support dramatic (1) or grasshead (2). Junes 09:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, I have to oppose. In the case of the dramatic sunset because I think one picture per hill is enough, and in the case of the grasshead because it's hard to distinguish the ground from the clouds. Junes 13:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Nice, but there's already a very similar sunset image in the featured pictures section. I added it for easy comparison. Could it be that the currently featured sunset is even taken at the same hill as the dramatic sunset? I support the dramatic sunset if it replaces the current featured sunset. Janderk 16:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes this sunset is taken from the same position as the previous FP sunset --Fir0002 09:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +4 / -3 -- Solipsist 16:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Solanum pseudocapsicum

Two images which show the deadly fruit of the pseudocapsicum to good effect.

• Support Original. Self Nom. --Fir0002 22:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, an excellent picture but I can't support it with only one fruit in focus. Would it have been possible to get two or more in the frame and in focus? - Adrian Pingstone 14:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I find it brilliant and striking. My only grip would be the leaf part that is out of focus just over left of the fruit, which I find a bit distracting. Support edited pic (don't forget to have it illustrate an article...) Circeus 03:38, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing that makes me go "Wow!" Denni☯ 01:16, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Not promoted +2 / -2 insufficient votes for concensus -- Solipsist 16:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Morro Bay Docks

I find this photo to be well composed, have good use of natural lighting, and clearly illustrate its subject. Used in Morro Bay, California, photo by User:Ivan --ChrisRuvolo 05:39, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. --ChrisRuvolo 05:39, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. A nice photo, especially on the left, but I doesn't quite invoke the wow factor in me. Also, somewhat low res. Enochlau 09:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. A nice pic but no WOW factor as Enochlau said - Adrian Pingstone 14:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• While I concur it is a beautiful pic, it doesn't reach the brilliant. oppose Circeus 03:34, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, the right side is too dark to make anything out. Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted , +1/-4/0 BrokenSegue 19:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Angels Flight.jpg

Used on Angels Flight, funicular and gantlet track. I feel this is a nice photo of a rather interesting topic. Photo from PD Photo.org.

• Nominate and support. --SPUI (talk) 10:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The light in the foreground was a bit too dark. I've brightened it up somewhat and also sharpened a little bit the image. JoJan 14:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • New version is much worse. It's been shrunk, and lightening loses detail in the highlights. --jacobolus (t) 02:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing here to make me go "wow". Denni☯ 01:11, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a cool thing, but the composition of this photo isn't spectacular. --jacobolus (t) 02:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Needs perspective correction, and too busy. The sign in the lower right and the staircase landing and foliage on the lower left are especially distracting. —Korath (Talk) 01:26, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with above. Enochlau 03:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +1/-4 BrokenSegue 14:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photo art.triddle.jpg

This image was a collaborative effort on the part of User:Codedelectron and myself. The image was placed in Photography, Shutter speed, and Night photography. I believe this image fits night photography particularly well because such an image is only possible at night. Also I have done my best to describe in detail in the photograph's info page how such a photograph is possible and how this one was created. I believe this photograph creates not only a visually stunning appeal but also can engage the viewer in thought if they wish. - Triddle 02:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Self nomination - Triddle 02:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This pic is sloping badly which, even if intended, looks wrong. In any case I can't find any interest in it at all. Sorry! - Adrian Pingstone 18:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well done, I've just realised it's an April First joke. You caught me!! - Adrian Pingstone 21:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually thats not true, this isn't an april fool's joke. Triddle 22:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Deep apologies, I looked at the date on the calendar and drew a totally unwarranted conclusion. Sorry again - Adrian Pingstone 22:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, though it's certainly quite interesting. Maybe if were rotated and cropped? Also, I'm no photographer - is the blurriness a focus/camera shake problem, or a necessary result of long exposure? —Korath (Talk) 01:19, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose totally Why do people even submit stuff like this? Denni☯ 02:51, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • I can speak only for myself but I doubt you get submissions from people who expect commentary like this. Triddle 06:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • A wise man once said, "one man's trash is another man's treasure". You would do well to keep that in mind when viewing media submitted here or elsewhere. TomStar81 05:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Uninteresting. Sloping horizon. Enochlau 03:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Oh admit it we've all taken one of these. (sorry, just not nearly good enough for featured)--Deglr6328 21:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very interesting picture, long shutter gives good effect. --Electricmoose 18:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's all been said above, but I don't think we have one of this effect in the featured list. I'd like to see a long exposure of a more crowded street (maybe a freeway?) at night nominated. Matthewcieplak 09:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, there's too much dark in this image for my liking, and the composition is not great with the light trails stopping before the centre of the image. If they went all the way from bottom left to top right I think it would be much more striking. I have a photo similar to this, you can see it here. I would be happy to upload that if anyone thinks it would be good for an article. Worldtraveller 14:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No I say. Jonas Olson 15:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +2/-8 BrokenSegue 20:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/20070415055033!Frederic Chopin photo.jpeg

Pakoras

I took this picture to illustrate Pakora and I was quite pleased with how it turned out. Even if it's not up to Featured Picture standards, I welcome suggestions for how to improve this or future photographs. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• (Self-)nominate and support. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. -Image could be very nice if contrast/brightness/gamma were appropriately adjusted, it's a little dark. It does look delicious though....damnit! now I have to go get a korma for dinner! :o)--Deglr6328 21:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I tried lightening it in Photoshop, although I know very little about that type of adjustment. I'm not sure if I like it, though, because the colors don't seem as real. If someone knows more about this he is welcome to help. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Here's my attempt. (3rd) I've lightened and centered the image and applied an unsharp mask to the nearest bits. One problem though, I can't tell if the colors are too off because I'm uhhh, rather deficient in that area. :) The batter on ones I've had though is quite orangey and I don't think this is too awful a representation...--Deglr6328 23:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I like your version. In fact, after this is over, I may switch the article to use that one instead. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - informative but not terribly visually appealing. Lupin 22:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Lupin. I think featured pictures of dishes should be as good as those used in cookbooks. This image fails that test. Junes 08:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - just not interesting or striking - Adrian Pingstone 08:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes it doesn't pass the cookbook test, and the entire dish isn't in focus. Enochlau 11:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +1/-4/1 BrokenSegue 16:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Camps Bay, Cape Town, South Africa

I am self-nominating this image because I believe it is striking: the hard rocks and crashing waves contrast with the soft mist rolling off Table Mountain.

It was taken in late-September 2000 which is early spring in South Africa, so it shows a different, more atmospheric side to Camps Bay compared to the traditional sunny and touristy image that people might have.

I believe it contributes significantly to the article on Camps Bay because without it people would not be able to see what Camps Bay looks like. - Etimbo | Talk 20:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Self-Nominate and support. - Etimbo | Talk 20:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not really striking. Lupin 22:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Small photo looks OK, but the full res photo isn't of sufficient

quailty.--Fir0002 23:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support - I liked it --Brookie 10:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - very striking pic, and the 640 by 480 pic is in decent focus - Adrian Pingstone 08:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose not that interesting; a bit drab. Junes 09:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Drab, whitewashed on the bottom right in the waves. Enochlau 10:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Easily passes my desktop wallpaper test. There's plenty of definition in the lower right at full resolution, and the spray's captured particularly nicely. —Korath (Talk) 11:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Easily captured my attention. TomStar81 05:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +5/-4 BrokenSegue 16:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CAGrave

I believe this image should become a featured article because it an altogether interesting image. The use of black and white, gives the image an aged and slightly eerie effect. The shadows and storm clouds in the picture also add a spooky affect. The image is used in pages:

• Cemetery
• Headstone
• Castle Ashby
• User:Brookie

The Image was taken by R.N.Marshman, aka User:Brookie) on 12 March 2005.

