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

Doctors Cave Beach

This is so far the only photo in the Montego Bay article. This beach is considered to be the best in that town, and, by some people, to be the best in Jamaica. It is one of the major tourist attractions in Montego Bay. I took the picture in 2003, trying to match the view with what I saw on one of the postcards (came out pretty close).

• Nominate and support.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:17, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not brilliant, but finally ruined by the bit of tree in the middle -- (William M. Connolley 23:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC))
• Oppose. Poorly composed snapshot. Denni☯ 23:40, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 00:07, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Denni --Fir0002 05:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. If you had stepped beyond the trees and found a place without tourists and other visual distractions it would have been better. --Barfooz 06:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tree blocks entire view. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:48, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Personally I do not mind the tourists. After all they are common on any beach these days. But the trees and the brush in the middle are a bit too much in the way. Plus the focus is not 100% Janderk 11:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mundane holiday snap -- GWO 12:36, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted. +2/-8. ed g2s • talk 01:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lipa Noi Beach

From the commons. Photograph by Manfred Werner (de:User:Tsui, en:User:Tsui), 13:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. ed g2s • talk 13:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. While a bit of the shoreline might be nice, this is a satisfying photo. Denni☯ 23:42, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
• Support.Beautiful colors and subject. Definetly a feature. --Fir0002 05:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The sunset is beautiful. A shoreline would be nice, yes, but the sky and palm tree silhouette are fantastic. --Barfooz 06:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- Solipsist 07:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Normally I am not too much into sunset over sea type pictures, but this one is quite nice. Janderk 08:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment - The sky is a bit too grainy don't you think? Is this due to jpeg compression or was this in the original? Would you be able to upload one with a less grainy sky? Enochlau 06:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The print of this picture is less grainy, but smaller as well (13x10cm, ca. 5x4in.). I did not scan the photography but got a cd with digitised images from the photo lab where they developed the film - the original for this version is grainy too; the compression did not add significant artifacts. The reason could be, that I used a 400 ASA film. --Tsui 01:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• support Cavebear42 17:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 01:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Beatiful color composition. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:25, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:09, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Absolutely. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 01:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 07:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted. +12/-0. ed g2s • talk 01:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Churchill College, Hepworth

Four Square Walk Through at night. I really like this photo and it adds to the articles Churchill College and Barbara Hepworth - [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 00:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support - [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 00:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but could be a bit larger -- Chris 73 Talk 03:51, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Uploaded larger version [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 09:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Much better. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 11:13, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- William M. Connolley 23:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose until its decompressed. The image size is big (a little too big IMHO) but its very compressed. I thought for a while it was a progrssive interlace jpeg but it isn't is it? An interesting sculpture though--Fir0002 05:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think that's JPEG compression. It looks like some sort of smoothing algorithm applied becuase the original was probably very grainy. ed g2s • talk 15:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unclear, self conciously arty without the redemption of interesting composition. Light flare in bottom left is distracting. The Hepworth itself might as well be a bit of technical Lego. I dislike it intensely. GWO 07:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I welcome the addition to the Hepworth article (which I've been meaning to expand for a while), but this doesn't show the statue that clearly. It's good for Churchill College though, which isn't easy to make interesting. -- Solipsist 07:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support - I like it, it's better than some other 'featured images' David 5000 10:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• oppose, great concept, backlit rays and all, but just dont think that this pic nailed it. Cavebear42 17:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Good idea, good pic, but this smacks of Photoshopping. Is that a criteria? Note the texture of the grass in the foreground. Matthewcieplak 01:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I used PaintShopPro to lighten it slightly but nothing as extravagant as adding grass (I'd rather the grass wasn't there, but I don't have a tripod - to do a long exposure picture I have to rest the camera on the pavement) [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 21:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I was commenting on the texture of the image - how the edges make it look more like a painting than a photograph. Maybe it was just the exposure, but the effect is still there. Hence the neutrality. Matthewcieplak 22:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Janderk 12:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted. +4/-6. ed g2s • talk 01:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cheche

This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.

• Support, used in several articles as well. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:20, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very nice picture, but cheches are worn by people from the Sahara, which generally are not caucasian. It's like a picture of a black woman dressed as a Geisha or an Australian guy wearing Eskimo clothing. Encyclopedia pictures should be as accurate as possible and show clothing in their natural most common setting. Plus only part of the cheche is visible. Janderk 08:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per reasons above and also too small (340x255). ed g2s • talk 14:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great pic and used all over the place. Cavebear42 17:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. There is no shortage of blue-eyed Arabs. The picture is quite large enough as it stands. And the picture is of one of Wikipedia's longest-standing and most beloved editors, whose visage deserves to grace our pages. Denni☯ 23:28, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
  • With no disrespect to Anthere, it hardly illustrates 'eyelash' very well, nor 'eye' for that matter. Image:Closeup of an blue-green human eye.jpeg is much better for both of those pages. It's not a bad photo, but its not spectacular. ed g2s • talk 13:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • So we got a French tourist (no offense), who happens to be a Wikipedia editor, wearing an Saharan cheche. That looks little Arabic or African to me. Is the fact that a pictures contains a pretty Wikipedia editor, really a good argument to make it featured? Janderk 18:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Mark¹ 05:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. It looks pretty cool but I agree with Ed g2s - its too small. --Fir0002 05:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Weak support. Perhaps its just that its sat at the top of Featured Pictures Visible for a while, but I've grown to like this image. I also agree with Janderk's objection which could easily tip me over to oppose. -- Solipsist 08:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. — Matt 09:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --Twinxor 17:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 01:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• oppose [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 18:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons JanderK put into words. — mark ✎ 10:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 06:30, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not retained as a featured picture. +8/-8. ed g2s • talk 01:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

see also Cheche again

Royal Doulton Darby and Joan

This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.

• Oppose, really do not like this one. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:21, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Janderk 08:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Horrible flash. ed g2s • talk 14:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• oppose. nice backdrop but not a striking pic Cavebear42 17:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a terrible picture: what in the world is this supposed to be? Barfooz 21:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Chris 73 Talk 03:49, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose -- William M. Connolley 23:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Solipsist 08:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose — mark ✎ 10:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Not retained as a featured picture. +0/-10. ed g2s • talk 01:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Icefish

This image was renominated as a featured picture as it never previously went through the featured picture candidates process.

• Support, but this is likely a noncommercial image only, so not suitable. - [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:23, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have uploaded the large version from the external site and sent Kils a message to confirm its license. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 09:02, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think the owner added a GFDL notice to the image page. But he only added it to the top. Janderk 08:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I have checked the other images uploaded by Kils, all the images he shot himself seem to be GFDL, so I'll change the image page to reflect this. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 09:02, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lovely picture. Janderk 08:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Of course. ed g2s • talk 14:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support Cavebear42 17:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support Awesome picture. Barfooz 21:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely -- Chris 73 Talk 03:47, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- William M. Connolley 23:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A very good picture. --Fir0002 05:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent. -- Solipsist 08:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 01:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Retained as a featured picture. +11/-0. ed g2s • talk 01:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fishermen on Lake Tanganyika

This is a self-nomation, taken by me while watching the evening catch being brought in at Mishembe Bay on Lake Tanganyika. It also appears on Estonian wikipedia. I think it's a beautiful image of a great lake. - Worldtraveller 22:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support (self nomination) - Worldtraveller 22:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, but only because of its very small size, which obscures much detail. I see you have a larger version in your gallery [1]. Are you releasing a small version only under the GFDL with a specific reason? I would support if you uploaded the larger version. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 06:27, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Switching to support, it's good enough for me now. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:22, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I really like the pic and the colours, but the Wikipedia version is too low res; the larger version online [2] has some unfortunate JPEG compression artifacts, for example, just above the tree line/horizon. — Matt 09:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I have uploaded the larger version, having not noticed that another user did it just before I did (uploaded a smaller version originally due to wanting to be a bit cautious at first when releasing my babies into the big scary world of wikipedia). I can't see JPEG artefacts on my monitor, but I can upload a less compressed version at the weekend. Worldtraveller 14:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for uploading the less compressed version! (And if you get the chance to dig out your slides, a larger resolution would also be appreciated). — Matt 16:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. (and I encourage you to hunt down the previous opposers, so they can see the new version.) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 16:08, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, unless perhaps there is a version much higher res than either posted. Cavebear42 17:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I can do resolutions up to 3500x2500px, but I have to ask what you think is lacking in the larger version uploaded that would be provided by a yet larger version?
    • I always say the larger the better, although 3500x2500 may be better suited to the commons. 1024x would be nice, with not too high compression. ed g2s • talk 20:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I am seeing a picture that is 700 x 460 and has jpeg compression artifacts around the sun and over the bushes, and pixelated people in the boat before i even bring it up to a full screen view. Im sure that the photo was higer res than that. also you might consider a png file. Cavebear42 23:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support larger version. Denni☯ 21:03, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
• Support. Pretty colors, no longer too small. - RedWordSmith 22:18, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 01:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support if higher quality is uploaded. It shows the African continent, which should get more attention, in magnificent colors. The image size (700x462) is acceptable for me (although bigger is better), but the file is highly compressed (34.9KB) making the jpeg artifacts too distracting for a featured image. Janderk 12:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I see a 104KB has been uploaded. Thanks. Janderk 22:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support large. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:08, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- Solipsist 07:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment - I have uploaded a less compressed version, hope this will resolve objections from those noting the presence of JPEG artifacts. Worldtraveller 22:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Come on... would it really hurt to upload a 1024, please!! :). Wikipedia should have good "source" files. Just because it's "about good enough" now, doesn't mean we won't think of better uses in the future (e.g. WikiReaders). (And if you're feeling really generous you could stick a really big one on the Commons.) ed g2s • talk 14:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Main problem with uploading 1024px or larger version at the moment is that the original slide is somewhere deep in my archive and I can't find it at the moment! Once I've tracked it down I will consider uploading a larger version. Worldtraveller 15:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • It looks much better now that the artifacts have been removed. still, this picture leaves me thinking, that is a sweet pic that he has, just not as great pic at 700 pxls. 205.175.225.23 17:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I've a simple criterion. If I think "Damn, I wish I'd taken that", I support. Support. (do you recall your exposure settings? Come one, let us know...) -- GWO 19:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment! Can't recall exact exposure settings, but the camera was an Olympus OM-1, with Zuiko 50/1.8 lens. I think I probably went with the meter reading or maybe a stop or two over it. Worldtraveller 15:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Promoted, +10/-1. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 11:57, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Sequence of pelican coming out of water with a comic ending

I was at the sea, and of course there were pelicans. Took a seqence of the bird coming out of the water (the photos aren't all from the same position in case you are wondering) and was fortunate enough to capture his little 'shout'.

