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

This is a haunting and well-composed photo showing the graves of soldiers in one of the most miraculous battles in modern history.

It is used in three articles: Powazki Cemetery, the Battle of Warsaw (1920), and the Polish-Soviet War. It was taken by User:Lysy. - thames 02:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - thames 02:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Visually uninteresting, and not very sharp. Mark¹ 02:51, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I disagree the picture could have been excelent, unforntunately it's kind of small and out of focus. Oppose unless a better version can be supplied. BrokenSegue 02:53, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: a higher res version has been supplied sadly it is no better. BrokenSegue 03:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with BrokenSegue. Oppose. Enochlau 02:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Terrible quality: low res, bad compression. ed g2s • talk 03:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, Out of focus. However, I disagree that the resolution is too low. Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, It appears out of focus but possible just because the res is low. Is there a full size? Cavebear42 08:42, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose --Thomas G Graf 19:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, focus not good. Also, are the grave markers photographed from behind, i.e. the nameplate is on the other side? -- Chris 73 Talk 00:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • +1/-8/0 Not Promoted BrokenSegue 12:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Incorrectly added by User:Wetman. No vote from me. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

(Thanks). I thought that this uniquely striking image emphasizes the isolation of New Zealand and presents the configuration of the world's continents and oceans from a fresh viewpoint that reveals unexpected relationships, in a crisp graphic presentation. Image created by User:Avsa, 18 Jan 2005 for article Auckland.

• Nominate and support - Wetman 07:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very blocky. ed g2s • talk 17:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't any outline map be "blocky"? --Wetman
    • Not if it had been anti-aliased. ed g2s • talk 13:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice and interesting and a good addition to the Auckland article, but not quite a featured picture. For the purposes of the Auckland article, it could be a little smaller and would benefit from a spot marking the city, otherwise the eye still gets drawn to Australia. -- Solipsist 21:16, 19 Jan 2005
• Oppose. Enochlau 22:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose --Thomas G Graf 18:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. wonderfully illustrative. Mark¹ 02:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • +2/-4/0 Not Promoted BrokenSegue 12:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A little something I took while in Florida. - →Raul654 07:54, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - →Raul654 07:57, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Explains camouflage perfectly. And also adds to the article on the fish itself. Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
• support - Perhaps there is camouflaged cuttlefish in Image:Frogspawn too. -- Solipsist 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice. Enochlau 22:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very interessting, but seems it to be yellowish. --Thomas G Graf 18:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't that because the background (sand) is a yellowish colour? Enochlau 02:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about this, But the photo definitely illustrates Camouflage well, so I support it.
• Support, great shot -- Chris 73 Talk 00:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, it is interesting. — Pt _(T) 00:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. 01:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) Jdforrester 02:30, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted. +8/-0. BrokenSegue 22:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A good shot of an Australian Toad.

