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

Chipmunk with peanut in mouth

Reason

Accurately shows the subject, in its environment, in a way that relates to part of the article and is of high quality.

Articles this image appears in

Chipmunk

Creator

EL C

• Support as nominator MBisanz ^talk 04:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably a good idea to Withdraw at this point. Can someone do the paperwork (edits) for this? MBisanz ^talk 15:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Risker (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Motion blur, washed out. Just a snapshot - FPs need to be more than this. --Janke | Talk 06:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A picture of a common subject needs to be much more spectacular. Cacophony (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I like the picture, but can't support due to the chipmunk's tail being cut off. As said above, for a relatively easily taken image, the quality really has to be top-notch. faithless (^speak) 07:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- does have a very snap-shotty feel, and the grass is rather distracting. J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Blur and tail being cut off. ^8thstar 15:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very little of the photo is in focus. crassic!^[talk] 19:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Cacophony --St.daniel ^Talk 14:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Withdrawn. Thegreenj 16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of liberty panorama

Reason

High resolution. Only two stitching errors that I can see, and even these aren't noticeable. Good light.

Articles this image appears in

Image stitching

Creator

Fcb981 although with this quality it could have been diliff

• Support as nominator Fcb981(talk:contribs) 14:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perfect illustrations for Hallucination and Delirium. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Comment per Spikebrennan. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Comment per Spikebrennan. ^8thstar 15:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No Comment --Janke | Talk 16:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose to those damn dirty apes. You maniacs! You flooded it! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell! Matt Deres (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I dont think this is what we're looking for in a featured picture --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 19:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - You can't even see the stitching errors. I don't see what you're all whining about...Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 00:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

800 x enlargement of a pixel

Reason

Highly ecyclopedic, extremely detailed due to 800 x enlargement. Top image quality, even though it just barely fulfills our size requirement, it is razor-sharp.

Articles this image appears in

pixel, only for today!

Creator

User:Janke

• Support as nominator Janke | Talk 12:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support High encyclopedic value. Tomdobb (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Despite the excessive noise, I must insist that this image is used in Black hole. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Too dark and noisy, unfortunate framing. Should be white, normalized to the 1600x1200 standard and denoised (it is obviously pixelated) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support High encyclopedic value and good technique --Luc Viatour (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Unfortunately, the subject does not take up enough of the image, given the size requirements. Next time make sure you use a higher power zoom on your camera. Also appears to be a bit out of focus. Was the pixel in motion or is it just due to shaky hands? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-04-01 13:57Z
• Strong Support very high enc, massive historical value, impossible to reproduce. Quite possibly one of the most informative diagrams I've ever seen on FPC. E∞T∞A∞ —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Doesn't work as a thumbnail. I can only see the "un-enlarged" pixel at full image size on my monitor. If adopted, we will have to restrict use to only the full size image due to technical limitations! Rmhermen (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Vehement Neutral - Unbelievable enc, but should be SVG Uberlemur (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I Support a good April Fool's joke --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong comment. Caption needs to point out that the depicted pixel is black, because otherwise we'd never know. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support So that's what they look like up close. Massively important image, how else would anyone know what a pixel looks like, they're normally too small to see.Chris_huh^talk 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Arrow is clearly not at exactly a bearing of 135^o, hence no reflective symmetry in the top-left to bottom-right diagonal. Centy – reply• contribs – 15:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Would support color version. Also, where is the tail? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This pixel doesn't walk through walls... --Janke | Talk 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose This is not a single black pixel enlarged 800 times, it's actually 640,000 black pixels together in a herd. Might work in the 640000 black pixels article. Matt Deres (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Pstuart84 Talk 16:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Pstuart84 Talk 16:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not used in any articles. Someone didn't get the joke. ::cough, cough:: tiZom_(2¢) 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Lawful Neutral, I'll be keeping my eye out for anyone trying to close this nomination too early *glares* gren グレン 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Supportoppose Its atypically posed and not in its natural habitat. ^8thstar 19:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - to me this is just a big black box --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 19:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need a bigger monitor. That would make it an even bigger black box. You might be able to adjust the color settings on your monitor and thereby change the color of the box. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thoughtful Suppose Dust on SLR sensor? Oppose per unnatural environs and inability to tell if this is the front or back of the animal. Excessive oversharpening. Blocky JPG artifacts present. Should be SVG, but just because this is an SVG doesn't mean it gets a free pass. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) —Preceding comment was added at 21:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Downright unencyclopedic, pixels aren't androngenous. Please ID and replace the symbol. Thegreenj 21:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Needs to be antialiased. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 00:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Packers Stock

Reason

Very nice image. You can read everything. Very historical as well.

Articles this image appears in

Green Bay Packers

Creator

Aviper2k7

• Support as nominator - Milks F'avorite Cookie 21:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Try fixing the white balance and rotation. Probably won't be enough to feature it but will improve it. Is there any copyright problem with the logo? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --- Milks F'avorite Cookie 01:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Under Fog

Reason

This is a very rare image, it passes the quality requirements, and it displays a familiar landmark in an odd situation.

Articles this image appears in

Fog

Creator

user:Mbz1

• Support as nominator Rj1020 (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice image, but noisy and unsharp in full size. --Janke | Talk 10:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Janke. Also, I could have sworn this, or one very similar, was nominated less than two months ago and failed or was withdrawn? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close Low quality image.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Decent thumb, but we're judging the full-scale image. Terrible quality. crassic!^[talk] 22:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis hamilton - 2008 Melb GP

Reason

This look like a better photo than Image:Heidfeld and Rosberg - 2008 Melb GP.jpg. Which has just passed

Articles this image appears in

McLaren, Lewis Hamilton, 2008 Australian Grand Prix, McLaren MP4-23

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator Buc (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- may be crop to cut-off a little from left? Dmottl (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Isn't this a bit redundant? I may be oblivious to the subtleties of this sport, but I see no big difference as for which driver is supposed to be in the depicted car. Looks the same to me, just different commercials on the car. Plus a little too much of out of focus dirt. --Dschwen 18:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think it would be better cropped. Unfortunately I can't do it myself without reducing the qulaity. Buc (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support With or without a crop, it's an excellent picture. The clarity is amazing. CillaИ ♦ XC 23:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also a comment: yes, the two photos are very similar but they're both excellent quality. Just because one of them already happens to be featured doesn't have any bearing on whether this current nom should be featured. It meets all the criteria. (And considering the slew of barely-distinguishable insect pictures that come through FPC I think it's forgivable in this case.) CillaИ ♦ XC 23:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The original existing FP shot contains a lot of drama and captures the excitement of an F1 race. This nom is dry and still. The car in the foreground is static, there's too much bright foreground, and the moving car behind is mostly hidden by the static car. SilkTork *^YES! 14:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per silktork — Preceding unsigned comment added by The freddinator (talk • contribs)
• Weak oppose Per some of SilkTork's concerns. Still a great photo, imo. crassic!^[talk] 22:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Just as good as the last photo, and the subject (Lewis Hamilton) won the race, so the similarity is justified.-- Diniz (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on Silktork's point. I agree that the other shot has far more drama, although as Cillan says it's not really relevant to compare with other pictures in determining whether this is of featured quality. What this picture provides is a nice, clear three-quarter shot of a modern F1 car, with all its aerodynamic wings and fins and bits and bobs clearly presented. I'd suggest the content is of high quality for this reason, and is better in this way than the other. I'm no photographer, so whether or not the focus, resolution etc are of the right standard, I couldn't say. 4u1e (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As 4u says, it is a great 3/4 shot of an F1 car, wonderfully clear shot that shows everything clearly, including the carbon fibre inserts on the wheels. While the memorable bits of F1 for many might be the crashes, there are times it is quite nice to just admire the cars. Narson (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Too much of the foreground, lack of drama, everything else is great  - oahiyeel ^talk 16:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can foreground issue be solved with a crop? 4u1e (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And, well, is drama an essential for a picture to be nice? We have pictures of bees and hummingbirds as Featured and we don't have the bees attacking the hummingbirds with nunchucks while Daleks emerge from the Tardis being ridden by Riders of Rohan (Man, I want to see that picture). Is drama essential? (To respond to 4u, a crop would be great, though the current ratio is perfect to me.) Narson (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but with the provision that this would be following a crop. If the present aspect ratio is maintained the picture would benefit from losing a fair slice off the left side, and some of the lower portion. The "out of focus dirt" lends a great sense of depth to the shot, and as such is an integral part of the photo. However, at present it places the car too high in the frame for comfort. Other factors in this image's favour include the clarity, and the fantastic heat-haze affected view of the following car. Cropping would also emphasise this feature. Pyrope 14:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as was said above, the last promoted F1 pic was full of drama, and is indeed set as my desktop. Now I'm a Hamilton fan, but there's a reason this one isn't my desktop - it's a bit boring. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Tree, Bloedel Reserve

Reason

High quality image, good composition.