• Support. Self Nom.--Fir0002 05:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Cute! --Barfooz 06:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Come on Fir, you've done much better. -- Solipsist 07:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Hmm not sure, for some reason does not strike me, maybe just a bit dull and colorless. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:46, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I do like the 2nd and 3rd pelican, but not the dull background. Moreover I do not see an additional value in using a sequence here. Janderk 11:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. None of the singular images are striking, and there's not enough synergy in the collection to compensate. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 23:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I usually don't like series pictures, but i like this one :-). --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Images aren't great on their own, and the sequence isn't particularly enlightening. ed g2s • talk 14:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia takes itself too seriously sometimes, and there's some symbolism here we may be able to grasp if we try hard enough. Matthewcieplak 01:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:07, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not striking. Mark¹ 01:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. So cute! —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 23:52, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• I would suppose the last picture (mouth-opened) only if it's large enough to be clear and detailed. But as of now, it's low quality. I'm not very impressed by the first two pictures. --Menchi 08:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• NOT Promoted, +6/-6. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 11:57, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Flowers of a Yellow Box eucalyptus

The lovely flower of Australias distinctive tree - the eucalypt

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Large leaf on left really detracts from the focus of this picture. Denni☯ 22:44, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
• Oppose. -- Its an interesting flower, but doesn't add much beyond the other Featured Picture flowers. -- Solipsist 21:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 06:27, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

• NOT Promoted, +1/-4. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 11:56, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Submarine at Periscope Depth

We've probably got too many military images, but this submarine has a fresh angle. Its a US navy image recently uploaded by Pedant. - Solipsist 08:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support - Solipsist 08:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support - nice and different [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 16:09, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Suppport. --Twinxor 17:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Denni☯ 21:02, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 01:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. On reflection, I agree with Janderk. Support. Mark¹ 04:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The thumbnail looks great, but compression/clarity/whatever on the full size is distractingly bad.
  • Above comment by User:Matthewcieplak, 02:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. ed g2s • talk 12:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The setting is perfect, but the colors have been pumped up in photoshop too much, making the sea a strange kind of blue and the dark gray submarine look unnaturally green. Janderk 12:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Possibly, but its not unusual for a neutral object to take on a blue-green hue in water, see for example this white whale. There are also some odd striations in the water, so perhaps there is some sort of seaweed or algal bloom thing going on. The Sargasso Sea has a reputation for unusual colours due to seaweed, although the caption says this picture was taken somewhere near Malaysia. I couldn't find an easy way of reducing any colour shifts in photoshop without causing worse problems elsewhere in the image, on the other hand the RGB profile although fairly smooth has slight gaps in it, so I would guess some processing has been done, most likely a boost in saturation. -- Solipsist 06:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose, artificial / retouched look. — David Remahl 15:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:06, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with David Remahl. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:17, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 00:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Matthewcieplak and it is over retouched. --Fir0002 21:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Just because it looks retouched - doesn't mean that's necessarily the case... ed g2s • talk 02:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 04:17, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - I have to....I uploaded the same image a week before, it is the one on USS Chicago (SSN-721)..so I have to admire Pendant's taste! :)

• NOT Promoted, +10/-7. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 11:56, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Black Puma

This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.

• Support - Its not entirely clear that User:Belizian took this photo and licenced it, but given the various Belize photo galleries its quite probable. - Solipsist 21:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose. The puma's camoflage is a little too effective, and the grass distractingly bright. GWO
• Oppose. Good, but not up to standard. ed g2s • talk 18:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Ed g2s. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 18:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even the face is not free of distracting elements. Denni☯ 20:55, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with bothe GWO and ed g2s. --Fir0002 21:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment - I did take the picture and it's free for use, I have larger versions of the pic if you want em, sorry about the camoflge but well I tried to talk him into standing up but then I wasn't about to argue with em as he could have riped me to shreds if I pissed him off. Belizian O and
  • Although I've opposed this pictures (the grass, being in the sunlight, is over-exposed), I would still encourage you to upload a larger version if you have one, we can never have too much information... ed g2s • talk 04:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support of course I took it :) Belizian 17:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. What are you peeps looking at?? This is a stunning photo. JDG 02:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I like it, but it has too much shadow over the beast.--ZayZayEM 08:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The grass is overexposed. Enochlau 20:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Not retained as a featured picture, +3/-7. -- 137.17.21.227 07:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Cry User:Belizian

Anatomical directions on a kangaroo

This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.

• Excellent illustration. — �David Remahl 10:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: the copyright notice embedded in the diagram seems to contradict the license information contained in the Wikipedia's image text for this image (or, at least not be as clear as to license intent by the creator) - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 20:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • There was a discussion about that issue on the user's talk page, apparently the copyright notice exists on all his diagrams. But it does not mean they can't be licensed under the GFDL. As I understand from the discussion, the diagrams are GFDL, so we might as well cut the copyright notice from the Wikipedia version. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 20:38, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Can you go ahead and create a derivative without the embedded copyright notice? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • No, I don't think you can...The GFDL says that copyright notices may not be removed. IANAL. — David Remahl 04:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Correct. To quote the relevant passage: "You may copy and distribute the Document … provided that … the copyright notices … are reproduced in all copies,". ed g2s • talk 13:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • All GFDL images are copyright, but freely licenced. -- Solipsist 20:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support - an excellent illustration -- Solipsist 20:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, unable to remove copyright tag. (*grumble* at GFDL). Support if the copyright tag is cropped. (Any chance of a version in a lossless format, and not JPEG? On my lo-res laptop screen, you can see artifacts on the edges of text etc.) — Matt 00:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. JPEG artifacts are ugly and the picture is only used in one article -- Anatomical terms of location -- where I found the text to be just as clear as the picture; the concept being explained by the diagram isn't that complicated and I don't feel that the diagram really makes it that much clearer. -- Oarih 01:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I do not like the copyright tag in the image (thanks David Remahl for clearing that up), and besides that, I think the illustration is somewhat confusing. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 09:06, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree that it should be png and without the copyright notice. Will support if that is changed. Janderk 12:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 18:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Great pic with ugly tag in the image -- Chris 73 Talk 04:14, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 06:31, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

• Not retained as a featured picture, +2/-8. -- 137.17.21.227 07:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Geyser exploding

This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.

• support It's a nice pic Cavebear42 18:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support, in spite of the slight distraction of the people in the image. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not great composition: too much white water and dull grey sky. A closeup from the other side might have made a more interesting photo. ed g2s • talk 02:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, because this is quite a small eruption (as shown by the size of the person at the right), the horizon is sloping to the right, and the grey skies (while typically Icelandic) don't help to show the phenomenon at its best. The sequence suffers from the same slopy horizon and grey skies, and the final frame cuts off the top of the eruption. You may find it interesting to compare this shot with ones of mine here and here. Worldtraveller 08:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• What do you think of the series? Pcb21| Pete 08:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've seen better geyser pictures before. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 18:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Nomination delisted by author. 22:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zabriskie Point in Death Valley

This image was renominated as a featured picture as it never previously went through the featured picture candidates process.

• Support -- Solipsist 20:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Although it's not too exciting, the colors still make for a very good shot. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 12:42, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 18:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support, Extremely good color balance, there is no harsh colors as sometimes you would get from desert shot. --Fir0002 21:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 04:15, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 06:28, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. "...not too exciting" ed g2s • talk 05:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Retained as a featured picture, +7/-1. -- 137.17.21.227 07:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Soda bubbles macro

Unearthly, beautiful. Macro is so darn nifty. Really a good example for macro photography. grendel|khan 05:03, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

• Support - grendel|khan 05:03, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe not the best, but a good shot. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:11, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- Solipsist 20:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support! -- glasperlenspiel 01:26, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Very Cool. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 18:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --Thomas G Graf 18:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 04:16, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Coollll -- Menchi 08:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Promoted, +8/-0. -- 137.17.21.227 07:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Triple Divide Pass at Glacier National Park

Great photo. Neutrality^talk 01:22, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Support Neutrality^talk 01:22, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I like it a lot, I will contact the photographer to request a larger resolution version though. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:13, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
• support. nice clean photo. real film? Cavebear42 18:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral Support. The foreground lacks interest, but ultimately I like the way the cirrus clouds echo the shape of the valley - and the colours are strong. -- Solipsist 21:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On reflection, we've got quite a few featured mountain pictures (more than flowers). This one is still good, but doesn't add much that's new. On the other hand, some of the other mountain pictures may soon be coming up in the revoting process or could be delisted. -- Solipsist 10:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. The only thing I like about this image is the clear blue sky, the rest does absolutely nothing for me, especially the boring foreground. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 18:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 04:16, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose: snapshot of a mountain. Nice sky, though. -- GWO 12:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A very good snaphot, I think. Matthewcieplak 22:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice colors but just not special enough for me. Janderk 21:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, just not feature picture quality for a simple photo - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 20:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• NOT Promoted, +5/-4. -- 137.17.21.227 07:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The quiet and peaceful park, pond, and chapel behind the Potala

