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

Royal Jordanian Falcons

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2011 at 11:29:20 (UTC)

Reason

Here, have a few Extras. :) It's a high quality, rather large (5MPx+) photo of the team while performing one of their display manoeuvres. This is also the only picture of the RJF in full formation available on Commons. As a side note: while it is true, what the article says, that the RJF have five planes, they have displays in formations of four, the fifth being for backup only.

Articles in which this image appears

Royal Jordanian Falcons

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

Łukasz Golowanow

• Support as nominator --(air)Wolf (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. EV (appears in one stub). TCO (reviews needed) 18:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the quality of the article in which the image appears is one of the criteria. The article may get better in time or perhaps there isn't that much to say about it. In either case the image has more value relative to EV for the subject rather than less. I would object, strongly, if the article was created solely as a container to place the image, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.--RDBury (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think implicitly if one DOES think that being in 10 high profile articles is good. Then the opposite is bad. In any case, I'm NOT asking anyone else to vote how I do. I just present my take. We all value EV versus technical skill differently. I am heavy on the EV and light on skill. We have lots that are the opposite. All for the good of Wiki. One team, one fight. Peace...bra! TCO (reviews needed) 19:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've added a few things to the article, I can give you my word: at the moment there is really not much more to say on the subject. :) The RJF are simply not as high-profile as the Red Arrows or Frecce Tricolori... (air)Wolf (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is completely my point. I just struck it since you are such a nice guy. In my evil heart though...TCO (reviews needed) 19:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This photo does the job of illustrating the subject, but I have difficulty with saying that it meets the FP requirement of being among Wikipedia's best work. The photo seems unremarkable to me. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 02:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress Main Reading Room

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2011 at 19:00:36 (UTC)

Reason

This is a beautiful, high-rez photo of the interior of the Main Reading Room at the Library of Congress, taken off hours, under what is almost perfect lighting. Not only a great photo, but a photo of a location where no photos are allowed (this is the best we had until I upload the nominated image). Frankly, I think this image speaks for itself.

Articles in which this image appears

Library of Congress, Thomas Jefferson Building

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors

Creator

Carol M. Highsmith (from the Carol M. Highsmith Collection at the Library of Congress)

• Support as nominator --upstateNYer 19:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've been there.TCO (reviews needed) 19:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that's a valid argument ;) --Elekhh (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very nice.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  21:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support quality not perfect, but overall a nice wide-angle photo --kaʁstn 22:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I think libraries are best represented by their reading rooms, and this image gives a nice overview. So I moved it to the infobox where I think it does a better job than at the bottom of the page. It would be much better if there were at least few people in the image as well. I am a bit put off by the so-so quality at full size: lack of sharpness and chromatic aberrations all over the image. Also the full perspective correction did result in strong distortions at the edges. For comparison this I find better. --Elekhh (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted. I will point out, though, that the field of view of your example is markedly less than the image given, but still shows notable distortion due to correction. I think holding against the photo the lack of people is not fair because getting this room empty, as it appears sans humans, is a notable occurrence; appreciate the pure beauty of the bare architecture. Lack of sharpness and chromatic aberrations would be fixed if I reduced image size to have a 1000 px side size. You'd see no evidence of it. However, the image is 6,100 x 4,100 px; appreciate this because you'll most likely never see a similar quality image free to use for all for the rest of eternity. Your standards seem a tad high. :) upstateNYer 04:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't say I will never see a better image :) but you persuaded me with your last sentence. Change to weak support. --Elekhh (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this is beautiful (definitely has wow! factor), makes the reader want to know more, and has enc. value. It does get a little fuzzy when you zoom in a lot, but it's not noticeable at any reasonable size. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support agree with Puchiko and Carschten. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 02:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, time we got a cross-pond counterpart to this (Although I would like it even more if they had somehow gotten the same angle used in All the President's Men). Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Big wow for me. Too bad the right arcades aren't lit like the left ones, and author could have fixed the CA as well. - Blieusong (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good. Meets the 8 requirements. It’s excellent to see the statues of Beethoven and Herodotus next to each other! TehGrauniad (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Awe-inspiring and beautifully taken. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 00:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Absolutely fantastic. But is it just me or are the horizontals tilted a little to the right? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:LOC Main Reading Room Highsmith.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gopher tortoise

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2011 at 21:47:56 (UTC)

Reason

Appealing shot of a species iconic in the U.S. Southeast. Taken by a professional. (Note: picture failed to get a Commons FP because of lighting.)

Articles in which this image appears

Gopherus, Gopher tortoise, U.S. state reptiles (an FL), List of Georgia state symbols, List of Florida state symbols

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Tomfriedel

• Support as nominator --TCO (reviews needed) 21:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose adequate illustration of the subject, but the back of the image is blurry. I'd prefer an image with everything in focus to an image with part of the main subject out of focus. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 03:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. While a decent image and suitable for what it does, it is dark, has an odd crop and somewhat uninspiring. J Milburn (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would you prefer the crop? --TCO (reviews needed) 10:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Crop is less than ideal: it should have more space in the front. But the major weakness is the unnatural flash lighting. --Elekhh (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanation. I don't mind not getting the gold star, especially on one like this from someone else, but I like to learn something. Do you mean the bottom or the left of picture when you say "front"? (I personally like a pretty tight crop as the thing is used for identification, but OK, also.) Also for use in articles, I tend to favor "short" aspect picture cropping as they work much better in text wrap than tall ones. For the lighting, can you describe more (just so I learn?)TCO (reviews needed) 12:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Front means in front of the subject, i.e. left of the image. When we look at the subject we imagine it is moving (yes, even a turtle), and it feels squeezed when is little space in front. That it is positioned downwards also feels "negative". Furthermore, the flash light of the camera is harsh and cold, creates an unnatural feel in contrast with the background. --Elekhh (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks.TCO (reviews needed) 14:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lead room JJ Harrison (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The lighting is a relatively minor issue compared to the very narrow depth of field; not enough of the creature is in focus IMHO. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuberculosis poster

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2011 at 01:22:52 (UTC)

Reason

High quality scan, gently restored. Good EV. I replaced a lower quality and less useful image at Tuberculosis a couple days ago.

Articles in which this image appears

Tuberculosis

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Federal Art Project, restored by Jujutacular

• Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^talk 01:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh I find that one confusing. Not sure what all the yellow is doing. I find the debonair fellow with the spit rag more useful for public health education. [1]. TCO (reviews needed) 01:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded on the caption here and in the article. Hopefully this addresses your concern. Jujutacular ^talk 02:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • MUCH BETTER with caption explanation. I'm sorry, but I still have to oppose. Going to force myself to vote up or down. I just think the peice is too abstract to even be a good public health poster. I can't tell if those are grapes or bacteria in the cluster of yellow stuff.TCO (reviews needed) 12:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support interesting for historical reasons. Good quality scan. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 03:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm having a hard time seeing how this has better EV than the image it replaced. The article talk about anti-spitting campaigns but there is nothing about a getting proper sleep campaign. The previous image was perhaps not FP quality but I don't see replacing it as an improvement. I'm including the old image for comparison.--RDBury (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The anti-spit picture came out because of a (now proved wrong) concern about the rights. I think most article writers would prefer the more clearly understood picture than the cryptic sleeping-eating one. I see it going back into the article, to be honest.TCO (reviews needed) 14:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about this one? Not that I have loads of time for restoration these days... Jujutacular ^talk 15:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better than the cryptic yellow sun one. Because it is clear, the message. That said, as an article guy, ignoring any need for you to have an FP home for your pic, I would still choose the spitter just to optimize the article. The baby is a bit too cutesy.TCO (reviews needed) 16:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Art Project just has one poster at the moment, so perhaps the "Rules of Health" could go there. The archive linked above has dozens of examples of WPA art which I presume is public domain, so I'm thinking a gallery might be in order.--RDBury (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one image at Federal Art Project is enough at the moment, in my opinion. Adding another (or multiple) would be over-illustrated, given the length of the article. TCO: I'm only concerned with providing the best illustration for the article. Given that the poster of the fellow with the spit rag is not up to snuff in terms of quality, I thought it might be possible to get a better illustration that was worthy of FP. It's fine with me if your opinion is otherwise. Jujutacular ^talk 20:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in that in terms of graphic design, color, quality of scan, etc, the WPA image is better, I'm just missing the EV. I'm just trying to think of better ways to use the image. Using too many posters at Federal Art Project might be misleading because the project did much more than that. But that archive is like a treasure trove of free stuff, it would be nice to find ways of using it.--RDBury (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose. It's a great scan, but the original poster isn't very compelling. It seems quite jumbled and confusing, IMO. My first impression was that it was a picture of a woman passed out from drinking and taking lots of pills :) Kaldari (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Abbas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2011 at 10:10:41 (UTC)

Reason

A high resolution, very good quality, freely licensed photograph of Kamal Abbas, arguably one of the most important figures of the Egyptian labor movement and a prominent labor rights activist during Hosni Mubarak's reign.