10:38, 2 Apr 2005

• Nominate and support. Great image, has the 'wow' factor, definately should be featured picture. --Electricmoose 10:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Brill pic. --Tobymarshman 11:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support! I can just feel the atmosphere. Mgm|^(talk) 12:02, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing really special with it, is it? Please explain to an amateur. Jonas Olson 13:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Brookie here the photographer - you have the menacing clouds in the background the mulitple image of the crosses all set off in B+W all aimed to create a spooky and atmospheric picture - and don't we get a little spooked in graveyards? I do! - does that help? Brookie 17:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• SupportGreat picture Brookie, sure featured picture material. Cyberlettuce 14:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If I as the photographer am allowed to vote, I support the nomination and am flattered by the nomination -it is one of my favourite pictures. Support Brookie 17:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, spooky indeed. Leonardo 21:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think the graveyard is on a hill, but it's hard to tell and this makes the picture feel wonky. I don't like the big shadow on the central gravestone either, especially as we can't see the object whose shadow this is. Yes it's atmospheric, but the composition leaves a little to be desired in my opinion. Lupin 22:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The graveyard is not on a hill at all - it is quite flat. The point of the photo is that you can only see the shadow of another unseen grave.Brookie 08:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose I second Lupin's sentiments and at full res the photo doens't look so good. Personally I don't find graves or graveyards creepy, but that's maybe because I'm not into horror movies :) --Fir0002 23:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support McGnasher 13:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - refreshingly different - Adrian Pingstone 08:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Whether or not the location is tilted, the photo certainly is. The headstone appears to be the source of alignment, but is washed out, rendering the detail too bright or too dim to make out. I also find the composition somewhat off-putting, but that's about the only "creepy" thing I see about it. Matthewcieplak 09:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although the storm clouds combined with the trees do create a kind of atmosphere, I find the sloping horizon and the lack of detail on the tombstone a problem. Enochlau 11:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Wow! --Bricktop 10:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Composition completely offsets graininess and slight lack of focus. Circeus 17:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Grainy, washed out headstone. Junes 08:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• support but im sure that you meant featured pic not featured article.Cavebear42 18:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted CAGrave.JPG BrokenSegue 16:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cat in Greece

This picture was a picture of the day on March 26. I though it looked sub par and discovered it apparently never went through the FPC process. User:Fabiform gave it ((FeaturedPicture)) back in October, but no FPC process appear, the pic is also linked only from Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs and Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible, but no other FP list.

We've already gone through the collection looking for pictures that weren't nominated. If you look at the archive for this talk page you would find this one was nominated here: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_candidates/March-2004#Greece-Cat.jpg, although at that time 3 votes were enough to get it through. ed g2s • talk 16:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find it to be unfocused and stuffed with unacceptable artefacts (for a FP). I must admit the composition is nice though. Circeus 00:55, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delist Circeus 00:55, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Denni☯ 01:21, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
• Support Delisting--Fir0002 05:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I find that the composition is more than worth it. Enochlau 04:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• if composition is enough over quality, what of Sognefjord and Cat's eye? This pic certainly won't have me go "wow!", it's just too low quality, despite an interesting composition. Circeus 17:14, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delist. Boring. ed g2s • talk 16:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I thought it was an evocative picture - I wanted to be there Brookie 10:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Bevo 19:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gotta love the atmosphere. Junes 12:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Refreshingly charming. Sandover 06:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delist. As much as I like this photo, it's got jpeg artifacts all over the sky, they focus is not great (though the compression makes it tough to tell) and the lighting is not especially appealing. Matthewcieplak 05:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delist. Low resolution and not exciting. Jonas Olson 15:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Kept, 5 delists/ 6 keeps BrokenSegue 12:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Microwaved DVD

Place a CD or DVD in a microwave oven for 5 seconds, and you get some interesting phenomena. Induced current heats up the metal, vaporizing it in places. Current then passes through this gas, creating sparks, which leave their paths on the disk. As paths come together, islands of untouched metal remain, and if these islands are too large, become split by more paths. Fractal and azimuthal branching patterns result.

The first image shows off the full effect, while the second is the result of quick timing on my part, and shows exactly how these paths form, as well as much clearer examples of fractal branching. These pictures are currently featured in fractal and microwave oven, and there are probably a few other appropriate articles. - brian0918™ 09:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - brian0918™ 09:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support interesting picture, support 1st pic more than 2nd, should be featured picture.

--Electricmoose 12:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support #1, but the pic needs to illustrate an article (a criteria for featuring). Circeus 14:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've placed the 2nd pic in Fractal but the first can be there instead if it comes to that. --brian0918™ 16:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's also featured in Microwave oven now. --brian0918™ 18:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - ordinary. Lupin 15:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • So are you saying that it's impossible for pictures of certain things to ever be a featured picture? We we through the same ordeal with Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lincoln cent --brian0918™ 15:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No. If you re-read my extensive one-word critique above, you'll find that nowhere do I put this argument forward. Lupin 20:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • So you're suggesting that you would support a picture of a DVD for featured picture status, provided that it was more striking/beautiful/etc? --brian0918™ 20:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Naturally, I would support a picture of any object, provided it met the criteria for my support. I would of course have to see the picture in question to be able to make that judgement. Lupin 21:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, nice --SPUI (talk) 17:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, picture is interesting - it's a DVD, sure, but it's not as if it's a picture of it in a DVD player or something. Yelyos 18:16, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting picture, but does not illustrate an article. Denni☯ 18:29, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • The picture is currently featured in Fractal and Microwave oven under the appropriate sections. --brian0918™ 18:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Placing these photos with these articles is a bit of a stretch, IMO, since their relation to fractals is tangential at best and to microwave ovens not at all. My vote does not change. Denni☯ 03:28, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
      • Did you notice where in the articles I placed the image? For fractals, I placed it in the gallery of examples of fractals occurring by natural or artificial means. Its relation to fractals is not tangential. The arc paths on the CD form by fractal branching, in the same way that the other examples of fractals on that page form. In the microwave oven article, it's in the section which talks about electric arcs caused by placing metal in the microwave oven. You can go to the articles and read for yourself and determine if they illustrate those sections. --brian0918™ 03:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I did, prior to making the last comment. My sentiment remains the same. Denni☯ 23:52, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
• I'm not trying to be difficult, but maybe you should be submitting to commons:Commons:Featured pictures. That is supposed to be a gallery of striking, beautiful, etc. pictures. This is supposed to be a gallery of pictures that illustrate articles well and are striking, beautiful, etc.. I don't really think it's appropriate to nominate a picture here hoping someone will find an appropriate page and integrate it. I think pictures shouldn't be submitted here unless (or until) they illustrate an article well; we can then go see how much it helps the article. (The Chopin photo is a good example: it's ugly, but it's the only picture of him there is). This is not stated in the instructions for this page, but perhaps it should be added (after suitable discussion). --Andrew 22:13, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • The image is featured at fractal and microwave oven as I stated above, in the appropriate sections. Several pictures have become FP here which are still not in articles. This one is in articles. --brian0918™ 22:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Doesn't strike me as that interesting. Seems to have been shoe-horned into articles. ed g2s • talk 04:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • See my comments above. --brian0918™ 04:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I can read thankyou. You don't have to have a comeback for everyone who disagrees with your nomination. ed g2s • talk 20:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, your statement was so short and so incorrect that I figured you had no clue what was going on. --brian0918™ 20:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • The general etiquette here is to make all your points in your vote, and have a certain amount of respect for other people's votes. Assuming that every person who disagrees with you "has no clue what [is] going on" is going to lose you a lot of good will. ed g2s • talk 01:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I really like the pictures, but I also somewhat agree with Denni, ed_g2s and Andrew. The images are featured in articles, but they don't illustrate them very well. They are not very good illustrations of fractals, because we have to look in the details to actually see fractal patterns. Also, it is a little strange, when we look at the article microwave oven, and the only picture we see apart from the oven is a burnt DVD! --Bernard Helmstetter 15:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The lines on the DVD form through fractal branching. Not just the small lines, all of them. The larger squares become divided, and divided again. The smaller fractals of which you speak are just what you more commonly think of in association with the word "fractal". As for the microwave, I'm not responsible for the lack of other images in the article, and I think people are more interested in the text than the pictures. In any case, the picture is perfect for the section. The only thing that might be better would be a photo of the DVD as it is being irradiated. --brian0918™ 16:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, a photo of a DVD being irradiated, that would even better! There is one animated gif in [3], but it is low quality. Apart from this — The lines on the DVD are fractal only in a weak sense of the term. A fractal must have infinite detail. Here, what we first see is a slightly random but mostly regular grid pattern, and then only about 2 or 3 levels of self-similarity. There are only a few areas that really look like true fractals. Would you suggest that the infinite details are too small to be seen on the photo? I am not even sure that they exist. In my opinion, these images are not so interesting because they illustrate fractals or explain the workings of a microwave oven. What is most interesting is the physical process of the DVD being irradiated. There is only a small explanation of it in the wiki, and it is in the info of the image. I am asking myself questions like "why would microwaves induce currents in the aluminium layer? Why shaped this way?" and I cannot find any answer in the wiki, so I am a little unsatisfied. --Bernard Helmstetter 17:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • You're only going to get infinite detail in a theoretical (ie: mathematical) fractal. None of the other examples at fractal have infinite details either, but they're all good examples, because they were all constructed with a simple fractal pattern in mind. In the case of the DVD, as I stated in the beginning, arcs trace out nonconductive paths (where the aluminum has been vaporized), and once those paths come together, they split the non-vaporized parts up into islands. So, the whole surface gets divided into smaller surfaces. If these islands are too big, arcs can form again, and you get those islands dividing up into smaller islands, and so on. --brian0918™ 20:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, the patterns are, while ostensibly fractal in nature, not strikingly visible. The photo quality is great, and the phenomenon is interesting enough, but the image itself simply doesn't hit the striking/titillating/whatever holistic category we judge by quite on the head. Matthewcieplak 09:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support 1st, interesting subject, great image; I don't think it's too much of a stretch to include it on the pages it is on now, though perhaps an article more specifically related to this effect would be helpful? --Spangineer ∞ 12:07, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not interesting enough for a featured picture. Plus looks out of place on the fractal and microwave pages. Janderk 20:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes it's a fractal and yes it's made in a microwave, but I just don't find it that fascinating. I've seen prettier/more illustrative fractals around. Enochlau 10:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. They show what happens but they aren't very special. Could we have one with more fractals? Jonas Olson 15:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • All of the lines are fractals, they just don't look like the fractals you're used to. I think that's something everyone's getting confused about. If you want traditional fractals, I think you have to microwave a real CD/DVD, not a CD-R/DVD-R. --brian0918™ 15:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you sure about that? The pattern on the discs doesn't show the self-similarity you would expect, other than in small areas. The big problem is perhaps that the outer-most layers are coming off in large pieces. Would that be different in the case of, as you call it, a real CD or DVD? I have CD:s to spare, let's see, what would it take to save the microwave oven from damage? Something that can absorb the waves so they won't overheat the magnetron, right? In that case a glass of water would do, unless perhaps that spoils the effect on the CD. What do you say? Jonas Olson 20:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The azimuthal and circular patterns on the DVD are created the same way that fractals are. Think of the DVD as one big metal island. Current can pass through the whole island. Eventually certain spots get so hot that the metal is vaporized, allowing current to pass through the vapor. This creates the trails that you see, where the metal is gone. When you get 4 lines coming together, it creates a smaller metal island. This happens all over the DVD, turning it from one big metal island into several small ones. If the small islands are still relatively large, more hot spots will start and those islands will be cut into smaller islands in the exact same manner. This happens over and over again, islands being split up into smaller bits, until it gets too small or I turn off the microwave. That's why I thought the DVD was a good illustration for Fractal, because it illustrates fractal patterns that you don't normally think of as fractal patterns. --brian0918™ 21:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, a glass of water will work. I don't bother because mine's a dorm microwave. I'm not sure if it'll work on all CDs. You probably need an older, high quality professional CD, not these newfangled el cheapo ones. --brian0918™ 21:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I didn't know there were different types, or qualities. And I'm not talking about CD-R:s, obviously. Those I have here right now are from 1998. Old enough? Jonas Olson 11:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • The only way to find out is to put it in the microwave. It only takes a couple seconds. You should turn off the microwave after the first burst of arcs. --brian0918™ 13:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • I'll try that, unless someone else beats me there. Jonas Olson 19:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +6/-7/1 BrokenSegue 13:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sand sculpture

