Support as nominator TheOtherSiguy (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Are you certain this isn't an aerial shot of a suburban subdivision? ;) DurovaCharge! 04:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Poor sharpness at 100% and not a particularly breathtaking subject to overcome this. --Fir0002 11:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Nice picture, but nothing to provide a sense of scale. How large are these desiccation cracks? IronGargoyle (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I borrow you to say that again some time? Scale is a rather neglected aspect around here imho. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gargoyle. Clegs (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; it's not interesting enough, nor is it of much encyclopedic value. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 08:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, I agree with IronGargoyle that scale would be nice, but its really not the subject. It's dessication which can happen at various scales so it doesn't make it any less encyclopedic. grenグレン 06:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 06:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Broccoli is a plant of the Cabbage family, Brassicaceae (formerly Cruciferae). It is classified as the Italica Cultivar Group of the species Brassica oleracea. Broccoli possesses abundant fleshy flower heads, usually green in colour, arranged in a tree-like fashion on branches sprouting from a thick, edible stalk. The large mass of flower heads is surrounded by leaves
Reason
A beautifully executed, encyclopedic picture of a common subject
Oppose. Not one of our best. Overexposed, and not enough information about the image, e.g., was the broccoli frozen or fresh? Finally, composition is not enchanting. I have a feeling Fir may be aware of these shortcomings. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseHow does it not illustrate the subject? What else is there to illustrate, and given that theirs no ice, its fresh, and the composition is subjective. How would you have done it? --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the phrase I used was not enough information, and I was quite specific about what is missing. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious support. Excellent, top-quality shot of broccoli! Maybe you shouldn't have cooked it, but cooked is fine too since it's only of interest to people as food. --f f r oth 19:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not cooked. It says "ready for cooking". See the confusion? Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Óppose - Boring composition, plus the broccoli looks like it has freezer burn around the edges when you look close up. Colors are washed out, and the caption talks more about a full head, which this isn't. Last, ready for cooking is completely and totally subjective...not everyone gets their broccoli into this form before cooking. Sorry, but it just isn't spectacular (meaning the best of wikipedia) in any way. I would much prefer a shot of the whole head, that is more illustrative than chopped up bits. pschemp | talk 21:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to clear the confusion on the state of the broccoli. They were fresh and chopped up in pieces - mum was about to cook them when I stopped her and took the picture hence the "ready for cooking". --Fir0002 00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose; the detail is there...but I find it boring for some reason. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 08:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are a few gaps in the brocolli which show the white below that ruin it for me, they're just... too distracting, I guess. --Mad TinmanTC 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know if its the color or the little white spots, but this broccoli looks very unappetizing, and I like broccoli. Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 06:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - moles are members of the mammalfamilyTalpidae in the order Soricomorpha. Moles live underground and burrow holes. Moles have cylindrical bodies covered in fur with small or covered eyes; the ears are generally not visible. They eat small invertebrate animals living underground. Moles can be found in North America, Europe and Asia.
Reason
Excellent close-up picture of a mole. The image is very encyclopedic, showing both the large claws and the face of the creature, including the prominent whiskers and fur in detail. In addition, the image is suitably high quality for FP, and as a bonus has an enjoyably amusing quality about it...unless you have a well-kept lawn. Bobtalk 13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominatorBobtalk 13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture! Λua∫Wise(talk) 13:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - look alright as thumbnail, but at full resolution, almost none of the photograph is in focus, and in particular the details of the mole are in some areas very blurry. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-25 14:01Z
Oppose The only thing that is in focus is the tip of his nose. Clegs (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose focus issues. Unfortunate; how common is it to see a mole above ground like this? --Bridgecross (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak and reluctant oppose per focus issues. Adorable critter. DurovaCharge! 19:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dohhhhh I so want to support this, but too little is in focus. howcheng {chat} 23:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I love the mole, but is there any way to bring the background into just a little bit more focus? Either way, I support because this is a rare picture of a mole above ground during the day in the wild, and as I said, the picture of the animal itself is very good. Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 06:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I wonder how many horrific accidents there were with plans peeled to shreds before they could make this little news bulletin for Beaver's family --f f r oth 20:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just amazing... I don't know what else to say. -- Mike(Kicking222) 20:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done! Clegs (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Very impressive find. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm...Not applicable? This is a video, isn't it? We're nominating pictures, not video. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 08:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some featured pictures are video files. DurovaCharge! 10:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Free lesson: 'movie' is derived from the term 'moving pictures', which is what film was originally called; video of course is a later derivative of film. To get to the point, yes it's a picture, yes it's eligible. --jjron (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, whee. Thanks for that little lecture. I'm giving this one Strong Support for its encyclopedic and historical value. I'm simply astounded that the first supersonic flight took place onboard such an aircraft. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 04:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Yeager supersonic flight 1947.ogvMER-C 06:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breathtaking indeed, though the upper-right corner could be a little sharper (and not cut off)--HereToHelp(talk to me) 02:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great picture. jj137(talk) 03:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Ahhhh.....pschemp | talk 06:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's lovely, you can almost breathe the crisp mountain air.. but it doesn't hit a big encyclopedic note at all. There's precious little of the lake in the shot – it actually looks more like this – and the bit of it you do see (with the underwater tree remnants) I would prefer to crop out to improve overall composition. Honestly, I can see why it will garner support but I'm left wondering what the name of the mountains in the distance is, as they're the only really prominent subject. --mikaultalk 09:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's Moraine Lake; this is Lower Consolation Lake, which is adjacent, but not the same. howcheng {chat} 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question what's going on with the shadow intensity? Is this an HDR image? The shadow on the right side of the valley is dark along its edge, but is bright lower down. It looks like it has been selectively lightened within the shadow. The reflection of the sky near the far mountains is brighter on the lake than it is in the actual sky. I suppose that's optically possible, but really, it looks selectively lightened in the shadows. deBivort 16:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what it is. It could have done with being softer , certainly, but the effect is similar to using a graduated ND filter over the lens to darken the sky relative to the FG. It's such a straight line it might even be a filter. I don't mind it, actually, even though it is a bit obvious. --mikaultalk 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess one of the points of this whole photography adventure is to replicate the perception of a scene, and given retinal adaptation, this might not be too far from that perception, but it just looks too manipulated to me. deBivort 19:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per distracting selective lightening. Otherwise I think it is very nice. deBivort 19:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for not really representing the subject article well. Great shot, though. Try for FP on the commons. grenグレン 10:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose It is quite nice but the obvious lighting/feathered HDR attempt is too distracting. Plus as mentioned above it hasn't got terrific enc value. --Fir0002 11:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was considering nominating this the other day (I think we followed the same set of links from the FP article below), but I knew there would be gripes about the "representation" of the lake. I'd support it, but I don't think there's a chance of it passing at this point. Nice find though.—DMCer™ 08:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that it's in national park, it becomes exceptionally encyclopedic. The image quality, obviously, speaks for itselft!—DMCer™ 12:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. I think this would make a great encyclopaedic image in national park. It would also work in an article that discusses definitions of "pristine" in the context of ecology. It seems we don't yet have such an article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As this nom has been going for some time now, I've gone ahead and inserted the image as proposed. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; it's a great picture, no doubt, but it lacks encyclopedic value. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 08:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's in two articles now, so why am I still opposing? Support! Yes, I reiterate that this is a great picture...although "stunning" might have been a better word. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 04:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support superb picture. I've been there twice and this image definitely captures the feeling of Banff NP. Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent picture, superb quality. Schcambo (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as creator. Hope that's not considered too egotistical but I think it captures the spirit of the place and it looks like the shot can use all the help it can get. (Chuck Szmurlo) (talk) 30 January 2008(UTC)
Promoted Image:Consolation-Lake-Szmurlo.jpgMER-C 06:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A Lilium 'Citronella, a flower of the Lily family, is pictured, during a beautiful partly cloudy day.Edit 1 An edit to remove the artifacts from the cloning attempt made in Edit A.Edit A First edit to remove the distracting flower, from the commons nomination.
Reason
This is a clear, and nice image of a Lilium 'Citronella, part of the Lily family.
Support Edit 1 The distracting flower in the original was not good. The composition and perspective is what is cool. Let me rant on two subjects. First, over-saturation: As some famous photographer who's name I can't remember said: "Wild colors are the bastion of the uninspired and unskilled. Light is the most important aspect of photography. Light is what gives photographs life, feeling. Color just fools innocent people into thinking an image is good." Looking at Ken Rockwell's pictures makes me ill, the combination of ultra wide and grossly over-saturated color. This image is good in spite of the crazy colors, not because of them. The second, is crazy long signatures. Oreo, your sig is no less than three full lines on my edit page. Really, not to cramp your individuality but if people want to know something about your style, they'll visit your userpage. Anyway, you are definitely not the only one. This is all in good humor but, uh, maybe something to think about. ; ) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. And FCB, your sig seems to have trailing spaces. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (edit 1) - I like them just about the same, but I find the extra flower slightly distracting. jj137(talk) 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (edit 1) the edit was actually a re-edit -- a 'don't edit this but if you are going to edit it, at least do it well'. -- carol 09:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak SupportOriginal Not bad - but the framing is a bit clumsy. OpposeEdit 1 - poor cut out job (check out the ends of the stamen - looks like it was done using fluidmask?). --Fir0002 09:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I never heard of that software. The edit history is mostly here. I did not like the artifacts left in the sky in edit A and I think I mostly replaced the whole sky. Any problems you see around the flower -- probably GIMP did via masks. And, it would not have been GIMP (which is a collection of algorithms that have gui attached to it -- frequently referred to as software), it would have been the user of the software at that time who screwed up what was already an unnecessary and destructive edit of a perfectly good photograph. Sky gradient that was used. -- carol 12:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Has the leaf at the top also been worked? The discoloration could be a cloud, but it really looks like someone has painted some blue across the edge of the leaf, perhaps to remove some other distracting element. Matt Deres (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just like magic, where the magician (and the assistant) say 'look here' while just out of range of your attention, something else is going on or perhaps you need to get your monitor calibrated. -- carol 19:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs) [reply]
Weak Oppose its just not quite there. Close, though. Rudy Breteler (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- JTHolla! 01:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unencyclopedic composition presents slanted verticals and cuts off the subject in many places. Try for a more straightforward shot some of these.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 03:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per HeretoHelp. Clegs (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per HereToHelp and due to some noise in the sky. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 08:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find myself scrolling down looking for the bottom of the building. Rudy Breteler (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 05:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- JTHolla! 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Doesn't look too good. 8thstar 01:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Waaaay too much sky; barely any buildings. It goes to a lot of effort to show us the top of the monument and then doesn't show the bottom or surroundings. Also, the colors towards the bottom right look very dull.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 03:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per HereToHelp. Clegs (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per HereToHelp and because it is of below-average quality. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 08:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 05:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I wonder how Diliff managed to take his picture of GCT here I set up to take a panorama in the inside and some US military officer comes over and nearly confiscates my tripod. Maybe Diliff shot hand-held but it was pretty dark in there. Diliff, (if you see this) how did you manage it. Anyway, outside, I avoided a tussle with a drunk middle-aged woman and took this. The perspective was difficult but let me say that I got it almost as well corrected as I think possible.
question this a squared off building right? It looks really curvy and would benefit from perspective correction I think. deBivort
Comment Could some of the distortion be an optical illusion, because there's a round building behind it goofing up the perspective? Clegs (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's some residual distortion left over. What I see is the angle between the left wall and the subject wall. That will be nearly impossible to correct fully. This is the third stitch I've done to try to correct all of the distortion that I could see. If you could point out specific places where it is worst, I could do another stitch. Keep in mind that in NYC there isn't really wide open space to get nice perspective on the building. I think the horizontal angle of view was close to that of a 10mm lens on a full frame, something you can only get with a fish-eye and leaving worse distortion. So I could potentially try again if you mean someplace specific but I was very pleased to get it this corrected. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose CurrentThere's three smudges right in the middle of the picture. Looks like a smear on the lense? per the distortion issues raised by debivort. I do realize they are difficult to fix, but the picture just looks funny. Clegs (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, uh, with all due respect those "smudges" are steam or smoke emanating from the station due to heating or train activity. I actually found them quite aesthetic. I'm slightly interested by the strong oppose, assuming that they were actually smudges, they would have been very easy to remove. In any case, I hope that clears things up for you. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll see if I can correct it a bit better. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. Clegs could have added that the flag is blurry as well, but these "flaws" are just a part of taking low light photos. Cacophony (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Verticals aren't straight, for one thing. I'm not sure if I prefer a straight-on shot or not, but this one looks…odd. Kinda. Meh.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 03:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very odd distortion. The whole picture is bowed and warped - even the proportions of the taxis change over the span of the image - Peripitus(Talk) 08:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per HereToHelp and Peripitus. Matt Deres (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a former New Yorker I confess bias toward images of that grimy yet gorgeous city, yet it's hard to see the particular encyclopedic value here. This is one of the better known landmarks. I can't endorse the shot as architectural photography or as a candid scene of city life. If post-9/11 security makes photography cumbersome then shoot across the street (not the Chrysler Building, the Chanin Building - or take the crosstown shuttle, ride up the 2 or the 3 to 96th street, stroll down to Riverside Drive, and shoot the Cliff Dwelling...I'd really love a photo of that art deco forerunner...but I digress). DurovaCharge! 18:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did shoot that interior shot hand-held. It was dark, but I used a high ISO and image stabilisation. Even so, I was pretty limited at f/4 but managed to pull it off, I suppose. :-) It is pretty common inside buildings to be prohibited from taking photos with a tripod. They usually use the excuse that it may cause a safety hazard (people tripping over the legs etc), but occasionally when they want to restrict you from taking commercial quality photos. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent shot. Great use of colour, contrast, composition. Chris.B 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Encyclopedic and beautiful. Cacophony (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful - vignetting in the bokeh, compositionally spot on. lovely. deBivort 22:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's some funny response, Chris, and yes, I would Support this image; there are no faults that I can see. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 08:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best butterfly pics on Wikipedia. Lycaon (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image, color and clarity. Achromatic (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Admiral David Farragut of the American Civil War.Unrestored file from colloidon glass negative, 1855-1865. (provided for comparison).
Reason
Admiral Farragut was the top Union Naval offier of the American Civil War. This was the man who said, Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead. The eyes fascinate me - calm and fierce at the same time.
Nice cleanup...seems mens glove styles haven't changed significantly...I support--MONGO 04:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great job on the clean up but I've got to oppose on composition - LHS hand cut off --Fir0002 11:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that crop was a necessity. As you can see from the unrestored version, that area of the photograph was heavily damaged. The portion beyond the current frame was too decomposed to restore. DurovaCharge! 11:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another very well done restoration. Kudos! Clegs (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A historic, encyclopedic image. Muhammad(talk) 15:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Central Pier, in Cental Hong Kong, one of Hong Kong's most populated, is shown at night, with high skyscrapers rising about.Edit 1 - Noise reduction
Reason
This is a stunning image of a night shot of Central Pier in Hong-Kong with awesome clarity.
Weak oppose as per Howcheng. Achromatic (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose as above... the lower half of it seems alright though. -- Phoenix2 07:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- re-take this photo on a clearer night, the far away buildings in the left of the picture are too fuzzy from the smog Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose: Smog is an unfortunate reality for this location. It's China, I don't think you can get around it. Unfortunately, I'm in the oppose camp, due to the noise. I definitely love the pierre though.—DMCer™ 12:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Buffalo Soldiers of the 25th Infantry, some wearing buffalo robes, Fort Keogh, Montana, 1890.Version 2. Better contrast, smaller size
Reason
A rare photograph of encyclopedic and historical value with surprising informality. In an era when most group military portraits of enlisted men feature neat ranks and perfect uniforms, these men show personality. One peers shyly from behind a tree, another holds up a frying pan, a third rests a shovel on his shoulder. A whiskey flask makes its rounds while three other men brandish weapons--a real Old West flourish. Another fellow stretches on the ground and rests his eyelids. Restored version of Image:Buffalo soldiers.jpg.
Support Excellent find. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Immense historical value and high quality for the period. I love the attitude of the guy with the pipe and shovel. These men look badass. --Bridgecross (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Note My vote is for the original version only. --Bridgecross (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i've tried to improve (see second version) --The Watusi (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak support for original. The historical aspect is huge, but the quality here leaves a lot to be desired. The Watusi's edit is worse (no offense; a worthy try). Matt Deres (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was neutral previously, but now that you uploaded the cleaned up version I support it (the cleaned up one of course) Rudy Breteler (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original More interesting, more authentic "feel" to it, IMO. Great historical significance either way. faithless(speak) 06:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Buffalo soldiers1.jpgMER-C 04:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great. Caption might need some improvement. Muhammad(talk) 18:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to low resolution. I'd be more forgiving if it wasn't such an easily reproduced photo. It would also be nice to have a wider view that shows more of the skyline. Cacophony (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice and sharp, with good coloring. As Cacophony said, though, something like this should be significantly higher-res. Clegs (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strongly. Easily re-creatable photos like this need to be the best of the best. grenグレン 06:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - GöteborgsOperan (English: the Gothenburg Opera) is an opera house in Gothenburg, Sweden. The construction of the opera started in 1989 and it was opened in 1994. The building located on the southern riverbank is one of the most notable landmarks in Gothenburg.Edit 1 - edit to correct perspective and pincushion distortions and add some LCEEdit 2 - colours adjusted
Reason
Reason for nominating the picture? Trying to get it featured of course! :) – Image has encyclopedic value, it depicts the architecture of the building quite well in my opinion.
Support as nominatorKrm500 (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me (and sometimes my eyes do play tricks on me) it seems like the building is leaning to the left slightly. It's hard to say for sure though, because there are so many angles on the building. Clegs (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's distortion. If you run a ruler along the verticals, you'll find them to be all different angles. MER-C 02:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original Distortion should not be present in anything striving to be an encyclopedic depiction of architecture. Especially as its so easy to correct - see my Edit 1 Mfield (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both - Both are rather distorted per a more rectilinear view like this. Although the nightshot is good, from what I can see online the building's colouring is important and perhaps should be shown more prominently. - Peripitus(Talk) 11:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't think the distortion would be an issue since other FP images on wikipedia also has it, I was more worried about the building being cut off on the left side. Thanks for your edit Mfield, but it's almost impossible to get a good result afterwards, the best thing would be a tilt and shift lens from the start. I could probably do something about the colour, but IMO it isn't more colourful in real life, the broad daylight probably affects the other image you presented. --Krm500 (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a new version, with adjusted colours. --Krm500 (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nice job on the distortion fix. If you could somehow get the Macbeth sign fully in the photo (in edit 1), while keeping the great color of the original version, I'd support it in a heartbeat.—DMCer™ 12:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, the colors appear different between Original and Edit 1 to you DCMer? They look identical to me on multiple browsers. I didn't edit the colors at all, just corrected distortion and did some local contrast enhancement so they should appear the same. Unless there is some kind of profile mismatch. Re: the Macbeth sign, its a maximum crop after the distortion is corrected, unless the original file has more image to the left there's just too much distortion to remove without some of that sign having to go. Mfield (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually was referring to an attempt to correct the sign cutoff, while not enhancing the colors as they are in edit 2, I like the colors better in the first two. Shame about the distortion fix/cropped sign tradeoff. I still love the picture though.—DMCer™ 08:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support Edit2, great HDR, nice prospect of this building Wladyslaw Sojka (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A digital composite of 6 panoramas taken periodically through the course of a single day. On the RHS is the east and dawn and on the LHS is the west and sunset.
Reason
I don't think you could represent a day any better than this and it makes for a very interesting and unique image.