Articles this image appears in

Bloedel Reserve

Creator

User:Geaugagrrl

• Support as nominator ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 03:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - maybe it could do with a little more sharpness, but it has my support. BTW, is this edited? diego_pmc (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image has not been edited. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 13:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - ineligible for FP because it isn't in an article. Cacophony (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the image to Bloedel Reserve. faithless (^speak) 07:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for helping out a newbie. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 13:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're quite welcome. :) faithless (^speak) 01:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, much of the image is dulled and it doesn't seem to be the best illustration of the reserve. gren グレン 17:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Prominent artifacts and it's not very encyclopedic. It's more illustrative of a willow tree than it is of the reserve, and even then the main subject is cut off. CillaИ ♦ XC 18:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - very heavily artifacted, low contrast, low enc. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Enc. is lacking, even though it's a beautiful picture. Some unsharpness in corners - maybe shot with a compact digital camera? But, keep trying, you might submit to Wikipedia:Picture peer review first for more input and/or suggestions. One right away: Always use the "best" quality for storage (largest file size). --Janke | Talk 12:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the helpful input. The camera is now out of commission, so it is time to get a new one. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 05:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Vanderdecken. Spencer^T♦C 11:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack & Michelle Obama

Reason

It adds significantly to the articles it illustrates. In fact, although there is a Barack Obama WP:FP this image is on his bio page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Barack Obama and Michelle Obama

Creator

Luke Vargas (of flickr)

• Support as nominator TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. is there a way to move this to a properly named page instead of one named by the image's flickr number?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the black and white worries me a little. I don't mind it if some other photographer has made it famous--but we should not take that more 'artistic' step. gren グレン 16:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should expound on this nomination. The current Barack Obama WP:FP at Image:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg may be technically sound, but it is aesthetically alarming. There are at least a dozen pictures on wikipedia or commons that illustrate Obama without showing him on a bad hair day. He looks like he was dragging his feet across a shag rug while wearing wool socks. The only worse pictures aesthetically would show him with hair flaring from his nostrils or ears. I imediately looked for an aesthetic Obama picture when I noticed the current FP. Maybe tonight I will sit down and present a dozen or so images that would be chosen for Obama articles over the current FP. The point is that this is one of the first pictures that would be chosen for his article. It is probably the second or third most important picture on his bio. From an aesthetic perspective it is far superior to the current Obama FP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I have hair similar to Obama's. It's always like that ("bad hair day")...maybe that's just the way his hair is. Louis waweru (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because of the color that hides technical flaws (no pun intended).--Svetovid (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Svetovid. The Black and White doesn't help the picture. 76.205.74.106 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Ach, this is me. I mean that the picture shouldn't be in black and white, not that there are technical flaws. Spencer^T♦C 20:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP votes are disregarded . If you wish to vote, please create an account or log in. Also , could either of you explain to me what technical flaws are hidden ? I see nothing to incline me in that direction . --Mad Tinman _{T C} 23:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Modern images should not be black and white unless there is a specific reason for them to be (and there is none here). Mangostar (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose same as Mango. And to be quite honest, I don't really think this is that flattering of a picture anyway.The freddinator (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is an incredibly flattering shot, personally.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me expound on the problem. Image:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg is the current Barrack Obama FP. The following images are in Barack and related articles:

The following are available on commons (I believe the sort only identifies images with Barack or Obama in the name)

Don't let me get started with flickr. Of these I think about 5 or 10 are better images than the current FP. Despite the current bias against black & white photography, I think the current nominee is one of them. Regardless, to say that the current FP represents the finest of WP is a joke.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to enter your private arguments, but it's not appropriate to clutter up the FPC page like that. I have hidden the two galleries you've dumped here, as if people can't go and look for themselves. --jjron (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the images above I consider the following better than the current FP although the last four may not be sharp enough and 2 and 3 need to be cropped.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per above ^8thstar 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wonderful picture, but I think photographs of contemporary public figures need to be in color to provide the most encyclopedic value / accuracy. Cacophony (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - I like the picture, but a couple of things as have previously been mentioned. The black and white, do you have the picture in colour? Might be quite good. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Based purely on aesthetics, I think the fact it's black and white is no problem at all. The depth contrast is absolutely stunning. I actually don't really get some of the criticism that's listed on this page, since I think that it's a very nice and natural portrait of these two people. —msikma (user, talk) 20:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mangostar. crassic!^[talk] 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Better images of him exist. Spinach Dip 20:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I disagree that modern images shouldn't be black and white. Why shouldn't they? This is a great picture. Louis waweru (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unless there's a previously established consensus against black and white photographs of modern figures, which seems a bit odd to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - what's so great about this image? I see no indication that this image is somehow "wonderful" or quailified to be a FP. Happyme22 (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prokaryote cell

Reason

this is the new image i did. the old one has been already delisted.

Articles this image appears in

Bacteria,Bacterial cell structure,Cell (biology), Cell theory ,Cell wall, Prokaryote

Creator

LadyofHats

• Support as nominator LadyofHats (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A big improvement over the previous version. Kaldari (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I have added your 'original sources' from the first image and I just want you to check them to make sure you didn't use any more or change something. Thanks. gren グレン 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, textbook-quality illustration. If the old version deserved promotion, this one does for sure. --Dschwen 18:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I don't see why svg images should be exempt from size guidelines
  • I think an SVG can be arbitrarily sized up , so if that's the issue it's simple to solve. Or am I incorrect ? I am not at all sure :\ --Mad Tinman _{T C} 23:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it can be as big as you like without losing any quality. I just tried to size it up in my sandbox to demonstrate, but I think I put one too many 0s and went and crashed my (ancient) laptop. J Milburn (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not really very convenient though, why not just upload a big version to begin with --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 02:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeesh, what about "scalable vector graphic" do you not understand? The image can be 10,000,000 pixels on edge if you choose. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-03-26 13:15Z
    • My point is that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs to be accessible for everyone, not just those who have the software to enlarge scalable vector images --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then someone can upload a version as large as you desire . Still, I don't get why a larger version has more encyclopedic value - and you have to understand, the only reason the size guideline is there is to ensure that the images have enough size for detail to be seen adequately, and since it's there at this size or larger, it seems pretty irrelevant... --84.90.46.116 (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Above comment by me. --Mad Tinman _{T C} 20:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't need special software to enlarge the image, just insert it into a Wikipedia page and set the size to whatever you want. You could also just click through to the image itself, and right click on it, in most browsers there's an option to zoom in. If you want to edit the image or zoom with more advanced control, there are many free editing packages (Inkscape, OpenOffice etc.) which can handle SVGs. See Scalable Vector Graphics. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Still, it is a convenience for readers when we upload images that are big enough to examine the detail without having to go through any extra steps. On the other hand, images shouldn't be too large. For this image, I'd say 750 to 1000 px is appropriate. I agree with TheOtherSiguy that the flagellum lacks detail, especially compared to Image:Flagellum base diagram.svg. Also unlabeled is a large green sphere inside the cell; if this is supposed to be a featured picture, I want to see a lot more detail. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is an improvement from the previous version in some ways, but there are places, like the flagellum, that lack detail. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - E9T9A8. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Info I tryed to upload a new version with fixed "robosomes" but it doesnt show, i will wait a bit and if not i will upload it again. I dont really see much sence in arguing about the size, the diagram is readable in screen size, is stetical in article size and is printable in any posible format and size you may like...where is exactly the problem with this? -LadyofHats

(talk) 12:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Lacks caption (the caption for the old pic was infactual). Narayanese (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is an unnoted green blob on the left hand side of the cytosol that is definitley not a ribosome. Considering this diagram is extremely general I can't imagine it getting specific enough to show inclusion bodies or somesuch.D-rew (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Average prokaryote cell- en.svg MER-C 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camouflaged common snakeneck turtle

Reason

Good quality (for a dirty environment!), very interesting image illustrating the turtle coming up for air and its use of natural camouflage, highly encyclopaedic.

Articles this image appears in

Common snakeneck turtle
Camouflage
Crypsis

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator jjron (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Sure is ugly, though. Don't you ever see any of these when you're out snapping photos in the swamp? Matt Deres (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hehe. Nah, unfortunately I think you've got to take them along yourself! I'll keep an eye out for the Lady of the Lake though. --jjron (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose because of blur. I understand that it is blurry because the turtle is under pretty murky water, but I feel like the blur detracts from the photo significantly. The freddinator (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A very good picture of an ugly turtle. Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 01:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. It is a VERY ugly animal, but who ever said only pretty animals could have featured pictures? Spinach Dip 20:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Ugly?! I think he's kinda cute. ;-) The only thing that detracts from the image is that stick on the top-left corner. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Eastern Long-neck-Turtle-with-algae,-Vic,-3.1.2008.jpg MER-C 11:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four pulleys

Reason

Today's Commons POTD, seems like a good candidate here as well.

Articles this image appears in

Mechanical advantage, this image would be a good addition to the pulley page were it not already crowded.