Far too small. Also, I would have like to be able to see both towers completely. Although the subject is visually very interesting, this picture is not of high quality. Junes 09:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delist Junes 09:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I liked it Brookie 09:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Bevo 17:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - TomStar81 02:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delist. I must agree that it's too small, and the framing, which chops off the tops of the two towers, doesn't present the subject well. Enochlau 11:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delist. Again nice, but too small, the cropping is not at a featured level cutting of the left, right and top. And it is almost entirely in the shadow. Janderk 15:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delist. Wasn't this just recently nominated? I guess that doesn't really matter. Amazing sculpture, average picture. Matthewcieplak 05:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delist. OK, someone fell on the cropping button and also happened to throw away the high resolution at the same time, didn't you? Admit it! ;-) Jonas Olson 15:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Kept, 5 delists/ 4 keeps Bevo 13:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bodie ghost town.jpg

Beautiful illustration of a ghost town, from pdphoto, which I think means it was taken by Jon Sullivan. (I have emailed the photographer about the possibility of getting a high-resolution version under a free license). --Andrew 22:48, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Just shy of a week later, and still no sign of life from the email. I don't think we can count on a higher resolution image. --Andrew 04:51, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and Support. --Andrew 22:48, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. You have to pay $2 for a high-res version from him. I'm still waiting on one I purchased quite some time ago. --brian0918™ 23:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know he sells hires versions (although that you're still waiting bodes ill). I'm trying to find out if the hires versions are also in the public domain. --Andrew 23:41, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, they are. See his FAQ. --brian0918™ 04:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Could you point out where? It doesn't seem to be on his hires info page or his FAQ, which is why I felt the need to email him. --Andrew 05:52, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - good pic --Brookie 10:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, stunning! Mgm|^(talk)
• Support, Interesting --Electricmoose 17:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

12:06, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Support, breathtaking —Josh Lee 21:45, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but does anyone else feel annoyed by the power lines (if that's what they are) connecting to the house from the offstage right? And is there a smudge, or a bit of flare, just below them? I wish the photographer had cleaned that up, and given us the clear blue sky. Power lines clash with my conception of what a ghost town should look like.Sandover 06:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it really is a ghost town, and the power lines (or whatever) really are there, so perhaps it's your notion of what a ghost town should look like that is the problem? I admit the smudge is a shame, but I'm hesitant to just start hacking away at the picture. --Andrew 06:43, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, the angle on the buildings at the edges is distracting, and there's just nothing striking about the photograph (except the sky, which is oddly jarring when taken with the foreground). Matthewcieplak 09:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wierd angle, and those powerlines/smudgy bits are annoying. Enochlau 10:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, compression artifacts in the sky. —Korath (Talk) 02:49, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Brilliant. Circeus 16:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great photo --Fir0002 10:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support The colours and angles on the front of the house are amazing. zaius 14:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Nice Shot! TomStar81 05:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support When I first uploaded this photo I considered nominating it for FPC, but was concerned by the strong perspective distortion. I've been meaning to try correcting the image, but haven't got round to it. Now the distortion doesn't bother me so much. -- Solipsist 11:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Bodie ghost town.jpg +12 / -3 -- 23:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Red-crested Pochard

Striking photo of a Red-crested Pochard, from PDPhoto (high-res version). Please choose between the original version (which has more of the interesting waves) and the cropped version (which cuts out the other duck). - brian0918™ 04:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - brian0918™ 04:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support the cropped one, the other duck is very blurred in the other pic - Adrian Pingstone 08:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too many spots/specks/dirt in the water and on the duck (I like the cropped image best, by the way). Junes 08:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Alright, I've removed most of the spots/specks/dirt, although I don't really think they were that distracting. --brian0918™ 13:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Great! Support now. Junes 14:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 16:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support cropped version, with the clean-up. Sandover 18:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support cropped and cleaned version. Mgm|^(talk) 21:10, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The water isn't very clear at all; its grainy texture doesn't appeal to me. Enochlau 10:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support cropped version. Fantastic work.--Eloquence* 21:53, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Support cropped version. Great photo. --Fir0002 11:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - cropped version. Excellent shot. -- Longhair | Talk 16:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Promoted Image:Netta_rufina_m2.jpg +9/-1 BrokenSegue 11:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chinese vase

Another fine photo by User:Aka. As you might have guessed this colourful picture illustrates Vase (an article which could be longer). This isn't the world's best vase, but there must be hundreds of other articles that could use photos of objects as good as this. -- Solipsist 21:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Solipsist 21:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. The image quality is impeccable, but the object itself just isn't that interesting. It's a cheap newish Chinese vase, made for export. It's definitely better than the other image on the Vase entry. But if you are familiar with classical Chinese pottery or are a connoisseur, this little vase is a wee bit offensive. Shouldn't a Featured Picture be more compelling than this? That said, there are a lot of other terrific images on Wikipedia from photographer André Karwath (a.k.a. Aka). Perhaps someone could nominate another ...? Sandover 23:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good picture, ugly vase. Junes 09:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with above. Enochlau 10:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent product shot, nice and colorful, perfect sharpness. Alight 19:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Thoroughly Oppose. Hideous. No one in his or her right senses could possibly support this. Sandover 18:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Tell us what you REALLY think!! :)--Deglr6328 04:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jonas Olson 20:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Not promoted +2/-5 BrokenSegue 12:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Easter Bunny

From photographer André Karwath (a.k.a. Aka). Currently illustrates Easter and kitsch.

