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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2010 at 19:43:15 (UTC)

Reason

It's rare for a bug pic to make you stand up and take notice after a while at FPC, but when I saw this, I was really impressed.

Articles in which this image appears

Curculio nucum

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Mathias Krumbholz

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note There are a couple of equally good images of this specimen, seen from other angles, on the file description page of this one. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The front left foot is sort of 'ghosted', because of a focus stacking error. See commons nom. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could probably fix that by copying missing details from the other foot. Would that be considered inappropriate manipulation? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the angle is too different. Hopefully the uploader still has the original files. Otherwise, it's an awesome photo. Kaldari (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild support The image has EV, but there's something technically (standard) that I don't like about it. Gut Monk (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The angle feels awkward, I think this image rotated 90 degrees clockwise is a better orientation but the DOF is not as deep. - Zephyris _Talk 22:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like that one too. I've put it up as an alt, and I Support alt. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Info Hello everybody! As Jujutacular already mentioned this is a focus stacking "test". It was my first try to stack a picture of a living animal and I didn`t take much care for composition. My whole interest was for taking the pics as fast as possible. During this I didn`t notice a little leaf that was between my lens and the weevil. So sadly even on every original file this critter has this ghostfoot-prosthesis. In fact, this is my first stacking try on a living thing I'm really happy with it but a FP?! But however, thanks a lot for nominating my pics (it is always a pleasure if somebody other than me likes my pics and think some of them could be a FP!) and also thanks to Papa Lima Whiskey for contacting me on commons. I hope I could answer some questions. Best regards Leviathan1983 (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2010 at 15:10:04 (UTC)

Reason

Sharp sportswoman's portrait.

Articles in which this image appears

Simone Hauswald, Demographics of Germany

FP category for this image

People/Entertainment

Creator

Jarle Vines (Jarvin)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gut Monk (talk • contribs) 23:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don’t find the light & shadow to be all that impressive. The cropping—or lack thereof—seems intended to illustrate that it is a ‘sporty’, Olympic venue, but it seems unimpressive and busy. The 1200-pixel horizontal resolution—while just above the bare FPC minimums‚ wouldn’t allow any more cropping. While I find this to be a perfectly fine photograph of an athlete, and our volunteer photographers should be thanked for capturing these images so we finally have a photograph of notable individuals that don’t look like they are vid-grabs off of a Department Of Transportation surveillance camera, I’m not seeing that this is amongst our best works and deserving to be shown to the world because of its outstanding photographic quality. Greg L (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Completely agree with Greg here. -- Jack?! 18:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found that this image can't be improved by cropping, but feel free to suggest a crop that works. If the background is a problem, I can fix that. I still find the image compares favourably to other sportsperson FPs, and that's why I nominated it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Far higher quality than the usual biography illustration, but it's not quite up to FP standard, for me. The background, size and lighting are all a little sub-par, FP-wise. J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cropped image is a good bit below our minimum size (and the crop lacks licensing information- it woul be good if it could be added). J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both She is important, but this photograph just isn't FP. Imagine if you could rotate 20 degrees to the left. Then we might be talking FP. Gut Monk (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both Original is too wide with too many distracting elements, the crop is akward and uneven. Overall I think this image as it stands would be unfeatureable hopefully someone will eventually reshoot her and upload. Cat-five - talk 04:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Gut Monk, you are Jarle Vines (Commons:User:Jarvin)? If not, you have just stolen his work and claimed it as your own on the edit. Please fix. --jjron (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we come up with a Bot like this? Gut Monk (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two people have now complained about this, but you haven't dealt with it. If a new image patroller had come across this, it would be well on its way to a deletion by now, and you would have messages all over your talk page. To be frank, the fact that some bot hasn't got it yet just says to me that the bots are down. J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done it myself... J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. Gut Monk (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2010 at 04:15:38 (UTC)

Reason

Although this is a bit small for our current size requirements it fits the historical exception and this is a good historical sports photograph, it has very good encyclopedic value and is of good quality for the time period it was shot in.

Articles in which this image appears

Curling

FP category for this image

Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle

Creator

John Boyd

• Support as nominator --Cat-five - talk 04:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is below the minimum resolution requirement of 1000 pixels; that’s a first observation. My second observation is that its virtues (most of which escape me) are not enough to overcome such a prerequisite. It is certainly an *interesting* photo. It is certainly *historical*. I’m not possibly seeing how—even for 1909—that this is exemplary photography. The one virtue that really jumps out at me is that it does a great job of not having dark faces while still not blowing out highlights in the ice. But that’s not enough. Greg L (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree: It's very good for its time, and I'd support it if we had it a bit larger (and I'd also willingly do a restoration, if so). As it is, though, I'm uncomfortable making an exemption without some evidence of attempts to get a larger version failing. Has anyone contacted the Archives of Ontario, for instance? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similar photos with much higher quality scans can be found at LoC. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm not seeing any reason to overlook the small size and mediocre technicals. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mediocre size can easily be overlooked for historically important pictures, this picture shows a casual game of curling at the turn of the century with actual broomsm, how can you quibble about side when the image cannot be reproduced without a time machine. Cat-five - talk 01:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Cat-five, why do you think this deserves to be featured? What specifically about this image or its subject(s)? --I'ḏ♥One 14:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above, this is a historical shot with great EV, it shows a casual game at the turn of the century. It is significant because it shows how the sport is played by anyone with minimal equipmenent (see the brooms). Cat-five - talk 01:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still failing to understand why you think this image is so important all of us should overlook all of its flaws. Why do you think curling is so important? Why 100 years ago? Tell the truth: Are you related to someone in this? ;) --I'ḏ♥One 05:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No I don't know who any of these people are, I just found this image by going to random articles looking for good images. To answer your other question why any picture we nominate or to be more narrow why any historical photograph or why any sports photograph. It's a shot in time and it illustrates the subject well. Incidentally before someone claims I'm doing this for nationalism I'm American not Canadian although I do like syrup. Cat-five - talk 06:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose to make the case that it's EV trumps the size requirement, there needs to be a case that (a) the image is truely irreplaceable and of significant value and (b) that there is virtually zero hope of getting a better scan of the file. I don't see where this picture fulfills both of those. — raekyT 19:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be open to delisting this if anyone can find a better nom but unless you can go back to 1909 I don't see how this image could be reproduced. I guess you could reproduce it by dressing up people in period dress with brooms and do a whole scene setup but it would be pretty fake looking. This is real. Cat-five - talk 01:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I mean there is bound to be more photos of this in existence from that period, likewise the original is probably held by that archive and still exists, thus could be scanned or already is scanned at higher resolution. Also I don't think the article would suffer that much if it was lost. — raekyT 02:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possible, however if you're going to use that argument then go and challenge every single nomination and put every current FP up for delisting because there always might be a better picture out there. All I know is of the pictures I found of the subject this was of fairly high quality for the time period and it illustrated the subject as well as fitting into the encyclopedia article well which are the criteria we are supposed to evaluate images on. Cat-five - talk 06:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Frankly, something like File:Curling Canada Torino 2006.jpg tells you more about the game. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that on the article but the left side being cut off would garner a lot of opposes, people seem to be sensitive to even a tiny bit of cutoff of the subject. Cat-five - talk 06:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That and the low resolution wouldn't help it's cause. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nothing special, low resolution. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 06:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Requesting for a WP:SNOW Closure Since the community apparently doesn't feel that this should be treated as a historical image for the purposes of the criteria and this cannot pass when strict criteria interpretation is imposed— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cat-five (talk • contribs)
  • As the nominator, you can withdraw your nomination... Makeemlighter (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)11[reply]
  • I still don't understand why you think this image is so great and important. I bet if I trolled the internet I could find a better old curling photo than this, I bet if I trolled through Wiki and Commons I could find a similar curling photo to this, if not a better one. This just seems like a generic, old, just-above-snapshot quality photo about a sports topic, and they tend to be common and have many, many photos since the rise of the camera. For instance FPC has made exception of rare things like nuclear blast photos, hard-to-obtain and rarely-seen planets, but this just seems to be a casual, friendly game that happened a long time ago on an unimportant pond; Maybe if if this depicted a turning point in the history of the sport or Canada or had any historical importance at all other than it just happened a long time ago - time is mostly full of moments that aren't significant, do we need a featured picture of some clay hardening or of dust falling? I generally wouldn't mind supporting an image if the nominator could make a strong case for its supposed rarity, even if I were to be the only one to do so, but I feel that you haven't and am just confused by why you would even bring this here. You don't have to give up the ghost yet if size is the problem, you could just take this to an imager like GIMP and expand it, there are even some of those online (maybe save a PNG for quality), maybe ask someone like Adam Cuerden to touch it up.. Maybe suspend this, fix the image to come closer to criteria then come back? --I'ḏ♥One 04:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • take this to an imager like GIMP and expand it, there are even some of those online (maybe save a PNG for quality)... Uhm, you are kidding, right? Please tell me I'm just missing the sarcasm here. --Dschwen 16:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's called "trying to help," and from what I understand .Jpg causes loss and artefacting when edited too much compared to .Png, definitely not something an old, b/w image with a bunch of quality issues already needs. --I'ḏ♥One 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What he means is you can't just resize an image to make it larger and expect it to get better quality! — raekyT 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Definitely, but my point was at least size would no longer be the issue, not that there still wouldn't be a steep, uphill effort for Cat-five to prove that this should be featured. --I'ḏ♥One 22:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2010 at 00:10:30 (UTC)

Reason

Something a bit different here; a great reproduction of an unusually good fossil. A strong lead illustration for a genus of extinct fish. Already featured on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Thrissops

FP category for this image

Fish

Creator

H. Zell

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice nomination and very nice work. First, as Sarah Palin might say: “This is really ‘scientificy’.” As such, it would certainly cast Wikipedia in a fine light for 24 hours. But more, it is seldom there is a fossil with so much soft tissue fossilized—and with so much fossil/matrix color differentiation; that is just awesome. And finally, the lighting angle is great and the resolution is very high. Kudos to H. Zell for such an outstanding contribution to the project. Greg L (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support First class fossil and technically proficient photo of it. — raekyT 03:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Per above as well as its great quality and detail. --I'ḏ♥One 14:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above and for strong EV --AutoGyro (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Indeed, and strong EV. -- Jack?! 18:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Thrissops cf formosus 01.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2010 at 13:57:57 (UTC)

Reason

The quality is high, the composition is compelling (a landscape portrait makes you look twice...) and the image is used well. This is the second nomination, the first (which got 4.5 out of 5 supports...) can be found here. I do not feel this belongs on the main page for self-reference reasons, but I do still feel it deserves its place as an FP. If anyone's interested, this was the original.