Support as nominatorFir0002 23:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, trying to illustrate "day" is really stretching the concept of "encyclopedic". It's not a concept that needs to be explained through photos, and if someone from outerspace didn't know what a day was, I don't think this composite image would greatly help. Perhaps it could be used to illustrate azimuth: showing the azimuth of sunrise and sunset. (you'd need to mark angles along the image, and add details in the text of longitude, latitude and time of year to make it a clear example) —Pengo 00:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nom this on commons for a sure FP :D\=< (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pengo. Would possibly support a version showing 6 suns, that would illustrate the concept of day much better. Great image, though. --Janke | Talk 08:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose as per all comments above. I have no issues with quality. The only problem is that it may not be of encyclopedia appeal, being more of an eye-candy than a picture fit to be on an encyclopedia. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 08:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...it's used in an article, and I re-learnt the definition of encyclopedia via Wiktionary. My vote's changed to Support. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 04:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked up the word 'encyclopedic' there -- they say it relates to the word 'cycle'. -- carol 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs) [reply]
Strong Support If nothing else, it illustrates sunrise \ sunset and the symmetry between them. To me, I think it's great as it shows the beginning and the end of a day. It's stunning, to. I do however, suggest that you make another of these , showing 6 suns (as Janke said). I would strong support that in a heartbeat. --Mad TinmanTC 19:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You've outdone yourself with this one Fir. --Mad TinmanTC 19:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments (and compliment!) however getting more suns in this image is pretty near impossible. They were taken in June so the sun was a low as it ever is (in the southern hemisphere) and the images were shot at 17mm and yet the sun was still way too high to get it into the frame. To get more suns in you'd sacrifice the land and the two most important events, sunrise and sunset. --Fir0002 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Can't say I very much understand panoramas, and was unaware of such limitation. Given that, I chage my vote to strong support. --Mad TinmanTC 14:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply love the photo.. and it fits in the article.. what more can you demand :p The only thing that bugs me a bit is the rather low vertical res.. could be a bit higher ;) Yzmotalk 21:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good idea, but the picture itself is too blurry, if it were clearer and sharper, especially around the tree, I would support Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Picture is blurry?! You serious? It looks pretty darn sharp to me --Fir0002 05:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree with Fir, not sure where you see that blur, I checked the tree and it seemed fine. --Mad TinmanTC 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... so, we're not on Tatooine, right? Not sure I want to oppose it but the lines around the rays of lights don't look very good. grenグレン 06:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Think it perfectly illustrates day and night. Schcambo (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pengo. It doesn't really illustrate anything well, either day by itself, or day and night. Clegs (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, much per Pengo. I might hang it on a wall, in fact, but I can't for the life of me see how it is particularly encyclopaedic. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to those who do not find this encyclopedic Allow me to explain why I believe this is quite encyclopaedic. For that purpose, I'll depart from an example. Take Real numbers. To represent this set , we use one of 3 representations : ℝ , an infinitely long number line , or ]-∞ , +∞[, IE, the two limits of the set. Now, carry this idea on to day. It begins with sunrise, and ends with sunset , and, carrying on from the previous example, this concept can be represented by representing it's limits and the idea of transition between. This picture does exactly that, and thus gives a very good idea of what a day is. Cheers. --Mad TinmanTC 20:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC) PS: In a discussion above, originality was referred by a voter as possibly having some value for FP's. Doesn't get any more original then this.[reply]
Support Good shots but brilliant idea. I am impressed. IMHO, adding to its description at which period of the year and where it was taken (geotag if possible) would be very useful. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I don't think it illustrates day particularly well (at first glance, that is), I think it's a beautiful, creative picture which will definitely catch the eye of whoever comes across it, and get them to continue reading. faithless(speak) 06:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus MER-C 04:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caption fixed (it wasn't that hard). --jjron (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; there really is no issue with this image that I can find. It's a little bland, but there's nothing much you can do about it. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 08:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support encyclopedic, interesting, technically sound. Cacophony (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support encyclopedic, magnificent and very good for many articles gppande (talk) 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Support per Cacophony and gppande. Rudy Breteler (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Bronze statuette of the Roman fertility god Priapus, made in two parts (shown here in assembled and disassembled forms). This statuette has been dated to the late 1st century C.E. It was found in Rivery, in Picardy, France in 1771 and is the oldest Gallo-Roman object in the collection of the Museum of Picardy. This figurine represents the deity clothed in a "cuculus", a Gallic coat with hood. This upper section is detachable and conceals a phallus.
I should point out that the image apparently consists of crops and copying from this commons image. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The phallus is not as sharp as it should be ... for a controlled shot like this one -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I was going to support this despite the blur on the phallus - there are overpixels after all, but the hood is just a cropped clone of the assembled version on the right - which seems misleading. deBivort 03:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The statue is interesting, but it looks like all images have been cutout and pasted onto that coloured background - no that doesn't discount it from being an FP, but it just looks odd, especially that 'floating' torso. (And personal grumble, why are we getting an increasing number of candidates through here with their image page description in another language? Can they not be translated? I like to read these to see what the original uploader said, not just what's been put into the caption here, which is often considerably different.) --jjron (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read French, so I used babelfish to translate the original French caption, puzzled out what it was supposed to say, then did some additional research to come up with the caption used above. I've added my English-language caption to the Commons description page for the image. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not very good quality for a still life. Blown out, not sharp around some edges. etc. --grenグレン 08:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per per Debivort and Jjron. Clegs (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too bad, I think this is a fascinating sculpture, but I don't like how it looks cut and pasted. Rudy Breteler (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a beautiful picture across the the Loch, and clearly showing the Ben it takes its name from on the far side. Also perfect as a wallpaper (which I use it as!)
Support as nominatorAlisonW (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it just my screen, or does this have some artifacting in the water and the near shore. Clegs (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any so far as I can tell (from checking on flatscreen and CRT). --AlisonW (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose thanks for the nomination, but this photo is too small and lacks the detail to rise to the level of one of the best landscape shots on wikipedia. deBivort 15:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Sorry, hadn't realised people were size-ist! I have now replaced the earlier (1,280×800) version by the full version (2,272×1,356). Hope that helps ;-) --AlisonW (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, sizeists in the forum that selects the very best images in the project? Imagine that. I'm sorry but the new version doesn't add much detail, and is grainy. To be among the best, this shot would likely need to be taken as a panorama and stitched. deBivort 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good composition. Flat lighting and haze make me less than enthusiastic. DurovaCharge! 18:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; now, surely you can get a better-quality picture than this. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 08:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: color casts, horizon is not level. Achromatic (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the several issues raised by Achromatic and Debivort. Clegs (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Animation of a Foucault pendulum showing the sense of rotation on the southern hemisphere. The rate of rotation is greatly exaggerated. A real Foucault pendulum likes to go weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee and swing back and forth, released from rest, does not pass directly over its equilibrium position as the one in the animation does.
Reason
I happened across this entirely by accident when I went to the signpost page to determine why it was linked to an open afd of mine. While there I caught sight of the 2007 picture of the year link, and the image caught my eye. Its a finalist from the competition, and is already featured on the commons.
Comment - it's a brilliant animation, but with a few problems. If it's greatly exaggerated motion, and "A real Foucault pendulum, released from rest, does not pass directly over its equilibrium position as the one in the animation does", why are we featuring it? It's factually inaccurate, and without an accompanying caption/article, is misleading. Also, what's the consensus over FPing this version with a German compass rose (O for Ost as opposed to East)? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Vanderdecken. I will happily support a corrected version.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Vanderdecken. Also the reflection of the ball on the photo is distracting. deBivort 15:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A real Foucault Pendulum takes 24 hours to complete the oscillation cycle-- this is misleading and therefore unencyclopedic. Spikebrennan (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the point here is not to show the time, but the trajectory of the pendulum. Surely an animated gif which takes 24 hours to complete its purpose wouldn't be of much encyclopedic value. I think a simple caption will take care of the time paradox, but as stated by Vanderdecken, the fact that the caption has excuse the pendulum's path of moving over the equilibrium makes this one a reach for me. —DMCer™ 12:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is plain nonsense that the pendulum takes 24 hours to go all the way around. It is 24h / sin |latitude|. That is, it is only at the poles it takes 24 hours. At the equator it does not go around at all. In between it is more than 24 hours. If you were to add a watch it would then have to be localized to a specific latitude. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose as per factual inaccuracy stated by Venderdecken and irritating rear reflection. On a side note, however, I think it does a great service for the Graphics Interchange Format. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 08:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support a slower version? Or one with a timer shown? I don't think making it literally 24 hours is a good idea but removing the illusion of such speed might be. grenグレン 08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stick a clock on the wall next to the picture with only an hour hand. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That still wouldn't help. The plane of a Foucault pendulum's oscillation, in New York City for example, rotates 235 degrees in a day, but it would oscillate back and forth hundreds of times (exact number would depend on the length of the pendulum). The only way to make it accurate in both its rate of oscillation and rotation would be for the diagram to simulate the movements of such a pendulum in a planet with profoundly weak gravity - and then speed up the animation relative to actual time. Meniscus (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't we just say this is the theoretical perfection of the oscillation? Obviously in planetary physics and such you will very rarely run across an example that doesn't have some sort of variable messing it up. Couldn't we just rewrite the caption to reflect that? Clegs (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Can not believe this was a finalist for PoTY at commons. Wikipedia sure is tough to please :D --Muhammad(talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the difference is probably because Commons is primarily concerned with the artistic value (which is very high here, it's a gorgeous animation) and Wikipedia is primarily concerned with encyclopedic value (which is small here because of several factual errors). Clegs (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding Vanderdeckens comment that the Foucault pendulum does not pass through the center when released from rest in the rotating coordinate system that is correct. But the pendulum does not have to be released that way! The animation actually depicts the trajectory as seen from the rotating system when released from rest in an inertial system. This can easily be accomplished in the rotating frame by giving it a small initial tangential velocity when released. Concerning that the animation is misleading, I think it would be nonsense to animate it in real time. It can be correct by the way if the pendulum is suspended in a very very long line as the period of oscillation goes up that way. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support As explained above it is the caption, which is misleading. The animation can be correct concerning the trajectory. It is a matter of the initial boundary conditions of the equations of motion. And concerning the exaggerated angular velocity it has to be this way to illustrate the motion. A clock won't do as the clock depends on the latitude. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the solution to making this an encyclopedic picture is to have a caption that includes the characteristics of the planet it is operating on. For instance, this image would work on a planet if we say that the pendulum is located at the north pole (the rotation would be opposite on the south pole) of a planet with earths gravity, except with a rotational rate ~10,000 times faster than Earth's. To get this factor exactly we need someone to measure the exact time it takes this animation to repeat itself and then divide the length of a sidereal day on Earth by this time. The result would give how much faster a planet would have to be rotating than Earth for this animation to be accurate at its north pole. Without the relevant planetary statistics I would have to oppose this image based on its unencyclopedic nature. Meniscus (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. As such, it is misleading, doesn't represent the "traditional" pendulum experiment. --Janke | Talk 17:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to noise. In the future please use a less arbitrary (MG 4949 isn't very discriptive). Cacophony (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As discussed extensively in a recent nom, images appearing only in these 'List of...' articles aren't adding much value to the article/encyclopaedia. If it's good enough it should be in a proper article, such as the main Seattle article. --jjron (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's a very easy problem to fix. The only problem with that is that some people (usually newbs who don't know any better) think nothing of switching out a really good pic for their piece of junk. For this one, I say, by all means, add it to the Seattle article. It would go nicely with the other Seattle FP, which is taken from the land side of the city. Clegs (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed in the other nom I linked to, it's not always as easily fixed as you suggest, especially in big articles like Seattle. Secondly (also as discussed in the other nom), it's something that should be fixed before the image is nominated at FPC - as the first line on this page defines: "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles...". It can't add to an article if it's not in it. --jjron (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; I find no faults with the picture. However, I think there's too much...water...if you know what I mean. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the newly-uploaded version, my vote has been changed to Support. Good work on addressing the issues we've mentioned. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, excess amount of noise and artefacts, especially in the sky. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since none of the problems I mentioned are present in the new version, I change my vote to Support. Great colours, light, ok sharpeness. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do hope this is not inappropriate - I've only just noticed this nomination, and am flattered. I do feel that many of the comments made are valid, and in light of this have uploaded a newer version - higher res, with a lot less noise and artifacting. I've also adjusted the composition better, as I think the shot benefits from the 'waterline' being lower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on usage (please refer to criterion 5). Adds little to no value to this 'article' (well, list) - in fact I'd say it's rather misleading as it only shows 'downtown' Seattle which could suggest to users that that is what is meant by an urban area. The photos of say LA and New York in that article are far more illustrative in this regard. (Incidentally, the new upload hasn't addressed the file naming problems raised by Cacophony either.) --jjron (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, looks great as a thumbnail, but is a huge letdown in full size. The noise may be gone, but the details are too. The highlights look way oversharpened, displaying strong aliasing. Plus I second Jjron's comment about filename and adding value to the 'article'. --Dschwen 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per Dschwen. The details are gone and the colors are smudged. Is there a better copy of this anywhere? Purple Is Pretty (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator--Digon3talk 16:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we need a bit more info here. What exactly are we looking at/for? What are the significant features that this photo shows particularly well? Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose this particular shot may be a macro, but this kind of fossil is common and often large (up to more than 30cm long), so I was hoping for more detail at the full size. deBivort 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Çomment- One thing I know, it doesn't show the whole fossil animal and this is a problem...also..it isn't really close up enough to be considered a macro shot. pschemp | talk 22:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it looks like this was shot in a museum, but we don't know where. It would be good to include this information. Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was taken at my house, and I bought the fossil about 7 years ago. I could include the dimensions if that would help. As for a good caption, it is not really my strong point, and I was hoping someone else could come up with a better one. --Digon3talk 16:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus MER-C 04:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Goldstein Alumni and Faculty Center(GAFC) is a 3-story red brick building which has a Colonial Georgian architecture. The building cost $25,000 to build. The GAFC was originally home to the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity, until 1974 when the Syracuse University purchased the building from the fraternity and renovated it. The building now serves as an Alumni Center where students, faculty and alumni may gather.
Reason
Self-nomination, this building has a lot of history in it with Syracuse University. The image is high quality and encyclopedic. The image has good contrast and color balance as well as adding great value to the article it belongs too. I believe this image fully meets the FPC criteria and should be therefore considered for the honor of being FP. My only complaint is the flag pole in the image, but there is no way to get this quality of a picture without it there. Besides that, I do not believe the flag pole detracts from the image, but rather enhances it by adding to the location of where the image was taken.
Oppose I may support a better reshoot. This one has flat lighting and awkward composition. DurovaCharge! 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would improve make the composition less "awkward"--ZeWrestlerTalk 18:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be tough to get a good angle on this structure because of the hill. I suggest examining official campus publications where it's been shot professionally and determining where the photographer stood. You might wind up at a window of another campus structure using a zoom lens. Try to do this either early or late on a day with less haze in the air. That could require a tripod if you end up with a really long lens. The conditions for this shoot would have been fine for outdoor portraiture, but they obscure the architectural details. Also that tree in the foreground interferes with about 70% of the facade and the flagpole breaks up the side wall. I'd try a different angle if possible, and frame/crop closer. DurovaCharge! 20:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the verticals aren't vertical. The building is leaning to the right. I make support a reshoot, though. Clegs (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose slanted, too much sky, too much foreground, not clear enough- this picture has none of the qualities one looks for in a FPRudy Breteler (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...as well as adding great value to the article it belongs too." This is used solely in a list, not a proper article, where it's one of over 30 tiny images at a whopping 50px wide - how is that adding "great value"? As I've said on a couple of recent noms, no images solely used in lists amongst squillions of similar images add much value. Honestly, if they were adding value they would be in a real article, whether it be about this building or about the university itself. And I will keep repeating this until the message gets across. --jjron (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Clegs and washed-out colours. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 08:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why this particular crop? DurovaCharge! 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some pixellation, blown highlights, and it's just a hair below the size requirement. Also there's something about the composition that seems unbalanced. --Bridgecross (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not below the strict size requirements. deBivort 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeBelow Barely meets size requirements; it's so easily reproducible that this is inexcusable. Clegs (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not below the strict size requirements. deBivort 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but this could easily be retaken with a resolution 3 times larger than the current candidate.
weak oppose - pretty interesting culturally, but the lighting is harsh and the composition is uninspiring - moreover, it seems like the composition could be very neat with a change in the camera angle. deBivort 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't care for all of that clutter in the foreground, between the stone wall and the windmills. Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think the lighting fits the subject well. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose per Bivort. I want to move to the left and get more of these windmills, minus the stone terrace and the television antennas. DurovaCharge! 06:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 08:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the more spectacular engineering disasters to have been caught on film, this clip is a minor classic in its own right. From the article text: In 1998, The Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse was selected for preservation in the United StatesNational Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". This footage is still shown to engineering, architecture, and physics students as a cautionary tale. Fortunately no people were killed in the disaster, but a cocker spaniel was too frightened to leave the car that was stranded between the spans. So apologies for the rush of nominations these last couple of days, but I could hardly believe my eyes when I realized this video hadn't been an FPC yet.
NOTE: The Tacoma Narrows actually failed due to Aeroelastic Flutter, not by resonance. See the page of this bridge Diego Torquemada (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support there is no doubt at all that this deserves an FA star, but I will state fir the record that having a guy whom I consider to be a pro with a camera on hand on the date of the incident is by a wide margin the least likely thing that could have happened here, and because of that I feel this vid segment should be treated with a grain of salt. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fellow who shot this was owner of a local camera shop. The bridge had been nicknamed "Galloping Gertie" by local residents because of its tendency to sway with the slightest breeze, and these appear to have been gale force winds. The film was used in newsreels, has been featured in university lectures for decades, and joined the National Film Registry list of important American cinema. Can you cite one source for this doubt about its authenticity? DurovaCharge! 03:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doubting its authenticity (otherwise I would have opposed), what I am saying is that in a sense people should consider the fact an expert on cameras shot this and treat this as a unique instance of filming: obviously proffesional film guys are not on hand for every building collapse, bridge collapse, train derailment, 982 car pile up, etc. I say this largely because the I-95(?) bridge collapse in minnasota a few years back was captured by a Army Corps of Engineers survalience camera that happened to be looking that general direction, but when nominated for FP status people complained that it didn't measure up to the tacoma footage. I am merely noting here, as I did there, that this was shot a profesional and that such occurances are very rare, and that because of that I tend to be a little bais against the image because I feel it was, in a sense, "staged". TomStar81 (Talk) 03:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand better now. This bridge had only stood for four months. So the local residents had reason to doubt that it would last. Clearly Mr. Elliott knew how to frame a shot. Looks like he saw an opportunity to shoot something significant and leaped at it; it's not as if he worked for a news service. DurovaCharge! 03:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jjron. WTF? It doesn't matter in the slightest whether the cameraman was professional or not, it only matters if it is freely available and of high quality/significance. Anyway, how do you stage a bridge collapse? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the only person in this community who has scene a hollywood movie!? Sheesh, people, go forth and live a little for pete's sake, and then come back and see if it doesn't look just a little bit like something you would see in a Jerry Bruckimer film. And I take the oppurtunity to point out that I didn't oppose the nomination, I just wanted people to put the quality of this film into context. Thats all, nothing more and nothing less. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take this to talk. DurovaCharge! 21:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is an iconic piece of footage that is widely used as an example of wind induced mechanical resonance in bridges. - Peripitus(Talk) 03:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The Tacoma Narrows actually failed due to Aeroelastic Flutter, not by resonance. See the page of this bridge Diego Torquemada (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly encyclopedic. Good find! Clegs (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support; regardless of who filmed this video, it is definitely of great encyclopedic value. I saw this video back in the 1990s and it piqued my interest. Anyone who has never seen this video would definitely be interested to watch the whole length of it. It is also a reminder to us that suspension bridges aren't that easy to build. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 06:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per nom. I had no idea that this footage was in the public domain-- the collapse was in 1940. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per the reasons that TomStar81 used for only giving weak support, the Jerry Bruckheimer comments especially, because it's actual footage and really old as well. It's not like anybody could stage this by jumping up and down on the bridge or something like that. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 10:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This is one of my favorite clips of all time. It is extremely encyclopedia-worthy. Enough said. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Encyclopedic footage of a historical event. Purple Is Pretty (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would of course a featured media page for vids but that not being relevant support since this is an extremely good video of an exceedingly encyclopedic topic. Cat-five - talk 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is so obvious. -- RM 04:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Tacoma Narrows Bridge destruction.ogvMER-C 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Original, Weak Oppose Alternative. Gonna buck the trend here - the original is badly oversharpend with an unappealing background. The alternative is better in that the oversharpening isn't as bad but it now lacks definition; also composition could be better in that the low angle results in too much of the butterfly being obscured by the leaf without much gain IMO. Sorry but the insect bar is fairly high... --Fir0002 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; Fir, are you sure that the original is a victim of sharpening? I thought that the picture was too blurred to match up to Featured Picture standard. I mean, if you were to compare this image with this one, you might go, "Wow, a beetle." and "Pfft, a butterfly.". This image was well-shot, but it just doesn't match up. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 07:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm pretty much 100% certain it's been oversharpened - you can see this in all the white "flecks" in contrasty edges. It isn't blurred per se but lacks definition (for want of a better word) - meaning that a blurry photo has been heavily sharpened in some kind of software gaining little or nothing in terms of detail a lot of oversharpening artefacts. --Fir0002 11:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, prefer original. Background of original is just fine. Interesting to have the underside visible for a change. Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
..."Interesting to have the underside visible for a change"??! Uh you might want to revise that considering more than half of the current butterfly FP's show the underside: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 --Fir0002 11:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - World War I Allied tanks advance in Langres, France (1918).
Reason
It's one thing to see a photograph of a tank, another to watch one in action. And yes, by the end of this two minute clip there's definitely some action. This early example of filmmaking has unmistakable historical value.