• Nominate and support. Sandover 06:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I like the absence of background shadow, and the excellent focus (even on the highest res version) - Adrian Pingstone 08:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support good picture, illustrates kitsch well I'd say. Junes 09:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Too tacky for words. It may illustrate its article well, but as an image, it is seriously underwhelming in its brilliance. Denni☯ 23:49, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Did you look up kitsch? This is just the sort of found object that Jeff Koons would re-create in porcelain and sell in a pricey New York art gallery. If any image epitomizes kitsch, this does. Are you sure you're not faulting the photograph for living up so well to its appropriate Wikipedia category? Sandover 05:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm faulting the photo for not meeting a single one of the criteria for featured picture. It is flat out boring; I would not be surprised to run into a similar image in a Wal-mart flyer. Denni☯ 23:04, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Please don't fault me for making this photo. As well as the vase below, it was never planned to be a featured picture candidate and I think it should not be here. I just wanted to illustrate an article with it and tried to create a simple, clean, technically well done picture. Please have a look at my user page in the commons for other pictures. -- Aka 06:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - not very interesting. ed g2s • talk 15:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not interesting. Enochlau 10:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Corny. Need I say more?--Zxcvbnm 00:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -Shudder.--Deglr6328 07:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose What more needs to be said? --Fir0002 06:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No comments. Jonas Olson 09:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Serves the indended purpose very well. Very good as a product shot. Alight 19:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +4 / -8 -- Solipsist 16:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First Photograph

Surely the featured pictures should contain the first photograph ever. It was taken by Nicéphore Niépce in 1826.

• Nominate and support. Janderk 09:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support high resolution version. Janderk 07:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - how could this not be a Featured Pic! - Adrian Pingstone 10:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• So classic, but low-res and mostly made out of JPEG artifacts, so I will have to oppose. When those things are straightened out, I'll support it!. Jonas Olson 10:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I have uploaded a better version right from the University of Texas that owns it. Janderk 11:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Eagle 12:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose until copyright status is clarified (see Image talk:FirstPicture.jpg). If a work was created long ago, but never published until recent years, can that publication be copyrighted? If so, that may be the situation with this image. I will change my vote to support if/when it can be demonstrated that this is public domain. -- Infrogmation 18:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support -How could I not support?!! As for inquiries of copyright, I sincerely hope this is a joke. The image is 180 years old!!! The creator died less than a decade later. There is simply no way it isn't PD.--Deglr6328 19:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not joking. Are you saying that if someone discovers something old that was never published or copyrighted in the past, it is inelligable to be copyrighted? If that is so under law, I am very eager to have the point clarified. People sticking copyright notices on the first publication of newly discovered works from before 1923 is not uncommon; if this is bogus it would help to be able to show this point, thanks. -- Infrogmation 19:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If it's in the public domain, it can't be copyrighted. The original creators died long ago; it doesn't matter when it was first published. --brian0918™ 22:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, Firstly I believe the statement that this is the first photograph is de-batable, it is often said the first photograph was taken by William Fox Talbot. Secondly I do not believe this should be a featured picture because although it is the first photograph taken, it is not that great a picture. --Electricmoose 19:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, perhaps not the first photograph as DigiCamHistory gives a supposedly earlier example. Furthermore, Fotoart has a more complete picture of the history. Jonas Olson 13:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Absolutely support if copyright is not an issue. (And if it is, what a joke!) Not that great a picture? Damn rights it is, if it's the first image ever captured! Denni☯ 23:47, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
• Support. I've contacted the University of Texas, and am trying to get a much higher resolution version. They have a link to a large TIFF on their site, but the link is broken. --brian0918™ 01:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. No question of this photograph's import—it deserves its own Wikipedia entry. The condition and quality of the image is irrelevant. Apart from the rubes who think it should be in clearer focus (how can you make technical demands of the very first permanent image made by man?), I think the people who are critical of this image haven't really taken the time to enter it with their imaginations. Imagine the experience of having invented this. And then look out on these buildings, and those fields, and take in the subtle modulations of shadow and light. Look at that bold shadow on the diagonal in the context of the whole, and remember—from its beginnings, this brave new art form, photography, contained both abstraction and literalness. It's a terrific start, and it should be honored. Sandover 06:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose unless a higher resolution version is submitted; you can hardly see anything. Matthewcieplak 09:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • How could there be a "higher resolution" version, it's the first photo ever so what came out was what came out! - Adrian Pingstone 17:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Simply digitized in a higher resolution. Jonas Olson 10:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support either new version. I appreciate your clarity, Jonas. Does anyone know where the photo was taken, and what of? It'd be absurdly awesome if we could get a modern photograph of the same location, though it's probably much different now if it's anywhere urban. Matthewcieplak 19:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Hehe, nice idea! I guess this could be done for any old picture, but it's, naturally, especially interesting for this one. Jonas Olson 18:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - it has a surreal and impresionist feel to it.Brookie 14:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Suppport, even more support for a bigger version. Spangineer ∞ 17:40, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support 2nd first picture (high-res version). Spangineer ∞ 17:09, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support The first picture definatly deserves to be a featured picture. TomStar81 03:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOTICE:I support the Hi-res photo. TomStar81 23:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support unless proof is provided this wasn't the first. I never liked technical demands on featured pics, but having them on such an early photograph is ridiculous. Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Note:I support the hi-res version too. Mgm|^(talk) 17:39, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Support, agree with above, unless evidence is shown that this isn't the first. Enochlau 10:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I will support either the original or the hi-res version. I will note however that the hi-res version seems much more washed out than the original, but not so much that it is objectionable. Enochlau 07:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's the first, low-res image that's washed out. It's been drastically cleaned up in something like Photoshop to make it look like a normal photo. The high-res version is lossless (the PNG, at least; the JPG is slightly compressed) and from the original source, so it's correct, despite being less aesthetically pleasing. --brian0918™ 08:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The University of Texas has unexpectedly denied allowing a high-res photo to be made available, despite the fact that a couple years ago they had a link for one to be downloaded freely on their site. They don't have a copyright on the image, they are just unwilling to let it be made available. I guess I'm just too used to the selfless likes of David Rumsey.
  • If anyone knows of a book that contains this image, I can get it through interlibrary loan and scan it at 9600 dpi :) --brian0918™ 20:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If you know where it used to be and the copyright is not a problem, maybe archive.org could help out. Janderk 20:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah I already tried that, and there was nothing like it on LOC Memory or OAISTER either. --brian0918™ 20:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think I found a high-res source for the image at University of Minnesota. I'll send them an email.
      • I got a reply from UMN--they're going to send me their high-res TIFF. --brian0918™ 02:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, the photographer was obviously very unskilled. The backrgound is barely visible and the color is washed out. I don't understand how the black and white effect improves the picture. Leonardo 04:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I do hope this Oppose is a joke. This oppose should not be counted, if it's serious! - Adrian Pingstone 11:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Clarifying => Support (I guess I shouldn't be sarcastic) Sorry about that. Leonardo 19:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Clarify again support any Leonardo 01:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This oppose vote demonstrates why some sort of entrance exam must be required before one can cast Wikivotes. (Just kidding, but this comment boggles the imagination!) What is it about the first photograph that some people seem not able to get? Denni☯ 02:37, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Support. A higher-res version would be keen, but this one is quite sufficient. —Korath (Talk)
• Support. Awesome photo. As well as being the first photograph this photo looks good --Fir0002 10:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's the first photograph ever! P.S. hi-res version rules, please put it on commons so others can use it too --Bricktop 10:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• We should probably call it something else than "first picture" since we are not sure that this is the case. Perhaps we are even sure that this is not the case. Jonas Olson 19:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I got a high-res version from UMN, and they said that the image is in fact Public Domain.

• Support high-res version. --brian0918™ 16:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support "high resolution" version :)--Deglr6328 17:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Excellent photo. Support high-res version. Sandover 17:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I Support the high-res version. Though, does anyone have a color version? B&W photography is sooo outdated =D --Asriel86 17:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support the high-res version. Agree with Asriel86, a color version would be even nicer :-))) --Bricktop 18:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support The high res version over the low res. Good work finding it Brian0918!--Fir0002 00:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• No, no, no! The new, high resolution, looks worse than the old one. My opposition stands firmly, I'm afraid. Jonas Olson 17:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Probably the new version, although I am with Jonas, that the first version has something to offer too. Arguably the Hi-Res version is scanned at a resolution that is significantly higher than any resolvable feature in the image, but that isn't much of a problem. It might be worth adjusting the contrast to bring out the features in the sky that are visible in the first version. This might be a lossless PNG, but there are few absolute standards to say that the scanning got the grey-scale transfer function 'correct'. The first version shows the picture as it is displayed on the UTexas web site, so I would have thought they had got the levels set to give a similar impression to seeing the image in real life. -- Solipsist 12:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I should have checked more carefully. The first version is actually a 1952 silver-gelatin print from the original heliograph possibly retouched with watercolor. The 1826 Heliograph itself is shown obliquely and framed. As you would guess, it looks like it has very low contrast. But that still doesn't mean there is a definitive print. In any case, it doesn't give a strong argument to adjust the levels in the hi-res scan. -- Solipsist 12:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Promoted Image:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.jpg +25 / -3 (I think) with a preference for 2nd hires version -- Solipsist 16:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Banded coral shrimp