Articles in which this image appears

Mike Godwin, Godwin's law, Cyber Rights

FP category for this image

People/Others

Creator

Lane Hartwell on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Mediochre lighting, distracting background, and a lack of head room. He also seems to squint, possibly because of the light. I think the disinterest in the first nomination was justified. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like there's lead room to me: his body is turned towards the space to the right, his head slightly as well. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • HEAD room with an H, as linked. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, misread that. You are correct :) Jujutacular ^T · C 19:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As per the last time. As photographs of individuals in their natural settings go (that wasn’t intended to sound as “National Geographic” as it did), and as a class distinct from official portrait studios, this is one of Wikipedia’s better works, IMHO. The light and shadow is really good and ought to be used in one of our photography-based articles, like “Flash fill” as a paradigm (to supplement that cat picture. You can see how the photographer used a secondary flash positioned to Mike’s lower right (lower stage left). The grease board behind him lends an “academic / thinking person-like nature to it. Clearly very well done. Greg L (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The red channel is blown on much of the RHS of his face (our perspective), and you're seriously claiming that filler flash was used? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was I “seriously” stating my opinion?? Oh my… FPC brings out such passion! As I wasn’t there, I don’t “claim” anything; all I can do is utilize my standard “IMHO^Disclaimer ”, as I did above. Irregardless of whether it is natural fill or artificial fill, it is clear—particularly in the full-size image—that fill light is coming from his right (stage left); his collar is casting a clear and distinct shadow on his neck as a result of it; that much is just too obvious. We can chalk this up as being the product of a lucky break for the photographer (a window?), or we can chalk up as fill light by design. To me, it appears that little in this photo was an accident. Either way, I find that the outcome looks quite nice (IMHO).

      As regards the blown red channel: yeah, those highlights off his forehead are exceedingly close to a pure (255/255/255) white, as they ought to be. Greg L (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • No, the issue here is that you have no remaining contrast in the red channel for a significant patch of his face (about 1/2 of his nose, left cheek and ear and 1/3 of the forehead). Posterised and non-recoverable. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow! --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 05:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my comments. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice picture. - EdoDodo ^talk 11:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral This is where a great photographer can make a good picture a great picture (I'm no great photographer,) but look at the hair line. Do you see the lack of detail? That's caused by bad lighting. The subject might have EV, though. Gut Monk (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Agree with PLW's concerns regarding the lighting and facial detail. Maedin\^talk 12:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Per last time, support, though I'm happy to see it kept off the main page for self-reference reasons. AGK 00:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please comment on the new concerns that have been raised? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support In the previous nom I had concerns about poor lighting, but liked the EV. So W.S. Fletcher (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per the last time, with absolutely no concerns about usage anywhere on Wikipedia. Content should not be prejudiced on account of its source (otherwise I'd have to oppose US Mil photography!). Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above. I see no reason why this shouldn't appear on the main page (the article doesn't deal significantly with his involvement). Cowtowner (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mike Godwin June08 B recrop 5 to 7.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2010 at 18:52:23 (UTC)

Reason

While we already have an FP illustrating contre-jour, this one contains a number of elements of contre-jour that the other one does not, and therefore illustrates other aspects of the article. It is a full colour photo where the technique has caused almost complete loss of colour detail while the other one is a black and white scan (note that no editing was done to the colour or even the levels of this image), it is taken directly against the setting sun, with the disc of the sun showing strongly behind the subject as described in the article, and both silhouette and some low-key lighting effects are seen whereas the other one is essentially completely silhouette. Few other images on WP/Commons illustrate this use of contre-jour (most of those taken 'against' the sun use the simpler method of waiting until after the sun has set), and others lack this image quality. Could probably be included in some other articles as well. This will likely attract a lot of negative opinion, but I believe it's high quality and aesthetically pleasing.

Articles in which this image appears

Contre-jour

FP category for this image

Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nice. It certainly has high EV for illustrating the photographic effect. But, this composition is highly formulaic, like the telephoto shot of railroad tracks stretching off in the distance, or a brooding black & white photo of an old barn. (At least to me). Given the ubiquitous nature of this basic composition, it would seem rather underwhelming as an FP on the Main Page. Greg L (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Sorry if I'm missing the point here, but that lense-flare at the bottom of the image in front of one of the legs is very distracting. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I love this! On any other picture this would be practically booed off FPC for the same glare that so excellently does illustrate its EV and subject! Great selection and thanks for forcing us to switch it up! ...Though, as J Milburn says, it would be better without the lens flare. --I'ḏ♥One 22:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I say we just crop out the bottom and get rid of the lens flare. --I'ḏ♥One 01:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Greg and Milburn. I think that this image's addition to the article makes it rather crowded. A whole gallery of more or less interesting images was removed as recently as March [1], and since the addition was made only today, one has to wonder if it will stay. I don't think the article is fit to contain every possible variation of contre-jour, at least not yet. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Pretty much per my comment, and per Papa Lima Whiskey. Greg L (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per my comment, above. Greg L (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2010 at 07:23:30 (UTC)

Reason

Couldn't resist and was kicking myself for not nominating this with the chicory illustration. A very high quality image, a good digital restoration (this image is actually over 100 years old and somewhere there's an original copy of the book this is from with a darkened, yellowed version of what you see here), obvious EV to its subject and could probably be placed on other botany and horticulture-related articles.

Articles in which this image appears

Rosa canina

FP category for this image

Plants/Flowers

Creator

Dr. Otto Wilhelm Thomé, upload by Kelson

• Support as nominator --I'ḏ♥One 07:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The extent of the digital restoration (which is not documented on the image page) appears to be turning the background into a bright white. This is a nice image, but I'm not really seeing FP flare. The EV is OK, as it shows the flower at various stages, but it's not used that well in the article. I'm open to persuasion, but I'm not loving it right now. J Milburn (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you feel it's not used well enough on the article then I must take credit for that since I added it to it. It seemed like the two were obviously missing each: A picture from the article of what its about that was actually drawn by a botanist, I don't know I'll try to figure something out. This is what about a century has done to the paper version, which I really doubt would pass here, everyone would lock in on the obvious oxidization, and I wouldn't call the background bright white so much as just plain, old, regular white. The image was presumably white itself before the paper aged and in spite of this digital bleaching the quality of the other colors like the greens, reds and pinks haven't dropped and all of the sketchings and texts have retained their quality and are easy to make out. That's why I think this should be featured, that, and its high resolution. Also, why didn't you think this was over whitened? It clearly had deteriorated somewhat from its original. --I'ḏ♥One 13:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, sorry, my comment regarding the white was a little strong. J Milburn (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I would like to see at least one of these illustrations (now in the public domain) featured on the Main Page for a day. My reasoning: 1), an ocean of effort went into making these original illustrations. 2), Wikipedia is now benefiting from all that effort. 3), I don’t think much of our visiting I.P. readership knows these sort of scientific illustrations are now featured here. Certainly they have EV—we all seem to agree on that. But, 4), I think the exceedingly professional look of these old-fashioned scientific illustrations are “eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article,” which is one of the two primary objectives we look for in FPCs. So… 5) I throw my support behind this one (and not the one below), because this one has nice popping colors. I don’t have a problem with the restoration making the paper look white; it’s clear that no faint detail is being lost and it looks nice and clean. Greg L (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all I'm saying, too. =) --I'ḏ♥One 16:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I can also get behind this. The restoration is minimal, but that's fine (though there are some ugly flecks on the main flower) and I have moved the image to the taxobox, where it complements the photo nicely, which I feel deals with any potential EV issue quite nicely. However, the restoration does need to be documented on the image page. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice addition. The spots are very minor, especially on such a large image, but it might be possible to edit them out. --I'ḏ♥One 16:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: As with the chicory image, I looked for other scans of the same plate for comparison. Google has this. There are some differences in the colors between the two versions, most noticeable is that in the Google version the thorns are a purplish shade and the ours the thorns are bright red. There is another scan here from the same source I found for the chicory image. This has the same paper yellowing issue as before but shows the nearly the same purplish shade in the thorns as the Google scan. Comparing the images side by side, it appears that in our version, the blank areas of the page were colored white, but the everything else was left alone. You can see this in magnification, especially just above the fruit on the left where there is a gap between the fruit and the wilted petal. This process has left several artifacts in our version, for example in inset 6, the hairs above the bud should be black on white but on our version they are black on parchment yellow. It appears also that the yellow at the base of the petals is not in the original but actually due to page yellowing. I agree that, with the hundreds of illustrations, this is an excellent resource for plant images. But the color correction done on our version was, IMO, rather sloppy and incomplete. I have hopes that eventually a more sophisticated color correction system will come along which will due justice to the originals, but we don't seem to have it yet.--RDBury (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If "the original" you're basing the thing about the yellow on stage 1 you mean the Google version, I'm pretty certain that scanning is wrong and its levels are off. Compare theirs with the actual flower and what do you notice? That Google's has leaves which are much darker and petals that are much lighter, in fact I think I do detect some yellow even on Google's stage 1. Considering Thome's talent and his obvious love of his profession in botany I don't think he would make such mistakes, and what do you mean by the fruit on the left? I agree about the yellow behind the hairs of stage 6, but our version is still the best of all of them, and not to be mean, but I think that's too nit-picky to entirely oppose an otherwise very useful and otherwise well-done restoration of scientific art. --I'ḏ♥One 14:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The original I'm talking about is the actual original, what the image must have looked like before page yellowing and ink fading took their toll. It doesn't exist anywhere now, I'm extrapolating from the scans available. Obviously that involves some uncertainty, but I think it's clear that what we have is very different from what the original must have looked like. Google's version is at least more consistent about the color correction, but I agree that it's probably not that close either. I'm not saying the originals weren't excellent work, but I don't think our scan or the other scans I've seen do justice to them to the level I'd expect in a FP. By the "fruit on the left" I mean, of the two fruits (or hips), the one on the left, though you can find examples of what I'm talking about all over the image. The significance is it reduces the EV of the image when petals appear parchment yellow when the actual petals are pink and white (as seen in in photos in article).--RDBury (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Btw, the biolib.de site, listed as the source of our image, seems to link to yet another scan as well, [2]. This doesn't have the yellowing issue though there is obvious discoloration on the left side of the page.--RDBury (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That last link is one of the poorest quality yet, but I get what you mean about the petals, though I don't really see a problem with the slight yellow there, I don't think it detracts from the general color gradient you're supposed to notice, I could look at our version and just think it's off-white. I'm still not sure what you want me to notice about the rose hips. --I'ḏ♥One 19:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2010 at 02:36:19 (UTC)

Reason

The quality is just like the EV - High. Compare with the uncleaned version. I fixed the angle from the last version seen here.