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:57, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Are you sure you didn't pay this toad to pose. Nice and sharp with beautiful colors and nice piece of grass to show surroundings. Support. Mgm|^(talk) 21:27, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Shows the features of a toad very well. Enochlau 21:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - the piece of grass in front of the Toad's head is very distracting I think. Worldtraveller 13:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose it's a pity that there is this piece of grass in the foreground. Otherweise it would be a excellent picture. --Thomas G Graf 18:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Ground 02:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with Worldtraveller. WOuld be a superb image without the grass. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:55, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -Lommer | ^talk 05:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. That fuzzy grass strand obscuring the face is the reason. - Bevo 18:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • +5/-4/0 Not promoted BrokenSegue 01:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Created specifically for the Checkmate article - Alight 22:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Alight 22:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The composition of the picture, and the colours, aren't all that interesting, I'm afraid... Enochlau 02:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Enochlau's points. Mgm|^(talk) 10:11, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Thomas G Graf 13:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with Enochlau, also, the chess pieces are cheap plastic and look worn-- Chris 73 Talk 00:47, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. It can be tough to illustrate a concept, so full marks for the idea and setup. Its just that it fails to grab my attention. Possibly cropped a little too tightly too. -- Solipsist
• Oppose. uninteresting - I also don't know how well it illustrates the concept because in many (most?) chess games the king is never taken i.e. the checkmate position ends the game, not the king's death. -Lommer | ^talk 06:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Traditionally, when you are checkmated (or believe you will be) you resign the game by laying your king down, as shown in the photo.
  • +1/-5/1 Not promoted BrokenSegue 23:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Self-nom, a picture which I think vividly captures the motion of a traditional Japanese dancer. I cropped the original (Image:Japanese traditional dancer.jpg) for a more economical shot. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 21:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support, if I'm allowed. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 21:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, the larger pic is badly out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 21:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, Focus, lighting, camera shake. - Alight 22:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with Adrian. Neutrality^talk 21:21, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with comments about camera shake. Enochlau 02:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose --Thomas G Graf 13:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, out of focus -- Chris 73 Talk 00:46, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - I really like the subject and the composition, but the blur/shake is a problem. -- Solipsist 20:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. as above -Lommer | ^talk 06:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • +1/-8/0 Not Promoted BrokenSegue 23:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Has a good shape to it. Used in TGV, created by erm... Dunc|☺ 12:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That would be me. :-) -- ChrisO 13:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Dunc|☺ 12:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. (Size, sharpness.) --Thomas G Graf 18:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, generally out of focus, what's wrong with the size? Mgm|^(talk) 21:38, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not interesting. Enochlau 02:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Can't see any detail at that resolution, do you have a larger version? ed g2s • talk 02:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is good architecture, but the picture doesn't quite capture it. -- Solipsist 21:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -Lommer | ^talk 05:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • +2/-5/0 Not Promoted BrokenSegue 23:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Self-nom. Striking and vividly colored. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 23:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 23:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. →Raul654 02:24, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The angle and tilt at which the photo has been taken appears rather unnatural to my eye. Enochlau 20:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I just dont see whats so special about this photo. Also, the background is a bit too dark. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:52, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing special. The colours actually look flat. ed g2s • talk 12:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. -- Solipsist 21:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. In addition to the above points I also fail to see what is special about that particular fountain. --Fir0002 10:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I like it - it's a cool looking fountain. -Lommer | ^talk 05:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +3/-5/0 BrokenSegue 16:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another one of my vacation pictures. I think this one came out really well. →Raul654 06:55, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - →Raul654 06:55, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
• I know it's probably hard to avoid, but the white feathers are washed out and I can't see any of their detail. Oppose. Enochlau 12:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very average photography. ed g2s • talk 12:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Enochlau. There are lot's of blown-out hightlights and lack of feather detail. Plus the colors look very oversaturated. Alight 21:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. As above. --Fir0002 11:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's true that you can't see the white feathers, but it looks good overall to me. - RedWordSmith 05:51, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. green is definitely oversaturated. -Lommer | ^talk 06:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +2/-5/0 BrokenSegue 21:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a self-nomination of an image of one of the picturesque arms of Sognefjorden in Norway. The image also illustrates the Fjord article. - Worldtraveller 11:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Self-nominate and support. - Worldtraveller 11:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose --Thomas G Graf 13:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Any chance you might give a reason? Worldtraveller 22:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too small, and the there are too many JPEG artifacts. Also the sky is over-exposed. ed g2s • talk 16:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've revisited my original scan and taken a bit more time with the post-processing to avoid washing out the sky. Also saved with a bit less compression, so any artefacts should be minimised. Worldtraveller 22:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • I think the lighting on the sky gives it a nice bit of atmosphere. At any rate, is it even possible to not have the "overexposed" effect with so much snow and white clouds around? I can't see any obvious artefacts, usually they show up easily in the sky, so support. Mgm|^(talk) 17:42, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • The artifacts are mostly in the mountainsides. If you look at the reflection, you'll see that the sky could've been less overexposed. ed g2s • talk 20:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Sky could have been less over-exposed, but then the water would have been underexposed - a difficult balance. As I say, some new post-processing may have improved it a bit. Worldtraveller 22:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment only for the time being. I think the sky looks fine, although does Worldtraveller have a higher resolution version without a black border straight from his camera? Enochlau 21:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have uploaded a version without the black border (had added it myself for display on my own web page, was too lazy to take it off again when preparing the image for here...) Worldtraveller 22:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Haha ok sure. The new version looks much better, but it's now a tad faded (or is that because there's fog?). Perhaps you could adjust the contrast, or if you're too lazy, run it through auto contrast in photoshop. Enochlau 20:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I like the image. One comment: Maybe the copyright statement on the image page could clarify that the uploader is also the photographer, as the copyright notice on the linked website is not compatible with the GFDL. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:51, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
• No support/Neutral: It's a very nice picture, but it simply doesn't convey all the beautiful and amazing features of a fjord. This image could also have been a lake somewhere, and it's not big enough to cut it based on it's own merit (cut loose from the article context). ✏ Sverdrup 16:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I like the glassy water, and the image is well balanced, but I'm a little concerned by the colour/contrast. It looks a little washed out and possibly a bit blue. -- Solipsist 21:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. The overall look of the photo is a bit drab. --Fir0002 11:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support - beautiful. →Raul654 08:13, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted, close though +4/-3/3 BrokenSegue 21:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A good photo of an Australian Frog