Although the Banded coral shrimp looks like a shrimp and even has the word shrimp in its name, it is not a real shrimp. It belongs to the order of Stenopodidea instead. I took this picture a few weeks ago at ten meters below sea level on the coral reef of Bonaire. - Janderk 15:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Janderk 15:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - the shrimp is not quite in focus and too small in the frame. The rest of the pic is out of focus and very "fussy". Just not quite good enough for Featured - Adrian Pingstone 19:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Even if it's not a real shrimp, it looks equally funny and cute. Animal in focus, nice colored background showing its coral habitat. Support. I wouldn't mind a bit of cropping though. Mgm|^(talk) 19:22, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The picture looks like mishmash. -Hapsiainen 21:33, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, too busy. —Korath (Talk) 02:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, too much background. Nice, but nothing really special. --Bricktop 10:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bad exposure, poor focus, background inhibits the subject. Alight 19:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jonas Olson 20:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +2 / -6 -- Solipsist 16:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Carbon cycle

The actual image filename is a bit dodgy, but the diagram itself is clear, useful and attractive. The fullsize framed version (so that the text is legible) illustrates carbon cycle. It originally came from a NASA publication. - Solipsist 21:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Solipsist 21:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Clear and to the point. Denni☯ 03:20, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very small. Perhaps someone with vector skills and a bit of spare time could trace this? ed g2s • talk 04:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - beautifully drawn. It may be small but I can read everything on it easily - Adrian Pingstone 08:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. It's not clear to me what the 1.6 and 0.5 numbers represent. Also, it could do with some more explanation on the image page. Otherwise, nice and colorful diagram. Junes 09:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I rewrote the title on the image page in an effort to make the importance of this diagram clearer. Janderk 20:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, it's large enough to read. Mgm|^(talk) 09:23, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice, but should be in higher resolution and with an SVG source provided. What ed g2s said. Fredrik | talk 13:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Good looking and very important diagram showing how humanity disturbes the Earth's fragile equilibrium. Janderk 20:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Should be higer res, not especially interesting. --Fir0002 10:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Aliasing problems along the lower right border, and the text is far from crisp. Higher res would be nice too. —Korath (Talk) 11:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing special about it. Too low resolution. Jonas Olson 21:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +5 / -6 -- Solipsist 06:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disney fireworks

A little something I took at Disney- →Raul654 22:29, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. →Raul654 22:29, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - blurry fireworks, mediocre composition. Lupin 00:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Much too much camera movement. Denni☯ 02:27, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Oppose. Moving fireworks are likely to be blurry, but I would've liked to see at least the castle in focus. Mgm|^(talk) 17:16, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose- Enjoyable pic but too much blur for Featured status - Adrian Pingstone 09:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Just not striking enough. - Longhair | Talk 16:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Not enough fire in the fireworks for my taste. TomStar81 05:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mediocre photo, fireworks not in focus. - Sango123 23:45, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jonas Olson 20:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +1 / -8 -- Solipsist 06:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aphthona flava flea beetle.jpg

I'm no photography expert, but this struck me as a wonderfully fascinating picture. It is used on Beetle, Nature, Aphthona, Aphthona flava, and a cropped version is even the main pic on animal. Uploaded by Ellmist. --Dmcdevit 19:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. --Dmcdevit 19:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support first version. The 2nd one is cropped oddly. --brian0918™ 19:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support the first version as featured. Yhe second version was cropped specifically to fit the taxobox on animal (the taxobox at the time had some pretty wide entries and was also rather big already so i made the image short and wide to fit there) btw brion0918 what exactly was the change you just made to the first image? Plugwash 20:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleaned up some specks. --brian0918™ 23:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Good pic but just too out-of-focus for me. A Featured Pic should surely have first class focus? - Adrian Pingstone 09:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Sure part of the plant is out of focus, but you can't have everything in focus when you take a macro-shot of a beetle. The beetle is in focus. Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • The beetle is not in satisfactory focus, in my opinion. Sure, it's in reasonable focus but I look for more than that in a Featured Pic. Obviously I would want and expect the background to be off-focus. - Adrian Pingstone 12:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing special about it. And we already have numerous insect pics.Circeus 17:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Good photo. Must say that User:Arpingstone you seem to have a funny policy with focus - FPC 'first photo' OK, but this one isn't. --Fir0002 06:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is my policy "funny"? My policy is simply that Featured Picture Candidates should be in very good focus, the beetle isn't! - Adrian Pingstone 09:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I was merely alluding to the fact that although you were prepared to tolerate the lack of sharpness in older photos such as the 'first photo', 'cowboy' and 'the only fredrick chopin photo' but not in this compartively new photo of a flea beetle, even though macro shots are extremely hard to get in complete and perfect focus. It strange that you consider that criteria for a FP, specifically the focus of the photo is subject to the age of the photo.
      • It would indeed be strange if I thought that but I don't. I made a mistake in omitting the word modern in the sentence "My policy is simply that modern FPC candidates should be in very good focus". Sorry I've caused a stir through my own careless writing - Adrian Pingstone 20:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with Adrian Pingstone. I would also note that to hold photos from the beginning of photography to the same standards as contemporary photography is, IMO, quite silly. Might as well criticise the first photo for being black and white (what's the matter - couldn't afford a roll of color film for that roof?) Denni☯ 02:18, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Oppose - not enough emphasis on the subject, needs to be cropped; also it is rare that I would say that a photo is supplied in too much resolution, but this one seems way too large, bytewise, for it's content - Bevo 17:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jonas Olson 20:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +5 / -5 -- Solipsist 06:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cowboy

Well, if this isn't the perfect picture of a cowboy, then there's no such thing! It's used on the page cowboy. - Dmcdevit 04:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Dmcdevit 04:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -Meh. Doesn't strike me as "striking, shocking, impressive, titillating or fascinating". --Deglr6328 07:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Well… oppose. I agree, this one doesn't really make my jaw drop. It takes more than just any good picture to make it into the featured, IMHO. It's also far to low-res, I would say. Jonas Olson 19:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - it doesn't have to be all the features Deglr mentions so I'll settle for Fascinating. Blurry backbround sets off the cowboy beautifully - Adrian Pingstone 09:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Not much of a cowboy (I live in an Australian country town so I have harsh standards) and surely there are photos taken more recently (there must have been some since 1887) which have a higher image quality. --Fir0002 06:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• support. i grew up in an american country town so i too have high standards. its a great pic and representative of the cowboys of the timesCavebear42 18:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I grew up in an English industrial city, so I have no standards whatsoever ;-) Nevertheless, I would have thought the cowboy article would be better served by a more modern photo. There are still plenty of authentic, horse-riding, cowboys around, particularly in Latin America. -- Solipsist 11:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I like the face of the cowboy, and the details. I don't think a modern cowboy will look the same.--Bernard Helmstetter 12:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I like the details too. Remember that a modern picture, while being at a higher resolution, would be of a modern cowboy... Enochlau 14:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 18:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +6 / -4 -- Solipsist 06:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Twin Linear Aerospike XRS-2200 Engine

No special reason for nomination, image is simply really nice! Shows a test firing of an aerospike rocket engine, which was in development at NASA for the Venture Star spaceship. Used in Spacecraft propulsion, Aerospike engine, X-33. Created by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. --Bricktop 10:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Bricktop 10:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I might try cleaning up some of the graininess later. --brian0918™ 15:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Major WOW-factor going for it. Minimal graininess should be expected at this resolution and I don't feel it a problem. Circeus 16:59, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -Stunning and beautiful. I still can't intuitively perceive its method of thrust production. Just looks like it shouldn't work!! :)--Deglr6328 18:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great photo. Echo User:Deglr6328's sentiments --Fir0002 06:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support; no need for cleanup. —Korath (Talk) 15:56, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Powerful shot. -- Solipsist 17:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Twin Linear Aerospike XRS-2200 Engine.jpg +7 / -0 -- Solipsist 07:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rope tricks

I'm taking a chance on this one, I know. This is an image of a nuclear detonation at 1ms after zero time showing "rope tricks". Exposure is 3 µs. I know the image suffers from moire due to effects of scanning a halftone image (and I would be grateful if someone can clean it up), but I feel the subject matter is so unique and fascinating it might be overlooked. This is probably the highest quality image available of this phenomenon.