Articles in which this image appears

Chicory

FP category for this image

Plants/Flowers

Creator

Professor Dr. Otto Wilhelm Thomé, cleaned by Aroche

• Support as nominator --I'ḏ♥One 02:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The big thing is Cichorium intybus is blue... the colors appear to be wrong, plus I think it was too aggressive in the whiting of the background from the original, also colors seem off here too considering the flower is blue in real life. — raekyT 02:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says in the first paragraph that chicory can be lavender or white as well. This is probably what the image looked like before the book it came from oxidized, it, too, was white once before and it's just been digitally restored, and we both know the original wouldn't stand a chance here. The original is 125 years old. --I'ḏ♥One 02:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • White's very rare, I'm betting that the blue pigment in the original faded... — raekyT 03:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh, looks pretty much like it was supposed to be white to me. Why would the blue have faded and not all the green? And why just specifically on those petals? Wouldn't it be more likely that if any blue had been there it would have smugged? None of your arguments so far have been logical. --I'ḏ♥One 03:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pigments fade due to what they was made of, so the green could of been far more lightfast then the blue. It's possible it was intended to be white, but white is hardly representative of the average Chicory flower and it's MORE LIKELY it was originally blue and the blue pigment faded. — raekyT 03:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're grasping at straws and making claims and assumptions with no evidence to back them up except one detail that has nothing to do with the illustration in question. Dominant and recessive genes determine the color of petals, that has nothing to do with Thome's apparent choice to use white or the quality of the image no matter how much you wish it did or that it actually was blue. --I'ḏ♥One 04:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know, maybe it would look prettier if they were blue, though I think they still look nice simply in white, matching the white behind it, complemented by the greens and greenish-yellows. The purpose of the image is more for showcasing the specimen than for purely beauty, though I do think Thome tried to add an aesthetic quality to these. --I'ḏ♥One 07:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, but the atypical colouration does lower the EV, especially as the image is pretty much just tacked onto the bottom of the article- it doesn't seem to be illustrating anything in particular, really. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Chicory is a very common roadside weed where I live, but I think I'd be hard pressed to identify it from this picture. The flowers nearly always have some blue, with the most common color a distinctive azure, and with white a rare exception. If the blue has faded then colors should be restored, but until then it's not FP material IMO.--RDBury (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I found another scan, [3], of the same plate. In this version the blue is quite noticeable despite the age, though there is severe yellowing of the paper. Google books has scans of the first three volumes of this work but I could not find the fourth volume where this particular image is located.--RDBury (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose due to colouration issues- RDBury's research is pretty damning, I would say. J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely convinced, with that image I could see blue or shaded white, and the apparent dead pods and yellow stems and leaves on RDB's version also possibly hint that that version could possibly be wrong or improperly scanned as well, and on top of aged paper, but we can just WP:SNOW ball scrub this whole thing. On the bright side though RDB's find could provide Wikipedia with a lot more free scientific illustrations! ..If we can sort of the ones with closer color accuracy and fix them up. --I'ḏ♥One 19:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2010 at 11:43:17 (UTC)

Reason

High quality shot, very informative, very encyclopedic.

Articles in which this image appears

Cymbiola nobilis

FP category for this image

Molluscs

Creator

H. Zell

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not sure I like the horrible reflection on the centre shell. Also a fair bit of noise on the inside of the bottom right shell. I see it's strong informative format and overall like the shot as an idea, just not yet convinced on the technicalities. Jfitch (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC) - Changed from Comment To Oppose after considering for more time. That reflections is just too horrible. Jfitch (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I notice what Jfitch said about the bottom right shell, but I think the quality of them all overall is feature-quality. Should this be in molluscs when there's no living animal in these? --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, should be in molluscs. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sorry. This picture doesn't seem to stand out at all to me, I don't see any technical value. -- Jack?! 18:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you mean that? The photo quality of most of the shells in this is literally better than most images on Wiki, and I guess the black background and arraignment is for an orderly aesthetic and to show off various angles of the same shell. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to support. Sorry, for some reason the image seemed to load strangely on the other PC I used, if not strangely then at least differently. I'm not completely sure what happened, but on reviewing this image on a different screen, I support. -- Jack?! 22:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Support Good EV. If I wanted to identify a shell, then I would look for a picture like this. Gut Monk (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Probably an ideal technical photograph of a shell for an article, would love to see LOTS more of this style and quality for many more shellfish articles. — raekyT 00:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good EV and great quality.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support WackyWace ^{you talkin' to me?} 19:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's a beautiful image with strong EV due to the various positions of the shell. Very nice. --AutoGyro (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Harsh reflections and blown highlights, noise in parts, artifacts in others. This could definitely be re-shot for better quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh. Judging by (most of) the other comments, nobody else noticed that. I guess I shouldn't have waited until there were < 2 hours left to look at this full-size. Oops!! Makeemlighter (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My thoughts exactly. I fear a lot of people have supported this without once viewing it at 100% A much better image could be taken, without all the problems this one has. JFitch (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments below were added after the voting had ended.

• Comment it's too late now, but I tried to fix the glare. See edit...--AutoGyro (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you could open a delist/replace nom, I suppose. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't check, but it certainly looks like the blown highlights are worse in the edit. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cymbiola nobilis 01.jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 15:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2010 at 11:00:15 (UTC)

Reason

High quality portrait with plenty of character, used as the lead image in the biography. Already featured on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Knut Steen

FP category for this image

People/Others

Creator

Nina-no

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Avala (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom. Greg L (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like it. —mono 03:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful portrait. On the small side, but makes up for it with character. - Bilby (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport Gut Monk (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - one of the better portraits I've seen here. -- Jack?! 01:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think this quite meets the standard for portraits. It's not particularly sharp, kinda small, and over-exposed in parts. I'm not convinced of the EV either. He's a sculptor; we should see him sculpting or at least in a studio. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not understanding the EV argument. He's a person- this is a portrait. I think it's a little unfair and dehumanising to demand a portrait of someone "doing what they do", as if they don't matter outside of that. We have plenty of portrait FPs which don't show people "doing what they do". (I have no qualm with your technical objections, I just felt the positives outweighed the negatives- that's a judgement call.) J Milburn (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I probably opposed those portraits. I just don't find most portraits to be worth featuring. To me, a picture of a person only has EV if it tells me something useful about that person. I don't think anyone else shares that view, and it's kind of a hokey reason to oppose anyway, so I usually avoid voting on portraits. The technicals were the bigger issue here, for me, but I thought I'd mention the EV as well. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. It looks fantastic as a thumbnail, but the quality is not quite up to current standards. Back in 2007 it might have been ok, but I see no reason to re-warm some old stuff here. The resolution is just mediocre, and it looks like there are traces of (in-camera?) denoising, removing some of the the fine detail in the image. --Dschwen 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can agree with that mentality; see my delist nom. I do feel this particular one's there, but, again, that's a judgement call. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:KnutSteen.1.jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 15:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2010 at 10:12:17 (UTC)

Reason

Another strong image of an animal the kind of which we don't see much on FPC, identified by an expert. A strong addition to both articles in which it is used.

Articles in which this image appears

Nephtys, Nephtyidae

FP category for this image

Animals/Others

Creator

Hans Hillewaert

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, going to have to go against this one. Image quality is quite good, though getting marginal in size. However I have EV concerns. There's no article on the species, and the genus and family articles are undeveloped stubs. However what little information I can glean is not well illustrated by the image, the family article stating "...polychaetes with a small pentagonal prostomium with two pairs of small antennae...with a strong muscular proboscis, armed with two well developed jaws." So maybe I'm hard of seeing, but I can't determine the pentagonal prostomium, I can't see the antennae (I can't say for sure, but I think we may be looking at the ventral surface of the head), I can't make out the proboscis, and there's not enough info to determine if I'm seeing the jaws. Too many unknowns compromising EV IMO. --jjron (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're concerned that this is not the species in question? That this is a damaged specimen? What are you saying here? Would improvement of the articles (and/or a species article being written) help with your concerns here? J Milburn (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I'm happy to take on good faith that this is the species represented. What I'm saying is that I can't correlate the info in the articles with the photo. As I say I'm not even sure whether I'm looking at the dorsal or ventral surface, but I suspect it's the ventral... And given I can't see any sign of the antennae for example, it may be damaged, or they may just be obscured, or I may be looking in the wrong spot or for the wrong thing. Maybe the photographer could flesh out a better description for the photo, which may help - but given it was taken in 2005, maybe not. --jjron (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose This one is hard to for me and I actually wish the image were larger. It's hard at full size to make out the animal's details, to get a good look at the segments. This picture is practically like just looking at a white shoelace, but I'm not sure if that opinion is fair the animal.. Was the animal still living or a preserved specimen when photoed? --I'ḏ♥One 00:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't honestly say. I assumed it was live when the photo was taken. J Milburn (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks preserved, and color bleached like old preserved specimens get. — raekyT 12:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn, clearly misjudged this one :) J Milburn (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2010 at 22:11:02 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, ultra-magnified studio shot of a minute animal, identified by an expert. I can see no possible better way of illustrating this subject. Caption copied from the article.

Articles in which this image appears

Amphilochus neapolitanus, Amphilochus (genus), Gammaridea

FP category for this image

Crustaceans

Creator

Hans Hillewaert

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fascinating. P. S. Burton (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lacking in quality and resolution. Compared to this, I would expect a much better shot given that this was taken in a controlled environment. --Muhammad(talk) 03:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Valuable, but also low quality. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support First, @Muhammed's link - WOW. Secondly, I'm still impressed with the quality of this image, it's not the best but it's still pretty damn amazing. --I'ḏ♥One 07:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Muhammad -- bydand•talk 09:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn, misjudged this one, I reckon. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2010 at 23:56:06 (UTC)

Reason

I was having a think about my ill-advised delist nomination, and by chance (after some confusion about who played who in a television episode...) I came across this portrait. The composition and technicals are extremely aesthetically pleasing, eye-catching and compelling. The quality is good, and it meets our minimum size requirements (just).

Articles in which this image appears

Thomas Sangster, Ferb Fletcher

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Caroline Bonarde Ucci

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't think the angle portrays him very well. I know the actor very well and I struggled to identify him at first. -- bydand•talk 09:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hair cut, eyes, skintone... They all look pretty accurate to me. Remember this was taken four years ago, and that is clearly labelled in the article. J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- I agree, the angle is awkward and very distracting. The background is also too much out of focus IMO. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 16:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first point is perfectly valid, but you're concerned that the background is out of focus? Of course the background is out of focus... J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I'm usually neutral with portraits, but I sort of like this. I think the angle is artistic, I like that the background is blurred because you can focus more on the subject, which is mostly and acceptably, I think, sharp. It looks like something I would expect to see in WP:Featured pictures. The angle could be better. --I'ḏ♥One 21:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is nothing at all wrong with this picture. It is just fine so far as informal portraits go. However, we have a year-long backlog of pictures that have been awarded FP status and are sitting the queue, waiting for their 24 hours on the Main Page; I think we can afford to be pickier.