Articles in which this image appears

Kamal Abbas

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Hossam el-Hamalawy

• Support as nominator --Sherif9282 (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. An appealing photo of an appealing subject. I have a little TCO notability concern (I also worry a bit when I see Wiki being used for long articles on Middle East or Indian figures...just worry a bit about promotion, even though I sympathize with liberalism in the ME.) The black and white actually works pretty well in making the thing arty, but I wonder if it is legit in this day and age? Does make one wonder if the photo was from earlier in time (although I agree caption gives date). Also wonder about the eyes behind the eyeglasses. I guess this is how he looks irl though...just not sure.TCO (reviews needed) 12:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand you concerns about promoting figures that might not be notable but I assure you, this is not the case here. Kamal has been an activist since the late 80's and he is very well-known within the labour movement in general and in Egypt especially. I hope that you read his article to know more about his life and his role :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. Interesting guy. And nice expression. Weak from the glasses.TCO (reviews needed) 15:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A high quality photo. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support The rule of thumb is that in portraits BW is used instead of colour to emphasise the facial expression, the emotions or total lack of those. For this reason I approve of the BW (note that in 1:1 you can see the most minute details of his skin). However, what I dislike is the reflections in the glasses. (air)Wolf (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record I would like to add I will oppose the colour version. Not because it's in colour, but because of the elbow next to KA's cheek. (air)Wolf (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Brilliant artistic expression using depth of field with clear intention to tell a story. The foreground is in sharp focus and draws attention to the emotion on the person's face – which hints at tired wisdom, a playful hint of a smile, the willingness to persevere. (I don't think I'm reading too much into this, since any wise person with wrinkles usually has this look, but here it was captured so well in a flash of the moment.) The depth of field is also used to blur the people in the background – which can represent a fast pace of events, or perhaps something less significant, or maybe something very significant, but moving too fast for comprehension – we don't know, and the photographer deliberately leaves this vagueness up for interpretation. There is no middle ground (only foreground and background) which can represent that there is literally no middle ground and no room for negotiation. In order to exist in the photograph, as in real life, the subject had to make a conscious choice about where to be – in one of two planes, foreground or background. At this moment, he is in the foreground and is in focus, but in a second, he can step back and disappear into the blurred background, into the crowd, into the fast pace of life and out of the frame. Love it! USchick (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say there are three planes. 1. Abbas. 2. The men directly behind him, whose faces are distinguishable. 3. The people in the more distant background, who are completely anonymous. (air)Wolf (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could argue this point, but I'm not going to, because the image speaks for itself. USchick (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I work in this subject area and wrote much of this article. I think the photograph is candid, vivid, engaging and generally an excellent portrait of a man. In captures his sincerity as well as his position relative to the crowd. The only flaw I see is in the glare from the glasses, but I'm not sure that is that much of a defect considering it really shows a social activist outside, in his element, among people and controversy. That's who Abbas is, and this photograph captures it quite well. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Agree with above. Essam Sharaf (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, strongly prefer B&W version Good photo, the subject's mouth in the color version looks strange to me. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 05:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the image is ceratainly well done, esp. in B&W, but im not acquainted with the technical requirements. otherwise i would support it and as one of current notability where available pics of the icons of the arab spring are hard to come by in good quality.Lihaas (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to comment on the quality of this image if I may, File:CharltonHestonCivilRightsMarch1963Retouched.jpg. It's way too dark with no detail at all in the jacket or tie. The intricate tie pin is completely lost. It's also very grainy. It looks like it was scanned in low res and then bumped up in Photoshop, which blew out any detail it originally had. This is very obvious if you look at the flutes in the column. It looks like they ran the despeckle filter too many times. I like the composition though. Compare the detail in both photos, especially the stitching in the collar of Abbas, you can count the threads. USchick (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - fine, engaging portrait. Background doesn't bother me in the least. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great photo all around, I prefer the grayscale look (if that's the right phrase). This picture's a nice example of Hossam al-Hamalawi's work. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Cluttered background, unnecessary black and white. I would be tempted to support if we had the image in colour. I think it's a little worrying how much of this FPC has been talking about the subject himself and how we feel about him- we're here to judge the picture, and its role within the article. I can't help but compare this picture with File:CharltonHestonCivilRightsMarch1963Retouched.jpg (which is greyscale as it was taken in the early '60s) and I think it's very clear which image is stronger. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milburn, this photo was shot in B&W by the photographer; i.e.: there's no color alternative. I'm baffled as to why everyone's considering the B&W nature of the photo in terms of age. If you take a look at the photostream I provided above, from where this picture was taken, you'll see the photographer (Hossam el-Hamalawy) frequently uses B&W in his photography. I believe the greater degree of contrast really enhances the subject in B&W photo, and I think that's the reason behind him shooting in B&W, rather than an attempt at conveying a false appearance of 'age' or 'nostalgia'. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that I believed that the image existed in colour, I said I don't see why we should have it in black and white. If we're presenting this as a photograph of the subject, the artistry has to come second to the encyclopedic value. Unless this person actually exists in a greyscale world, I'm not convinced. J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The colour version is available, and I really wonder if we should be promoting a black and white conversion in that case. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the color! That said, Flickr has it as NC. Probably need a donation, unless it is in Commons and verified OK at some time. Raises questions about what we have here also (if derivative, etc.) Just something to check.TCO (reviews needed) 22:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The color version is actually a different one. The background is different and Kamal looks as if he was about to say something, which makes me think it doesn't count as a very good portrait, not as good as this one. Judging by the photostream on Flickr, there's only one version of this photograph, and it's in BW. There's also no need to worry about licensing; the original photo here had been uploaded under a different license, but was changed to a suitable one at our (Wikipedia's) request. Check for yourselves. If you've any further inquiries regarding the license, I'm sure I could get Ocassi or The Egyptian Liberal to help answer. --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they are slightly different. Chances are we could get the author to release the colour one of this is it really makes a difference. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose While I do like the photo, I do not like photos that are unnecessarily black and white. This is a photo taken in 2010, I believe it is misleading to the viewer to artificially b/w it. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 23:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking "weak", J Milburn's argument is quite convincing. We're not here to convey emotions, or show wisdom, or to portray a person in a certain light: such things would be unnecessarily POV. If the subject shows it, that's great, but putting it in B/W to intentionally convey those things isn't right by me.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Can't support when colour is most probably available. This isn't about creating a "nice look", EV comes first. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask The Egyptian Liberal. He knows Hossam el-Hamalawy personally and can definitively confirm whether a color version of this photo does or doesn't exist. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is likely - this looks like a BW conversion with a tool like (this) rather than an in camera one to me. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about the B&W objection: I have talked to Hossam and he looked everywhere to see if he has a color version of this image but he couldn't find one. This this only version he has of this photo. He took it in black and white (If you look at this work, he mostly takes B&W photos, rarely colored ones). As for this image, its not same one, as you can see the mouth is a bit more open in it. Hossam has been kind kind to release some of his images so we can use them on wikipedia (even though his photos are his main income) that we wont be able to find under a free license anywhere else. As for the historical misleading issue that the B&W version might lead to, I dont think it will happen; This is picture of Golda Meir in B&W even though colored photos existed in her time. The reason Hossam takes a lot of his photos in B&W is because he feels it capture the subject much better and it shows more soul then the colored ones but that's his POV as an artist (Photography is a form of art). Some artists like to use colors while others like to draw with a pencil but they are beautiful in their own way :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fair enough, but we're not evaluating thus image as art. We're not here to be art critics. J Milburn (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, we are not art critics but we have a criteria to evaluate the image and I believe the image fits the criteria. If you dont believe so Please tell where do you think it fails. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You keep pointing out that this picture was created in greyscale, and that the artist frequently uses greyscale. That's fine, but it's not really important here. The fact it was created like this does not change the fact that a colour picture would be more appropriate, and we're not here to judge the artistry of the image, or how typical it is of the artist- we're judging this picture as an aid to understanding the article on the subject, not as a work of photographic art. J Milburn (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I still prefer the author's colour one in the EV stakes. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but I fail to understand how a color picture 'better aids' or is more appropriate in helping understand an article on the subject. I further fail to understand how your objections relate in anyway to the criteria on Featured Pictures, could you point out the relevant criteria you are relying on in your objections? --Sherif9282 (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I would also like to point out that Ocaasi tried and so did I to try to get the colored version to be released under a free license but it didnt happen so we can pnly judge this picture, anyone who likes the colored one more should talk to Hossam and see if he can succsed where we failed and then he can nominate it the colored one. We judge the picture by criteria only. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, this is getting silly. You "judge the picture by criteria only", but try to argue that, because we have no coloured picture, we should be more willing to promote this one? No where in the criteria does it say that we must make do with the best we've got in terms of FPs- if a picture isn't good enough, we just won't promote, whether or not we have something better. At no point have I said "this one shouldn't be promoted, instead, that one should be"- I have only spoken about a hypothetical coloured image. It's perfectly reasonable for me to oppose this one, whether or not we have a coloured one- the way you're writing, it's like you don't understand that. And Sherif, my objections are tied very closely to the featured picture criteria, which specify the importance of encyclopedic value (this person does not actually live in a greyscale world, and so this is not a fair representation) and accuracy (as has been repeatedly said, the greyscale gives the false impression of age). Would we be supporting an image where the colour had been manipulated to give everything a blue tint? Of course we wouldn't, and so it seems weird to me that we're supporting this one. J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough then. I indeed did not understand the relation between your objection and the FP criteria. I suppose it's a matter of different viewpoints (you relating B&W to age, me relating B&W to an artistic style). But I'd like to stress that the photo was taken in B&W not in color, i.e.: there was no manipulation. Just saying. --Sherif9282 (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Milburn. The criteria exist for a reason, we should evaluate based upon them. Cowtowner (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good photo. —Terrence and Phillip 03:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don’t dislike black-and-white, and of course it can be very effective for portraiture. However, this photo is supposed to support an encyclopaedia article: having an image in greyscale gives a false impression of age. If possible I think the picture in the article should be replaced with a colour one.

Also I have a question: to the untrained eye this photo (and perhaps the colour one that is mentioned above) have areas of total black, such as the eyebrows, under the nose and in the hair. Is this a case of ‘blown-highlights’? TehGrauniad (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closely related phenomenon often known as 'crushed shadows' or 'crushed blacks' (see here). 'Blown highlights' refers to overexposure, clipping the whites. These things may or may not be an issue, depending on the purpose of the photo, the expected detail, etc. --jjron (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there TehGraunied! Do have a read of mine and The Egyptian Liberal's replies above. No color version exists of this photo as it was taken in B&W (i.e., it has not been subject to editing). The photographer in question frequently uses B&W not to convey a false sense of age but because the stark contrast enhances the subject's presence in the picture. I'm not sure if the picture has blown-out highlights although I don't think this is the case here. --Sherif9282 (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No consensus. Makeemlighter (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photomontage

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2011 at 16:37:51 (UTC)

Reason

A photomontage made by compositing 16 freely licensed images, IMO this is one of the best photomontages available and have very high value. (see Photomontages in Commons)
Although according to FP criterion #8, digital manipulation is discouraged, but this is a fictional art work and fits very well in artworks category, this work should not be mistaken with a real landscape and criterion #8 doesn't makes it's EV any less.