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 23:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The crop could be a bit tighter, but not much. Matthewcieplak 00:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 08:42, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. That rock is extremely overexposed and takes the attention away from the frog. Enochlau 14:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not very sharp. ed g2s • talk 11:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Lack of overall sharpness, poor camera angle for this subject, background is too busy and the highlights are overexposed. Alight 12:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Same argumentation ... --Thomas G Graf 17:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, the background and frog colors are too similar, plus what the other people said. --Spangineer ∞ 04:01, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. -Lommer | ^talk 06:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +3/-6/0 BrokenSegue 15:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I took this photo of Guanajuato, Guanajuato, a fairly large city in central Mexico. It shows the city's colonial architecture, as well as the University of Guanajuato (the dome shaped building on the left and long white building next to that). --Spangineer ∞ 20:11, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the Univeristy is the building with the dome that looks like a capital building, not the building with the smaller dome in front of it. --Spangineer ∞ 20:18, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Self-nominate and support. --Spangineer ∞ 20:11, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Striking. It looks like the high-res suffers a bit from jpeg compression, but the others are great. Matthewcieplak 00:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 08:42, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Ground 03:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --Thomas G Graf 17:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice-ish view, but the quality of the print is less than impressive. ed g2s • talk 13:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose. I like this picture a lot, but the off-vertical slant of the two domed buildings on the left is very distracting. —Korath (Talk) 18:16, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• some Relucatance, I can't tell why I don't like the picture. It just doesn't appeal to me. I guess I'll go with Neutral Oppose. BrokenSegue 04:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support - perhaps it could use a perspective correction as Korath suggests, but the lighting and layout of the town works rather well. -- Solipsist 08:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is such a perspective correction possible in fireworks or photoshop? I've never heard of that, so I hadn't paid any attention to the fact that those lines aren't quite vertical. --Spangineer ∞ 16:59, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Google it. The first hit seems a reasonable tutorial. —Korath (Talk) 18:24, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Echo Ed g2s sentiments--Fir0002 00:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 05:15, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. A nice enough image, but not of featured picture quality. Denni☯ 20:16, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
  • Not Promoted +7/-5/0 close though BrokenSegue 15:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Self-Nom: Very nice picture of a Wakizashi style sword mounting, Edo period, 19th century. The mounting is shown in the classical Japanese display position. The background also reminds me slightly of Mount Fuji. -- Chris 73 Talk 15:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not particularly sharp photo, and although I'm sure its illustrative, not really all that fascinating. Sorry but not quite a Featured picture in my opinion --Fir0002 10:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • change my vote to Support. I think the improvements to the image have made a difference. --Fir0002 23:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. In particular, I find the artefacts on the white cloth distracting. Enochlau 02:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Even after the edit, I still don't think I can support it I'm afraid. There are some white blotches towards the right near the sword now... and the grainy quality of what should be nice smooth patches of colour is still there. Enochlau 14:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -Lommer | ^talk 05:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support Denni☯ 03:20, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Actually its very nice, but the blur is perhaps a little too much even at medium resolutions. Obviously a tricky shot under low light conditions. - Solipsist 08:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Using Gimp I blurred the blue and black background and the white cloth, and also sharpened the sword itself (i.e. the image thereof ;) -- Chris 73 Talk 10:50, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's definately helped, although the pixel colour noise is still fairly visible on the full res. I should probably only go as far as neutral, but then this vote would be left inconclusive with no clear support. So given that its a good non-techie subject, works well enough at the medium resolutions and I wouldn't want to penalise an image just because the extra hires version shows imperfections, I'll go as far as weak support. -- Solipsist 16:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted +4/-1/0 BrokenSegue 23:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Beautifull image of this rather large cricket.