Creator

User:Prolineserver, User:Tomia. (minor edits by Stanisław Skowron)

• Support as nominator Cacophony (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very clear and concise. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 04:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - Brilliantly clean, easy to understand and high quality. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, it seems relevant to me to have a 5th illustration showing what the force would be without any pulleys. 128.175.19.198 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All show that; 100 N... --Janke | Talk 20:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... clearly I don't know my physics :) maybe that should be put in the caption... or, it's probably solved by anyone who reads the article. 128.175.80.58 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now In addition to the control image of no force applied, it also seems odd that the height off the ground is constant; other changes are made to offset the addition of more pulleys to keep the load lifted 10cm. The image gives an immediate (and incorrect) impression that more pulleys do not lift the weight higher. Instead, we must look to the differing numbers to see that this is not the case. My recommendations: keep the lengths the same, adding pulleys each time and the depict weight rising successively higher off the ground.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More pulleys would not lift the weight higher, more pulleys would lift the weight less with the same amount of rope displacement (denoted s on the drawing). On this drawing the displacement changes from figure to figure. Work done (work = force * distance) is the same in each case, the weight is always 100 N and always lifted 10 cm, and the product of the rope displacement and force is always the same (100 N * 10 cm, 50 N * 20 cm, etc.) -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 00:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's why we need images like this...(although there should be an image of the system at rest).--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, Work=Force*Distance. I guess what I'm trying to say is rather than decreasing the force and increasing the length to keep the work the same, keep the length the same and let the force and work change in response to the addition of new pulleys. Does that make sense? It's been awhile since I've studied pulleys.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. Period. The whole point of pulleys is to do the same job with less force. It's understood that that comes at the price of having to pull the rope farther. Just because you have this pet idea that it would be interesting to have an image that shows the rope being pulled the same distance doesn't mean it is useful to the actual topic at hand. Explain how it would better convey the purpose of a pulley by showing more pulleys lifting an object less high when the rope is pulled the same distance. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-03-26 17:39Z

Okay, sorry. I've already withdrawn my opposition, so back off, alright?.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestions. OK, here I go again (and I swore off commenting on diagrams). It seems pretty good as a diagram, but some possible improvements – at least some of these are pretty easy fixes, if someone can get in and edit it.

1. Inconsistent alignment, e.g., all 's = ...' should be vertically aligned, all forces at the right of each figure should be aligned with each other, etc. Additionally the first ‘s=’ should be in the same relative position as the others, i.e., at the left of the hook, or the rest should be at the right.
2. Symbols not defined (e.g., what’s F_Z, F_L, s, ...). They’re not given on the image description page, captions, or article. Is someone using this image just expected to know what they are? Doesn't that reduce its usefulness?
3. Inconsistent scale - measure the lengths of the distances given; the scale changes, e.g., 40cm isn’t 4 x 10cm; the 10cm displacement at the hook on Fig1 is not the same as the 10cm at the load, etc.
4. Displacements should probably more correctly be given in SI units (i.e., m, not cm), though I’m not overly fussed with that as long as it's consistent.
5. On that matter, shouldn’t what the four images are showing be described, at least on the description page? There's sort of a description in the article, but it doesn't refer explicitly to this diagram. --jjron (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The two that are dissimilar are the s on the left and the rope tension on the right, the one on the left is pushed to the other side to shorten the image, and the right most rope tension is so it fits in a "clear rope area" (?). The position of the rope displacement measurements change between them (drifting lower), but they are placed in the middle of the dimensioning line as is typical on engineering drawings.
• I'm probably not the best person to judge this for ease of use/understanding, but because all the symbols are labeled with the amount with units it should be easily enough to infer. I agree that regardless, they should be explained on the description page though.
• Accurate scale isn't always beneficial to figures, here I don't think it's that big of a deal as everything is dimensioned.
• I prefer cm slightly because it's on a more human scale and doesn't require decimals
• I'll go ahead and describe the image fully on the description page and more tightly integrate the article copy today or tomorrow. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if you can fix jjron's point 2 and 3... the others (besides point 4 which doesn't matter to me) would be nice as well. gren グレン 16:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if jjron's points 2, 3, and 5 addressed. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-03-26 17:43Z

Please fix the scale issues before I promote this. Thanks. MER-C 08:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scale adjusted. I uploaded the file over the original, not sure if I was supposed to do that or not; it seemed like a correction so it didn't warrant a new file. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 17:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Four pulleys.svg MER-C 11:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar corona

Reason

Interesting and artistic

Articles this image appears in

Time

Creator

Saperaud

• Support as nominator Camptown (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A little small, perhaps even for an animation. What I'm really concerned about though is the article placement. Wouldn't sunrise, corona, astronomical seeing, and even Optical phenomenon make better homes?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too shaky. —Pengo 00:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose other issues aside I think it's just too small, this should be a relatively easy sequence to reproduce and each image could be much larger/clearer. Guest9999 (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it really makes sense to stabilize this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 00:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity College cricket ground

Reason

This picture shows Trinity College cricket ground including a part of the bench gallery and a distance view of the pavilion. Shadow of the tree balances its composition and also adds a value towards arts and photography. It is a picture that holds information and creative merit. It is also used in the respective article to illustrate its campus.

Articles this image appears in

Trinity College, Dublin

Creator

Niaz

• Support as nominator Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I wouldn't know it was a cricket field if the caption didn't say it was. Wouldn't including people playing cricket in the image be better than the backs of people sitting on a bench? Guest9999 (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Nothing special, the sky is overexposed - Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I like the composition but I agree with Guest9999. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 10:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Low enc, snapshot type picture. --Janke | Talk 10:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor quality, little encyclopedic value. So basically, per above The freddinator (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not a good representation of a cricket ground. crassic!^[talk] 22:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Looks more like three guys sitting on a park bench to me. Spinach Dip 20:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Janke. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfortunately, as already stated, it does not illustrate the subject sufficiently although it is much better than another picture in the article showing a path between the fields. It is however a very interesting, even disturbing, picture - the shadow makes an fine pattern in the foreground, but also it does put the viewer figuratively in the shadow. Added to that the backs of the figures signify rejection, so the whole image gives a strong expression of "exclusion" and solitude. May be that was not intended but it makes the picture worth another glance. The composition hangs together nicely, but the tree on the left would be better with a trunk Motmit (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I call WP:SNOWBALL. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 00:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset on Mt. Everest

Reason

beautiful picture. Great encyclopedic value too

Articles this image appears in

Mt. Everest

Creator

Commons user Thomas.fanghaenel

• Support as nominator Σαι ( Talk) 11:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too noisy - 1/640s is too short an exposure for a shot like this. Time3000 (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I looked at the EXIF data externally and the exposure appears to be 1 second at ISO 800. Its the high ISO that caused the noise, not the shutter speed. That said, you could have got a similar shot with an 8 second exposure and ISO 100, or something similar. I've uploaded a new version with noise reduction. I couldn't see any noticable depreciation in detail so I've overwritten the original for simplicity. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've checked the EXIF data with several different pieces of software and they all give the exposure as 1/640 - not to mention that even something with this low a light level would probably be overexposed at f5.6 and ISO 800 for 1s. Anyway, the exposure is irrelevent, it's the amount of noise that counts. The noise reduction has improved it, but I'll stand by my oppose for the noise-corrected version though: it's a nice picture, but most of the landscape is too dark to count as encyclopedic, and any attempt to improve that just washes out the light on the top of the mountain. Time3000 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep you're right, I checked with a different program and it is 1/640. I suppose owning a nice camera (Canon 5D) doesn't mean you have the brains to use the right exposure settings. :-) In this case, they could have used ISO 200 and 1/160th of second handheld, easily. Or ISO 100 and 1/80th if the lens was optically stabilized. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the comments, guys. I just found out that this picture I uploaded more than a year ago has meanwhile drawn some attention. And I actually feel honored by that fact. I deliberately uploaded it without doing any improvements (other than cropping it), cuz you would have found out anyway... I'll try to do better next time, I promise. :-) Bummer that I missed out on that very special moment. Thomas.fanghaenel
• Oppose per Time3000. Also note a dirty spot in top right conner - Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Underexposed, grainy. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Main reason is that it makes the world's highest mountain look lower than the vantage point. Motmit (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose exposre too short. Spencer^T♦C 17:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 00:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AldabraGiantTortoise

Reason

First time I ever saw one...

Proposed caption

A herd of Aldabra totoises at the Botantical Gardens, Mahé

Articles this image appears in

Aldabra Giant Tortoise, Tortoise

Creator

Tribalninja

• Support as nominator Tribalninja (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks pretty good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.251.16 (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm sorry, but this is just a snapshot-type image. Doesn't show the turtles to advantage, has no composition to speak of, thus a bit dull. Lowering the camera, getting closer to the subject would give a much better vantage point, thus better enc. --Janke | Talk 19:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per Janke. ^8thstar 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Turtles kept in a small area with an unsightly hose and concrete in background. Not a very good angle. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Janke. crassic!^[talk] 02:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just out of curiosity, why did this FPC start in November and just now get onto the page for voting? Haha. crassic!^[talk] 07:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Just not up to the standard for featured picture --St.daniel ^Talk 14:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 22:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panda Gao Gao

Reason

I think it is a very interesting picture that teaches wikipedians about Pandas.