  Though this picture is sharp and has an interesting brightness about it, it just doesn’t strike me as something that would be “eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.” My impression of this picture ignores the idiosyncrasy of the competing light sources on the kid where we have green-tinted hair and pink skin; that wasn’t a deciding factor for me here. Greg L (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said above (and this is nothing to do with this image, which I'm close to withdrawing) this isn't really a valid reason to oppose. If you are concerned about the process/criteria/other "meta" issues, then the talk page is the place. I think you should strike your votes of this sort and start a discussion on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If I don’t think it is sufficiently “eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article”, then that’s perfectly valid. Greg L (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is. What you said first is not- PotD is a separate process/project to FPC. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You are getting all wrapped around the axle over my mentioning that the queue is a year long. As they say in the military: “so sad – too bad.” I suggest you just not stare at that paragraph. The part of my vote comment that is as legitimate as anyone else’s around here is the second paragraph, where I wrote Though this picture is sharp and has an interesting brightness about it, it just doesn’t strike me as something that would be “eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.” That “eye-catching” business is the first sentence of the FPC criteria upon which we may judge pictures. And, again, I’m not holding his green hair against this image (though I could imagine someone else citing that as an additional reason to oppose). Greg L (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Like I said, that's a perfectly reasonable, perfectly legitimate vote. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, we have to expect as more content is added to wikipedia that we'll be promoting more featured content then we can feature on the main page, FA's are likely suffering the same issue, we promote more of those per week then 7. To oppose based on this, or to restrict ourselves to less than 7 per week is a bit silly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raeky (talk • contribs) 11:56, 2 August 2010

• FA has had the same problem for literally years. I have three featured articles, one promoted 2007, and none have hit the main page. J Milburn (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose An interesting portrait, but I don't think this angle is best, as others have pointed out you can't tell who it is at first glance, and thats important for a good portrait, even though I've never heard of this person before seeing this image. — raekyT 11:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn, not gonna pass. I guess I was just interested to see how this did. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2010 at 12:08:05 (UTC)

Reason

The article is spammed with images but this image is mitigated because it illustrates a particular species as yet unrepresented on Wikipedia, with high EV for that species

Articles in which this image appears

Tettigoniidae

FP category for this image

insect

Creator

Benjamint 12:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 12:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Well, we can only really judge the image on EV in the articles in which it is used; as such, I'm not seeing it. If you were to create an article on the genus or species and illustrate that article with this image, then the EV would be more clear. J Milburn (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and created a stub on the genus. There's some stuff online if anyone wants to expand; some nice stuff here for instance. I'd write a species article too, but I don't know at this time whether it is a monotypic genus. J Milburn (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though I wish the insect was bigger so I could get a better look at it and its apparent natural camouflage. --I'ḏ♥One 16:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, at the risk of seeming to be out to get you, but this is the third image on this page with exactly the same problems (IMO) as the other two. Unpleasant light, and too little resolution. 1.6MP just does not cut it for me nowadays. --Dschwen 16:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose EV lacking and poor light. JFitch (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2010 at 11:25:09 (UTC)

Reason

Very high quality reproduction of a very fine portrait in the typical style of the time. Note that I am nominating this for its EV as a portrait, not for its EV as a painting- that said, it's clear that the entire painting is there, and the colours look accurate. Already featured on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Nicholas Kratzer, List of paintings by Hans Holbein the Younger, Exhibition of National Portraits

FP category for this image

People/Others

Creator

Unknown, after Hans Holbein the Younger.

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although this is one of the images that has a museum suing over it's upload here... — raekyT 12:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ha! Good luck to them trying to claim rights to a 500-year-old painting. I wonder what type of paint was used on this and what kind of canvass it was painted on, it seems very opaque and you can't really see the texture of whatever it was painted on, I guess it could just be on a smaller scale than real life. --I'ḏ♥One 16:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're not claiming copyright to the painting but the digital file they created of it, which is copyrighted under UK law but NOT US law. That is the crux of the lawsuit. Read more here. — raekyT 17:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I know, there is not -- and has never been -- a lawsuit. There's a recent update on the issue here. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The whole thing is rather unpleasant and complex, but it is not, as of yet, our concern. The Foundation is happy that these images are public domain, so it should not have any baring on this FPC. J Milburn (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some US author wrote a book and mentioned some rich dude who took issue with the facts. So he sued—in England—because two books had been sold there mail order. The American didn’t bother showing up so the UK judge issued a default verdict in favor of the plaintive that included, as part of the remedy, a decree that all copies of the book throughout the world and in America be tracked down and destroyed. The American author’s response was more or less “Really? Really??? You and what army? Bite me.” Greg L (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- I can see a lot of JPG artifacts in the darker area (eg the subject's clothes) –- the quality of the fine detail is not as good I would like it to be. Also, why does the border bend inwards on the right side? I'm not sure whether the painting is actually like this, or if this is a result of the reproduction method. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not meaning to pester, but I can't see artifacts, and the detail looks excellent to me. Could you be more specific? J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take a close look at 100% resolution at the areas of his coat immediately above the letter and astronomical instrument on the table. The texture is very odd, in the manner of JPG artifacts. However, on reflection (and after looking at some of the other recently accepted FPs that we have) I think my original oppose vote was a bit harsh: the picture is not perfect in my opinion, but I'll agree that the detail is relatively good. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support One reason: The museum threatened legal action to User:Dcoetzee over this. Oh, BTW (to be all PC because I respect authority and embrace diversity and all that): the picture has lots of EV and looks nice. Greg L (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Nicholas Kratzer by Hans Holbein the Younger.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2010 at 13:50:49 (UTC)

Reason

This is the main image in a WP:GA. It is high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Chicago Theatre

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Daniel Schwen User:Dschwen

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The subject is in shadow while background and foreground elements are in direct sunlight. Not really working. J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion at this time. J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose HDR artifacting around the people on the street... — raekyT 14:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, those issues, otherwise the photo is basically quite good. --I'ḏ♥One 17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh crud, I remember now someone telling me about this a few weeks (months?) ago, and me promising to fix it... Well, looks like I kind forgot :-). I already put quite a bit of wor into this image to suppress ghosts. And I guess if people are already opposing if for different reasons it is not worth putting more effort into it. The shadow thing is due to the confined location in the State street canyon. It was the very reason I chose to do an exposure-blending shot of the building. There is no way you can make a decent, well-lit daytime shot otherwise. Here is a recent nightshot by the way. However ther still was heavy traffic on State St. at around 11pm. Might have to try even later in the night next time. --Dschwen 19:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a post scriptum I'd like to add that there is exactly one ghost image of one single person in the entire image. Just in case people just read Raeky's comment and do not bother checking the facts for themselves. --Dschwen 19:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Theres at LEAST 4, maybe 5 or 6, look at the people all long the left side of the street, the ones where you only see heads above the subway thing and cars... — raekyT 21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, and those totally spoil the entire picture. Cough... --Dschwen 21:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your comments are now starting to violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, we have rules for a reason at FPC, if the image has obvious artifacting it's clearly not the best of the best. I suggest you take a step back and not post until you can do so objectively and calmly. — raekyT 21:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Great resolution and great framing, but its under construction. The construction distracts from the photo, at least for me. Gut Monk (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The construction is actually some minor restoration, which is not unheard of historical buildings. --Dschwen 13:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but why not wait for the restoration to be finished? Gut Monk (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • He does not live in Chicago. He lives about 100 miles away.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I went back to the original files and removed the remaining ghosts. Should have done that a while ago. If you still think you are "seeing ghosts" (no pun intended), please use the Image Annotation tool on commons to point them out to me. Thanks. --Dschwen 13:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found 3 more and marked them, since you asked. — raekyT 13:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, thanks, I'll get right on it. Those are in an area I had already worked on, but my masks were transparent at those spots. Good eye, I have to hand you that... --Dschwen 13:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please recheck, thanks. --Dschwen 13:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No complains now. Change to Support I don't think the construction is much of an issue, it's very unobtrusive and the HDR solves much of the lighting issues. — raekyT 14:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very good use of exposure blending IMO. You can tell that something special has been done re the dynamic range, but it doesn't look obviously fake. Think it could possibly do with a little more contrast (as exposure blended images often do), but otherwise I think it's pretty deserving. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like this image, the technicals are great and the dynamic range really brings it to life that extra little bit. JFitch (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Only 4 of 5 supports. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhm..., I thought my support was implicit, afte all i put quite a bit more work into the image to address the opposes. If this now fails due to a beurocracy issue it would be pretty disappointing. --Dschwen 17:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree Dschwen should be counted as support too.. that puts it at 5. — raekyT 17:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also agree, Dschwen to me seems in clear support. JFitch (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now I'm allowed to interpret consensus and not just vote count? I did think it was odd that you didn't vote, but you have refrained from voting on some nominations of your pictures in the past. I'm a bit comforted by this since Jujutacular apparently thought the nom hadn't garnered enough votes yet either. Anyway, I guess I can fix this. Please try to make your !vote clear in the future. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, sorry about that. --Dschwen 18:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chicago Theatre blend.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2010 at 17:54:55 (UTC)

Reason

This picture is of high EV in Sega-related articles, has great high resolution, and is considered Quality Image at Wikimedia Commons and is a Valued Picture.

Articles in which this image appears

Sega, Dreamcast, History of video game consoles (sixth generation), History of the Dreamcast

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics

Creator

Asim18

• Support as nominator --Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 17:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't quite see the point of making it float in white light. The whole cut-out-and-save-as-PNG business seems not ideal. A nice diffuse shadow, maybe a very subtle gradient in the background would look a lot better IMO. --Dschwen 19:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that. Technically, it's very good (and to pre-empt this possible concern, we're good on copyright grounds) but the background isn't, as Dschwen said, ideal. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What light should it float in? Should it have a black background? Gut Monk (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You miss the point, it should not float. Just re-read my comment. --Dschwen 22:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I did misread. Thanks for the heads up. Gut Monk (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild support Low EV, but good technical standard. Gut Monk (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Low EV? How so? Do you not feel that an illustration of the console in the infobox in the article about the console has high EV? J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a Gen Y. I've seen a dozen of these things in my life. At some point, they become common. Gut Monk (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh (does that best translate to “neutral”?) Very good technical quality. It adds EV significantly to Sega Dreamcast. But the subject matter necessarily means it is a photograph of 50¢-worth of an injection molded plastic enclosure made in China for a product used by youth who sit on their butts half the day.^(disclaimer) Accordingly, it is a bit IMHO, lacking in “being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.” Greg L (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (edit conflict) I mirror much of Greg's thoughts above, and I just don't think this is feature quality, I just don't think this is featureable, and I'd rather us not start throwing commercial product pictures up on the front page, if we feature this one, then theres clearly others that are along the same lines that could be featured, and I wouldn't like to head down that road. — raekyT 22:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • FPs need not appear on the main page. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Reply" Not all featured pictures need to be eye-catching, as File:EIAJconnector2 edit.jpg seems a bit bland, yet it was promoted. As for the the subject matter, featured pictures are also to help express the interests of Wikipedians and readers, not to be there because a picture looks pretty (not to mention that Video Gaming is now playing a big part in our daily lives and is one of the world's biggest industries). Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 22:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting you: Not all featured pictures need to be eye-catching. Mmmm… perhaps. But, IMO, every picture ought to elicit a desire by the reader to want to either click the picture to see a zoomed version or to click the related article to read-up on an interesting subject. I can’t imagine a better-looking picture of the Sega Dreamcast than this one. Unfortunately, neither can I imagine many of our visiting I.P. readers giving enough of a dump about this image to perform either of those actions. Their typical reaction will be “Yeah… uhh-huh” and then they’ll type “Boobs” into our search field to see if it actually goes anywhere. (Ooh, I see it does) That’s my honest opinion. (so blindfold me and shoot me) Greg L (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was a better image, but a consenus at this picture's valued picture nomination was to replace the original picture with this one. And about your concern about readers, there's actually a very large fanbase for the console and a lot of readers would enjoy that a picture of the Dreamcast is on Today's Featured Picture. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 23:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how any of these criticisms relate to the FP criteria. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets 3:2 and 3:3. J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah. The lighting is fine, good detail, and it's certainly informative. That pretty much covers those two. The only objection could be that the image isn't compelling (which is different from eye-catching), but this criterion is almost never applied. When it is, it's usually just because there isn't a better reason to oppose. Anyway, my point was that none of those issues were actually addressed. I'd also add that IP readers are probably more likely to read about a video game system than about many other subjects of FPs. Finally, I also was talking about the comment above about featuring commercial products. That certainly isn't covered by the criteria. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support An excellent shot of the console. I'm not really distracted by the lack of shadows. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV and quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per reasoning in my above post. Greg L (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak support. I guess so. The quality's there, the EV's fine. Not mad keen about it going on the main page, but that shouldn't stop it being promoted. J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2010 at 20:45:37 (UTC)

Original - 360° panorama of the London skyline. Taken from the near-top of the London Eye. On the left of the picture is the Palace of Westminster and Big Ben, to the right is Waterloo station.