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Focus too shallow. Very bad background. Alight 19:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't like the context that the cricket is placed in, otherwise good. -Lommer | ^talk 06:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't like the background either. Also, the back end of the cricket is out of focus. Enochlau 21:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +1/-3/0 BrokenSegue 23:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a full sphere is the best illustration of a geodesic dome, and I might prefer it if it were primarily constructed of hexagons rather than the finer mesh of triangles. That way the necessary closing pentagons would be more obvious. Nevertheless, it is quite eye catching and leads to an interesting subject. Uploaded by User:DavidLevinson. - Solipsist 19:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support - Solipsist 19:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Although it was rendered by a GNU program, that doesn't mean the resulting product is a GFDL document. The website from which it came has a copyright statement on it, and does not appear compatible with the GFDL - or have I misread this? Enochlau 21:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  You could be right. I interpreted the image page info as the user using the GNU software and source files to render the image, but given that there is an image of the same size on the linked website, it is more likely it was just copied. -- Solipsist 07:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose even if it's free; jpg artifacts, and could really stand to be higher resolution. —Korath (Talk) 18:22, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. A nice image, but does not adequately display the hexagonal structure which is the signature of geodesic architecture. That it is a ray-traced image is not sufficient to make it a featured image in the 21st century. Denni☯ 01:07, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

===Salt Marsh===

This is a panorama of a salt marsh in coastal Conn. a smaller version of it is used on Salt marsh and took this photo in July 2003 while visiting the state park where Bride Brook Salt Marsh is located. It has nice foreground as well as deep background detail and the colours are particular well balanced. Released it under the GFDL and CC granting Wikimedia Foundation the GFDL rights.

• Self nominate and support. - — © Alex756 03:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a good picture, but not particularly striking or interesting. Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the contents of the photo are quite interesting - if only the photo were of a better quality. The clouds in particular have noticeable artefacts. Enochlau 01:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +1/-2/0 BrokenSegue 22:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Migrant Mother, Dorothea Lange's 1936 photograph of Florence Owens Thompson and children became the most famous image of the Great Depression in the United States. Its one of the classic photographs of the 20th century, and is now an icon of resiliance in the face of adversity. Its focus seems to be a little off, but its still a great image. -- Solipsist 07:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support -- Solipsist 07:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, Historically significant, lot's of emotions, although Florence Owens Thompson was just waiting for her boyfriend to get help for the broken down car. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:11, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, emotion captured nicely. Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain, until I learn whether or not copyright is an issue with this photo. Given the date, seems it is still protected. Support. Denni☯ 00:59, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

Well you can check the status on the Library of Congress website, but User:MarkSweep has done a nice job of expanding the details on the image description page on the Commons. More interestingly, Florence Owens Thompson was apparently not too happy with being portrayed as destitute, and after this photograph was published on the front page of the San Francisco News she tried to get further publication stopped, only to be told she couldn't because the image was public domain. -- Solipsist 11:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• The image page says that it is a work of the US government and thus is PD. And support. BrokenSegue
• Support, excellent picture --Spangineer ∞ 16:08, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, given that this might be the most famous single frame in the history of photography, I guess it should qualify. Alight 19:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, a very significant image. Successfully encapsulates the feeling of despair defined by an entire chapter of American history. --Deglr6328 07:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --Fir0002 00:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Thomas G Graf 18:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 00:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Janderk 10:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This beautiful image has become the symbol of its time. CryptoStorm 23:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Thue | talk 13:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Theaterfreak64 01:54, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted, overwhelming support BrokenSegue 12:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Austin O. Spare's pastel drawing of a wounded soldier during a WWI gas attack. Used to illustrate existing articles on chemical warfare.