This is a nice photo of an area behind the Potala in Lhasa, Tibet. It's in the Potala page in the Commons. The photo was taken by Nathan Freitas, and I convinced him to license it under a free Creative Commons license. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 19:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Support (of course) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 19:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, nice composition and color. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:07, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• It almost looks like a painting - Support - RedWordSmith 00:20, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The color of the water is unpleasant, and the foliage covers up the (quite interesting) building in the background. Also, there's a dude walking right through the middle of the shot, though he is "quiet and peaceful." I like the alliteration, and we need more titles like this. Matthewcieplak 04:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Several reasons, for one I'd like to point to this guidelines for FP's: Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article. Maybe adding significantly is indeed too much too ask for some FP's that pass here, but I don't think this image illustrates anything well. I do like the shot, but the trees block the view and the focus somewhat dizzies me. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:18, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • This was why I asked if images on the Commons were acceptable. At the time, most people said yes. This picture isn't actually included on Wikipedia at all. I guess we should decide: is that a problem or not? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 13:30, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course it should be included in an en article. Where it is stored is of no relevance, but it still needs to illustrate an article. — David Remahl 14:41, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • To help clarify, the Lipa Noi Beach picture below is from the Commons, but is also used on the English Wiki at Ko Samui. -- Solipsist 20:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice enough, but another of the non-outstanding holiday snapshots that have been nominated here recently. -- GWO 12:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "holiday snapshots". – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 13:30, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • I mean a photograph of a standard approximately equal to the kind of snapshots I take when I'm on my holiday. A useful aide memoire that I've been to a place, but not a great deal of thought gone into exposure, framing, composition, etc. E.g. This [3] or this [4] or this [5] or this [6]. OK, maybe not that last one. -- GWO
      • Oh! You're British then. To Americans, those are "vacation photos". (A holiday photo might be a photo of a Christmas Tree.) Makes sense then. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:46, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. It isn't really good; and it doesn't illustrate an article. --Thomas G Graf 18:07, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice photo, but not feature-quality. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 06:26, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:25, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• NOT Promoted, +3/-6. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:30, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Wolf spider defending her young

A good image of both animals showing love, and of the wolf spider.

• Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Wow you outdid yourself this time. Compliments on a great shot. Just curious: How close did you get to take it? Janderk 12:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Janderk. The lens was 20-30cm away from the spider, and owing to me owning a broken camera, I didn't use any zoom.--Fir0002 21:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support, good work indeed, focus is somewhat off but I can imagine it was hard to get that perfect! -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 12:38, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree on the focus, which could be improved a little bit. My guess is that Fir0002 did not use a tripod. Still great. Janderk 12:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Good guess Janderk, I didn't have the benefit of a tripod as I was a considerable distance from home, and did not want to risk losing the oppurtunity. Also, due to the fact that my camera saves to jpeg format and is a little overzealous in compressing the image, the crop of the original photo shows jpeg compression. --Fir0002 21:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Focus is close enough for me. More importantly there is a nice glint in each eye. -- Solipsist 14:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 18:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• How couldn't I support such a shot? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:09, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - is it just the focus and JPEG compression that give it that "oil on canvas" kind of quality? I know i said the same thing about "Churchill College" but this one's a little more forgivable. Matthewcieplak 04:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 04:12, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - excellent photo, though I'm not sure about the concept of "spider love." :-) -- ChrisO 17:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Amazing photo. Support. Andre (talk) 22:21, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Not that it needs any more, but it's just a great picture of a spider, and those are hard to take. --Andrew 05:00, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Support ++ZayZayEM 09:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Gosh, makes it look like it's going to jump out of the page at me. Support. Enochlau 20:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Nice pic. Fir0002 you should probably mention on the pictures page that you were the one to take it. Lorax 01:05, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

• Promoted, +14/-0. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:29, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Gun-type Nuclear weapon

I feel a little odd nominated something I made, but I am somewhat proud of this, I think it turned out well. My goal was to create an image which would illustrate the gun-type assembly method used in the Hiroshima bomb. In doing so I tried to pick an approach which to me would usefully illustrate the conceptual aspect of it, but also situate the technology within the frame of an real-life object (I personally feel that the physical reality of nuclear weapons is often lost in our focus on their abstract principles/fears). In this I admit I took some inspiration from an image in a 1960 Newsweek article, though the work is original. Used in nuclear weapon design and "Little Boy", created by me. --Fastfission 04:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support - Fastfission 04:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support, excellent work, informative and not stuffed with too much information. Don't feel hesitant to nominate your own work, a lot of great work on Wikipedia is just simply overlooked. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 09:03, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Good work. Janderk 12:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Good explanatory diagram. - RedWordSmith 13:39, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Good diagrams are welcome. -- Solipsist 15:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I usually don't like the proposed diagrams, but this one is simple and nice. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 18:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The simpler the better. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:12, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Well done -- Chris 73 Talk 04:13, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Nice work. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 06:32, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain (I don't want to obstruct a generally great picture with my quibbles). Might I make a couple of suggestions? 1) it looks as if the slug and the target are of roughly the same size - wasn't the slug about 20% of the total critical mass - if that's the case, maybe making the target bigger (or slug smaller) would help. 2) the initiator isn't shown - unfortunately the perspective you've chosen might making drawing it in rather tricky 3) the perspective on the hole in the target is kinda wrong 4) the fuses aren't shown (wasn't there a barometric altimeter fuse and a radio-antenna trigger backup?) 5) it would be good if you could upload the source Illustrator document, if only to facilitate translation of the diagram into other languages. Heck, but don't listen to me, it's still super work. - John Fader
  • I changed the size of the target in one of my little tweaks, but I don't think it matters all that much for the understanding of it. It is not meant to be technically accurate, hence the lack of the initator or the fuses or anything like that—the point was to explain the concept of the gun-type assembly, not to be an accurate technical depiction (or, rather, a guess of the technical depiction, which is all such drawings actually are, since the internal specifics have never been declassified) of the Little Boy weapon. I think that including that sort of detail would make it more difficult to understand than anything else; I'm aiming this at normal encyclopedia readers, not military buffs (though I have situated it in a casing, I think the thickness of the lines indicates that it is not a technical document). So, I'm just saying, I purposefully omitted such things and took certain artistic lincenses; I was going for something which conveys the gun-type assembly without a "two hemispheres launched towards each other" level of abstraction from reality, but also without the overbearing complication of unnecessary "accuracy" (which I am dubious about anyway, having interviewed some of the people who make the hyperrealistic diagrams). As some background, the reason I thought about drawing this was that I have been doing historical research into the creation of diagrams of nuclear weapons and thinking about the varieties of styles/tropes involved, I think this one is the best for conveying information while still grounding the concepts as actual objects. I'll upload the illustrator file to commons sometime next week when I get back in town if anybody wants to translate it into other languages. --Fastfission 23:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good work, clear diagram, adds to wikipedia, but doesn't have that aesthetically stunning element that I think makes a picture featured-image quality. -Lommer 06:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Promoted, +9/-1. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:29, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Global duststorm on Mars

Clearly illustrates the literally global impact of such dust storms on the planet Mars.

• Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 14:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Its good and interesting, but we have already Featured a nice, dust free, NASA image of Mars and the Spearman town picture from the dust storm page. -- Solipsist 18:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing special in comparison to other planetary images. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 23:54, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• oppose. i think that subject is terribly interesting, just not the pic Cavebear42 04:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• oppose. Good, not great, especially for a NASA shot.--ZayZayEM 09:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are much better Mars shots. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:23, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• NOT promoted, +1/-5. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 09:31, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Sapporo Ice Building

Sweden and Canada have ice hotels, but each February Sapporo in Japan gets a small town sculpted from ice and snow. Quite beautiful and remarkable. This photograph is by Chris Spackman. - Solipsist 01:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support - Solipsist 01:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice photo, but not feature-quality. If you have a higher resolution, I'd reconsider my vote. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 06:27, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Absolutely stunning. Support. - RedWordSmith 08:35, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Neutrality. Support if and only if higher resolution can be offered. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 08:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral -- Nice, but I don't care for it myself, on purely subjective aesthetic grounds. -- GWO 12:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful piece of architecture. We won't use a higher resolution picture in the pedia, so I don't see the need for one. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 19:22, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. I think people might be using two different meanings for 'resolution' here. If its a shorthand for the image size (eg. medium res), then it should be noted that at 763x534 its larger than the 'Wolf spider', 'Soda bubbles macro' and 'Fisherman on Lake Tanganyika' which are generally being supported. If resolution is being used in the more correct sense, that it is to say its not perfectly sharp, then I would tend to agree. In fact the original was probably over jpeg compressed. In any case the data embedded in the original jpeg suggest that photographer took a 1600x1200 picture and it was probably just compressed to minimise the image sizes on his web site. So if someone wants to follow the source links to ask for a larger version, both are probably solveable. -- Solipsist 20:13, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I also think that it has to do with the amount of detail in the subject of the picture. This building has etchings on the ice which are hard to make out at the current resolution. A picture of a bubble, however, would not be greatly improved beyond a much smaller size. Support higher res, neutral otherwise. --Aqua 07:25, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• A fine subject. Support if technical considerations can be dealt with. Denni☯ 02:27, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
• Support, I don't really understand the technical problems, doesn't seem any smaller than most featured images. In terms of the focus, it looks fine to me -- the only blurriness I can see is, to me, rather easily attributable to the fact that it is made out of ice (i.e. there are some features which are rather fine showing up, so I don't think it is necessarily a camera problem). But I could be wrong. I still think it looks pretty dang good. --Fastfission 23:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Looks good to me. Support. Enochlau 20:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:22, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• NOT promoted, +5/-3. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:07, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

A game of The Game of Life in progress

Inspired by the Monopoly photo, I took this shot and spent ages cutting the background out. Illustrates the gameplay beautifully.