Reason

I was quite surprised that this isn't already a featured picture. It's very educational and shows many famous parts of central London, as well as educating how good the view from the London Eye actually is (I have never seen a view before). The resolution is high, and I feel this is one of the best images portraying London as a panorama. Since it is often discussed here, I would really want to click on this picture if I saw it.

Articles in which this image appears

London Eye, Central London

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Farwestern

• Support as nominator ---- bydand•talk 20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is my first FP nomination so go easy on me :) It seemed an obvious place to start, and if there is anything that you feel needs cloning out, cropping etc., tell me and I'll make an attempt to fix it. I am also considering integrating this image into the London article; I'd expect to see it there. -- bydand•talk 20:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is some bad noise throughout the picture, particularly towards the left hand side as you look down the river. Also i'm not a fan of the composition, half of the picture is sky, the carriage on the Eye next to us is very distracting, and things seem to slant away towards the right of the picture. Not a bad picture, but not FP imo. JFitch (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the carriage is in the view because the picture was originally made intending to show the view from the London Eye. However, I have uplaoded an alternative, let me know what you think. -- bydand•talk 21:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I agree that it would be better if framed lower; there is too much sky. And there are other small technical flaws. However, we’ve had panoramas here that weren’t full 360-degree ones and I always wanted to see one of those. Notwithstanding the technical flaws, the unique character of this image, I think, would elicit a “stop, stare & click” reaction from a large portion of our readership. The subject matter too (London) would have broad appeal (also lending to “stop, stare & click”). The Flash-based interactive viewer exploits the unique virtue that only an electronic encyclopedia can pull off. And expanding on its shortcomings and occasional flaws, I don’t think many readers who spend time zooming around would come away disappointed. Greg L (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Compelling idea, but technical problems. The wavy horizon is the primary deal-breaker. This is most likely fixable with proper stitching (in hugin I'd use horizontal guides, and vertical guides too). The overexposed sky might be fixable as well if the panorama was taken with automatic exposure. if not than this is deal-breaker number two. --Dschwen 21:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC) P.S.: as a side-note: this is not a 360 degree panorama. A few degrees make all the difference. This one does not join up to form a seamless 360 degree view. --Dschwen 21:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the horizon is wavy. Greg L (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not on a near spherical planet. --Dschwen 22:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh yeah I forgot there's no such thing as hills! -- bydand•talk 22:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I detected a note of irony in Bydand’s post. Indeed. It could be bad stitching. But I would think I would see seam flaws in the buildings if that was underlying the wavy horizon. Though planet earth is largely spherical on a large scale, earth is notably non-sphereical at small scales. England does have hills. And places in my native Washington state have mountains, leading to pronounced “waviness of the horizon,” like this 360° panorama of Mt. St. Helens. Greg L (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The stitching errors on the horizon can be clearly seen on the right hand side of the image just before the horizon bends downwards. I've highlighted on the image on Commons Annotations. JFitch (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • Sorry, but at least to me it was blatantly obvious that the wavyness is due to bad stitching and not "hills". Just take a look at the verticals of the buildings and you see that they are perpendicular to the horizon. The sarcastic remark is quite a shot in your own foot in this case. I tried to give a constructive review of the image that you put up for review, even suggesting fixes for the image, and you give me crap. That's just great. --Dschwen 01:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Maybe though, Dschwen and Jujutacular are correct and there is an improper waviness we’re seeing here. I don’t think what we’re seeing can be attributed entirely to stitching errors either. I’m certainly not buying that waviness is incompatible with a near-spherical earth nor do I now buy into the argument that the waviness is because hills exist. If the tripod wasn’t perfectly level, you would get a single-cycle sinusoidal on the horizon and this would be possible with zero stitching errors. And, indeed, that is exactly what I see here: a single-cycle sinusoidal. I’m changing my “support” vote because of an accumulation of problems here. Sorry. Greg L (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A very good effort, but I must oppose. There are a lot of blown highlights in the sky, the horizon is wavy, and some of the stitches are quite obvious even in the thumbnail version. Jujutacular ^talk 21:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was actually looking for those, and the clouds that look like stitching on the thumbnail are just normal clouds on the full version. Would you be kind enough to point the obvious bits out for me? :) -- bydand•talk 21:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn. Thanks for the feedback, I'll take it all into account for the next time I nominate :). -- bydand•talk 22:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A wise choice. Better luck next time. As for the blown highlights, that is a concern you will see frequently mentioned here. As in the MV Queenscliff (ferry boat) picture, sometimes the fix results in an overly dark picture. If one were really there looking at that ferry, they’d be squinting and the eye wouldn’t see any detail whatsoever in that brightly lit side of the ferry; which is to say, the eye would see blown-out highlights too—just like the camera. Similarly, as with this close-up of the eye, the specular reflections are areas that would appear blown out to the naked eye. The clouds in your panorama have a bad-looking way of being blow out that detracts. The most simple fixes (contrast and brightness) would ruin the look of the city. Some of the people here, like Dschwen, are particularly adept at technical work-arounds to avoid this sort of thing. Greg L (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ---- bydand•talk 00:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2010 at 02:41:31 (UTC)

Reason

This is a high EV image in its article uses and is used in several templates.

Articles in which this image appears

Dwyane Wade
Miami Heat
Conference USA Men's Basketball Player of the Year
2003 NBA Draft
List of 2010–11 NBA season transactions

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport

Creator

Keith Allison and edited by User:JoeJohnson2

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose Lots of noise at full resolution, and full resolution isn't that big. Pity, because the shot is rather well-timed, albeit a bit tighter cropped than I'd prefer. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To explain a little: If the image is fairly large and has some noise in a few areas, then, well, you can edit it a bit, and there's so much detail already that the minor loss of detail from the denoise isn't that important, because you still have an "effective" resolution well above the requirements. But at this size, basic facial features and other things inherent to identifying him have lost detail from the noise. That's a bit further than I think we can stretch. Please don't be put off by this comment; remember FPC is meant to be the best of the pictures on Wikipedia, so an image can still be quite good - and this is - but not quite reach the level of "among the best in the subject". For comparison, here's another sports FP, and, as it happens, the one I think of when I think about excellent sports FPs. It's... actually by you, which I hadn't remembered until I looked it up, but... comparing, that one's sharp, dynamic, noise-free, and only has the small amount of motion blur inherent in an action shot. Clearly amongst the best of images related to sports on Wikipedia. This new basketball one... well, it's dynamic, but the rest... not so much. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is actually a great little action shot- it's a wonderful photo, but the noise really stops it being FP-worthy. J Milburn (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm with J Milburn on this one, but please keep looking; FP has very few sports-action photos (and they can be quite good.) Gut Monk (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Hm, I think JoeJohnson2 did more harm than good to this image. --Dschwen 16:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. J Milburn (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2010 at 23:32:14 (UTC)

Reason

An excellent portrait of clear copyright status.

Articles in which this image appears

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Anioma people, List of Igbo people

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Political

Creator

International Monetary Fund (photographer uncredited)

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent portrait. — raekyT 23:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Contrast and brightness are really poor. The tint seems off. The fill light appears poorly done. As formal, sitting portraits go (where excellence should be expected of notable individuals), I can’t imagine that this is amongst Wikipedia’s best works.

  Raeky: Did you used to work at the World Bank or something? ;-) Greg L (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. I can get behind this, but it's not blowing me away. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support This lady is important, so she nets the EV. I also like the photograph. It was taken a little too close (that is why the back of the head piece is blurry,) but the subject's face is crystal clear. Gut Monk (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fine portrait. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Colourful, :) Passed well at Commons, good EV. Maedin\^talk 21:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Okonjo-Iweala, Ngozi (2008 portrait).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2010 at 02:39:53 (UTC)

Reason

There are some minor technical issues; however, Europium is exceptionally reactive, and can only be seen in anything resembling purity as we get here: In a glove box, in an atmosphere made up entirely of a noble gas, in this case, argon. As the issues with this image are only those necessary to taking this image, I believe that the exceptional difficulty of getting this image at all, combined with the image... actually being quite good, make this FP-worthy.

Articles in which this image appears

Europium

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If this is the best Alchemist can do, then this is the best anyone can do. Greg L (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The image in the infobox is of similar purity, and while it's not as good as this one, I think it proves that a better shot is at least possible. Quality can probably be improved and composition (especially background) can definitely be improved. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm not pleased to be the one to say it, but this one's just not quite there. A damn difficult element to photograph, no doubt about that, and I've no doubt that this image is a fantastic addition to the article, but I don't think it is feature worthy. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: This is one of Alchemist-hp's earlier photographs, before he perfected his technique. I don't think the drawbacks of this image are due to the element itself; with another sample, I'm sure Alchemist-hp could produce his usual excellent work. (Not to imply that it would be trivial for him to do so, only that this one isn't up to par and could be.) Maedin\^talk 11:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was for me only a single and very rare chance in the past to take a photo from a large, clean and high purity (and very expensive) Europium sample. I think this is a very valued photo, but not a futured?!? I can't take a similar and better photo today, sorry. My current samples are only a small pieces under argon in glas vials (=ampoules). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchemist-hp (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Given that this sort of photograph entails such extraordinary technical effort, you deserve an “A” for effort. I liked the image because europium looks so cool. Notwithstanding the herculean effort, the word seems to be developing that the end result is not FP quality as far as the technical aspects go. Indeed, when I zoom all the way, it is not in sharp focus at the back of the sample. That was something I was willing to forgive because it has to be in a glove box under argon. I can understand the reasoning of those who object. I know it seems a bit like “Go stand 1000 feet from ground-zero at the Trinity test explosion and take the picture again (and then run really fast).” Like I said: it’s way-cool. Moreover, you should get ten barnstars for making Wikipedia the beneficiary of your extraordinary efforts. Greg L (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support from the creator too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For what it's worth. — raekyT 04:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 04:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2010 at 13:22:07 (UTC)