Support Very informative, great historical value. faithless(speak) 05:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For information: This footage is not genuine World War I. The scenes of the British heavy tanks are reenactments staged for a 1927 cinema film called "The Somme." The brief shot of the French Renault FT light tank has been cut in. The source might well describe the clip as stated, but there is nothing to confirm that any of it was shot at Langres. Hengistmate (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Tanks of WWI.ogvMER-C 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A historic campaign poster shortly following the American Civil War in the northern border state of Pennsylvania. Even among opponents of slavery, during the mid-nineteenth century in the United States racism was widespread and many white people believed that African-Americans did not deserve full citizenship rights. It serves an encyclopedic purpose to acknowledge that this existed and that it was this blatant. Restored version of Image:Racistcampaignposter.jpg
Support perm nom. Another excellent job, Durova. You rock. Clegs (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support We had a blackface ad about a month ago that this reminds me of.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 00:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent original source in good condition, very helpful and direct to the understanding of the topic Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Take a look at the original, unrestored version on Picture Peer Review to see what an impressive job of restoration Durova has done. Spikebrennan (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. You guys are making me blush. :) DurovaCharge! 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I'm not sure to understand the message of the illustration. They both look ill, the black and the white! - Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The white man is better groomed and wearing better clothes. Since only white men could vote in that election, the message appears to be don't be a radical, vote your own interests - go with a winner.DurovaCharge! 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a great image. The relevant section in Geary's article could use some expansion, including perhaps the information in the image caption (with sources would be ideal), if anyone is interested. Chick Bowen 05:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. Done. :) DurovaCharge! 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominatorNnfolz (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, for now - not very attractive in the thumbnail, surely it could have a little color? Also, I find the variability in line width of the figures unfortunate - clearly some of these images are identical scaled versions of each other. deBivort 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-this image is not nearly interesting enough to be a FP, the criteria clearly states that it must grab attention and that the image should, by itself, draw people in to read the article. I do not see this colorless, uniform conference of simple drawings of similar subjects doing this. Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps someone more knowlegable ~than me (just about anyone)could make it more atractive. Perhaps by changing the backround or something.Nnfolz (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, needs reference to verify whale size. grenグレン 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, needs scale in meter or centimeter or inch also mentioned somewhere on picture. gppande 05:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it is worthy of FP at the moment, maybe if some more work is done to it. Just to say a few things, all of the diagrams are made individually, except for the right whales, which are just scaled. The reason for the different thicknesses is that i originally made them as separate images (see any of the cetacean species articles) and then i added them all to one SVG afterwards. I don't fully understand SVG but this seemed to prevent me from adjusting the thicknesses of the lines (although i would like to). A scale line could be useful, but i think the human is enough (since it is used for similar posters etc). They could do with some colouring (the blue whale individual image has had one done here) but i am not very knowledgeable on this.
At the moment it is not FP, but maybe with some work... Chris_huhtalk 14:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When i made it i started with another font, but it just messed up and the text would move all over the place. The wikipedia svg engine didn't seem to do normal fonts so i had to go with the one that is there now (whatever that on is). If you know how to get this with a websafe font that actually works and doesn't mess up, could you let me know how? Cheers Chris_huhtalk 12:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try using Verdana, Arial, or Times and see if you have any luck. Kaldari (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retract Support as nominator The comments are right, it is blurry. I didn't check the full size version. It is pretty though. I don't know how you close a nomination. Ariel. (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Blurry. 8thstar 02:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ineligible.Must be in an article. Speedy close. --jjron (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Samsara noadmin (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What species is it?--Svetovid (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close too few pixels on subject, blurry, no article. Snowball's chance. deBivort 13:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was able to improve the image somewhat by sharpening and downsampling. However, while the original crop was
of sufficient size, the downsampling was rather necessary, and the image is now clearly too small imho. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Doesn't appear in an article and thus fails criteria #5. Cacophony (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First, nothing in the picture is in focus, not even the grasshopper. Second, it doesn't appear in any article. the crop and sharpen does not help either, because it is too far out of focus for a sharpen to help. Clegs (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Brush bronzewing pigeon, Phaps elegans, standing upon it's semi-completed nest which was just a few feet above the ground in the crown of a treefern.Edit 1 by Fir0002 - noise reduction in the shadows
Reason
A good side view of the bird which shows the destinctive colored plumage on the wings
Weak oppose - very sharp, but the flash makes the lighting look quite harsh. Schcambo (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose it's not blown out, but there's a pretty significant flash relection off the bird's stomach and off some of the leaves in the nest. The lighting looks very harsh overall b/c of the flash. If someone can fix the lighting issues, I will gladly change to support, as this is a pretty nice picture. Clegs (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Either - preference for Edit 1. The picture has excellent sharpness and portrays the subject well in a natural environment. However the flash lighting is a bit harsh - hence the "weak". That said, I think the flash was probably necessary to bring out the iridescent colours in the wing of the bird so it's not altogether bad. The only other quibble I have with it is that the composition is a little tight on the RHS - gets too near to cutting off its tail.--Fir0002 22:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral.Oppose Seems oversharpened, esp. in the neck feathers. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Looking at it a second time, the flash does bother me now, and the framing, as mentioned above, is off, with the tail feathers on the edge of the picture. Samsara noadmin (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The flash lighting is really bad, the composition is not very compelling, there are distracting elements in the BG, it is oversharpened. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 04:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A leaf-cutter bee (Anthidium florentinum) collecting nectar from a Lantana camara flower, with its long and slender tongue. This species of solitary (non-social) bees belong to the Megachilidae family. They fly all summer and make their nests in holes in the ground, walls or trees, with hairs plucked from plants.Alternative
Reason
A detailed and high quality depiction of a handsome bee in its natural environment
Support either Prefer original because the wings are sharper. Excellent work. :) DurovaCharge! 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both Original has poor sharpness (I suspect from a too small aperture) and the wings are quite tatty (reducing enc value unless this is characteristic of the species) and are slightly motion blurred. The alternative has harsh lighting and is oversharpened. Nice enough photos, but not quite FP level IMO --Fir0002 10:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both sorry but I have to agree with Fir0002, the alternative looks false and the original just lacks the crisp detail needed --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 16:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. Animals age, it's a fact of life. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both Due to oversharpening and/or aperture selection. Very nice composition, however. -- RM 04:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Bad quality, poor sharpness, and everything mentioned by Fir0002. --Macy's123(review me) 00:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 06:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the contrast, clarity, and color is good, and the subject is well enough situated to make it feature picture worthy. Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This doesn't appear to be a double arch. Can you explain? Is it the view back down the trail coming through the first arch, or how does it work? Clegs (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response copied off my talk page: "If you look closely, under the first large arch, is a small hole, and you can see another arch. This resembles a double arch. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)" Thanks for clearing this up! Clegs (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The view through the whole that I think is supposed to double of the arch looks very flat and possibly artifacted, and the shadow under the main arch has some out-of-place pink noise. Otherwise, I love this image, and would support if these issues can be fixed or if they can be explained. - Enuja(talk) 03:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose It's a nice scene but the rocks and the shrub in the lower LHS have a lost a lot of texture from what I suspect was a noise reduction filter. Whether or not this is the case these areas have an unpleasant plasticky texture. --Fir0002 10:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cathedrals play a major role in the history of Western architecture, but this appears to be Wikipedia's first image of an actual craftsman at work building one. Interesting textures in this depiction of traditional craftsmanship methods. Restored version of Image:Stonemasonry.jpg.
Support Wow. That's about all I can say. On a side note, (tongue in cheek) if you keep uploading this many nice pictures, people are going to start being excessively picky about them. Another good find and excellent restore. Clegs (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support it would be nice if he were all in there, but this is good for this class of historical photo.Rudy Breteler (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose magnificent architecture and clearly a lot of effort has been put into the resoration, but i don't like the curved lines running through the image, I also dont like the way its been lit it looks overexposed --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 16:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the greatest of pictures but, as the nom pointed out, we can forgive that considering the historical aspect of the photo. Very informative, and the only picture in stonemasonry which shows the actual process. faithless(speak) 05:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Stone_sculptor_at_work.jpgMER-C 06:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support New version as nominatorMfield (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Encyclopedic and sharp. Somewhat flat lighting, but good enough overall to fit the bill. DurovaCharge! 05:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit small for a featured picture, but it's within the requirements, and for a picture of this size, it looks quite good. Support. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 06:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the new version, my vote has been changed to Support Original and New version. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 06:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good, correct picture but not special enough to reach FP level -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's an easily retaken picture, so this could be much much higher resolution. Clegs (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Support Very encyclopedic. Clegs (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support new version good, crisp, clear, encyclopedic. Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for new copy good for wikipedia as it demonstrates all aspects of police helicopter.gppande 16:03, 1 February 2008
Oppose It is very blurry around the areas of movement. If you had faster shutter speed it would be better. Juliancolton(The Giants Win!) 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:LAPD Bell 206 Jetranger.jpgMER-C 06:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Janke | Talk 17:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My support above was/is for the original. In the edit, the soft-focus effect (probably intended by original photographer) is lessened, and grain increased (note collar). --Janke | Talk 07:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support very nice portrait... for all intents and purposes supporting per nom. Cat-five - talk 02:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is not perfect (shallow DOF, a bit shadowy, on the small side, and he's very old here), but it seems to be the best we have, and Twain as an outstanding author amongst other things, and as a very photogenic guy, deserves a spot. --jjron (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support preference for Edit 1. It's somewhat surprising that there isn't an FP of Twain yet and this one is pretty good (original is a bit too soft for my taste tho). --Fir0002 10:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the sharpened version.--Svetovid (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. - Darwinek (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original - Expressive portrait Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Mark Twain 1907.jpgMER-C 04:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is in my opinion (of course) a very impressive piece of 3D art work, created and licensed freely by Michael Otto. What puts it even closer to my hearth is the fact that it has been created with Blender, an open source software 3D animation program. It gives you an impressive look of the capabilities of open source software, even if it is free and those who are developing it do so, at least most of the time, without any payment. I also feel that there aren't many computer graphics pictures among Wikipedias featured pictures (perhaps even only one?)
But enough about this! Let us look at the picture! Created by Michael Otto (applause going out in his direction). Let us get the essential things down right first.
It has a free license.
It is of high resolution.
It makes itself of good use in the Blender article, and I think it qualifies to be put in several other articles about computer graphics. This image simply says you can do impressive and realistic pictures by using 3D software.
It is definitely among Wikipedias best work when it comes to images generated by (3D) computer graphics software. As far as I can recall, there is only one other such picture among wikipedias FP.
But what strikes me most is the touch of realism that it offers. At the very first eyesight, you can't really tell that it has been computer generated. It is when those in learned rules (can you say that?) in you brain examine it further that you start realizing that this is 3D artwork, but I was simply even more impressed at that moment.
Some of you might complain about the position of the tree or that wooden thing to the right (no, I can see what it is! I just don't know the English name of it.) But I humbly believe that the old rules of composition do not qualify for reviewing this picture, as the purpose of this pictures is totally different. I believe the encyclopedic purpose of this piece of it is to show the potential of what 3D software has to offer. And having a close up on a big building and a tree that both look realistic and have a pleasing look fulfills that purpose.
I also want to talk a little about the "3D-features" that this pic has and that I (from my own (limited) experience) know are hard to accomplish.
Objects in large numbers, managed and spread all over the scene to give it the realistic look. I am talking about the small objects that you can see; pieces of wood, tires, tractor, etc. close to the wall of the house, the leaves surrounding the corners of the building, the birds, but perhaps the most impressive aspect: the trees and their leaves and the grass on the ground.
Textures, that give the objects their looks. They have to have several properties to look realistic, but especially their color and look and how they reflect light, all related to what object we are talking about.
But what I like most is the lightnings, especially how it has been put on the building to the left.
So, there you go. Now let's here the verdict! PureRumble 13:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Support as nominator PureRumble 13:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Support per nom, but it needs to be added to an article. That shouldn't be too hard though: Blender, 3D animation, open-source, etc. would all make good homes.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 17:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but just to make it clear, it is already on the Blender article! PureRumble 18:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Just to make this clear: I (the nominator) haven't made this picture. It is the work of Michael Otto. Sadly, he doesn't have a wikipedia account so I can draw his attention to this. PureRumble —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talk • contribs) 18:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Wow! That's all I can say. Clegs (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent 3D render to be sure. There are two thinks I dislike about it, one is the crow sitting on the tyre in the lower LHS - it looks too small. Crows are very large birds and from this perspective I'd imagine it would look much larger (especially in comparison to the grass). The other thing is the (driveway?) furrows - they look a bit liquid/glassy. However that doesn't significantly detract form the excellent attention to detail elsewhere. --Fir0002 22:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know how much I wish I had the original blender file so I could fix that. :-[ PureRumble 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment What article is illustrated by this picture? - 80.172.45.45 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blender :-]. PureRumble 23:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Support Not only is it a beautiful image, but it's a fantastic representation of what the software is capable of. faithless(speak) 05:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As I noted in extensive discussion on the PPR nom, while I like the picture, I think it is a poor representation of Blender. To quote myself "Blender is a 3D program, used for animations and modelling among many other things, but this image simply looks like a 2D art work...This is therefore rather an atypical use of Blender, and probably something that would be better made in another program." --jjron (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You and I had this discussion on the peer review site, but just to share it with our new friends here and I also want to add somethings too. Jjron, if we are supposed to follow your argument, then an artist that one day decides he wants to visualize (for the viewer) a scene of an abandoned multiple-storey house, surrounded by the atmosphere created by a sunset and close too a garden that has been abandoned too, in a location where there are lots of trees and close to mountains/hills... then that artist shouldn't use a 3D software, but instead 2D software. Yet Michael Otto simply proves your argument wrong by creating and showing us his work that we are discussing now. And what other program are you referring to anyway? I can think of nothing but only headaches if you were going to create something like this in let's say photoshop. PureRumble 13:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talk • contribs)
Which perhaps simply goes to show you don't know much about different types of software. Photoshop is an photo/graphics editing program, again a poor choice for creating works like this. As I pointed out in the PPR discussion, I can write an essay in Photoshop or Excel, but Word is a far more suitable and intelligent choice. Just because you can do something in a program, doesn't mean you should. --jjron (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that is what I said. "I can think of nothing but only headaches...". I explicitly stated that photoshop would be a bad choice. You are correcting me on something that I have not stated/said! My initial question remains open; what other program are you referring to that would be a good choice for creating this scene? --PureRumble (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jjron, a movie is just made out of lots of images like this, no big difference.. and this looks awesome =) Yzmotalk 09:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have no idea how a movie relates to anything I said. So we are again reducing FPC to pretty pictures? That's not its purpose. --jjron (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know Blender, or how difficult or easy it is to produce this picture using that software, but I'm not convinced that this picture illustrates Blender any better than any other picture that might be created using that software. For example, are any of Fir's photos encyclopedic for the camera used to take them? I suspect not. Pstuart84Talk 14:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither do I know of blender (in fact, I know NOTHING of it. ) In fact, I disagree. Say we have a camera X, yes? This camera is capable of amazing detail in photography, and yet, is easily obtainable and the maximum of it's capacities are, in fact, unknown to the majority. If that were the case, we could put a picture (of great quality) there to exemplify this. Boiled right down to it, what I mean is that this clearly demonstrates something blender can and is very good at doing, that the majority doesn't know, and as such, has quite an encyclopedic value. My two cents. --Mad TinmanTC 19:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blender is general purpose 3D software developed for the tasks of modelling, texturing and animation. This simply means that there is no single button to click to create a building, or several birds in the sky, etc.. I'm saying this to address your first question. On your second point, I don't know what you mean by "Fir's photos". However, since as I said Blender is a general software program, it is difficult to say that some picture "illustrates it better than any other picture". I don't think that is what we are trying to do here. We just want to present ONE picture that presents the capabilities of Blender, even if you can create pretty much any picture you can think of with features far greater than this one. PureRumble 14:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talk • contribs)
I'd say , File:Blender sculpt.png, and heck, probably even give a better indication of what Blender is designed to do and its true capabilities (all also from the article, and no I'm not putting them up as alternatives). --jjron (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am putting this comment here because (in my humble opinion) some weird arguments have been presented against this picture. First of all some of us are discussing the purpose of Blender and if this picture represents that purpose. I answer to this explicitly like this: Blender is a general purpose 3D program. This means that the goal of the developers (or more the community, because I am now thinking of those who develop plugins too) of the program is that you should be able to create ANY scene that you can think of. A car? Horse? Architect who need to create a mock up? Architect who needs final renderings of how it will look like? Fantasy creatures? An abandoned house in a sunset scene? You name it!
Second. Yes, in my nomination I put big emphasize on Blender, and now this is in some way being use as the make or break point of this picture. It is like it MUST represent blender, otherwise it is out. But I feel it represents Blender, 3D software packages, Computer Graphics, art, open source projects, etc.. And hence what qualifies this picture is that it simply looks very good, realistic, has something to tell the viewer, etc., free license, big resolution. And it also shows what you can do with Blender, what you can do with 3D software packages, what you do in Computer Graphics, how art can be created/represented, just how serious is the open source community, and something related to etc. ;-). So hence it represents several topics in an encyclopedic way. Those are my five cents. --PureRumble (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think this is enc for Blender - in the same way that a photograph does not illustrate the camera used to take it. Pstuart84Talk 18:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you can use a picture as a representation not of the camera that took it, but rather of the capacity the camera that took it has. For instance, every picture (I think) Fir has taken has the camera he took it with identified - which would be pointless if the photograph was in no way representative of the potential of the camera. Given that, this is perfectly enc in blender as it shows the full potential of the program. Support and cheers. --84.90.46.116 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC) (Mad TinmanTC 19:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
But I still don't think that any of Fir's photos could be added to the Wikipedia page for his camera and then nominated here as enc for the camera article. Pstuart84Talk 20:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think this is a particularly good illustration for the Blender article. There is no user interface visible or explanation in the caption of what specific features were utilized. Kaldari (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So we are getting more and more comments about this picture not being representative of Blender's features and capabilities. However, there is another computer generated fpc (don't have time to find it, glasses with wine, dices I think, made in cinema 4D). I presume that it has been nominated since it appears in some other article than cinema 4D. How about we do the same thing for this picture? I do not think this is cheating. That cinema4D picture shows a close up on a still, just a certain few objects. This picture shows a completely different aspect of what you can do with CG. For instance, this one is an outdoors scene with environment lighting. Also, the objects appearing here are natural and organic as opposed to the cinema 4D picture. Any comments on this idea? --PureRumble (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Some comments here seem to be based on the premise that the Blender article could have only one FP, and this FP should be of the user interface. However, we have articles that have more than one FP, and adding an FP does not necessarily mean the previous one has to be demoted. This is only usually done when both images illustrate the same aspect of the subject. So having two FPs, one for the user interface, and one as an example result, would be acceptable; however, I also don't know of any screenshot of a graphical user interface being promoted, but it's possible someone will correct me. Generally, the problem is that screenshots are fair use images and thus ineligible for FP. To return to the image at hand, I think it demonstrates the versatility of Blender very well, and as such, has exceptional encyclopaedic value. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, I have no problem with an article supporting more than one FPC. However, I'm still interested to hear in what way you think this illustrates Blender any more than a photograph illustrates the camera used to take it. Pstuart84Talk 18:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the fact that it was made with Blender is the most remarkable thing about it. I'd hope you would concede that a stereogram would likely be a better illustration of the technique than a picture of the camera itself. Just to clear up any confusion, the reason this is illustrative of Blender's 3D modelling capabilities is the lighting, which could not be generated without rendering the scene from a 3D framework. To mark this down for being a 2D image is to completely miss the point – that it's a remarkable example of the power of modern 3D rendering software in generating 2D artwork with near-photo realism. --mikaultalk 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments here there & everywhere. --mikaultalk 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This isn't like composing a document in photoshop, because you really are not using the tools in photoshop to do anything creative. The fact that Blender can also be used for this type of work (in which the creative tools of blender were used), I see no reason to oppose. -- RM 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Lone House.jpgMER-C 04:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Intercession of Charles Borromeo supported by the Virgin Mary. Detail of the Rottmayr fresco in the Karlskirche (Vienna, Austria)
Reason
Nice detail of Baroque fresco in Austria by its most prominent (IMHO) painter: Johann Michael Rottmayr. Rationale: One year after the last great plague epidemic in Vienna, Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI pledged to build a church for his namesake patron saint, Charles Borromeo, who was revered as a healer for plague sufferers.
Question. Does the real painting have all those cutoff feet (both sides and bottom)? The bits of feet and wing poking in at the top and side also look pretty weird. --jjron (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a fresco, cropping is often unavoidable. As a detail shot, I agree it could have been better cropped but it's very difficult to say what might have been intruding into the scene from this angle to prevent showing all of the feet, for example. --mikaultalk 09:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. SpencerT♦C 02:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Intercession of Charles Borromeo supported by the Virgin Mary - Detail Rottmayr Fresco - Karlskirche - Vienna.JPGMER-C 04:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 1 - downsampled, minor saturation increase, edge sharpen filter applied with 40% transparency.
Reason
This picture is awesome and the best picture of the Last Judgment on the web. FranksValli's previous picture for The School of Athens already received feature status and I thought this deserved it too.