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 01:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cash and cards are cropped. Would support if image shows everything. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:56, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, I think it's good work, but I agree with the cropping comment above, also the light reflections on the board are somewhat distracting. Not sure if that is fixable. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 18:55, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Maybe the Monopoly (game) photo was lucky to get through (especially without a Scotty dog), but this doesn't have quite the same pizzaz (minor point: a drop shaddow might work better than the halo shaddow). Its a good illustration for the article though. -give me money- Solipsist 18:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Also I didn't originally notice that there is a strong blue colour cast on this photo. -- Solipsist 23:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Shaky support -- I think this is close to the Monopoly image's quality, though I agree that a different shadow would be preferable. I don't mind the cropping at all -- it gives the impression, I think, that the game is truly in progress...no cropping would look oddly formal, I think. Jwrosenzweig 21:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. Should this be under GFDL or Fair Use (what's the rule for taking pictures of copyrighted things?) Enochlau 20:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Potentially tricky. The board design here would be copyright (as would Monopoly), but I doubt this would count as a copyright infringement due to the lack of detail in reproducing the board. It is clearer, for a photograph of a copyrighted US sculpture or a copyrighted painting. Its possible that the inclusion of parts of board's surface and playing cards would mean that the image as a whole would have to be licensed under Fair Use, I'm not sure. -- Solipsist 23:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:21, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. - EventHorizon 04:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted. +2/-5. ed g2s • talk 19:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Asteroid 2004 FH

Self-nom. (not created by me, but uploaded). Just a cool sequence. Timelapse of Asteroid 2004 FH's flyby (NASA/JPL Public Domain). 2004 FH is the centre dot being followed by the sequence; the object that flashes by near the end is a meteor. Images obtained by Stefano Sposetti, Switzerland on March 18, 2004. Animation made Raoul Behrend, Geneva Observatory, Switzerland. Source: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news142.html - JDG 02:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • The object flashing by is most probably an aircraft. Since a meteor would be visible on only one frame, unless it was moving veeeery sloooowly, and this object persists for at least three frames, it cannot be that. Denni☯ 20:26, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
• Oppose, I don't think it looks particularly good, it is also not that illustrative. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 09:24, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Well this is all pretty subjective, so there's no real arguing. I get the feeling that many frequent voters here need every FP to be a glisteningly high-quality shot of a Shinto temple at sundown, or equivalent. I don't know how this timelapse of Asteroid 2004 FH could be any more illustrative of its subject. Sure it would've been nice to have a camera mounted on the `roid itself, but this is the best we have and to me it's standout. JDG 21:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, for my part I just do not see this article as adding significantly, it does not show something more than a dot moving along through other dots. I agree that the concept is fascinating, but I do not think this sequence in particular is. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 09:04, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. JDG 21:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. As a still image it would be booring, but with the movement it is very illustrating I think -- Chris 73 Talk 23:38, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I think anyone who is a skywatcher will appreciate thsi sequence. Denni☯ 02:25, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
• support. its very illustrative Cavebear42 04:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Janderk 11:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, really very, very boring. ed g2s • talk 16:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. At 43,000km, asteroid 2004 FH is a near Earth orbit asteroid, ie. one which could wipe us all out (well actually its way too small), and asteroids are normally shown moving against a static star field. So this is an interesting take, but it doesn't quite make an FP for me. -- Solipsist 08:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not illustrative, boring, and mislabelled.--ZayZayEM 09:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Doesn't add much to the article; not FP quality. EagleOne 21:58, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:22, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted. +5/-6. ed g2s • talk 19:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Snow Leopard

The last Lightmatter picture for now, although I feel like nominating half his gallery. I think it's great this gifted photographer has chosen to license almost all of his images under the Creative commons license.

• Support. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 09:53, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Chris 73 Talk 12:41, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Tricky one when put alongside Belizian's Black Puma. The cat is not looking at us, its not by a Wikipedian, its in a zoo and no-one's life was put at risk whilst taking the photograph. These things shouldn't matter, but they do a bit. Still good enough to support though. -- Solipsist 19:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see a featured image in a bored looking animal in a zoo. Plus, Snow Leopards look much better in the show with their white winter fur. Janderk 22:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. What Janderk said. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 04:12, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, would be better if he looked at us. The composition of the shot isn't really brilliant. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:59, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is a real shame that it isn't facing the photographer... even though, maybe at a great deal of personal risk. It is a very good quality photo however. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 07:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:20, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• NOT Promoted, +3/-5. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:10, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Fire Breathing

Another image by Lightmatter, especially effective at illustrating the topic I think.

• Support. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 09:48, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not bad, but the arm on the left and the photographer distract a bit. Also, i think the image would be better from the front Support the picture after the magic touch of Solipsist. Great retouching! -- Chris 73 Talk 12:40, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment -- Nice enough to try a retouched version. -- Solipsist 18:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Nice work! Although I'm in doubt which version I like best now, I agree with Matthewcieplak that firebreathing kinda needs a crowd, mmmm, can't you paint Evil Bert or Jar Jar in there? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:43, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Actually there is still a crowd there in the shadows. I could put the lady on the right back in, but she has her back turned, or I might be able to put the less obvious, lefthand photographer back in. -- Solipsist 10:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. The picture has a snapshot quality and is not special enough to compensate for that. Janderk 22:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The retouched version is much better. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 04:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support original version - firebreathing is not something you do without people watching. Or maybe it is, but we don't see them doing it. Matthewcieplak 06:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • No you are right, once you've had your lungs converted for fire-breathing, you have to breath it all the time. Normally this is disguised by chain smoking. But sometimes, particularly when you have a chest infection, you just have to go outside and let one rip.... :) -- Solipsist 10:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. As Janderk said, snapshot quality. I've seen much better fire breathing/juggling/poi photography. ed g2s • talk 02:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support retouched version. Andre (talk) 22:19, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Definite support (of retouched version). JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 22:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support (retouched) - but couldn't you have just removed the arm and left the onlookers?--ZayZayEM 09:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:20, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:03, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Both. The arm is too much of a distraction and I am not a fan of retouched photos in an encyclopedia. Lorax 00:59, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

• No real consensus for either of the images, NOT promoted, +7/-4. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:10, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Gelato

Beautiful, for more work by Lightmatter, see here. A great deal of his work is already in WikiCommons.

• Support. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 09:47, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. -- The lighting is a bit flat, but the real problem is that my eye is still drawn to the pint of beer in the background (its blurred, but that's the way a pint of beer often looks :) -- Solipsist 19:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Background is very distracting, and lighting is too directional. Denni☯ 20:21, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting piece. But as mentioned background distracting, and the centerpiece still looks a bit off (fuzzy/noisy?) to me.--ZayZayEM 09:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I don't find beer distracting in photos or in real life :), the bit that annoys me is that on the left of the gelato, the focus is not as good as the right hand side. Also, the entire picture is way too grainy. If it was taken on a digital camera, use a higher quality jpeg setting; if it was scanned, perhaps blur it a little? Enochlau 20:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:21, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• NOT Promoted, +1/-5. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:08, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

The Measure of Man

A nice scan of an iconic image, but how many know what Leonardo da Vinci was really saying? Some of the answers are at Vitruvian Man, although the image is also used on several other Leonardo related pages. - Solipsist 21:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support - Solipsist 21:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Surely one of the most famous drawings of Da Vinci should be featured. If you look well you will see that the notes are written in mirror. Janderk 22:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support! Definitely -- Chris 73 Talk 23:34, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• support, still a stunning picture, after all these years. Cavebear42 04:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support, for sure. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:40, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Picture has serious impact on related articles and looks simply cool. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 10:01, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Love that illustration. --Fir0002 06:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Absolutely; support. - RedWordSmith 06:23, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 07:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --[[User:Kpalion|Kpalion (talk)]] 18:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Very cool. Support. Andre (talk) 22:17, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Support!!! --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:18, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Promoted, +12/-0. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:16, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Crash.arp.600pix.jpg

I am nominating this page because it really adds to the articles it is attached to and is pretty incredible on its own. Used in the pages Accidents and incidents in aviation, and Ejector seat. - IP:209.11.48.2 20:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Nominated and support - Nrbelex 20:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Now that adds value to the ejection seat article. Janderk 22:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great shot! -- Chris 73 Talk 23:35, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• support. this has been a fav of the guys here since it was taken Cavebear42 04:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It looks Fantasitc! --Crazyjoe 05:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support, a better illustration is impossible. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:40, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. - The pilot might have steared away from the crowd, but the USAF guy taking this photograph doesn't look in such a good position. -- Solipsist 10:18, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. possible april fools caption: "USAF demonstrates new fighter technology. Levatation seat technology allows for greater visability while wing fire effects stike fear into the enemy." --Aqua 00:46, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 02:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support--ZayZayEM 09:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:19, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Promoted, +11/-0. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:16, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Ukraine elections map

Brillant, simple, colorful, informative graphic that clearly demonstrates the geopolitical divisions in Ukraine. It looks best at about 500px, which is its size on the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election article. Neutrality^talk 04:05, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Neutrality^talk 04:05, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like to support but the full image looks exceptionally jagged (see discussion at FPC talk) and I'm worried that this image will be very dated soon enough, which is less than useful for featured pictures I suppose. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:39, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 13:34, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Don't be put off by the lack of anti-aliasing on the original, this was provided by my request by User:Steschke. It is from the source image, which can be coloured in easily. As Neutrality said, it looks fine slightly smaller, but I kept it the original size when I uploaded so it would (a) have a smaller filesize and (b) be easier to edit. ed g2s • talk 16:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Featured images should be timeless. This graphic will be out of date very soon. Janderk 23:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Seeing as this may become a very significant event in the history of Ukraine, I'm not sure what it means to say that it will be "out of date". Are historical documents not "timeless"? ed g2s • talk 02:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Shows that wikipedia has competence also at actual afairs and can illustrate an article significantly. --Steschke 02:56, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
• Oppose. On its own, it's not particularly relevant for the Ukranian elections, as the winner is decided by popular vote, not by an electoral college. Besides, the legend is wrong: one of the districts in the middle of the country has a percentage of 47% for Yushchenko; but the colour is given as 50%-60%. Eugene van der Pijll 16:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The point of the map is not to show how much of the vote each candidate got, it is to show the geographical distribution of the vote, i.e. the clear East/West divide. It would be no more relevant for an electoral college system it representing this point. As for the key, it has been fixed. ed g2s • talk 19:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • But the geographical distribution of the vote is not the most important thing about the election results. It's the total number of votes of both candidates that is important. Image:Ukrainian_presidential_election_2004-10-31.png is a much better picture that this one, as far as the information it contains. The importance of the geographical distribution only becomes clear in its context in section Ukrainian presidential election, 2004#Runoff. Eugene van der Pijll 22:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • The fact that you feel the geographical distribution is not the most important thing about the election results is quite irrelevant. The East/West divide is a fact of the election result, and is very well illustrated by this picture. The picture therefore does its job of illustrating this point. Other pictures illustrating other points better have no relevance to this. ed g2s • talk 21:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Agree with Ed; this is an unactionable complaint. James F. (talk) 15:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. While it does add a lot the article it is not especially clear or informative; even though the results graphed are clear and shocking, the picture is not. ✏ Sverdrup 17:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Yeah, the legend is wrong, which is why in my original pic, I'd simply had it say "< 60%". In the Kirovohrad oblast' official results for Yushchenko were 47.08 while Yanukovich's were 46.48. But nonetheless, that detail aside, I think I'll vote for support. Aris Katsaris 20:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• support
  • above vote by User:66.47.230.45, could you please create an account/sign in if you want to vote. ed g2s • talk 19:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• support. I think it is good to have topical diagrams. If it becomes stale in the future, it can always be delisted. -- Solipsist 21:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. This picture is neither beautiful nor fascinating. Just out of interest, that 74.69% - what is it pointing to?? Is it pointing to the river? Very unclear. Enochlau 20:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think that's Kiev. Mark¹ 05:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:17, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The picture does not show the true geographical distribution of votes, because it is based on fraudulent results. Mark¹ 02:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• NOT promoted, +6/-6. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:46, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Savoia Marchetti S.55 sea plane