Articles in which this image appears

Catantopinae, Camouflage

FP category for this image

insect

Creator

Benjamint 13:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 13:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would support this if only it weren't so almost perfectly camouflaged, it's not very easy to see the subject and I find that bothersome. It's a good photo and observation otherwise, there's leaf litter on the ground already near you in the middle of summer? --I'ḏ♥One 14:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably then it has escaped your notice that Benjamint lives in Australia and is photographing an Australian grasshopper? That will answer your leaf litter question well enough, Maedin\^talk 17:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It did, I forgot, and I didn't read the page thoroughly enough I guess. ^_^' --I'ḏ♥One 19:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to mention that almost all native Australian trees are evergreen and shed leaves all year round, so it doesn't matter whether the photograper is in the northern or southern hemisphere or what time of year it is! Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Great EV for both articles. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The camouflage is nice, and I would assume that it was the point of the picture. However I'm not too excited about the harsh and flat light, and I cannot support such a low resolution picture. 1.7MP is just too small. Oppose. --Dschwen 18:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Harsh lighting, head seems mildly OOF and very small res for a relatively large insect --Muhammad(talk) 21:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 8/10 Support You can literally see the flash reflecting off many parts of the shell (was this taken at night?) This nomination, also, I think, is one of the nominations that feature a subject well-defined in its camouflaged environment. Gut Monk (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2010 at 04:15:09 (UTC)

Articles in which this image appears

Pyrgomorphoidea, I haven't created an article before so be sure to check over it

FP category for this image

insect

Creator

Benjamint 04:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 04:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for quality, the article, uh, really needs work. --I'ḏ♥One 04:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article looks OK to me. We have plenty of taxonomic stubs. J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sigh, there is a patteren. Like the image above I'm not quite thrilled by the lighting (undiffused flash I presume). The specular highlights are distracting from the pattern of the grasshopper. And this image is even smaller. At 1.6MP I cannot possibly support it, especially given that the image is already padded with subject-free area on the left and the right. It is 2010. What reasons could there be to upload such small sizes... ...ok, forget about that, but what reasons could there be to label such small images as Wikipedias best or outstanding? If anything this only discourages people from uploading reasonably up-to-date resolutions. --Dschwen 18:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bigger≠Better, I don't understand why you think we should only feature posters and blow outs. If an image is good and valuable, it's good and valuable. --I'ḏ♥One 19:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is good and valuable then nominate it at WP:VPC. Featured pictures should be outstanding quality wise. And those small teaser-size images aren't. --Dschwen 20:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Dschwen. We have come to expect better. We have some OUTSTANDING insect photography, and to mark this as equally good is simply not fair to the stronger images. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as Dschwen, I am not too pleased with the lighting and I find the background leaves distracting. IMO f/11 without flash would have worked better --Muhammad(talk) 21:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my comments above. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These were taken before I realized how detrimental diffraction can be at small apertures unfortunately, from what I can remember the main lighting was just the harsh Australian sunlight. Advice? Benjamint 23:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an umbrella held by an assistant just above the insect could help with the diffusion. My little bro or sis usually comes in handy in such situations. A wasp or fly may move away but grasshoppers are usually more relaxed. --Muhammad(talk) 14:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you've got your own assistants :-) --Dschwen 15:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At ISO 50 (think 5Dii can do this) and f11 or something you could probably get the sun perhaps two stops down from a flash with a softbox on it at sync speed. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2010 at 11:50:00 (UTC)

Reason

Very nice studio shot showing two aspects of the same species. Very eye-catching, good quality and very high EV. Already featured on Commons, and, interestingly, if promoted, this would become our first annelid FP.

Articles in which this image appears

Pectinaria (worm), Pectinariidae

FP category for this image

Animals/Others

Creator

Hans Hillewaert

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- High EV, good quality. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support There's definitely not many photos of these, which translates into rarity, but I wish I had more understanding of what I'm looking at. How small and rare are they and is that why its teeth (I think) and aspect of the lighting seem to overblown? --I'ḏ♥One 20:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This particular one is around 25mm, as I said in the image caption. As for rarity, I can't speak for this particular species, I'm afraid- it was picked up out of the sea in Belgium. As a "poke around and see what I can find" type, I have seen freshwater nymphs that do this, but I don't remember ever seeing saltwater worms that do it (and I've spent plenty of time on the beach), so I was genuinely interested to see this picture. I also thought the semi-transparency was brilliant. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A fine illustration. The lighting is probably overblown in a few places simply because they're really shiny, as many soft-bodied creatures are. Note he does give the length - 28 millimetres, or just over 1 inch long. An excellent macro shot. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though a soft light source would be better. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good EV, although Noodle snacks is right about the light. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 18:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Ditto Alvesgaspar and Noodle snacks. Maedin\^talk 21:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pectinaria koreni (with and without tube).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2010 at 08:44:43 (UTC)

Reason

remarkable event (last liftoff of the space shuttle Atlantis), narrator explains the procedure, good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Space Shuttle Atlantis, STS-132 (a longer version with no HD options is used instead there.)

FP category for this image

Space

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Kozuch (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very impressive. A transcript of the audio, for the hearing impaired, would be a nice addition to this video. —P. S. Burton (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This isn't used in any articles? We can't feature media that is not used in any articles... We can only judge its EV in context. J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (for size) and Speedy Close (not in use). NASA offers 1080i HD video for download, with such higher quality sources available video of this size just shouldn't be considered. Plus it has to be used in an article somewhere.. — raekyT 12:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I uploaded the HD versions of this video, if it was linked into an article I'd change to Support. — raekyT 13:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ive put the low bandwidth version into Space Shuttle Atlantis - not everyone has fiber at home, low bandwidth versions are kind of preffered within articles here, I guess.--Kozuch (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to this (commons:Help:Converting_video#General_conversion_tips) the smaller size should be linked in to the page with direct links in the caption to the higher quality versions. I suggest (480p | HD) at the end of the caption, which I'll boldly add myself. Also why isn't this on STS-132, I'll start a talk page discussion there about it. — raekyT 13:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It made no sense to me to show the thumbnails here at the same size. Also, the file names (“480” and “720” did not match their actual, full-size proportions [as viewed on their file pages Greg L (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)]. The sizes shown here are the actual files. I suggest we consider download speed vs. quality. Greg L (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure it does, the videos I uploaded are 1,280×720 and 854×480 pixels respectively in size? — raekyT 14:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I go to the full-size original and measure the actual pixel width on the screen with a pixel-counting frame grabber, I get 640 for both. The only way I can see the 720 as 720 is to download it and play it using VLC. I’m only showing them here as viewers will view them on Wikipedia when they go to the file page. Don’t you think that’s what 99% of our I.P.s will do? Greg L (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thats because that's just the size of the player box the website makes, just as when you click on an image it displays a scaled down image instead of the full size on the page, you have to download the whole file to see the full size, no difference here. As browsers display in-line video better they SHOULD have "full screen" buttons and there would be a big difference maxing these to full screen between the 480 and 720p videos... — raekyT 14:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and suggestion Might I suggest someone put it in Space Shuttle Atlantis? --I'ḏ♥One 14:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe but STS-132 would be the most relevant article. — raekyT 14:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whichever car gets us to town fastest, both could probably work. --I'ḏ♥One 04:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion I would suggest that whatever size we nominate be highly usable in its placed size in articles and on the Main Page. A horizontal size of 400 pixels is the maximum practical size. Accordingly, I’ve also placed a duplicate version here of the “480” file (actually 640 pixels across and 1.213 Mbps) as a 400-pixel thumb. It is viewable and enjoyable as a thumb. And if they click the image (instead of the play button), they will go to a 640 pixel, full-size version that loads in a reasonable time. Greg L (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are you getting 640 across? The video sizes are 512×288, 854×480 and 1,280×720? — raekyT 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my 14:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC) post. This may be due to the fact that I’m using a Mac. Do you actually measure 720 on the file page? We might also check and see if your user settings are influencing this. I.P.'s don't have preferences and get only a default. Greg L (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Below the video it says the details including the actual size, what you see there is scaled down, just like with image pages, with Chrome I can right click the video and go to "display in new tab" and there it's displayed at actual size. Since this whole HTML5 video thing is new browsers are still beta testing it. Once they get more robust in-browser controls all browsers will have the ability to make these full screen and such, which Chrome lacks at the moment. But 640px what your quoting is just the preview scaled down size the website does. — raekyT 14:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It’s our user preferences, which I.P. users don’t have. I had mine at 640 pixels, so when I went to the file pages, they all max'd out at that size. I logged out and tried it but got odd results. What do you get when you log out? Greg L (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Of course, when I download the files and play them in my SLV player, they played in their native sizes. Less than 1% of our I.P.s will do this. I suggest we examine this from their point of view. Greg L (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Mines at 800x600 for both here and commons, logging out I can't tell that it changed... but like I said, in a few more browser iterations HTML5 video will have robust controls for all browsers which will have things like full-screen buttons I suspect, right now it's fairly limiting at least in Chrome which I'm using. — raekyT 15:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That’s what I saw. When I logged out, they max out at around 800 (Mac using Safari). Try setting your user pref to 640. I’ll bet the higher-quality two max out at 640 wide. Greg L (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Third one down (medium-size file with 427 thumb). Our I.P. users will likely only see 800 pixel widths when they go to the file page, so there is no point using the largest file since the only way to see it at 1280 x 720 is to download it. Few I.P.s will do that. Greg L (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same reasoning could be used for any of our large images... Personally I think the largest should be the FP, with clear links to the others. It's use in the article space should also have direct links to the smaller version's in it's caption for people with reduced bandwidth, same for the POTD caption... — raekyT 15:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regular, static images are treated differently from Theora videos. If I.P.s click on a jpeg to go to the file page, once there, they can zoom to the max. Animations at limited to 800 pixels width for our I.P.s when they go to the file page so there isn’t much point having a native size much larger than that. The only way 720p animations (1280 pixels across) can be viewed at their full-size image is to download it to their hard drive and hope they have a player for Theora videos. Very, very few I.P.s will do that, so I don’t see the value of the 48 MB file. Some 99.9% of our readership will never see it larger than 800 pixels. Greg L (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The big one. There is no reason not to - its resized for those that view it in browser. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support large version - I agree with P S Burton though that this would benefit from having the words subtitled onto the video for clarity of what is being said... Not just for the hearing impared but also the technically unaware who may not know what they are talking about - would be easier to find if they had the spelling of the word on screen! Gazhiley (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have a methodology for adding subtitles, and the FLASH version on NASA's site has subtitles, but I can not find anywhere to download those subtitles to upload here. So unless someone can get NASA to release those in proper time index format then we'll have to accept we won't have subtitles. — raekyT 14:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey I'm happy as it is, just if it is poss that would be a nice extra! :-) TBH I'm just happy to be here... hehe Gazhiley (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:STS-132 Liftoff Space Shuttle Atlantis 1080i.ogv --Jujutacular ^talk 15:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, I will be using the template Raeky proposed at Wikipedia talk:FPC#New Template Idea. The small version will be displayed in the article, with the full res (featured} version linked.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2010 at 19:56:29 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, and quality of underwater shot taken in the wild

Articles in which this image appears

Snowflake moray

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, I don't think this is the most advantageous angle for a portrait (as opposed to a full-body shot) and, when combined with the natural problems with under-water photography, creates a rather uninspiring picture. Additionally, I'm not seeing why a portrait is really needed in the article/what this image adds to the article. J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If for nothing else at least it shows the teeth, not to say it shows a natural behavior, which is hiding under corals or rocks--Mbz1 (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed that seeing the teeth would be useful, but, again, I feel that they would probably be shown better by a different angle- a Google search shows a large number of portraits from what I see as superior angles. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's OK. You do not own me any explanations at all. Almost any image has a room for improvement. I have done the best I could under the circumstances, and trust me I tried very, very hard. The eel was in a very, very narrow space between the corals (I mean there were corals allaround. If there's any better free image taken in a wild, I would be the first one to replace it with mine in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Opppose I'm sorry, because I'm very unfamiliar with under water photography, but the image looks blurry. Gut Monk (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The eel is very sharp, so I am not sure what you're talking about, but that's OK.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2010 at 16:52:42 (UTC)

Reason

A rather fine example of Mormon religious art, dedicated to one of the most important followers. It's a somewhat unusual lithograph in that it mixes one colour and black. I believe that the result should be the intended effect, after reviewing some other engravings, but it's possible that it's intended to be more saturated than I presumed.