• Nominate and Support.--Deglr6328 06:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If you can scan the image at a higher resolution and upload it as a low-compression jpg or no-compression png, I can probably remove the moire patterns. --brian0918™ 15:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Sadly, I don't have the original image.--Deglr6328 00:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Nominate and Support.--Zxcvbnm 00:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm ....pretty sure ...I nominated but I'll take what I can get :o) !!--Deglr6328 01:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support I have always found this microsecond phenomenon fascinating Denni☯ 02:30, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Support, though if a cleaner image can be developed, without the moiré pattern, I will be even more enthusiastic. I've had a quick look at Michael Light's 100 Suns, published in 2003, and agree this photo illustrates rope tricks and the "mottling" effect superbly. The Tumbler-Snapper test series comprised six detonations beginning in April 1952 at the Nevada Test Site. Sandover 02:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for mentioning that book - I've ordered it from Amazon. Ground 15:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support Add significantly and is titillating. Circeus 02:46, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. brian0918™ 03:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Fir0002 10:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Wow. Enochlau 14:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 12:14, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Its fascinating, alright. TomStar81 05:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This image needs source information before it can be promoted — +10 / -0 -- Solipsist 06:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Info from http://www.radiochemistry.org/history/nuke_tests/tumbler_snapper/ added to image info to support PD attribution as US government photo- Bevo 14:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know how to conclusively PROVE that this image was taken by a govt. employee but I have seen it published in several places with statements that it is a gov. image. Really, I don't know how it could be anything else. The image was taken at some time in 1952. I am unaware of the DOD ever allowing ANY private individual or organization to image bomb tests with ultrafast rapatronic equipment, let alone allowing them to take such images so early on in the testing in the early '50s. It would be a hige security risk. I am 99.999% certain this is a gov. work and in the public domain. :)--Deglr6328 16:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Addendum. Here is a statemtnt by Michael Light, the author of 100 suns, which gives insight to where he obtained the rapatronic images for his book. "At the still picture branch of the United States National Archives at College Park, Maryland, head archivist Kate Flaherty was unfailingly helpful during all aspects of research at that great institution, as were her staff members Theresa Roy and Sharon Culley. Roger Meade, chief archivist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, went above the call of duty to make material available and help identify some of its more arcane aspects. At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, archivists Steve Wofford, Beverly Bull and Maxine Trost helped with image research. Nick Broderick, classification analyst at Lawrence Livermore, kindly provided final identification of notoriously difficult to attribute ultra-high-speed Rapatronic images made by E.G.&G. Thanks as well to filmmaker Peter Kuran for additional identification help with Rapatronic images." --Deglr6328 16:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Please place a copy of that text with your "signature" in this images's info page. Thx! - Bevo 18:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • And just so I'm clear, the photo credit should go to 'E.G. & G'? -- Solipsist 18:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • The cameras were built by EG&G. http://www.egginc.com/ is their homepage. http://simplethinking.com/home/rapatronic_photographs.htm has more detail on their use. - Bevo 21:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • No, definitley not. The images were made with a camera produced by E.G.&G. but that's all. They were taken by a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. --Deglr6328 23:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Tumbler Snapper rope tricks.jpg +10 / -0 -- Solipsist 12:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Triangulum.nebula.arp.750pix

This is just an all-around cool picture. It's a nebula taken by Hubble. Uploaded by Arpingstone, it is used on Nebula, Stellar evolution, H II region, Nebula NGC 604, and it's even on the Template:Space-stub. - Dmcdevit 22:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. -- Dmcdevit 22:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'll support it too, despite the fact that space-stub is being considered for deletion by WP:WSS (it duplicates astronomy-stub and rocket-stub). Grutness|^hello? 23:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• support lovely picture. Plugwash 00:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but I have to point out Space astub was redundant with ((astro-stub)) and now redirects to it Circeus 01:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • So I see. On a related note, has anyone checked out Image:Pleiades large.jpg (which is on ((astro-stub))); any picture that is on, by my count, 57 genuine articles must have something going for it. --Dmcdevit 01:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Before I vote-This image was taken with the old WIFPC2 CCD imager on Hubble while a newer version taken in '03 with the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) is larger and cleaner. It can be seen here [4] what do you think about replacing the image with that one? The colors are different but they're false color anyway....--Deglr6328 06:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• commnet the version we have here has an eiree feel that the other one doesn't seem to share because of the choice of colors. I like that feeling but i can see how the other one is almost certainly a techincally higher quality image. Also the newer version seems to be missing a large section of background Plugwash.
• Support this version. The newer version is even nicer, except for the lower right, which ruins it. :( —Korath (Talk) 11:06, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The choice of false colours here is horrible. Enochlau 14:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Astrowob
• Oppose. I dislike the false colors and there appears to be a lot of noise (although those may be stars) --Fir0002 07:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jonas Olson 20:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not all that aesthetically appealing (to me), there's some technical weirdness in the top left corner (probably a mosaicing artifact). But (I know this is late in the game) it's probably worth featuring/not featuring the higher-resolution version from the original site. For what it's worth, I much prefer the newer version linked above (missing corner and all). --Andrew 08:16, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +6 / -4 Its a bit borderline, but even several of the support votes seem to prefer an alternative image. -- Solipsist 19:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Calla Lily

Two photos of a calla lily

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 06:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support the regular pic. The close-up isn't helpful in identifying the flower and thus doesn't provide useful info. Mgm|^(talk) 07:36, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support first version. brian0918™ 12:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support first version. Might be improved by evening out the crop, but not really necessary. —Korath (Talk) 15:53, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, just not anything spectacular. No interesting angles, not interesting enough use of line, shape, texture, etc. It's a nice flower, but not featured picture worthy. jacobolus (t) 04:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with jacobolus. Junes 08:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Junes. —Jonas Olson 10:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support the first version. Though plain, the flower, the central focus, is strikingly clear and aesthetically pleasing. - Sango123 00:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support first too, agree with Sango Circeus 02:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Doesn't have featured pic qualities. Enochlau 09:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Pretty picture but not extraordinary. Pollinator 21:50, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +6 / -5 -- Solipsist 19:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bronc riding

Two excellent photos illustrating bronc riding. Found these while looking for another cowboy image. Please list your order of preference. - brian0918™ 15:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - brian0918™ 15:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Plunging Bronco. Fantastic photo. The coloration looks great. The Kitty Canutt photo isn't that good though. --Fir0002 00:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose One might try looking through a few rodeo sites. These are simply not very exciting. B/W, for such a topic, does not help either. Denni☯ 02:11, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

  It's doubtful that any color photos would be freely usable. We have to use what's available to us. --brian0918™ 02:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support Plunging Bronco. Great action image! The sepia is nice, too. Junes 08:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Plunging Bronco. Yes, it feels so still and quiet to me even though there is action going on. I like! Jonas Olson 18:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Plunging bronco. Why you didn't upload the first one under FlyingHorse.jpg and nominate it separately is a mystery to me. Matthewcieplak 21:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support plunging bronco. (Once it's in an article, anyway.) —Korath (Talk) 11:04, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support plunging bronco. And nice job on the retouching. However the horizon looks crudely pixelated from the masking and could do with straightening. -- Solipsist 17:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support either one -- Chris 73 Talk 12:11, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- plunging bronco. - Longhair | Talk 12:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support plunging bronco. Janderk 14:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Plunging bronco, Bar Diamond Bar range.jpg +10 / -1 -- Solipsist 11:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Westminster underground.jpg

GreencastleHarbour 2004 SeanMcClean

• Used in Greencastle, County Donegal and Sheila McClean. Created by Sheila McClean, digitized by User:SeanMack. Strongly painted picture that illustrates in a way complementary to the photographs on the Greencastle page. Free licence. Higher resolution version may also be available (hi-res now uploaded). Zeimusu | (Talk page) 13:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Nominate and support. - Zeimusu | (Talk page) 13:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - It's one of my personal favs. SeanMack 13:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Mgm|^(talk) 19:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support A very pleasant composition. Denni☯ 00:30, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Support -- Longhair | Talk 00:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jonas Olson 20:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I am all for more art images, but am not terribly impressed by the subject nor the composition. Janderk 14:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I do wish that there was a separate gallery of the finest images of artworks. - Bevo 18:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:GreencastleHarbour 2004 SeanMcClean.jpg +6 / -2 -- Solipsist 11:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First Wright brothers flight

Pretty famous photo of the first Wright brothers flight, and unarguably the first photo of a powered, piloted aircraft in flight. Used at Aviation history, Wright brothers, Wright Flyer, and Portal:Aviation. - brian0918™ 13:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - brian0918™ 13:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. awesome res and quality. Cavebear42 18:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 18:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Mgm|^(talk) 19:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Amazing clarity. --Fir0002 23:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support, great image --Spangineer ∞ 02:40, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Indeed some very good quality. It's a funny thing though, how the 800 pixel version looks quite different from the 200 pixel and the full version. Jonas Olson 17:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That's an old version. While you're on the page, hold down CTRL and press F5. --brian0918™ 18:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Got it, sorry. Your key command didn't make any difference though. Jonas Olson 18:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • CTRL + F5 forces a reload while F5 doesn't seem to always do so. I've overwritten an image and hit F5 repeatedly and always gotten the old version, until I hit CTRL+F5 and it finally downloaded the new version. --brian0918™ 20:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • It does not, in my browser that is. Naturally browser specific. Jonas Olson 22:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • It does in Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox--Fir0002 07:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • It is also OS specific, Macs use their fuction keys at the OS level so you would have to use command shift r wikibooks firefox shotcutsCavebear42 16:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Nice - Longhair | Talk 15:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 04:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Fly it into the featured picture status... -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Astrowob 20:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support surprisingly good quality. -- Solipsist 19:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 12:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Wrightflyer.jpg +13 / -0 -- Solipsist 14:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spider Predation

Three shots showing the stages as an orb weaver captures and eats a bee.