A powerful painting and excellent illustration of the effects of poison gas. It's also not an image that's been widely seen by everyone already. - Night Gyr 01:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. We could use more artworks, instead of just photographs - Night Gyr 01:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Primarily because pictures of art are a slippery slope: next we'll have the complete works of Manet nominated, and people will vote on whether or not they fancy impressionists. Secondarily, the drawing actually seems to give very little information about the effects of gas- I don't know who's suffering from what, and even if the drawing showed that I wouldn't know how much was artistic licence. Mark¹ 04:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. I am inclined to agree... BrokenSegue 23:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should encourage illustrations for many more art works, but for a Featured Picture I would prefer them to be the most representative of a particular style or movement. For a war artist, Paul Nash would be a good choice, but his Totes Meer [1] is presumably copyright. In illustrating chemical warfare, this drawing works quite well but is also confusing - the leg wound presumably isn't caused by the gas. -- Solipsist 11:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I scanned and uploaded the image. It has been pointed out to me that my assumption on the copyright of Imperial War Museum WWI artwork is flawed and this image may not be in the public domain. I don't know for certain whether it is or isn't so it should probably be deleted rather than featured. Sorry for my mistake. Geoff/Gsl 01:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +1/-3 and copyright and concerns BrokenSegue 12:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ringed-Billed Gull. Bruce Park, Greenwich, Connecticut. January 2005

• Self-Nominate and support. - Alight 02:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's in black and white. Surely some readers would want to use the pic for identification so what use would a BW pic be? Doesn't seem right to feature a bird pic in black and white. - Adrian Pingstone 10:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you opposing it simply because you claim it can't be used for identification because it's black & white? If so, you are incorrect. Please tell me, what other species of gull might you confuse this with? What "hidden" features of the gull would be visible if the picture were to be in color?
    • The hidden features that would be visible are its colours! By the way, please sign your contribution - Adrian Pingstone 14:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • That's not quite what I mean. What I'm trying to say, is that for this particular bird, all of the features that are required for identification are clearly visible, even in b&w. This is the case, even if I didn't indicate that the photo was taken in the eastern U.S., but given that I did it pretty much nails the identification. Alight 19:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I do not feel this picture is "beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant" -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not particularly striking, and I agree that it should be in color for the articles it's probably going to be used for. Junes 15:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, color would have been nicer, and as far as bird pictures go, it is nice but not particular special. -- Chris 73 Talk 13:55, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. These days, there needs to be a good reason for B&W. This is not one of them. Denni☯ 01:12, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
• Oppose. The fact that it's b&w is not a problem for me. it's just that there's nothing really special about it. Enochlau 23:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Colour would have been nicer -- Longhair 20:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +1/-7 BrokenSegue 20:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brilliantly captured picture. The cat's fur comes out very well. Used in the cat article. - JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán) 15:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support - JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán) 15:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I totally agree. Support. Mgm|^(talk) 23:00, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although I agree both the color/contrast and the cats fur is also well represented, but the actual eye is sadly, out of focus. --Fir0002 00:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. agree with Fir0002. Enochlau 02:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can't put my finger on just why, but this photo feels very odd. It's certainly not how I would portray a cat's eye. Denni☯ 01:22, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Lack of overall sharpness Alight 12:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Almost the entire image is out of focus (especially obvious on the larger picture)! - Adrian Pingstone 22:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great picture, in my amateur opinion. However, I can't see much encyclopedic use in it. --Theaterfreak64 01:49, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Lots of blur -- Longhair 20:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +3/-6 BrokenSegue 20:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lovely warm tones, contrast, well framed, discreet (given the subject matter of a dark line which develops on the bellies of some pregnant women). Used in Linea nigra, taken 12/26/2004 by Jeremy Kemp and released into public domain. — Catherine\^talk