Articles this image appears in

Giant Panda

Creator

Aaron Logan

• Support as nominator Nothing444 17:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose That horribly inopportune tree trunk is obscuring too much of the subject. SingCal 17:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The tree trunk in front of the panda takes away from the actual subject. Otherwise, I believe it would be a good photo. crassic!^[talk] 18:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Picture does not meet size requirements. crassic!^[talk] 18:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose typical zoo snapshot, not extraordinary, too small. Cacophony (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sultana (steamboat)

Reason

1865 Harper's Weekly illustration of the Sultana (steamboat) explosion. Over 1700 Union Army soldiers released from Andersonville and other prison camps at the end of the war were tragically killed or drowned on their way back home on this overcrowded steamer. The image is freely license (produced in 1865), excellent contrast for B&W, balanced, historically accurate, unique image, good resolution for a historic image, no digital manipulation

Proposed caption

Sultana explodes carrying Union soldiers released from prison camps in 1865, the greatest maritime disaster in U.S. history

Articles this image appears in

Adds tremendous value to Sultana (steamboat) and Shipwrecks of the inland Columbia River

Creator

TeVe

• Support as nom. At full resolution, you can see the individuals on the deck. Timeless quality, under represented genre in WP:FP. MrPrada (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because it doesn't meet the 1000px-on-a-side criteria. I would support if a better resolution scan could be found. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I can scan at much better resolution, however it will not fit into the scanner I have. I had read through the FP criteria and it said that exceptions could be made to the 1000px policy for historic images. MrPrada (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new scan is closer to the size requirements, but the coloration is uneven and there are some stray vertical lines that should be cleaned up. What's going on in the corners-- is that the text from the reverse side of the page showing through? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Size. ^8thstar 22:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the larger version I just uploaded is a bit yellow. Not sure if you like the original better. MrPrada (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its still not very detailed for an engraving. ^8thstar 18:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose While I agree it lends tremendous value, good scans of engravings really need to show the lines that make them up at full resolution if they're to have any hope of letting the engraving be reproduced. Encyclopaedic value is great, compare it to other scanning FPs like Image:William Hogarth - Gin Lane.jpg. However, it's relatively easy to stitch an engraving together from multiple parts - simply scan it with your scanner, and take the pieces to WP:GL/IMPROVE. commons:Help:Scanning may also give useful advice. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per size requirements. Recommend speedy close. crassic!^[talk] 02:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Great image, poor scan. Letters bleeding thru in the corners. I'd recommend what Shoemaker said. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erdfunkstelle Raisting, Parabolic antenna=====Erdfunkstelle Raisting, Parabolic antenna

Reason

Very nice and logging image of a parabolic antenna

Articles this image appears in

Deutsche Telekom

Creator

--Richard Bartz (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator Richard Bartz (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent technical condition, good composition, high enc. value. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Slaunger. crassic!^[talk] 22:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice. Cat-five - talk 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Although I agree with much of the support above, I find the lack of anything within the image that gives a sense of the scale of the building a little disappointing.--Kendosaki (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The red entrance door gives a good scale mark. Otherwise a version like this would be to distracting. --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Shows exactly what it is - perfectly placed within the frame. The pattern made by the track (fortuitously or planned?) makes an excellent base shape to support the bowl - even the little barriers help. The only problem is that the brightness within the bowl loses the clarity of the bits and pieces inside. Motmit (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Spencer^T♦C 17:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Erdfunkstelle Raisting 2.jpg MER-C 09:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very nice and logging image of a parabolic antenna

Articles this image appears in

Deutsche Telekom

Creator

--Richard Bartz (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator Richard Bartz (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent technical condition, good composition, high enc. value. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Slaunger. crassic!^[talk] 22:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice. Cat-five - talk 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Although I agree with much of the support above, I find the lack of anything within the image that gives a sense of the scale of the building a little disappointing.--Kendosaki (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The red entrance door gives a good scale mark. Otherwise a version like this would be to distracting. --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Shows exactly what it is - perfectly placed within the frame. The pattern made by the track (fortuitously or planned?) makes an excellent base shape to support the bowl - even the little barriers help. The only problem is that the brightness within the bowl loses the clarity of the bits and pieces inside. Motmit (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Spencer^T♦C 17:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Erdfunkstelle Raisting 2.jpg MER-C 09:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth I by Steven van der Meulen

Reason

Hidden from the public for almost 50 years, this life-size full-length image of Elizabeth I of England by Steven van der Meulen is historically significant as the earliest full-length image of the Queen, painted in the 1560s in the brief period before the emergence of symbolic portraits representing the iconography of the "Virgin Queen". The painting is newsworthy as it was auctioned for ₤2.6 million in November 2007, more than twice the maximum expected. (See DYK for 27 March 2008).

Articles this image appears in

Steven van der Meulen

Creator

Scan by PKM. Artist: Steven van der Meulen

• Support as nominator PKM (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support picks up the complicated backgrounds well, and excellent caption. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellent reproduction, high enc value -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a really decent portrait of a very influential woman --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 11:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pose and anatomy are a bit weird, but that's not unusual for art of that time - naturalism would only really become the de facto standard much later. Some of the other images in the Elizabeth I article are more aesthetically pleasing, but I don't think we need to limit ourelves to one Elizabeth I FP. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do we have another FP of Elizabeth I? A rather poor scan of the Rainbow portrait was nominated last year but didn't make the grade. Just curious. (And I agree we can certainly have more than one FP of Elizabeth I.) - PKM (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was looking through the images - I don't think we have any others, nor, at the moment, could we: all the other images of her have major problems like half-toning or size (Though there might be some on Google Images that would work). In any case, the artist is notable [even if he did (IMO) better works than this]; the subject is notable; and, due to its use in a propoganda campaign to replace other, less flattering images and so on, this piece seems reasonably notable in itself. Even if we got other images, I'd still be happy with this one as an FP, even if I don't much like it as art. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice quality and illustrative of topic. Spinach Dip 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High quality and encyclopedic. Spencer^T♦C 14:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Highly encyclopedic, important subject, large high quality file. Durova^Charge! 02:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Elizabeth I Steven Van Der Meulen.jpg MER-C 09:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rafale family

Reason

quality, informative, wow!

Articles this image appears in

Dassault_Rafale

Creator

User:Newresid

• Support as nominator Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm concerned about the file format of this image - diagrams like this should be in PNG, not JPG. Time3000 (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• With photo-realistic shading and such I'd be willing to accept a raster image provided the size was big. We've done this before with some images. My main concern is the watermarking which has a copyright logo (even if the drawing is released under GFDL licensce, the image should not be watermarked). Also, the font for the names of the craft are in some kind of annoying cursive font that should be switched to a more readable one. Smells like copyvio though, I'd want an OTRS ticket confirming copyright status. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that JPEG is problem for FP. Please read about Rafale - the font, you write about, is simple a logo of Rafale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmottl (talk • contribs) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A great image which meets all the quality criteria. I share Jeff Dahl's concerns about copyright, however. Is it possible to prove that the editor who uploaded this onto Wikicommons is the same person as the email address in the image? (this editor has recently uploaded a large number of images displaying that email address). The plane's logo may be covered by copyright (fair use is claimed for Image:Rafale_logo.png), so it may be best to remove it from the image even if the overall copyright status turns out to be OK. This is a very easy tweak if it is neccessary, however, and won't detract much from the picture's quality. --Nick Dowling (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because of logo font and copyright/credit line. These go against the principles of free content. --Janke | Talk 10:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A free license means you have every right to remove them, although we did have a close IfD on whether or not an image creator could remove his content for no reason. gren グレン 19:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Releasing something under GFDL doesn't mean you lose your copyright on it. -- Naerii 20:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Janke. Cacophony (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lichen sketch

Reason

High technical quality and undisputable enc.

Articles this image appears in

lichen

Creator

Ernst Haeckel

• Support as nominator TheOtherSiguy (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very encyclopedic and detailed(and a bit historic) illustrations. The scan quality is enough to clearly show the edge of detail in the original. Sam Barsoom 20:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Detailed and beautiful! Spinach Dip 20:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Do these sketches have a particular historic value (such as being the first to describe the objects)? Are they accurate by the standards of modern illustration/photography? Guest9999 (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haeckel's work (with some notable exceptions in embryology) is usually considered reasonably accurate. ernst Haeckel was a major 19th century biologist, though he's best known today for "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", a misguided notion. Obviously, we shouldnðt be using him for cladistics or developmental biology, but he's quite accurate in his depiction of macroscopic organisms, as far as an artistically-arranged painting goes, and they are certainly excellent and encyclopaedic overviews of the subjects, showing the variety very well. He is also notable as one of the earliest major users of colour lithography. In my opinion, he's certainly accurate enough for an overview, and his overviews are usually praised for artistry as much as biology. As they are artistic portrayals, however, I wouldn't use him for identification of individual species. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image. Spencer^T♦C 14:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Haeckel_Lichenes.jpg MER-C 09:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ixodes ricinus

Reason

Beautiful macro photography of a very small arachnid (under half a centimetre) Given the size, the level of detail and quality is astounding.