Articles in which this image appears

Photomontage, Photo manipulation, Image editing, Photoshop contest

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Artwork/Others, Photographic techniques

Creator

Mmxx

• Support as nominator --  ■ MMXX  ^talk  16:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Is featured prominently in article and seems integrated with text (and is a good illustration of the concept). In terms of photomontage art, I don't know enough to judge it. Not really my sort of thing...although I liked this one a bit better than the others on the page. Do think these sort of detailed images do better as a painting to stand in front of, rather than on computer. Certainly a substantial work went into the creation (kudos). I'm supporting because we need one photo like this in the FP grab bag and the fellow did so much work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 18:14, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
  • switching to neutral. I totally heart that we should have one of these images and the work in making it and love the Earth rising and all. Just feel like this thing is too unrealistic.TCO (reviews needed) 10:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a photomontage, a photoshopped work, it's meant to be unrealistic! that's why it have high EV and it's useful for photo manipulation articles...   ■ MMXX  ^talk  11:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I heard that. And please don't jump through hoops for my vote. Follow your artistic instincts and let the chips fall as they do. My only point is...sure it is unrealistic...but I just think to give the reader credit via some subtlety. Not obonk him over the head with "it is wrong". I think it's even more powerful artistically if it looks more real. to the exten that this succeeds as art it is because it sorta looks real...but then wrong also. That is cool and disturbing. I'm actually basically an oppose (I like to force myself to vote one way or the other)...but am just doing neutral since you are such a nice guy, busted your ASS to make this thing, and I don't want to discourage you!TCO (reviews needed) 12:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If I was going to support a photomontage for being a photomontage, I'd want it to look real. This one just doesn't- even though, obviously, we know that this has come from a number of different photos, it isn't believable. I don't feel like I'm looking at some strange fantastic landscape, I feel I am looking at a photoshop. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is easy to remove some parts and add some other images to make it look more real, although it might have higher value as a photomontage, but IMO that would not be useful for Wikipedia articles, this image is only useful in image editing related articles, like photoshop contest, I believe viewer should be able to understand that this is a fictional and manipulated work in one sight. I could only add the mountains, the boat and maybe Mont Saint-Michel and make it more close to a real landscape but then it had less EV in image editing related articles, but now, viewer knows that this is a fictional work in first sight by seeing things somewhere that they don't belong to, like the Earth   ■ MMXX  ^talk  03:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely, a photomontage is a "better" photomontage if it looks real? J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • IMO not always, it depends what are your goals and why are you making it, do you want to make a photomontage to illustrate image editing, photoshopping...? or do you want to deceive the viewer (like this)? do you want to make a fictional art work? or does it have to look real and follow some ethical and legal codes? yet, I do agree that fictional art works are better if they look real as much as possible, but being unbelievable is not a bad thing for fictional works.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  12:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm also kind of on J Milburn's side. I'm not saying I could do any better, but there are heaps of giveaways that this is photoshopped, like different resolution of individual photos. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to even the image as much as possible, please let me know where do you think should be fixed, thank you.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  16:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that something we can see by the eye? Or some techie photo thing you see in photoshop? I think we need one weird futuristic image to balance out all the birds and mushrooms and tablefruit.TCO (reviews needed) 16:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I uploaded a new version, please let me know what do you feel when you look at it, is focus on different objects similar with it's surrounding area?   ■ MMXX  ^talk  19:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The castle beside the Sydney opera house seems to be much sharper than everything else in the picture. Unfortunately, I'll be without internet for the next week or so, so I guess it doesn't really pay to change this just for me... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • How is it now?   ■ MMXX  ^talk  21:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, OK, you've got my support now. Good stuff. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've added annotations to the file linking to original images, they make the work more understandable.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The problems I raised in the PPR last year appear to be fixed and I can't spot any (substantial) new ones. I agree that this should be obviously fake, thus making it clear that the image was shooped. MER-C 13:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I reviewed the image at PPR (link) last year. It has definitely improved, but I'm still not sure about it. I feel like I've looked at it too much to really be able to judge it well anymore. I will say I don't like the Earth image used, it's the element that looks most unreal to me. Something about the colors. Jujutacular ^talk 17:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know, the Earth is the most odd thing in the image, I tried it without the Earth too, but IMO somehow it makes the work more interesting, especially that it seems the person on the boat is looking at the earthrise when looking at the image, I wish people could experience similar amazement feeling that Frank Borman felt when they were taking a picture of earthrise, I'll try to change the Earth with another image with more real colors.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  18:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I love the Earth. Some of the other stuff (statue of Liberty) seems gimmicky. But the planetrise is cool.TCO (reviews needed) 18:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't do anything about the Statue of Liberty other than replacing it by something else, the Statue of Liberty is needed here and I don't think that's a good idea to change or remove it. I've made another version, using the Blue Marble which is closer to real colors.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  19:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Much better with the Earth image replaced, imo. I'm liking it. Jujutacular ^talk 19:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit I think it should be an obvious photomontage, because that shows the reader, in a picture, what a photomontage is (pictures montaged together). What I find great is the reflections of the objects in the water. The other "earth" is far more aesthetically pleasing. And it's always interesting to have something other than a regular photograph-such as an animation, illustration, or this-on the main page. Puchiko (Talk-email) 08:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think what's wrong with it is that it only illustrates the technique, but not the purpose (i.e. reconstruction, simulation, art). Thus EV is not sufficient IMO. --Elekhh (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you please explain more about your comment? and your meaning of the purpose (i.e. reconstruction, simulation, art)? do you prefer a side-by-side work like this or this one as FP?
    IMO to a normal viewer who doesn't have any knowledge of working with image editing programs, this photomontage is an art, and it does illustrate it's purpose to them very well, the purpose of showing what can be done in image editing programs, showing to what extent and how, one can manipulate the images and the concept of photomontage.
    Please let me know what kind of manipulated/photoshopped art work will get your support for FP, thank you.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  15:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I mean is that photomontage is a technique which is used for a purpose. This image is not demonstrating any purpose, so it has lower EV than any which would. Photomontages can have different purposes, for instance to demonstrate how a proposed building would look like in the cityscape (simulation: example, another example and another example), to illustrate something otherwise not visible (reconstruction), or simply for art. --Elekhh (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, in your opinion this work doesn't simulate anything? for example a fictional landscape in Bavaria? or it is not an art?!   ■ MMXX  ^talk  12:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The suggested attribution violates the terms of the CC licenses for the other photos, which require attribution. A reuser needs to credit all authors, not just MMXX. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed the attribution method, now, the suggested attribution requires users to link to the original source where name of other authors can be found.
    I must add that I don't see any specific terms in CC BY-SA 3.0 license to force users of derivative works to list all the author(s) of the works which the main work is based on them, a work may be derivative work of many other works, and asking users to list and attribute all the authors would be a very hard restriction.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  17:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The license says: "If You Distribute ... any Adaptations or Collections, You must ... provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author ... (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; ... and (iv) , consistent with Section 3(b), in the case of an Adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors." I still don't think your suggested attribution is sufficient - I'd just remove it entirely rather than having something inconsistent with the license for others' works. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you think it is acceptable now? or should I remove the attribution suggestion? by the way, I'm glad that this FPC and my photomontage has attracted your attention, I understand that you rarely contribute to FPC thank you for your comments.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  18:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Haha well I used to vote a lot more. Now I'm a constant lurker but vote only if I think a nom is going to go the wrong way. Most things get resolved correctly (IMO at least) without me. :) As I wrote above (in a slightly later edit, so maybe you missed it), I don't think a link to the source page is sufficient attribution. (There is something in the edit box for text contributions that says a link is enough, but as far as I can tell there's no such click-through agreement when you upload.) Since the photographers have specified attribution share-alike they must be attributed by name too. You can either put the standard license and let reusers figure that out at their own peril, or you can put a suggested credit that lists them - but your current suggested credit is still not compliant with the license because it does not name the photographers as required (like I pasted above). Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have removed the suggested attribution for now, until I could think of a better way.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  20:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The reflection of the plane is too sharp and unrippled. Otherwise, I like the improvements since it last came to commons. I think the aim of an educational photomontage should be to show an unnatural arrangement of objects in as realistic manner as possible, so that the reader is both immediately aware of the hoax, but also convinced of its realism. --99of9 (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comment, I've fixed the reflections (alt).   ■ MMXX  ^talk  06:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's better. The plane reflection is also in the wrong place (too far down the image) compared to the reflections of the clouds. --99of9 (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The plane seems to be in the correct distance and location, please see this demo, notice the different between reflections of clouds and the Statue of Liberty and compare it to the plane, because the clouds are in longer distance (depth) and plane is actually between the Statue of Liberty and clouds... what do you think?   ■ MMXX  ^talk  11:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • To me the planes reflection looks like it's only just behind the statue, but a long way in front of the clouds, which doesn't match my guess based on it's visual size. But I admit it's not far off, and I haven't done any calculations to test my estimation. --99of9 (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I like the concept of having a well-executed scene that is obviously shopped. I notice some minor flaws in the cutouts (boat against the water, mountains against the planet), but these are relatively minor. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the boat in alt version.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  18:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support And that goes to either version, because this is an excellent example of the photomontage produced by photo-editing. I don't think the purpose was ever to portray the photomontage as realistic, but rather to show the capabilities of photo-editing. The various pictures fit very well, it's a high quality picture overall. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops. I meant to say Promoted File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama) -2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celosia cristata

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2011 at 06:40:50 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, good capture showing good detail of the unique flower.

