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

Meehan Range

Original - Old Beach and the Meehan Range, including Mt Direction (rightmost peak) and Gunner's Qouin (cliff)

Reason

Quality panorama and illustrative for relevant articles. View from the highest point is here for interest's sake.

Articles this image appears in

Old Beach, Tasmania, Meehan Range

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Would seem to be of obvious educational value and is attractive to boot. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good technicals and EV. I'm not entirely sold on the lighting, but it's not too much of an issue here. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Lighting isn't great. But more importantly, there's too much water in the shot. I can't really see enough of the town for it to have substantial EV in that article. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 05:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ascocoryne sarcoides

Reason

Clear picture of an unusual jelly fungus, meets size requirements, high EV; I think the composition is attractive.

Articles this image appears in

Ascocoryne, Ascocoryne sarcoides

Creator

Daryl Thompson at Mushroom Observer

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This one has a strong EV, and a resolution as good as that. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 22:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though I wouldn't call anything that looks like that "attractive". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not very sharp given the pixel dimensions. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful weak oppose per NS, but it looks interesting and has good EV. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 05:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Credulity, Superstition and Fanaticism

Reason

High quality scan of historical image; meets size criteria, high EV

Articles this image appears in

Mary Toft, Cock Lane ghost

Creator

BryanBot, picture adjustments by Parrot of Doom

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Can't go wrong with Hogarth! Pleasing artwork, encyclopedic in reminding us that there were sane people in every age.-Ben pcc (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Most interesting. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is a picture that could do with a bit of restoration work. GerardM (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Might ask for a colour scan, but it seems to have all the detail. We can upgrade later, if it becomes an option. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 14:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose: Durova's right, though I'll happily work with Sasata in order to provide a restored version. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 17:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Shoemaker. Should we suspend this nom? Plenty of ev here; would be great to see it promoted. Durova²⁸⁸ 19:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've poked Sasata about it. She can choose whether to suspend or just renominate shortly. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Hate to spoil the party, but this scan has bleedthrough text at bottom, needs clockwise rotation, and suffers from serious brightness variances (particularly visible at the borders). Durova²⁸⁸ 21:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Durova. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 05:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing

Reason

Arguably one of the most recognized images taken of the 19 April 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, this image was taken two days after the bombing and shows the extent of the bomb damage to both the federal building and the surrounding area. Its large and has considerable historic value, and I submit it here for consideration for promotion to FP status.

Articles this image appears in

Oklahoma City bombing, Rhabdomyolysis

Creator

Staff Sergeant Preston Chasteen

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 19:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - overexposed, blown highlights (not just the sky, but the burnt out cars as well), perspective issues and stuff cut off on top. It has historical value, but pushes it too far on quality for something that's only 15 years old. MER-C 03:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If this nomination fails, it seems like it would do very well at valued pictures. Hello32020 (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find that comment extraordinarily offensive; if had wanted to take the image to VP I would have done so in the first place. I do not need someone to inform me that I may have better luck somewhere else with my image; if my image "would do very well at valued pictures" then can do just as well -if not better- here, and if I fail then I know that I failed in the pursuit of the highest possible goal, not settling for some backward process that few people (any people?) care about, and for this reason, I would greatly appreciate it if you never mention the VP process as an avenue of approach for a picture I place here again. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 04:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Uhhhhhh.... Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The Valued Picture route is a very valid suggestion if it does not succeed here. I also suggest you look into it. --Torsodog^Talk 19:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per MER-C. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Avala (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per above statements. Labrat256 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.175.183 (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per MER-C's comments. Zulualpha (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 05:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snail Climbing Grass

Reason

It is large, high quality and quite original. Its not often that you are able to find a photo to show the foot whilst working. On the snail page, it contributes quite considerably, as it helps the reader understand the foot of the snail.

Articles this image appears in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snail

Creator

SeanMack

• Support as nominator -- Labrat256 02:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - insufficient DOF, artifacted. MER-C 04:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Wow that's weird. wadester16 05:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose per depth of field issues. Otherwise fascinating! Durova²⁸⁴ 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support The picture does illustrate the foot of the snail at work remarkably well while climbing an oddly shaped item, which seems to be the reason this picture is being nominated. Also interesting perspecitve of the snail as this is the only picture attached to the snail article that shows a working foot and the pneumostome. --Zulualpha (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 05:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetah cub close-up

Reason

Good quality, EV and interesting IMO

Articles this image appears in

Cheetah

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 15:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What would you think of a less centered crop that kept the cub's back and placed the face at right? Seems like a good instance to use the rule of thirds. Durova²⁸⁴ 16:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, the square image doesn't look as good as one that crops the right side while keeping the back. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will remove the square edit and put up another one as you suggested by tomorrow. --Muhammad(talk) 17:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Took the liberty of a black point adjustment. Shows the mantle mentioned in the article well, so a head shot has definite EV. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Muhammad, I think perhaps your monitor might need an adjustment, since the last couple of images have seemed slightly overexposed/lacking contrast. This one isn't as noticable as the boy on the bicycle though IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah probably since I am on a different computer and monitor now. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 17:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Diliff's edit looks wonderful on my system. That plus the crop and this will really be a winner. Good capture. :) Durova²⁸⁵ 21:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 2 Uploaded --Muhammad(talk) 03:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 :) Durova²⁸⁵ 05:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 2. Original is very good, but since the foliage in the background is not in focus and doesn’t give any kind of geographical indicators, I support the picture that makes the cub the main focus. Normally, I would support the picture that not only shows the animal, but also any of its natural habitat in the greatest detail. Zulualpha (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cheetah_cub_close-up_edit2.jpg -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baby's Own Aesop

Reason

Walter Crane was one of the nineteenth century's most influential figures in the development of English children's literature book illustration. Crane was part of the Arts and Crafts movement and influenced by the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. Restored from a high resolution scan of the first edition of Crane's 1887 children's edition of Aesop's fables. Unrestored version at File:Can't please everyone.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Walter Crane, Aesop's fables

Creator

Walter Crane

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁴ 16:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The blues and the reds/oranges/browns come out well. I can't see any problems and this is clearly encyclopedic. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 16:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Can't please everyone2.jpg -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luculia gratissima

Reason

Good quality. Flowers at different stages of opening.

Articles this image appears in

Luculia gratissima, Luculia, Rubiaceae

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 10:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Good use of depth of field. Durova²⁸⁴ 16:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Nothing outstanding in my opinion. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 22:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful representation of the subject. At this rate every piece of flora and rock on the Earth is going to have a featured pic on Wiki. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Apparently, I am a sucker for flowers. My notes emphasized the shadow on the right. While some might not like it, I actually think that it creates a nice contrast and brings out the full flower. It has good positioning and the rest of the picture doesn't stand out, which allows for the subject to really take hold. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pied Piper of Hamelin

Reason

Another of the formative English children's book illustrators was Kate Greenaway. This illustration for The Pied Piper of Hamelin was published in an edition to accompany text by Robert Browning. Encyclopedic at several articles. Restored version of File:Pied Piper.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

The Pied Piper of Hamelin, Hamelin, Kate Greenaway, Robert Browning

Creator

Kate Greenaway

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁴ 19:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The colors really stand out, which is important. It is crisp and clean. Obvious value. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good illustration --Muhammad(talk) 02:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin ducks

Reason

Supplying the duck nomination that seems to be requisite of FPC regulars. Encyclopedic at Utagawa school, which previously had no illustration. Restored version of File:Mandarin duck woodcut.jpg. See also compressed version at File:Mandarin duck3 courtesy copy.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Utagawa school

Creator

Hiroshige

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁴ 00:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amazing quality and detail, I don't see any flaws at full resolution. My ONLY request would be if you could find some more articles to use it in. Beautiful, though. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. I am a particular fan of woodcuts and this one is of very high quality. One of the peak moments of my life was being able to closely examine physical prints (of noh actors) to see the various components and techniques. So yes, this made me happy. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Translation of text? Spikebrennan (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have requested a translation from the Japanese Wikipedia. Durova²⁸⁵ 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • おし鳥の わかれも見たり 朝嵐

"Out in a morning wind,

Have seen a pair of mandarin ducks parting.

Even the best loving couple makes a quarrel."

--

Refinement of the translation will be welcomed.--トトト (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great restoration, and you made me discover Hiroshige's work...Now i have to buy prints of some of theses woodcuts >_<. PS : Don't forget to add the translation in the summary Ksempac (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a fantastic image which easily meets the criteria Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midas

Reason

Illustration of Nathaniel Hawthorne's variant of the King Midas myth. Hawthorne introduced the version of the story in which midas turns his daughter into a statue with his golden touch. Restored version of File:Midas gold.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Midas, Nathaniel Hawthorne, A Wonder-Book for Girls and Boys

Creator

Walter Crane

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁵ 01:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I know lines in illustrations of this era aren't expected to be straight, and I can see that in this image. However, it feels as though the illustration is a parallelogram (drawing lines seems to confirm this). Is this part and parcel of Victorian illustration? MER-C 08:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It often is. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd - you'd think they would notice it too. Oh, well. Support. MER-C 11:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it just wasn't considered an issue to check. It's worst in woodblock engravings, of course, since the pieces are glued together after carving, but also common in this sort of thing, and etc. It's probably something to do with the paper the artists used being cut to size by hand, or the like. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support GerardM (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Munttoren