• Nominate and support. — Catherine\^talk 10:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Colours too hard for my tastes (if that makes any sense). Junes 15:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Colors too saturated, hue too red. Denni☯ 18:19, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enochlau 02:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, unnatural colors. Mgm|^(talk) 20:42, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I like everything. Composition is great. Light, contrast, color, and saturation are just fine to see something. Ericd 21:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. While it's nice to have a photo of this phenonemon, it looks a little too salacious and deliberately titillating for my tastes and for a medical article. Plus the color is kind of funky. Cow 02:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. My first reaction was 'no, its not that nice a picture'. But then again, it is interesting and illustrative and those are important Feature Picture qualities too. -- Solipsist 16:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• * Oppose. Interesting...but kinda boring as a photo. --Menchi 21:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think this is a super picture. It passes the most important test, in that it's an accurate and informative (i.e. encyclopedic) representation of the subject. Other than that it's very spare. The lighting is excellent, making for an attractive image, and I'm not bothered by the (very moderate) colour shift (I agree that this is necessary to properly illustrate the subject). I don't find it prurient or titilating; it's not unreasonable for someone to dress in their sunday best when getting their photo taken. Jeremy also deserves the "courage under fire" barnstar for even thinking of asking if he could take this. -- John Fader 22:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL - I agree, John. Either he's very persuasive, or his lady is very tolerant.... And I think he chose the color and lighting carefully so that the line would be most visible -- it might not be a good choice for other subjects, especially portraiture, but a "clinical" white-light photo of this subject would not only make the line hard to distinguish, it would make a far less beautiful picture. — Catherine\^talk 00:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great illustration, is beautiful, and clearly displays the subject. — Brim 04:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, Agreed, unnatural colors -- Longhair 20:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, quality not good enough. Neutrality^talk 23:57, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +5/-7/1 BrokenSegue 00:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A sensational PD image of a bee, showing its wings in prominent focus. As good as or better than Bumblebee closeup.jpg which is currently a featured picture.

• Nominate and Support --Fir0002 07:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Perfect focus on wings. Nice composition and color. Background not distracting. Mgm|^(talk) 12:18, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful. Junes 15:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Lovely. Support. Enochlau 02:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 13:56, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. While this picture is in focus (always a good thing), this is a nomination for featured picture. For a support, I would want to see the wings presented symmetrically on the bee's body. This is a fine shot to illustrate the article, but not quite enough, IMO, to merit FP. Denni☯ 01:17, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
• Support. I think the bee is better at a slight angle, actually. I daresay that this picture is the bee's knees. - RedWordSmith 01:36, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- The Bumblebee closeup.jpg shot is far superior. The bee is in a better context (i.e. discrete from its background) and in better overall focus. Alight 12:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You should vote on whether this one is an adequate FP, not whether another one is better. Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, I will. I oppose this on the grounds that the bee is not discrete from its background and the overall focus is poor. Alight 02:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Janderk 10:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's way more clear than the dark bee photo with no contrast. It should replace it. We don't need 2 bee photos. --Menchi 20:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, I don't like this cropping from the original. It makes it look like the bottom right corner has been torn off - Bevo 02:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I like the backlighting that brings out the beautiful detail of the wings. Pollinator 06:06, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Longhair 09:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• supportDunc|☺ 20:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support/-LtNOWIS 03:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose BrokenSegue
  • Not Promoted, very close, +10/-6/0 BrokenSegue 18:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Self-nom. — Dan | Talk 04:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. — Dan | Talk 04:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Useful photo, but not quite up to featured pic, IMO; gargoyle is backlit, obscuring its details, and the sky is too white and washed out. -- Oarih 07:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with User:Oarih's points. Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just to be a little bit harsh, I wonder why quite a few clearly unsuitable pics appear in Featured Picture Candidates, often out-of-focus or washed out or tilted? This if for Featured Pictures, not for merely Good Enough pictures. Sorry to be a little cruel but it needed to be said. This pic is drab with a washed out background. Now watch all the Accepts appear! - Adrian Pingstone 15:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -Acceptable, but not great. Perspective is not very good.--Deglr6328 18:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enochlau 11:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bad perspective, washed out. Theaterfreak64 01:10, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Just not striking enough. -- Longhair 20:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +1/-7 BrokenSegue 18:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A beautiful shot of Hebe x franciscana

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 03:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Ground 04:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful image. Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I little bit on the dark side, but a very nice shot. Alight 12:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support A striking picture - Adrian Pingstone 14:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. The shadows make working out the features a little bit difficult. But I must say, it's nice. Enochlau 23:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 23:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, beautiful. Neutrality^talk 19:10, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Longhair 20:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice shot. Jpo 03:30, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted, overwhelming support/1 neutral BrokenSegue 18:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A typical Australian Hay Shed featuring open sides. May be round bales of straw, not hay, but resolution not good enough to be certain, but colour is more in keeping with straw.