Articles in which this image appears

Celosia cristata, Celosia

FP category for this image

Nature

Creator

Anupam

• Support as nominator --Hariya1234 (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Subject is OOF, nothing special...   ■ MMXX  ^talk  12:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with Mmxx, subject is OOF. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 21:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose It’s a very good photo, it catches the weaves and folds of the plant’s head beautifully and is very well placed in the article. I think it comes very close to FP credibility: however, some of the plant’s head (particularly to the right) is out-of-focus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TehGrauniad (talk • contribs) 00:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment' Thanks a lot for feedback guys, I think I'll have to re-click! Hariya1234 (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariya1234 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (not to be negative...you do way more than I do.) FYI, I actually like that pic stuck down in gallery better for EV and even as a picture.TCO (reviews needed) 05:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment' In that case, the original image should be re-instated. Hariya1234 (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant I liked this pic [2] better. Now squashed down into gallery at the very bottom, it is the shot that tells me what the plant actually looks like a bit more. Should be up in the article somewhere, even if you use a "head shot" for the lead. I'm kind of down on our tight cropped bloom pictures. It would be one thing if they accompanied decent plant pics, but I really think they are leading to an attitude of pretty snapshot over EV illusttration or even thinking the plant is the flower.TCO (reviews needed) 14:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White-breasted Woodswallow

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2011 at 10:36:05 (UTC)

Reason

Nice image of this species

Articles in which this image appears

White-breasted Woodswallow

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, I don't think this is the most encyclopedic pose for a species named for the colour of it's breast. In fact, I think the previous taxobox image was probably better in the taxobox. --99of9 (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got one of the front, but I think the tail is missing. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Glad it wasn't called the red ass bird. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Fully agree with 99of9. --Elekhh (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agreeing with 99of9 and Elkhh. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 09:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the pose is really good, there’ll always be a compromise with pose as you can’t see the whole of the animal in one photo. Just because it's called a white-breasted whatever doesn't mean that I want to see only a picture of it's breast. There is a shallow depth of field (if that’s what it’s called), but I think it meets the 8 criteria. TehGrauniad (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per 99of9. It's a great picture though -- I'd probably support it if the article were longer and it wasn't in the taxobox. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Have to agree with the consensus from 99of9. It's a stunning image visually but just a shame it's not from the front otherwise I'd support 100%. Regards, Fallschirmjäger ✉ 18:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azure Kingfisher

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2011 at 10:41:33 (UTC)

Reason

Yeah, the depth of field is a bit thin, but that is because it is a very small bird, and the photo was taken in technically challenging conditions (1/20th, 700mm, iso 1600 wide open!). The important part is in focus, and you can still see the plumage clearly. One of my favorite birds I think. I spent quite a long time in a hide to get it.

Articles in which this image appears

Azure Kingfisher

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree these guys are hard to get close to. Nice. It's amazing you can get an iso1600 to look so good! --99of9 (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good posture, nice image. --Elekhh (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the blur is not bad and if getting any better is near-impossible then this works for me. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 09:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support   ■ MMXX  ^talk  09:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Having just done some bird photography, I must say this is quite an achievement --Muhammad(talk) 18:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Amazing. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 11:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support superb photo, comfortably meets the 8 criteria.TehGrauniad (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Alcedo azurea - Julatten.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mangrove Robin

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2011 at 10:37:49 (UTC)

Reason

A pleasing photo taken in pretty dark conditions.

Articles in which this image appears

Mangrove Robin

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The bird looks great. Possibly spoiled by the bright horizontal branch in the backgroud that cuts through the subject. --99of9 (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmxx did an edit which I've attached. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support edit Ok, that looks like good editing work to me. --99of9 (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not crazy about the area near where the stick was removed. Prefer the original. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support that branch is a problem in an otherwise nice photo. I prefer the edit but would also vote weak support on the original. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to full support. Getting rid of the branch is nice but it's not required for establishing EV or a good view of the subject, and generally I prefer unedited photos for their authenticity. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 21:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support prefer original --Muhammad(talk) 18:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both. Prefer original. I don't mind seeing the context that the bird is in, if it's in a tree then I would expect to see twigs and branches. Meets the 8 criteria. TehGrauniad (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- either is fine. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I agree with 99of9, the bright branch distracts the attention from the main subject.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  14:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, prefer original. Branch is not all that distracting to me, would rather leave untouched in that case. Jujutacular ^talk 17:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Peneoenanthe pulverulenta - Cairns Esplanade.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frecce Tricolori

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2011 at 10:27:29 (UTC)

Reason

I think this is a great pic for a number of reasons. The image has strong EV as the lead- it shows all ten aircraft, and they're even popping some fairly signature plumes- the Italian flag, when they themselves are part of the Italian airforce. The composition is great, the forboding sky is a nice touch, and while the quality isn't mindblowing, I think it's good enough.

Articles in which this image appears

Frecce Tricolori

FP category for this image

Vehincles/Air

Creator

Łukasz Golowanow, Konflikty.pl

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice image and good EV.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  10:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support agree with J Milburn. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 05:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you for the nomination. I would also like to add (perhaps someone will incorporate this piece of information into the caption, as I believe it might be valuable) that during each display the team make only one or two passes in full formation, at the very beginning. Afterwards the solo splits away, and all subsequent stunts are performed either by the solo, or by the formation of 9, as evidenced here. (air)Wolf (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per everyone. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops didn't see it was old. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Frecce Tricolori RIAT 2011.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impalas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2011 at 16:39:02 (UTC)

Reason

We already have two impalas related FPs but this one shows something different. Good quality and very good EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Rut (mammalian reproduction), Impala

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit A good action shot, but a little underexposed in my view (hence the edit). A new telephoto I see? Did you manage to get a Wikimedia CH grant for it? JJ Harrison (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I finally got a good telephoto lens thanks to Wiki CH. Best glass I have held :) --Muhammad(talk) 11:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just out of pure curiosity, may I please ask, what lens is it exactly? (air)Wolf (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Canon EF 100-400mm lens --Muhammad(talk) 18:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indifferent to brightness. Original looks OK to me. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 09:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original - The increased brightness makes the bottom of edit 1 look a bit off. I think the original is clear enough as it is. Anoldtreeok (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original I do not like the increased brightness...it makes the grass look strange. The original looks great to me! -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Uploaded edit 2 which has a gradient mask on edit1 such that the original light of leaves in maintained whilst the rest of the image is slightly brighter. I think this addresses both concerns --Muhammad(talk) 11:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 It looks better.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  14:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Either the original or edit 2 is OK, but I prefer the original. If someone wants the image brighter, they can increase the brightness of their computer monitor. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 08:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - we should make sure it looks right for this standard, which proscribes image brightness. This is because you'd expect viewer devices to center around this standard and so anyone with a calibrated display device and environment would see the same thing. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • JJ, what do you think about edit2? --Muhammad(talk) 02:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No strong feelings vs edit 1 and prefer it over the original. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Fighting impalas edit2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Persian noblemen friendly cha

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2011 at 12:12:04 (UTC)

Reason

good quality and interesting

Articles in which this image appears

Persepolis

FP category for this image

Persepolis

Creator

Alborzagros

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- in terms of sharpness and resolution, the quality is poor. Also the oblique angle detracts from the encyclopedic value of the image. This was added to the Persepolis entry immediately before nomination. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It's a .TIF, not one of the preferred formats. Should probably be converted to .JPG.--RDBury (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Quality and angle are not good, I wish it was from front...   ■ MMXX  ^talk  12:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per everybody above, sorry. Please keep taking photos though, we need fresh perspectives here on WP and at FP. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edo-Tokyo Museum

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2011 at 09:58:56 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of a major landmark in Tokyo. The tight framing helps emphasise the outstanding scale of this unusual building.

Articles in which this image appears

Edo-Tokyo Museum, Kiyonori Kikutake, List of museums in Tokyo

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Wiiii

• Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- I'm afraid that the buildings in the background on the left ruin the picture for me. The resolution could be better too. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support knowing the density of Tokyo, I'd be surprised if someone could get a photo of a building's front without showing other buildings in the background. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 21:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice photo that meets the criteria. Having visited this museum, I an attest that it's a large building on a smallish site, and this is probably the best possible angle. You'd be pretty hard pressed to take a photo of any building in central Tokyo that doesn't have other buildings in the background. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weal Support Yes the resolution could be better but it meets the minimum standards of 1000px. The perspective shows the design of the building well, overall its a good image but it could be better. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 10:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- crop too tight on each side and the bottom. Renata (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure that that actually is a crop - the area from where this photo could have been taken is quite limited (there's a train line just behind it, and a set of stairs to the left) so this looks like the best possible angle. File:Musee edo.jpg illustrates what the photographer was up against here - this photo was probably taken from the top of the stairs. Nick-D (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ticks the boxes for me. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I understand the limitations of the location, but framing and lighting are just not good enough.. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Houston Statue

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2011 at 22:43:30 (UTC)

Reason

Nice composition and framing.

Articles in which this image appears

Sam Houston

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

ChrisEngelsma

• Support as nominator --Chris Engelsma ■ 22:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- this is not up to the usual standard of featured pictures. The resolution is low, and it seems to me that there is quite a strong colour cast to the picture. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sorry. Not to discourage, but I have to agree with NotFromUtrecht. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for lack of EV, unless the article were about the sculpture. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lighting is too harsh, resolution is too low for a reproducible photo, and as Spikebrennan mentions the Encyclopedic Value is low.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 21:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Kindle 3

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2011 at 19:19:34 (UTC)

Reason

High-resolution image of an Amazon Kindle. Good lighting and detail, high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Amazon Kindle, Amazon.com

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics

Creator

NotFromUtrecht

• Support as nominator --NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The right side is too bright in my opinion, and the pic is quite annoying to look at in the end. - Blieusong (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment There is a hair under "Greenland" on the third line, and a few specks of dust around the edges of the screen that should be cloned out. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not a fan of product placement, but that's not why I'm opposing. I'm opposing because there is absolutely no sense of scale in the photo. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm not opposed to these photos per se, I just would want to see something a little more impressive and eyecatching than this one. This just looks like it's been put through a scanner. J Milburn (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The above concerns are valid, but I like the simplicity and straightforwardness of the photo. Technically it is fine, and I like the uneven lighting because it gives shadow and depth to the buttons. Fix the flaws mentioned by JJ and you got yourself a support.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 21:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agreeing with JJ. Also there's something about the brightness of this photo or the white background that seem distracting. It's an adequate photo of high resolution of the subject, but that doesn't make it a featured picture, IMO. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 21:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose It is an excellent photograph. The quality is perfect, the resolution is amazing! There is only one small problem though, its not really a unique picture. It doesn't seem to me that a featured picture should be so common, there are thousands of pictures exactly like this! Dusty777 (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow, I seriously misjudged this one, but thanks for the feedback anyway. Will try to act upon suggested alterations when I have time. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to know what book is being displayed? Is it under copyright or public domain? — raekyt 02:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see it's Moby-Dick... never mind then. ;-) — raekyt 02:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Château de Maintenon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2011 at 08:23:56 (UTC)

Reason

Compelling image, of very good quality , well depicting the subject.