Support as nominatorRemember (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - sooo close. There are lots of compression artifacts at full resolution though. I wonder if a downsample would obscure them... deBivort 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per debivort. Great art; flawed photograph.Support edit 1Spikebrennan (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know how you will ever get another better photograph of this painting considering the Vatican probably won't allow it. I'm also not sure how The School of Athens got to be a FP while this one failed using the same system. Oh well. Remember (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give up Remember! Here is an edited version. deBivort 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I have no idea what you did, but thanks for doing it! Remember (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 - I think the detail in the painting overwhelms the flaws in the parts of the photo showing the floor and walls. I assume this was a low light shot, thus the sensor noise in the floor and wall areas? I would also support a version in which most of the wall and floor were cropped away. deBivort 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sides are not clear enough, and there is too much shadow, especially in the bottom center, top center, and top left. Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus (quorum not met) MER-C 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose B&W -Why is it in B&W? Does the color version still exist? Cacophony (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no, it's available only in b&w --The Watusi (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, why? As creator, why is an image from 2007 "available only in b&w"? --jjron (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, the Commons nom says the creator is Skit ineb, the image page says it's Beni Köhler, and you're claiming it's you. What the heck is going on? --jjron (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is only available in BW because I chose to do a conversion from the color version, which in my opinion did not work very well. I don't know what you are talking about uncertain origin, It is shot by me, Beni Köhler, at Provinssirock in 2007 in Seinäjoki, Finland. There are no details blown out in the hilights in the face, i made sure of that while doing the conversion, as for composition, that is a matter of what looks good to you. --skit_ineb (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what I meant by uncertain origin is pretty clear when I've listed three separate names that were down as 'creator'. FWIW, you may not be aware of this, but Single-purpose accounts like this (edit history) are also regarded as somewhat suspicious until the user has proved themself. --jjron (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No reason for B&W, extremely harsh lighting on singer's face blowing out details, uncertain origin of photo, and personally I don't like the composition. --jjron (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per jjron. Clegs (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the B&W only minimally detracts from the encyc. and probably greatly helps the artistic side. It shows an historic and encyclopedic person doing what they're famous for. Matt Deres (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think the B&W is being used to attempt to cover up obvious problems? --jjron (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it could be, but if the problems are covered, then I'm not too worried about them :-). B&W photography, especially for artistic portraits, is a common enough standard. In this particular case, I think the textures brought out by the B&W are more interesting than the lost colours. In contrast, our "unnecessarily" B&W portrait FP of Golda Meir I find to be quite flat and bland. Matt Deres (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Screams punk-poet. Lighting and B&W only serve to draw you to her face- Peripitus(Talk) 11:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I went back and forth on this one-- on the one hand, it's a very expressive photograph; on the other, we're looking up at her chin. But this image is featured and has a lot in common with it; if McCoy Tyner is featured then I think this photo deserves it too. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting; I actually think you may have found a pretty strong candidate for delisting there - size, composition, etc. The "it's no worse than this one" argument isn't particularly strong regardless. --jjron (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with jjron here. The Tyner picture wouldn't even make it past PPR b/c of the size requirements and noise. Saying that this picture is no worse is a very weak reason to support it. Clegs (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per jjron. Very harsh lighting. SpencerT♦C 02:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus MER-C 04:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose; it does not match up to the regulation size of 1000 pixels as stated in the criteria for a featured picture. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 07:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Individual images used to create this are 512 x 512 pixels - so why is the composite so minuscule? And why have the original jpgs been used to make a png? This may stand a chance if it was redone to a decent size. --jjron (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have notified the creator and asked if a larger version is available (suggestion: min. 2000 px wide). If there is, I'll gladly support - very high enc in this candidate! Furthermore, I'd suggest dropping 4 intermediate images, to get a regular array of 30 images. --Janke | Talk 08:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Creator has uploaded a new, large (3639 px wide) version. If someone (or I, if no-one else in a day or two) removes the "all rights released" text, I'll support. --Janke | Talk 12:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Already a FP, but created with MRI instead of CT Kind of redundant of featured animation. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we already had an FP animated version of this... — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-31 14:14Z
Well, the animated gif is nice, but you don't have time to study the individual frames. Aso, it's only 213x231 px, while the current candidate's images are a lot larger, and show more detail (check the eyes in the three frames top right). So' I'd say the enc is much higher for the new candidate... --Janke | Talk 14:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as redundant with existing FP. DurovaCharge! 23:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The FP animation is created from MRI frames, which is a different technique than CT. Apart from that, I do have data to create a slightly higher quality MRI animation than the currently featured anim... --Dschwen 16:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Animation of a stack of vertical MRI sections of a normal adult human brain
Comment. The old version was promoted in Sept 2004 when standards were considerably lower. I'm almost inclined to put the existing version up for delist - it's very small and poor quality. Quality here is superior and it's more usable, though I wish the uploader would remove those 'copyright free' notes from all images, composite and individual, as that really deters me from supporting. --jjron (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the current candidate is better than the old one. Second what Jjron suggested. Clegs (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MRT!=CT. Why is this animation even mentioned in this nomination? --Dschwen 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was the opposers that brought it up, so why question us? --jjron (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I misunderstood the reference to the old candidate. --Dschwen 14:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've uplodaded a new version, without the 'copyright free' notes, both in the compound and in the individual ones. Regarding the size, I've also added links to a larger and a smaller one, if any other size fits better. So, if it's better than the existing FP, then I see no other reason against at present. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the image size of each individual brain is far too small. Posters with small pixel size shouldn't be FPs, in my opinion . Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My vote has been changed to Oppose new version as per Rudy's comment. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 06:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note re. the two opposes above. A larger version has been uploaded, see below. --Janke | Talk 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support new large version without copyright free notes (especially as it's not duplicating an existing image). And for opposers, why is it OK to stick a bunch of small images together into an animated gif or some other movie and say size doesn't matter, but not OK to put them into a sequenced composite image like this? --jjron (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LARGE Computed tomography of human brain
Comment. So, the problem seems to be that each individual image in the composite still is too small. However, what about this large version of the image:
Original - A photograph of the Reservoir Guarapiranga taken at sunset from my apartment (26th floor).
Reason
This picture is very beautiful and shows how the sky in the city of São Paulo, although polluted, can sometimes be marvelous and how splendid is the reservoir Guarapiranga itself.
Oppose This could be almost anywhere, so the enc of this image is very low. To be FP, you need more than a nice sunset. It's also quite grainy, and tilted. --Janke | Talk 17:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low quality and nothing special. Clegs (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you have Photoshop I suggest using the healing brush to augment the clone stamp. You might be interested in a Commons venue called quality images where photos of sunsets have an easier going. Many photographs of sunsets are beatuiful, but few have special encyclopedic merit. DurovaCharge! 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Also the description at the bottom ---taken from my apartment (26th floor) --- might be good description of the picture on orkut or some other buddy portal. Not on wikipedia as this is an encyclopedia gppande (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Original - The interior of the New Synagogue, Berlin, circa 1896. The synagogue was noted for its moorish style and resemblance to the Alhambra. During the Kristallnachtpogrom of 1938, the Synagogue was set ablaze. Today the synagogue serves as an exhibit for various aspects of the Holocaust, particularly Kristallnacht.
Reason
A particularly exquisite engraving of a noteable, and gorgeous, synagogue in its heyday. Also as the synagogue is now a museum, preserved as it was after its destruction, a color digital photograph would be nigh on near impossible to take
Question Were there never any photographs taken of the interior while it was a functioning synagogue? DurovaCharge! 22:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've only seen a couple and they were all pretty lame, I dunno I think this is a good sketch but that's just me --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm a little skeptical, particularly about the date of the engraving. Those look like 1860s fashions - compare the hoop skirts to 1860s in fashion against the slimmer skirts and broader sleeves of 1890s in fashion. Would you confirm the date on this image from a second source? DurovaCharge! 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WIthout wishing to sound ignorant, does it really matter, essentially the building was the same --HadseysChatContribs 18:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if this sounds nitpicky; I have a degree in history so this kind of thing really leaps out at me. If this gets featured it'll go onto the main page. Probably hundreds of thousands of people will visit that page during its day in the sun; some of them would notice the same details I saw, and if the date is 30 years off that would be an embarrassment since our site strives for accuracy. No disrespect intended toward the quality of the engraving or your diligence in finding it. This has obvious significance because of what and where it is. DurovaCharge! 05:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate with date change: Seriously, we can date the sketch as depicting the synagogue from 1860 to 1890. Here's a photograph from Berlin, taken no later than 1870 (according to the photgrapher's collection). I assume it's Berlin, but I'm not certain. Note the very wide hoop skirts. The men have shorter hats, almost bowlers, unlike the tall hats from the sketch. But their coats are short, like the ones from the sketch. Now, here's a picture of a couple in the 1890's:[1]. In that one, apparently taken in Czech, the man's coat is longer, and the woman's skirt is narrower than in the sketch, but not dramatically so. And here, three women with skirts that flare out, but not nearly as much as the ones in the '60s. This last one is from Berlin. So perhaps the sketch was made in the 1890's, or duplicated then, but the depiction is from an earlier period. --Otheus (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support good engraving; illustrates the building well, --Brendan44 (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support when viewed full, you can really see it well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer (talk • contribs) 14:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - really nice, clear engraving :) --Brent Ward (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Berlin Neue Synagoge Innenansicht BusB.jpgMER-C 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the most influencial person in the history of the English language, this portrait represents what little we actually know about Shakespeare. It meets featured picture requirements easily, and would make an excellent featured picture. Majorly (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in
William Shakespeare; see the File links on the image page for the complete list.
Creator
Unknown; attributed to John Taylor, but unconfirmed.
Support as nominatorMajorly (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on grounds of quality, admittedly it is an old photograph, but part of the picture looks like he has a bruise on his forehead or something. Also, its very flaky as parts of the portrait appear to have peeled off. Also i wasn't aware shakespeare had a pierced ear, surely this should be checked before we promite an image?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 February 2008
That's simply the quality of the painting. You'll find no better version of it. But... it's likely to be the only portrait of Shakespeare that is actually authentic. Think about that. And yes, he did have an earring. Majorly (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We actually know stunningly little for certain about Shakespeare. This may or not be him, as pointed out below, stated on the image page, and clearly discussed in the Chandos portrait article. We also don't know whether he really had an earring; any 'evidence' for that comes from this painting, and some studies suggest it was added later anyway. For all intents and purposes though, this is Shakespeare, as there are no better images of him available. --jjron (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question photographs of two dimensional artworks aren't copyrightable. Is this the best file of its type available? And BTW the earring is old news, no problems there. DurovaCharge! 21:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jjron. Convincing argument that this is true to the painting. DurovaCharge! 07:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose corpselike color balance. As an illustration of the person, this is bad. Maybe if the painting had its own article. deBivort 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you possibly adjust the colour balance of the picture to improve it? Seddon69 (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on it. Majorly (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Here is a link to the National Portrait Gallery (UK) version of this image (they hold the original). This looks pretty close to the true colours and quality going on their site. Please be aware that there exists virtually no images of Shakespeare that we know are of him or that are any good. Most 'better' quality pictures are based on this portrait (which may or may not be him, but at least dates from the right time). This spent over two centuries exposed to the 'elements' - smoke from open fireplaces, candles, etc, before going into the NPG in 1856 as its founding portrait, so it's pretty degraded by time, and also highly significant. Given some of the other meaningless trash that gets featured I can't in good faith anything but support this significant piece (assuming copyright is OK). Honestly, this is about a million times more significant and encyclopaedically valuable than the engravings below (no offence, it's just that they're nearby) that are getting nothing but support. --jjron (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredibly high encyclopedic value. faithless(speak) 09:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support - historically significant, and quality is good enough. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aren't you still abbreviating "encyclopedic" as "enc"? ;) · AndonicOHail! 13:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an illustration for Chandos portrait. Per that article, attention should be drawn to the fact that the identity of the painting's subject as Shakespeare is far from certain. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The caption at Chandos portrait indicates that the image is a 20th century reproduction. Is that the case (just clarifying because it may have applied to a previous version of the page)? --Iamunknown 20:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; the details on the image page aren't entirely illuminating, though if it's a reproduction it appears to be pretty true to the original. --jjron (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support matches the painting and fulfils other criteria.--Svetovid (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support one of the best you're going to find of Shakespeare... Mønobi 00:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's the best we have, or ever will have really. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A great picture, although I must admit that I never knew he had an ear-ring. Qst (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support very encyclopedic, and I never knew either that he had an earring. SpencerT♦C 14:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose – There are no problems with its encyclopedic value, but this image definitely fails featured picture criteria #1 (bad lighting of photograph: the painting has a greyish look) and #2 (not high resolution: its height is 600 pixels instead of the minimum of 1000 pixels); a better quality version of this portrait is possible, and this can easily be verified with the aid of User:Jjron's link (use the "View this portrait in detail" option). – Ilse@ 19:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hold up here, someone has uploaded a smaller version over the bigger one, so we are not all judging the same image. If we are to compare different versions for any reason, upload it as a separate file instead of over-writing the original. I would support the original--what more do we need? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The issue here is that it does not meet the criteria for featured pictures (refer to Ilse@'s post. I note that it counts as a historical image, but that does not immediately mean it qualifies for featured picture status. <3 bunny 19:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image used to be 1,943×2,490 pixels wide until someone over-wrote it. Just check the file history. See previous version. What I want to know is why? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed it because it was changed without discussion for no other reason than to try to attain featured picture status. I and many others spent months trying to get the Shakespeare article up to feature status, and after three attempts it was finally granted, using the previous picture. Majorly took it upon himself to arbitrarily change the picture and wipe out the previous versions, and with no discussion, as I said. The picture that illustrated the article is a much better and more attractive version, even though it may not be as authentic, having had the colors brightened. If you want to go ahead and try to attain featured status, I'll leave this version up, but as soon as it is granted I plan to revert it back to the original picture. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The promotion only applies to the large version. MER-C 04:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is, I just reverted it to the old version. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ilse@. <3 bunny 19:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Shakespeare.jpgMER-C 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original 1 (Beer Street) - Beer Street and Gin Lane are 1751 engravings by William Hogarth published partly to support the 1751 Gin Act. Beer Street shows a happy city drinking the 'good' beverage of English beer, whereas Gin Lane claims to show what would happen if people started drinking gin, a harder liquor. People are shown as healthy, happy and hard working in Beer Street, while in Gin Lane they are scrawny, lazy and acting carelessly, including a drunk mother accidentally sending her baby tumbling to its doom.Original 2 (Gin Lane)Old Beer Street imagePoor copy of first state of Beer Street
Reason
It's a high-quality scan - well, scans - of some art that I'm very happy to have acquired for Christmas. As a set of two images, it seemed to make more sense to nominate them together.
Support as nominator Vanished user talk 14:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support both. Majorly (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support both. Famous illustration well scanned. DurovaCharge! 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice scan of a famous, historical shot. Cat-five - talk 02:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support it tells people the bad effects of drinking beer. Also, it is a great photo. Dar book (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it shows the bad effects of drinking gin. See Gin#History. DurovaCharge! 20:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support oneGin Lane looks fine. Do you have any more details on Beer Street? It may be a state I haven't seen before, but some details are missing from the first issued state: for example Lockman's name on the New Ballad on the Herring Fishery is difficult to read, the text the king's speech and a large wall are missing, the girl being fondled by the pavior has a different expression (all of which are discernible in the old image even if the text if not legible). Do you have the information on who issued the reprints and which states of the prints they are? Yomanganitalk 12:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. Sorry! I got it, and it turned out to be one of those awful things where someone cut it out of a book, removing all context. Vanished user talk 13:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reference to this variation as an "official" state from Hogarth's plates. Nichol makes no mention of it, and he's normally pretty thorough up to 1833. I suspect this is re-engraved after Hogarth sometime in the latter half of the 19th century. While it is a pity, because it is an excellent detailed scan, I don't think this should be featured without some provenance that ties it directly to Hogarth. Yomanganitalk 17:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this one is from the 1880s. As I said, I don't know anything further - it's possible that it was done from new plates (reproduced by pantograph, perhaps), as I think they tended towards that in Victorian times, and that the engraver for Beer Street took a few liberties. This is, of course, pure speculation. Vanished user talk 18:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, I have to admit to finding it difficult to identify many of the differences you suggest. Could you give a bit more detail as to where things are? I am not a Hogarth expert, I fear. Vanished user talk 01:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure (much of the detail is difficult to make out in the old images, but unfortunately the decent copies I have are in books that wouldn't survive the trip to the scanner):
Behind the sign-painter and blacksmith with the ham in his hand is a large wall. This was added between the first and second states, probably to fill some blank space left by the removal of the Frenchman who was replaced in the 1759 issue by the leg of ham/beef/mutton and the pavior/drayman and housemaid
The tankard in front of the butcher at the table has a foamy head in the first state and in the second state the foam is spilling onto the table. In the new image it spills halfway down the tankard.
On the table in front of the butcher is a copy of a speech given by George II. In the new image the title is hard to make out and the body of the speech on the other sheet is replaced by wavy lines. The words are visible in both the states issued during Hogarth's lifetime
The speech lies on top of a loose sheet of "The Daily Advertiser" in the two issued states (though the title is slightly obscured in the first state). In the new image it lies on an unmarked piece of paper.
A pipe lies across the sheet of "The Daily Advertiser" and the bowl is visible on the table in the first state. It is removed in the second state (our old image), but appears in the new image detached and slightly removed from the paper.
The housemaid dangling the key has a different expression in the new image and her fingers are in slightly different positions
The ballad held by the fish-seller clearly reads "By Mr. Lockman" in the issued states. In the new image this is somewhat obscured by hatching
In the new image in basket of books, the book placed by itself at the side has no title visible, and the topmost book is missing "Vers" at the end of the title. The next book down "Hill on Royal Societies" hides the "al" of "Royal" whereas it is visible in the issued states, and it omits the "Ant" of "Antique" visible on "Turnbul on Antique Painting" The label on the basket in the new image is missing "the" before "Trunk Maker" (replaced by a squiggle) and replaces "in" with "St" before "Paul's City"
The top of the chimney just visible behind the painter's shoulder juts out in the new image whereas it is flush to the body of the chimney in the issued states (though the chimney is barely discernible in the old image). Yomanganitalk 10:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this version's been pantographed then. It's not particularly large in my original - I suspect Hogarth would have done it bigger than a largish postcard, and it looks like the person responsible for preparing it got lazy in the Beer Lane version, leaving out the fine detail. Vanished user talk 13:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is strange that it combines details from both issued states in that case. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any copies of this new image apart from on WP mirrors. And by the way, I've knocked up a quick article on Beer Street and Gin Lane, as discussing them separately is nonsensical. Yomanganitalk 14:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:William Hogarth - Beer Street.jpg and Image:William Hogarth - Gin Lane.jpgMER-C 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case you are still watching, they are both engraved by Samuel Davenport (1783–1867) "from the originals by William Hogarth", probably around 1806-09 for a version of Trusler's Hogarth Moralized. Yomanganitalk 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, honestly - what are these images featured as? I mean, they are very pretty, with lots of pixels and all, but these version are not either of the two originals by Hogarth. -- Theramin (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 2 or Edit 3 Lovely scene and technical quality is pretty good - though I wish it were taken at a smaller aperture (to be fair I'd guess the lighting didn't permit). --Fir0002 08:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support any of the edits. Lovely colors. CillaИ ♦ XC 23:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 3 (I've changed the caption). Lovely depiction but the last edit seems the best - Peripitus(Talk) 00:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all versions. Limited DOF can not be fixed. Squirrels are easy targets (with a bit of practice). Have another go. Lycaon (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, that's a bit harsh. Increased DoF is inevitable with the smaller chips in compact cameras, which I'd venture this was shot with. Unless we effectively exclude all but DSLR wildlife shots (based on this one, I wouldn't) we have to make some allowance for the absence of thousand-dollar optics. Personally, I really don't think it looks "worse", just different to the classic bokeh-smoothed BG, which just isn't obligatory in all cases. I'd further speculate this was shot wide-open, full telephoto, so the chances of the same photographer improving on that aspect of it would be slim to none. --mikaultalk 01:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may find it difficult to communicate with the photographer - unless you can write Japanese. -- Danverlanche (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
分野の深さは限られている。それは変わることができない。リスは容易なターゲットである(僅かな練習と) 。別のものを行ってもらいなさい :-)). Just a pity that he/she is not very active (last activity was 21:20, 1 August 2007). Lycaon (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spikebrennan had a beautiful eleventh hour idea to nominate a pic for Valentine's Day. So I rushed over to LoC and restored this from Image:Love or duty.jpg. Obviously, the nun and the painter have fallen in love. There's a visual hint of which decision she's making: two chains hang from her wrist. One has a crucifix and the other has a charm like a human skull. The crucifix is receding into her sleeve, while his cape slides back to reveal a dagger (love conquers all, Sigmund Freud would have a field day with this but it's 30 years before his time). Needs a little WP:IAR on the nomination time frame (and please help with the article, especially if you speak Italian).
