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

Hypervelocity impact

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

• Nominate and support. - CapeCodEph 00:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice. -Ravedave 05:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose An incredibly dirty scan, dust, smudges, etc. Check it in full-size before voting! Needs a major photosoup job to be a FP. (Looks like somebody already tried and botched it, see the black "brush marks" in the upper & lower right corners.) --Janke | Talk 08:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It almost seems like those brush marks are hiding logos/symbols/atribution information. --vaeiou 15:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adds significantly to the article. However, I also agree with Janke that quality should be improved. Yet it is a very rare shot and a good illustration that is helping to grasp the destructiveness of a hypervelocity impact. Mikeo 09:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll try a cleanup on it, but don't expect a sudden transformation. I agree the mark in the bottom right corner is awful, that doesn't even look like a cleanup - somebody scribbling there for fun. I'll try smartening up the NASA original, although I can't see any difference visually. And the scribble isn't a botched Wikipedia job, it's on the NASA one too. There's also no way it needs to be that kind of resolution - about 3/4 of that'll do, probably. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 15:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit added. Not too good if I do say so myself, but as good as I could do in a pinch. Looks great at thumbnail and image page, but even I notice imperfections when you download the full version. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 17:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support for 1st edit. Heavy cloning stamp artifacts in upper right corner. --Janke | Talk 18:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second edit added - not meaning to insult Vanderdecken as that edit seems good, I had made this when there was only one copy but had been unable to upload it. It's not perfect, and I left some of the flecks in as I think they are reflections of the flash but they could be removed. Open to the vote, |→ Spaully°τ 14:53, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Oppose 2nd edit - too heavy filtering smudges details. --Janke | Talk 15:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, not doing this just because I have a rival edit, but I do also believe that too much detail is lost with the blurring - one of the reasons I just selectively blurred the walls of the tunnel etc. And I see what you mean by those clone stamp marks, I'll have another bash tomorrow. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 15:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair points, I'm not that hot with pic editing so was a bit of a learning process. If you have another go though there are still a few scan errors in your edit that might bear cloning and some more cloning marks in the bottom left corner where the curve of the tunnel becomes straight. Otherwise I agree that yours preserves more of the detail. |→ Spaully°τ 17:14, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
• Support which ever one wins. Or has the most votes. Which ever happens first. TomStar81 07:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hypervelocity support - This is awesome! It's like straight out of science fiction!

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

• Support Awesome photo. Leidiot 03:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Washington Crossing the Delaware

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

• Nominate and support - TomStar81 00:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Beautiful historic work of art and illustrates an article.--Dakota ~ ° 07:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We should get a better scan than this for FP. It looks like it is scanned from a book, with raster aliasing, and a light bar in front of GW's head that might be the white space between two pics on the other side of the page, also, a bit small - it is just under the "magic 1000" - but here, I think details are so important that it needs to be at least 1600 or even 2000.--Janke | Talk 08:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose for version 2 - only a tad larger, much better general quality, but it is less sharp. Can we do even better? --Janke | Talk 07:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

’Fraid not. This was the largest size I could find on the net. TomStar81 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above Anchorage 12:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a larger version, but I am not sure about the copyright status for it. In any case it has been uploaded as version 2. —This unsigned comment was added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 18 March 2006.
    • The copyright status for an identical image of higher resolution will be the same. ~MDD4696 05:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Version 2 has been heavily edited and looks very queer.--ragesoss 07:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with ragesoss. Looks like a good painting but image quality is letting it down. --Fir0002 www 23:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support origional A great painting. And it has history because the Deleware river rarely freezes today like it did back then because of the effects of the Little ice age. If it becomes featured picture just make sure the thumbnail displayed on the front page is bigger than it's size on this page. BWF89 16:03, 27 March 2006 UTC

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

Mandelbrot Set

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

• Nominate and support. - J.Steinbock 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose — (1) Doesn't belong to any article. (2) Not particularly striking. (3) As mentioned, other mandelbrots are already featured. Good that it's reasonably zoomed out, so displays more features of the fractal. deeptrivia (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is now located on the Mandelbrot set article. J.Steinbock ^(Talk)
• Oppose. This is nice, but there are more striking images of the MB set. --Janke | Talk 07:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Since it's just a fractal, a higher res image should be easy to create. As it is, the pic is too low res IMO--Fir0002 www 23:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on grounds of size although I would support if it could be re-uploaded far larger. We have fractal FPs of this size or less already and I think our next ought to be very large indeed ~ Veledan • Talk 23:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Percival Lowell

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

• Nominate and support. - J.Steinbock 02:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, not very big, but I really like it.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 06:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose because of the small size. A larger one would get my immediate support. --Janke | Talk 07:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The original image came from the Lowell Observatory. I would suggest contacting them (or the Friends of Lowell, since they provided an email address) and explain that you are requesting a large version of the image for encyclopedic use. It looks like they have a lot of archives on the man, so they doubtless have a photo to scan. For an image this famous, though, they probably have a good online version for people who ask. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 07:47
• Oppose too small. -Ravedave 03:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Typeset writing examples

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

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

• Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 05:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great example of old style typesetting formats. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. See below, re original color scan. Of great interest to people perusing the subjects above. --Janke | Talk 07:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Totally sweet.--ragesoss 07:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely support the 4th (original) version; it provides the visual context to make sense of the fonts, which look odd in the cleaned-up version.--ragesoss 18:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clear,, high-res, readable, and important. What more can you want? Msoos 15:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Having been involved with fonts, this is a remarkable picture. --Thermos 15:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support <!-still supporting but comment updated below--> Again, a superb entry ~ Veledan • Talk 19:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice find! :) - Mailer Diablo 20:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Support original colour scan, better of the best! :) - Mailer Diablo 23:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Still prefer edit's but would support any version --Fir0002 www 09:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original color scan The nominator forgot to mention that the author of this specimen, William Caslon, is one of the most famous type designers. –Joke 23:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC) (edited to support original color scan Joke 15:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Oppose. Does no one see the error (paper fold) near the left side? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in the "French Cannon.", second line from the bottom. The "fixed" version from Fir masks the fold and makes it appear (perhaps) as a scanner error. In the original it is clear that the paper is folded. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Apparently it was a tear, not a fold, but it's been fixed. Nice work. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarification. My support vote is currently for Version 4, the true color version, on account of the high level of detail. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've uploaded a fixed version. I found another copy of the page and pasted its undamaged section over the original damaged section. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-22 02:20
• Comment. I prefer the "tone" of the original (first image), actually. I think the "fix" (second and third) loses some important details. Look at the "faded" part above the tear on the original and the same spot on the fixed copy... see? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot figure out what you're talking about. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-22 06:24
    • The faded text reads "consules defumus", it is above the tear area, a little to the right. It is above the "Q R S T" in Pica Roman. If you compare the first and second (or first and third) images, you will see that there is some loss in the fine detail. Also, the "fixed" version just seems "stark" to me... it looks more like a poorly digitized scan than a photo-realistic representation. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's also quite possible that I'm nuts. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, I see what you're referring to, but can't really fix it without reverting to the original version, which would include the tear. It would be more difficult to fix the original verison, since its background is not nearly as white. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-22 09:02
• Comment - I'd really like to see the color scan of the old document here (see my comment in Warship), too - these edits are good, but too clean, for images being from 1728. --Janke | Talk 10:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose agreed, it looks far too clinical and artificial at the moment. The third version is better but not perfect. chowells 13:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the fourth version only. chowells 19:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the original is that the back of the page can be seen, something that can only be drown out in the way that has been shown. I think the cleaned up versions are better, because the coloring is as it was originally intended to be, not browned and damaged with time. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-23 14:01
    • I do not consider it a problem chowells 19:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original color scan. As seen in Warship above, after the original color scan was uploaded, voters favored that. So, I upload and support the original again. The imperfections in the paper and printing are of historical significance, and should not be edited out. Nuff said... --Janke | Talk 14:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What historical purpose do they serve? To show that the text is old?? I highly doubt Caslon wanted to present a browned, damaged, see-through page as his best work. This picture is used in articles about alphabets, languages, and fonts, not articles about water damage and paper aging. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-23 15:35
  • In this case I'm not sure that they are significant. Since the candidacy focuses on the typefaces themselves, I'm not certain that the age of the paper itself is an issue. Nevertheless I'm supporting that 4th version as it is unquestionably the clearest and most detailed of the available options. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that they are not necessarily particularly significant. On the other hand, they don't detract from understanding the image as a type specimen, and give it historical context. The sample was printed with lead type on paper almost three hundred years ago. It is pointless and dishonest trying to make it look as though it was laser printed yesterday on unnaturally white paper, and looking closely at the processed image is off-putting: the letters are rough but the contrast is so high it seems like a black and white image and it is difficult to register they are rough because it was printed with metal type. I don't like the lack of any texture in the three other versions. I say, unless there is a clear argument to the contrary, it is best to use the least manipulated image. (With that said, it is regrettable that the text behind is visible in this image.) –Joke 17:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original colour scan I mean, Wow! the detail is beautiful, the depiction of the early typefaces loses nothing whatsoever from the ageing of the paper, and the cross-print from the other side of the page is neither ugly nor encyclopedically irrelevant. There is no contest here, it has to be this version IMO ~ Veledan • Talk 21:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Warship diagram