Reason

EV+Quality

Articles this image appears in

Munttoren, Muntplein and Hendrick de Keyser

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Info There are five locations to take a picture of this tower from. Since the square itself is a major crossing point of public transport (tram numbers 4, 9, 14, 16, 24 and 25), overhead cables block the view of the tower from three of those locations (Vijzelstraat, Reguliersbreestraat and Muntplein). The two other location which remain, are the Koningsplein and the bridge across the Amstel I used. If I would have taken this picture from the Koningsplein, the lower half of the tower would have been obscured (see the historic picture in the Munttoren article). So, only the location I used was suitable. One thing I also would like to point out, is that there was no wind at the time (a storm had just passed by). This is something very special here, since there may be only a couple of windless days a year. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Good reflections in water, seems cropped a little high though. Durova²⁸⁴ 16:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's cropped a little bit high, but I did it on purpose. Aesthetically I think the picture looks better this way. Further more the tower isn't that high and so it appears less high in the picture through this crop. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. It's a shame about the flagpole sticking up at the left of the tower, but since that's the only suitable location there doesn't seem to have been much you could have done about that. Time3000 (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a flag pole, but just an ordinary pole, to which they attach the overhead cables used by trams for power. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Trams are all but non-existent in the UK so I automatically though 'flagpole' for something that shape ; ). Time3000 (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Seems a bit too dark though. I'm sure this was by choice too, but you could have brought out a little bit more detail if it were lighter. There is no rule for this sort of night photography though, as the idea of matching what our eyes see breaks down in the dark, and it becomes a matter of personal choice on the basis of aesthetics. When EV is an important factor though, I think brighter = better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a version with an increased amount of brightness. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A subtle difference. I might have increased it a little more still, but clearly good enough. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)

• Support + Comment – It might just be me, but the tower seems like it is a bit more on the left side of the image, and there is slightly more space on the right side. Do you think it would be good to crop it to center the tower? NW (Talk) 16:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the composition would be better, if it stays the way it is. You're right that the tower is slightly located left of centre. In my opinion this improves the composition as supposed to it being located in the centre. However, if more people feel it should be located in the centre of the image, I would be more then happy to upload a different crop. I'll fly off tomorrow to Portugal for two weeks, so if a consensus of support is reached for the different crop, I'll upload it over the current version once I return. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is some wierd blurring on the right hand side near the building above the wires suspending the lights. The edge of a building on the right hurts the composition in my view. I feel that it has been taken a bit too late (deep shadows), and that it is underexposed. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tourist Stall, Trafalgar Square, London - May 2009.jpg

Reason

While this is one of my more light-hearted nominations, I do think it's an image with very good techicals and has undeniable EV for the article. ;-)

Articles this image appears in

Tourism in London

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've always liked this image. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and you're right about the EV as well. Nicely done with the people out of focus. This would do well as a stock photo. --Muhammad(talk) 03:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per above, but a bit too aggressive on the compression (see the left side of the London maps sign and various people). MER-C 08:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that the problem is compression. I save all my images at level 10 (out of 12) in PS CS4, which is usually more than enough. If anything, I think I see minor Bayer filter artifacts on sharp edges (eg top of the Union Jack flag). I don't see the same effect on the left side of the London maps sign though (I think that's just the laminated edge), or in the OOF people - that's just sensor noise as far as I can see. I could have applied some NR but I didn't find it too objectionable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I thought it would be too dark for the lamination - nearby it's almost invisible and on the other side it's purple. Noise and JPEG artifacts become indistinguishable in the right quantity but the compression ratio (11.3) was what led me to suspect artifacts. MER-C 12:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can see that the darker section corresponds to the bend in the sign and there's an equivalent on the right side too. True, sometimes JPEG artifacts are hidden in noise, but usually it's the noise that's objectionable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I find EV of this shot highly dubious. This kind of stall isn't London or even UK-specific, I think you can get pretty much the same shot in every major European city, with the only difference being the name of the city on the shirts and the flags' color. Moreover, the article in itself isn't very compelling (that looks like a finely veiled list of places for me), and the picture add strictly nothing to understand the article Ksempac (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But in some ways, that's the point. It doesn't have to be unique to London to have good EV IMO, it only has to be representative of tourism in London, and selling all sorts of random junk that tourists might buy *IS* quite respresentative of that ;-). And you're right that the article tends towards a list of places, but if you look at other similar articles, they all do it. I'm not defending the articles, because clearly they could and should be improved to provide more information about the tourism itself, rather than what tourists visit, but I think this image does a lot more for the article than simply showing another attraction - it refers to the economics of tourism, and sits in the appropriate location for that. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I appreciate the abstract "tourism in London" quality of the image, but the composition doesn't quite do it for me. There are touristy wares, and there are lots of peoples' backs, but you can't see a stall keeper, or anyone actively buying. The background is blah, the lighting is blah, there's nothing to really catch the eye. The article it's used in is crap, though the image definitely helps. I like what you're trying to do here, but imho, the image just doesn't quite do it. I'm just picturing a better version of this with a couple of tourists haggling with a stall keeper, more interesting junk for sale, better lighting, and perhaps something interesting in the background. Stevage 08:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but it sounds like in some ways, you're looking for something that from my experience doesn't exist. This exactly the sort of junk that that is for sale to tourists, and for the most part the stalls sit there attracting very little attention. They're probably more likely to sell a bottle of water to someone than a tacky souvenir but somehow they stay in business. Low rental costs, probably. I've certainly heard about plans to rid these sort of stands from Oxford Street, and there's been an outcry from those whose families have been renting the plots from Westminster Council for the last 100 years or so. Anyway, I digress. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I can't say I'm sold on the lighting, but the EV is sufficient enough for me. When Ksempac says above "This kind of stall isn't London or even UK-specific, I think you can get pretty much the same shot in every major European city, with the only difference being the name of the city on the shirts and the flags' color", to me that's what precisely makes it tourist-y. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose looks like a normal holiday snapshot to me --Andreas 06 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Diffuse composition. The stall is in shadow while the tourists' heads are sunlit, which could work if it were a shot of a family purchasing a flag or a shirt. These people are ignoring the stall and their bodies obscure a substantial part of it. The original I♥NY shirts were easier to read. Maybe there's an FP to be had from a London tourist stall if it's possible to get one under different conditions, and possibly with a different background. The masonry facade in this is unremarkable and the backlit leaves at far left pull my eye out of the frame. Durova²⁸⁸ 14:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Durova. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Knotweed

Reason

Shows spike and the short scattered hairs on the leaves well.

Articles this image appears in

Persicaria capitata, Persicaria, Polygonaceae

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What's with the white spot in the background? Also, please chop off the partial leaf on the bottom. MER-C 09:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • shrug, blame focus stacker. Chomped but I probably prefer original. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support then, prefer edit (1). MER-C 10:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support chomp. Tasty... Durova²⁸⁴ 16:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This picture has a good detail, sufficient EV, and very good use of lighting.
  Comment - I don´t see much difference between the two images, and what white spot? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 22:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at the file history. MER-C 04:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was to the left of the spike. Not in any current file revision. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note before closing this I would like to get some more input from the community. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 17:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Persicaria_capitata_AF_crop.jpg --wadester16 03:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmanian Laurel

Reason

Good quality image of a Tasmanian native species. Shows the colour range present in the flowers.

Articles this image appears in

Anopterus glandulosus, Anopterus

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - last one that I reviewed earlier (and it for today). I like this, but I think others may not. The positioning is good, and the eye is drawn in and up along the flower. The upper right and upper left was a bit distracting and didn't really seem the best. However, I think it has good encyclopedic value. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like this picture. It seems that the right side is a little darker than the left. I personally feel this gives the flower a “real” feeling (as if you are looking at it with the naked eye vs. in a photograph) and helps with the artistic quality. Great resolution and color as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulualpha (talk • contribs) 14:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support beautiful image and high EV.--Caspian blue 13:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Anopterus glandulosus.jpg --wadester16 03:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium crystals

Reason

I came across this on commons FPC. It's got undeniably brilliant EV, clearly showing the shape of the crystals, colour of the metal, etc., and is high quality.

Articles this image appears in

Titanium

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Time3000 (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁸⁴ 19:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per nom. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 22:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Aesthetically represents a simple substance Dursty (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support These mineral images really are interesting. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

info this isn't a mineral, this is a chemical element sample ;-) Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - When I spent time trying to relax, I performed a bunch of analysis of pictures and took notes. My note for this was "very cool". It holds up well, plus the image is very striking. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interesting and high quality image. An explanation of how it came to be in this shape would be useful though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  what do you mean: the sample or the photo? Please read the original image info too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the sample. I found that it had been added to Crystal bar process (not mentioned in the nomination) which sort of explains the process, but it would have been nice to explain the significance of the shape of the bar in the nomination too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I have corrected the image describtion. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• support impressive.©Geni 16:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Titan-crystal_bar.JPG --wadester16 03:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The skyline of Philadelphia