((nonfreeimage|Marchetti.JPG|Savoia Marchetti S.55 sea plane|right|150px)) I know this illustration appeared in Savoia-Marchetti S.55 is way too playful. I still want to nominate it anyway. - Toytoy 05:57, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Here's my vote. - Toytoy 05:57, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. As a diagram, I would prefer it to be serious. Also, no licence conditions. Enochlau 06:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cartoonish, doesn't add any info or making anything from the associated article clearer, no copyright tag. --Lommer 06:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. See here for the license issue. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:55, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Cartoonish, yes. Playful, yes. Could add a bit more info here and there. But the big question is: Does this illustration make the article more interesting and fun? And does it add anything to making learning and sharing of information more fun? Then my 2 cents says Absolutely! --Eric 11:54, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. While being a well drawn funny illustration, it remains a cartoon that vaguely resembles a S.55 telling me that the gas tank is in the wing and where captain Balbo is located. I would vote to remove this cartoon from the article S55 article too. Cartoons do have their place, but not in a encyclopedia article. Especially, if it does not contain any useful information. In addition it got copyright issues and has ugly url at the bottom. Janderk 15:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Fair use is not eligible for FP status, should be archived unless the license changes. ed g2s • talk 21:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The original Dutch auther tagged his own images as Fair use, before they were not tagged at all, I wonder, is it even possible to declare your own original work Fair use, and even so, how can these be Fair use? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 15:56, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose on copyright grounds. Apart from that, it's cute but not very informative. I have no objection to cartoons in an encyclopedia (I own a great book called "The Way Things Work" (ISBN 0-395-42857) which has interesting, and detailed explanations of many common machines, generally operated by one or more wooly mammoths) but they should be informative (and legal - I'm not sure "fair use" even applies to this sketch, not that I live in a country where "fair use" is the rule)
  • Hah, I have that book here, in Dutch, under an entirely different title, but I fondly remember the lovable mammoths :) -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 10:40, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - a really superb illustration, but I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. --Rlandmann 01:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Archived. Inappropriate license. ed g2s • talk 17:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Toyota Celica, 2004 GT-S Model

This is a self-nomination. This picture illustrates the Toyota Celica article. A picture was taken by me specifically for this article (at the time, only older model was pictured, and, considering how Celica changed over time, it was not enough).

• Nominate and support.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:11, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Do you have a larger resolution version perhaps? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 15:30, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • I can rescan it. What resolution would you like to use?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:01, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. While it may be a nice crisp picture, I would really have to stretch to see it in any way suitable as a featured picture. It is not "beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant" in any way. Nice snapshot though. Wish my car looked that good. Denni☯ 23:23, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
  • Comment. Couldn't you say that it's just about as "beautiful, striking, shocking..." as Image:Corvette-je-1958.jpg? Or perhaps it's the change in background from nice scenery to a brick wall? Enochlau 20:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. A good photo, but not a featured picture. Definitely upload a higher resolution version though. ed g2s • talk 04:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't like the lighting. Shadows too prevalent. I don't think this shot would be good enough for a Toyota catalogue... so I don't think it's featured quality. -- GWO

  And if shadows are removed?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:55, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

• Support --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:10, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 03:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Janderk 14:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. andrewphelps 23:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) How in God's name is this image "beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating" or "brilliant"? It's a picture of a car, and one that is of standard composition and light quality. It's not entirely in focus, the background is ugly, and the crop is too loose. It's completely non-unique. The list of "Featured Pictures" should be extremely short! Images in this list elicit an immediate and uncontrollable "Wow" upon viewing. // Appendage: By the way, I am not trying to be an ass or criticize anyone's contributions. I just want this list taken seriously.
• Oppose. Nice shot but not feature-quality.
  • Not promoted. +2/-5. ed g2s • talk 04:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

UCR's Belltower

Used in the University of California, Riverside article. I took this picture on a clear day in late fall. Mind you, the tower is slightly slanted, only because the ground on the University is on a slight incline. I don't know if this could be considered as a featured picture candidate, but I would like to try.

• Support. Self nomination. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 07:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. First though the image was tilted, but this is only a very minor tilt. -- Chris 73 Talk 15:25, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I have never been there, I doubt very much that the building is as off-plumb as this picture seems to indicate. If the ground is sloped, you should correct for the building, =not= the horizon. I would also note that this photo is not "beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant" - while this is an attractive building, this is not an especially interesting photo. Denni☯ 23:28, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
• Oppose, ditto Denni. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 15:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. A nice shot, but a fair way off the world's best tower for architecture. -- Solipsist 22:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:11, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]]
• Oppose Janderk 14:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted. +3/-5. ed g2s • talk 04:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Strasbourg Cathedral facade

Self-nomination. I took two photos of the cathedral's façade and then stitched them together in Photoshop. The Strasbourg cathedral is one of the most remarkable examples of Gothic architecture in France. --[[User:Kpalion|Kpalion (talk)]] 18:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. Either because of the compression of the image or becasue of the buildings surface, the image doesn't look all that clear.--Fir0002 23:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I uploaded a better version (much higher resolution, now it's really huge). I hope it's better now? -[[User:Kpalion|Kpalion (talk)]] 23:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - just as Photoshop can be used to stitch, so too can it be used to adjust perspective. Would support if that were done. Denni☯ 23:47, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
• Support. It's detailed and beautiful. - Menchi 08:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Ooo...I didn't notice the door was missing its bottom bits like Solipsist pointed out. I can live with the fact the higher tower to the left is missing its roof, but the gate's lower part being missing is a bit of a shame. I still support, since no other featured church photo has a facade. Strangely, we have two similar ones on the inside though: Image:Cathedral of Magdeburg Inside.jpg and Image:STmaximin-Solitude.jpg --Menchi 00:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Insanely detailed. - RedWordSmith 19:38, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pretty good, but... It can be difficult to get a good angle on some cathedrals, particularly when enclosed by medieval streets, so it is often necessary to concentrate on the tower/spire or one of the doorways. In this case, although the facade is reasonably detailed, we are missing both the top and the bottom, which feels uncomfortable. Also, there is hardly any article to illustrate at Our Lady's Cathedral in Strasbourg (nor on the French Wiki from what I could tell). Its a reasonable illustration for façade, but I would have thought we could find better - for a cathedral it should probably be the west face, and for any building should really be complete elevation. -- Solipsist 21:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:04, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Janderk 14:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Nice picture but... hm, not ideal. Could you make the sky more dark in Photoshop. In the future use filters. tukan 16:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice job stitching, but the tight crop on all four sides is confining. - Jpo 18:46, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like many images of architecture on WP, it needs perspective correction, at the very least. --MarkSweep 19:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enochlau 15:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted. +4/-8. ed g2s • talk 04:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The USS Los Angeles (ZR-3) airship flying over southern Manhattan

This airship USS Los Angeles (ZR-3) was given to the United States by the German Government as war reparations from World War I.
Detailed Manhattan background in this photo contributes nicely to this image.

• Support for and nominated by - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 20:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. We need more good B&W FPs. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 21:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 23:46, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Awesome shot of Manhattan, if not the airship. Shame the Navy can't afford a high-res scanner. ed g2s • talk 02:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Amend to support second, even better that the other one. ed g2s • talk 04:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 07:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 02:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Damn nice shot of the city. Andre (talk) 22:17, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Support --[[User:Kpalion|Kpalion (talk)]] 23:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support --Elijah 23:47, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
• Support. I figured that a German Zeppelin should really be the featured picture in this subject area, but couldn't find a free picture that was better than this one (you would figure there was a good size scan of the Hindenburg disaster) and in any case it turns out the ZR-3 is a renamed German Zeppelin. -- Solipsist 22:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support BUT I support the picture of the USS Akron which I just posted even more. The Akron is a much more historically popular airship, and I like the face that you can see the entire island underneath of it. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:16, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• support the second pic[[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 00:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Both pictures are great - Jpo 18:41, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted second. +13/-0. with ten no preference and three preferring second. -- Solipsist 19:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Marginated Tortoise Hatchling

I think this is a great picture of a new-hatched tortoise, showing how much they grow and mature; it's also extremely cute. My sole reservation is that it's not a natural setting, but I think the plain blue background avoids distracting from the subject matter. Photo by Richard Mayer, who obviously has some pets.