Articles: Warship, Naval warfare

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

• Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 07:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. See below! Funny perspective, though, those cannons point straight forward and could hit one another... Brian, are you going to nominate all the plates in the 1728 Cyclopaedia? ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. The rest of the plates are just collections of figures. See the 2nd page of Category:Cyclopaedia for the other plates (I still have a couple more to upload). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 07:31
• Support. Rad.--ragesoss 07:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the colored original.--ragesoss 01:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 08:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't want to rain on the parade, but I find the JPEG compression artifacts distracting. Do we have a lossless or low compression source image for this?--Eloquence* 09:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the best there is. I've tried asking the University of Wisconsin for larger versions before, but was turned down. I'm not sure what other Universities have this book; the only way to get a better image would be go to there and scan the book. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 16:20
  • Actually, it appears that my school's library has a more recent copy. I'll see what I can find... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 16:32
• Support Great picture, great clarity and resolution, it is very hard to do a better picture than this of a page, congratulations! Msoos 15:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Still supporting but updated vote below. Excellent diagram & a wonderful find. If you can scan a better version, all well and good, but I think the original is already every bit good enough. It's a diagram, not a photograph, and in any case the details are as clear as I've ever seen them on plates of this age ~ Veledan • Talk 19:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Has alot of information. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• • Did you just increase the midtone contrast under the Shadow/Highlights option, or something else? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-20 00:03

Levels --Fir0002 www 21:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the edit. These old diagrams that were created w/o computers are so astounding.. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 02:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Support. Both informative and stunning. Would support having the initial image replaced with the edited version (without the artefacts). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, this is the original image. I didn't just upload it without attempting to clean it up first :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-21 13:23
• Support color original per above. –Joke 23:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC) (added "color original" Joke 18:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Strong Support. Stunning (both pictures). — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 02:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• - Support ~Linuxerist L / T 05:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edited - cool. Ha, they called it a "cock pit". --Deglr6328 05:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original color file only. You know, I'd really prefer the the original file, showing the faded, brownish paper. The edits are just so clinically antiseptic looking! If a document is old, I'd like to see it in the scan, too. Struck out my vote further above. --Janke | Talk 10:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)*[reply]
• Support colour version only. Agree with Janke, gives more character. |→ Spaully°τ 14:10, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
• Support colour original only I knew it looked wrong for some reason. Much better. chowells 13:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the cleaned up versions are closer in appearance to what the image was originally intended to be, not browned and damaged with time. The image is supposed to be for educational purposes, not historic purposes. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-23 14:06
  • Personally, I find the color version the most legible, and the most "cleaned up" version the least. –Joke 18:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original colour scan Per my vote on the typefaces, there is no contest here IMO. The edits sharpen at an unforgiveable cost in detail ~ Veledan • Talk 22:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Artifacts are basically gone in the edit; the "character" of the original color version is only nice at huge size, while at the size it is in the article, the grey is just hard on the eyes. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we're discussing the images here, though, not the thumbnails! With that said, for some images (such as this one) it would be nice to have a different crop and levels for the thumbnail sized reductions. –Joke 16:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original only. - Mailer Diablo 00:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only. The edit is not that bad, I compared the versions side by side for quite some time. But still some characters with very fine lines are more legible in the original and the tones of the fill patterns look nicer in the original. --Dschwen 09:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any version; it's a wonderful plate. A "translation" of the descriptions in the image into wiki-text on the image page would make it even better. –Gustavb 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, awesome pic! --Cyde Weys 07:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice detail. Prefer the original. Covington 08:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: not a fan, While it's a beautiful diagram, the huge number of labels are unworkable. For this to be useful in learning it would need mouse-over labels. I don't know how you'd do that within the MediaWiki framework. Note: I'm being slightly hypocritical here as I've been doing the labels for Haeckel's images in commons. —Pengo 09:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imagemaps aren't possible in the software, although it might be possible to make a table with the image as the background, and put links in the table. The problem is getting this to work at all resolutions. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-1 16:16

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

Grand Prix Motorcycle

Articles: Motorcycle, Grand Prix motorcycle racing and KTM

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

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

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

• Nominate and support. - Thermos 09:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The background is distracting, one of the stripes looks like it's coming from the cycle, there's a corner of a brochure in the lower left corner, and some other MCs messing up the rear end. Sorry, this is something only a MC afficionado could love... ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't care for the reflections of the steel on the motorcycle or the wall. That line is also distracting. --vaeiou 17:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Pretty good pic, but the location spoils it. --Fir0002 www 23:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I also find the reflection of the ground on the body of the bike distracting. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with PS2, reflectoin is distracting, picture is a little bland aswell. Fir0002 has a good point about the location too. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The reflection is a bit distracting and there is something in the bottom left corner Leidiot 03:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orange Flower

This is a good photo that I took with great colour

• Nominate and support. - Kunalkarki 22:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is poor. Please consider the criteria before submitting further nominations ~ Veledan • Talk 22:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not featured material, unfortunately. Phoenix2 23:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Good compo. incredibly horrible artefacting. --Deglr6328 01:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's a pretty image, but the angle you chose to shoot from makes the flower's make-up incredibly confusing, so it really doesn't add much to the article in terms of displaying the flower. Staxringold 07:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flower

I took this photo.

• Nominate and support. - Kunalkarki 22:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've left a message on this user's talk page about the lack of licensing and the lack of it being included in an article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This would have a good place at Crocus but I don't think it's striking enough for FP status ~ Veledan • Talk 22:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Good compo. very bad artefacting. --Deglr6328 01:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not sharp enough for FP - Adrian Pingstone 05:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No license. YAFP. Little encyclopedic value since the inside of the flower is not visible. Bad filename. --Dschwen 20:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a great photo. Tobyk777 05:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sunset & Tree

Nice Photo

• Nominate and support. - Kunalkarki 21:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Hi there. I noticed that you are pretty new to Wikipedia. So, welcome! For featured images, we need to see them included in any article, otherwise they can't be considered. Alternatively, you can upload the image to the Wikipedia Commons where I don't believe that it needs to be associate with an article, but it still can be considered a Featured Picture. If you have any questions, leave them for me on my talk page. Nice image. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is an attractive pic but I'm afraid it isn't eligible for FP because it doesn't illustrate an encyclopedic topic. Please see the criteria for guidance as to what we look for in featured pictures ~ Veledan • Talk 22:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with above, plus, it doesn't have a license. Alr 00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not FP material in any way, in my opinion. Not sharp, not interesting, shows nothing well not even the tree - Adrian Pingstone 05:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No description; not encyclopedic matter; not used on any page; no reason given for upload/nomination; no license tag; user has 17 contributions, all of which (except for two to Flower) are to FPC or that image; and I just don't think it's a FP quality picture. I'd be happy to keep it on Wikipedia or Commons, just not as an FP. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 12:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not used in any article, and all of the above. --Dschwen 20:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clinton and Jiang