Reason

EV+Quality

Articles this image appears in

Philadelphia and Center City

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Your vantage point was the Girard Avenue bridge near the Philadelphia Zoo, right? Kind of an odd vantage point to take a city panorama, actually, since many of my hometown's landmarks are almost totally obscured by other buildings (such as Philadelphia City Hall, One Liberty Place and Two Liberty Place. The South Street bridge may have been better, but it's currently torn down. The top of the Philadelphia Museum of Art steps, or even the New Jersey State Aquarium are also well-known places from which to photograph Philadelphia. I also note that you just added this image as the lead infobox image for Philadelphia today, replacing this one-- a panorama's dimensions fit awkwardly in an infobox, and may I suggest waiting a while to verify the image's stability in the article before acting on the nom here. I hope you enjoy your visit to Philadelphia (if you're still here). Spikebrennan (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken from the Spring Garden Street Bridge behind the Philadelphia Museum of Art. I had chosen this location, because I thought it was the second best location after the South Street Bridge (which was indeed torn down). I didn't find the top of the steps of the museum a good place to take the shot from, because of a couple of reasons. First of all, it was the day after the fourth of July. The stage which was part of the festivities still stood in the way, so a large part of the skyline was obscured including Philadelphia's City Hall. Another issue for me were the lantern posts and other objects in the foreground, which couldn't be excluded from the photograph. It's true that those three landmarks you named, are excluded mostly from the panorama. The Philadelphia City Hall however would be excluded from a panorama taken from a variety of vantage point, such as the South Street Bridge due to the fact that there are a lot of tall buildings between it and the Schuylkill River. Parts of the City Hall and Two Liberty Place are still present though in this panorama. Two other landmarks are now included due to the fact, that I took the shot from the Spring Garden Street Bridge. Those are the 30th Street Station and the Cira Centre. I do agree that it fits oddly into the lead infobox, but it still looks fine in my opinion. Check out the article about Sydney for instance, which has a similar panorama as lead image. I was only there for two days, so I'm no longer in Philly. I did however enjoyed my visit :). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The suitability of the photo in the Philadelphia lead infobox is already being discussed here. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to suspend this one, while I'll work on a better version of edit 1. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've created and uploaded the new panorama and inserted in the articles. Before nominating it again, I'm going to let it settle in there for a couple of days to a week. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Original Between the two of them, my preference is for the original nom: the lighting on the trees is better, and buildings such as the Comcast Center (the tallest one in the shot, on the left) look more attractive in the original nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a point. I get the feeling that there is a lot of room for brightening the shadow detail of Edit 1 up though. Do you take requests Massimo? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it is for the well being of Wikipedia, yes, I take request ;) . I'll start working on it now. Check out the rest of my comment on the talk page of Philadelphia. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Flat lighting unfortunately, but it's a view that has good EV. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Still lots in it even if some landmarks are missing. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Dear Wikipedians, there is still no definite version on this panorama. When it's ready, I will move the nomination again to the top. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion to suspend nom. Per the Philadelphia article talk page, there's an ongoing horse race between Massimo and User:Emy111 to supply the lead infobox image for the Philadelphia article. I suggest nomming the eventual winner of that argument, whichever it is. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you check above, the nom has already been suspended by the nominator for all the reasons you cited, but others wikipedians voted without reading his comment. ;) Ksempac (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was suspended more than 5 days ago. Consider it so. wadester16 03:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination may be unsuspended. I've corrected all flaws in the previous version and the discussion on the article's talk page is over. I'll be unavailable from the 27th of July till the 9th of August (heading over to Portugal (Lisbon+Algarve), so that's also a reason, why I'm reinstating the voting process now. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuspended per request from nominator. --jjron (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support final edited version. Durova²⁸⁵ 18:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Avala (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as before. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Can people 'revoting' strike their previous votes please. --jjron (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, with thanks to Massimo for his saint-like patience (especially with the rather silly cat-fight on Talk:Philadelphia). Spikebrennan (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest crop. Panoramas are always too wide. Suggest trimming this one slightly smaller than "edit 1", so just left of the leftmost buildings, and just cutting out the red crane behind the train station, on the right hand side. What are the weird white streaks in the sky to the right of the red crane though? Stevage 03:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:GardenStreetBridgeSchuylkillRiverSkylinePhiladelphiaPennsylvania.jpg --wadester16 03:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial

Reason

One of the best vectorisations out there, and a wonderful example of decorated initials

Articles this image appears in

Initial

Creator

Vectorised by User:JovanCormac

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Amazing vectorization, highly encyclopedic. Durova²⁸⁵ 21:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image, and interesting. Never knew that's what those large opening letters were called. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why are certain letters omitted? According to Latin alphabet, the Archaic Latin alphabet has 21 letters, but not this 21. The classical latin alphabet has 23 and of course the modern alphabet has 26. The only reason that I can come up with is that 26 is semiprime so you can only go into a 2*13 or 13*2 table to have no gaps which is ugly... Noodle snacks (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume that, in the book this was collected from, some letters, by chance, just never appeared. If you want a coherent set of samples of 16th-century initials, you probably have to take what you get. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. The borders of each letter need some cleanup. I really hope this wasn't an inappropriate trace, but since this is an SVG, it can easily be fixed. I'm going to try to upload a newer version with some cleanup of unneeded elements... ZooFari 16:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt I went through it and improved borders. It also had a slight decrease in file size. It was actually pretty good; the vectorizer did a great job. ZooFari 23:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you opened a can of worms... which might not be a bad thing. Are the marks in upper right corner of G wear or intentional? How come the inner and outer box of G aren't equally far apart all around? Should the right edge inside the box of P be straightened? In many of the boxes the white lines between boxes are different on top or sides verses the bottom. I don't really know the answer. I agree the original boxes were not very good. But I think your perfectly even sized boxes tend to clash with the images and make some imperfections more apparent. I tend to think maybe something in between would be best? Or maybe some alignment work. I'm not fully sure. (But, really great job on this vectorization otherwise). gren グレン 05:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it definitely has alignment issues, but I was not able to fix all of it. First, they aren't broken into parts and the file size is awfully big—too big and caused my system to work slow. I was going to oppose for that, but I didn't want to be picky. It took me more than five hours just to add new borders, something that could have been done under 30 minutes. I say suspend this until the file size is reduced and fixed. ZooFari 05:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I did a thorough restoration of the image and replaced the original upload with it. I cleaned up all the borders as suggested by ZooFari (without compromising the interior, though) and fixed all the tears, cuts and holes in the image - thankfully, I found a second scan of the same page at [1], which allowed me to distinguish between intentional details and damages. As a final step, I split the image into single letters and realigned everything along a neat grid for a clean, even appearance. You can find all those changes in the "Original" image nominated here. I strongly encourage everyone to compare it with the previous version (Old vs. New). I hope you like it as much as I do. -- JovanCormac (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Restored original. -- JovanCormac (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support since it is in initial rather than trying to directly illustrate the letters or something. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I've struck out my votes. I just can't make up my mind. I appreciate Jovan's good restoration, but it wasn't what I was expecting. The file is still filled with too many unnecessary "nodes" and Jovan's borders aren't object elements, but paths instead—also made up of multiple nodes that aren't needed. My alt is not perfect either: the alignment is off and the interior borders do not align with the exterior borders. Despite the enormous size, I suppose I prefer the original. ZooFari 18:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason why the borders in my restoration are paths, and have many more nodes than one might expect, is that they are deliberately not perfectly rectangular towards the interior. At first I simply used rectangular frames like you did but I found that their look just doesn't match the "hand-carved" one of the letters, and one could tell that they were added digitally. So I merged the existing borders with the rectangular frames and did a bit of voodoo and a lot of tiny adjustments until I was satisfied that the outcome looked natural. As for the file size, it is a little over 1 MB which is hardly big for a Commons picture; most high-quality photos have 3-5 times that file size. The only "size" issue that remains IMO is the fact that the SVG is so complex that users with low-end systems probably cannot edit it. But making the frames rectangular would not change that one bit, as most of this complexity comes from the actual letter illustrations. -- JovanCormac (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rectangles look perfect to me and IMO the object would have been just as good as paths. That's not really my concern anyways, and I'll support the original despite all the issues. ZooFari 19:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, I really appreciate your feedback and your inspiration for restoring the borders. -- JovanCormac (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ornamental Alphabet - 16th Century.svg --wadester16 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg

Reason

It's not a perfect image in terms of technicals (unfortunately, trains and cars running across the bridge cause a substantial amount of vibration which made the image slightly unsharp on a long exposure) and it is much lower resolution than some of my panoramas (still more than enough for FP though), but the view is good, and the nightscape allows the Opera House to stand out more than during the day. It also illustrates many articles prominently as per the articles list.

Articles this image appears in

Sydney Opera House, Sydney, New South Wales, Tourism in Sydney and Australian Landmarks

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lovely. Durova²⁸⁵ 14:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A very good resolution, detail and lighting. Also good EV. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That still water is so beautiful. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV, view --Muhammad(talk) 18:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too dark, vibrations, water moving... Just messing Support all the way... Excellent pic and rare to have not even a small amount of water traffic to disrupt the shot... Lovely... Gazhiley (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 06:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• support enough resolution, very nice composition – Wladyslaw (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although I think it could be cropped much more tightly. Kaldari (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could, but I think this framing allows you to see how the Opera House sits in relation to the environment better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anything it's probably a bit clipped at image right - IMO ideally it would show all of Bennelong Point, but the right corner of it appears to be cut off just a bit (going by the lights). --jjron (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful. Nice and sharp. Good detail. (Orfo (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Support FWIW (see above). --jjron (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg --wadester16 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kew Gardens Palm House, London - July 2009.jpg

Reason

Pleasant angle and composition

Articles this image appears in

Kew Gardens

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very sweet. Oh and great resolution. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 17:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great resolution and framing. I love the angle and color in this picture. In my opinion, a great addition to the article. Zulualpha (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Kew gardens is awesome and the Palm house itself is a classic as well. I am happy to see such a splendid picture :) GerardM (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Lovely picture, Great resolution, I think it should be a featured picture. Harlem675 08:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great picture which meets the criteria. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Would have preferred a rectilinear projection, but I guess that you didn't want to go swimming. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but not just that. The further back you get, the more distracting elements there are in the foreground like a fence, walkway, people, etc. You also wouldn't see the gardens as they are like this as they'd be compressed. So yeah, the view is compromised, but a necesssary one IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kew Gardens Palm House, London - July 2009.jpg --wadester16 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin and Child

Reason

It was a surprise to discover that the old lead image at Mary (mother of Jesus) was less than 100K; this is one of the most frequent themes of historic Christian art. Located a high resolution woodcut from a seventeenth century artist whose biography lacked an illustration. Also useful at the chiaroscuro article. Restored version of File:Mary Coriolano.jpg. If anyone would like a compressed courtesy copy please post a request; would be glad to make one.