Support Durova uploaded another good one. Nuff' said. Dengero (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This looks non-controversial enough that three more days should be sufficient time. 11th hour, indeed!--HereToHelp(talk to me) 02:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know... while I'm willing to bend the rules, the earliest this can be closed is the 12th due to practical (i.e. volume) reasons - the "worst" case scenario is 12 promotions in 2 days. MER-C 05:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've got me confused, why is there a mirror operation involved in the restoration?! --Dschwen 14:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think the second picture is the original? All the signatures are backwards. Matt Deres (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't infering that. But still weird that LoC has a flipped version on file. I didn't notice the writing. Anyways good job on the restoration. --Dschwen 16:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I agree it's weird that LoC hosted a flipped version. DurovaCharge! 00:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - brilliant restoration. Well done. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a large amount of text on the bottom of the painting. Should that have an affect on the status of this painting? --ZeWrestlerTalk 19:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chromolithograph, actually. Is this a request to remove the text? I could... DurovaCharge! 19:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't affect copyright status or anything to remove it, then by all means, go for it. --ZeWrestlerTalk 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Judging from the expression of her face and eyes, she's closer to passing out than she is to falling in love. Good restore, Durova! Clegs (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The face seems like a visual pun on that painting of the Madonna. Obviously this lady is thinking of something much more earthbound. ;) DurovaCharge! 20:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone confirm the colour balance on this? I would have guessed much of her clothing would be white instead it's a deep cream - almost a yellowy orange. --Fir0002 09:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that there's any way to do so. Generally, chromolithography has a decay problem. I started with the assumption that the white on the painter's sleeve was a correct or true white, and adjusted the balance so that it wouldn't be blown. That leaves the nun with a near-white wimple and a cream colored cloak. The artist takes several other liberties with factual detail: the slashed sleeve is sixteenth-century fashion, which means the painter ought to be wearing shoes with squared toes instead of pointed toes. So I read the color balance as metaphor: the religious art is entirely dull earth tones while the painter wears luxurious red velvet - certainly not an outfit anyone would actually wear to paint a canvas (he's still carrying a palette), but perfectly representational of earthly pleasure and sin. So earth tones on the nun suggest she's still a virgin - she's kept her vow to the Church so far. DurovaCharge! 00:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with all due speed and haste. What a lovely image. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Love or dutya.jpgMER-C 04:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot, can't believe it was taken so long ago. Aesthetically, I'd say it's at least as good as Image:SMAW.welding.af.ncs.jpg, which is featured. A good point is made at the PPR discussion that this picture would ideally exist in an article along the lines of History of welding, but still, support. faithless(speak) 09:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, that's some masterful restoration indeed! For its historical and encyclopedic value, I Support. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 10:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Almost perfect but for the mark in the smoke, about 300 px from left, which looks like a cloning error. thegreen J Are you green? 21:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked it against Image:AlfredPalmerwelder.jpg? I was using the healing brush rather than the clone stamp in that area. Not sure which mark you mean - if it isn't in the original please be more specific? DurovaCharge! 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in the original. Look at the area towards the top of where the long scratch in the original was. There's a dark patch, which looks perfectly natural except that the top does not blend into the smoke around it; there's a sharp, straight border about 4 pixels from the top. I'm not sure how the healing brush works (it's not in the older version of Photoshop that I have.), but if it's similar to clone tool, my guess is that that the area that was selected to be copied in place of the scratch was slightly above what you cloned it onto, so once you reached the top, it stopped working, leaving a visible border. thegreen J Are you green? 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are; I've fixed it now. That happens when the source section on a healing brush alteration goes beyond the frame of the image. Usually I catch that myself; sorry to have missed this one. The healing brush operates on a mathematical formula that blends the source area with the target area. Often it works wonders, but using it is an art form and a few circumstances make it cough and sputter. I think it was first introduced in Photoshop 7. DurovaCharge! 12:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shows the protective clothing very well, but doesn't show much of the welding.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 00:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Another great shot of proletariat at work. - Darwinek (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per my earlier comments on PPR. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support; a nice image, but I can't really figure out where this belongs. I think the best place is actually welding helmet, since it offers a clear view of the protective gear that a welder wears (and it's similar in appearance to what is still worn today). It doesn't illustrate welding well, and there are better options already available. --Spangineerws(háblame) 18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:AlfredPalmerwelder1.jpgMER-C 03:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A large resolution picture of excellent subject content and quality. I feel that this picture is in a class of its own compared to other pictures taken from space. There are few that have such excellent panorama and able to maintain good subject content without it being just white cloud with no contrast. There is good contrast between earth, atmosphere and space with a good balance between cloud and sea/land to provide an excellent picture worthy of FPC
Support as nominator Seddon69 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent textures, and angle makes the altitude of the craft clear. DurovaCharge! 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From PPR discussion, current FPs at a glance that are somewhat similar: , and to an extent even . --jjron (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally i feel that this picture is a combination the best features of those FP's that you have mentioned and is a much more visually pleasing and of better content than the three of them. Seddon69 (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hurricane is cropped and there is no reference for scale. If I hadn't seen a picture of a hurricane from space before I would have no idea what this is. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the curvature of the earth? I would argue that it provides a sense of scale that the other 3 FPs jjron linked to don't have. Cacophony (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cacophony makes an excellent point, and along with what Durova mentioned earlier, I don't think theres a way this picture misses out on encyclopaedic value or easy identification of what it is. Not to mention, it's in an article, so when you saw it, you'd have the concept smack dead in front of you to relate to it. (Also, Support.) --84.90.46.116 (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally think that similar FPs should be used a consideration for current ones. For the curvature of the earth to be effective it would need to show the diameter at the equator. The cyclone over Iceland is much better. I agree it's a cool picture, but I think it would do better featured on the commons. I stand by my original remarks. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont want to dazzle people with terminology and science because it isn't really needed but there is a reasonable difference in what the low pressure system over Iceland is and what the hurricane in the Carribean is. Seddon69 (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty much for the above reasons - this is great! Adam Cuerdentalk 19:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This can't really be compared to those other FPs; both of them are overhead satellite images and one of them isn't even of the same subject content (they are all pictures of clouds though). The lack of perspective/scale is an issue but from what I've seen of low-altitude images from space this is always a problem simply because the picture is taken from so close to the earth; the Felix picture is about the best I've seen from this category just in terms of the angle and distance of the storm when the picture was taken. — jdorje (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Felix 2007-09-03 1138Z.jpgMER-C 03:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A Pasture Day Moth Caterpillar (approx 40mm in size) browsing in capeweed, Swifts CreekAlternative 1Alt 1 Edit 1 - Color temperature correctedAlt 1 Edit 2 further NR
Reason
High quality shot of this vividly coloured caterpillar in it's natural habitat - has plenty of enc value and is technically very good.
Support Original or Alternative, Oppose Alt Edit 1Fir0002 08:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both are good, I lean towards Alternative 1. faithless(speak) 08:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you've shown us that you really are a good photographer. I Support the Original and Strongly Support Alternative 1. Hang on...Fir, is this caterpillar 4cm long as stated on the image description page? -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 10:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it is - I guess I'd have an error margin of 5mm, so I'd say it's in the range of 38-43mm. It's not fully grown (they get up to 6cm) yet but it's getting pretty close --Fir0002 22:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate same quality, and you can see the caterpillar better. Clegs (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative 1 - more of the 'pillar is seen, thus better enc. --Janke | Talk 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support both - Though the alternative is slightly better, both stand out as some of Wikipedia's best work. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 Edit 1 - The color temperature in the original is too high. (Too warm) pschemp | talk 17:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dirt is brown, not grey/blue - the original Alternative 1 is the correct temperature from the photographer's perspective. --Fir0002 22:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt1, nice shot. Oppose alt1 edit, gotta believe the eye witness. --Dschwen 04:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the more impressive prints from the photochrom era and a rare color image of a vanishing craft during its useful life, before spinning wheels got relegated to museums and hobbyists. Probably taken 1890-1900, published no later than 1905. Restored version of Image:Elderlyspinner.jpg.
The image should pique readers' interest in the upcoming motion picture. At the time the photo was added to Wikipedia (a year before the film's release), trailers were unavailable. The image on the Mach Five page should lead some readers to the article about the 2008 film. Unlike other images now available showing the car, this one was not an ad. People in the background illustrate the lively environment which surrounded the car but without drawing attention or intruding into the view of the car. The photo is a high quality image of high resolution, has a free license, adds value to two articles, is accurate, has an informative caption, is neutral, and has no digital manipulation other than trimming of the left and lower edges in order to center the car in the image.
Original - Although World War I was triggered by this chain of events unleashed by the assassination, the war's origins go deeper, involving national politics, cultures, economics, and a complex web of alliances and counterbalances that developed between the various European powers over the course of the nineteenth century, following the final 1815 defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte and the ensuing Congress of Vienna.
Reason
I think it is a great way to think of the causes of the war and allows visual learners remember what is going on as well as classifying for others which causes were the main bonfire, which were oily rags, which was the spark etc.
Harris Morgan that is the work of everyone that every made life in the world.
Support as nominatorHarrisMorgan 23:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really like the font much. It makes it look a bit 1970, when a somewhat earlier date would fit it better.Adam Cuerdentalk 00:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'll refrain from making any comment on the quality of the image itself, but the fact that it's symbolic/metaphorical makes it more like a work of art more than a visual aid; in fact when I first saw the image preview I thought it was a political cartoon. Obviously there's no historical value, and the metaphor you're using is fairly subjective so I don't like if for enc value either. While it's clever, it doesn't do what I think a visual aid should, which is present the subject matter in as clear and straightforward a manner as possible. SingCal 01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SingCal. I thought it was a cartoon, also. Clegs (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A political cartoon from 90 years ago might be worth consideration for historical reasons. Yet - with respect to the nominator - a modern illustration really can't carry that particular value, no matter how well done it is. DurovaCharge! 05:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Durova and others. This is basically original research and probably shouldn't be in the article.--Svetovid (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply What the hell? Have you looked at the page? It shows that all causes on the picture are valid. Sure, it doesn't call them oily rag or a stick of wood but you've upset me a bit saying it shouldn't be included at all. Gees. HarrisMorgan 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Hey hey, AGF, CIVIL and all that. Don't take it personally. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I spent a lot of time pruning that picture. It won't happen again. HarrisMorgan 22:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The importance and order of causes can be considered original research.--Svetovid (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. --Janke | Talk 11:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - likely OR, specks on the scan at bottom left, text is aliased and stretched, white text boxes overlap illustration at points. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, firstly, I really liked this... and I went to look for what magazine it was from and to see if the resolution was high enough. But, this is original research and should not be in any article. Sorry about that. But, I think it's very well done... grenグレン 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is, as the Egyptians would have said, a shame. HarrisMorgan 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 07:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Journalist Ernie Pyle shortly after being killed on Ie Shima, April 18, 1945Edit 1 after restoration
Reason
Rare and recently discovered image of one of the most notable American World War II front-line correspondents. Photo was taken under fire within a short time of Pyle's death from Japanese gunfire during US Army assault on Ie Shima, near Okinawa, Japan on April 18, 1945. More on the history of the photo is here [2]. No known negatives exist of the photo, so reproduction is from a print.
Support as nominatorCla68 (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It's disturbing, but that's not an issue here. But it is rather small: Is there any way we could get a higher-resolution scan? Adam Cuerdentalk 00:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose At the current size it's too small.Weak Support This size is much better, but it could still be a good bit larger. Anybody got a bigger scan? Clegs (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose despite my utter loathing of the size guidelines I have to agree that this is too small if only for the fact that it is inherently harder to see more detail at smaller size and it hinders practical usage (for example on the FP templates among other uses), I'd definitely support a bigger scan though. Cat-five - talk 01:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question and comment I read the article three times attempting to determine the status of Alexander Roberts, the man who shot this. Can you confirm that photography was part of his official duties? That would determine whether this is PD-US or copyright-fair use (and ineligible for FP if the latter). Also, would it be possible to obtain a larger image file? A lot of photographs of this type would have been developed as 8"x10" so a full sized scan might exist somewhere if you ask around. A Holocaust museum uploaded a larger version of this image upon request when it was nearly delisted last month. If you get a bigger file, ping me and I'll work on a restoration. Best wishes. DurovaCharge! 02:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to everyone. I'll try to find a larger image and renominate it at that time since this one appears to be failing mainly because of image size. The article linked to above makes it clear that Roberts was acting in his official capacity when he shot the photo, "Roberts and two other photographers, including AP's Grant MacDonald, were at a command post 300 yards away when Col. Joseph Coolidge, who had been with Pyle in the jeep, reported what happened. Roberts went to the scene, and despite continuing enemy fire, crept forward — a "laborious, dirt-eating crawl," he later called it — to record the scene with his Speed Graphic camera. His risky act earned Roberts a Bronze Star medal for valor." Cla68 (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're probably right about the PD-US. Good luck with the request for a larger file version. If that doesn't work out, you might drop it by the workshop I've set up on Commons for restoring encyclopedic images that are important historically but may not qualify for FP. DurovaCharge! 04:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I found a larger image (800x631 vs the 539x350 that it was before) and uploaded it, but I don't know if that's as large as the reviewers here would still like to see. Cla68 (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an improvement. I've rotated it, cleaned artifacts, adjusted the levels, and cropped the border. The face hasn't changed: the collar bends upward, his glasses reflect sunlight, and that looks like blood dripping from his mouth (probably the reason they kept this from the widow). Here's the hard part: as important as the subject is, this is also slightly affected by lossy compression and scanner streaks. If you view the original at 300% you'll see the streaks especially in the dark area at upper right. That can be partially corrected during restoration so I've done what I can, considering it's a low resolution scan. DurovaCharge! 09:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 07:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose good quality pic. but I think recently there have been lots of butterfly pics as FP. and one more....don't know what to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gppande (talk • contribs) 08:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too many butterfly FP's is in no way a valid criterion for opposing. How is it that being a part of a group of commonly photographed subjects detract from the value of this image specifically? Also, Support. --Mad TinmanTC 13:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... meaning that all butterflies form a single subject (there are about 150,000 known species)? What about mammals? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Butterflies are a type of insect, grouped together by similarity in characteristics, which is why they can be grouped more tightly then the looser group of mammals. Still, the fact that the Order: Lepidoptera is often photographed in no way detracts from the value of this photo itself, in fact, this photo just adds to our compendium of photos that well illustrate the variety of the order.. Also, how can "Is among Wikipedia's best work." be intrepreted as "Too many FP's that represent similar animals can't be had"? That one just bewilders me. --Mad TinmanTC 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Mad Tinman (and Gppande). Ranked taxonomies are not comparable across big evolutionary gaps. That Mammals are a "Class" and Lepidoptera an "Order" is essentially meaningless. Both groups evolved at the same time btw, and have had therefore the same amount of time to diversify genetically and phenotypically. deBivort 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me justify my vote here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should cover all aspects of human knowledge. Special attention to one particular /subject/science/people/art/literature....etc would mean it is not truely encylopedic. For new comer if he sees same topic picture everyday on homepage it sends wrong signal. I have nothing against the picture and its truely amazing to qualify as featured picture. My opinion is there should some time gap if same subject pictures are to qualify as FP. gppande (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support original - Yes, it is beautiful, but a little dark for enc purposes. Also, I would like to see more detail (more resolution) on the head and body - Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edited version. For ethical reasons. Author is around and perfectly able to edit his picture if he wants to. For a question of courtesy, I don't think it is a sound practise to create new versions of the pictures nominated for FP without previous agreement of the author/nominator -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any ethical problems in modifying a picture that has been released under a free license. If the author didn't want his images modified he shouldn't have done as much. Regardless, I support either. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouln't like it if it were my picture. Why rush to edit this particular photo when the author is a well known photographer perfectly able to do the job? Not a question of "right" but of elegance. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Recruitment poster for women to join the United States Navy, 1917.
Reason
The Navy was the first branch of the U.S. armed forces to accept women in capacities other than nursing. This vintage World War I poster promises fair advancement to any person who enlists. The insignia on the model's sleeve indicate 8-11 years' service and the senior enlisted rank of chief (E-7). Restored version of Image:WWINavyYeoman.jpg.
Comment Is there a larger scan out there? Really like it, just wish it was a bit larger. Clegs (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was the Library of Congress file. Usually they host the largest version available. DurovaCharge! 20:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checked it out on the Loc website. While itðs true that for some reason they only offer this image in this size, this similar one is available much larger. However, the composition is much poorer, hence I'm inclined to Support this one. Adam Cuerdentalk 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That temporary link doesn't work. Do you have the call number? DurovaCharge! 02:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just search for "I want you for the navy". But POS - WWI - US, no. 424 (C size) [P&P] Reproduction number: LC-USZC4-9459 (color film copy transparency) Adam Cuerdentalk 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Higher resolution, inferior layout. And annoying stamps added later. DurovaCharge! 21:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:WWINavyYeoman1.jpgMER-C 07:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator Alwynloh (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is bad. The stars are very blurred, the whole sky looks fake, and it's very noisy. Doesn't really illustrate anything either. Sorry, it's pretty as a thumbnail, but not an FP. Clegs (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Looks somewhat like a background out of Star Trek, sorry, just not up to quality standards. Dengero (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - horrific noise, blurry, lighting is bad, not to mention the heavy JPG artifacting. Sorry, not a chance. Try WP:PPR before FPC next time. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per clegs, a pretty thumbnail, but the 'big image' quality isn't there. I like the idea, and an picture of a similar setting could be really neat, but especially damning is that the focus is on the tree thereby leaving the arches and sky to look like hell. The tree is by far the least interesting thing in the picture.D-rew (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I like the contrast and the look of it a lot... but it's not an encyclopedic image--but it is a really nifty one. grenグレン 20:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - low technical quality as mentioned above. Also, it doesn't illustrate the National Park.--Svetovid (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --Dengero (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Picture gives an idea of how Box Tunnel relates to its surrounding landscape, showing its bowed entrance, the colour of the local stone used in its construction, contrasted by the winter landscape in which it is set.
Oppose Composition is lacking (looks like a snapshot), foreground and person are distracting, strong vignetting. Not FP material, sorry. --Janke | Talk 07:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke.Clegs (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke. Dengero (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you can stop now. I get the message. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing personal. If you look in the archives, you'll see pictures that have received much worse than this. Keep trying, though. With better framing, this may have had a chance. Clegs (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --Dengero (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - a view of Bellagio promontory and the three branches of Lake Como, Italy, from Mount San Primo
Reason
I think it's wonderful: it provides a full view of the three branches of Lake Como (so it's encyclopaedic) but is also aesthetically pleasant, due to the perfect weather conditions. No manipulations.
Original - A house in the main square of the village of Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal, about 180 km south of Lisbon. This is a typical house of the Alentejo region, with white washed walls and a blue band close to the ground.
Reason
A high quality picture and an encyclopaedic depiction of a typical Portuguese house.
Neutral It looks like a great picture, but the white balance is off and the tree on the right is cut plus plus its tilted a bit. Noah¢s(Talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suggest cropping/rotation? DurovaCharge! 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info - No tilt, just the effect of perpspective and the not pefect geometry of the whole building (please notice the verticals). I might try a crop later, thank you -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of cropping it, how about taking more of it? Include the tree and tilt the angle the right way up. Then it would be a great picture. Dengero (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's neither stunning/interesting or particularly enc. I don't see how this particular building illustrates a whole town (Porto Covo) or the municipality of Sines (and having it illustrate the "parishers" of Sines further reduces the enc value of this pic). Furthermore the technical quality is quite poor (sharpness) for such an easily reproducible shot. The scene would also have been improved if the trees weren't in their "dead" winter state but had some leaves. --Fir0002 09:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if they had leaves then you wouldn't see the building properly. Dengero (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice colours, may do well on Commons, but it's not an encyclopaedic crop. We need to see the whole house. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fir and Samsara. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is tilted, and the image is of the middle of the house which does not illustrate the entire structure. It is nothing special, and in no way is FP worthy. JuliancoltonTalk 00:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We can't see the whole house because of the trees. Galileo01 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --Dengero (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt (left) and nature preservationist John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, on Glacier Point in Yosemite National Park. In the background: Upper and lower Yosemite Falls.Edit 1 - clean up, level and curve adjust.
Reason
This picture shows how Teddy Roosevelt as an environmentalist worked to preserve the environment through the national park system and by working with preservationists such as John Muir.
Support Edit 1 the original is a little small but encyclopedic enough IMHO, I cleaned it up and tweaked contrast and levels. Mfield (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Cleaned up version is better than the original. --ZeWrestlerTalk 19:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 Good quality for its age. Schcambo (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. Good restoration of a famous and encyclopedic photograph. Spikebrennan (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Muir and Roosevelt restored.jpg --Dengero (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the best pictures of this particular subject (and is the disputed taxobox image). It is highly detailed, has a pleasing, non-distracting background, and is high resolution. It clearly shows it feeding with its proboscis and no body parts are obstructed by other objects.