• Support Orb weaver with captured bee in web. Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Orb Weaver capturing or Orb Weaver eating (EDIT: these are the same images!). Oppose Orb weaver with captured bee in web (too small spider compared with rest, odd perspective). Junes 16:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry! changed it. --Fir0002 23:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support capturing image. Looks like it's the most in focus. --brian0918™ 00:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support either capturing or eating, but eating has better detail on the spider (check out the spinnerets, if I'm not mistaken) Matthewcieplak 04:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support the eating one. Do you have more hi-res version, so one can see the spider in even better detail --Bricktop 10:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support capturing only. Depth of field is too narrow in the other two. (And it's a pity, since the eating image is the best composition, I think.) Which article do you plan to put these in, by the way? —Korath (Talk) 11:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• I will put the most favoured photo in any or all of these: predation, spider or Animal --Fir0002 05:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• These are amazing photos. Support eating, then capturing. Eating is now my desktop. Ground 01:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support either one -- Chris 73 Talk 12:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Capturing only. It's the best of the three, technically excellent and very descriptive. I wish I could see a photo taken earlier before the bee was wrapped, so as to have some chance of identifying the bee. Pollinator 21:48, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes that would have been good, but unfortunately I hadn't noticed the spider until the after the spider was already spinning the bee into a cocoon. --Fir0002 00:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Jonas Olson 20:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent color contrast. — oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 06:30, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Garden orb weaver05.jpg +10 / -1 for Orb Weaver Capturing a bee. -- Solipsist 15:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mokoia Island

Okay, so it's a self-nom, but I'm pretty pleased with this image. It captures the broodiness of the storms that can quickly form over Lake Rotorua and the odd colour of the caldera's sulphurous waters. It's used on the articles for both Lake Rotorua and Mokoia Island.- Grutness|^hello? 06:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Grutness|^hello? 06:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jonas Olson 10:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose image is copyrighted and far to low-res, otherwise very nice --Bricktop 10:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: would support the high-res version, but only under a free licence. Sorry. --Bricktop 23:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Non-commercial use licenses are non-free, and aren't suitable for Wikipedia at all. While this isn't a big problem, since Grutness can relicense it, the image is still a bit on the small side (though "far too low-res" is an exaggeration), and overall sharpness isn't feature quality. —Korath (Talk) 10:54, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It's a very similar res to the previous nomination on this page, which is receiving support votes. If needed I can upload a larger version, but at the time I uploaded this image I believed that 90 k was the maximum allowable for a picture upload. It is free use for any non-commercial purpose, but for legal reasons licensing it for commercial use is out of the question (I am a professional photographer and artist, and this particular picture is in use elsewhere in commercial applications). Since Wikipedia is a non-commercial enterprise, it is free for Wikipedia - the only time this license should come into consideration is for third-party users. Ah well, at least it's prompted me to upload a higher res copy of the picture. Grutness|^hello? 12:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the max allowed on Wikipedia is 5MB. I upload images that large all the time. (see User:Brian0918/Free images). If you uploaded a much larger version (with low jpeg compression) I'll support it. --brian0918™ 20:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - sorry, out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 12:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bad license. Neutrality^talk 22:04, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. There's a bit of motion blur, but it is in focus, admirably straight, and has excellent contrast and vivid color. The sunny water/dark sky is what does it, I think. Matthewcieplak 06:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bad license. Junes 13:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. not valid license for featured pic. Cavebear42 00:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +2 / -7 -- Solipsist 16:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shanghai Grand Hyatt Atrium.jpg

An impressive picture showing a titillating piece of architecture. Might needs a bit of color adjustment/cleaning, but I can't do it here at college. - Circeus 18:05, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Circeus 18:05, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• I could go for this one. Support. Perhaps cropping out the glaring lights at the left side. Jonas Olson 18:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support if and only if cropped per Jonas. Neutrality^talk 22:02, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• I've cropped the image. Anyone can see the original version on the image's page. Support cropped version. --brian0918™ 23:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I took the original picture and support the improved version. Lawrence Lavigne 00:14, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think a square crop would be effective on this one. --jacobolus (t) 22:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• oppose. im sure it is magestic and great view but, like almost all pics straight up or down, perspective is lost and i have to imagine how this looks rather than seeing it clearly displayed. Cavebear42 00:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Cavebear42. --Bernard Helmstetter 12:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Cavebear42. Enochlau 14:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Reminiscent of an Andreas Gursky photograph. You don't have to understand the structure, enjoy the pattern. -- Solipsist 19:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  In fact, if I am not mistaken, it looks like Gursky has also photographed this building, but chose a different perspective [5]. -- Solipsist 19:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - just doesn't excite or interest me - Adrian Pingstone 08:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Somewhat intruiging in its pattern, but otherwise insipid and uninteresting. - Sango123 23:38, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +7 / -5 -- Solipsist 16:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rometreaty.jpg

A great picture of Historical significance more than well illustrating Treaty of Rome, European Union and History of Europe. - Circeus 18:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. First vote here - Circeus 18:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems hand painted ? Ericd 19:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This image is for non-commercial use only and as such we can only use it if we claim fairuse. Inappropriate nomination, archive. ed g2s • talk 20:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Then claim fair use. The usage is non-commercial, yes? This is good in both content and form. Support. - Pioneer-12 22:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you claim fair-use? The image is pretty large. --brian0918™ 23:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It is correct that we could claim fair use for the image, but as the introduction of this page states, fair use content is not acceptable here. Our goal is not to find the best photographs in the world, it is to feature high quality free content which people can use for any purpose. This is not the case here, therefore the photo is unacceptable according to our guidelines and should be archived.--Eloquence* 23:14, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that we can't use fair-use photos here because this is a form of a gallery or collection of a set of photos, and use of a fair-use claim is inappropriate to this sort of generic use of a photo. We could simply mention the name of the article on which it is appropriate to use it as fair-use, but that is not what this categorization is for. In fact, including it here in the nominations collection is probably just as inappropriate. - Bevo 15:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • For once, he's right. It's a shame... --brian0918™ 21:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Be nice, Brian. Your manners of recent have been waning. ed g2s • talk 22:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm? --brian0918™ 23:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor image quality. Unintersting photo. Sure its the signing of the treaty of rome, but this photo doesn't show that --Fir0002 10:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Archived. ed g2s • talk 16:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Newborn_umbilical_suction.jpg

I couldn't have asked for a more descriptive and tighter image. I took the photo on Saturday morning and feature it in umbilical cord. - jk 21:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Also featured in childbirth now. --brian0918™ 09:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Originator and Support jk 21:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neutrality^talk 22:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote. Why do you oppose this shot?jk 00:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Certainly striking; a bit gory, but it makes a point. Not pretty (should we be complaining that the baby's color doesn't complement the umbilical cord's color very well?) but that's not a requirement. --Andrew 22:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's about time we had a photo for the article. --brian0918™ 23:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Well, oppose. It sure is rather illustrative, but I don't find it that fantastic. Jonas Olson 14:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good point, but should an encyclopedia be filled with artistic photography or, as the top of this page states, images that "add significantly to that article." Can you narrow in on what you mean by fantastic? Gore factor, cropping, contrast, composition, lighting, etc? jk 16:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should be filled with images that add significantly to the article, absolutely! That's why I don't think all images have a chance of becoming a featured picture. The flags in the gallery will never make it, I suppose, but they serve a great purpose as parts of an encyclopedia. And, no, I can probably not narrow in very much on some criterions that this picture fails to fulfill. I just don't think it's so very special. Jonas Olson 20:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• oppose. i too think that it is a significant addition to the article and think it should be there but dont feel that the featured pics would be made better by it. (i feel the same way about several featured illustrations for the record) Cavebear42 00:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• oppose, doesn't add significantly IMHO. Circeus 00:37, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• support. Illustrative, striking. --Bernard Helmstetter 12:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• support. Actually I don't like this picture, but it is an excellent illustration. Could also be used on childbirth to good effect. -- Solipsist 19:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. --brian0918™ 09:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - first class pic - Adrian Pingstone 08:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support! --Chris 73 Talk 12:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Janderk 11:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Certainly striking, and very illustrative, but FP isn't the place for such a graphic depiction. It's a great image, great for the article, but it's something many if not most would rather not see while browsing FP Visible. The same could be said for a few featured other images (concerning arachnaphobics, for instance), but this one is considerably more colorful. Matthewcieplak 11:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support! A wonderful picture. Nick Fraser 14:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - that's one dirty baby. I've seen much more pleasant looking childbirth photos. - Pioneer-12 23:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Defiantly Neutral BrokenSegue 01:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. — Dan | Talk 17:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +9/-7/1 BrokenSegue 11:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