Articles this image appears in

Mary (mother of Jesus), Bartolommeo Coriolano, Chiaroscuro

Creator

Bartolommeo Coriolano

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁵ 16:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I also expanded the Bartolommeo Coriolano page when I saw that this image was being created. It is now above the original stub level and listed for DYK. The image has encyclopedic value, especially when it was one of the ones gifted to the pope that gave him a knighthood for his skill (according to some of the sources). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We do not have many woodcuts as featured picture, this is an exquisite example of the genre. GerardM (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. And damn you for finding one with a more accessible story behind it - my chiascuro failed because the author was considered too obscure =P Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This woodcut may be old but it looks like a Christmas card. Not impressed with the artistic quality, and the poor print quality is only emphasised by the high-resolution scan. ProfDEH (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When this is the best available, then this is it. A high resolution scan helps by making it possible to do the best restoration possible given the material. GerardM (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How is that at all a notable depiction of Mary? Noodle snacks (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the linked biography indicates, it was part of a group of woodcuts that got the artist knighted by the Pope for his skill at woodcut print art. Durova²⁸⁸ 14:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mary Coriolano2.jpg --wadester16 03:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Allen Anderson

Reason

I think it is a high quality image

Articles this image appears in

Richard Allen Anderson

Creator

uploaded by ERcheck

• Support as nominator --Kumioko (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not really a good enough reason for the nomination IMO. Seems to have low notability other than that he won the Medal of Honor - one of 250 in the Vietnam War alone. The image itself is of very poor quality for the era so I don't see the possible historic value of it as saving this one. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to mention the recieving the Medal of Honor is in itself notable and that only an extremely small percentage of the personnel from any war receive it and even then it is usually received posthumously. Aside from perhaps being a bad image it is historically notible. --Kumioko (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable enough though. If this was the only image available of someone who stood out as being the greatest hero of the Vietnam War in some way, then it would be fair to be a little more lenient towards image quality, but my point is that this guy is among 250 other MOH awardees. It's a significant award, of course, but it doesn't forgive the image quality. That was the point I was originally making. In any case, what made you select this image for FPC? Lots of the MOH awardees seem to have similar quality images. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted several before that I thought where good, that turned out to be bad because they didn't have the perfect light or background noise or whatever so I thought I would try with this one that had obviously been touched up. To be honest with you I don't really think that this FP vetting process is well suited to images of people, and certainly not an image that was taken more than about ten years aho when high quality digital images became easily available to the masses. That is why we have dozens of images of buildings and wildlife and less then 20 of military people. Sure we have a couple, but in order to get those we had to clean them up using gimp or photoshop so really they are less an image as they are an art project. Oppose the image on quality if you wish but opposing it on the grounds of notibility is ridiculous. If he is notable to have an article in WP then he's notable enough to have a FP. BTW I have already attempted to submit all of the MOH recipient images that were decent and only 1 made it through and even then only after it had been cleansed of noise. --Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that portraits do have a difficult time getting through, and particularly historical ones, but that's because they're often poorly taken, or poorly scanned. And I didn't oppose based on notability, I merely commented that if it were exceptionally rare or documented something particularly important, then I would consider lowering the bar on the technical requirements. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on technicals per Diliff. However, I disagree with Diliff about "non-notability" being a sensible reason to oppose the nomination- the subject has an article. Article subjects are either notable or non-notable; illustrations are judged based on whether they effectively illustrate the subject--notability of the subject is beside the point when evaluating the image. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you got my point then, despite me stating it probably 3 times above ;-). I didn't say non-notability was a sensible reason to oppose, I said the lack of strong notability means that it isn't exempt from our usual technical requirements. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Doesn't meet the featured picture criteria. In particular, it fails #1 as it isn't of a high technical standard and #3 as a posed portrait like this isn't very compelling. It's clearly a very useful picture for the article, but it isn't of FP standard. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 03:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Stockdale Formal Portait

Reason

I think this is a good high resolution image, no apparent noise, good lighting and a high EV.

Articles this image appears in

James Stockdale, List of United States Naval Academy alumni, List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War

Creator

Uploaded by Koalorka

• Support as nominator --Kumioko (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - noise/artifacts (again) and insufficient resolution. I would like to see some details in the medals. MER-C 07:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per MER-C and for composition (both shoulders cut off). Spikebrennan (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regregful Oppose EV is strong due to his political background (ignoring the Phil Hartman spoofs on SNL), but quality is not so good. wadester16 07:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Cybercobra (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low Library rotunda

Reason

Rotunda of Low Memorial Library at Columbia University, as it appeared circa 1900-1910 before the building was converted to administrative use. Low Library is the most recognizable building at the university; it occupies the highest ground at the center of campus and has a distinctive design (see exterior). All of the reading desks and the central bookcase have been removed. The rotunda currently serves as a ceremonial space.[2] Restored version of File:Low Library.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Low Memorial Library, Columbia University, McKim, Mead, and White

Creator

Detroit Publishing Co.

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁵ 23:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Impressive exposure control for the pre-HDR era. One thing though, it seems restored in the lighter parts, but near the bottom, it still seems to have a lot of dust spots all over the place. They look trivial enough to remove... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good eye. The original had a good overall histogram, but a lot of low contrast locally. Had first addressed that with multiple curves layers, then went back and did a shadow/highlight adjustment instead. The shadow/highlight adjustment brought out scratches and dirt that had previously been too low contrast to notice. Gave that another careful pass per your advice, uploaded over the same filename. Should be resolved now. Durova²⁸⁵ 15:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can still see a few in the strongest shadows, but I won't trouble you with another edit. ;-) Much improved. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—good EV and significance because the place has changed, good quality. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 16:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, really good quality, focus, etc. really bad off center framing. I'd support if I had a reason to believe there weren't more images like this but it seems quite possible that a similar image is better centered. gren グレン 20:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See rule of thirds. Durova²⁸⁸ 21:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Love it, the sense of place , the blurred figures, you can almost smell the old books... historical value would have carried lack of image quality but it also happens to be a very proficiently-taken photograph. First rate. --mikaul^talk 10:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Very hard to photograph this space well even with modern cameras. Most images of it suffer from wide angle distortion. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Low Library2.jpg --wadester16 19:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sannosawa Mountain

Reason

Meets all the criteria, as far as I am aware.

Articles this image appears in

Mount Sannosawa

Creator

• Support as nominator --  Chzz  ►  07:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. White balance seems a bit off, as the shadows are purple rather than grey or slightly blue as you would expect on a sunny blue sky day. Also, the corners seem a bit soft. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - blown sky, oversharpened, marginal resolution and the stuff Diliff mentions. MER-C 08:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per above Davidt2718 (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the colors do not look right. --Caspian blue 03:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per MER-C. Zulualpha (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --wadester16 19:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsatilla alpina fruit

Reason

Other similar photos I have seen have been top-down views, and I believe the side view gives a far better impression of the plant. It also gives a clearer image, allowing the details of the hairy achenes to be seen. I think the quality of the image is up to scratch for being a featured picture.

Articles this image appears in

Ranunculaceae, Pasque flower, Pulsatilla alpina

Creator

SiameseTurtle

• Support as nominator --SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 per comments at PPR. Article use could be improved, for example probably no need for two almost identical images (at thumbnail) piled on top of each other here. Maybe could be used in achene if that's correct. --jjron (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A bit dull at thumbnail but pretty good when viewed at larger sizes. Reminded me of visiting an alpine garden at similar altitudes in Austria years ago. Background is a bit busy. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, strong oppose edit: Haven't we agreed downsampling is pretty much always a bad idea? And this is a particularly aggressive downsample, taking it to barely within the required size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs) 16:28, 31 July 2009
  • Original could do with the levels of the alt imo (I didn't nominate a preference). Noodle snacks (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to make the image a bit more vibrant - see alt 2 (sharpened) and alt 3 (not sharpened). I wasn't sure which was best though, which is why I've put both up. SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What blithering nonsense. No "we" haven't agreed that downsampling is a bad idea, and the edit is well within the size limits, approximately the same size as images provided by many of our most prolific contributors. --jjron (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose edit per Shoemaker's Holiday. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, definitely oppose edit 1: Edit has been downsampled too much and possibly oversharpened, as well. Original is perhaps a little dull but it still meets the criteria for me. Maedin\^talk 07:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've black point adjusted the original. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know all the technical lingo. Could you tell me what this means? SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please tell us what the difference between the new edits are. The left circled slider in [3] is the black point adjustment in photoshop. I adjusted the image so the dark areas correspond to a brightness vector of (0,0,0) rather than (20,20,20) or something. The result is greater contrast. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Contrast was edited in both, but only edit 2 was sharpened (though they were done at different times and I may have done the contrast in each slightly differently) SiameseTurtle (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Good EV, nice composition, good license. Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pulsatilla_alpina_fruit.JPG --wadester16 19:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The King of Hearts

Reason

An illustration for a 1901 edition of Mother Goose by a notable illustrator. Nominating all three illustrations by the same artist for this poem separately (per reviewers who prefer to review items separately). Restored version of File:King of Hearts Mother Goose.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

The Queen of Hearts, Mother Goose

Creator

William Wallace Denslow

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁵ 23:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Is it possible not to crop the bottom so tightly? Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cropped both the King and Queen according to the playing card notations at the corners of the images. That did mean cropping the king tightly at the bottom. The alternative was to sacrifice proportionality between those two images or a result that looks less like playing cards. Durova²⁸⁵ 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like a fraction more at the bottom, I have to admit: There's some lines awfully near the cutoff. Weak support current, Conditional full support if fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, will try to have that up in the morning. Durova²⁸⁸ 04:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted No quorum. --wadester16 19:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Knave of Hearts

Reason

An illustration for a 1901 edition of Mother Goose by a notable illustrator. Nominating all three illustrations by the same artist for this poem separately (per reviewers who prefer to review items separately). Restored version of File:Knave of Hearts Mother Goose.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

The Queen of Hearts

Creator

William Wallace Denslow

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁵ 23:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The illustration looks to me very interesting for the unusual style for Mother Goose.--Caspian blue 03:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 11:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV --Muhammad(talk) 05:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Knave of Hearts Mother Goose2.jpg --wadester16 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen of Hearts

Reason

An illustration for a 1901 edition of Mother Goose by a notable illustrator. Nominating all three illustrations by the same artist for this poem separately (per reviewers who prefer to review items separately). Restored version of File:Queen of Hearts Mother Goose.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

The Queen of Hearts, William Wallace Denslow

Creator

William Wallace Denslow

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁸⁵ 23:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Muhammad(talk) 05:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Queen of Hearts Mother Goose2.jpg --wadester16 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Town Hall of Ridgefield, Connecticut

Reason

because it is good quality, large, and is a unique compared to other pictures

Articles this image appears in

Ridgefield, Connecticut

Creator

Pepperpiggle

• Support as nominator --*Pepperpiggle*^*Sign!* 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Can barely see town hall, not very high quality, and lens glare. I don't think it is unique either. (Sorry if I sound critical, but that is my opinion.) Dogposter 22:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- The picture is clearly tilted. The giant flag is almost completely covering the building. The traffic light post and the street sign are also very distracting. The sky is completely over-exposed. Technically speaking, the quality is quite poor (just look at the red and blue color bleeding around the street lights). -- mcshadypl ^TC 06:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close for obvious reasons. MER-C 10:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose but not speedy. To the nominator: try a different angle and framing under better lighting conditions, and if there's an encyclopedic purpose to the large flag please explain in the caption. You might like to try Wikipedia:Picture peer review for more feedback on your next attempt. Best wishes. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bluntly speaking, the image looks like a real estate ad in a poor quality. The green sign looks like "for sale"...-Caspian blue 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - Per above. Gage (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose This is as much a photo of a sign for Main Street as it is for the unmarked and unclear town hall. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per all of the above. Zulualpha (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salcantay

Reason

Nice clear photo of a fairly well known mountain near Machu Picchu. I find it impossible to be objective on my own work, so I'm not going to try. Of course it's a pity about the clouds - the weather got much worse shortly after this. Minor cloning at the very bottom to remove some unwanted heads, and a bit of Picasa levelling/cropping.