• Nominate and support. --Andrew 04:52, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. Just wanted to note that the related Image:Tortoise-Hatchling.JPG is already a featured picture. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 09:35, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Fir0002 23:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Would support if natural setting, but as cute as he is, this little guy's setting detracts in a major way. Does remind me of a naughty riddle about turtles on their backs, though. Denni☯ 23:43, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
• Support. Too cute to refuse. ----ZayZayEM 09:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with previos oppositions.--ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:04, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Janderk 14:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:01, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. This picture makes a great illustration for both Marginated Tortoise and an article about baby animals. Probably wouldn't make a good illustration for animals in their natural habitat Lorax 00:51, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose because IMO it doesn't add significantly to the article. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 00:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted: +4/-5 -- Solipsist 20:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Veined Leaf

A rather striking and colourful photo from pdphoto.org which does dual duty in illustrating photosynthesis and showing the veined structure of a leaf. - Solipsist 21:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support - Solipsist 21:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful. The leaf colors are great and the viens are very visible.--Fir0002 23:04, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - very crisp and clear - an excellent accompaniment to its article. Denni☯ 23:40, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 03:15, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support--ZayZayEM 13:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:08, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Janderk 14:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Nice color, lighting and structure. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:44, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Wish it were not so tightly cropped though. - Jpo 18:48, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted: +9/-0 -- Solipsist 20:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Persian Astrolabe

A clean and crisp illustration of an astrolabe - unfortunately I don't read Persian to check that the stars are labelled correctly. One of the better shots I got from visiting the Whipple Museum of Science.- Solipsist 21:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Self nomination - Solipsist 21:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Pretty cool. --Fir0002 23:03, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - nice shot. Denni☯ 23:38, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
• Awesome. Support. - RedWordSmith 01:00, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Great shot, Solipsist! Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 03:14, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support--ZayZayEM 13:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support --Chris 73 Talk 23:39, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support Super shot. Very detailed. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:06, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support belongs in any aricle on Art and Science--Pharos 08:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Perfect. Janderk 14:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful shot of a beautiful object. grendel|khan 06:05, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
  • Promoted: +11/-0 -- Solipsist 20:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Polar Bears approaching the USS Honolulu submarine

Great photo of Polar Bears investigating a submarine near the North Pole. Shows animals interacting with human technology in their natural habitat, which is rarely seen in photos. From the U.S. Navy. Neutrality^talk 02:57, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Neutrality^talk 02:57, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Nice...support. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 03:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The bears are small and the submarine/Honolulu only partially visible. I'm not sure which article this photo would be suitable for. --Menchi 08:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Menchi, the bears appear fine size to me in the non-thumb photo. Perhaps USS Honolulu (SSN-718), polar bear and human and animal interactions. Its illustrative, we just need a context.--ZayZayEM 13:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Jkeiser 17:40, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, good polar bear picture - RedWordSmith 19:28, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Support Very Cool!! --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:05, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support! [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 10:54, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Enochlau 06:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support!. Incredible picture. --Lommer 06:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:01, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• oppose. I considered nominating this myself a couple of weeks ago because its got a certain wow factor, but in the end I couldn't decide what it was illustrating. The bears are too small for polar bear, the submarine isn't shown much at all. It could work for 'environmental destruction' or 'wilderness' or something (not that the submarine is particularly to blame, but polar bears are a sensitive indicator of environmental polution). Also the fullsize is a bit blurred and grainy. -- Solipsist 08:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Amazing shot. - Jpo 18:51, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lovely picture, although it looks better at small->medium sizes. Great use at USS Honolulu (SSN-718), but I think the caption at Arctic Ocean is poor.jlang 23:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Amazing photo. — Trilobite (Talk) 13:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Anr 18:59, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
  • Promoted: +14/-2 -- Solipsist 20:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Goanna

Self nomination of own photo. People keep telling me its good. Maybe they're just being nice. Only problem I can see is that I still have no idea what sort of goanna it is. After reading how nasty goanna attacks can be in the creation of the article, I'm happy it thought it was invisible and did nothing. - ZayZayEM 13:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - ZayZayEM 13:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - the green parts look very dull, and the image doesn't look all that crisp. Enochlau 20:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:04, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 03:09, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
• neutral - I actually quite like this photo, but the fullsize image lacks detail or has failed to scan cleanly or something. -- Solipsist 08:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, I also really like this photo, but it just seems a bit out of focus for FP consideration. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted: +1/-4 -- Solipsist 20:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tradesecretwax

"Trade Secret" Wax on the hood of a car by jeff2417 (see Acura RSX) - jeff2417 6 Dec 2004, 00:38 (UTC)

• support self nomination. - jeff2417 6 Dec 2004, 00:38 (UTC)
• Oppose. Upside down, unused image. Nice shot, but not spectacular. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:09, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. In this composition the image is not at all brilliant, also Featured Pictures need to illustrate an article, which article would this image illustrate really well? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:19, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pictures "should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article".Where's the article? - Adrian Pingstone 10:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neutrality/^talk 03:12, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enochlau 06:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Elijah 19:44, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
  • Not promoted: +1/-6 -- Solipsist 20:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Halong Bay

This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.

• Oppose. Way too small, a request by Raul asking for a larger version has not been replied to in months. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 10:03, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too much distraction from boat in foreground. lacks color. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:39, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unpleasant foreground, and the lighting is very flat. I'm sure there are much better pictures of this popular destination. Worldtraveller 12:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The name "Vacation Photo 022503.jpg" describes the quality level very well. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enochlau 02:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. -- Solipsist 07:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 02:37, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. agree with most that is written above. --Fir0002 04:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted. +0/-9. ed g2s • talk 01:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Peppermint and Corsican mint plant

This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.

• Support. Clear and straightforward, illustrative image. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 10:04, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:01, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:06, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Support Lorax 01:04, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 04:23, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -Lommer 20:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Lacks clarity and sharpness, perhaps Photoshop touch-up in store? Enochlau 01:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Its a fine illustration of the difference between Peppermint and Corsican mint, but the peppermint article doesn't have much to say and the only mention of Corsican mint is at mint (so might as well add the picture there). Apart from that, the photo is not so sharp and not especially interesting. -- Solipsist 08:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Suffers from compression. Not very interesting. ed g2s • talk 22:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Janderk 16:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not particularly interesting. - Jpo 18:56, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Support --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Ed g2s --Fir0002 04:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not retained as a featured picture. +8/-5. ed g2s • talk 02:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Schlern

This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.

• Oppose. Image quality is way below FP standards. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 10:04, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, looks overexposed, too light. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:41, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sun comming from the front puts the mountain in the shadow and makes the sky too bright -- Chris 73 Talk 00:05, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Same reasons as above. -Lommer 20:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral, but I suspect it was originally liked on the basis of the first version [7] Stan 22:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enochlau 01:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• oppose -- Solipsist 08:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Fir0002 04:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not retained as a featured picture. +0/-8. ed g2s • talk 01:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Queenstown

This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.

• Oppose. Image quality way below FP standards. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 10:05, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The scan quality really lets it down, but even with a better scan I think it would be a good but by no means great image. Worldtraveller 13:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, same as Worldtraveller -- Chris 73 Talk 00:04, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enochlau 01:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Solipsist 08:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 02:36, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • +0/-7. Not retained as a featured picture. ed g2s • talk 01:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Surface-mount closeup

Self nomination. A closeup photograph of a printed circuit, showing various kinds of surface-mount technology. Used on the article surface-mount technology. The angled view allows us to better see the heights of the various components, but unfortunately introduces a (hopefully acceptable) limited depth of field - John Fader 22:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Weak support. While not technically perfect, I like this photo, especially the reddish tint. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 22:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Shows the surface mounted components very nicely -- Chris 73 Talk 00:10, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. Maybe it would be interesting to have a version where the components are described with text on the image itself, would be quite illustrative. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:15, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

  Good idea. I added a glowy annotated version to the image page. I'd welcome comments as to how this might be improved. - John Fader

• Neutral I like the idea, color and composition but I don'lt like that the top of the picture gets blurry. I can imagine that it's difficult to take this sort of picture perfectly. Maybe it just looks blury when I look at the big version... [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 02:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I don't like the blurry bit either, although I agree that the rest of the photo is quite nice. Enochlau 01:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It'd be nice if the out-of-focus area had a bottom counterpart, but this is a good picture anyway. Rhobite 05:38, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Nice and something different - and a very detailed description too. -- Solipsist 07:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak support... The depth of field issue might be solved a little bit by getting a little further away and using a zoom. Sometimes a little fuzziness can be good though (see Image:Soda bubbles macro.jpg). A very illustrative and interesting photograph nonetheless. Matthewcieplak 02:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The light and the field of depth are not in the featured area. Still great for an article though. Janderk 23:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --Fir0002 04:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Fredrik | talk 16:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not sharp enough as a still photo for FP inclusion. - Bevo 16:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've seen sharper macro photography. ed g2s • talk 17:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted. +8/-5 assumed support vote from nominator. (+7.5/-4.5 counting "weak" votes as halves). ed g2s • talk 17:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Saturn V engines

As far as striking images go, I think this almost demonstrates the hugeness of the Saturn V rocket even better than the "skyscraper" shots do. - Fredrik | talk 15:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. - Fredrik | talk 15:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Thought about nominating this myself. Matthewcieplak 02:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - as a portrait of Wernher von Braun - we don't have many portaits. I would have thought there were better color photos of the Saturn V engines. -- Solipsist 07:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, greatly illustrative. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 10:35, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with Solitude here. Support. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 17:03, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, unfortunately bad quality. But what's with the bar on the left border? Darkone 22:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • How is the quality bad? Fredrik | talk 23:23, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Possibly one of those image cache issues - User:Ed g2s as been uploading larger versions again, just a couple of hours ago -- Solipsist 23:34, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, it was a cache issue. Now, on the 2nd view it's better. Darkone 16:07, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Slightly larger yes, but mainly I was getting rid of all the white specs from the original :). ed g2s • talk 00:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support the cleaned up version [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 02:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Evil Monkey → ^Talk 21:55, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly showing the greatness of Von Braun. Janderk 00:10, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 04:13, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Support Elijah 19:47, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
• Strongly Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Those are some mighty big engines. grendel|khan 01:39, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
  • Promoted. +14/-0. ed g2s • talk 18:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Port wine

PD image of port, makes me want get drunk, how about you? Too bad about the image name, if it gets enough support we could re-up.