Articles this image appears in

Arachnid, Tick, Parasitiformes, Ixodes ricinus

Creator

André Karwath

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose -- out of focus -- 77.232.15.62 (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IPs cannot vote. Please log in. MER-C 08:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Definitely lacks definition. --Janke | Talk 09:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose -- out of focus -- Dmottl (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Out of focus and blurry.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 11:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose given the size of the subject.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 15:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The image is lifeless and awkward - lacks vibrancy. SilkTork *^YES! 14:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You do realise that each pixel represents less than 5 micrometres, right? This is pretty much the very edge of optical photography. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This incredible feat would be fully apparent if there was a scale of measurement directly in the picture instead of in the caption. Imagine how much more amazing it would look if the viewer could make that direct comparison? Enc pics should always have some kind of internal scale, whether that be a plant/tree, blades of grass, flower petals, or a simple but accurate ruler. I have no opinion either way on the technical merits, but photographers/artists should always include some kind of scale. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Do you guys realize that it has 4 millimetres?--Svetovid (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - This is not a case of technical photography. Picture of a 4 millimetres object is taken so smartly. Though it is slightly out-of-focus but because of its intellectual content I am strongly supporting its nomination. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 00:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think that this would look better if it was flipped vertically. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may be right. The current position makes it seem like it's falling or sloped downwards.--Svetovid (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Flipping would swap left and right, so how about a 180˚ rotation instead?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Look the other way at technical issues when it's community created. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good but f64 is strange ... --Richard Bartz (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - masses of encyclopaedic value, visual identification at this level is especially valuable when you probably wouldn't be able to recognise the thing - or see this level of detail - if it was an inch in front of you. Guest9999 (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A much better and more natural image than those from some electronic microscopes. --Brand спойт 19:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Image is blurry with harsh lighting. Muhammad(talk) 07:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not enough detail, focus issues. Witty Lama 08:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Condition Support upon inclusion of a scale of reference and possible 180deg rotation. The freddinator (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It might be misleading to add a scale. Saying this tick is 4 mm long is accurate to the nearest millimetre, but a scale would imply more precision than exists. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way to do this is typically to get the appropriate sized ruler, whether that be a yardstick or a microscopic ruler with tiny hash marks, and put it in to be photographed alogside the subject when the photograph is actually taken. That's the way people have been documenting natural phenomenon for a long time. Geologists, archaeologists, and crime scene technicians know exactly how important this documentation is. Even better yet would be color control patches, so we can make sure the colors are reproduced accurately as well. Additionally, actually putting it in the photo makes for a much bigger Wow! when the viewer sees just how big it is. (User:Jeff Dahl) 128.248.73.223 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am aware, but we can't really do it retrospectively, on a pre-existing three-year-old photo Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although I'd also suggest inverting the image. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Out of focus due to size --St.daniel ^Talk 14:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life cycle of the Entamoeba histolytica Parasite

Reason

it is informative and completes the article

Articles this image appears in

Amoebiasis,Entamoeba histolytica

Creator

LadyofHats

• Support as nominator LadyofHats (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Excystation doesn't look quite right to me. Can you check that, and possibly add a little more detail to that part of the process? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may be interested in the extensive discussion at PPR - see here. What exactly doesn't look right about excystation? --jjron (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything said about excystation in the pic seems correct (I looked it up in [1][2]). Narayanese (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Comparing to ref 1, it looks like Excystation looks OK, considering that each nucleus would go into a different compartment. I like the treatment of the amoebae, the coloring and outlines look slick. Should capitalize the T in "through the bloodstream" under invasive infection. Thanks for adding citations as well. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Can't spot any errors, and it is indeed informative. Narayanese (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would be nice if the "default size" (whats the SVG term for this) was > 1000px. I understand that I could download the image and open it in a compatible editor and make it whatever size I want, but, thats kind of a hassle. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (stale, no quorum) MER-C 09:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Scabies

Reason

At full resolution, the image is very noisy; however, this is one of the most viscerally grabbing images I've seen on Wikipedia, and I doubt that we could easily get another image like it. Under such circumstances, I think that the normal requirements can be waived to some extent, though I will understand if you do not agree with me. Edits might improve the image.

Articles this image appears in

Scabies

Creator

Ukster1 (Andrew G)

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Amateur photograph. A bit blurry on the right arm. crassic!^[talk] 01:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While I sympathise with your reasoning, image quality is one of the main criteria and this one just isn't up to spec. Motion blurred, noisy and out of focus. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps this should count more as a Valued Image Candidate than an FPC, but, still, I do think that it's the best we're going to ever see on the subject. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not only is the image quality a problem. It has in the meantime been nominated as a VIC and as I have explained there, the image does not seem to be representative of the how the (already extreme variant) Norwegian Scabies manifests itself. It is IMO an extremely severe example, which is more terrifying than enc. valuable. Has the affected person been asked if it is OK to publish his/her extremely severe skin infection in the Public Domain. I do not know if that is required(?). -- Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you that it isn't particularly encyclopaedic if it is an extreme example of the condition. I don't see how permission should be needed if there is nothing identifiable of the person in the image, though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)
    • My concern about having asked for permission from the patient is based on a speculation that the specific manifestion of the infection shown in the photo is of such severity and uniqueness that it could be correlated with an identifiable person. The infected person is (according to the source) a home-less person. For me it seems to originate from a non-public place like a hospital, and the person in shown in a miserable condition. My identifiability concern is speculative, though. I am not a domain specialist in the infection, I just read pieces about it on available on-line resources and saw some other images of the infection which had completely different manifestations. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a severe form of the disease, but I wouldn't say it's atypical for an immuno-compromised individual who does not receive treatment. That not receiving treatment is relatively rare is a good thing, but this shows the effect of the disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs) 13:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - atypical example. ^8thstar 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 03:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lunenburg Heritage Site

Reason

the best image to illustrate national historic sites of maritime provinces in Canada

Articles this image appears in

Lunenburg, Nova Scotia & List of national historic sites of Canada

Creator

--astral99 (astral99talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator astral99 (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Horrible quality. ^8thstar 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with 8thstar. Also, the title of the picture, Image:Picture 058 2.jpg, is very vague. Spencer^T♦C 17:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Low enc, snapshot-type photo. --Janke | Talk 19:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Noisy photo. Could easily be re-produced at a greater quality. crassic!^[talk] 02:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Janke. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No composition to speak of and rather drab, with too much sky. It only works in the article because of support from other pictures. Motmit (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 03:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charity shop window display

Reason

This is an example of the way a good charity shop can make fairly useless goods look attractive. This photo was not taken with a particularly good camera but it came out nicely, considering it is taken through glass. Even as a thumbnail it conveys the impression that there must be something to buy, somewhere in there, and you can see a lot of detail if you enlarge to 100%. The article had no image and I already had this. As far as I can remember it is not cropped or colour-adjusted in any way.

Articles this image appears in

Charity shop

Creator

ProfDEH

• Support as nominator ProfDEH (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Just a snapshot of random items. ^8thstar 18:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice of you to illustrate the article, but this is not FP material. --Janke | Talk 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per both above. crassic!^[talk] 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per 8thstar- this isn't very striking. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per 8thstar. Just random items.   jj137 (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose is certainly not Wikipedia's best work. Anyone can take this pic in a minute or two. EgraS (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The shelf is very unorganized, it doesn't look like a window display, I can't even see the window. Rj1020 (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per 8th star, and I can see reflections in the glass. Spencer^T♦C 13:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry just isn't featured picture status --St.daniel ^Talk 14:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The picture is illustrative and encyclopedic but Featured pictures have to be top quality most of the time. Sorry Muhammad(talk) 14:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Janke. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Colourful and fun and illustrates the topic, but more effort should have gone into posing it. Taken from that angle the shelf has a nasty tilt and too many items are cut in half. Taking the trouble to kneel or squat could have dealt with these issues and might have given an interesting aspect of cameras pointing at cameras. Motmit (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Does this meet WP:SNOW yet? I'd think so. crassic!^[talk] 02:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 03:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dew on a spider's web in the morning.

Reason

detailed image and artistic?

Articles this image appears in

Water - Condensation - Moisture - Adhesion

Creator

Luc Viatour (talk)

• Support as nominator Luc Viatour (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Pretty, and I think it does a fairly good job of illustrating adhesion, but hardly any of the image is in focus. Spikebrennan (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Image is out of focus, especially lower left. Very grainy background, and doesn't depict actual coloring (I hope) far left strand is raindbow colored. Also, too much flash. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Shepshep. crassic!^[talk] 02:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose Interesting picture but top left is simply to out of focus --St.daniel ^Talk 14:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose grainy and too much flash. Spencer^T♦C 01:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not use the flash! See EXIF. --Luc Viatour (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the sun's reflection, Spencer. ;) crassic!^[talk] 02:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How on earth is that the sun if it's so dark? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a very disappointing discussion. People don't seem to even understand such basic optic principles as the prism. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 01:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

50-meter swimming pool diagram

Reason

I believe, topics concerning competitive swimming and competitive swimming equipment are underdeveloped in Wikipedia, as compared to other sports. This picture presents a simplified, but essential view on how modern high-level competitive swimming pool looks like. And as such, it contributes to developing better Wikipedia's coverage of competitive swimming in general.