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

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

• Nominate and support. - Ryz05 22:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unless you can find a larger version. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too low res. For the record i think you set up your nomination wrong. I've fixed it for you though. --Fir0002 www 23:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The resolution is much too small. -- PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. So far, it seems much of the problem stems from the resolution. As I'm not so good at photo editing, maybe someone talented in this area might feel obliged to improve the picture and nominate it in place of the present picture? That would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--Ryz05 23:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not possible to 'improve' that picture to featured picture quality without a much higher resolution original source image. Photo editors can't create detail that isn't there in an image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, no source or verifiable copyright information, in addition to size and quality problems.--nixie 02:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Definitely too small. Also, if its Government copyright, a verifiable source should be given. --Janke | Talk 07:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Hopelessly too small - Adrian Pingstone 20:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose copyright issues, and I don't think the image is particularly striking or informative. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Venus de Milo

Articles: Venus de Milo, Louvre, Marble

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

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

• Nominate and support - Arco Acqua 18:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's only 183 px wide, faaaaar too low for a FP. --Janke | Talk 19:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While certainly a great piece of art, there are thousands of far more unique and interesting photos that should be featured instead of one that can be found in any high school European history textbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.51.67 (talk • contribs)
• Oppose Too low res. --Fir0002 www 23:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose. Resolution is much too low. Also, as per 65.182.51.67, I don't feel that the image is unique or stunning enough. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, has people in background which is distracting. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sure the art's nice... but the picture is lacking. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 21:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Iguassu

Articles: Iguassu Falls

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

• Nominate and support. - Merlinthewizard 14:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Foreground almost a featureless mist, a bit too dominating. Grain and/or artifacts in sky. Do you have a less compressed version you might upload? --Janke | Talk 15:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Amazing location, poor picture. —This unsigned comment was added by 65.182.51.67 (talk • contribs) .
• Oppose Just a "happy snap" --Fir0002 www 23:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The picture isn't very stunning to me. I think Image:Iguacu-004.jpg does a better job of illustrating the article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's a subject that should have FP, but this one isn't particularly outstanding. I'd nominate the much superior image Image:Iguacu-004.jpg, but I think it'd get shot down for graininess... zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice background and a nice picture Leidiot 03:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

((Aprilfools))

Ceiling Cat

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

• Nominate and support. - Harro5 08:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - but only because of the upload date. Tomorrow, I'll change that to oppose ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• SUPPORT: THIS REALLY SHOWS SHOW AWESOME THE WIKIPEDIA REALLY IS! -- CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL (FOR COOL) 08:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose - a meaningless "joke" that doesn't seem funny at all. - Alan 08:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - Picture is not in any article, and is not very pleasing to my eye. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 11:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 13:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Template:Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 13:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose - utterly pointless. A FP should show the best Wikipedia has to offer, this most definitely isn't. Arco Acqua 14:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • -1 Troll Cyde Weys 16:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support OMG lolz! -Ravedave 15:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support, I'm just glad I don't have one of those in my house. --Cyde Weys 16:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • -1 Overrated Cyde Weys 16:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Made me lol. Is ceiling kitty an internet meme yet?--Deglr6328 21:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- It is funny, but it's small and just not good enough for a featured picture. --TheAlphaWolf 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Fun, but not a featured pic -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I guess this was never seriously intended as a nomination --Fir0002 www 23:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Is this a joke? Leidiot 02:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• April 1. April Fool's 2006. Read up. Harro5 04:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy neutral. I'm fully in favor of this image remaining promoted or being successfully unlisted at WP:FP. It is a prime example of what pixels can look like when placed near eachother. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-2 03:02

Indeed, it does look like Pixel, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls - even though it's a ceiling, here! --Janke | Talk 09:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Cat abuse. pschemp | talk 05:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cute, but April 1 has gone and passed. Oppose. =P  — TheKMan^talk 05:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. No artistic value. Covington 06:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I thought pics had to be used in an article? Congrats on an excellent April Fools joke - Adrian Pingstone 12:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Great Wall of China

Articles: Great Wall of China

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

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

http://images.rgs.org/herbertponting.aspx

• Nominate and support - --Ryz05 02:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, larger version. Why reduce the size? The original is sharp enough. I only adjusted the brightness & contrast, nothing else. I think the first upload is too brightly colored, too. --Janke | Talk 06:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support "Original, larger size" version.. The coloring of the first nom is too distracting. The 2nd does a better job. If this version is used in the Great Wall of China article I'll support. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Support larger, per above. –Joke 23:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the original version only. The color on the upper one is hard on the eyes.--Looper5920 11:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above, though the figures in the photo appear to wear contemporary Manchu-based dress and not Hanfu--Jiang 04:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gandhi and Jinnah

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

• Nominate and support. --Dwaipayanc 09:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry but it's too small and the quality is poor even at this small size. I don't deny its historical relevance but photographs of Gandhi with other politicians are not rare enough to excuse the defects. Also, it has no source info and nothing to substantiate its copyright tag. Is there any evidence that the publication of this picture was subject to Indian copyright law? Was it published before 1946? ~ Veledan • Talk 22:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Way too small, people need to start familarizing themselfs with featured pictures before they nominate them. Importance isn't enough, it needs to be high quality and stunning.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small, too dusty, not sharp at all Search4Lancer 03:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- I love Gandhi, but as a photo it is kindof boring --T-rex 23:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alicia Ghant one of Gandhi's helpres

Woolworth Building

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

• Nominate and support. - Zambaretzu 14:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support. The image page says that the picture uses a copyright tag that should no longer be used. If this is resolved, I will support. RyanGerbil10 02:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to look into it, but I'm not sure if this image can be tagged with ((PD-old)). It was copyrighted and published by a company c1913. Anyone know? ~MDD4696 03:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Pretty sure its copyrighted - Check out the library of congress legal page, the page the image is on says "NOTES: J178523 or 24 U.S. Copyright Office. Copyright by The Pictorial News Co., N.Y. " Though if that company is gone, does that mean its in the public domain?
  • This page says the company went under in the 20s, so does that mean that the image is in the public domain? -Ravedave 03:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I posed the quetion here: Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags#Company_that_no_longer_exists.3F
      • According to Simetrical, it's fine, and someone updated the tag. --Zambaretzu 09:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support. Very historic. Assuming the questions about copyright are resolved, I'll support it. Support the 2nd3rd version, but the original would be ok. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I uploaded a version that I think looks better. I cleaned up the speckles (only in the sky), cropped it and adjusted the levels. I can do any combination of the three modifications, but I think the cleaned up sky, at least, is a must. I can't figure out how to make the new image's page look like the original's (PD tag, etc), so maybe someone can help me.--Zambaretzu 09:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A great picture with suprising quality. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 22:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no question. –Joke 23:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original upload only. The edit is washed out, and appears to be leaning slightly to the left. --Janke | Talk 10:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's definitely not leaning any more than the original - the fact that the leaning black frame was cropped out might give that impression. As for being washed out, I thought the original was too dark, especially in the lower left; I can upload a darker edit if that's the consensus though.--Zambaretzu 06:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "fixed" version. Selective brightening of LL corner, rotated 0.3 deg. CV, border cropped out, smudges in sky removed, slight sharpening. --Janke | Talk 07:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although I'm not sure which is better. The second one looks too washed out to me. I think the original is better as an image of an artifact and the third one is better as a picture. It's a great illustration of how the financial district used to look (and one of my favorite buildings). Makemi 22:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 2nd version.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fixed Conveys subject clearly and concisely. Tobb 23:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Oppose Doesn't have that "wow" factor to me. —This unsigned comment was added by Spizzma (talk • contribs) 18:35, 25 March 2006.
• Support fixed - I like it. -Ravedave 02:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Peacock Tailfeathers