Articles in which this image appears

Château de Maintenon, Maintenon, List of châteaux in the Centre region

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Eric Pouhier

• Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although really all the chateu pictures look featurable. Maybe it is the impressiveness of the subjects or the lower technical issues in shooting a building.TCO (reviews needed) 12:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, classic château pic that is wonderfully taken. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 00:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Really good quality and ev. I am a little disappointed with the image caption in the article of the Chateau itself, though. Spencer^T♦C 00:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one here kicks ass.TCO (reviews needed) 01:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that. Expanded caption in the article. --Elekhh (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Why do I get the feeling that it is leaning to the right? Rmhermen (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very clear photo, good illustration of the subject. No objections. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 05:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, I'm going to fit it somewhere in my photomontage   ■ MMXX  ^talk  12:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:) --Elekhh (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose perspective distortions (@Rmhermen: because of them), strange bottom crop and tight cropped at right, could be larger for a 12 MP camera --kaʁstn 16:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see how's the edited version, I corrected the perspective distortion but the image lost a few pixels.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  17:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perspective distortion is inherent to how we see the world, and fully corrected as in the edit makes the building look wider at the top than normal. In fact making the walls all vertical is a more distorted view than normal. We already had this kind of experiment at File:Chateau de Maintenon v2.jpg and File:Chateau de Maintenon.jpg. I agree the bottom crop is not ideal, but is a minor point IMO. --Elekhh (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I agree, now the right tower seems leaning to the right (before it was leaning to center), I'll upload a new version shortly.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  11:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it now? I applied less correction.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  12:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer the original because the bushes at the bottom of the image are clearer. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 21:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Makeemlighter (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All supports were for original. - Elekhh (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Elekhh. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 04:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Château de Maintenon 2008.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if you guys says so. I was hoping more people would comment on the edit, but it's no big deal. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interior of Holy Trinity Catherdal

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2011 at 20:44:53 (UTC)

Reason

Wikipedia has several featured pictures of Catholic Churches but almost none of Orthodox Churches. This picture is the one of the best ones I have found that depict the interior of an Orthodox Church.

Articles in which this image appears

Holy Trinity Cathedral (Chicago, Illinois)Eastern Orthodox church architecture

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors

Creator

JeremyA

• Support as nominator --Cesar-The-Brave (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done, though perhaps the saturation has been pushed a little much. Shouldn't it be in altar though? JJ Harrison (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Was this scanned from a film version? It seems like there are strange white specks all over the full-resolution version. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 21:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Those light bulbs have a lot of glare. This is a good shot but not a great shot, IMO. Also, this image leans to the right. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 21:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support if the tilt is corrected (needs to go a 1-2 degrees CCW). Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fallschirmjäger ✉ 23:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado School of Mines Engineering Hall

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2011 at 03:07:13 (UTC)

Reason

Interesting angle and vibrant colors.

Articles in which this image appears

Colorado School of Mines, Vance Haynes

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

ChrisEngelsma

• Support as nominator --Chris Engelsma ■ 03:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Any reason not to photograph the building head-on? The tilt is a bit distracting, and the perspective-corrected version is even more weird looking. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason the photo was taken at an oblique angle was due to trees and other impediments to prevent a head-on shot. Chris Engelsma ■ 20:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The 'perspective corrected' version is over-corrected so now the it looks like the top floor is larger than the bottom floor. It appears that the image has been over processed in other ways as well, for example there is considerable color bleeding from sky into the building on the left. Also the boundary between the horizon and the sky on the left has a dark band that looks unnatural. The colors in general seem over saturated, e.g. the windows are blue, and in general the image gives the impression of a B&W image that's been colorized. Even without the technical oddities, the image isn't particularly striking and fails to create an interest in the subject.--RDBury (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I think the windows are blue. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 21:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The building is wider at the top (There is a bit of overhang, the verticals are vertical (or very nearly so, if anything they lean in slightly). I suspect some tone mapping or some other processing has gone on here. If you (ChrisEngelsma) still have the original, then I might be able to produce something better. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per strange perspective, and psychedelic colours! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Bee-eater

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2011 at 11:53:07 (UTC)

Reason

Nice picture of this very colorful species.

Articles in which this image appears

Rainbow Bee-eater

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support   ■ MMXX  ^talk  12:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on par with other FPs of birds. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 21:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: great image of a beautiful bird. Anna ^talk 04:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great composition, focus is excellent, lovely bird to boot. I was concerned about the non-natural environment, but the article does mention that they're found in gardens and such. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great. TehGrauniad (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Merops ornatus - Centenary Lakes.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Unidentified Dragonfly 9332 - Doi Inthanon.jpg

Papuan Frogmouth

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2011 at 12:00:48 (UTC)

Reason

Shows the daytime concealment habit very well.

Articles in which this image appears

Papuan Frogmouth

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Valuable image, nice camouflage.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  12:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support agree about the camouflage. In other pics having that branch in the way might be a problem, but here I think it adds to the appropriate camouflage effect. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 22:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Adorable. J Milburn (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good camouflage --Muhammad(talk) 02:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I might just add that this was taken from a boat. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Were waves bobbing your boat up and down? Extra credit if you did this in a windstorm! Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 08:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A little, the main challenges of boat are the unstable and moving shooting platform. The boat I went on, a dinghy, had quite a few people on it which made it difficult to support my 500mm (not used in this shot) steadily. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very good. TehGrauniad (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Podargus papuensis - Daintree River.jpg --Fallschirmjäger ✉ 14:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Army Veterinarian, helping out tiger cub

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2011 at 18:01:39 (UTC)

Reason

Great contrast between man and wild. It shows the gentle balance between adult and baby. Great color, High resolution

Articles in which this image appears

Baghdad Zoo

FP category for this image

Creator

The U.S. Army; uploaded by User:Flickr upload bot; originally nominated by User:Jimmyeditor in File:Army veterinarians, an ill tiger cub and a zoo in Iraq.jpg (see talk page).

• Support as nominator --Jimmyeditor (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Arm and shoulder on the right, some guy crouching in the background... Not the best composition. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per J Milburn.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  21:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with J Milburn, and I'm not at all convinced that this adds significant EV to the article Baghdad Zoo. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 22:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry I also don't like the composition. There are 5 people in this photo, it would be much better if the 3 unimportant people weren't there. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose An interesting story behind the photo, but the arm in the foreground ruins it for me at least. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fallschirmjäger ✉ 18:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Nevsky Cathedral

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2011 at 04:23:35 (UTC)

Reason

Very encyclopedic picture of Eastern Christian architecture.

Articles in which this image appears

Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Sofia

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

MrPanyGoff

• Support as nominator --Cesar-The-Brave (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is already featured on Commons. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 08:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - one of my favorite buildings ever. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support outstanding quality, big EV.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 18:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I think its underexposed, but an edit could probably fix it. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, disregarding our personal feelings about this building (I'm looking at you, Ser Amantio), this is not a stunning photograph because: the resolution is not stellar, the lighting is dull, and the composition is too cramped at the bottom. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Good photo, it captures those golden domes beautifully, but I think it falls short of the FP bar. I think it's a little bit dark overall and that there's a loss of information/detail in the dark shadowy areas. TehGrauniad (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2011 at 02:17:40 (UTC)

• 
  Alt 1 -- original
• 
  Alt 2 -- original
• 
  Alt 3 -- original

Reason

Educational/"encyclopedic": an image of an attractive, rare breed of retriever in action -- not a boring snapshot. High quality: most dog action shots are nowhere near this clear and hi-res, and if there are any color balance/other issues (I'm not a photo expert) I could try to correct them using iPhoto or Photoshop. Most, including the one at right, would be more powerful if cropped, and I'm happy to do that as well. I've listed a few alternatives from the same set above, if others prefer those. Another pic from the same set is used in the gallery of the breed's article with a silly caption, but please don't hold that against the photos themselves -- many dog articles are neglected and this stands far apart from all the rest in there (I'll disperse some of the gallery pics as soon as I can).
Note: One of these is a Quality Image on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever (another pic from set; can be replaced with whichever is best)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Kallerna at Commons

• Support as nominator --Anna ^talk 02:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I put up a cropped/slightly sharpened version of the Original to the right, and replaced the thumbnails with cropped and slightly sharpened/contrast-enhanced versions (originals are linked). I'm hoping they look alright. I think Alt 2 looks wonderful cropped, perhaps better than "Original". Anna ^talk 05:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question where are any of these photos in the article? I don't see them on the side or in the gallery. The recommendation for Featured Picture candidates is that they've been displayed in an article for a week before they're nominated. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 08:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. At first glance I was discouraged by the water, but on closer inspection it seems to give good EV given the use of the dog in hunting. I have a strong preference for Alt3 and could possibly support an edited version of it (doesn't need much more than an improved crop - it lacks headroom given the space elsewhere). But for en:FPC it does have to be in the article, and in more than just the gallery, and needs to be likely to stay there. I believe this is the one from the 'set' currently in the gallery (which does have a trite caption, and the dog frankly looks rather demented in as well)? --jjron (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add Alt 3 Edit 1. --jjron (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 3 Edit 1 per my comments above (as long as it sticks in the article). FWIW I re-edited back off the original, rather than editing the edit shown in the gallery at the top of the nom. Also added it to a more prominent place in the article (adjust as necessary). --jjron (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and note to nominator why not use the caption "The Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever was bred to "toll", or lure, ducks into shooting range by causing a disturbance near the shore. After the duck is shot, the dog brings it to the hunter." in the article and in here for Alt 3 Edit 1? I could support Alt 3 Edit 1 if it stays in the article. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 21:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. This is an FPC that would have been better put Picture Peer Review to deal with this kind of issue before coming to the FPC list, in my opinion, because there are several minor issues that need to be addressed, and having so many versions creates clutter in my opinion. If it doesn't pass on the first round, you might re-nominate the best image with the best caption at some time in the future. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 21:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the advice -- I'll be more discriminating next time -- and sorry for not responding earlier. Thanks to jjron as well -- lovely edit. Anna (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 3 Edit 1 JJ Harrison (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All three. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC) IP user currently blocked. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any edit of alt 2 or alt 3. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I hope the nominator won't mind this. I'm going to add my suggested caption to Alt 3 here and in the article. With that done, I will conditionally support Alt 3 edit 1 if those changes stick. I could support Alt 3 but Alt 3 Edit 1 is in the article. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 04:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Viljo koirarannalla 18-edit2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View From Agassiz

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2011 at 15:50:38 (UTC)

Original - Panoramic view from Agassiz peak. Included in picture is Flagstaff, AZ (left center), Bill Williams Mountain (background center) and Kendrick Peak (right center).