Articles this image appears in

Swimming pool & Olympic-size swimming pool

Creator

Cmapm

• Support as nominator Cmapm (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What does "close to" mean? In what ways does this not precisely represent those requirements? Is there any reason why it couldn't represent them exactly, rather than merely closely? TSP (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To avoid overloading image with confusing details, I omitted some ones, such as "automated officiating equipment" sensors installation places etc. Cmapm (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not knowing anything about swimming pool regulations, I won't change it, but would "A simplified diagram of the FINA long course swimming pool standard, used at the World Championships and Summer Olympics" be more accurate? "Close to" indicates that this is somehow modified from the requirements, rather than just leaving some elements out. Thegreenj 18:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, no problem. Thanks.Cmapm (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The graphic design is dull, lacks "wow". All texts are too small, thus almost unreadable when this is viewed on its image page. Not one of WPs best diagrams, IMO. --Janke | Talk 06:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, thanks. Cmapm (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that the text is too small (try something sans-serif, too). Considering there's so much empty space, you might as well try it with those sensors in the diagram; it might not be as crowded as you think. (Maybe it will be, but it's worth a try, isn't it?) Also, I think the ropes between lanes (is that what they're called? Because they're not labelled!) need more explanation; what's the significance of the different colors and red and black parts spaced at regular intervals? There also might be a better way to represent scale than that is currently used; it seems to take up too much space covering the same, overlapping vertical distances. Then again, it might look better now than with a ruler, but you can at least crop out the white border. Finally, the backstroke turn indicators and false start rope, which I'm assuming are ropes hung over the pool, don't convey exactly what they are. (I.e. the could be lines drawn under the water.) I know that's a lot of comments, and not many ideas on how to fix them, but don't get discouraged. There have been noms where a few improvements made a huge difference.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed rope placement, they're now above the water (this was a bug, sorry, and thanks for the catch). Float colour is required to be different from surrounding floats at 15m from both end walls and in the center. The same for 10 m distance from end walls doesn't seem to be required, but usually is also implemented. Such colouring of lane ropes (red, yellow, blue, green) is required by FINA, but I didn't find any explanation why. Should I include this description onto the image page? And should additional details be relevant for the new, rotated and more crowded version of the image? Is your suggestion on sans-serif essential (I'm afraid a bit to change that, because other people could prefer Arial or TNR)? Cmapm (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks better. Put as much detail as you can into the description page, but if it doesn't fit in the image, that's fine as long as you tried it to make sure. The point of sans-serif was directed solely to improve legibility, ideally (but probably not practically) in the thumbnail. If you find else something that works, or someone has an expert opinion, go with that instead.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Janke. The freddinator (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, thanks.Cmapm (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose As a swimmer, I find it interesting, but too small and maybe rotated 90 degrees would be better. Spencer^T♦C 01:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch! Indeed, rotated surely looks better for me too. Thanks.Cmapm (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Somewhat informative, but a rather boring graphic. A three dimensional diagram could also include depth information. ~MDD4696 04:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is a good suggestion. And in 3D version we could also implement end wall markings, as well as an animation of the falling false start rope. But I give up. Somebody can do better. Cmapm (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why do the ropes have different colours and what purpose does the false start rope serve?--Svetovid (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.fina.org/rules/english/facilities.php Cmapm (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be explained in the image because people are likely not to know these things.--Svetovid (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, please upload the new version to a new file name. Both can be useful and it's not good to completely change an image during FPC--present the second one as an "alternative". Also, I think you should just label the lanes with numbers and then turn "Lane" 90 degrees have it it vertical along the right side. 128.175.80.3 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Julia\^talk 20:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kimi Raikkonen

Reason

I discovered this picture while looking at the pictures for 2008 Formula One cars and thought that it was very good. It was caught at the right angle; is massive and is a superb picture for any Formula One related article. Chubbennaitor 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

• Scuderia Ferrari
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One
• 2008 Australian Grand Prix
• Ferrari F2008

Creator

Diniz originally off Flickr Emil Rensing

• Support as nominator Chubbennaitor 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild oppose Doesn't really show off the car at all. I mean, that ferrari is full of interesting things (like its funky side aero package) but that picture's angle of attack manages to kind of just become really average. (Also fixed the link at the top so people can easily navigate to this page) Narson (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose The image is not visually appealing to say the least. It could use more vibrance, and perhaps a slight crop. Future Orthodontist (DMD) 23:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Future Orthodontist (DMD) (talk • contribs)
• Weak oppose It's a quality photo, but there's been much better ones that better represent the cars and the sport itself. crassic!^[talk] 01:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - Very sharp. Exceptional quality Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well composed image. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 07:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not a particularly appealing picture. It's just a bit bland. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A FP of a sporting event needs some WOW - this one hasn't any. --Janke | Talk 19:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support excellent image, but it lacks some pizzazz. Spencer^T♦C 13:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support: Excellent image. it's rare to get an image of F1 car from above like this one. Also the tyres are new. Σαι ( Talk) 05:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A solitary bee collecting nectar

Reason

A clear and detailed depiction of a the head of a Eucera sp. solitary bee, illustrating the characteristic features of the genus

Articles this image appears in

Eucerini

Creator

Joaquim ALves Gaspar

• Support as nominator Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Slightly prefer composition of alternative - the wings are out of focus in the first one anyway, so not much loss there, and the second has a better view of the feeding and flower. However, the original is sharper, so I could go either way. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nearly full support. I think it would be awesome in profile. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were you going to nominate this one later? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so, the composition is good but not the image quality. As for the profile shots, there are two in the "other versions" info. But not as good as the original IMO. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Composition is better on 2nd edition. But eye is out of focus on 2nd, so I prefer 1st edition. Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original the bee is in much better focus--St.daniel ^Talk 14:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original clean focus, excellent colors.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original. Beautiful image. --Carioca (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original.Striking photograph. Nice work! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bee March 2008-10.jpg MER-C 12:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iceberg with hole

Reason

The image is very eye-catching. The arc looks at first sight too fragile to be true. Of course, the arc is not the only feature holding it together as it is connected solidly under the water. I have seen many icebergs during a three months stay in North-West Greenland, but none as striking as this one. Even the locals found it to be something special. What is even more striking was that I have documented the wheathering of the iceberg during a period of one month. The wheatering process can be seen as other versions on the image page or here. As an informative note to the reviewers WP already has another nice FP of an iceberg with a hole, which you might want to compare with.

Articles this image appears in

Lead image in Water

Creator

Slaunger (talk)

• Support as nominator Slaunger (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that we already have the similar Image:Iceberg with hole edit.jpg featured. Mangostar (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, we already have iceberg with hole featured, but may I please remind you that we have two or more images of some other very similar subjects featured too. I do not see anything bad, if we had two icebergs with two holes as FP. Besides I really like the image by Slaunger much better than current FP taken by me. The thing is that Slaunger was able to follow the iceberg and his weathering for some time. It is a really rare set of images and IMO has great encyclopedic value. If community believe that two FP icebergs are one too many, I'd rather delist the current FP (taken by me) because the nominated image has bigger encyclopedic value and that's why Strong Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Mila, those are very kind comments, and I thank you, but your photo is kinda cool too ;-)-- Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The picture commented above was much better quality. This photo, however, does not have that type of high quality. crassic!^[talk] 22:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, though I wonder if some kind of poster or something could be made from your series of shots. This shot is good enough to be featured (IMO), but something that illustrated that kind of thing could really be something special. Too bad the face (or perspective) kept shifting; you coulda made one big-ass animated GIF with them! Matt Deres (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting idea with the poster. I will give that some thoughts and maybe a try later. The two first images in the set are from almost the same direction, but I agree it would have been neat if more photos were from the same camera location. Not easy to do consistently though as the iceberg also drifted between two different locations during the month I followed it. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support More appealing than its already featured brother, encyclopedic, technically sound, yada yada... faithless (^speak) 06:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Certainly a fine photograph and an encyclopedic subject. Props to the nominator. Yet I don't see any unique informational value to upon comparison and the photograph that's already featured. Normally it takes a marked improvement to unseat a current FP, and the composition of the version we've already got appeals to me slightly more than this. That's no insult to this photo - just a comment on how high the bar acutally is. So although I'm sorry to come down against something this good, I can't quite support. Please submit more photographs on other subjects! Durova^Charge! 02:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and Mbz. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Significant and interesting picture however the other one is clearly of higher quality.--St.daniel ^Talk 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Matt Deres. Spencer^T♦C 01:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per crassic and artefacts on RHS. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Iceberg with hole near sanderson hope 2007-07-28 2.jpg MER-C 12:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramic View of Seattle

Reason

Great view of the City. PLUS, It shows people what the view looks like from the famous Space Needle.

Articles this image appears in

Seattle, Washington

Creator

photographed by S. Bach, stitched by A. Hornung using Hugin

• Support as nominator Rj1020 (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support There's minor problems with the details here and there (mostly a lack of sharpness, but the bottom right corner has color splotches) but it's outweighed by sheer scope.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Theoretically could be taken on a better day, but considering perfectly clear skies aren't exactly common in Seattle this is probably about as good as we'll get. faithless (^speak) 02:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Image is not exactly in perfect focus and the right hand side is almost completely washed out by the sun. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 15:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Maybe the blown-out area on the far right should be cropped out? CillaИ ♦ XC 04:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The image isn't quite 306˚ as is. Something is better than nothing, IMHO.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- good quality, informative Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Edit 1 I don't think there is any need for downsampling. It just removes data which could be useful Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Edit 1 per Mahahahaneapneap. The original could use some downsampling, but the edit has gone just a bit too far. For example, the stripes of the tower ~13265 px in (which I think would make a good measure of how far to downsample) are not entirely resolved in the edit. If CillianXC still has a copy of the edit before downsample, I'd suggest a width of around 15000px would be better. Thegreenj 03:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Picture is terrible quality. crassic!^[talk] 18:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfortunately, there is plenty of texture missing on building surfaces, looks like some strange noise reduction. Sharpness is lacking a bit as well. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Oppose per Fcb. Cacophony (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support ...edit 1: crop a bit too tight. Spencer^T♦C 01:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very vivid and bright picture. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 00:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 12:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Leo XIII

Reason

A good quality portrait of an important figure.

Articles this image appears in

Pope Leo XIII

Creator

Authentic portrait from the Vatican album of the Ecumenical Council.