• Support. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 10:50, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
• I like it very much. Support. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 13:29, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I re-uploaded it under the filename Image:Port wine.jpg. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 02:32, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I've a slight reservation over the glass - the thick rim is indicative that its fairly cheap and it is possibly too squat, but at least it is clean. -- Solipsist 08:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 04:13, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Okay pic, but not outstanding. --Elijah 19:47, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 16:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Superb shot. --Fir0002 04:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Nice but wouldn't add anything to an article. Enochlau 15:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, the woodgrain as seen through the transparent wine makes the wine look artificially cloudy. - Bevo 15:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - Ack Enochlau --Thomas G Graf 19:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted. +7/-5. ed g2s • talk 18:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arctic Wolf (Canis lupus arctos)

Great photo of a beautiful animal on arctic wolf. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 03:38, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 03:38, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, may need a rule-of-thirds compliant crop, but support either way. Rhobite 04:10, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, thumbs up. Enochlau 04:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - back to the dog photos... but the gentle backlighting here works quite well. I think the composition already works and is close enough to the rule-of-thirds. -- Solipsist 07:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, I like the composition as it is. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:01, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Support either way, but I do like the current version. Matthewcieplak 02:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good, but not superb. ed g2s • talk 22:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Give me the same shot of this guy in an Artic setting (its natural environment) and I support it in a split second. It is still great for the article though. Janderk 00:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, although I agree with Janderk, that a picture of an arctic wolf in natural environment would be even nicer. On a side note - Janderk, this is a girl wolf, not a guy wolf. ^^ -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 01:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Curious: How do you tell that it is a she? I could not find that in the article. Janderk 15:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Schnee took the picture. :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 04:13, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. There are thousands of shots of canines out there (mostly from government wildlife agencies). Is this really the best we can find? Just today I came across Image:Coyote_portrait.jpg. ed g2s • talk 05:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Janderk. --Aqua 23:21, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Ed. James F. (talk) 03:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 02:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Why is Janderk so certain that this isn't the natural setting? The habitat of the Arctic Wolf extends South of the tree line and even the North has summers where the snow thaws. I like the photo, and I think it is all the more striking because the wolf is not surrounded by snow. -- Oarih 07:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted. +9/-6. ed g2s • talk 18:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kievskaya Metro Station

Self nomination of a photo of Kievskaya station in Moscow, used to illustrate Moscow Metro. I think it nicely shows the chandeliers-and-art side of the metro as well as the fact that it's just a way for people to move around. - Worldtraveller 22:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Self nominate and support. - Worldtraveller 22:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The blurry people, although nice, obscure some of the ornaments on the far wall. Also, the ceiling near the chandeliers is overexposed. Enochlau 01:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, just my opinion, but I think if they didn't, it wouldn't be a very interesting picture. People in front of some mosaics was unavoidable, and the image was intended really to illustrate the metro in use. Also, lighting varies so much that it would be impossible to get all picture elements well exposed. Do you think this harms the visual appeal of the image? I had never particularly noticed or been distracted by the bright ceiling. Worldtraveller 17:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, one look at the bright ceiling and my eyes go ow. Enochlau 15:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• The ornaments are very detailed, but they aren't done justice by the low resolution... ed g2s • talk 05:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Really interesting place. --Fir0002 05:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - I thought we had seen this one before, but I must have just considered nominating it. -- Solipsist 07:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose (now Support), what Ed said, maybe a larger version would be possible? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:02, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, personally I hate having to scroll to see all of an image - it ruins any impact it might have had for me. So, for my personal usability preferences I like images about 700px wide cos they fit nicely on my screen. I feel that any benefit to the image from seeing it at higher resolution would be more than offset by having to scroll around to see it all, so I don't think I will upload a larger version. I will see what it looks like with 800px wide and a bit more sharpening, though. Worldtraveller 17:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Most decent browsers will auto-resize the image to the available screen resolution when viewing the image (not the image article). Its a minor incovenience, a larger image shows more detail and is way more useful in any future paper version of Wikipedia. I'd really like to see large versions of your great photography! -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 21:56, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • I am a sucker for a compliment :) so I have uploaded a truly massive 1000x677px, with a little bit extra sharpening and some improved (I think) colour saturation as well. Hope that might address your objections. Worldtraveller 23:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Great thanks! I hope you will consider uploading any new images in large resolution, chaning my vote to support. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 10:37, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • With regards to your point about making images 700px wide to fit on the screen, MediaWiki 1.4 (which has just been installed on the commons, and should be here soon) scales images to inside a 800px bounding square and provides a link to the full size image, if they are too big. As I've said here before, the technology is always going to improve, but we'll only have as much data as you give us. ed g2s • talk 19:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Plus, you never know what the user's screen resolution will be, and with the current trend they will only be increasing in the future. Its always better to have to scale a high res image down that to scale a low res image up. Anyways, great image. Support. --Aqua 23:19, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Extreme support. Brillant shot. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 02:38, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The ceiling is a slightly overlighted due to the long exposure time, but what am I saying? It is a fantastic shot. And to think that it is just one out of an amazing collection from which, hopefully, we will see many more nominations. Janderk 00:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 04:15, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Support Elijah 19:45, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Wonderful atmosphere - for me the "overlit" ceiling just adds to the dream-like quality of the photo. The "blurry" people are a representation of time ticking by and life in motion. I only wonder if there is a slight green cast or is it just the predominant colour? But great image. Cormaggio 22:41, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - the blurriness obscures too much of the picture. EagleOne 22:05, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, impressive picture. - Mailer Diablo 12:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted. +10/-3. ed g2s • talk 18:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Marbled Spider (Araneus marmoreus)

Marbled spider (Araneus marmoreus) in Northeastern Ohio. It was hanging next to the back door of a friend's house. Nice Rorschach-like designs. I like how you can see the shadows of the individual hairs on its legs. - [[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 18:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - [[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 18:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Thanks brian0918 for identifying this critter. Certainly one of the more interesting subjects I've photographed -Casito 19:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. It's interesting and you can see details, but don't you think the background is boring? Also, it's appears a little out of focus. Enochlau 02:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The standards in the animal category are quite high, this one is out of focus. Also, try to work it into an article, Featured pictures are supposed to be excellent illustrations, illustrate something :) -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:06, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poor photography. ed g2s • talk 22:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Head in the shadow, poor background composition -- Chris 73 Talk 04:16, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose--Thomas G Graf 19:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted. +2/-5. ed g2s • talk 18:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lincoln statue in the Lincoln memorial

Nominating this image for promotion and the current FP of this statue (which I feel is vastly inferior) for demotion. I would've put the other of nominations for removal but I though it best to keep them together. I plan to use it on Lincoln Memorial when it the other image is demoted. ed g2s • talk 19:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Nominate, support promotion, support demotion. ed g2s • talk 19:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • To clarify, the current FP is grainy, flat and boring. As a photo it has nothing to it other than its subject matter, which although very encyclopaedic, doesn't meet featured picture standards. ed g2s • talk 00:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• oppose promotion, oppose demotion - I like the original better. Dunc|☺ 21:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• oppose promotion, support demotion. The replacement looks like it has been worked too hard to make it look like art. I like the original a bit better which just shows Lincoln as it is, but do agree that it is not brilliant either. Janderk 00:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• oppose promotion, oppose demotion. Current F.P. is better. Current FP is grainy, yes, but a much better angle of view. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:12, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify your votes by using support/oppose promotion, support/oppose demotion as this is a double vote.. ed g2s • talk 17:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Done -- Chris 73 Talk 23:52, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
• support promotion, support demotion. Original is boring, the new one is not perfect but still a great image. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 12:50, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
• support promotion, oppose demotion; no reason not to have two, and the current one isn't bad, even if it is a little boring. James F. (talk) 19:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "not bad" and "a little boring" aren't the descriptions you'd expect of a featured picture... ed g2s • talk 03:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• support promotion, oppose demotion. [I agree with] James F. ... They're different images that say different things about the same subject. - RedWordSmith 00:25, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. People, do we really need two Featured pictures of the exact same statue? Please look at this from an international viewpoint as well, is it really so interesting as to require TWO featured pictures. I think we should regards these two pictures as different versions of the same image, and select only one of them. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:18, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't see any conflict between having two pictures of this subject and our international scope. Would we say no to two featured pictures of the Taj Mahal or the Eiffel Tower? I hope not. - RedWordSmith 22:48, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
• support promotion, support demotion. I agree, ... Both pictures are nice but only the new one is FP quality. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 22:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• oppose promotion, oppose demotion. - The current FP is a neutral picture: centered, distant view, evenly lit; while the new one is designed to be more emotional: off center, very dark background, very bright middleground, view looking up from his feet. A nice picture, but one that is framed and lit to invoke a sense of reverence. --Elijah 22:43, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
  • i.e. it captures the intentions of the statue. ed g2s • talk 00:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • If that is the intention of the statue, then it should speak (metaphorically) for itself, and not require subjective photography. --Elijah 00:44, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
• support promotion, oppose demotion. The demotion part has gotten a little out of hand while we seem to have pretty good consensus for support. I propose we finish the process of nominating this one on its own merits, and then do a VFD for the old one at the bottom of this page, independent of this process, where we can evaluate the picture and context more thoroughly. Matthewcieplak 01:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• oppose promotion, oppose demotion. Oppose this nomination at this time because we already have a featured picture of that subject from roughly the same viewpoint. And, of course this is not the way to delist any standing featured picture. Use the process first of delisting the current image, and then nominate the new image (you can use the new image's existance in the rationale to delist the standing featured image). - Bevo 18:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• support promotion, support demotion. While not as impressive as a thumb, the full-size "war president" photo makes Lincoln jump off the screen -- his hands and eyes seem caught in the middle of a gesture. The current FP is serviceable, but hardly comparable in my eyes. Jwrosenzweig 21:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• support promotion, support demotion. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 03:38, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
• support promotion, neutral demotion. Support promotion of "war president" beautiful contrast and focuse. Magnificent sculpture.--Fir0002 04:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• oppose promotion, oppose demotion. I agree with Elijah - the old one is balanced and neutral, whereas the new one is taken from a angle that makes it nigh-impossible to know what you are looking at; the intentionally high contrast washes out the color of the marble. Basically, most of the informative use has been lost in order to make this more picture more chique. →Raul654 09:10, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
• oppose promotion, oppose demotion. agree with Raul654. Enochlau 21:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Clearly the first is more plain and neutral, but is it "beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating"? I can understand if you think the new one is too emotive (although this never seemed to be a problem when promoting "cute" pictures of fluffy little animals :)), but the old one is just boring. ed g2s • talk 04:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• oppose promotion, oppose demotion. I've thrown a wrench into the works by uploading an enhanced/brightened version of Raul's photograph. The other one is a little too stark and lifeless; I prefer the subtle coloration in the original. -- Wapcaplet 05:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Your version has blurred it a bit, and overexposed some areas. I don't the original has enough infromation to make a decent image out if it. Not enough light. ed g2s • talk 02:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• support promotion, neutral demotion. --MarkSweep 08:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• support promotion, support demotion. User:Wapcaplet's increased contrast version of Raul654's photo definately helps and in many ways it is the more acurate depiction. The new image from vxdigital is perhaps a little overly dramatic, but it works quite well. I particularly like the subtle inclusion of the text on the back wall. There is a minor technical problem in that it isn't actually used on any article, but I guess the intention is to replace the image on Lincoln Memorial whilst leaving the original photo on Abraham Lincoln. -- Solipsist 23:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• oppose promotion, oppose demotion. I too think this one tries too hard to look like art -Lommer | ^talk 09:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Summary- This is confusing. To sort out the voting, I'm now going to refactor each comment to clearly show support/oppose promotion of the first image, then support/oppose demotion of the previous image. If I have got your vote wrong, please let me know (especially as there were a couple I wasn't even sure were votes). -- Solipsist 16:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • New picture, Not promoted   +11 / -9
  • Previous picture, Not demoted   +7 / -11 / 2 neutral
  •  -- Solipsist 16:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bottlenose Dolphin