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

• Nominate and support. - RyGuy17 00:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Too small, poor focus. --Deglr6328 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Resolution is low (criteria) and as Deglr6328 pointed out, it is out of focus. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yikes, the sharpening has grossly oversaturated the color. --Deglr6328 01:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Eastrock02

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

• Nominate and support. - StAkAr Karnak 14:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose An OK pic but not sufficiently special or interesting for Featured - Adrian Pingstone 19:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm sorry but this won't pass. It is a good picture and a worthy contribution to its article but an extremely high standard has been set on this page for pictures of static objects, cities, monuments and the like. This pic could be improved fairly easily with regards to contrast and accutance but even then it would need to be much larger and stunningly sharp to be a match for our existing similarly themed FPs ~ Veledan • Talk 19:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How large is a good size for consideration?--StAkAr Karnak 13:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Oppose. Boring. It's just a monument, I'm afraid. Alr 00:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Ack all above. --Janke | Talk 10:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Composition. Bertilvidet 15:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Hasn't got the sparkle. --Thorpe | talk 19:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per all above. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 21:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not good enough. --Terence Ong 15:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not exceptional. --Philopedia 22:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Insanity

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

• Nominate and support. - zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, high res version looks great. Frightening every time I see this image. Really conveys the message well. Phoenix2 01:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Fine image, but it doesn't portray insanity. See Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If by insanity you mean Insanity as a capitalized, symbolized concept, parallel to Truth or Time or Folly, then it probably doesn't portray insanity. (But it might - the article states that the image is unidentified, but may symbolize syphilis, which can cause insanity!)

If by insanity you mean not a corporeal symbol of it but the state of mind, the mental disorder - well, insanity is not a concept in the discipline psychology or psychiatry. It's a everyday term (or a legal one), and, in this respect, the image also fits. I think it's fair to say that the person depicted is clearly, in popular parlance, insane. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The common interpretation seems to be jealousy rather than insanity. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The incredibly high resolution and detail add considerably to the Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time article, where this image now resides. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very good detail and amazing clear Bertilvidet 15:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks insane to me... --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 21:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, I don't dispute that the image could be USED to illustrate insanity. But, quite frankly, doing so would constitute Original Research. The image is an allegoric representation of Jealousy, NOT insanity. This makes it inelligible as an FPC for insanity. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not to be a jerk, but I've removed this image from the insanity article and replaced it with an engraving by William Hogarth. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfectly reasonable. ~MDD4696 00:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. As it happens, this image was originally on the German featured version of the Insanity article, with the same usage. Should it be removed from there as well? zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably. I'd suggest that someone who is "fluent enough" in German do it so that they can explain the reasoning. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would prefer to see the entire painting, unless someone can make the point that there is some encyclopedic value to examining this portion of it only. Also, this image does not currently support an article. ~MDD4696 00:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support why isnt it on the Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time page? -Ravedave 03:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is now. ~MDD4696 04:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support if placed in an article which represents the usual interpretation of the emotion in the portrait, which according to above, is not insanity. Also, I would support if it was in a section discussing the individual at Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-23 17:46
• Support Since it now appears to have found its home. –Joke 17:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now. Staxringold 07:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It doesn't give me much of a feeling. -- Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 12:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wouldn't Edvard Munch's 'The Scream' be the natural candidate to fill this niche? --Philopedia 22:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I think that'd fit better under Existential crisis than Insanity. But that's my personal opinion - at any rate, this image isn't on Insanity anymore, it's on Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time. zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pet peeve warning. The more "scholarly" interpretations of Munch's piece are that the Scream referenced is not any sound made by the figure, but rather a scream to which the figure is reacting (a metaphorical scream resounding throughout the world). Also, as stated, the figure isn't represented as insane but as filled with despair, anxiety, and angst. YMMV. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Not wowed. sorry.--Deglr6328 00:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Scary. A great illustrator of the subject. —This unsigned comment was added by Spizzma (talk • contribs) 01:33, 26 March 2006.
• Oppose I find it unattractive and disturbing.--Andeee 22:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Quality Art. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Kikuyu Woman

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

• Nominate and support. - howcheng {chat} 18:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The picture is fascinating, but it's in the shadow... Sorry, but I have to oppose. Circeus 19:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I want to support this image, but technically the quality isn't great (bit unsharp, highlights blown out) and I think it's too cropped (it looks like it's meant to be a portrait of the individual rather than an encyclopedic illustration of the people) and it's a bit small. If it were a fairly unique image those factors could be forgiven but a google image search on kikuyu shows very many images of Kĩkũyũ people in traditional dress - although I admit I haven't noticed any superior to this picture. Does the photographer have a less cropped version, or any other we could consider? Only a relatively minor improvement in any area might justify supporting this for me ~ Veledan • Talk 19:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's another one here: [1]. howcheng {chat} 20:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose... ack Veledan. --Janke | Talk 10:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Veledan. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 21:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Quality may be a little behind other FP, but it would be one of the firsts about Africa. --Bernard Helmstetter 20:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and Bernard.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Supporto; slightly different shadowing would be ideal, yes, but even without I think this deserves promotion. Mike1024 (t/c) 23:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I will support it on the basis of its rarity, although I would like to see an improved photo myself. TomStar81 08:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Hahahahahahahaha - BWF89 15:49, 27 March 2006 UTC
• Suppoprt --Chris 73 | Talk 23:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Leonhard Building

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

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

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

The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror

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

• Nominate and support. - Thorpe | talk 18:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Larger would be better, also the sky is burned out on the right side. Difficult lighting, sure, but it could be better... Best photo in the article, though! --Janke | Talk 19:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although it's not the most stunning composition... --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 20:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nice vacation shot but uninteresting composition. --P199 18:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Somewhat intriguing structure, but the picture is not particularly striking. bcasterline t 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interesting building are always feature worthy in my wiki. sikander 04:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per P199 and bcasterline. Ziggur 05:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It is a good picture, but I personally don't like the lighting. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not the finest in terms of sharpness but quite interesting. I have seen it (California one) and it's as unusual looking for real as it is in the picture.--Dakota ~ ° 08:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Good, not good enough though. --Deglr6328 23:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The text is quite distracting and the lighting is not very good, either. Freedom to share 15:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

SR-71

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

• Nominate and support. - Ravedave 03:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks excellent, can't really see any way to fault it. chowells 13:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Had to look close to see that the wing tip wasn't cut off... ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Majestic picture. --Thermos 16:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The classic SR-71 photo. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-23 17:43
• Support Looks good. It would perhaps be wise not to rely too heavily on pictures provided by the American military (or NASA) when building a portfolio of featured images. It is another kind of systemic bias encountered in Wikipedia. –Joke 17:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until you can come up with a source that rivals the US govt for good pictures I think its bound to happen. -Ravedave 18:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. But it is best to be aware of it. –Joke 21:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent detail and background. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - wonderful image, informative, striking, excellent detail - Johntex\^talk 01:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I really like the colours and the background. --Terence Ong 14:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice one! - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support incredibly nice image of a very famous plane. Staxringold 07:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - striking photo JanSuchy 09:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great image, wonderful background --Scot^t 11:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Striking. -- Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 12:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent background, highly detailed, nice shadowing Search4Lancer 02:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great action, colors, background.--Mr. RX99 20:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support How could I oppose? Great picture. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 23:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and there ain’t no more to say. TomStar81 08:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's all been said --Fir0002 www 10:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent photo, great quality showing the influential aircraft in the sky.--Andeee 22:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image, I currently use it as my desktop background! -- Snailwalker | talk 13:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great picture. Leidiot 03:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent composition. Covington 08:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Bandwagon. Another one of my long-time favorites. --Golbez 07:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Toda Hut