Articles this image appears in

Salcantay

Creator

Stevage

• Support as nominator --Stevage 04:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - noise, purple fringing. MER-C 06:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on technicals per MER-C. Time3000 (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - A photograph with a good license — what a rare sight. Unfortunately, the noise and chromatic aberration are pretty noticeable. I wonder if doing noise reduction and downsampling would help. Kaldari (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Subway Vernon Boulevard-Jackson Avenue

Reason

A good capture of a subway train leaving the station.

Articles this image appears in

Vernon Boulevard–Jackson Avenue (IRT Flushing Line), New York

Creator

Dschwen

• Support as nominator --Shappy ^talk 14:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good motion shot under difficult lighting conditions. Durova²⁸⁵ 15:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not enough EV, IMO --Muhammad(talk) 16:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm with Muhammad on this one. Dubious EV, also lots of purple fringing. I think that photographing the station without people is probably a better EV selection, but EV would be even better if the train weren't moving (so that it's possible to see what model of rail cars serves this station). Spikebrennan (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The car class is R62-R62A, identifiable because the station is part of the A Division as opposed to the B Division and the car has a distinguishable exterior. The differences between the two types are different manufacturers and interior coverings (I think); the exteriors look identical to the untrained eye, such as I. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per lack of EV. IMO it would have much better EV if the train wasn't moving, hence it is a station where trains are supposed to be stationed. ZooFari 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per everything above. Lacking EV, odd photographic choices, etc. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I approve of the train movement - adds to the appeal of the image, and focuses on the *station* rather than the *train*. A subway station is a hard object to get "EV" from - they all look pretty much the same - is there anything in this shot (other than the signs) that distinguishes this station from any other? It's also obviously hard to get more than a single platform or a single part of the concourse in a shot. I could almost be talked into supporting this, but the shot seems pretty easily reproduceable. Avoiding purple fringing in this kind of shot seems pretty tough though - you either need a better camera or to postprocess it. Stevage 03:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  They all look the same? You'd be surprised...Shappy ^talk 17:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Probably as good as you can really get from a New York subway station, but it's a pretty cramped view and they all look fairly drab and anonymous, so EV is a bit limited. I added a photo of a London tube station for comparison. I think it has a more dynamic composition and has more EV but obviously it's comparing apples and oranges. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mind the gap wadester16 16:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh I do. On a daily basis. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• support This picture has EV for sure: the typical architectural construction of the tube in NYC is visible here. The composition is nice. – Wladyslaw (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Used in the article on the station - just because the station doesn't have a dramatic staircase view doesnt' mean it shouldn't be promoted. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 16:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The station itself is made apparent and I thoroughly enjoy the moving train. I really don't care what subway this represents; I just think this is pretty good in general. NYC has a certain charm to it with its steel columns (which are rare elsewhere → goes with the era and location: most structural columns like these are reinforced concrete; note the Tube and the Moscow Metro). wadester16 07:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment While it's near imposible to avoid when dealing with pics of underground stations image has noise issues.©Geni 15:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per Wadester. Worth pointing out the big purple smudge on the train door is probably some graphics or other, while the fringing around the lights is kind of forgivable in this situation. I'm weak supporting for the good illustration of a fairly typical NY subway but it does lack a really compelling element somewhere. --mikaul^talk 09:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Purple thing on the train window is the decal showing those on the platform what route it runs. Shappy ^talk 20:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Very nice composition, though I am not impressed with the quality, and the purple fringing is quite prevalent around the lights. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 17:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Quality concerns (esp. purple fringing) and questionable EV add up to an oppose. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In doing a rearrangement of images at New York, I felt this was good for the transportation section, so that's another article this image can be found in. wadester16 07:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I am likely biased because I am a frequent user of the New York City Subway (as well as that being the focus of my Wiki editing lately). To respond to some concerns, the "purple fringing" denotes the designation of the IRT Flushing Line in the NYCS, which, in turn, determines the color of the 7 (see New York City Subway nomenclature for a detailed explanation). If the train is moving, the fringing is unlikely to be avoided because that "bullet" is lighted from within the train car. (If the train was the focus, then the station would have the fringing.) As for the EV, it's pretty much a typical station, although a picture that included top border mosaics, station identification mosaics or signage is probably better, i.e. New York City Subway tiles, because that is a better representation of NYCS architecture and design. (Suggestion: try the same angle from an island platform that shows the outside wall, columns, and moving train, such as Court Street or Clark Street. The angle may have to be wider as in this shot of DeKalb Avenue.) So I have to agree with not enough EV. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a FYI - I agree with much of what you say, but the purple fringing that people are talking about is not the purple subway sign - it's a lens/sensor artifact where there is a purple 'bleed' around areas of strong light/contrast. You can see it in the fluorescent lighting above the train. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've been waiting to be sure before voting and it's a definite no for me. Whenever i look at the picture, even the far away parts of the station, my eyes are drawn back to the blurred part on the left and that kills it for me. Moreover, i find that EV would have been better with at least a distinguishable train. The London picture is spot on regarding that. With trains and passengers, i get what this is all about. Ksempac (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticing this now. Thanks for the supports! And thanks for taking time to opposes as well ;-). This image is old. I shot it with a Powershot G3 3.5 years ago. Technically not FP material. Surprised to see this over here. Anyhow. I love subways, and taking photos in NY is always fun. I have tons of similar pictures, some from last year with my 5D. --Dschwen 22:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Currawong

Reason

Complete plumage coverage between the two images in the article. High quality. Might need a square crop.

Articles this image appears in

Black Currawong, Currawong

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good quality and EV. Nice DOF --Muhammad(talk) 14:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not quite the best contrast (background is darkest near the bird's head), but good focus and DOF. Durova²⁸⁸ 21:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Superb encyclopedia shot. Would have ideally had a lighter b/g but no biggie. --mikaul^talk 09:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 10:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'll go against the trend, but the head is slightly blurred, which is where focus traditionally should be best. Wasn't sure if it was a focus/DOF issue, as body is well focused, but looking at metadata f5.6 should have been enough, especially given the angle. However this was taken at 1/25s so it's probably a motion blur from the bird moving its head. These birds are common enough that we can probably expect better, especially given the less than ideal surroundings. --jjron (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the head, beak is that bad. Obviously pushing it on light level though. Is File:Strepera fuliginosa 1.jpg any better for you? Noodle snacks (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably more the sort of clarity I was thinking about on the head. Perhaps it is just DOF, because that one goes rapidly OOF with the feet quite soft, despite them not appearing to be that far out of the plane of the head (though that one is f5 which would also have an impact). FWIW I think the second one comes out better in terms of composition as well in terms of the overall surroundings - much cleaner - but I wouldn't really support it either with the feet and missing tail. As I say above I think these birds are common enough that we can expect something pretty good (difficulty in capturing the blackness well notwithstanding). --jjron (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jjron. I too think this bird is common enough that we can insist upon near-perfection. Something like the taxobox image would be better in terms of composition. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Strepera fuliginosa 2.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mycena

Reason

Shows many typical characteristics of Mycena. Very difficult to identify further (even the article says so!).

Articles this image appears in

Mycena

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Focus seems to be on the moss, not the mushrooms. And composition is different. --Muhammad(talk) 14:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the focal plane for the moss happens to be the same as the cap, rather than a focussing error. --mikaul^talk 09:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can't help seeing this as better suited to microstock... composition isn't ideal for FP purposes. --mikaul^talk 09:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like it. DOF is shallow, but appears to be fine on the two right most caps at front, leaving the rear one (at left) slightly OOF. That's OK. Unfortunate about no full species ID. --jjron (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support beautiful image with an interesting composition, but can you provide alternatives with more tighter crop on the subject?--Caspian blue 19:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - I actually really like the composition - nice to look at, and EV. But I do find the sharply focused moss a bit distracting. Stevage 05:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim. Gage (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose/Comments I'd really like to see someone attempt a crop of this. It's FP quality, it's just the composition that strikes me as awkward. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, lovely. Odd composition, but I think it works. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The image is really clear (although on closer inspection I would prefer cropping off the unfocussed top and a bit of the sharp moss) Smaug123 (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mycena sp.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armillaria sp

Reason

High quality Armillaria sp growing out of a log. Difficult to further identify from photograph. Fungi are pretty under represented for featured images, given that there are an estimated 1.5 million species.

Articles this image appears in

Honey fungus

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁸⁸ 21:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A little oversharpened for my taste but still a damned good enc illustration. --mikaul^talk 09:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Would have been great if you were around a couple of feet and just had moss in the background, but as is I'm not a big fan of the bg - what is that white thing, a fence railing? --jjron (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got no idea what it is. Nearest fence railing is several kilometres away. I'd guess it was a branch. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice picture. --Carioca (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Background is more than a little bit distracting. Otherwise, very good shot. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great photo, and great focus on items in foreground. Gage (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nicely framed and focused. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fantastic shot, shame we can't get better identification. I love looking at your pictures as they show fungi better than I've seen them before (it's comparable with actually being there, seeing them in the flesh), but I hate looking because I know my shots just can't compare :) J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Armillaria sp Marriott.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Tanzania

Reason

Good quality, EV, lighting. Probably my last Tanzania related nomination for a long time.