Quite straight forward, but its got the knowing smile you would look for in a dolphin. Ultimately from stock.xchng.hu and recently added to the Commons. - Solipsist 19:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• support. - Solipsist 19:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I noticed that it has been tagged as GFDL by the uploader, is the uploader claiming to be the author, because the only license I can find relating to this image is the stock.xchang license [8] which is far from free? ed g2s • talk 20:45, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You appear to have misread the terms page you quoted, and the specific page for this image. Pcb21|Pete 21:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Pcb21. The entire site is free content. If you look at the specific page for this image, it says "There are no usage restrictions for this photo." Oh, and support. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 21:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Sadly I feel this is not the case. "There are no usage restrictions..." referes to specific restrictions that can be placed on the photo by the uploader, that fact that they have not placed extra restrictions on the photo does not place them in the public domain, they'd have to explicitly state that there are no restrictions on the photo. When they upload to the site they do so under the stock.xchng terms of conditions which license the images under the stock.xchng license [9]. This is not a free license. Some user pages have comments like "you can use my image for any use without permission" or "all my images are licensed under cc-by-2.0". This user's page does not, so the only license that applices is the stock.xchng license. ed g2s • talk 21:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Not sure if this a valid objection for the featured pictures page but the image reinforces an inaccurate stereotype of what a bottlenose dolphin is like - particularly what wild BDs are like. Pcb21| Pete 21:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree...I'm sure there is picture of a dolpphin in a more natural pose. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 00:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Inappropriate licence — to quote: "you are not allowed to build a gallery using the photos you downloaded from here", so we couldn't actually put it on Featured Pictures visible. James F. (talk) 23:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) Ah, I see now that this is fixed. Support. James F. (talk) 19:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I uploaded this picture. I got the personal permission from the creator to upload this picture for any use. I only set the link to stock.xchng for information about the author. If i have choose the wrong license type, please apologize. I think we can stop this senselessly discussion please. Mb2000| 23:45, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Ah great. In future if you get permission from the author please state so explicitly. As far as I knew, the only confirmed license was the stock.xchng one, hence the concern. ed g2s • talk 00:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. ed g2s • talk 00:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Great shot. But again, I don't see a featured image in a dolphin swimming around a Seaworld swimming pool. The same picture taken in its natural habitat will immediately get my vote. Janderk 09:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • And you would tell the difference how...? I can buy this argument zoo lion looking a little bored, or even not having snow behind the Arctic Wolf below, but in this case what would change? The colour of the water - there are plenty of locations where dolphins live with water this bright. Is the dolphin bored - how would you tell. -- Solipsist 09:20, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It is indeed the water, which got swimming pool blue all over it. Another give away is the fact that there is no horizon. Oh, I just noticed that the image caption states that it was actually taken in Sea World. Images where you really can't tell do get my vote. For example, you will see that I voted for the coyote above. Personally I have no clue if that picture was taken in a zoo or the wild. Janderk 18:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks good little but the full image looks pretty ordinary. Espcially the eye region. --Fir0002 04:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with Fir about the eye-region being a disappointment. But its still a really good picture.--ZayZayEM 00:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't find anything special about it. Enochlau 03:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I was going to archive this when I realised the vote count was +6/-3. Any more votes? ed g2s • talk 04:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, more than just the head should be included to be a featured picture of this animal. - Bevo 23:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose- clarifying my opinion from above BrokenSegue 23:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted, +6 / -5 - Solipsist 18:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Coyote portrait

Given that we seem to be back to doing dogs...

From Commons, uploaded by Ed; originally from [10]; the licence [11] is cc-by-2.0; illustrates Coyote nicely.

• Nominate and support. - James F. (talk) 03:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful detail. ed g2s • talk 04:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Stunning. Autiger 03:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great detail and shot. I wonder if it cropping a little of right would make it even better? Janderk 09:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- I wouldn't crop, since the picture as it now stands centers (or nearly so) on the eye of the coyote, and I like it that way. :-) But I leave it to wiser photographical minds than mine to make the final decision. Jwrosenzweig 21:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Would be featured picture material if the ears hadn't been cut off. I must oppose. Denni☯ 00:28, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
• Support. I have new wallpaper. Mark¹ 02:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support.--Eloquence* 02:09, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Brilliant shot. Very detailed and well focused. --Fir0002 04:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Enochlau 15:07, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poor photography. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 19:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Just out of interest, why do you think so? Enochlau 19:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support Oppose, I need to be consistent with my concern about just including the head of an animal as a featured picture. - Bevo 23:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, regretfully, due to ear being cut off. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:59, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - need that eartop. - Trick 18:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Don't care that much about the ear. Truly stunning shot. Look at the full-sized version, seriously. grendel|khan 05:51, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
• Oppose Darkone 17:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - it would probably be better with the tips of the ears and the harsh change in background tone is a little distracting, but the intent look and square on profile make up for it. -- Solipsist 23:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -Lommer | ^talk 08:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted, +13 / -6 - Solipsist 18:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gulf of Mexico

So much information in one image: individual states, counties, latitude and longitude lines, as well as topographic and bathymetric mapping, all thanks to the NOAA and GIS overlaying. A much better image than the original picture at Gulf of Mexico. Now all we need is someone knowledgeable to write about the picture in the article. It certainly fits the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words" ... even if those words have yet to be written. - [[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 06:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - [[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 06:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Fredrik | talk 16:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 03:37, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Weak support. Illustrates it very well, and the 3d concept is very good, I just don't like the look of the ocean all that much. But still a pretty good image. --Fir0002 04:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. What this thing lacks is a scale showing what colours correspond to what altitudes. Enochlau 15:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not a particularly good rendering. ed g2s • talk 16:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you could do a better job. Did you look at the source image? --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 19:35, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I meant in terms of a 3D rendering from the source data. I don't think their program produces nice projections of the landscape. It looks like the original data was quite low resolution. ed g2s • talk 04:32, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Are there better or higher resolution renderings of the same region out there? --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 04:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak support -- Chris 73 Talk 23:50, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Mark¹ 04:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - Perhaps, if the 'France radar' image, with much more detail, hadn't been posted above. Even so, I find it a little off that the US is overlayed with extra info like state and county boundaries, whist Mexico has nothing. -- Solipsist 00:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Janderk 17:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Does a very good job showing the undersea features. Rendering is well done, too. I would have used less of a specular surface finish, but that is just a matter of taste. - User:Casito 03:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, too lo-res, and has no legend - Bevo 15:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted, +7 / -4

Tower of Silence

This picture is quite lovely and evocative, and is the jewel in the crown of the Towers of Silence article. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Nominate and Support. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Bleak and beautiful -- I support. Jwrosenzweig 20:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral I can't tell what resolution that picture is at....The full size version is very pixelated. Could someone upload a good loking version. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 22:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object until a proper copyright tag is added. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 03:36, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with BrokenSegue. Incredibly pixelated.--Fir0002 04:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It is not. Reload the page. Fredrik | talk 06:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. imho, this picture isn't very interesting, and I can't see how it would add significantly to an article about geography/geology/rocks etc. Enochlau 15:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, focus is not sharp, and the utility lines distract from the subject. - Bevo 15:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Flat, poor quality. ed g2s • talk 16:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Can't be promoted without an appropriate copyright tag ed g2s • talk 16:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I have asked Maziart to clarify its status. I see that another request was made on his talk page in November. Not sure how often he logs in. -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Going by his contributions, not since he posted that image. ed g2s • talk 04:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose until copyright is clarified, support with suitable copyright -- Chris 73 Talk 23:47, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Even with copyright clarification, what makes you want to support it? Enochlau 15:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Quality issues.--ZayZayEM 00:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not promoted, +2 / -7