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

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

• Nominate - Pratheepps 07:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Awesome, Renata 12:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Emphatic Yes --Soumyasch 12:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support: It need to be in a suitable article! As far as I can see, it's not. Fix that, and you have my support. --Janke | Talk 14:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is now attached with the article Toda people
• The color was bothering me a bit, and the hut seemed a little oddly framed, so I've uploaded an alternate version. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-23 16:53
• Support Nice image. –Joke 17:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but not sure which version... Brian I think you improved the whitebalance but you made it just a bit too warm for my taste, and I don't support your crop. I agree the crop strengthens the focus, but I don't think it justifies losing any of the surrounding detail: I want to see the rest of those terraces to the right. And Pratheepps please find or create an article for this to be useful in, or I'll have to withdraw my vote ~ Veledan • Talk 20:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is now attached with the article Toda people

• Support for original. Crop is not necessary because the front of the hut (and the most interesting part) is centered in the photo. BTW, photo is used in Toda people article. --P199 22:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Supportoriginal--K.C. Tang 02:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. It'd be nice if the original photo was not cropped so tightly at the left and the bottom, but cropping the right doesn't help, and I don't like the color change. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original --Janke | Talk 06:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Original version, cropped version is too bright. Question, what is the approximate height and width of the hut?--Dakota ~ ° 07:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • About 6-7 feet tall & wide 10 feet high, 18 feet long and 9 feet wide.
• Support the original version. --Terence Ong 15:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original I like it's general tone a lot more. Staxringold 07:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support modified The warmness is much more appealing. -- Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 12:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support modified Compelling image, clear encyclapedic value. Either version could do. --Philopedia 22:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original version.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Now this is a perfect FPC candidate. Informative and adds value to the article. deeptrivia (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original This is a great picture.--Mr. RX99 19:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport either one An excellent picture but they both look too similar to favor one over the other. BWF89 15:55 27 March 2006 UTC
• Support original. A very informative picture. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 00:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Excellent, excellent photo. Jdfoote 21:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great encyclopedic value. Excellent compostion. Covington 06:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Insecurity

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

• Nominate and support. - Oblivious 16:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice image, but it doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic to me. Vexel is not exactly a high-prominence article. –Joke 17:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose skillful but not superb. --P199 18:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Small, too... --Janke | Talk 20:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on size, if a > 1000px version was added I would support it. -Ravedave 00:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If it was a real picture like I thought at first glance I would've strongly supported it. -- Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 12:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hurricane Isabel

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

• Nominate and support. - howcheng {chat} 07:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support detailed, novel, interesting. –Joke 22:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sides of hurricane are cut off, and is really a rather bland picture. Angr (talk • contribs) 01:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per Angr. Johntex\^talk 01:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not striking - there are many much better hurricane images available. --Janke | Talk 06:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support impressive picture from a novel viewpoint. Gets the point across effectively. --Philopedia 21:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In comparison with other hurricane photos out there, not exceptional at all. It's the hurricane's fault, not the photographer, but still. Search4Lancer 02:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Pirate

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

• Nominate and support. - StarryEyes 09:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Agree that this is even better than J.J.'s current two featurees. For this type of image, the size isn't a concern. Raggaga 09:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Why is this a JPG and not PNG or SVG? —Pengo 11:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support vector version. —Pengo 01:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support despite small size and jpg format. Gustavb's edit. J.J. is a true artist. --Janke | Talk 13:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I hate to oppose on technical rather than encyclopedic merit, but this image is too small. If it had been an SVG, the size would not be an issue. Graphics like this really deserve to be vector images. ~MDD4696 17:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Raggaga. The pirate stereotype is perfectly illustrated; and for this type of image, size matters not. Nothing's lost because there's no more detail to see. bcasterline t 18:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Resolution isn't a concern; in the unlikely event that someone wanted to reproduce this at poster size they could redraw it without loss of information ~ Veledan • Talk 21:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SVG version, and congratulations & thanks to both J.J. and Gustavb! ~ Veledan • Talk 18:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Just the right size. Another great user-created illustration. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-25 00:12
• Support A bit small, but an animation does not need to be bigger. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er... this is not animation, even though it's a cartoon... --Janke | Talk 06:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I sometimes mix up the terms "cartoon" and "animation". Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Heh, lots of fun. Staxringold 07:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Arrrrr ! sikander 08:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because of wo things: jpg format and some strange grey rectangular in the back. Once these are fixed, you got my support. Renata 12:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The grey rectangle is part of the art. Now art has to be "fixed"??? This is nonsense. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-25 22:23
    • It is very much distracting and completely unneccesary. Renata 03:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is entirely necessary for light-dark contrast. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 06:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is art. Either you like it, or you don't. You're never going to prove that something is incorrect about it; that would be impossible, so don't even bother. Just say you don't like it. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-26 15:24
        • Neutral - changing vote per conversion to vector image. I still hate the grey rectangular. Renata 02:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Wrong image format. This is a knock-out criteria for me. --Dschwen 18:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have dozens of FPs in jpg format. What is "wrong" about it? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-25 22:24
    • I think he referring to the fact that its animated and in jpg, really should be SVG or PNG-Ravedave
      • Animated? Again, this is a cartoon, but not an animated cartoon. I don't see it move. Do you? ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This type of image content, plain colors, sharp edges can ideally be represented as an SVG image. It was probably created using a vector-based program. JPG is the format of choice for Photos or photorealistic images. due to the nature of its compression algorithm. I'll try and find the pages where this matter has been discussed already and link back. --Dschwen 11:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While it can ideally be represented in another formatted, it can be represented just fine in JPEG as long as the compression is very low. This isn't a valid complaint, since the image doesn't have JPEG artefacts. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-26 15:27
        • Please read Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Format, hope this alleviates the need for further discussions. --Dschwen 19:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It says "preferably" and "should", not "must" nor "shall". That leaves some room for judgement by voters. --Janke | Talk 10:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, well, obviously it is not a felony to upload in a wrong format ;-). And neither am I voting to remove the nomination or let alone delete the image. Let me quote myself: This is a knock-out criteria for me. So I really do not get why there is so much discussion about the voicing of my opinion going on here :-). And replying to Brian with a quote from Janke: That leaves some room for judgement by voters, so it is a valid complaint. --Dschwen 10:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • You would have a case if the image was grainy due to high compression. This is not the case here, so I don't know what your rationale is beyond using an efficient format. The guideline you cite also says: "In general, if you have a good image that is in the wrong format, convert it to the correct format before uploading. However, if you find a map, flag, etc in JPEG format, only convert it to PNG if this reduces the file size without causing artifacts." — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-27 19:51
                • Let me cite what is a featured picture: [It should...] Be of a sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions.. I just don't get why you are so unruly insisting on JPG beeing the appropriate format for an image most likely created using a vector-based drawing program. This is counterproductive. I'll go ahead and assume that it would be easy for the original author to provide an SVG version (if not I'm sure he could convince me otherwise). Just accepting a tiny image which could benefit so much from an appropriate format sets a wrong precedent. Just think poster-size prints without visible pixeleation. It is not just about artifacts! --Dschwen 20:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I am not being "unruly", nor am I insisting it be in the JPEG format. I am simply saying that there is nothing wrong with the current JPEG version. If you can find a problem with it, beyond its 3 letter extension, feel free to let me know. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-28 14:43
                  • Timeout, fellows! You both have a right to your own opinion - and FP voting is mostly opinions, anyway... Of course it would be nice if this could be in SVG, and in fact, I've asked J.J. if he can supply it in that format, but if not - well, consensus will rule. --Janke | Talk 22:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - size & not encyclopedic (maybe a kids encyclopedia) I am dispmayed that all of the size-ists suddenly disseapeared. In my opinion the above buffalo picture is much more interesting, yet it is being opposed on size. -Ravedave 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a photo, low resolution means a loss of detail. For an illustration, it usually does not. In this case, the relatively small size of the image doesn't result in any loss of information. bcasterline t 23:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I'm glad we have contributors to make stuff like this but I don't see this particular image as being that notable. --Deglr6328 01:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It is notable in its flawless realization of the stereotype. As for the sally that this belongs in a kids' encyclopedia, the stated criteria for featured pictures include "add significantly to articles...by illustrating article content particularly well". The caricature idiom is encyclopedic in this case because, as with villain and mad scientist, this is an illustration of stereotypes. An actual picture of a pirate or a quote-unquote "more serious" depiction would detract from the purpose. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 06:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Top job on the artistry (is that even a word?), but the res is too small, especially considering this is probably a vector. --Fir0002 www 10:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as per Deglr6328. --P199 21:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Support vector version. I will change to support if a vector version is provided. It's a great illustration but the low-resolution rasterization makes it hard to reuse (especially for printing). Furthermore, a minor problem with jpeg is that artifacts appear when the image is resized as in the thumb above—even if it's free of artifacts at its original resolution. –Gustavb 22:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no way for someone to convert this image to SVG format? Surely this is possable? Raven4x4x 01:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to do it (i.e. redraw it), but only if J.J. can't provide the original in vector format. It takes some work to make a good conversion, so I don't want to redo something that already exists. –Gustavb 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to redraw it, perhaps consider using a tracing tool like poTrace (available within InkScape, which could cut down your work. Though redrawing completely may give better results. I've uploaded an example of a traced image I made in Inkscape, but I had some trouble getting it to keep all the detail, and yes, the original does have JPG artifacts. —Pengo 04:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually prefer redrawing it from scratch. Maybe it's just me being bad at tracing, but I always end up with too many nodes in the wrong places and too few where I actually need them. Another drawback with tracing is that strokes are lost (everything ends up as unstroked paths). Since it seems like J.J. hasn't got a better version [3], I redrew it — It's not a perfect match compared to the JPG, but it might be close enough… –Gustavb 13:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support redrawn vector version. Great job! Now if you have time there are Image:Mad_scientist_caricature.png and Image:Villianc.jpg who could use some of your magic. --Dschwen 14:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Information: J.J., the artist, informed me thus: "I don't have any other versions, unfortunately. I never really anticipated it would be this popular, alas. User:J.J." So, now we know that. Gustavb's version is an almost perfect copy, so yes, I support that (changed above). Well done, Gustavb!!! --Janke | Talk 14:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've fixed the copyright tag on the vector version. Gustavb marked it PD-self when it should be GFDL-user|J.J. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-28 14:49