Articles this image appears in

Bank of Tanzania

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 03:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice to see an economics related candidate, for once. MER-C 06:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This seems way too warm to me, no? wadester16 06:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am on the fence regarding that also. Early morning/late afternoon sunlight is normally very warm, but the sky seems to be the wrong hue. Could be understandable if that is air pollution? Durova²⁸⁸ 21:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don;t know whether air pollution could have caused that, but it was pretty smoggy that day, I remember because I had gone to Mafuta House to look for the crescent to mark the new lunar month and didn't see it even with powerful binoculars or the 150mm. Also, the Bank is located in the city so pollution is definitely present. --Muhammad(talk) 08:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bushfire smoke, volcanic ash, dust storms and I guess other particulates can do that. MER-C 10:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Tanzania is anything like New York City, I can testify that an evening summer sky can look even unhealthier than that. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 17:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm wondering if a HDR was needed at all? Doesn't seem like there was much dynamic range. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No HDR used. --Muhammad(talk) 09:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Are you studying in India now? Noodle snacks (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, in Bangalore doing my BCA --Muhammad(talk) 08:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we can look forward to some good stuff from there? --jjron (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's exciting. wadester16 17:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once I've gotten used to the traffic, yes --Muhammad(talk) 08:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I realise this was a late afternoon capture but the colour cast seems very heavy. I've noticed this same hue on your images in the past and meant to mention at the time that the EXIF showed a manual white balance. Maybe that was just a one-off, but I know I've forgotten to reset mine before... --mikaul^talk 09:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please upload an edit to correct the hue? This was taken at 5:54 pm, around 40 mins before sunset. --Muhammad(talk) 10:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Support edit 1 btw :-) --mikaul^talk 20:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I don't remember how it was so either is good for me. --Muhammad(talk) 08:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • On second thought, edit looks slightly cooler. Prefer original. --Muhammad(talk) 09:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Muhammad's explanation. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only original. The adjusted image looks unnatural and we know how pictures taken at dawn have naturally a yellow and red cast.--Caspian blue 13:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We know the light tends to yellow-red; a photograph taken should not have a cast unless all you see is sunlit areas. The test in these particular conditions would be to look at shadow areas, which should remain neutral. --mikaul^talk 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The exception might be when the sky is particularly smoggy, in which case even the indirect light is tinted... I agree with you in theory though - generally you should correct the WB for the shadows, as they're most neutral. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bank of Tanzania golden hour.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales

Reason

In my opinion, this is probably the best image of Jimbo Wales that we have. It had a Picture peer review in February 2009, where several editors thought it could be a possible candidate for FP.

Articles this image appears in

Jimmy Wales, Wikimedia Foundation

Creator

Wikimedia Foundation

• Support as nominator --NW (Talk) 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Well, it has significance, but the crop seems a bit tight to me - more of a headshot than a portrait. Is it just me or does he have a bit of a Kevin Costner look in this one? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kevin Costner, you say? Hmmm. Don't see it myself ;)
  • And a headshot does make more sense than a portrait. The crop that you mentioned is about 300px on both sides of his face - maybe slightly tight, but still fine for a headshot, I think. NW (Talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You still don't see the similarity? :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support the I'd prefer a less tight crop, especially at the bottom, and the DOF seems a bit shallow. Not enough for an oppose though. Time3000 (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, accurate portrayal of the subject, among Wikipedia's best images of living people. Guest9999 (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Loved him in Bull Durham. Durova²⁸⁵ 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - insufficient DOF. Why was this shot at 200mm? Very easily replaceable (plus vain Wikipedia is vain). MER-C 09:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 200mm is a pretty standard portrait length these days, especially considering this was taken with a full frame body, the high focal length serves to flatten the features which is considered aesthetically pleasing. - Flying Freddy (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that's true. Typical portrait lenses are 85-135mm. Obviously a portrait can be taken with any lens I suppose, but 200mm is far less hand-holdable and impractical to shoot with unless you really need reach, and you just don't for portraits. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- Yup, sharp, plus Jimbo gets a bonus. ceranthor 12:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Well, no comment on the nomination, due to COI. :-) I just wanted to flag that I'm not sure the attribution is correct. I believe this is one of the shots taken by Manuel Archain of Buenos Aires, Argentina. But I need to research that to be sure. I think my assistant emailed it to someone around the time of the fundraiser and the attribution got lost. So, before this one makes it (or not), I'd like to be sure we get that exactly right. I will check over the next 24 hours.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Attribution confirmed and fixed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support of Kevin Costner, for when his attribution is updated. wadester16 14:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Shallow DOF, as well as some vignetting. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 15:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose if the consensus was that wikipetan was to self-referential, then so is this. de Bivort 20:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow me to point out that Wales has his own article, while Wikipetan was representing a concept. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Background has rather poor color choice. There is poor control of catch-lights in eyes. I would prefer a slightly more side-on view of the face since, given the size of this guys forehead, a centered frontal exaggerates this. I would prefer slightly more directional lighting that is more horizontally displaced than vertically. I would prefer that the subjects eyes were not so wide-open (poor posing and choice of shot). etc. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 20:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high-detailed photograph of subject. While I would prefer a profile that is not 100% face-front, this is still really good. —harej (talk) (cool!) 03:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose—You can't get away from the way the chin is almost cut off by the frame: cramped appearance. And the background colour isn't wonderful. Tony (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The chin is further away from the bottom edge than the hair is from the top edge. wadester16 07:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Highly detailed image, extremely crisp. Very clean, professional portrait. Gage (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per above –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — per above. Diego_pmc ^Talk 10:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support edit 1 It's poorly-focussed and badly-lit alright but you can't dispute the EV ;-) If we must promote it, please lets have one like the edit, with an sRGB colour profile so he doesn't get a fake tan when you click on it, and a little brighter and neutral enough so that he looks reasonably healthy. I've also cropped it more appropriately for the headshot it is: I think most of the objections to the framing have been due to an excess of space at the top/left, rather than a too-tight crop at the bottom. --mikaul^talk 10:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, has anyone noticed how much he looks like Jimmy Wales? --mikaul^talk 10:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose— It is a fine photograph in may respects, but inadequate lighting contributes to poor definition of the lower facial features - there is severe blurring of the chin/beard with its shadow. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I believe this image has good resolution, detail, DoF and EV. Enough characteristics to become a FP. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 20:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, prefer edit 1. I think portraits have a very difficult time getting through, and this one is clearly above average. I'm not a big fan of the tight crop, but it's good enough for me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I'm tempted to support per Diliff, but I think if we're going to feature a picture of Jimmy Wales, we should insist upon the highest possible quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nice photo and, Jimbo, we love you, man.--Jimmy xu wrk (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Smashing picture of Jimbo, It would be good to see it as a FP. Harlem675 10:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per FCB1. Also not a fan of the cropping. South Nashua (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal edit.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy of a Périnet piston valve.

Reason

Technically OK, a detailed view that is not usually available.

Articles this image appears in

Piston valve

Creator

Eusebius

• Support as nominator --Eusebius (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional weak support - Interesting enough I guess, a little spacey but good probably. Really needs a better caption though especially mentioning the fact that this is from a trumpet. -Ben pcc (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not include it on purpose, because the piston valves found on tubas, saxhorns, flugelhorns and so on look the same, and present the exact same features in principle. In other words, I designed the caption so that the picture is presented as describing the concept of a piston valve, more than a specific trumpet piston valve (I hope I am clear). I'm ready to change it to "Anatomy of a trumpet piston valve" if you think it is better. --Eusebius (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support. Caption needs improving, and a description of the various parts would be nice on the description page. MER-C 09:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I've modified the caption to mention the trumpet. I'm unable to name or describe precisely the various parts. --Eusebius (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support an accurate depiction. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Suggest the new description now used. wadester16 16:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice, except that it might be slightly misleading (although accurate from the player's point of view): the open trumpet reads C/C/G/C/E/G/B♭/C, but plays B♭/B♭/F/B♭/D/F/A♭/B♭ (because it's a B♭ trumpet). I'm not sure there's a way to state it nicely. --Eusebius (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • True, not sure how to get that in that way either. Though the links bring you to places where you can figure that out, I guess. wadester16 17:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've included a link to Transposing instrument, I think it is enough. --Eusebius (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nicely done; perfect place and article to link. wadester16 07:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very accurate work. --Carioca (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support we need more of these for FP GerardM (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working on the whole instrument ;-) But it takes a lot of time... --Eusebius (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Funnily enough I had just been thinking about doing a valve image myself. 'Weak' because the cutout on that green washer type thing fourth from the top looks to have been done a bit poorly. If I'm wrong, or if it gets fixed, change to full support. BTW agree with earlier comments on naming/description of parts - surely the names for these parts shouldn't be that hard to find? --jjron (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Trompette - premier piston - montage perspective.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chaga Hut

Reason

Good quality and very good EV. I thought the Bank of Tanzania would be my last TZ related nom but found a few more images. Compared to the only other image of the subject, this one is pretty good.