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 02:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Its typical but its boring. Sorry - William M. Connolley 13:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC).
• Oppose. An interesting picture, but sadly the highlights on the hay are way overexposed. - Adrian Pingstone 14:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Adrian. Mgm|^(talk) 19:59, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enochlau 23:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Just not interesting enough. Perhaps stand back a little :) Longhair 20:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +1/-5 BrokenSegue 18:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Amazingly, this image was taken in Saudi Arabia, the image is in the Dhahran article and was taken by User:Eagleamn. - Eagle 14:25, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. First vote here - Eagle 14:25, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is nothing in this image to set it aside from any other small park-with-pond except the knowledge that this is in Saudi Arabia. For this to work, there should be a dune field in the background. Too much foreground grass does not help, nor does the blue (plastic?) along the waterline. Denni☯ 21:19, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
• Oppose -Most people alrady know that SA isn't a complete desert. Otherwise uninteresting photo.--Deglr6328 00:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not striking informative, or otherwise FP material. Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Opppose. Enochlau 23:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
• Opppose It could be more interesting -- Longhair 08:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. On its own, it's not FP-worthy. - Jpo 03:31, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted +1/-6 BrokenSegue 18:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

View of Lugano in 1909 is an early colour photograph by Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii, taken between 1905 and 1915, most likely in 1909. The image is featured in the article Lugano.

Public domain from the Library of Congress website. See http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/prokc.20214 for more information and the raw image. - Ghirlandajo 17:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. It's a shame that no Prokudin-Gorskii images have been promoted to featured pictures as yet. I previously nominated Black Sea in 1915 and most people supported it, but for some reason it was not promoted. - Ghirlandajo 17:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Whow: Support -- Chris 73 Talk 00:00, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Entirely worthy for the color fidelity of its time. Denni☯ 00:57, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
• Support. Enochlau 01:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Ground 15:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This illustrates early colour photography nicely, whilst still having some colour banding problems visible in the clouds. - Solipsist 11:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Compared to http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/prokc/20200/20214v.jpg it has been made too small, and sharpened too much. ed g2s • talk 15:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose current nominee. Support original. Performing post processing on a 1915 Prokudin-Gorskii colour photograph is like color correcting Rembrandt painting. You just do not do that. It's a pity too that the borders showing the techniques used to create the color photograph have been cropped off. Plus I agree with edg2s that the post processed one has been oversharpened.Janderk 13:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That's tricky. I think I might also prefer the version Ed g2s found, even though its a bit washed out, but mainly because the colour overprint adds extra interest. On the other hand, I don't have much problem with post processing the colours and contrast in an image like this (sharpening is perhaps not so good). Many photographers do a lot of post processing whilst printing in the darkroom. I presume most original Prokudin-Gorskii prints would have faded to nothing by now, so any modern prints from the glass plates involves interpretation. Even a Rembrandt, isn't trivial - pigments fade, varnishes yellow. There was a good bit of controversy of the Tate's restoration of Holbein's The Ambassadors, which became dramatically brighter and more vivid. -- Solipsist 16:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It is argued that Old Masters, especially in the New World museums, have little resemblance to the originals due to excessive overbrightening. Xenia 07:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 05:14, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. No oversharp at all. The ancient original is unwieldy and ghastly. Xenia 07:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Warofdreams 14:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. If this were only appearing in an article on Prokudin-Gorskii then I don't think it would be appropriate in touched-up form, but as a photo for Lugano, I think it's beautiful and evocative. -- Oarih 06:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted +10/-2/0 BrokenSegue 02:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC), sorry for the delay