Support as nominator -- Ram-Man 03:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support- It's beautiful, and illustrates the subject perfectly. Ilikefood (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but that's nowhere in focus. —αἰτίας•discussion• 16:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere? The focus is dead-on, but the DoF could've been slightly higher (at the cost of center sharpness), but I needed the fast shutter speed. Compare the DoF to other FPs: 12345. For the sharp focus areas, this may be the sharpest, highest resolution butterfly FP we have. -- RM 17:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral insufficient DOF but nice --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Only rear edge of wing slipping out of focus. I'm always impressed when people get the antennae right. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche 13:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus on Echinacea purpurea 2800px.jpg --Dengero (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This might qualify as the most famous newspaper editorial of all time: Emile Zola was France's leading writer, the Dreyfus Affair was its most famous scandal, and Zola published this public condemnation of the government in order to force his own prosecution for libel, so that he could raise evidence in defense of Dreyfus that had been suppressed from Dreyfus's case. Sounds convoluted? It was, but it wasn't a passing scandal either; the affair was a landmark in the history of antisemitism and Zionism. High resolution legible file; English translation available at Wikisource. The headline reads I accuse...! Letter to the president of the republic from Emile Zola
Support - an extremely important historical document. The image pages on EN and commons don't seem to specifically state it, but is this actually a scan of a 110-year-old newspaper (as it appears) or is this some kind of facsimile, like a printing from a microfilm or something? Just curious. Great find, Durova; not a typical FP, but quite deserving, IMO. Matt Deres (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a scan of the actual newspaper. DurovaCharge! 02:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for nominating it, it's great. Neutralitytalk 03:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great historical significance, legible and therefore very informative. faithless(speak) 10:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Obvious featured picture. - Darwinek (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not like this one needs my vote, but I just wanted to say I learned something new and important from it! This is the stuff text FPs are made of.D-rew (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course (per nom). Spikebrennan (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:J’accuse.jpg --Dengero (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most important public art competition of its era was won by a 21-year-old college student. No restoration attempted: a couple of pencil smudges and water drips are part of what make this remarkable. Architectural sketches with legible handwritten description, submitted 1980-1981. I've just finished several days' correspondence with the Library of Congress reference department to confirm that this actually is PD-US.
Support per nom. dvdrw 06:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support i had never seen her proposal before, and this image makes it seem even more amazing that her design was chosen. Fascinating. deBivort 04:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I ought to transcribe her description? She knew exactly what effect the memorial would have; nothing was accidental. DurovaCharge! 07:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The abstract and minimally detailed submission are rather fitting given the subtle nature of the memorial. You can transcribe the text if you like and think it will contribute to the article; but it's perfectly legible in the image.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 23:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:MayaLinsubmission.jpg --Dengero (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Coat of Arms of Pope Benedict XVI were designed by then Archbishop Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo soon after the papal election of 2005. The coat of arms is notable for its inclusion of the silver mitre in place of the papal tiara, which had adorned the popes' coat of arms since the 14th century. Also the inclusion of the pallium differed from the long standing tradition against including external ornaments. However, as the Pope has the authority to alter rules of ecclesiastical heraldry to permit these additional items, he has put the rules aside by granting authorization for his personal coat of arms.
Reason
Excellent picture that appears to meet the criteria and is some of our best image work. Also, is a new innovation in heraldry due to miter and pallium inclusion.
Support as nominatorMBisanztalk 08:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not very special or stunning looking. (Also old discussion: Feature one coat or flag, and you'll have to feature all...) --Janke | Talk 08:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Firstly I have a few issues with the shield's accuracy. What was it based off? Because the colours don't match A - they are closer to B but which is the correct version? Then there's the crown - in this version it looks more like A but that's quite different from B. But if A had the correct form than what's with the bear's tail? In this version it doesn't match A or B AFAI can tell. Secondly why do the PL/EN copyright notice things render with the SVG? Lastly per Janke - there's nothing to seperate this particular SVG shield/flag from the rest. --Fir0002 08:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This C is the official version. In hearldry, the individual items may be rendered slightly differently by each artist. I have no idea about the PL/EN issue. And the thing that makes this COA different than others is that it has a mitre replacing the tiara, which was used for 600 years, and it includes the pallium, which has never been used in hearldry before. MBisanztalk 09:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it's the same as B? I'm assuming that it's just a dodgy scan in B and C which give them the different hues to X? Because the colour is close but it's not the same - for example the "gold". I'm no expert so I don't know whether the heraldry does have different rendering but I would strongly prefer if this version followed the official coat of arms far closer. Specifically on the person: (and I'll refer to this nom as "X" and the official version as B) I dislike the gaping mouth of X versus B's closed lips, the differences in the crown structure, the lack of detail in the hair of X, the sausage shaped collar of X versus the sharp lines of B, and the differences in the finishing of the shirt. Specifically on the bear: the awkward rendering of the bear's pack - it looks like a saddle in B and in X it doesn't look like much really, the legs look somewhat clumsily drawn (they lack claw detail visible in B) and the tucked in tail of X. Lastly the red section of the shield doesn't join properly with the black border (there's a white gap) - I'd fix it but I don't know how. I know this may seem like nit picking - but for a COA or map the detail and quality really has to set it apart from others. --Fir0002 09:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can't see how you can have a featured picture of something that is not well-defined, as evident from the link provided by I. Pankonin above. Essentially what that link is saying is that any representation of a CoA is as good as any other, other criteria (e.g. SVG format) being met. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would take a lot of visual appeal for a CoA to be featured. It has to be drawn amazingly, almost like the animals were real and were actually photographed holding up a shield or walking across it, but it still has to be SVG. It's almost a catch-22. I disagree with what you say here though. That a COA has to be technically correct according to the blazon doesn't mean that none of the other criteria apply. All that link is saying is that as long as you follow the rules, it's technically correct and acceptable from a heraldic point of view. One can still judge visual appeal in an FPC nomination. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 13:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, when I was talking about photographic quality, I meant for others to accept it as FP, not myself. IMO the UK coat of arms should be featured except for a minor technical detail. Others rejected it as too "cartoonish". -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 13:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --Dengero (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) is a bear native to the Arctic. Polar bears are the world's largest land carnivores, with most adult males weighing 300–600 kg (660–1320 lb); the adult female (pictured) are about half the size of males. A semi-aquatic marine mammal, the polar bear has adapted for life on a combination of land, sea, and ice, and is the apex predator within its range. It feeds mainly on seals, young walruses, and whales, although it will eat anything it can kill.
Reason
High quality encyclopaedic and attractive image, showing the whole of a female polar bear. Shows the polar bear in amuch greater detail than the current FP
Support as nominator — Jack · talk · 04:08, Sunday, 10 February 2008
Oppose Yes, it has much more detail than the current FP, but at the expense of the bear's natural habitat, which causes it too loose to much value and fails to distiguish it above other zoo shots. thegreen J Are you green? 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Agreed as per above, although I also agree this picture provides much more detail than the current FP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dengero (talk • contribs) 06:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot. thegreenj raises a good point, though considering that in a few decades it is quite likely that most polar bears will be in zoos rather than in the wild, we might need to rethink what 'natural habitat' means. :) faithless(speak) 10:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, since its already on everybody's mind when looking at a zoo picture of a polar bear I would like to see some mention of the predicted plight of them in regards to climate change.D-rew (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to promote alarmism. Polar bears are doing just fine. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 23:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be trapped in some debate here, but I'm not saying that the caption be some sort of alarming statement. Just that climate change and how polar bears will be affected will already be on people's mind's seeing the image, and I think it is at least worth a mention.D-rew (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is that a twig hanging on to its front leg, or a smudge on the glass you may have been shooting through? Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Noisy with several pieces of dirt or something on the camara lense. Also, the content of the image is nothing special, and would be better off with a more interesting angle. JuliancoltonTalk 23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The animal is too dirty. Royalbroil 02:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, say again?--Svetovid (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for unencylopedic setting (so obviously a zoo photograph) Spikebrennan (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not the natural habitat, therefore UE. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per unencyclopedic habitat (There are cement sidewalks in the Arctic ice floes?) Clegs (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning to oppose - Great image, but I do have to agree with the oppose comments (that the animal is not in the natural habitat). Macy's123(review me) 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't mean to sound argumentative, nor am I suggesting anyone change their mind: we're all entitled to our opinion here. However, I feel I have to address the argument of those opposing this picture because it was taken in a zoo rather than in the wild. I do not see this as a legitimate argument and, more importantly, there is precedent that zoo-photos can also be featured pictures: Image:Mexican wolf lounging.jpg and Image:Jaguar at Edinburgh Zoo.jpg being the two examples that I know of. There are also other featured pictures of animals not taken in their natural habitat: Image:Day old chick black background.jpg, Image:Melanerpes-erythrocephalus-003.jpg, Image:Brachypelma edit.jpg, Image:Mouse spider.jpg and others. I'm not saying there aren't legitimate reasons to oppose (though I supported), I'm just saying that I don't see a problem with the location. Cheers, faithless(speak) 09:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. It's called Polar Bear at Edinburgh Zoo after all.--Svetovid (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those examples are also quite exceptional (both in composition and technical aspects) as well as being taken in a zoo - the good points outweigh the bad. However, they're also all closeups - the only one I think it's obvious that the subject is in a zoo is the Mexican wolf. This polar bear pic, whilst illustrating a polar bear, is still a fairly average photo (not all sharp, grey lighting, the horrible rusty metal thing at bottom right), with the arguments against it compounded by also not being in its natural habitat. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not the natural habitat. FF23(talk) 17:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --Dengero (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The skyline of Montreal, Quebec, viewed from atop Mount Royal in October 2005
Reason
Good quality shot, shows city and surrounding geography well. I took 5 shots with a Canon Easyshare CX7330, stiched them together, and improved the colour/contrast.
Comment I'm no guru on photography, but this panaroma hurts my eyes o.0 Dengero (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is a bit on the small side for a panorama and the sky is entirely blown out...the contrast has been upped a little too much. CillaИ ♦ XC 06:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sky is horribly blown, way too small for a panorama. No chance. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose far too small for a panorama, and the sky is completely blown. Clegs (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominatorMario1987 (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can think of too many ways in which this could be a much better picture. First of all, shooting against the sky hasn't helped, only forced some foreground objects to be underexposed. On this bleak winter day, the colours ended up undersaturated. This would be much better shot either from a higher vantage point on a slightly sunnier day, or in summer, when there's foliage in the background to keep out the bright sky and allow foreground objects to be correctly exposed. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Samsara. Clegs (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per Samsara, couldn't put it better. Dengero (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - sky is blown, very unsharp almost everywhere, vignetting, chromatic aberration on almost every edge. Please read the criteria, look at current FPs and make an honest judgement before nominating an image. You may also consider using PPR before nominating if you're not sure. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, there are problems that prevent a support vote. This is also a really interesting location. Would it be possible to reshoot under better conditions? There's an FP in here; keep trying. DurovaCharge! 17:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --Dengero (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Original, Oppose Alternative A. The original is great except for the resolution being on the low side. The alternative is too unsharp. -- RM 04:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support both Both are very sharp, good color, and very encyclopedic poses. Clegs (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support both Crop is tight at the tail. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose alternitive, neutral originalJuliancoltonTalk 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote, please provide a reason for your oppose. MER-C 07:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Bucephala-albeola-010.jpgMER-C 11:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nicely done; good colors, good stitch. Clegs (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It strikes me as odd that this is receiving even less attention than a very poor pano of Montréal above - maybe it needs to be in North America? Also please note, this is already an FP on commons. Schcambo (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, meets all the criteria but the caption should be improved by saying that it's in Paris. That may sound trivial, but too many people are horrible at basic geography.--Svetovid (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not clear to me from the caption which of these buildings are the library. Also, I always have copyright concerns when we're dealing with photographs of contemporary French architecture-- have these been considered and resolved? (I know the photo is tagged as PD, but there are special concerns under French copyright law when what is depicted is a recent architectural work). Spikebrennan (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. So all the buildings in this picture are part of the French National Library? That's the only conclusion I can draw from the captions and image page; if so it's remarkably big. --jjron (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Bnf 20070218.jpgMER-C 11:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominatorBenjamint 09:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The birds' tails seem to be fairly blurry when viewed at full size. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 10:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's an excellent composition, and I can forgive the blurry tail since the patterning is still clearly visible. Samsara noadmin (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Samsara.Clegs (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image looks oversaturated. The other images at Welcome Swallow look more like natural colors. Maybe tone it down a bit? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-04 16:28Z
Comment - Colors look off to me as well. Kaldari (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a slightly desaturated version to bring the colors closer to reality. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-05 01:00Z
Support the adjusted one The one you have adjusted to fix the coloring is very good. Juliancolton(The Giants Win!) 21:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both Colours still look unnaturally saturated. Lycaon (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you submit an alternative? The 2nd one is much closer to reality. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-06 21:00Z
It doesn't work that way. You can't boost and then lower stauration in the same way that you can't boost and lower contrast. The original picture (whether or not the submitted original is it) has a full range of saturations. When saturation is boosted, the middle range is stretched out, but areas with an already high saturation won't go higher. When you take this image and lower the saturation again, the areas with a high saturation will be at a much lower saturation than they originally were. Quick example—note the decrease in saturation on the bumper from the first image to the third. thegreen J Are you green? 22:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 – The edit appears to have corrected the problem I had with the strong (probably unrealistic) blue colour appearing at the edge of the birds. Apart from that I cannot really fault the composition or the other technical aspects of this picture. Centy – reply• contribs – 21:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Swallow_chicks444-2.jpgMER-C 11:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - This false-color composite (processed to simulate true color) image of Hawaii was constructed from data gathered between 1999 and 2001 by the Enhanced Thematic Mapper plus (ETM+) instrument, flying aboard the Landsat 7 satellite. The Landsat data were processed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a landcover map. The black areas on the island (in this scene) that resemble a pair of sun-baked palm fronds are hardened lava flows formed by the active Mauna Loa Volcano. Just to the north of Mauna Loa is the dormant grayish Mauna Kea Volcano, which hasn’t erupted in an estimated 3,500 years. A thin greyish plume of smoke is visible near the island’s southeastern shore, rising from Kilauea—the most active volcano on Earth. Heavy rainfall and fertile volcanic soil have given rise to Hawaii’s lush tropical forests, which appear as solid dark green areas in the image. The light green, patchy areas near the coasts are likely sugar cane plantations, pineapple farms, and human settlements.
Weak oppose Interesting, but way too contrasty and garish; processed to simulate true color sounds almost like a joke... Details are lost because of this, and yes, blown out highlights in the clouds, too! ;-) Find a lower contrast version, and I'll support. --Janke | Talk 22:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - False colour images serve two different purposes imo: to emphasize certain terrain characteristics (relief or coverage, in general) or just to be beautiful. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Mrs. Bill Stagg with state quilt, Pie Town, New Mexico, October 1940.
Reason
A piece of Americana: a frontierswoman stands outside her log cabin home in a gingham dress and sturdy black shoes while she displays her proudest artistic achievement: a hand pieced and embroidered quilt that depicts all the state flowers and birds (there were 48 states when this photo was taken). Harsh lighting suits this portrait: the deep lines on her broad featured face suggest a hard life - note the complete absence of flowers, birds or any other living thing on her "lawn". Scenes like this could have taken place anytime from 1840 to 1940 and we're lucky to have one in Kodachrome. Restored version of Image:Russellquilter.jpg.
Support per nom. Much more interesting than one might expect an illustration of History of Quilting to be. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1940 is not that rare. If it was 1890 and a color photograph I'd support. 1940 just doesn't cut it for a old photograph of this kind of subject. There isn't anything particularly special about her. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, this is a early example of good color photography. That in itself is valuable. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly it's not being used to illustrate that, and secondly we seem to have a plethora of 'good color photography' from around this time. --jjron (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly a plethora: most of the good PD color photography from this era comes from the U.S. Farm Security Administration. Color files are a tiny fraction of that body of material. Several of their photographers didn't understand the medium, a fair portion of it seems to have been developed incorrectly, and as for the better part - Wikipedians are well on our way to picking it clean (pick, pick). DurovaCharge! 17:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, perhaps you've just been spoiling us recently then. ;-) --jjron (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent example of early color. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose basically per Fcb. The interesting part of this photo (and what it's being used to illustrate) is the quilt, but I don't think it is a great illustration of that. The reason for the nom itself seems to support this idea as the reason focuses on the woman and the setting. --jjron (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Can't think of a better illustration of an amateur quilter. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Russellquiltera.jpgMER-C 07:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - This photograph of Abraham Lincoln delivering his second inaugural address is the only known photograph of Lincoln giving a speech. Lincoln stands in the center, with papers in his hand. John Wilkes Booth is visible in the photograph, in the top row right of center (White, The Eloquent President).
Oppose It's very difficult to find him. I'm still not sure that I did. Clegs (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Took me a minute to find him. he is in the very center of the image. I am not a fan of the image quality when it is shown in full size. --ZeWrestlerTalk 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So, is he the guy with the handlebar mustache standing next to the man with the high top hat? -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's the guy standing up reading from a piece of paper (at least I think so). Clegs (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that looks right, and sounds right, since that guy seems to be the centre of attention and looks to be the only person vaguely giving a speech (or unless Lincoln just happened to grow a handlebar moustache for this occasion). FWIW unfortunately I can't really see enough here to support, but whatever happened to brilliant speeches like that? --jjron (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a white table just above the stone wall. Lincoln is standing just to the left of this. Booth is the hatless guy in the top deck, who looks like this: and who is standing immediately to the left of a guy with a bowler hat. Spikebrennan (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Isn't anyone else finding it striking that this image is (1) apparently the only photograph of one of the most famous speeches in the history of the United States being delivered, and (2) both Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth (his assassin) are in the picture? Spikebrennan (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. As a Lincoln picture fan opposing this one is tough to me, but as previously commented on, it is difficult to find Lincoln, and worst of all he is out of focus. I understand that nothing can be done about that, that the image is very historic, and that for some people it will outweigh the problems of the picture. But I am a simple man and a simple photo-judge, if the focal point of the picture isn't in focus and difficult to find I have trouble voting for it. D-rew (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it as an illustration of the inauguration, rather than of Lincoln as an individual. This is apparently the only known photograph of Lincoln giving the (deservedly famous) address. (For the benefit of those who might not be familiar with the event, this was the speech that concluded: "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.") Spikebrennan (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT - It's Alex Gardner's photo of Lincoln as he was speaking. Come on!
Additionally, the man indicated in the crowd as being Booth, clearly is not.
This man's face is full, not lean. He parts his hair on the right, not the left, as did Booth. His mustache is more like Hitler's than Booth's. There are however, two individuals who look very much like Powell(Paine)and Booth on either side of this man. Both wear hats and are equadistant from the man(not Booth)holding his hat. In fact, after a very close analysis of both, it's likely that this is Booth and Paine. As for the theory that other conspirators are in the group, directly below the President, though it makes for good drama, most, if not all, of the people immediately below the President, on the sidewalk, were either soldiers, plaine clothes detectives or police. The security presence was several thousand. Including sharpshooters on neighboring rooftops, cavalry in the streets and thousands of troops.
Not promoted MER-C 07:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good scan of an encyclopedic, PD portrait of a recent historical figure (most of our FPs of images are much older because of the difficulty in obtaining more recent PD photographs)
Comment Great choice for black history month! Would you mind if I played with it a little in Photoshop? Looks like the levels need adjusting and I see a few artifacts; don't want to steal your thunder. DurovaCharge! 00:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not my photo; not my thunder. Do what you will. Spikebrennan (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right then. Filled in the blank strip at upper right, got rid of artifacts (and please don't ever upload another houndstooth jacket). Then while adjusting the levels the thought came to mind, how black should I make Malcolm X? I hope this is suitable. DurovaCharge! 10:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is fine. Making him any blacker or less black doesn't make a difference to his historic significance. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Ground troop movements during Operation Desert Storm from February 24-28th 1991. Coalition forces invade Kuwait and Iraq to defeat and expel Iraqi forces.Edit 1 - Iraqi forces shown
Reason
Clear, accurate map that shows complex troop movements during a critical phase of Operation Desert Storm.
Comment. I find the mix of unit insignias and national flags odd. It's interesting from a grognard perspective, but confusing-- U.S. military units are not expressly identified as such; and not all of the symbols used on the map are explained in the legend. Is there any available information about the pre-attack positioning of Iraqi forces? Spikebrennan (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a map showing Iraqi forces and added the information to this map in an alternate. I'll fix the legends in both. I thought the flag/unit icons were self explanatory, but I'll consider suggestions. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 21:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 1 is certainly an improvement. I would suggest replacing the flags/U.S. Army division insignia with APP-6A markers like you did for the Iraqi forces. Also, I don't think that the meaning of the green tint of some of the land near the Tigris is explained in the "Elevation in Feet" bar in the legend. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong supportgppande This is a awesome map created by the author with all the minute details properly shown. Wikipedia needs more good quality maps like this and map makers like this author. I know a lot of effort must have gone in making this. —Preceding comment was added at 08:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Can a more specific tag instead of the blue 'Coalition forces' in JFC-N go there? Surely it's possible now to identify who it was (Egyptians, if memory serves, or that may be the green box next door), and correct a bit of our systematic bias by identifying the formations involved. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The green (Saudi) flag represents the Saudi led forces, including Saudi/Kuwaiti task forces. Yes, the blue coalition banner includes two Egyptian divisions making up much of the force, and Syrian forces (which did not advance with the rest of the coalition). Since the Syrians did not advance, it makes sense to split it out. I'll upload a new version shortly. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great job Jeff. I think the legend needs information about the different kinds of arrows, for instance the 101st Airborne and the French movement west of As Salman. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 09:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be a little wary about adding too much. It would need to be referenced. As of now this map is deemed reliable because it is from a government made map but if it is changed sources will need to be provided which might be difficult. grenグレン 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone. I checked an army field manual (101-5-1) which confirms the 101st Airborne arrow represents troop movements by an airborne unit. The normal arrows are for ground troops. The same field manual says the double headed arrows for the French and 3d ACR are for security forces. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This information should be on the image page if it's not in the image itself. Other than that I'd say it was close to perfect. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 01:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attractive image that both shows you what the snake looks like, and how it hunts using leaf-pattern camouflage. A reflection was removed from the out-of focus background in the top left corner.