Oops, thanks for fixing! –Gustavb 14:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To really pick the nit, J.J. originally released it without a license, and others added a PD tag... --Janke | Talk 15:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I think it accurately portays the stereotype of a pirate. --Mushroom King 09:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The image impressive, but I feel should not be featured due to - 1.Size, 2.Odd grey rectangle, 3.No scar ;). |→ Spaully°τ 14:18, 30 March 2006 (GMT)

Regarding 1, is infinite resolution not enough for you? ;) –Gustavb 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it'll have to do. |→ Spaully°τ 15:19, 1 April 2006 (GMT)

• Support any version of the pirate. Go One Piece! TomStar81 08:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I really don't care what extension it has as long as I can see it (check) and as long as I can edit it (erm... not everyone is an artist, and like me, not everyone has a vector drawing program). JPG will do me just fine. No artefacts in sight, so there's nothing wrong with the original. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Vector version only, mateys! ARRRR! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nothing unusual. David R. Ingham 06:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mainland China

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

• Nominate and support. - Alanmak 09:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the time being, until the problem mentioned at image talk:mainlandChina.png are addressed. — Instantnood 20:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Illustrative but nothing particularly remarkable. Look at this [4] or this [5]. A LOT of work and detail went into those, I don't see the same here. --Deglr6328 00:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Don't think those details are necessary. The map only illustrate what mainland China is, with respect to Hong Kong, Macao and the Republic of China. — Instantnood 12:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree that this is useful, but falls short of featured quality. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 06:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A good map for the article, but not a strikingly good image worthy of FP status. --Janke | Talk 10:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above. Also, borders of neighboring countries are not depicted in a very NPOV way. deeptrivia (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For example? — Instantnood 12:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm guessing he's referring to the border between India and Pakistan. --Golbez 07:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Dull, not eye catching. Sorry.

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

Bison and Wolves

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

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

• Nominate and support. - Matthew 08:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sorry. It's too small. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per above. Resolution too low. Is there a higher res image available Phoenix2 18:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose due to size. Too bad, because it is a fascinating picture. bcasterline t 18:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Too small, awkward/poor angle. --Deglr6328 00:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose love the picture, but not sharp enough :-( Search4Lancer 02:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the picture shows very well the mechanics of the wolf pack's attack and the bison's reaction. -- Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 04:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. Alas, if only it was larger. — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 06:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small means the file itself, not the thumbnail here... ;-) I changed the thumb back to "normal" size. --Janke | Talk 06:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too low res --Fir0002 www 10:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not only does the picture illustrate the pack's tactics, it also demonstrates the size difference between the wolves and their prey. The snowy background helps to demonstrate the native climate of both creatures, and implies the scarcity of easier food that leads the wolf pack to attack such a formidable beast. --talkie_tim 08:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- you don't see this kind of picture everyday --T-rex 23:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very interesting as well as informative. —This unsigned comment was added by Freedom to share (talk • contribs) .
• Oppose. Too small. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

George Washington

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

• Nominate and support. - Anchorage 12:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both Unfortunately, much too small - a postage stamp, compared to what nowadays is required for a FP. If you can find a version some 1000 px in size, that would surely be supported. --Janke | Talk 17:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Hopelessly too small for Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 21:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose So small, only 12kb. Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Again this photo is too low res. I would think that a higher res scan of such an important president would be availible. --Fir0002 www 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both of them are too small chowells 23:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT. This nomination was blanked by an ip. It went unnoticed for 6 days. Therefore, I think it is only fair to extend the nomination period by 6 days. Therefore, it should really close on April 8, 2006, 6 days from now. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crepuscular ray sunset in Pearl Harbor

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

• Nominate and Support -- Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 12:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you aware that there are already TWO featured pictures in that article of the exact same thing? And I hate to tell you, but both are probably more spectacular than this one. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sorry, but I agree with Diliff. The gallery in that article should be moved to commons anyway, no matter how pretty those pics look. --Dschwen 18:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you moved the gallery, so, technically, this image isn't even eligible for FPC anymore... However, I do like the rays diverging in all directions. --Janke | Talk 08:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but lets still wait till the official end of the voting period. And this particular picture can be reinserted in any case, I just thought two pics (both featured) were enough for this amount of text. --Dschwen 09:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I feel strongly that this image deserves a place in the article, even if it has to be at the expense of one of the existing FPs. I went along to move the gallery myself a few days ago, but didn't because I concur that the article can't really support more than 2 pics, and given my support for this one I had too much of a conflict of interest to trust myself to remove one of the existing FPs (effectively debarring it from featured status). But I still disagree with the removal of this picture from the article, when the two images left behind (though super quality) are less informative ~ Veledan • Talk 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why can't there be more than two pics in the article? After all, the subject is a visual phenomenon! I'd say, put the gallery back... --Janke | Talk 13:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - all has been said. --Deglr6328 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree this isn't quite as striking as the other two, but I give this one the ticket for encyclopedic value because (unusually) you can see crepuscular rays in both directions at once. I remember reading the article last time we had a crepuscular ray pic nominated, and after seeing the previous two FPs wondering how crepuscular rays could appear to diverge from a point only about a mile above the earth's surface when they ought to look parallel coming from the Sun: it was this picture that made me understand the perspective illusion. ~ Veledan • Talk 17:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• NeutralIt's a lovely image but I have to agree with the above comments. It's very similar. --Fir0002 www 10:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too boring to be a featured picture. BWF89 16:47, March 27 2006
• Oppose as per Diliff. --P199 21:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dollar Bill

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

• Nominate and support. - Fieari 19:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Highlights blown out, only center in focus- (Why is that "3" so important? ;-) Sure, this is a good way of circumventing the restrictions of imaging currency, but that alone doesn't make it a FP. --Janke | Talk 19:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Artsy, low DOF, not particularly encyclopedic. --Dschwen 20:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose .... its just too.... crappy? is that a valid reason for oppose? 'Not pleaseing' If it's not valid. -M^ask 20:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to angle, I'd be much more inclined to support if it were a straight-on closeup shot. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mask... :/ The government images on United States one-dollar bill are just better IMO. Staxringold 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with above. Alr 23:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Artsy to the point that its encyclopedic value suffers. bcasterline t 23:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The subject has potential, but it simply must be possible to find a better quality image. --Philopedia 01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The dollar bill needs more green in it. The green has alot to do with the history of the United States fiat currency system. --Mushroom King 09:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per philopedia. Procrastinator-General 23:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A great early April Fool joke - Adrian Pingstone 17:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. washed out. pschemp | talk 06:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. -- King of Hearts ^talk 01:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted by nominator via the snowball clause.