Reason

It is of high resolution, the contrast and all the stuff is great. Meets all criteria pretty much, with the exception of a good caption.

Articles in which this image appears

San Francisco Peaks

FP category for this image

Places/Panorama

Creator

Santoaz2006

• Support as nominator --Dusty777 (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Would be nice if the image had more vertical pixels and a stronger caption, but other than that, it's OK IMO. With a stronger caption this might get full support from me. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk
• Oppose - I agree it needs a stronger caption but also the only article it is used in doesn't really contribute to a great deal being placed at the end of the article. It also has little EV as it doesn't show the San Francisco peaks or say what the view is of. Overall its a decent panorama and the resolution and quality are fine, it just doesn't illustrate the subject well however it may do better as a FP on Commons. Regards, Fallschirmjäger ✉ 18:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry but a high resolution panorama does not automatically qualify for a FP. Technically it's OK (although there seems to be a stitching artefact between the 2 dead trees right of the lift, the green trees in the distance are blurry on the left and sharp on the right), but it doesn't have great EV or wow factor. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added a more informative description. Its probably not the best as i didn't take the picture, but i am very familiar with the area.Dusty777 (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The better caption helps but I'm not convinced on the EV. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 07:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fallschirmjäger ✉ 16:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phantasmal poison frog

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2011 at 17:18:50 (UTC)

Reason

Great composition and technical quality, obvious EV. Everyone loves the frogs.

Articles in which this image appears

Phantasmal poison frog

FP category for this image

Animals/Amphibians

Creator

Holger Krisp

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks much better on the article than old image.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  21:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 21:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Nice, but a bit soft, and the background is a distracting. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the composition. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice, my frequent grumbles about 'flash reflections on frogs' notwithstanding. Actually like the composition (inc. b/g). Article could do with a bit of love. --jjron (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I really like this photo. Fabulous composition: the space to the right gives the frog a potential energy - will it jump? TehGrauniad (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Epipedobates-tricolor-dreistreifen-baumsteiger.jpg --Fallschirmjäger ✉ 18:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming Green Turtle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2011 at 19:57:32 (UTC)

Reason

lead image in the article

Articles in which this image appears

Green sea turtle, Cheloniidae, Wildlife of Cape Verde

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Broccolo (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A similar image of the same species is already featured on many projects.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  15:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current FP is much smaller resolution. It has not been used in the article Green sea turtle for quite some time now. It could be kept as FP or delisted but the nominated image is of a better quality and a higher resolution. Broccolo (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Well focused and lit. Mbz1's body of work certainly is impressive. In my mind, it's a pity that the background reef in this image is similar in color to the turtle-- a shot of a turtle in open water provides more contrast. On the other hand, the reef features provide a nice size reference and this shot may, for all I know, show the turtle in the specific kind of environment that it prefers. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I especially like the detailed texture of the turtle's skin and head. Focus is good, and nice color aesthetics for a bonus IMO. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 07:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I'm torn. I know that underwater photographs are very very tricky, but I'm really disturbed by the unnatural lighting (flash?). Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exif metadata says no flash was used. --Avenue (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Srong support Very nice photo IMO and well illustrative for article. Amazing -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But the other should be delisted. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice photo; the pose and lighting aren't as good as the existing FP (or other photos of the species by Mbz1) but the head detail is good. --Avenue (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Green turtle swimming over coral reefs in Kona.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A delist nomination may be in order... Makeemlighter (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European Magpie

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2011 at 19:47:39 (UTC)

Reason

Large image used in three articles, showing the bird in its environment

Articles in which this image appears

Mirror test, European Magpie, Magpie

FP category for this image

Birds

Creator

Pete Birkinshaw from Manchester, UK at http://www.flickr.com/people/93001633@N00

• Support as nominator -- Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 19:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sorry, I'm not at all sold on this. The shot is a little dark, the branch covering the bird is a little distracting, the road and car in the background are problematic, the focus is slightly off, and to round everything off, the bird is dirt common. I really don't think this is FP material. J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Milburn, and I also think this really doesn't belong in Magpie, which had three pictures of the same species when the article covers four different genera. I've replaced it. Chick Bowen 02:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Milburn, I thought we agreed that the significance or insignificance of a subject was irrelevant to whether a photo had FPC value. The branch doesn't bother me, and the road and car show the bird in a realistic urban environment. Also, I don't see the focus problem, the details of the bird's feathers are very distinct. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 06:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The significance or insignificance of the subject is certainly not a factor- I by no means mean to imply "this is a common bird, therefore I don't care". However, for highly common subjects, the pictures are very replaceable. We will (and, I feel, must) expect something special if we're going to feature pictures of common species (magpies, housecats, daisies) or objects (sinks, lightbulbs), or what have you. The flip side, of course, is that we are willing to overlook defects in particularly rare or irreplaceable photographs. For instance, one of my favourite FPs is this one; while there are a number of flaws with the photograph itself, the species is extinct, and so the picture is completely irreplaceable, and we should be showing it off as much as we can. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That explanation makes more sense. Thank you for clarifying your comments. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 20:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is out of focus, underexposed, the background isn't so good and there is quite a bit of foliage in the way. I gather it is pretty common in gardens and so on, and it isn't unlikely that someone will do better sooner or later. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the focus problems that you're seeing, maybe I need glasses. I agree the lighting could be better. Between your comments and Milburn's expanded explanation, I'll withdraw support and let this speedy close. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 20:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The plane of focus contains that small branch which obscures the wing in a small way. The bird is behind that. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not as aesthetically pleasing as most of the other featured pics. Atomician (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atomician, aesthetics are not a primary criteria for evaluating featured pictures. "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all. See these examples for a basic guide." EV and technical qualities are more important. Pine^talk 08:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not any of the above mentioned. It's an image of a bird which could have been taken in a better picture to become aesthetically pleasing. The reason why it isn't has been mentioned above, but I'll go again if you want. There is an awkwardly placed car in the background, there is a not so nice blur and there is a small branch in the way of the bird. The image is also slightly too dark. Atomician (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close per nominator's suggestion. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Dixon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2011 at 02:01:56 (UTC)

Reason

Excellent image, great portrayal of the game of American football.

Articles in which this image appears

Antonio Dixon, 2010 Philadelphia Eagles season, History of the Philadelphia Eagles, List of Philadelphia Eagles players, Chris Johnson (running back)

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Philadelphia Eagles

• Support as nominator --Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I find this photo confusing and I disagree that it's a good portrayal of American football. It might work as one image among many portraying the game. For a single image, I think Wikipedia can do better. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 07:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, but I have to agree with GreenPine, the image is confusing. Please don't be discouraged, come back and nominate another image as often as you like. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I actually really like this picture. It's just not clear enough who the people are and what's going on. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that in regards to the caption? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the caption is good. I just meant that the picture is a little busy to be a clear depiction of the athletes. Like I said, I really like the picture; it's just not the best image for an encyclopedia. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comment. I'm a bit unsure of some of the reasons for opposing here. Yes, it might not be clear immediately what is going on, but it doesn't take long to realise that the big guy in green is trying to tackle the little guy in blue, whilst another guy in blue is trying to stop him. (This is my feeble understanding from the other side of the pond, having only watched the superbowl now and again). In terms of a depiction of american football, well of course it's only one part of it, but no single image could convey all of the game, so I don't think that is a problem. What it does convey (to me at least) is the frenetic nature of the game; the physicality, particularly the size difference between defensive and running players; and a particular play (running through the scrimmage). For an action shot it looks very sharp, but I'm not an expert on that sort of thing. Maybe it would benefit from a crop of the player on the right, but then again that shows that he's trying to run through the gaps between players. All in all I think the EV is high and quality is high. Polequant (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the other comments again, I can see the point that the current use of the photo is not all that great. I still think it is a good image, but its quality is in showing a particular play. Maybe if it was on a page on american football strategy, or one where the positions are described it would have more impact and satisfies criteria 5. Polequant (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it isn't a good portrayal of American football, but it's not being presented as a high EV image for American football. The nominator is saying it's a good picture for a few articles about one particular team, the Philadelphia Eagles so I'm not concerned with that at all.

OK, so in my not-very-knowledgeable-about-photographic-qualities opinion, it's nice and sharp and crisp and has nice colors and everything, but I'm just not feeling it for the articles it appears in. For the lead image of Antonio Dixon it's okay-ish. We can't see his face, but at least it shows him doing what it is he's notable for. As the lead image in Chris Johnson (running back), it's pretty poor. If he's the one with the ball, all we get to see of him is his right side and back as he runs away from the camera. In History of the Philadelphia Eagles it's being used as decoration, as neither Dixon nor the game against Tennessee Titans is mentioned inline. In 2010 Philadelphia Eagles season##Week 7: at Tennessee Titans, neither the tackle or Dixon is mentioned in the section, and the image is placed so far away from the relevant section that it loses all impact. So, it's possible that it's of high technical standard, but I feel it misses the mark on WP:FP? criteria 3b and 5, and that's why I'm opposing. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dark-sided Thrush

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2011 at 04:44:25 (UTC)

Reason

Only commons image of this bird, good quality for the conditions etc.