Neutral. I don't know why, but there is something bugging me in this picture. Dengero (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really, I hope people are looking at these at full resolution (not the image page). The quality at full res is rather bad, noisy and there is texture lost everywhere due to in-camera NR. The white balance is green shifted and the tail is badly OOF. The tail is cut off. Other then that, its a compelling shot. What I mean is that it was clearly wide-angle meaning the photographer had to get close to the snake. Like really close. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was taken in a zoo, the photographer says he's edited out a reflection, so I'm guessing he was pretty safely behind glass. :-) --jjron (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit blurry, and noisy. · AndonicOHail! 12:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - as per Fcb, horribly blurred, noisy, white balance and general colour off, bad contrast - looks okay at thumbnail but not any bigger. Again as per Fcb, I really don't think that the nominators of most of the recent nominations we've had have actually looked at the image full size, I cite this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. I don't know how we can make it any more clear that people need to think for more that thirty seconds about whether their image is good enough, to actually read all the criteria all the way through and realise that most of them need to apply, to look at their image full size all over, and to compare their image against others which are currently featured. There have been quite a few nominations in the last three to six months where I've almost dismissed them as a troll nom (anyone remember the real trolls like this? Or the innocent-but-worse ones like this from even longer ago?), and then realised that although the image is bad or worse, the person nominating really did think that it might pass for some reason. I don't understand why the advice and instructions at the top of the page aren't clear enough already. This isn't the worst image we've had by any means, but it still shows that some standards appear to be slipping. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling this a troll nomination seems a bit harsh, I do admit I don't have full vision myself, so I probably wasn't able to assess this as well as I should have. The picture was taken at low light levels from behind thick glass, which might explain the flaws you can see. However, in light of the tone of your comments I don't think I will try this process again. Sorry for wasting everybody's time. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, I wasn't saying that this nom was a troll, I was commenting that the recent trend of nominations where the quality is obviously low has some examples which, a year ago, would have been suspected as troll nominations. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ
Oppose because of the blur. Galileo01 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Image withdrawn by nominator by removing it from FPC page - see here. --jjron (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose SupportRather than have the lengthy legend in the caption, it should be in the image. Even better would be eliminate the numbers completely, and replace them with the names of the rocks. Then, I would be able to support this. Very well done. Clegs (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it possible to lower the noise? Dengero (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its been a while since I've used photoshop, what would I do to go about that?--ZeWrestlerTalk 07:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question, Does a circle around the inset images mean it is a process and a square mean it is a type of rock? If so I would like to see some mention of it, because right now I feel the diagram confuses processes and types of rocks.D-rew (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know I haven't noticed that before, but looking over the diagram types of rocks have square images, and processes have circles. It can easily be mentioned in the caption if you feel it is necessary. --ZeWrestlerTalk 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant circles to be processes, and squares to be "reservoirs". Woodwalker (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This being a diagram I always try to advocate as much information as neccesary presented in the simplest manner, so, now that I've thought about it, I think it would be better if the difference was more inherent in the image. If you didn't notice its doubtful most others would catch it! I'm not sure of the best method to go about this, but I think that modifying the caption should at best be plan B.D-rew (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, needs some references for verifiability. Also, I think the look is a little hokey... I dislike the background coloring--if they're meant to represent depth there should be some indicator of that and maybe better coloring... Also, I think better fonts could be chosen or maybe it's the color. It looks a little amateurish to me... grenグレン 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would the Rock cycle be reference enough, or are you referring to each image within the diagram? Also, given everyone's comments here, should I just build diagram meeting everyone's criteria?--ZeWrestlerTalk 22:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references used in rock cycle if reliable would be enough. Just, even images should be independent referenced. grenグレン 07:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I contacted Woudloper requesting the original PSD file so that I could change the bg and clean it up a bit but he only had a PSD with the numbers as layers - the rest was flattened. However the original had better quality which I think is incorporated in Edit 2, and I think the new text style is a little more stylish --Fir0002 09:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like edit 2; the image not having any text was my deliberate choice so that it could be used in other languages; but I don't mind it having text at all. Thanks all. Woodwalker (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so then you support it?--ZeWrestlerTalk 05:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if I should as the original creator? Woodwalker (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, you are allowed to. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that. --ZeWrestlerTalk 03:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For me this fits into the category of good pictures for their article but not Feature-worthy. I don't think it looks great. Pstuart84Talk 19:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 04:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A rare shocking picture showing a plane making a emergency landing. This is a very unique image, because very few pictures exist during airplane crashes, and its rare that they're released under a free license suitable for Wikipedia. I realize the plane is a bit off center, but if you count the smoke as part of the picture it looks centered. I was kinda surprised this wasn't a featured picture.
Support as nominatorNoah¢s(Talk) 02:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A tiny bit small, and not enough leadroom in front of the plane, but considering that it's rare...--HereToHelp(talk to me) 02:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely encyclopedic and not an easy shot to get. A careful noise reduction would help. DurovaCharge! 03:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking it might need some noise reduction, but I had no clue how to do this Never mind, I figured out how to do it. Noah¢s(Talk) 04:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1, the image certainly has its problems (most notable i think is the short lead-in), but the wow factor makes this one a go for me. The edit did a good job in reducing the noise without going overboard.D-rew (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's got enough WOW factor to convince me over the picky little things. Clegs (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Great picture, but edit 1 looses too much background detail over some noise that never really disturbed me anyways. thegreen J Are you green? 00:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Leopard TortoiseGeochelone pardalis, is an attractively marked tortoise. It is a grazing species of tortoise that favours semi-arid, thorny to grassland habitats. Leopard tortoises are the fourth largest species of tortoise.
Reason
This is a good, considerably high resolution picture of a tortoise. It is the best leopard tortoise picture on wikipedia, and might just be the best tortoise picture. It shows the tortoise's facial features and its tongue which can not be seen in other pictures. It also shows very clearly the scales around the tortoise's eyes and on its head. These details can not be shown on a full view of the tortoise, which makes this image even more encyclopedic.
Oppose for this to have encyclopedic value, it needs to show more than the face of the tortoise. Clegs (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This picture is special in the sense that it shows the facial details wonderfully well, as if you are crouching down looking at the tortoise. Such detail can not be caught on a full view of the tortoise. A full view, I repeat can not show what this picture shows. So, just as a full view is encyclopedic, so is this head shot. Hope you understand. Muhammad(talk) 15:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Consider . Would you say it should not be an FP because it does not show the whole dragonfly? Muhammad(talk) 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that is an image of the EYES. Specifically. We're talking about a whole turtle here. Dengero (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as the Eyes are encyclopedic, so is just the head of this tortoise. You can not have a full view of the tortoise with the head in such detail. Muhammad(talk) 12:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point, though, is that there's nothing special about this head over any other reptilian head. The other picture is the best pic I have ever seen of compound eyes. This, on the other hand, is a nice portrait, but not specially encyclopedic of anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs (talk • contribs) 20:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Image is not bad, but it looks like “over-flashed” (see the eye of the tortoise). The depth of field lacks a bit as well. Altogether not enough, sorry. —αἰτίας•discussion• 17:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the glow in the centre of the eye? Muhammad(talk) 17:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he is referring to the reflection/shadow on the head of the tortise that gives a strong feeling of directional light from somewhere, even if not from the flash. Clegs (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - there is a shadow in the image and also the lighting seems a little harsh --HadseysChatContribs 17:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On EV basis. I actually really enjoy the image, and I can see that it enhances the detail around the face. But ultimately those details don't seem to be important to the reader's understand of a Leopard Tortoise. The article doesn't mention anything about the face being important to the tortoise's identity. That's not really a problem for the image until you consider that the carapace, which is extensively discussed, is missing entirely from the image. Perhaps in a different context, with a different creature, this image would work for EV, but I think this one fails FPC5. SingCal 19:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article lacks quite a bit of information. Some of this is provided by the image. However, this image is still encyclopedic because it still illustrates the tortoise. Muhammad(talk) 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The comments here seem to me to be a bit picky, especially in light of some of what I saw amongst the ostensible best FPs of the year. I'd prefer the whole animal, but I think that this is pretty good. Unschool (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree with Unschool, this is a superb picture. I can't understand why it is so important to show the whole animal. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Crop is a bit tight... But the lighting is really nice on this one and the angle is more informative. Oh, and its no problem taking a look at pictures. Good luck. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose If the caption emphasies the largeness of the animal, the crop is just a bit on the tight side. Very good quality though. Dengero (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The caption mentions it being the fourth largest species of tortoise. However, this tortoise was just around a foot long. If the caption is slightly altered, would you change your vote? Muhammad(talk) 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It mentions more than that. "is a large and attractively marked tortoise. It is a "large,". And yes, if you change the caption I will change my vote, its a good picture after all. But if we took out the large in a tortoise? hmm... Dengero (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the large, but have kept its rank as 4th largest. Muhammad(talk) 12:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue is with "attractively marked", which this picture shows nothing of. Clegs (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting is far too harsh. Mfield (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this to be a highly informative picture. It was argued above that a picture of the whole animal would be better; I don't necessarily agree with that. True, it would show something which this picture obviously doesn't, but then you would be sacrificing the facial detail provided with this shot. You can't have it both ways, and I don't think either is necessarily preferable. As for the lighting and other issues mentioned, I'm by no means an expert photographer, and trust that others can pick this stuff out much better than I can, but this is still a very attractive, high-quality image in my amateur opinion. faithless(speak) 08:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the lighting (flash) problem. This could be easily retaken in better quality (i.e. better lighting). Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not very easily retaken. After all the tortoise doesn't walk around with its tongue stuck out.
FPC critria no 3 says
It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer.
This is currently the best leopard tortoise picture. Muhammad(talk) 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One criterion alone is not sufficient. Tortoises use their tongue whenever they are feeding. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You surely dont mean that. This image clearly meets more than one criterion. Muhammad(talk) 17:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is maybe the best example of a tortise head, but one of the worse examples of a leopard tortise. There is nothing in the picture by which to identify what species of tortise this is. Sorry to come down hard on this, but this is one area I feel strongly about. If this were on the Commons, I would support it for its artistic value. But WP is first and foremost and encyclopedia, and this portrait has nothing particularly encyclopedic about it. Clegs (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad, I see that you've chosen to ignore the fact that this photo could be easily retaken any time that you offer a tortoise food. Mouth opens, tongue comes out. This is a reliable occurrence. Bring your camera, give the scene some nice ambient light, and Bob's your uncle. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per the previous version from this series that I supported. There's no issue with it 'only' being a headshot, there's plenty of headshot FPs. --jjron (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator, Neutral for downsampled I don't like the idea of limiting people's choice to downsampled images for an image that looks "bad" at 30in x 20in, as would the downsampled image. -- Ram-Man 04:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original Edit 1 Nice composition and enc - original's quality is quite bad at 100%, fortunately this is largely fixed in the downsampled version. --Fir0002 09:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original was taken with an SLR, a very sharp macro lens, a tripod, and a fast shutter speed. Of course *all* unprocessed digital images look "bad" at 100% due to Bayer interpolation. Are you suggesting we downsample and/or photo process all images just to optimize them for web viewing? The Wikimedia software already does this, and for large magnifications the downsampled image would look terrible. -- RM 17:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - while the quality of my images at 100% isn't as good as when I downsample, coupled with high grade lenses even my outdated 20D can get much better resolution at 100% than this. For example this image is a 100% crop of the original. And yes IMO if the quality is not up to FP standard then either it should be downsampled to correct this or it shouldn't be a FP. Simple. --Fir0002 10:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for original, Oppose downsampled version - For ethical reasons. Author is around and perfectly able to edit his pictures if he wants to. For a question of courtesy, I don't think it is a sound practise to create new versions of the pictures nominated for FP without previous agreement of the author/nominator -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is sound. It is done here all the time. There is no problem with that Fir has done at all. Clegs (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very dubious "ethical" attitude to have on a collaborative project like Wikipedia - images should be improved by the community as should articles. It is encouraged rather than being bad etiquette to create constructive edits. If you can fix it do it - that's a philosophy core to Wikipedia. --Fir0002 10:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's destructive because it removes information from a file and limits its general usage. It's optimized for a specific viewing scenario. It won't look the same on 72dpi vs. 100dpi monitors. The original looks fantastic at 180dpi, but the downsampled one would look worse. That's the ethical issue. -- RM 15:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Very good editing job! Highly encyclopedic. Clegs (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality picture, and as Clegs says, encyclopedic. Macy's123(review me) 00:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support “Original Edit 1 by Fir0002” Okay. —αἰτίας•discussion• 16:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit1. I agree with RamMan on this one. Plus the edit introduces posterization in the bg. A few months ago there was a picture exhibition in Berne and Zurich by WikiMedia Switzerland, whith prints of some selected swiss-themed images. The lesson to learn from those guys (by their own account) is: the original, no matter how bad it supposedly looks at 100%, will always yield better print results than any downsampled version. Plus on a more personal note I would find it sad/discouraging to see the efforts of a contributor to provide full size original files are somewhat tainted by featuring a downsampled version. --Dschwen 04:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original and Oppose edit1 per Dschwen. Lycaon (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative 2, oppose others - why do people only want to see the sexual parts? Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Seven Devils Mountains in eastern Idaho. Please open all the way before reviewing.
Reason
The panorama has almost flawless stitching, vibrant colors, encyclopedic value, and beauty. This is one of only three pictures of these mountains on Wikipedia.
Original - Chester Cathedral, England at dusk taken from the town walls at the south east of the cathedral.Edit 3 Corrected perspective distortions.Edit 4 Reassembled tonemapped image from different bracketed source files. Fixed ghosting and perspective distortion, removed lights to LHS
Weak Support A bit fuzzy, more apparent top left where the branches connects with the dark blue sky. Dengero (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First, the thing that pops out at me the most is the glare from the lights on the structure itself, which could easily be edited out with a computer program. Second, the branches from the tree block much of the building, and it makes it difficult to see the structure as a whole. Third, the lights on the left corner detract from the picture. JuliancoltonTalk 23:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll have a look at addressing your concerns regarding the lights to the left and toning down the floodlighting - the trees are more problematic - they're so close to the building that really shooting in December is about as good as we can get - short of them mysteriously being cut down in the middle of the night........any suggestions? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I didn't see anything, it must have been the wind ;) Anyway, you might consider cropping just enough to eliminate the tree trunk and some of the major branches. After that is done and the lighting is adjusted, it could be a good image. JuliancoltonTalk 00:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Edit1 It looks much better, although the flood lighting in the middle is still slightly too bright. Give it one more tone-down, and it should be good. JuliancoltonTalk 01:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lights are a tad too bright, and we also have compression noise in the sky. I suspect you edited this using curves. I wonder if we can recover some colour depth if you upload the original. I suspect, though, that the composition you have chosen is really HDR terrain, so you may not get the result we'd like without reshooting the scene with several different exposures. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. If you use curves to stretch out the highlights, you'd be compressing the colour depth in the sky, and eliminating the artefacts there. However, I don't think anything will fix the blown out highlight in the lower centre of the image. Your time will be better spent just reshooting with a tripod if you can. If you don't have a tripod, this may help you. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is awful as most of the subject is covered in tree branches. The main subject is far too dark. The overall quality is rather bad: the image is noisy, unsharp, and and muddy with artifacts. The angle is awful, it is fairly distorted... The list goes on. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely not Edit 2, aside from the other issues, there is some sort of ghost image in the bottom right corner, and the whole structure seems distorted. vlad§ingertlk 02:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
to be perfectly honest, the bottom two are so many light years better than the first two (image quality wise), a small ghost and a some distortion pale in comparison. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just on the case....See edit 3 - I can sort the cropping and ghosting out if the consensus is that's the way to go. --Joopercoopers (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now edit 4 with cropping and ghosting sorted. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support edit 4 (the one whose image name ends in "edit 3.jpg"). Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all verticals verticals verticals Mfield (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I could - but I'm not convinced making such an unnatural alteration will benefit the image or it's encyclopedic value - part of the perspective effect, confers height and depth to an image - why do away with that? If we get loads of opposes on that basis I'll do it, but for now I'd rather wait. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominatorGopher292 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit: I support Edit 1 instead as it has much better colors.) Gopher292 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support if there are other alternatives This is very encyclopedic, but I hate the colour. A few more alternatives? Dengero (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Since you gave the colours a nudge. Dengero (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you supporting? There are no alternatives.
There are, don't you know you can change the colours? Dengero (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did heaps for my assignment when I was in high school. Like this. Dengero (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
neutralOppose this color map is much too dark, especially in the thumbnail. deBivort 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Red is much nicer, but there are some aliasing issues in the detailed parts, and I'm nots sure how we should think about promoting an arbitrary number of mandelbrot views. deBivort 23:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A much better version of the Mandelbrot set is already featured. - Goodmanjaz (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The red is nicer, but I still think the other set is much better. - Goodmanjaz (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Clegs (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Turned it red. Much easier to see than the original. We already have an FP of the Mandelbrot set but this fulfills the criteria as well. Reguiieee (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Love the new colours. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question, is that much blank space neccesary, or is there a way to manipulate it so that the subject fills more of the image?D-rew (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Mandelbrot set is just numbers, infinite numbers ploted on the graph. Except that the numebrs follow a certain pattern again and again smaller and smaller. So the blank spots are probably one big bandelbrot set, or we are looking at the set near its edges (1 if my memory serves me right). Dengero (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As I recall we covered the Mandelbrot set on FPC with an illustrative series not so long ago. Pstuart84Talk 19:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 The new colors are better; the red helps show detail a little better. SpencerT♦C 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Every pixel is a different color. There's no way to make out the form and flow of the really small bits. And yes, the featured set that we already have is superior. Not that we can't have more, but because they set the bar real (really really) high.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 20:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - An adult Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo perched in a tree. Taken in Swifts Creek, Victoria in July 2007Alternative 1Alternative 2 - mid air flight!
Reason
A high quality image of an unusual species of cockatoo - I say unusual as I only ever see them once a year if that. Good technical and enc value = a worth FP candidate IMO.
Please Note: Do not judge the image by the picture on the image description page which has become oversharpened because of the media-wiki downsizing script.