Thousand year old egg

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

• Nominate and support. - Philopedia 22:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Interesting, but the photo is small and blurry, so the image is difficult to make out. bcasterline t 23:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Very small, very poor focus. --Deglr6328 00:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too small and a bit blurred. Search4Lancer 02:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Only 415 pixels, no chance. --Janke | Talk 10:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't support on grounds of size and quality, although the topic is interesting. I feel quite nauseated now I've read the article :-P ~ Veledan • Talk 13:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Too small. deeptrivia (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per others. Sounds kind of like lutefisk, *ugh. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 00:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. too smelly. pschemp | talk 06:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bird Strike

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

• Nominate and support. - zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Extremely grainy/noisy and full of dust etc. due to origin. Chopped off subject and suboptimal angle detract greatly. --Deglr6328 00:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Oppose - Mainly because the camera is too low. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Dirty, grainy. Good for the article, but not a FP. --Janke | Talk 10:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not very interesting. Confusing at first. David R. Ingham 06:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Las Vegas Monorail

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

• Nominate and support. - Rmisiak 20:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I actually think the image is pretty good, but unfortunately the resolution is much too low. See criteria. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Too small, buildings chopped, not interesting. --Deglr6328 00:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Subject in shadow. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Only 640x480, lighting and composition could be better. --Janke | Talk 10:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't like the lighting. Its too dark. Because it's in the shadows of buildings, the yellow of the train doesn't stand out as much, which would have been great to see paat 19:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. - Mailer Diablo 10:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not enough contrast --T-rex 23:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weimaraner

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

• Nominate and support. -    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose low resolution and poor background. Ziggur 18:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the background is not beautiful, it does not take away from the subject, and it helps communicate the temperament of weimaraners, specifically their powerful and playful nature. The ceiling fan makes it clear that the photographer is looking up with the dogs standing over him (they were waking me up from sleep).    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 19:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose I like the picture, but what I don't like is that there is too much movement. It would be best if the picture could be more steady, to show the playfullness of the dogs paat 19:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Very small, isn't very grabbing. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 20:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - i find the blurly image irritating. picture is not exceptional in any way.--Philopedia 21:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose to much movement and the resolution is too low. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Hopelessly too small, at 320 pixels. Left dog totally unsharp and overexposed. This is a snapshot, not a FP. --Janke | Talk 22:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's obviously not going to pass, but for the record that is not overexposure from any flash (it was a cell phone, duh), just natural light in from the window; and it's not "unsharpness" but movement (more of that Weim temperament)    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overexposure is overexposure no matter what causes it. Standards are high for FPC and as the photographer, you are ultimately in control of the environment so you can't just say "Oh, but I didn't use a flash, it isn't my fault". As for "unsharpness", movement is one of the things that CAUSES unsharpness, along with lack of focus. Janke was completely correct. You just have to be realistic. We're not saying that the photo contributes nothing to the article, but you need to appreciate the high standards set for a featured picture, and that this photo is simply not good enough according to a number of criteria. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Postage stamp size, highly distracting background, blown highlights, excessive blurring, noisy, compression artefacts.--Deglr6328 00:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose entirely too small. I'm sure the blur might have been intentional, but it is too much. Search4Lancer 02:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The intentional blur is a great artistic effect, but it doesn't belong in a featured picture in an encyclopedia. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 06:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose no chance, starting with the fact that it's tiny. chowells 13:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Is this a joke? A picture taken by a cell phone as a FPC? Low resolution and very poor optics qualitiy makes most cell phone pictures unsuitable as FP. Glaurung 05:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarcastic insult has no place in votes for featured picture candidates while constructive criticism does. Guðsþegn obviously worked hard to take this photograph, and kicking away his effort as such will get him nowhere. — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 06:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me for butting in, but I don't see the comment as "sarcastic". It is obvious the nominator is unfamiliar with the accepted criteria for FP, or he would not have nominated this. "Working hard" - that's a joke - it's a cellphone snapshot! Nice for dog lovers and thus for the article, but not a FPC in any conceivable way. Even the colors are weird, due to the cheap lens & CCD chip in the cellphone. Look at the archived FPs in full size and you'll understand - no offense intended. --Janke | Talk 07:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is exactly what I meant. The question is not about the subject of the picture, but the material used to make it. Camera on cell phones are very handy to take every day pictures as you always have it with you, but you have no chance of taking pictures with the quality standards of a FP. This is absolutely not an insult or sarcasms. If Guðsþegn has access to a better camera (which souldn't be too difficult. If he does not have one, I am sure he has some friends who do), he will be able to take a very nice picture of his Weimaraner puppies which could be nominated here. (Though I would recommand to find a better background). Oh, and one last thing about the Working hard term : as a dog owner, I do agree that you have to work quite hard to take nice photos. It is indeed not easy to have them stand still long enough, especially when they are young. Apparently this wasn't a concern here... Glaurung 12:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • One small point - I don't believe those dogs are staying very still. Strongly Oppose as per virtually everyone else. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 09:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It does not show the full body of the animal, extremely blurry pictures where detail is absent is useless wikipedia. You may love your dogs but I do not feel this is an appriopriate place for them to be.--Andeee 22:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Oppose. Try taking a bigger picture, and use a faster shutter speed to cut down on the blur. Covington 09:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I actually quite like the pic, if only it was bigger! Try again with a camera that isn't on a cellphone, but go for the same effect. (and for a cellphone pic it is good, all mine suck). --Midnighttonight 09:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose'. Blurry picture of special interst subject (I have birds.). David R. Ingham 06:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rugby union lineout

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

• A featured picture should:

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

• Nominate and support. - --Hamedog^Talk|@ 02:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not pleasing to the eye at all - entirely too busy, 5-in-1 Search4Lancer 02:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Messy, even in full size. --Janke | Talk 10:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too fragmented. Maybe a picture of just stage 4 would be good, but it would have to be a more interesting line-out, say maybe one between two good teams. It would also have to be at a better angle- straight down the tunnel?--Mr. RX99 19:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose doesn't flow well. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 00:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This doesn't seem to be a photo, rather it is a story; a very confusing story. --Philopedia 18:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Good idea, confusing execution. Procrastinator-General 22:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What layout would you suggest; would you like to see the full size individual photos? --Hamedog^Talk|@ 13:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose very confusing Leidiot 11:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Confusing, and not exactly striking. Maybe one of them would be okay, but this juxtaposition just doesn't do it for me.Agent Aquamarine
• Oppose . too busy. pschemp | talk 06:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lake Barrine

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

• Nominate and support. - Chris1219 09:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not sure what it would take to make a lake look more interesting - perhaps clouds, scenery, canoing? but as it is it's just too ordianary. --Fir0002 www 10:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A nice snapshot, but this could be almost any lake, anywhere. Not very encyclopedic. --Janke | Talk 10:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per Janke -- Glaurung 12:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. FPs should be snapshots of the night you slept over with Helen of Troy, but this photo is just a pleasant day out with the girl next door. --Philopedia 18:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hahaha. Procrastinator-General
• Oppose per above -M^ask 19:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per others. Too me, it's just a lake. Maybe if it were more clear/sharp. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This....this is not a good photograph.--Deglr6328 02:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• After reading all of your critiques I understand my photograph, while looking good, is too ordinary for a featured picture. It really takes a lot of technique and experience in photography to gain recognition and become featured. Thanks for giving me such a good lesson, and for being so kind not to violently bash me. :) Chris1219 11:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just ordinary, its an OK pic but doesn't have the extra eye appeal for FP - Adrian Pingstone 18:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it is a good picture of a lake, but it's just a picture of a lake --T-rex 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Ack above. Mikeo 19:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. bored. pschemp | talk 06:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Frankfurt panorama