• Support as nominator Bewareofdog 18:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The portrait looks unimpressive and kind of amateurish to me. --D. Monack | talk 20:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I agree, this is a poor picture to start with, no matter the quality of our reproduction (which could be a little better). Not sure if this is reason enough to oppose. Who's the painting by? Anyone historically significant? Last point- are you certain popes 'reign'? That doesn't sound right to me... J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've done a partial restoration--just a quick adjustment of the histogram and the color balance (it was severely lacking in blue). Durova^Charge! 17:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oviposition of Dolichomitus imperator

Reason

rare & complex image of oviposition by a female ichneumon wasp

Articles this image appears in

Ichneumonidae & Oviposition

Creator

--Richard Bartz (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator Richard Bartz (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Somewhat blurry photos. Picture 3 and 4 seem to be the same action, just at different angles. crassic!^[talk] 02:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Seems to be very encyclopedic, and gets more brownie points if it is as difficult to capture on film as the nominator says it is. My only qualms are that the needle is out of focus in shot 4, the bug is inexplicably facing the wrong direction in shot 3, and the obstruction in shot 6. Nevertheless, I still think this is a quality, significant find. I would support a high res shot of just one shot, as well. Probably number 5. The freddinator (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support - since Richard has kindly provided the full-resolution images, couldn't a larger-resolution composite be made up? It seems a bit small at present, which obscures some of the details of the process . Also, the caption could be better (I understand Richard's excitement, but that's part of the reason for nominating, not a caption that could be shown on the main page), and work in the commentary on the image page of what each image shows. All in all, a GREAT set of photos, but I think we could do better with assembling them into a combined image. Also, if they could be cropped in such a way that let the first be in the same orientation as the rest, that'd be good (possible, maybe not, but good =P). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support! Brilliant image. For anyone who has tried macro of bugs, it is rare to get one picture in a series that has great sharpness... here there are 6! in the same set with each increasing the ENC value exponentially. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 16:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'll hold out for a larger resolution composite. ;) Durova^Charge! 17:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support per Fcb981 - Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/question. I know on a profile macro shot it is very difficult to take the picture without some foreground blur, but it just seems to be quite a bit of it in some of the frames which can be distracting, is there a reasonable way to reduce it? Secondly, as per above, frame 1 is at a skew and I would support a reorientation of the frame to fit the series. A fantastic and stunning set of photos otherwise.D-rew (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No idea what is happening here and neither the full size photo nor the caption make it any clearer. Tomdobb (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless it is clarified in the caption or on the image description page what exactly is going on in the image. Right now it looks like a photo montage with nothing connecting the photos together. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-04-08 18:52Z
  • Can we try to have a little less opposition-due-to-ignorance? Icheneumon wasps lay their eggs inside the maggots or caterpillars of other insects, which they hatch in and then eat their host from inside, keeping it alive for as long as possible. This is a series of images showing how one group of Icheneumon wasps dig a hole through wood that grubs are in, then insert their ovipositor, manoeuvre it around until it pierces the grub, then inject their eggs. Richard Bartz's first language is clearly not english (German, I believe?) and to full oppose just because the nominator finds it difficult to explain complex biology in English seems a little rude. I have, however, added a better caption. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a bit insulting to allege opposition-due-to-ignorance when the caption clearly violated one of the FPC, specifically "Has a good caption The picture is displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption." The picture lacks encyclopedic value when its not clear what exactly is being shown. It's a wholly valid reason for opposing. Tomdobb (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think its not very difficult to understand this sequence. Other biology-interested users understood it very well.
    • Don't be absurd. The old caption explained nothing. It's that simple. We're not supposed to assume the reader has any prior knowledge of the subject. Or are you suggesting a 6-year-old, knowing nothing about insects or oviposition, would know that the wasp is tapping on the wood, listening, and injecting eggs into a grub underneath the wood, all from these pictures alone? Ludicrous. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-04-10 19:49Z
      • With that said, Support now that caption has been fixed. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-04-10 19:56Z
• Support With the new caption, its explanatory and wow!y. I would prefer a bigger version if possible. Muhammad(talk) 15:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Formal oppose. Durova makes a reasonable point about stitching the larger sizes together. Meanwhile, I also wonder whether this subject is more clearly illustrated by a drawing, given that that's how it's invariably communicated in biology textbooks. This might address the problem that Tom raised (of course, parts of such a sequence of drawings could be based on these photographs). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Dolichomitus imperator Oviposition R Bartz.jpg --jjron (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATV Reentry

Reason

This image is spectacular

Articles this picture appears in

Automated Transfer Vehicle

Creator

onsly]]

• Support as nominator Shaggorama (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. Too small, not free use (copyrighted). Pstuart84 Talk 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this realy copyrighted? I thought all space images were in the public domain (at least, that's how it is with NASA). I'm about to lose my time on this computer, so I can't fact check, but I'll try to look for a public domain version tomorrow.--Shaggorama (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See if you can get a bigger version too. Muhammad(talk) 18:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a bigger version here (warning 10MB file) but it's also copyrighted. Pstuart84 Talk 21:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Second speedy close. Forget it, it's just fair use. Unfortunately ESA does not share NASA's free content policy. Uploading a higher res version is out of the question due to its copyright status. --Dschwen 19:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close Per all above. crassic!^[talk] 02:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Falcon

Reason

Can't let FPC be without a bird nom for too long :-). Compositionally this is arguably the best bird image I've taken, and compares favourably to other FPs. Good EV - it serves as the lead image in three articles. I'll let others decide what they think...

Articles this image appears in

Falcon
Falconidae
Brown Falcon

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator jjron (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose JPEG artifacts (e.g. along the edge of the tail) and slightly blurry. Time3000 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not at all sharp, small. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per Vanderdecken and no feather detail at all. Mfield (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. It does illustrate the subject well, but is (unfortunatelly) blurry. Spinach Dip 19:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Blur. ^8thstar 00:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Much of the bottom half of the bird is blurry. crassic!^[talk] 02:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people may need to check what 'blurry' means. It's not especially sharp - a 1:1 crop taken from a photo at full zoom where the lens unfortunately lacks sharpness - but it's not blurred. --jjron (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree, its just a lack of sharpness, not blur. However, it is a bit too unsharp for me, and looks like there may have been some strong noise reduction as there isn't much in the way of texture visible on the bird or the perch. Excellent shot compositionally though. I think you just might need to borrow Fir0002's 400mm lens for this one. Or better yet, find a 600mm lens. ;-) Wildlife photography is a tough and expensive field though, I sympathise.. My longest lens is a 200mm f/2.8L and I find it heavy enough as it is. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not sharp enough.Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It serves as the lead image in three articles because it was the creator/nominator who put it there, displacing a different existing image each time. It could be argued that it is a better image individually but it has an adverse net effect on Wikipedia, making three closely related articles look very similar. There is much to be said for variety, even if it relies on not such good pictures. The image has a good composition and does have a place in all articles, but taking the lead three times is overkill. Motmit (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Diliff and Motmit. Matt Deres (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uniformity

Reason

Very good sample image of Image distortion.

Articles this image appears in

Image distortion

Creator

Atoma

• Support as nominator Laitche (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Despite being a good example of image distortion also is a very good picture.--St.daniel ^Talk 13:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Either the glasses or the lens (or both) are dirty. There are red and blue spots on the out of focus glass, and the stem of the right-side glass seems to be chipped. The bowls of the glasses are also very dirty as well. I'm not sure what the out of focus glass adds to the picture other than confusion. In a nutshell, it's a good picture, very interesting, but should be easily reproduced at a higher quality. The freddinator (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that spots are not glasses nor the lens. It's a LCD screen. :) -- Laitche (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This small image tiled on a 22" LCD screen constitutes the background of the picture. :) -- Laitche (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't quite understand what you mean. I'm seeing a red and white dot in the black space on the blurred glass where the bowl meets the stem. And in the same vicinity, a blue spot as well. And while these flaws can be corrected pretty easily on photoshop (since they are over black space), the bubbles, etc. on the stem of the in-focus glass would prove a more formidable task.The freddinator (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Ahh, nevermind. I get it. The imperfections on the stem of the glass still remain the same, however...unless you sprayed water on that part of the screen? You can fix up the spots on the blurred glass easily, the stem, not so much...The freddinator (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure but maybe you're right. This is not my work then I can't ... -- Laitche (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the freddinator §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per flaws above. Easy to reshoot. --Janke | Talk 08:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy to reshoot? I need evidence. Please take and please upload the more higher quality photo, more higher than this one. -- Laitche (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We shouldn't promote an image just because no one has yet produced a better version. Pstuart84 Talk 11:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And we shouldn't refuse to promote one simply because you believe, without proof, that you can take a better one. Especialt since this is one of the highest quality examples of Image Distoriton that I have ever seen.--St.daniel ^Talk 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As stated by Laitche, it's two glasses placed in front of an LCD monitor with a repeating image. I don't see where the difficulty lies in any of that. It seems the most difficult part of the process is making sure everything is clean/undamaged. The freddinator (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good demonstration of the effect and fits very well in the article. An endlessly fascinating picture showing great original creativity. (I think it is the resemblence to eyes in the base of the bowls that captures attention). And the honeycomb effect conjures up a warm sweet image which goes with the wine glasses! Forget those petty quibbles (the in/out focus actually adds value and where are the smudges?) Top marks. Motmit (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Why is this image encyclopedic for image distortion? I can't see what makes it superior to any picture in which an image is distorted by a curved piece of glass. Pstuart84 Talk 13:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Left half of the image is dominated by an out-of-focus glass. However, I like the idea behind this image-- my suggestion would be to frame the shot in such a way that the top and bottom of the glass can also be seen-- this may help the viewer understand, at a glance, that what is causing the distortion in the background dots is a wine glass (as opposed to a partially-seen object). Spikebrennan (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Spikebrennan. crassic!^[talk] 02:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocopter Cougar