Articles in which this image appears

Joseph Smith, Jr., Anti-Mormonism, Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1839 to 1844, Death of Joseph Smith, Jr., List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement [N.B. I've set up a bot to auto-replace a very low-res version of this image with the full-res. It may be a couple hours before that finishes]

FP category for this image

Arguable, Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Culture is the normal place for religion, but it could also go under history or people.

Creator

G. W. Fasel and Charles G. Crehen; published by Nagel & Weingaertner.

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice image, with the second tone of the lithograph beautifully shown. I would put it in history, as very few Latter Day Saints will have ever seen this interesting print. Cool Hand Luke 17:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. An excellent restoration. Extremely high resolution and good EV. Kaldari (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh. Yeah, about that resolution: It was so big, that it took three hours to do the crop, rotate, and colour adjustment. Ground my system to a halt, and I have a reasonably good computer. Mind you, I also spent three hours cleaning up the blank border surrounding the image - and maybe an hour or two on the image itself. Annoyingly, that's often the way, because every slight smudge shows on blank paper, but most are completely invisible when there's texture and patterns. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is considerable confusion in our articles about the actual death. Our article on Smith says "Later that day, an armed group with blackened faces stormed the jail and killed Hyrum instantly with a shot to the face.[308] Smith fought back with a pepper-box pistol that had been smuggled into the prison[309] but was shot while jumping from a window, then shot and killed as he lay on the ground.[310]". As such, this image's use there is a little confusing, as it does not appear to illustrate any part of that. Our article on the death has a longer description, and, one would assume, this picture illustrates the line "Daniels' account also states that one man tried to decapitate Smith for a bounty, but was prevented by divine intervention." (If so, the caption in the article could use some work.) (On an unrelated note, the article spells it "Hyram".) Basically, what I'm saying is we need some work/clarification on the articles so that the EV can be accurately judged. (Concerning other issues, the quality is great, and this belongs in history, to my eyes.) J Milburn (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, article problems have not been an obstacle to images, if the images are notable. This was roughly contemporary to the event (a few years later), so I'd presume reasonable accuracy (at least to the LDS account), save that this has clearly been sanitized a bit, suitable to its purpose as a religious image: there's rather less blood than one would expect, for instance, and some of the posing seems based on traditional religious iconography (compare Smith to the Pietà, for instance.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, they have. For instance, an article not existing, or the image illustrating something that is not in the article. Images can only be judged EV-wise in the context of the article. We can't just assume it would have EV if the article was better. J Milburn (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As such, unless it becomes clear what this image is actually showing, and what its value is, (and the article(s) and/or caption(s) is/are updated to reflect this) I don't see how we can promote it. J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image clearly shows the traditional account that one of the members of the mob was prevented from decapitating him. As for the name, it is spelled "Hyrum," but the lithograph uses a variant spelling. I don't think that's uncommon in 19th century printing, and I cannot fathom why it would disqualify the image. I agree that it probably shouldn't be used in Joseph Smith, Jr. (that article is quite long and its sensible that it doesn't cover the traditional but poorly-documented details of his death in great depth). Cool Hand Luke 16:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling issue was any kind of opposition, it was a note. I'd feel more comfortable about this if the caption was updated in the article. However, I do have other thoughts- who's the chap in the top hat? J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the image captions in the articles definitely need some work. Kaldari (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The traditional account is that it was a blinding light or lightening that stopped the beheading, so I thought that maybe he is an angel. But that seems unlikely to me—why not incorporate any of the hallmarks of angels? See this book, p. 276, where this lithograph is discussed. The author calls the person only a "dramatic figure." This seems to be a well-researched treatise, so there may be no authoritative answer here (on the other hand, the author also assumes that the figures are in black face, as they were historically, but in this print they seem to be wearing masks). The figure may have been the artist's own invention. See also that caption that the LOC give it here. Again, no explanation for the figure or how the beheading was "thwarted." Cool Hand Luke 21:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support —P. S. Burton (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my concerns about EV above. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make that strong. I've got to say that the use of this image in some cases actually causes a great amount of confusion. Our criteria say that images need to help "readers to understand an article"- I'm not seeing how this does that. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:G. W. Fasel - Charles G. Crehen - Nagel & Weingaertner - Martyrdom of Joseph and Hiram Smith in Carthage jail, June 27th, 1844.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2010 at 23:51:54 (UTC)

Reason

High quality photograph of an enormously notable individual with unambiguous licensing. Used as the lead portrait in the biography (and used all over the place elsewhere). Already featured on Commons and the Turkish Wikipedia. Far better than the official portraits employed by the American government. It may benefit from a cropping, but I'll leave that up to you lovely people. Caption copied from the article lead.

Articles in which this image appears

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, President of Brazil (as well as History of South America, Pernambuco, History of the socialist movement in Brazil and many others in galleries/lists)

FP category for this image

People/Political

Creator

Ricardo Stuckert

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An important person, and the quality of the photograph is fantastic. Gut Monk (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Has an odd, Photoshopped look to it, like someone pasted his image into another photo. Also, crop is bad and appears designed to catch overflying UFOs. Greg L (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first issue would be the lighting- he's been lit up, which the background hasn't. Interestingly, we often oppose for the opposite reason- too much background light. Hard to find the happy medium :) I wouldn't be confident with regards to how much to crop, myself, but I would like to see a crop too. J Milburn (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous failed nomination: here Spikebrennan (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed; it’s the same picture. It clearly hasn’t mellowed with time. Greg L (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The crop is presumably to include the distinctive facade of the Palácio do Planalto behind him. On the other hand, since the DOF is so shallow, it doesn't do so particularly well. Chick Bowen 03:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The expression, the DOF, and especially the subtlety of the abstract architecture in the background make this a great photo. upstateNYer 01:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above, though I would prefer a crop, maybe to eliminate that triangle in the top left. Cowtowner (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --— raekyT 00:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 out of 5 needed supports.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2010 at 00:29:33 (UTC)

Reason

This is a high EV image. The quality is pretty good with even small print on the jersey being completely legible at full resolution. It could be sharper, but although we can get another photo of this guy, we can't get one for a Super Bowl champion that he was the defensive leader for.

Articles in which this image appears

Cato June
2006 Indianapolis Colts season

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport

Creator

Michael D Collins (flickr user fanphin)

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am not comfortable with the use of the large, copyrighted logo at the top of the image. I am not confident that it would be considered de minimis, and so not confident that the image could be considered free while it is still there. J Milburn (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can crop it out, but that would totally change the composition of the image, which is in large part valuable for being taken at the Super Bowl. Isn't that just common press conference background board (although larger font than usual).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may or may not be- it doesn't mean that it's free to use. It's copyrighted, and it's a major part of the image- as you say, the image would be completely different without it. That very fact should be enough to set off alarm bells. J Milburn (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is why I'm going bot crazy. Tony, can you offer any additional support as to how this picture doesn't violate Wiki copyright laws? (hint: It is classified like this but try contacting the original photographer because they might be able to offer you advice.) Gut Monk (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What on Earth are you talking about? J Milburn (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support Clear up the copyright in this or the next nomination and it has my full support. Gut Monk (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's bad composition as it is, his face is dead center which gives it WAY to much headroom, looks bad, the photographer probably did it so the logo was included, If it's cropped so the logo is cut in half, that makes it a better composition and does that clear up the copyright concern, it would also be possible to apply a Gaussian filter to mask out the logo even more if done correctly it would almost appear as if it's just a DOF out of focus and natural maybe? — raekyT 01:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Raeky concerning the composition. With the logo removed it looks too tight. The placement of the microphone is also too distracting. I'm sure that there are better pictures of him available. -- mcshadypl ^TC 00:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per raeky. Greg L (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per all comments so far. I feel the crop is actually a lot worse than the original. JFitch (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may look worse, but it doesn't have copyright concerns. J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was referring to it's FP possibility due to framing, as for the copyright, if it's an issue then it's not a difficult clone out, however as a picture overall I don't think it is anywhere near up to FP standard. JFitch (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all Gazhiley (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have nominated the original for deletion on Commons. J Milburn (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to try a left to right clone to erase the logo later.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a little difficulty doing a seemless clone. Help would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Give me a sec, I'll try to smooth it out for ya. — raekyT 12:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blurred it some to remove the hard lines your cloning added, looks ok now I think. — raekyT 12:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought you might want to crop it for your rule of thirds.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can make the crop if you think it'd be used, and it's not MY rule. I'd cut the blue area over his head by about half, the other crop doesn't leave any head room. — raekyT 12:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I sorted the cropping out and one other small issue in the BG. JFitch (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I personally don't like square images. I prefer 4:3 or 3:2. I prefer the other edit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree in principal. The original framing however in the original was pretty terrible, so whatever we do to it isn't going to do a lot to help it. I'm not trying to push that edit as a FP, I was just simply cropping it so that it was more technically correct than the above version. JFitch (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I just cropped it to 4:3.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2010 at 13:18:18 (UTC)

Original - A panoramic view of Ilulissat Airport in August

Reason

The panorama shows one of Greenland's few airports as well as shows the surrounding area, including the nearby mountains and ice. The photograph captures the isolation of the airport in its surroundings and shows how small it really is when compared to the nature around it.