Articles this image appears in

Chaga, Hut (dwelling)

Creator

User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does anyone else see the reddish hue around every leaf, and the sky is looking purple on my computer. I wanted to ask about it before voting. Other pictures are showing correct, as well as the tests above. Thank you very much!! Zulualpha (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a blown sky was removed? I've done that before, and if you don't find a good replacement for the sky, it comes out looking something like this, especially if the fill-in isn't carefully done. Given the lighting, I'd say it was probable. Thegreenj 21:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sky was blown to some extent and I tried to recover the blown areas. If anybody wants to give it a retry, I can provide the blown version as well --Muhammad(talk) 02:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you shoot in raw? If you did, why not provide the original and a -1 EV version. That would be a good start. If you're determined to replace the sky with nothing but the blown version, you may want to try using a much lighter, somewhat desaturated blue gradient as your sky. That said, I'm not sure I would consider totally replacing the sky (as appears to have been done here) appropriate encyclopedia ethics. Thegreenj 03:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would much rather a blown sky (sometimes this is unavoidable, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose for it) than an a faked sky which is simply overexposure that has been darkened, and is therefore missing all colour info (essentially grey). I don't really agree with using a blue gradient either, as it would likely not look realistic, not to mention the ethical issues. If the raw file exists, it might be possible to recover but even then, not always. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uploaded original I didn't shoot raw. --Muhammad(talk) 09:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank goodness others see it... I thought I needed to adjust my moniter. I'm an amateur photographer and also currently working as a photography assistant. We shoot with film and therefore I am not as familiar with photo-shopping techniques. Would “fixing” the blown sky on the computer also account for the red hue around the leaves, or is that another problem? Zulualpha (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I only see the red hue on leaves where they touch the sky, so I assume that's a part of it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Or possibly chromatic aberration. The high contrast boundary between a leaf and a blown sky would definitely bring that out. Thegreenj 17:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm glad to see the comments above so I know I'm not crazy, that sky looks VERY awkward. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I've never seen grey blown highlights here before, but there you go. Might be recoverable in RAW, but that only makes the chromatic aberration look worse. MER-C 04:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thegreen, Diliff anything you can do about the original, any comments? --Muhammad(talk) 08:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the look of the original, no, but it would really depend if you shot it in RAW and could recover the highlights there. It looks beyond recovery to be honest. But having said that, I don't think the blown sky is that important. It would be nice if it wasn't, but I've shot in forests quite often and it is nearly impossible to retain detail in the sky when properly exposing for the forest floor. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree about the blown sky being unimportant. A few lines of clouds would not affect the EV of this image and otherwise the quality is pretty good, right? --Muhammad(talk) 12:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not just the blown sky though, the whole top of the hut seems overly flushed with light - again probably a side-effect of the shooting conditions. You could try to selectively edit that, but I'd tend to say it just doesn't come up to FP standards, difficulty of shooting conditions notwithstanding (though they typically are ignored). Would support it at VPC though (please don't give me a lecture about mentioning VP as some users are wont to do ;-) ). --jjron (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see why a small part of the image which provides no additional information should affect the larger part of the image. And apart from the exposure, it is otherwise very good and we have been known to make exceptions in rare cases. --Muhammad(talk) 02:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The overexposed/flushed out 'roof' of the hut is probably 1/3 of the high EV part of the image - that's hardly a 'small part'. --jjron (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original unedited version only Too bad for the blown sky, but anybody who've been in a forest will understand. On the other hand the grey sky of the edited version looked completely fake. Except for the sky, the picture is great, with a lot of EV (Bonus point for the great caption in the summary. Wish all FPC would have this kind of caption !). I would have liked to see more Tanzania's pictures (and I mean real people/place, not insects or flowers :p). Ksempac (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "original", wow, that just looks.. ..uncanny! How is that even remotely an improvement? Weak support alternative (real original), the blown sky cheapens the look of the image, but this is great stuff none the less. I find this way more interesting than the umpteenth insect macro. --Dschwen 22:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unedited version. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 09:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chaga_hut_noadj.jpg Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• With 3 supports and 1 weak support, this does not have enough support to meet the requirement. Issue raised here: here. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Official portrait of United States President Barack Obama

Reason

A very impressive image, shot by an impressive photographer. An instantly recognizable photograph, seen throughout the entire world, as a representation of the current President of the United States. Though I am personally not a supporter of President Obama, this image is extremely inspiring, and a perfect capture of the subject. The lighting and contrast of the photo is superb, with the red, white and blue flag in the background providing a sense of integrity, as well as patriotism. Very professional image that is worthy of being a featured image on the English Wikipedia.

Articles this image appears in

Barack Obama, President of the United States, etc.

Creator

Pete Souza

• Support as nominator --Gage (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also, I'd like to point out, since you kindly provided the link, that the closing administrator on the previous nomination had suggested relisting the image, when it was not promoted back in January. Not that it matters, but I just wanted to make sure that it is noted for this process as well. Gage (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Am I allowed to cite my diatribe during the previous nom? Compositionally, it's a very poor pastiche of the Reagan one. Yes, it's been shot with a digital camera and yes, it's the President of the United States. These two things are all this image has to commend itself as a featured picture. Not enough, IMO. --mikaul^talk 11:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support as before --Muhammad(talk) 16:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose The background is rather bland, other than the color of the US Flag, the tie is slightly askew with heavy shadowing beneath, and the subject's facial expression looks, umm, constipated. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high technical quality, good representation of the subject, among the very best images of living people on Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High EV, good quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Very recognisable and looks good with the flag in the background. LizzieHarrison 11:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If the presidential portrait photos (certainly this one and other modern ones) aren't of EV, providing an HQ portrait of one of the most powerful people in the world... Then no biographical image is a FP. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I feel there are many other photographs of the president that are much better - they show his personality and are a better balance. I understand the reason the president is off center (to allow the flag to be seen and as a whole, they are center), but I still find the fact he is so off center (you can see down his arm!), along with the shadowing mentioned above, to be distracting. Further, if you look at other presidential photos, they are much more centered than this one. I'm not disputing the EV of the photo... it is a photo of the current President of the United States. I oppose because of the above reasons AND it simply isn't as quality as the other presidential photos as a whole, IMO.Zulualpha (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Zulualpha -- mcshadypl ^TC 05:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, off center, unnatural expression, poor background. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See rule of thirds. Durova²⁹⁷ 22:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Unnatural expression?? I have no tie to this image, but really? Less natural than File:Obama Portrait 2006.jpg? Than File:Peter Levy BBC.jpg? Than File:Saddam Hussein at trial, July 2004-edit1.JPEG? It's a guy sitting there. I think the background is fine, but whatever on that front, but I do not see how his expression is an issue. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer all your questions: yes. It's a poor image, no action, no story, just a mundane expressionless photo. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's... What a portrait is... That's what basically every FP portrait is... Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah, that's a passport photo, or maybe something from the 19th century but without the decent lighting and depiction of powerful persona. --mikaul^talk 07:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Then will there be several dozen FP for removal noms coming from you guys? Because again, the standard for FP portraits is pretty clear from the ones currently in the library, and this photo meets them. Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - sorry, but the positioning is really distracting and takes away from the image. Plus, the flags look really blurry and my eyes kinda burn from looking at the image because of the blur, especially when they try to adjust to read the words which are too close to center not to be drawn towards. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support obvious EV. And i do like the composition...for once a people picture with a bit of originality. Nice rule of thirds. Can't understand why people are so put up by this composition. Ksempac (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Torres del Paine

Reason

High resolution image in great lighting conditions of an iconic rock formation. This is a vertical panorama of three images taken at about 7am, on an uncharacteristically bright, cloudless day. Regarding flaws, the composition isn't perfect, and perhaps the polariser blackens the sky a bit too much.

Articles this image appears in

Torres del Paine National Park, Cordillera del Paine

Creator

Stevage

• Support as nominator --Stevage 14:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yeah, the polarisation of the sky is a bit OTT - that must have been some seriously clear blue sky. Fantastic looking scenery, but I'm not a fan of the composition. Doesn't look like the best vantage point and it feels a bit cramped and confused. And while it has plenty of resolution, the detail is fairly poor at 100%. Not suggesting you downsample it necessarily though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  For context, see the alternative. Stevage 23:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like a better vantage point would be further up the slope to the left... You'd lose the reflection in the water, I suppose, but it would be a more complete and higher EV view IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all - loss of detail due to JPEG artifacts. Also per Diliff. MER-C 09:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to nit-pick at this vote in particular, but I've seen jpeg artifacts misidentified increasingly frequently around FPC. They don't appear as noise or as general lack of sharpness; they look like 8x8 pixel squares. Jpeg artifacts aren't a major problem with this photo at 100%, and they're certainly not causing the detail loss here; diffraction (f/22!?) or optics is more likely, IMO. (FWIW, this is what detail loss from jpeg artifacts looks like.) Thegreenj 03:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. With no disrespect to MER-C intended, I do think he does occasionally misdiagnose JPEG artifacts. There are some strange artifacts in the dark blue sky, but I suspect that it is sensor noise that the camera has attempted to perform in-camera reduction on (badly). It usually ends up as patchy, blobby artifacts on P&S cameras (which I assume was used in this case, as it doesn't seem to have the pixel level sharpness of a DSLR, even at f/22!). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, EXIF says it is a DSLR and a high-end one as well (Pentax K10D), the ISO was only 280 and the shutter speed was 1/125. At those settings, noise really shouldn't be a problem... MER-C 09:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I hadn't had a good look at the EXIF, but with those settings and the camear there's not really any logical explanation for the poor image quality. It seems even more obvious in the sky of the alternative image, and I think there might actually be a bit of blocky JPEG artifacts in that one too by the looks of it. Stevage, what do you think? Is that image quality typical from your camera? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noise is always worse in the blue channel and varies according to the chip; can be really bad with Sony DSLRs, maybe Pentax use the same chip? Other quality issues (softness, lack of contrast, fringing) are just cheap lens related, that said no DX lens is going to be impressive stopped right down. Weird "choice" of ISO/exposure for a straight auto setting, it has to be said. --mikaul^talk 04:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, I believe Pentax does/did use a Sony chip, as did Nikon until fairly recently. I've never seen a lens that unsharp though. Even the cheapest, crappiest lenses can produce better images. It actually looks a little upsampled to me. I'm not saying it has been - that's just what it looks like. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The reflections at the bottom of both pictures is mind-bending! Because the formations are so strange and interesting, you can't really tell where the rock ends and the water begins. Smaug123 (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Roy

Reason

Restored version of File:Dalziel Brothers - Sir Walter Scott - Rob Roy in the Crypt of Glasgow Cathedral unrestored.jpg. This shows the gothic, atmospheric meeting that sets off the exciting second half of the book, and I think does an excellent job at capturing the mood. The engravers are highly notable, and the book is, of course, very well known. This was nominated before (and actually had a consensus of support which was overruled, then it got caught up in various drama related to a series of awkward closures...); however, I think it's now accepted that a good illustration of a book is useful to have, which a lot of the opposes seemed against at the time.