Reason

For two reasons: 1. Good quality, 2. It is a very rare shot because it is an aircraft of very rare guest

Articles this image appears in

Eurocopter Super Puma, Eurocopter

Creator

Dmitry A. Mottl

• Support as nominator Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too close crop, rotor cut off - loses enc. --Janke | Talk 06:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the bokeh effect in the background looks fake Thisglad (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not - it's due to the heat emitted from the engine. --Janke | Talk 14:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is a wind haze from engine -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too close crop, if you could see more of the image you could tell it was heat transmitted from the engine. Extend it more so you can see where the haze starts and stops if possible. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above crop issues, the rotor blades aren't fully visible. Unless the he/she is one of the two people visible in the cockpit, I don't see how the unseen Prime Minister adds any guff to the image. D-rew (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per D-rew. crassic!^[talk] 03:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per crop issues. Spinach Dip 19:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Dean

Reason

Nice picture

Articles this image appears in

STS-118, Hurricane Dean (2007)

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator Σαι ( Talk) 03:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just another cloud with a hole in it... No enc to speak of. --Janke | Talk 06:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment well that's what a hurricane basically is Σαι ( Talk) 11:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Its a great photo, but I've seen better photos of this kind. I'm also not sure what value it adds to the articles. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support A great photo and provides excellent visual aid to the article. --St.daniel ^Talk 13:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose It's blurry in the bottom left. At full resolution it lacks sharpness (is that what artifacts look like?). Finally, NASA has heaps of hurricane photos better than this one. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd like to see them. Σαι ( Talk) 05:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, here's a much better one, showing quite a bit more what a hurricane is all about, and it was not promoted to FP status, either... --Janke | Talk 08:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons FP. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're a bit sick of hurricane nominations. The shenanigans with the nomination don't help either. MER-C 13:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It seems a bit too close. Can't truly tell how large the hurricane is due to nothing clouds. crassic!^[talk] 03:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Perhaps could work well in an article about 'eye of the storm' or something similar, but as a portrayal of a full huricane, the angle is far too narrow. Spinach Dip 19:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central African Republic

Reason

A encyclopedic image, areday an FP on commons

Articles this image appears in

Central African Republic

Creator

dptcar

• Support as nominator Muhammad(talk) 13:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Low enc - what does this have to do with the Central African Republic, other than the kid being there - in fact, this could be anywhere in Africa. The photo itself is OK, but doesn't relate to article or caption. Try nominating this on Commons, instead, where it may even have a chance. --Janke | Talk 14:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Everything in the caption is about its encyclopedia value. And, no, it couldn't be anywhere in Africa, because not everywhere in Africa was burnt to the ground, and the peoples of Africa are ethnically quite diverse, not all looking like they belong in the Central African Republic. On the other hand, people are mobile, so any picture that is a close up of a human being could have "nothing to do with anywhere other than the person being there." It's a compelling picture of a human being in the aftermath of a specific tragedy among many similar tragedies that have gone on in Central and West Africa for decades that many people, although not all, in the English-speaking world seem to be reading about. It is a compelling picture of a single human being, ultimately the end line of all conflicts: what it does to one person. He's an attractive child in an unusual situation and he's looking directly into the camera. One of the most famous, compelling, and encyclopedia pictures in the world is of an Afghan refugee girl. The Central African Republic contains people, plants, guns and gardens. Not every picture is its map. The picture is a snapshot of a shot in a place on time, and captures quietly that place and time, and would have visual impact on the main page of Wikipedia. --Blechnic (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the photo doesn't actually show that that the town was burnt to the ground and in that sense, we're having to take on face value that this kid has been through war and strife. Even if he has, the image alone doesn't really contribute enough to that concept, I don't think. It is a great portrait and but I don't think it is a great documentary photograph in isolation. I've always argued that a photo doesn't have to encapsulate an entire concept completely, and that it is fine to illustrate just one element, but as far as I can see, it only illustrates an boy with a metal lamp on his head... ;-) There is nothing very distinguishing about him or his environment in the photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Zero encyclopedic value for Central African Republic. Kaldari (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per low enc for CAR article. If there is an article more specific to the government action it might very well deserve FPC. Also, try the Commons. gren グレン 16:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Diliff. It's a fine photograph, but this is an encyclopedia. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per DiliffThe freddinator (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• You're right This is the same group that promoted a 40 year old cell diagram to featured picture status, in some 40 languages. You're right to be dismissive of any outsiders. -- Blechnic (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Instead of being a sarcastic asshole, you could listen to what people are saying. This boy could be anywhere and from anywhere, therefore this photo is not very encyclopedic for any place. If we could figure out what ethnic group he belongs to, we could add him to the Demographics of the Central African Republic or to one of the sub-pages. If we had an article on the destruction of Birao, we could even add it there. Any thoughts on that or will your contribution be limited to whining? Matt Deres (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Matt, please remember WP:NPA! --Janke | Talk 09:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, being the same group that promoted a 40 year old cell image to featured article status, there's not much evidence here that I can go on, to provide you with information to have knowledge. So, no, I can't help. It appears decisions are made about what does and what doesn't belong in an encyclopedia by people who know too little about the subject to even know when it's wrong. Besides, you all are having fun dismissing any notion that's outside of what you deem "worthy of encyclopedia" (which in the case of cellular biology appears to be "Ancient" and "wrong") so there's no point in any outsider suggesting that maybe your knowledge is too limited. It's clear that dialog is not allowed. Someone got a notion about what belongs in a print encyclopedia ages ago (and a wrong notion at that, pictures are not decided by the single image in solitude), and the bandwagon filled up.
  • I assume discussion will continue to be dismissed for some archaic limited version of what an encyclopedia is--aka the version that would have nicely held the 40 year old cell on a paper page. Cyber space must be EB 1973--old school. My field is too young for that. And too many human beings involved who don't belong in encyclopedias. --Blechnic (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have totally misunderstood the purpose of this page! The image is fine, we have nothing against it, it even adds value to the article (even if enc is low, any picture gives graphic interest to a page), but as such, it is not worthy of Featured Picture Status - that's the only thing we decide on, here. We do not decide whether a picture should be included in the encyclopedia or not! Read the very first sentence on this page: Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Get the idea? --Janke | Talk 09:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blechnic, you do not seem to understand the point of this page. This image would be perfect for featuring on Commons, but is not appropriate for featuring on Wikipedia. Whining about being an "outsider" isn't going to change that. Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies. Please do enlighten me precisely how a 40-year old cell diagram "added significantly to an article either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article?" The picture, although scientifically inaccurate was so eye-catching that the facts didn't matter? I would love to understand. Now I find out even more on Wikipedia that even if the pictures are crap, it doesn't matter, they should remain in an article. If it's wrong it doesn't matter, it's worthy of featured picture. It just has to be eye-catching enough, except in the case of this picture, it has to add encyclopedia value. I think I get it. If you like it, it's perfect, even if wrong, if someone who isn't you likes it, it's wrong, even if it's eye-catching. Got, it Kaldari, how idiotic of me to think there was a policy. --Blechnic (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suggest you take this to the talk page Blechnic, but if you do want to discuss this further, can you be specific (ie link to) regarding the 40 year old cell diagram you refer to? Bleating on and on and inaccuracy without actually providing any evidence is not constructive. I don't recall seeing it and therefore can't comment on why it is a FP. Generally, if it is genuinely and confirmed wrong, we would want it delisted, so please do bring it up on the talk page or nominate it for delisting with thorough rationale. Regardless though, that is a completely separate issue to this image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Average_prokaryote_cell-_en.svg ? It's not 40 year old . --84.90.46.116 (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose No EV, imo. crassic!^[talk] 02:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose lack of enc. Cacophony (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I wanted to support, but this image has heavy compression artifacts which are visible at 100%, in particular look at the childs forehead, the texture is caused by jpeg blockiness Thisglad (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's a kid with a lamp on his head. No real significance or value, not even particuarly striking or significant. J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As a picture, it would actually be much more poignant and better structured without that lamp. This has nothing to do with cell diagrams. Motmit (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Fine for children's toys of Africa, useless for Central African Republic. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-04-11 16:27Z
• Support Wonderful shot. The kid is full of "encyclopedic value". --Calibas (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're 11 days late... ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Kaldari's comment. Spencer^T♦C 22:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 18:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaohsiung Love River

Reason

This encyclopedic photo depicts the Love River beautifully, with nice reflections of buildings.

Articles this image appears in

Love River

Creator

Henry M. Trotter

• Support as nominator Jerrch 23:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Lovely Support A lovely picture of the Love River. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is a very nice shot, and it has exactly the minimum required resolution. However, the tops of the two tallest buildings look washed out, and, for stationary images city views, I expect much higher resolution (which is often accomplished with multi-shot panoramas, although that would be hard with the reflecting water). In this case, I really want to see more detail in those two buildings (what's on top of them?), of the buildings in the distance and the in red bridge. Great image, contributes well to the article, but I don't think it is featured picture quality. - Enuja (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Enuja. The freddinator (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The image is very noisy. Enuja had great points, as well. crassic!^[talk] 02:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose Beautiful image, but just too small. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Small and noisy. ^8thstar 00:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - a good scene and well taken but there is something wrong with the quality. As a general point, rivers are "living" things and an opportunity is missed to show some life and add value (another pic of the river in the article about the town has sailing boats in it). Motmit (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Motmit makes a very good point, and besides the fact that this fails size requirements. Spencer^T♦C 22:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]