Articles in which this image appears

Ilulissat Airport

FP category for this image

Places/Panorama

Creator

Pellinen

• Support as nominator --Nighthawk205 (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This stitch is absolutely not up to current technical standards. Brightness steps in the sky are completely avoidable and the horizon is bent like a banana. --Dschwen 12:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC) P.S.: there are numerous stitching errors all over the picture, there is a sharp horizontal brightness step. This image was not "stitched" the original frames were just smashed together. If the original frames are supplied to me I could to a proper stitch of this image. But in its current state it does not have a snowballs chance... --Dschwen 13:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This appears to be a case where a contributor thought, “A runway at an airport is long, and a panorama is long too, and I can capture the whole hairy thing.” I’m not in the least bit impressed with an image that essentially encompasses a metric butt-load of runway. Most runways look like… runways. I don’t think the screen real-estate dedicated to the effort enhances ones understanding of that airport; i.e. this image has low EV for illustrating Ilulissat Airport. And like Dschwen said, the stitching is poor. Uncommonly poor. It appears to have been done with an auto-exposure camera, which makes mismatch at seams a nightmare. Greg L (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowadays I almost exclusively prepare my panoramic images in auto-exposure mode. When done correctly you get increased dynamic range for free. --Dschwen 18:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Auto Exposure shouldn't be a problem at all as long as it's stitched well. Unfortuantely this isn't. JFitch (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- As above, plus runways are and should look straight... Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Horrible smash up of images. Jfitch (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't call it horrible.. --I'ḏ♥One 21:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would... Strong Oppose, if only for the weird line across the entire width of the picture just below centre... let alone all the above issues... I disagree about the EV tho - compared to other noms on here it at least shows what it's meaning to show! Gazhiley (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, indubitably. If the intent of the image is to illustrate “Big-ass runway from horizon to horizon with a terminal at one end (bring your 10 × 50s and *squint*),” then it has spectacularly achieved its EV objective. Greg L (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Badly composed, the stitches are clearly visible. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 18:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 13:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2010 at 17:57:10 (UTC)

Reason

An important painting from American history, very influential in how we perceive Thanksgiving today. Colors adjusted and dust removed by myself. Intended for POTD on Thanksgiving Day.

Articles in which this image appears

Jean Leon Gerome Ferris, Thanksgiving (United States), Thanksgiving

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Jean Leon Gerome Ferris

• Support as nominator --howcheng {chat} 17:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It looks very... dotty. What's going on there? J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, but this is the scan of a print. For a featured picture I'd expect a reproduction of the original, not the reproduction of a reproduction, especially if the rasterization is so very visible. --Dschwen 18:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original is no longer publicly available. Per [4], the paintings are in the possession of the artist's family. howcheng {chat} 18:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is sad, but not really an excuse. We'll just feature a different and high quality image then. --Dschwen 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As well, it's a scan of a print, we can clearly see the halftone pattern from the offset printer... — raekyT 18:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I actually like that this has such high quality you actually can see the halftone pattern. To me that suggests that the person who digitally reproduced the print really knew what they were doing because they managed to get all the detail out of what they had. Meanwhile, I scan a drawing, white paper comes out yellow, so I respect the technique, but is this historically accurate?--I'ḏ♥One 20:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not historically accurate at all [5], but that's not the point; this painting was instrumental in establishing the modern romanticized US view of the first Thanksgiving. howcheng {chat} 21:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't mean this personal (as far as this is possible), but this comment (such high quality you actually can see the halftone pattern) and your earlier suggestion to "upsample an image in GIMP or some online service" to meet the resolution requirement make me think that you should maybe work on your imageprocessing-related background knowledge. I thought FPC was supposed to be a constructive discussion by knowledgeable people rather than a "me likey!"-vote. Yeah, I know there are no beurocratic rules about this, and no, there is no entrance exam for FPC, but I would hope that people try and assess their own level of expertise before entering discussions like this. Yeah, well, now go ahead and dismiss me as some arrogant elitist prick ;-). --Dschwen 21:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel allowing this to be a FP to have it featured on the holiday, would devalue the project. I agree it's a very important image for how American's see the holiday, but it's unfortunate it's a scan of a print and not the original. Also is a shame it's locked away in a private collection and not on loan to the Smithsonian or some other institution. But if we lower our standards here it would be hard to justify opposes for this very reason on other art images. If we want a Thanksgiving related image for a POTD then we should look for other options. — raekyT 22:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I wasn't nominating this for the sole purpose of putting it as POTD. howcheng {chat} 01:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dschwen, my point is that it's been better digitally transferred than the majority of images on we have on Wikimedia, as stated in the next like without which allows you to take my statement out of context and make me sound like a hick. That's what I actually like about it, the painting itself I could take or leave, I probably wouldn't decorate my house with it, I certainly don't find it "eye-catching" even though Ferris was talented. Raeky, what can we do? It's apparently already going to be picture of the day. I sort of feel the opposite way: That we should show more REALISTIC depictions of what actually happened, I could oppose this for that reason. --I'ḏ♥One 22:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POTD has to be a Featured Picture as far as I know, so if this doesn't pass it can't be the POTD. — raekyT 22:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, fine then. --I'ḏ♥One 23:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be wrong, this was POTD, doesn't look like it was ever featured and is half toned. --I'ḏ♥One 01:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was never POTD. It did have a Main Page appearance as the image for the featured article on 2010-01-15. howcheng {chat} 01:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I was going to undo that comment. --I'ḏ♥One 01:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe you that you were trying. However, upsampling is not helpful at all. At worst it could be considered gaming the system or trying to deceive the reviewers, at best it adds nothing to the picture. The minimum size numbers are not just there as a bureaucratic measure, there is a reason for them. And that is to filter out images that do not provide reasonable amounts of detail and clarity. Upsampling adds neither detail or clarity. --Dschwen 12:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. J Milburn (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2010 at 20:05:36 (UTC)

Reason

Highest quality representation of the Nazi flag.

Articles in which this image appears

Nazi Germany, Flag of Germany, Swastika to name a few.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Other

Creator

Real life creator unknown, uploaded by Benutzer:Kookaburra

• Support as nominator --☭FryPod 20:05, 5 August 2017(UTC)
• Speedy Close Strong Oppose Content ban user from FPC imho. — raekyT 20:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nothing special. I imagine this was nominated solely to be provocative. Kaldari (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Speedy Close JFitch (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 1) too provocative, 2) and absurdly simple-to-generate graphic. Granted, it certainly is “eye-catching”. But catching eyes by being provocative (via loud, booming radios in cars, purple mohawk hairdos, or swastikas) is un-encyclopedic. More to the point of what FP pictures are supposed to accomplish: there is no reason, IMO, for our I.P. readership to click on this image to see the enlargement since one just sees larger fields of red, white, and black with nice sharp borders between the elements. The subject of “Nazi Germany” might be best treated as a Featured Article. But there is nothing about this graphic that makes it amongst our better, higher-quality images; not by any stretch. It therefore lacks “stop, stare, and click”. Substituting that with “be startled, blink, move on because it’s a simple graphic” isn’t a desirable substitute. Greg L (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Because its a flag. Provocative doesn't exclude an image from FP though and saying we should content ban someone for this is just silly, imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator (“FryPod” with a hammer & sickle prefix) decribes him or herself this way: “I am a proud member of the Communist Party USA and user of Ubuntu”. Well, isn’t that just *extra* special? I suspect the editor just enjoys making waves. That’s my suspicion or belief.^(disclaimer) And, indeed, we don’t ban editors over this sort of thing—doing so would just add to the entertainment value of this. I strongly suggest we just ignore this entry from hereon and get about our regularly scheduled business.Greg L (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, no less controversial than a flag-waving Jingoist's page IMO. It's just that communism is a little less in fashion at the moment. ;-) (no, I'm not implying that's you, just to head that off at the pass) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we all have a pretty good idea what the nominator was likely up to here. Greg L (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I retract what I said. This editor had nothing but good-faith intentions. Clearly. Greg L (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't matter what the nominator's intentions actually are, reaction should be per WP:AGF. I'd call the flag provocative but the nomination really doesn't appear to be malicious. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2010 at 02:59:31 (UTC)

Reason

This is a high EV image.

Articles in which this image appears

List of Chicago Landmarks
Chicago Board of Trade Building
Chicago Board of Trade
Chicago
CME Group
National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Daniel Schwen (User:Dschwen)

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks a bunch for the nomination, but This is actually a small crop from a three segment exposure-blended panorama of the entire building. I uploaded it because I was not quite happy yet with the full image, and wanted to provide a replacement for the super tiny gif that was used in its place. I'll upload the full image soon, but I fear it won't be quite up to the FPC bar either (and this crop does not have a snowball's chance in my opinion). --Dschwen 03:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nice picture, Dschwen. Fine work. And I think you are correct; a crop of the top of the building has less EV. Personally, I’m tending lately to place increasing emphasis on whether a picture is “eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.” Our FP criteria isn’t *and* EV; it can be one or the other. Even with that in mind, this picture might be a little weak on the “eye-catching” bit because it lacks color and is a fragment of a building. Clearly good work though. Greg L (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had pondered a straight to VPC nomination of this, but figured I would give it a shot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Oppose per Dschwen - I will look forward to the full version though as it has potential in my eyes, just not when it's just part of the building... Gazhiley (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Noise around the top of the pictire is overwhelming. The fact that it's a crop of a building where a full shot/panoramic is easily possible is another negative. As the creator himself states this hasn't got a chance. JFitch (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close per Dschwen. — raekyT 14:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2010 at 09:34:07 (UTC)

Reason

Very rare image, used on many different languages Wikipedias, good quality, FP on Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Fog bow

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Atmospheric optics

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Fixed your title - it just read "a name for your nomination"... Haven't made a decision yet though... Gazhiley (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It's a very pretty picture, but I'm not sure I like the shadow on the photographer. Is that unavoidable? J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do not like my shadow!!! Come on you did not mean it, did you? ☺☺ Yes, it is absolutely unavoidable in that situation (complete bow), and it is said so in the caption: "The shadow of photographer is always located at the anti-solar point and the center of the bow." As a matter of fact, when the image was displayed at NASA site, I got an email. Somebody advised me to jump next time while taking the image, that the fogbow would not be broken by my shadow ☺ except I doubt there would be next time. I do see many fogbows, but it was the only one that was complete, and it lasted only few minutes. When fogbows ate located further away from a photographer then the shadow gets smaller, or even is not seen at the image, but those fogbows are never complete. Here's one more example: File:Fogbow spectre at the bay.jpg My shadow is smaller, but it still there exactly in the middle of the bow, and inside Solar glory. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Thank you, George.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. Interesting to note: several elements of this photo would lead me to oppose in most situations. It's not very sharp: well it is shot in the fog, which is a must for shooting this phenomenon. Strong fisheye distortion: a must for shooting a 360 degree fogbow. I'd also like to say that the background for the fogbow is nice: it provides some context for the image, but it is not overly distracting from the subject. Good work. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting image, made me want to read more --Muhammad(talk) 02:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mbz1 should get Pulitzer Prize for her fantastic images. Broccoli (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very striking. — raekyT 15:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice, good representation of the phenomenon. Do we already one of these featured, or did none of the others ever get through (sorry, I'm too lazy to check atm)? Question for Mila - just wondering, but would moving across say 5ft to the left have allowed you to centre the fogbow on that little hillock, and avoid having it cutoff, or would that not have worked for some reason? --jjron (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]