Articles in which this image appears

Dark-sided Thrush

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 07:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since more people aren't commenting I'll add a few words. I like the colors that appear just behind the bird, and the focus on the bird and the log is great. Quality and EV meet criteria IMO. I like this and I hope more people will vote support. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 07:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support easily waltzes through the 8 criteria. TehGrauniad (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. We don't have a lot of coverage of zoothera, which tend to be reclusive from what I've heard. This should be featured. Chick Bowen 13:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Pine, focus is spot on (apart from the very tip of the tail but excusable) and contrast with the background is nice, meets all requirements 100% Fallschirmjäger ✉ 21:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Zoothera marginata - Doi Inthanon.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striated Heron

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2011 at 04:46:38 (UTC)

Reason

Good image in riparian habitat, taken from a boat

Articles in which this image appears

Striated Heron

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality. Bonus points for the bird's aerodynamic contours seen from this angle. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 07:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support   ■ MMXX  ^talk  11:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ooh. --KFP (contact | edits) 21:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High EV and high quality - great work Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very good. TehGrauniad (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful picture! Th quality and the incredible resolution are unsurpassed!Dusty777 (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Superb shot. Can't see the feet but never mind it's not a problem, plenty of other images in the article do so. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 16:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wonderful quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomician (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avenue (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Butorides striatus - Daintree River.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow-spotted Honeyeater

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2011 at 04:51:18 (UTC)

Reason

This bird looks nearly the same as Lewin's Honeyeater and the Graceful Honeyeater. They are easily differentiated by the call though, and I'm sure about the ID.

Articles in which this image appears

Yellow-spotted Honeyeater

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support good EV. Would be nice to have less blur on the tail. You're on a roll JJ. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 07:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Nice picture and good EV, but I agree with Pine about the blur on the tail.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  11:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support agree with Mmxx Nissim 14 (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with Pine about the out of focus tail, also the left leg is out of focus too. But it's still great: Wikipedia's very lucky to have this photo. TehGrauniad (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I'm going to nudge this one over the line. --99of9 (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Meliphaga notata - Daintree Village.jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 14:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longnose sawshark

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2011 at 06:56:27 (UTC)

Reason

In 1832 convict artist William Buelow Gould painted his Sketchbook of fishes while serving time at Macquarie Harbour Penal Station in Van Diemen's Land, the most brutal penal station in the British Empire (the equivalent to a contemporary artist painting such a work while serving at Guantanamo Bay). This sketchbook was recently inscribed on the UNESCO Memory of the World Register. Interestingly, scientists today still use information from this sketchbook about some of the little known species it contains.

Over the last xmas break I was fortunate enough to gain release of some high-res scans from the original sketchbook for Wikipedia from the Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office; this is one of them. These are therefore high quality and high EV images. (Note: due to the historical significance of the images and sketchbook, I don't believe these should be 'restored'; the pages contain some marks and spots, but the images themselves are pretty clean.)

Articles in which this image appears

Longnose sawshark; William Buelow Gould

FP category for this image

Fish (and maybe Paintings?)

Creator

William Buelow Gould (1801 - 1853); Reproduction by the Allport Library and Museum of Fine Arts, Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support (and I know "strong" is meaningless!), love it. I'd be happy for this to be promoted as either a picture of the fish or a picture of a work of art, but I think a choice should be made. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I agree with the decision not to touch this up. Chick Bowen 19:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See an Australian news story on this collection. The original can also be found here. I'm a bit confused on the copyright status, the work is listed as public domain since the copyright has expired, yet the Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office reserves the right to ask for permission to use the image, which corresponds with what the nom says regarding permission. If the image may not be re-used without permission from Tasmania then it's not a free image. The caption in the image in the Gould article says "used here with permission of the Allport Library and Museum of Fine Arts", also implying the image is not free. So Tasmania seems to be releasing the image to WP, but not into public domain or GFDL, not that their release means anything since author is more than 70 years deceased. This may be more like a scan of original artwork than a published book; does that affect the copyright status?--RDBury (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no doubt that the original image is public domain, if the artist died in 1853. Many museums like to claim that their reproductions of public domain works are copyrightable. The official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that such claims are impossible under US law. This probably should be tagged PD-art instead of PD-old, however. See commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag for a lengthy discussion of the relevant issues. Chick Bowen 21:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, just wanted to be sure.--RDBury (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know about Australian law, but this is unambiguously public domain as far as both Commons and enwp are concerned. J Milburn (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • FWIW the lady I dealt with said in the email: "Permission is granted to use the five images by Gould from the Sketchbook, on condition the same acknowledgement is made to: Allport Library and Museum of Fine Arts, Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office." (I had got permission off her for some other stuff previously). I tagged the image page out of politeness with the extra stuff requesting permission for reuse be sought from TMHO as their own website does, but she never even requested me to do that, much less raised copyright issues. Realistically I think they just want to be sure they're being acknowledged as holding the original work, which I think is fair enough. --jjron (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • My concern was that material in WP doesn't stay in WP; it's mirrored and repackaged in all sorts of ways with the only requirement (from GFDL) that a link to the original article be given somewhere. So the only way the museum will be acknowledged is by following a trail of links. Whether it's fair or not it appears that WP's position is that we don't really need permission and we can't make any promises as to how the image is reused once it's used here. It's a pity in a way because we want museums to be motivated to scan public domain works and put them on the web, but we also like the fact that they're giving up any control over the works when they do. I think it's still a win for the museum though because more people will be seeing the Allport name than if they kept the book locked up in a case.--RDBury (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Don't think there are copyright issues. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with the assumption that there aren't copyright problems. I think this would be better under fish than paintings, but if it's possible for it to be in both categories, that seems OK with me. Pine^talk 04:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sketchbook of fishes - 25. (Longnose) Saw shark - William Buelow Gould, c1832.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kukenan Tepui at Sunset

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2011 at 20:52:15 (UTC)

Reason

Principal reason: very poor quality images of the whole Gran Sabana and Canaima National Park. No high-quality images of Kukenan Tepui in the article describing it. Second: this is a difficult place to reach. The trip to the Kukenan takes three days on foot. The tepuy is not reachable by car. Available pictures of Kukenan tepui have very little quality. It is also quite rare to have good lighting conditions and no clouds in front of a tepui, so, a picture like this, is quite uncommon. And finally, there are few high-quality pictures of Gran Sabana National Park, that's why I think this one should be included in featured ones. Kukenan`s height is about 2700 mts. It is located in Venezuela, Gran Sabana National Park, in Bolivar State, near the borderline with Brazil and Guyana.

Articles in which this image appears

Canaima National Park, Kukenan Tepui, Tepui

FP category for this image

Landscapes

Creator

Paolostefano1412

• Support as nominator --Paolostefano1412 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice and illustrative picture, problem is it's not used in any article...   ■ MMXX  ^talk  15:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry. Had edited the articles, but forgot to save. Fixed! Paolostefano1412 (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might I suggest suspending this nomination for a week? You are meant to wait that long before nominating, so that any article editors with objections have time to do so. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem. I will re-nominate in about ten days. I took the liberty of editing because the pictures used in those pages were really low quality, with disturbing objects in the middle, and bad lighting. Don't think anyone will disagree. But you are right, I'll wait a bit. What should I do in this case? Do I have to completely erase the nomination from the list of candidates? - You are at liberty of erasing the nomination yourself if you want to. Paolo (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Speedy close is the the term you're looking for. I think one of the page admins needs to do it? Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 07:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If 'we' want to insist on waiting a week (I believe it's just a recommendation anyway, not an actual rule/criterion?), why don't we just put it into Suspended nominations for a week rather than Speedying it and making Paolostefano1412 go through creating another nom? --jjron (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended for a week. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been reopened with a new nomination page. My suggestion would be, rather than formally closing this old nom and listing it as unsuccessful (which will look confusing in the archive) we should just redirect it. Chick Bowen 21:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See new nomination at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kukenan Tepuy at Sunset.jpg Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

African Bush elephant

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2011 at 22:50:52 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, EV and resolution. Already featured on commns

Articles in which this image appears

Elephant, African Elephant, African Bush Elephant

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 22:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The image seems to meet the requirements, and is featured on Commons. Chris857 (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nicely done. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good. --jjron (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support   ■ MMXX  ^talk  00:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very encyclopedic photo. Nice to see a larger creature get a nomination after all of the plants, birds, insects, and amphibians. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 07:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good. TehGrauniad (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Is it just be or does this elephant look kind of unwell? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks (from the back right leg and stance) that it might be partly lame. By pure coincidence I was in Mikumi national park last weekend and noticed there is indeed a limping elephant which was hanging around quite near the park entrance. - Zephyris _Talk 15:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Anybody else think the top should be cropped a bit? upstateNYer 04:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must say I thought that too, but not strongly enough to comment on. --jjron (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I love the current crop. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel a large cloud on top of a large animal looks artistic :) --Muhammad(talk) 16:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Aaadddaaammm. Pine^talk 19:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Such awe-inspiring animals. Atomician (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:African Bush Elephant.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Female impala

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2011 at 02:15:11 (UTC)

Reason

On my latest visit to Mikumi, I found this pretty girl alone. I asked her why she was so lonely.

"The lads at wiki make me sad," she said (I dunno where she picked that British accent.) I asked her why. "Well they've got 2 FPs of male impalas but none of us females." I promised her I'd fix that and so here I am. We need a female FP and this makes it IMO. Good quality, light and EV. Slightly lower res than what I wanted but that couldn't be helped.

Articles in which this image appears

Impala

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 02:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looking good, OK EV. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 20:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support quite close to the wire in terms of resolution (just 59 pixels over the requirement on the x axis). Great shot though, Muhammad's photos have added a lot of value to this article. TehGrauniad (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only has to be above 1,000 px on one side, so is well and truly above the 'minimum' in absolute terms. --jjron (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I see what you mean, it's actually 589 pixels over the requirement (taken from the y axis). I still think that at 1.7 mega-pixels it's a much lower resolution than most of the other pictures on this candidates page. Very good photo though. TehGrauniad (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Relatively good resolution and a very fair image. Atomician (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Good image, resolution could be better and there is some noise on the impala but a nice shot overall. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 15:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Female impala.jpg - Fallschirmjäger ✉ 12:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram of the Federal Government and American Union (1862)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2011 at 08:48:52 (UTC)

Reason

A very informative, high quality diagram. Used well in three articles, thrown in a fourth.