Articles this image appears in

Rob Roy (novel), Dalziel Brothers, and Glasgow Cathedral.

Creator

the Dalziel Brothers

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 16:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova²⁸⁸ 16:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nice restoration, but I'm not sure the image of a character's back has a good EV.--Caspian blue 17:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Osbaldistone is in three-quarters view - you CAN see his face, Rob Roy isn't seen at this point in the story. To do what you suggest, it would have to be of a completely different scene. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 18:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I supported last time and again. I can't imagine a better illustration for the novel; it shows all the intrigue and promise of action that fills the novel. The caption on the page gives you all the information you need to know: "Listen—but do not look back." Makings for a good novel, that line, ;-) Maedin\^talk 07:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't think I voted last time, but Shoemaker's and Maedin's arguments convince me --Muhammad(talk) 23:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because it's a wonderful example of its kind; EV for the novel is less significant but obviously not a drawback. Nice restoration. --mikaul^talk 09:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - an image in my field and definitely high quality. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dalziel Brothers - Sir Walter Scott - Rob Roy in the Crypt of Glasgow Cathedral.jpg --Cybercobra (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interborough Rattled Transit Political Cartoon

Reason

Humorous cartoon about the Interborough Rapid Transit (a private transit company that eventually was bought out by the New York City Subway) critical of the system's service, in 1905. Restored version of File:Interborough Rattled Transit.png; smaller (1.86mb) version available: File:Interborough Rattled Transit Downsampled Restored.png. Could be just as relevant today in some urban subways. :-)

Articles this image appears in

New York City Subway, History of the IRT subway before 1918, History of the New York City Subway

Creator

Rogers, W. A. (William Allen) (published in the New York Herald)

• Support as nominator --wadester16 20:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wadester, I've told you that you shouldn't downsample engravings and such. However, you seem to have taken it into your head that your first step, when restoring, is to downsample to a tiny size, and yet you do not document this act very well, giving the misleading impression that this is as large as the image could be gotten. While you're doing that, such restorations cannot be considered Wikipedia's best work, even if no other flaws could be found. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 21:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What other option do I have when the original is 23 mb and won't thumbnail? This is still 1660 px in its smallest dimension, which easily meets the FP criteria for size. I'm also trying to be considerate of others with slow connections. wadester16 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could restore and upload at full size as well as a downsampled version of the restoration for thumbnailing (as has been done before); after all the work restoring, it's a trivial amount of effort to provide a higher quality image. Also if you're concerned about others with slow internet, 6MB is still a pretty big file; an additional jpeg version might be helpful. Just link the other versions in the image page, and everyone's happy. Thegreenj 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you look at my restorations, you'll see that nearly all of them have a PNG version (which generally doesn't thumbnail) and a JPEG (which does), as well as the same (or sometimes just the PNG) for the original. Just note at the top that the image is a lossless version of XXX.jpg, which doesn't currently display due to the PNG thumbnailer problem, but should be kept to allow further editing.

Also, the PNG thumbnailer limit is 12 megapixels, not three, so even for the stated reason for the downsample - which I'd still oppose over - you went way too far. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 21:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Highest-res version uploaded over the original shown above. Smaller version linked in text above. Alt, in grayscale, is also offered for those that may prefer it. wadester16 05:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All the LoC's film images tend to be rather soft, including this one, so I've sharpened it a bit. Time3000 (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The brightness of the paper seems pretty inconsistent. The bottom left is much brighter than the other corners, particularly the left side. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, and brick red seems an odd tone for the colours - This scan is pretty bad, and very uneven in tone - dark in parts, light in others, and this sort of art didn't have washes. It'd be better to lose the paper (which is badly posterised) and just keep the ink, if we're to salvage this. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 16:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just a scanner issue, Shoemaker. This is a second generation copy. Remember my complaints about the slightly off-focus Kodak duplicates LoC was making several decades ago? It's often hard to work off those things. Durova²⁹⁴ 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's hoping you saved a version prior to changing the histogram, Wadester. There are pretty severe brightness variations in different parts of this image. It's a phenomenon I blogged about several months back. Have a look at how much better Jake Wartenberg made the Montana State Capitol before he nominated. After that's ready, try adjusting color balance instead of desaturating. This fade is rich in magenta and deficient in cyan. A few minor issues could also use a touch-up. It looks like someone made a diagonal scratch to interrupt the lines of the I-beam pillar. Durova²⁹⁴ 18:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - appears downsampled (or blurred) and then desaturated. The downsampling/blurring tends to lose detail in the paper, making it look washed; also not a wise option for an engraving (or anything involving thin strokes), since they can get discarded in either process. Wholesale blurring and sharpening is not good, unless you know you can get away with it (ie., no-one is going to complain). It would be better if the paper were restored before the desaturation/levels adjustment to avoid the overblown whites. At any rate, if you do use levels (or whatever) in the future, it's a good way to check against over-bright and over-dark [not relevant here] areas, so you know where to work next. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, this isn't downsampled, at least not by me. wadester16 19:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment uploaded new version over original, using Alt 2 as basis. Colors adjusted per Durova, and brightness adjusted per Diliff. Unfortunately I'm on my way out for vacation and may not be around much until next week. Irrational timing on my part, admittedly. wadester16 19:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's getting closer. Global changes seldom do the trick with this type of image. It's still got brightness variances, which produce some loss of paper texture. Also the color balance has local irregularities. Have uploaded an edit with notes to make it a little easier to see. The ideal solution is to go back and work on the uneven fade first, in order to retain the texture. Then try a series of feathered layer adjustments to get a consistent color balance. Good call to leave the pencil marks visible from before the artist inked the sketch. The hard part is to leave that intact while getting out the smudges and dirt. Looks effortless when it's done right, but but actually quite difficult. A tough choice for a first restoration FPC. Durova²⁹⁷ 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 01:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chaga Hut

Reason

Good quality and very good EV. I thought the Bank of Tanzania would be my last TZ related nom but found a few more images. Compared to the only other image of the subject, this one is pretty good.

Articles this image appears in

Chaga, Hut (dwelling)

Creator

User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does anyone else see the reddish hue around every leaf, and the sky is looking purple on my computer. I wanted to ask about it before voting. Other pictures are showing correct, as well as the tests above. Thank you very much!! Zulualpha (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a blown sky was removed? I've done that before, and if you don't find a good replacement for the sky, it comes out looking something like this, especially if the fill-in isn't carefully done. Given the lighting, I'd say it was probable. Thegreenj 21:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sky was blown to some extent and I tried to recover the blown areas. If anybody wants to give it a retry, I can provide the blown version as well --Muhammad(talk) 02:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you shoot in raw? If you did, why not provide the original and a -1 EV version. That would be a good start. If you're determined to replace the sky with nothing but the blown version, you may want to try using a much lighter, somewhat desaturated blue gradient as your sky. That said, I'm not sure I would consider totally replacing the sky (as appears to have been done here) appropriate encyclopedia ethics. Thegreenj 03:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would much rather a blown sky (sometimes this is unavoidable, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose for it) than an a faked sky which is simply overexposure that has been darkened, and is therefore missing all colour info (essentially grey). I don't really agree with using a blue gradient either, as it would likely not look realistic, not to mention the ethical issues. If the raw file exists, it might be possible to recover but even then, not always. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uploaded original I didn't shoot raw. --Muhammad(talk) 09:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank goodness others see it... I thought I needed to adjust my moniter. I'm an amateur photographer and also currently working as a photography assistant. We shoot with film and therefore I am not as familiar with photo-shopping techniques. Would “fixing” the blown sky on the computer also account for the red hue around the leaves, or is that another problem? Zulualpha (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I only see the red hue on leaves where they touch the sky, so I assume that's a part of it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Or possibly chromatic aberration. The high contrast boundary between a leaf and a blown sky would definitely bring that out. Thegreenj 17:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm glad to see the comments above so I know I'm not crazy, that sky looks VERY awkward. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I've never seen grey blown highlights here before, but there you go. Might be recoverable in RAW, but that only makes the chromatic aberration look worse. MER-C 04:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thegreen, Diliff anything you can do about the original, any comments? --Muhammad(talk) 08:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the look of the original, no, but it would really depend if you shot it in RAW and could recover the highlights there. It looks beyond recovery to be honest. But having said that, I don't think the blown sky is that important. It would be nice if it wasn't, but I've shot in forests quite often and it is nearly impossible to retain detail in the sky when properly exposing for the forest floor. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree about the blown sky being unimportant. A few lines of clouds would not affect the EV of this image and otherwise the quality is pretty good, right? --Muhammad(talk) 12:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not just the blown sky though, the whole top of the hut seems overly flushed with light - again probably a side-effect of the shooting conditions. You could try to selectively edit that, but I'd tend to say it just doesn't come up to FP standards, difficulty of shooting conditions notwithstanding (though they typically are ignored). Would support it at VPC though (please don't give me a lecture about mentioning VP as some users are wont to do ;-) ). --jjron (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see why a small part of the image which provides no additional information should affect the larger part of the image. And apart from the exposure, it is otherwise very good and we have been known to make exceptions in rare cases. --Muhammad(talk) 02:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The overexposed/flushed out 'roof' of the hut is probably 1/3 of the high EV part of the image - that's hardly a 'small part'. --jjron (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original unedited version only Too bad for the blown sky, but anybody who've been in a forest will understand. On the other hand the grey sky of the edited version looked completely fake. Except for the sky, the picture is great, with a lot of EV (Bonus point for the great caption in the summary. Wish all FPC would have this kind of caption !). I would have liked to see more Tanzania's pictures (and I mean real people/place, not insects or flowers :p). Ksempac (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "original", wow, that just looks.. ..uncanny! How is that even remotely an improvement? Weak support alternative (real original), the blown sky cheapens the look of the image, but this is great stuff none the less. I find this way more interesting than the umpteenth insect macro. --Dschwen 22:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unedited version. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 09:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]