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

• Nominate and support. - PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice Pic. What camera/stitching software did you (Scaengel) use? Have uploaded an edit with some color correction - I felt the original too blue. --Fir0002 www 07:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what s/he used as far as software. I just happened to notice the image while browsing the Frankfurt image. I like your edit too. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Finally! thought we'd never have another one here again for a while there. shame about the top of that building but nothing's perfect.--Deglr6328 10:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Sorry but it's just too wide. Too much is happening and there's no focus. At this aspect ratio, it doesn't work in a thumbnail at all and it doesn't look great in the articles it's illustrating. This could be chopped down to 1/3 or so of the width and make for the ultimate Frankfurt pic and a good FPC.--Zambaretzu 11:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support for the second. Panoramas are great, but this isn't the best of them, especially since the city is mostly in shadow. The picture does illustrate its subject most effectively, however, and it is interesting. bcasterline t 17:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I love panoramas because there's always more than meets the eye. In particular, I like how you can see the trainyards in the background of this one. Anyway, I think this is a pretty good picture. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 00:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - that cut-off building... --Janke | Talk 06:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - a interesting approach. But why Frankfurt? A city world famous for it's sterility. --Philopedia 18:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (who lives near Frankfurt)[reply]
• Support - Ravedave 03:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The horizon is wavy and warped. It could be improved with better stitching and I may support then. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I don't know exactly what it is, but this picture just doesn't capture the eye (criteria 3). Too grey, and immediately when looking at it I felt lost, as it is too wide and has no place to focus. Not a completely neutral view, but by way of comparison I scrolled past the picture from the Top of the Rock, which has better quality and is easier on the eyes. It just doesn't quite cut it. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 18:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. bored. pschemp | talk 06:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great picture, it ain't perfect but its amazing nevertheless!.

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

Santorini

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

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

• Nominate and support - Arco Acqua 16:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Looks good. I'm sure a higher resolution will be available somewhere. deeptrivia (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The image contributes substantially to a few articles, and the caldera is intriguing, but the picture is too small. A larger version of the same image can be found here. bcasterline t 18:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Absolutely too small for FP (under 600 px) - details are lost. --Janke | Talk 06:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Definetly too low res - with Google Earth so freely availble, an image of the res is just not good enough. --Fir0002 www 10:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Main problem is the size, can you find anything bigger? Procrastinator-General 22:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE to anon. IP: "Larger version" means a larger original file, not a larger thumb image on this page! So, I removed it. --Janke | Talk 19:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. too small. pschemp | talk 06:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Don't care about the size, but the artefacts in the water portion of the image or the worst I've seen in months. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Milky Way 2005

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

• Nominate and support. - Procrastinator-General 21:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (until licence clarified). It's not at all clear that it is public domain. The image credit is NASA/JPL-caltech (SSC). SSC is the "Spitzer Science Center", which is part of Caltech. If the image comes from a contract that's solely funded by the US Government, then the image is PD - but if it comes from a project that's jointly funded by another body (such as Caltech) then it isn't. We need to find out which of these pertains in this case. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the image use policy at http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/mediaimages/copyright.shtml, it says, "Unless otherwise noted, images and video on Spitzer public web sites (public sites ending with a spitzer.caltech.edu address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below." None of which seem to apply. Don't know if this clarifies anything. Procrastinator-General
    • Thanks for finding that. In that case I believe the image should have a ((CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat)) tag on it instead, which I think still would make it okay for use on commons and to be a w:en FP. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing from oppose to no vote, now that the matter of the licence is satisfactorily resolved. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support provided the licence is okay.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 00:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Striking image that is both detailed and clear (as an artist's drawing of natural phenomena should be, I suppose). Useful in a number of capacities. bcasterline t 02:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great image, so long as that license holds. Staxringold 03:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Merely an artist's CG guess at what it may look like. I don't find it particularly special. There are far more striking REAL astronomical images.--Deglr6328 05:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As above. I prefer real astrophotos over artist's conceptions. We don't have any photo of the Milky Way, so this image is just an approximation based on other data, not a true, factual image. Also, it looks a bit too symmetrical, and the central bar is "cleaner" than in real photos of other galaxies. --Janke | Talk 06:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think we do need artists conceptions, and we should respect a good artists conception. --Fir0002 www 10:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't find the little red dot that says "You are here". Pengo 12:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment: Spending a few moments on Google Images, I found several artist's conceptions that I feel are graphically more striking than this straight-ahead "mug shot" (some even with the "You are here" dot... ;-) : [6], [7], [8], [9], but alas, they are not free licence nor large enough. --Janke | Talk 15:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a copy of this image available with the sun marked, at http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/mediaimages/sig/sig05-010.shtml. Procrastinator-General 22:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Deglr6328 above. There are artist conceptions much more stunning than this. --P199 21:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose See no need for an "artist's conception." Fake looking, ugly. Plenty of real photos of spiral galaxies (obviously not ours) look better to me. –Joke 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose An "artist's conception" is merely an artist's conception - is there anything here that is actually based on the appearance of our galaxy? Agree with User:Joke137, not appealing even as "art", and not as illustrative as if it were 3-dimensional. User:Tejastheory 206.110.185.23 00:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text suggests that the image (referring to the version with the Sun pointed out) isn't a random drawing: "This artist's rendering shows a view of our own Milky Way Galaxy and its central bar as it might appear if viewed from above. An arrow indicates the location of our Sun. Astronomers have concluded for many years that our galaxy harbors a stellar bar, though its presence has been inferred indirectly. Our vantage point within the disk of the galaxy makes it difficult to accurately determine the size and shape of this bar and surrounding spiral arms. New observations by the GLIMPSE legacy team with NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope indicate that the bar-shaped collection of old stars at the center of our galaxy may be longer, and at a different orientation, than previously believed. The newly-deduced size and angle of the bar are shown relative to our Sun's location. Our Milky Way galaxy may appear to be very different from an ordinary spiral galaxy." Procrastinator-General
• Our Milky Way galaxy may appear to be very different from an ordinary spiral galaxy - that seems to go a bit against the cosmological principle - of course the Milky Way looks different to us, were inside it, with no hope of getting a true outside view... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that appear is used as a synonym of 'seems' in the way of "he appears to be smarter than we thought" or something like that. Procrastinator-General
• Oppose As an astronomer I agree with the opposing arguments already brought forward. Roger McLassus 15:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very detailed image Leidiot 03:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An artist's conception is the most humans are ever going to have (barring light-speed travel). And although I don't have anything in particular to support this, I don't think that NASA would publish something like this unless the "conception" is based on facts about the galaxy. I doubt that the artist just whipped this up out of his imagination; I would suspect that this conception is based on what we know the galaxy might look like. Dylan 20:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment re accuracy Here's another, completely different artist's impression, also from NASA [10]. The dense galactic centre completely blocks our view of a large chunk of the galaxy and some sources indicate the guessed area (I'm looking at the excellent artists' impressions in October's Scientific American right now). The creators of this pic state openly that Our vantage point within the disk of the galaxy makes it difficult to accurately determine the size and shape of this bar and surrounding spiral arms[11]. This nomination is attractive but I'm not sure we should choose it over drawings of other galaxies that we can depict with much greater certainty. It's a pity the ones in Sciam are copyrighted :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 18:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We've all seen a million of these images, and this one is not particularly stunning. It's a bit "ho hum". If it was a Wikipedian who had made it, that might be interesting, but it doesn't have any particular context, timeliness, new techniques or whatever to make it particularly remarkable. Stevage 13:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. bored. pschemp | talk 06:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Valuable image for an encyclopedia - even if it is just presenting one way the Milky Way could look like from that position. Mikeo 14:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]