Articles in which this image appears

Federal government of the United States, Organization, History of the United States (1849–1865)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams

Creator

N. Mendal Shafer

• Support as nominator --Sven Manguard Wha? 08:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that there's an edit, I'll go on the record as supporting either version. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (prefer edit) Lots of interesting information is contained within this image if one takes the time to examine it. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Agree with JJ Harrison. Interesting history. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 20:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose New York is missing Long Island and Massachusetts is missing Cape Cod. upstateNYer 03:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm just kidding - support this is a very informative diagram; would be cool to see a rendition of it representing today's borders and data. Definitely worthy. upstateNYer 03:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer Edit 1. upstateNYer 02:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Defiantly. I've also uploaded a restored version, see edit 1, that has most of the dust removed and damage/scratches repaired. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 20:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Very valuable image, high quality. Very good work on the restoration by Fallschirmjäger. Jujutacular ^talk 17:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Per above. Stare at it long enough and it reminds me of the circulatory system, with power flowing in the arteries and allegiance back in the veins. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Thanks a ton for the restoration. Do you think it would be a good idea to fix the printing errors in the lines to the left and right of the House of Representatives, where it looks like too much ink was applied? I can think of arguments for and against such a change. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it was an original printing error, then it shouldn't be fixed. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem. I can understand about the lines but when I was cleaning it up, it was fairly obvious to me what was dust etc compared to printing errors, although those lines don't look great I think I agree with JJ on this. But it does look a bit out of place, considering everything else is mostly all-right. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 09:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have a question here, if it is possible that the improved version (eventually) can be uploaded as a new version of the first file. It seems to me User:Fallschirmjäger took the file I downloaded, which was a TIFF of 219.4mb, which he retouched some more. This gives me some credits for discovering this diagram (which I believed to be one of the first organizational charts of mankind ever drawn), solves the problem of multiple copies of practically the same images, and gives the file back it's more simple name. -- Mdd (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. I just noticed I didn't link to the exact source at the library of congress, which I just corrected.[reply]
          • I can upload over the same filename as your upload if you wish, I just didn't want to overwrite the untouched original file as is the normal way of doing things. But then we would have two identical files, to be fair the name of the file isn't really a problem, plus it does link to your original upload. Any thoughts on this anyone? Fallschirmjäger ✉ 15:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes I would like you to upload over the first file. I have no problem that you overwrite that file. Also this leaves the history of this image on Wikipedia (which started in 2008) simple. And this avoids problems in the futher that there are multiple copies. You made some good improvements to that file, for which I am very grateful. And I am very grateful for this nomination. -- Mdd (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • A restored image shouldn't overwrite an unrestored one. This is because you should link between the two on the image page, which lets the viewer see what modifications have occurred easily. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • In this case the unrestored image is at the library of congress a TIFF file of 219.4mb. -- Mdd (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very interesting and good EV. SMasters (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Diagram of the Federal Government and American Union edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crowned Lapwing

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2011 at 00:56:36 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, ev, beautiful bird. Replaced this image in the article

Articles in which this image appears

Vanellus coronatus, Vanellus

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 00:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Head seems to be slightly OOF. Pine^talk 08:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think the problem is that the has its back turned to the camera. It wouldn't be that bad but you're losing a lot of information about the color pattern and therefore EV. I think it's a good shot otherwise but with birds you generally need a more side on view.--RDBury (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is probably a little front focused, but it is sharp when viewed at a "fair" resolution (say 1800 high). JJ Harrison (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support < 5 Makeemlighter (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle Discovery STS-120

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2011 at 09:16:43 (UTC)

Reason

Used on many Wikipedia pages, and good composition

Articles in which this image appears

Space Shuttle and over 60 other pages

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Getting there

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 09:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that there are other FPs of space shuttles, but this image is used far more extensively on Wikipedia than the images that were promoted to FP in 2010. Pine^talk 09:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Looking at the launch tower, does this need to be rotated a few degrees counterclockwise? Spencer^T♦C 19:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the effect may be intentional, to give the photo added energy, similar to the Featured Picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Space_Shuttle_Atlantis_launches_from_KSC_on_STS-132_side_view.jpg, but the photo that I'm nominating is used on far more pages on Wikipedia. Pine^talk 23:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm slightly leaning towards removing the slight lean. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other image isn't tilt, it's the low perspective. Weak support this; I would fully support one with the tilt fixed. Spencer^T♦C 20:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support edit. Spencer^T♦C 01:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It is true that this is widely used, but that's partially because it has a narrower field of view, which makes it thumbnail better. That doesn't necessarily make it a better picture. I think I prefer the ones with a wider field of view; they are more dynamic. Since, despite the quality here, this one doesn't add all that much to what is already featured, I will say weak oppose. Chick Bowen 03:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thank you for your comments. IMO having a better thumbnail is also useful for Wikipedia and therefore contributes to EV, but I respect your views. Pine^talk 06:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm perfectly happy having multiple shuttle FPs, provided the composition is significantly different (which it is, from what I understand), and I don't think one composition is inherently better than any other. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is the best picture for the shuttle itself among the featured ones I think. That said one or two of those should probably be delisted based on limited article placement. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Its is one of the most beautiful actions shots I have seen in wikipedia. I am simply stunned at the perfection of capturing a space shuttle in such a chaotic moment and being both pretty as a picture, and informative as an illustration. --Cerejota (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit1 added. Tilt corrected version. --jjron (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Preference to Edit1. --jjron (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the edit, I think you did better than I could have. In order to support it I think it needs to be in an article, so I'll replace the image in Space Shuttle with the edit. I also support edit 1 and would have nominated it instead if it was in these articles Pine^talk 09:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No probs. And no, the edit doesn't need to be in an article; as long as the original is that meets the criteria, and whichever version is promoted is placed into the articles by the closer. --jjron (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As per nom. SMasters (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:STS120LaunchHiRes-edit1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Sotomayor

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2011 at 07:22:19 (UTC)

Reason

Very high EV, good composition, appears in many places on English Wikipedia

Articles in which this image appears

Sonia Sotomayor, List of United States Supreme Court Justices by time in office, Portal:Supreme Court of the United States/Selected biography/8 2009 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Sonia Sotomayor, 2010 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Sonia Sotomayor, J. D. B. v. North Carolina, List of Puerto Ricans, List of federal judges appointed by George H. W. Bush, South Bronx, Portal:Barack Obama/Selected biography, Portal:Barack Obama/Selected biography/7, Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, Portal:Supreme Court of the United States/Selected anniversaries, Portal:Supreme Court of the United States/Selected anniversaries/August, Portal:Supreme Court of the United States/Selected biography,

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Political

Creator

Steve Petteway, from the Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

• Support as nominator -- Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 07:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets criteria in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  18:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very good. Perhaps the portals should be removed from the "articles this image appears in" and list only those that it provides EV to (South Bronx I suspect is low on the list) Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support What do the other justices' portraits look like. Is a group of 9 portraits feasible? upstateNYer 03:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked for portraits of the other justices but other than this photo, none of the photos that I found on Wikipedia meets the minimum size for featured picture. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 05:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Something strange going on near the left side of her face... Makeemlighter (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• By left do you mean right? Because there's something very strange there which (in case anyone's thinking it) is not a DOF issue. --jjron (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course. Whenever I say "left", I really mean "right" :) Makeemlighter (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So if we're ever in a car together, remind me not to rely on you for directions. ;) --jjron (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose based on the above. In particular for whatever that 'growth' of pseudo-skin coming out near her right eye is. I can only think it's some really sloppy cloning or healing brush error. --jjron (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I think what you are seeing is caused by very thin, pale hair on her face. See also the photo on http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/category/sotomayor. The hair goes all the way down to her chin. Pine^talk 08:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what we're meant to be looking at on that other image; it's too small to make out much. But that's more than facial hair. There's that bit that sticks out, but in reality the whole side of the right cheek is damaged from about the level of her mouth up. The bit that really sticks out near her eye may have once been (part of) her ear. I can only think someone was doing some healing work in Photoshop to touch up her skin, perhaps even trying to cover up errant facial hair which does appear that it may have been there, and for some reason botched it without realising. If it was just the original hair it would be better defined as the skin further forward and the hair behind it are both more clearly focussed. --jjron (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what you're seeing on the upper left is the ear partially obscured by the facial hair, and the facial hair continues down to her chin. For comparison, look at the other side of her face where the ear is clearly visible. You can see very thin hair on that side also. When I zoom in on the image, I don't think that what we're talking about is caused by a bad editing because the hairs go in different directions, the texture is consistent on both sides of her face, and slightly thicker hair consistent with sideburns is visible on both sides near her ears. Also, I doubt that a Supreme Court staffer would have attempted to retouch this image when there's no strong need to do so and it's not something that taxpayers would appreciate paying a government staffer to do. Justice Sotomayor has no PR motive to alter her image, unlike other celebrities and government agencies in some circumstances, such as happened with General Dunwoody's photo http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7738342.stm Pine^talk 21:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. It certainly looks like a botched edit. And even if it's not, the strangeness means I can hardly call it one of our finest images. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're calling Dilma Rousseff's photo a Featured Picture with the strange effects on the subject's nose in addition to similar looking hair on her face, I find it very difficult to understand why the photo that I'm nominating would get opposition. Pine^talk 23:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're totally right - Dilma Rousseff should not be an FP, which is why I opposed that one too. FWIW though, the problems with that one are quite different. --jjron (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd find it more suspicious if there wasn't a bit a facial hair or some other imperfection. We're not after SI swimsuit issue pictures here.--RDBury (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not really seeing it. JJ Harrison (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Extreme high-res shots of middle-aged people will show uneven skin surfaces; I'm not convinced we're seeing anything else here. I'm tempted to upload a macro shot of my own ear just to make the point, but I'll refrain. Chick Bowen 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great comment! :) Thanks Chris. Pine^talk 04:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]