North america terrain 2003 map.jpg

Shows the separate pieces of rock which formed North America over various time periods. The image page contains text and various related images. All those images but one two are from the same source, they were separated for multiple contexts and to make multilingual use easier. Hawaii and logos were tucked in during editing of this image, to make cropping or relabeling easier. Used JPEG due to amount of detail; 2MB limit followed; original source has much larger and detailed versions.

• P.S.: Only the squarish Image #1 is nominated. Image #2 with 4 maps is another path into the collection (Image #2 is not on the page for Image #1 because of problems with thumbnails overlaying galleries, and it is not really necessary there). - SEWilco 17:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Used in

• North America
• Geology of the United States of America
• (obviously waiting for a Geology of North America page)

Related image Image:North_america_rock_types.jpg used in

• North America
• Geology of the United States of America
• Rock (geology)

• Nominate and support. Self-nominated by creator - SEWilco 09:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great stuff. Junes 13:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support #1. Why not upload the full-size image to the Commons, though, which has a larger maximum file size? (10MB, if I'm not mistaken.) —Korath (Talk) 14:20, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Answer: It is a US Gov image, and I'm not putting such in Commons because US Gov PD is not global PD. (SEWilco 16:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC))
    • A big part of Commons images are US Gov PD (e.g. from NASA). Dont see any problem putting it in Commons --Bricktop 01:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I've just read too much in the Copyright discussions for my image's own good. I'll have to check every few months to see if other countries have changed laws, or if I can find new WikiPolicy. (SEWilco 01:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC))
• Support number 1. Ah, that detail! Jonas Olson 14:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 0_0 support Circeus 00:40, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I got a wide-eyed frog ranking! Yay! (SEWilco 01:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC))
• Support very nice work! --Bricktop 01:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support 1. --brian0918™ 19:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. One of the best maps I have seen here. -- Solipsist 19:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - the combination of colors is awkward, making it difficult to read the terrain. The map in my geology textbook is better. - Pioneer-12 23:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted Image:North america terrain 2003 map.jpg +8/-1 BrokenSegue 11:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Happy Pensioner

I found this striking. Illustrates Ageing nicely. - Zeimusu | (Talk page) 09:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support.- Zeimusu | (Talk page) 09:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I found this not striking. Oppose. Jonas Olson 14:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Also too low resolution. Jonas Olson 15:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• support.- A very expressive photo indeed! --SFoskett 14:34, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• support a nice picture that does add significantly. Circeus 00:39, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing striking here. If we say that a picture like this is featured pic quality because it adds nicely to ageing, then we'll have all the 12-year-olds around here posting their school photos up saying it adds nicely to youth. Enochlau 13:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's just another portrait. If you're trying to add to the ageing article, isn't it better to have a series of photos of someone at a different age? Mgm|^(talk) 16:01, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fine idea! Now look if there are suitable pictures of those older relatives of your's. I don't think you should hesitate at the possible event that someone else has a better photo series, we could sure use several of them. I think articles often have too few images, even when suitable pictures already are uploaded. Why, for example isn't the crashing Concorde present in the article Accidents_and_incidents_in_aviation? Now let's all help to include more images in articles, don't you think? Jonas Olson 16:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Nice portrait, but I am not quite won over. It might be because the lighting is a bit flat. -- Solipsist 19:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Illustrative, but not especially so against the staggering number of portraits around. Matthewcieplak 11:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +3/-5 BrokenSegue 11:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Three John Hancock Buildings

I took this photo last winter in order to illustrate the John Hancock Tower article's contention that there are three John Hancock buildings in a row in Boston. After posting it, I heve revieved so many positive comments from people who loved it that I felt it should be listed here. - SFoskett 14:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Self-nomination. - SFoskett 14:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Be advised, self-nomination. It's a funny picture, but not really motivated in the article, I would say. It's not even immediately obvious which of the three buildings depicted is described in the accompanying text. Well, perhaps I should not blame the picture for that one. Jonas Olson 14:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • FYI, The text on the photo's page clearly states which building is which. This photo was specifically requested by the folks working on the John Hancock Tower page. --SFoskett 14:57, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • I was thinking that the section in which the picture appears should explain it fully, which I don't think it does, but you are right that if one reads the rest of the article, it becomes clear. As for the request of such a picture, I'm afraid I disagree with the requestors. Jonas Olson 15:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support I have to disagree with you, Jonas, the text supplied with the photo quickly informed me of what it was about. Quite an interesting coincidence(?). Reminds me of National_Treasure --Fir0002 11:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks... very odd, i don't know what to make of it. Enochlau 13:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --brian0918™ 19:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Its very clever, but not much more than just clever. -- Solipsist 19:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Solipsist. Junes 12:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +3/-4 BrokenSegue 11:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Albert Einstein by Yousuf Karsh

A classic picture of Albert. Would be the classic picture if not for Image:Einstongue.jpg, which is of too low quality to be featured, unfortunately. - Circeus 00:47, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. First vote here - Circeus 00:47, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. —Josh Lee 02:38, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - my hero (Einstein, that is) - Adrian Pingstone 07:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Nice portrait, popular figure, but I am confused by the copyright status. Thanks to Lupo this image is well sourced and tagged, and indeed if you follow the source link it states that the copyright is expired. But why? The picture is taken in 1948 so it is not published pre-1923, and the photographer Yousuf Karsh only died a few years ago. -- Solipsist 10:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I cannot say I get overwhelmed by it. Jonas Olson 10:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great photo. I think the sweater gives a nice informal look. --Fir0002 11:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --Bernard Helmstetter 12:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A great photo of a great man - assuming the copyright issues are resolved. Enochlau 13:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --brian0918™ 19:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The best picture I've seen of the guy yet. Mgm|^(talk) 21:25, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --Zxcvbnm 04:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Ericd 21:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. -- I discovered a few years ago that many great photographs by Karsh are in the PD. At that time I wrote something in the Village Pump to suggest to Wikipedians to "dig" in Karsh portraits. I still don't know why they're PD, maybe a governement order or maybe Karsh had no children and released his works in the PD.
  • Comment - It seems that the Canadian governement acquired the rights. Ericd 21:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Nice shot. TomStar81 21:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Go for it! How about nominating this one Image:Karsh Churchill.jpg too? --Bricktop 06:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it's low res. Jonas Olson 08:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It's easy to get the hi-res version... Ericd 08:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Good! We sure could use it, featured or not. Jonas Olson 10:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I uploaded the best res version I could find on internet, but if you get a high-res version, it's always welcomed --Bricktop 12:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Thanks for the clarification on copyright. I guess 'expired' isn't the right word if the Canadian government aquired the copyright and release it, but it does look like several other Karsh photographs are similarly in the public domain. -- Solipsist 10:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't know what's the legislation is Canada is a photographic work owned by the Canadian state automatically PD or did Canada release Karsh works in the PD ? Ericd 10:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - This has to be verified, but it seems that the Canadian governement acquired the rights for the whole Karsh works, thus all Karsh photographs must be in the PD. As he photographied a bunch of the celebrities of his time and he is one the best (if not the best) portrait photographer ever, it's a great source for Wikipedia. Ericd 11:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Canadian Gov works are not PD, ala the US gov, they are crown copyright, which is a non-commercial (non-free) license. See Crown copyright. Burgundavia 21:56, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Karsh may be the greatest portrait photographer of all time, and this is one of the best examples of this work. Alight 19:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I am pleased to see that you all are staying away from opposing to this picture. You see, I have patented that opinion! :-) Jonas Olson 07:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You seem very unexcitable. :) --brian0918™ 09:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- I like it a lot. - Longhair | Talk 12:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted Image:Albert Einstein by Yousuf Karsh.jpg overwhelmingly BrokenSegue 12:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)