Support as nominatorFir0002 11:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative 1, although it is a tad too sharp. Dengero (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
week oppose They are both indeed a bit oversharpened as they start sprouting halos. Lycaon (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced sharpening on both - this should correct your concern --Fir0002 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support both - both look good. --ZeWrestlerTalk 15:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all three. Top one is an unfortunate angle, lower one shows too little of the bird. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Flight picture does not lend itself to identifying the bird. We also already have a host of pictures showing birds in flight for general purposes, including several brilliant FPs. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on "unfortunate angle"? For a wild bird this angle is about as good as you'll ever get - normally they'd be more obscured like in the alt, but the original is exceptionally well composed as it has the tail visible as well as the body. Please make sure that you don't let past incidents affect your vote - judge the picture only and if you don't feel you can then don't vote. Note: I'm not accusing you, just giving you a suggestion. --Fir0002 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this needs any further comment. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An explanation of "unfortunate angle" would be helpful considering you're opposing on those grounds --Fir0002 01:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Level with the bird is always the preferred angle. pschemp | talk 01:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Weird halo around bird. Sky looks artificial. --Janke | Talk 19:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that the angle (this bird was perched near the top of a medium size tree) this shot was taken at means the background sky is high above the horizon where the sky tends to be a deep blue - particularly on sunny days like this one --Fir0002 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but why the halo? Even looking upwards on sunny days, I don't see such... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See below - I think that's what people are referring to in terms of a "halo" --Fir0002 01:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with preference to the original. The sky looks like a wonderful sunny summer sky. What's wrong with it? Encyclopedic pose, and nice and sharp. Kudos! Clegs (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, interesting, seeing as these were taken in the middle of winter! : ) thegreen J Are you green? 04:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The smaller-radius halos are gone now, but there's still a large radius one around each bird, making the sky look off. thegreen J Are you green? 23:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that Fir selectively lightened the birds to accentuate the detail (if so, mentioning wouldn't hurt). That's probably not much different from using exposure blending or HDR, which both can result in similar halos. --Dschwen 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you can think of this as a HDR; the new Camera RAW processor in Photoshop has two nifty sliders - recover and fill. These effectively bring back blown highlights and lift dark shadows in much the same way as a conventional multi shot HDR - except here multiple images wouldn't be possible since the bird is moving so instead I'm using the large dynamic range stored in the RAW file. Without this the parrot would be largely black without much detail - particularly in the tail. So I think the pros overcome the (minor IMO) cons. --Fir0002 09:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, has Fir0002 decided to use RAW format now? I thought you could do everything you needed to with JPG? ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 22:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we live and learn ;-). JPG still does the job in virtually every setting for me but in bright midday sun there certainly is advantages to RAW's extra dynamic range --Fir0002 05:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with preference toward the alternative. faithless(speak) 09:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both - The second one isn't showing the entire bird and so isn't encyclopedic enough and the first one still looks oversharpened, making the border where the bird and sky meet look un-natural. And the WOW factor is completely absent. pschemp | talk 01:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come off it pshcemp - considering you nominated Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wild Boar which has far more of the animal obscured, saying that the enc of the alt is reduced by the tail being covered is completely unfair. And incidentally the boar suffers from over sharpening on the snout as well as offering little in the way of WOW. However with regrads I think I can help you with WOW in Alternative 2 --Fir0002 01:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just once Fir, I'd like you concentrate on the actual picture being discussed but now twice here, you've resorted to a lame attempt to hint that people who don't support your pictures have bad judgement. So I have to say I'm sorry, I am entiteled to my opinion and to whatever extent I choose to explain it. A bird is not a boar. That picture was encyclopedic for other reasons, including habitat and the actions of the pig. In this rather boring picture of a bird, there is no other action going on so it needs to show the whole thing. I really can't take you seriously when all you do is lash out at anyone who disagrees. However, I have better manners than to dredge up past incidents as "proof" of your bad judgement. Cut the crap and focus on the task at hand. pschemp | talk 02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh this is frustrating. Can I ask you a question pshcemp? How do you judge your own photos - or the photos you nominate for FP? How do you judge wether you think they're worthy of being nominated? For me it is by comparing them to other photos which have passed through FPC recently. So, and lets take an extreme hypothetical, if I saw a panorama with fairly obvious stitching errors pass through this process with accolades, I would expect to receive a similar reception for a panorama of my own with stitching errors. So to apply that here: wild boar and cockatoo are both wild animals so the subject is similar. Both are in their natural habitat. So if I see that people are OK with most of the boar being obscured by it's natural habitat (the mud) in the linked nom I expect people to be ok with the cockatoo's tail being obscured by its habitat (the tree) here. I don't see any "action" in the pig photo giving higher enc value to it than the cockatoo. Boars wallow in mud, cockatoos rest in trees. Fairly straight forward I should think - and hardly deserving of the above tirade against my character. Think about it with this simple analogy: think of our (Aust) legal system - we have laws (our WIAFP? criteria) but we also rely heavily on judical precedents (how other photos are judged). So by questioning comments I see as having unsound basis I'm just focussing on the task at hand as you are urging. Feel free to similarly question my own votes if you feel it would improve the outcome of the nomination. --Fir0002 02:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every picture is different. No two are alike and thus no two should be judged by the same standards. pschemp | talk 02:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that at all. True all photos are different (they wouldn't be much good if they were all the same) but they definitely should be judged by the same standards. Back to the law analogy - all crimes are different as they (usually) involve different people but they certainly are (and should) be judged equally. What sense would there be for WIAFP? to exist if not to try bring some standards to judging? How could we categorize images as Wikipedia's best if each image was judged with different standards? --Fir0002 02:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the general feeling was that the boar was running under a "typical behaviour of an animal in its natural habitat" banner. Since it was encyclopaedic of a behaviour, it didn't need to be encyclopaedic for the species. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Let me be clear because you've misinterpreted my statement Fir. I always use FP standards, but that isn't the standards I meant. Since each picture is different, different considerations are made according to the standards due to the unique featuers. This means you can't compare the artistic elements 1:1 from picture to picture. (Technical one yes though.) pschemp | talk 03:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so long as we're clear on the need to have technical standards. And yes artistic standards are obviously very flexible, but to me the enc value (as a criteria in WIAFP?) falls more under the technical standards umbrella, in which case cross comparisons between other recent noms is useful. In response to the point Samsara raised I would submit that this also falls under the "typical behaviour of an animal in its natural habitat" banner - sitting in a tree is very much typical behaviour in a natural habitat for a cockatoo. --Fir0002 03:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can safely exclude "resting" as a behaviour, just as "death" is not usually regarded as a behaviour. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure - if an animal spends a large proportion of its time doing a particular thing, I think it becomes part of its typical behaviour. And this is the case with the cockatoo sitting in the tree. I mean a koala sleeping is typical part of its behaviour, whereas this might not be the most enc behaviour for a different animal. From my experience (living in the country) I would say that the only time you don't see a cockatoo sitting in a tree (like this one) is when its flying past you. Hence photographing this cockatoo in this posture (or exhibiting this behaviour) is just as enc as a boar wallowing in mud. --Fir0002 04:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly false since they have to feed and mate to survive (as individuals and species, respectively). Let's not continue this line of reasoning. It's not fruitful. Foraging, mating, cleaning, nest-building, are behaviours. Resting is not. Wikipedia has no article on it, and until this moment just now, it hadn't occurred to you to add the picture to such an article. This is a dead duck, almost literally. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original but would like to perhaps see a slightly tighter crop. There's a lot of tree on either side and a crop could perhaps leave a little tree to give context, but take out what I see to be excess. Neutral Alt1, its fine, but I like the original more since it shows the whole animal including the long tail. Weak Oppose Alt 2 because it is difficult to tell what is going on especially in thumbnail. Perhaps a brightening and a slight sharpening around the facial region would resolve the problem?D-rew (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose original and alt 1, neutral alt 2 per Janke. Following Fir's explanation, I can't help but think that the masking could have been done a bit better. thegreen J Are you green? 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus MER-C 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Greensburg Tornado Radar.gifOriginal - A textbook example of a supercell thundstorm which produced the 2007 Greensburg Tornado. Notice the rotation at the back of the thunderstorm, which is known as a "tornadic hook echo".
Reason
I am nominating this for featured picture because it is extremly encyclopediac and very informative. This radar image illustrates a tornadic thunderstorm, microscale roation in all.
Oppose. Sorry, I don't see whats going on. Where is that rotation? I just see flickering colors. IMHO a schematic illustration or animation (rather than a very abstract looking radar image) would much better describe that phenomenon. --Dschwen 00:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rotation is at the back of the supercell. If you look closly, you can easily see it. Juliancolton (Talk) 00:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dschwen. I can sort of see what's meant to be the rotation, but it's all pretty jerky and nothing much that's happening is particularly clear. --jjron (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. I wouldn't know what was going on unless someone pointed it out, and even then it isn't the clearest.D-rew (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you people look at radar images? ;) (Just kidding). Well, would a still image be better? Juliancolton (Talk) 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at and understanding are two different things =->. What I would like to see is anything to accent the spin, so tighter crop, and perhaps the next few images in the series (because it seems at the end of this image the spinning is only increasing).D-rew (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The large percentage of this radar, contains nothing but the supercell, then the tornado spins off in only the last 2 frames. Higher resolution imagery surely must exist. Seddon69 (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's no source. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 07:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A firefighter walks to the scene of a training simulation with her gear.
Reason
Although I preferred the photograph Image:TFS Firefighter.JPG, during its nomination - voters said that they would prefer to see this image nominated since it included full-body and gear. This image clearly illustrates a firefighter in full gear, in the uniform of the Toronto Fire Services, including SCBA (that article uses the same subject for photo), helmet, identity card, rapelling rope coil, &c. While the detail is not ideal when viewed at its full 3700 pixels, it easily compensates in its lower sizes. The composition also helps highlight the firefighter subject, while not providing distraction or giving it a "cropped" feeling.
Oppose You might as well cropped right up to the firefighter, I have no idea what the background is meant to be. Dengero (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Rather than helping the effect, the bright background is very distracting. Clegs (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Irritating background, and her feet are missing. Not FP material - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the background is mysterious: what is that? Galileo01 (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's likely just a concrete wall. Not a very good background regardless - way too bright. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm does resolution really matter? Σαι (Talk) 16:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just replaced it with the full size version as suggested in the original nomination discussion (yeah, go figure), so if anyone wants to work on denoising it again... Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC) PS: It's a huge file, so people will probably appreciate if the denoised re-upload is at a higher compression (obviously, the denoising will also help with removing excess detail from the image...) Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great historic importance, really needs denoising. I've got a couple of backlogged restorations of my own right now so would someone else help out? DurovaCharge! 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Made a start. Maybe someone else can take it from here. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What software must i use to remove the noise? i dont quite know.. Σαι (Talk) 07:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think most people use GIMP or Photoshop. GIMP works fine, but Photoshop has a few more advanced features, e.g. ironing out jpeg compression, and addressing chromatic noise specifically. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Spike. Despite historical significance of the event, it's unencyclopaedic (rocket itself is too small to see any detail) and horrifically noisy. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality is horrible, this is one of the noisiest pictures I have ever seen. Clegs (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Insanely noisy. Doesn't even look good as a thumb. Also appears to be scanned; several surface scratches are visible at full view. --Extr3me (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise is too bad. I don't much like the composition either--Trounce (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 07:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - An Adivasi woman from the Kutia Kondh tribal group in OrissaUnedited version (background and loose hair not artificially blurred).Edit 1 by Fir0002 - edited from the original, NR and sharpening
Support as nominator: original edit or unedited; Oppose edit 1, which makes her skin look dry, and gives her an unhealthy appearance not present in the original. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original - Absolutely Oppose Promotion of Edit 1 - Beautiful. The blurred background really makes the face stand out and enhances the subject. This has a sensual softness that isn't present in edit one where the sharpness correction has made it harsh and less inviting. pschemp | talk 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ need more people FPs. vlad§ingertlk 02:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, very well taken picture User:Smundra 04:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unedited. I noticed that this had been edited and went and looked at the original. I then noticed I preferred the original without the blurring done to the background, so I've put it up here as well as an option. My main area of preference is the loose bits of hair, mainly on top of her head, that have been blurred along with the background and thus look rather peculiar. If everyone else prefers the edited version though, then I'd go along with that. --jjron (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the file history, you'll see that the hair was actually not blurred *with* the background, but was given a much smaller blur (factor 30 smaller ;) ) later. You can verify this at Image:Kutia_kondh_woman_3.jpg#filehistorySamsara (talk • contribs) 12:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that interested in checking through all the file histories to be honest, but I'll take your word for it. If that's right though, I'm wondering why you'd bother to blur the hair at all? The fact remains that it is blurrier than the original. --jjron (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can show me how to perfectly cut a single hair out of an image without selecting each pixel individually and setting its opacity, and so that its anti-aliased areas match the background, I'll be very happy to hear from you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an easy one: Don't blur the background! :-). Lycaon (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who says you blurred the hair differently to the background, so I assumed that's what you'd done, and had control over the blur. As has been said here, the background didn't need artificial blurring anyway. --jjron (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your problems of understanding derive from the fact that you haven't presumably walked in these shoes (have you?). Because I couldn't perfectly isolate the hair, I had to anti-alias (or to be precise, Gaussian blur) it. Or it would have looked like crap, trust me. If you'd been willing to compare the three uploaded edits, you might have understood all of this. I'm sorry that everything has to be served to you on a plate. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not spending my time picking through all the edits because I prefer the unedited version anyway. The blur was unnecessary. I've said it politely several times! --jjron (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you're failing to acknowledge that the edit was a courtesy to another editor, who asked for it. Do you read at all? Samsara (FA • FP) 13:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find your attitude and remarks rather offensive; it seems you are simply spoiling for a fight, as you have been doing recently with Fir. It seems that you are in fact mainly wanting to get your edit promoted here, rather than the photo itself. So let me be blunt - I don't give a damn why the edit was done, the unedited version is better. No further correspondence will be entered into. --jjron (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 It's a nice portrait in many respects - sharpness is very good. The "original" edit is fairly crude in the cutting out of the head from it's background. The blur too is largely unnecessary and is unnatural - nothing like the bokeh you get from a lens. Hence oppose original. --Fir0002 09:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If sharpness is already "very good", why did it need to be sharpened further? Your edit makes her skin dry up. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 and unedited per Fir. Oppose originalLycaon (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original For me, the background blurring gives more 'punch' to the face (figuratively speaking!) --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support any. deBivort 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support any H92110 (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Is it safe to support? It's only a head shot.) Good picture, truly encyclopedic. Muhammad(talk) 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to this? :-) --jjron (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taken from PPR as I was archiving. A good high-res shot of Gretzky, to the best of my knowledge the best ice-hockey player ever. This is most likely scanned from film; it has a bit of noise, but is reasonable, and I can't see anything else that even comes close in terms of overall quality (size, pose, action, etc). Some people may grumble over some parts being cutoff, but it seems to compare well to many other 'famous people' FPs.
Articles this image appears in
This is a noise reduced version of Image:Wgretz.jpg. I have nominated the improved version from PPR - obviously it will replace the original in all articles if promoted. Original is in Wayne Gretzky, National Hockey League, New York Rangers, and about seven other articles.
Support as nominatorjjron (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise everywhere (esp. on his face). It has other flaws, but noise is the one that will be difficult to get away from. You might be able to make a little bit of progress on the noise with a pseudo-posterisation technique, but I'm not getting my hopes up just yet. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly positive that what you call noise is actually film grain (that was before the digital cameras for those who remember ;-) ). And I'd strongly advise against any posterisation techniques to remove it. --Dschwen 15:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to remove some of it, this is the edited version, the original file is in the peer review. Maybe someone can do a better job then me with it? --Krm500 (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how the cause being film grain excuses the fact that it compromises the quality of the image. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit. per nom. Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs 22:56, 12 February 2008
Support edit 1...though I'm probably a bit biased, being a hockey fan. We need more sports images and this is a great shot. A pity some parts are cut off. CillaИ ♦ XC 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the original photo from the author on flickr. As you can see I've applied general color correction to eliminate the yellowish hue, and a slight crop. So any further touchup attempts should probably be made using the original, no? However I'm not sure how much more can be done. IrisKawling (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commenthttp://www.flickr.com/photos/dahlstroms/252547547/ indicates the author licensed it as 'all rights reserved' was the license changed from Creative Commons, or was this licensing ever valid ? Shifthours (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable and the uploader appears to be the owner of the photo. Suggest sending a Flickr mail to make sure. MER-C 08:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hakandahlstrom uploaded the photo himself at my request, licensing it under CC. I just color corrected it for him and transfered it the commons. IrisKawling (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader has worked as a professional sports photographer, and has contributed with many high quality images in the past. You can trust him regarding image ownership. I recently contacted him asking if he had a better resolution photo, he didn't want to upload any higher resolution or any new images since some of his work had been stolen here on wikipedia, but hoped the current size would be enough for a FPC. I think it's a shame that the image policy is the way it is, because many photographers stop contributing. I would gladly release my images for use by the Wikimedia Foundation and all educational use, but having to releasing them for any large corporation to use is bs IMO. --Krm500 (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support good shot! H92110 (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support edit 1. Composition is not the greatest, but the noise reduction has dealt with the major problem. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So does that cancel out your Oppose above? --jjron (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition - cut off arm and hockey stick. Sharpness is poor also after the noise reduction --Fir0002 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say at least 70% of Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People have cutoff bits (not including what is obviously cutoff in a head-and-shoulders portrait). You can pretty clearly tell he's playing hockey, and it's not like it's being used to illustrate hockey sticks or gloves. In other words, I don't think the cutoff bits are that relevant, which I said in the nom anyway. --jjron (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. It's the composition that kills it for me - I know portraits can be cut off at the shoulders, but for a hokey player's stick to be cut off just seems out of place. Pstuart84Talk 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition may not be perfect, but this is high-quality and uber-encyclopedic, and it's not like we're going to get a better photo of the world's best hockey player ever playing hockey. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Wgretz edit2.jpgMER-C 08:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominatorBenjamint 03:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - One of the best butterfly pictures. The only thing I don't like is the relatively small size. Was it really necessary to downsample? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a really stunning macro. you managed to what looks like back-light the wing, it looks stunning. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I really want to support, but it is really small...do you have the original? pschemp | talk 06:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its 1,667 × 1,250 pixels. Muhammad(talk) 14:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks like a composite - the butterfly's been cut and pasted onto the background. --203.164.131.126 (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks natural to me. Muhammad(talk) 14:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support encyclopedic crop, size meets criteria. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Ambassadors, a 1533 oil painting by Hans Holbein the Younger, is thought to represent Jean de Dinteville, French ambassador to England in 1533 (on the left), and Georges de Selve, a bishop, on the right. The bottom of the image also features a striking image of a human skull, depicted in anamorphic perspective, such that it is best observed from a viewer nearly to the side of the painting.
Reason
(1) Good scan of interesting Renaissance portrait; (2) dude-- what's the deal with that freaky skull.
Support. Borderline on the res, but what an amazing painting. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - For a painting which is more than 2 x 2 meters, this reproduction is really too small -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Gotta go with Alvesgaspar on this one. If you can get a larger version, I will definitely support. Clegs (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per freaky skull. :) As suggested above, would love to see a larger version. faithless(speak) 09:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Could we get a larger file, please? DurovaCharge! 17:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this is a larger scan, but I think it's more artifacted. Do you agree? Spikebrennan (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be a photographic issue of a file issue. I've never seen the original; is your nominated version a restoration? DurovaCharge! 11:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea; check the image page for clues. I am neither a photographer nor a photo restorer; I just troll Wikipedia for images that have been uploaded by others and nominate them if they strike me as worthy of nomination. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, wish I had time this week. The Navajo family took several days and someone asked me to work on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising for a Commons FP nom. Drop this into the workshop if it doesn't pass? Usually I work on photography, but I've done a few other media lately... DurovaCharge! 06:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, amazing painting but... it's the scan that matters. grenグレン 06:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar and gren. Pstuart84Talk 19:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 07:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Felbrigge Psalter is the oldest book from England to have an embroideredbookbinding. The needlework on this mid-thirteenth century manuscript probably dates from the early fourteenth century, which puts it more than a century earlier than the next oldest embroidered binding to have survived. Both the design and execution depicting the annunciation are exceptionally high quality. Linen and gold on linen with later leather binding edge.
Support Absolutely brillant picture of a piece of history. The artifact age makes it even more of a treasure, because it could fall apart tomorrow, making this picture even more valuable. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support How could any bibliophile not? faithless(speak) 09:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure whether or not you can verify this is the actual shape of the book. It's clearly longer on the left-hand side than the right-hand side, perhaps suggesting the picture was taken from the left. While it's possible that a book of this age could be a somewhat irregular shape, if it's really a standard rectangular book shape, perhaps some perspective correction is in order? --jjron (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image was a plate from a hundred-year-old study of historic embroidered books. So in all likelihood it's a digitized file of a chromolithograph and photographic distortion isn't an issue. The study itself comments in a general sense that many of these rare books were subjected to badly done rebinding during the eighteenth and nineteenth century. My best guess is that the irregular shape is the fault of an inferior craftsman who tried to preserve this book about 200 years ago. DurovaCharge! 17:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per above discussion. Change to full support if we can get a verification that this really is the actual shape of the book (or if a better original is available per Jeff Dahl). --jjron (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A modern photograph of the object would be more appropriate. To me, the odd shape looks like skew resulting from imperfect camera position when the original chromolithograph was done, and is a more likely explanation than bad bookbinding. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chromolithography is not a photographic process, and this is a high quality public domain image. A modern photograph would be copyrighted. DurovaCharge! 18:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the chromolithograph is a printing process, but how was the image prepared for printing? It appears to have been photographed in preparation for printing by chromolithography. Anyway, the original object is impressive, but a modern photograph (why couldn't a free version be made?) would be a better approach. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 06:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Emboridered book, 1544Embroidered book, 1545
Color photography of this order did not exist a hundred years ago when this image was made. This is a 650-year-old book with a partially reworked binding approximately 200 years old. As the two more recent examples show, minor irregularities in shape are normal for embroidered manuscript covers of such antiquity. These things are made of cloth and leather. Rare manuscripts of this sort are almost never made available to amateur photographers, except in a few instances where they are encased behind glass and subject to glare problems. DurovaCharge! 07:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that this is analogous to a hand-colored b&w photo of an artifact which still exists. The coloring has been added artificially in a separate process, and we can't trust it to be an accurate reproduction. Hand-coloring might be OK when the image can't be reproduced, such as a historical event. But even though rare manuscripts may not be made available to amateur photographers, they are routinely digitized, posted on the internet, and there are many ways to claim them as PD. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the age of this book, it would be one of the things that I, if I were at the British Museum, would not digitize. This isn't like any other object and the risk of damage from digitizing is too great. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I examined a free picture of the Psalter and the quality is terrible. This chromolithograph is of far superior quality than any photograph. The artifact has deteriorated to the point where the cover is not very discernable. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I'm a fan of irregularity - we can't buy this book from Amazon and photograph it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Felbrigge.jpgMER-C 08:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A buff-tailed bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) robbing nectar, a very common species in southern Europe. The animal uses its long and slender tongue to reach the space between the flower's calyx and corolla. These bees form annual colonies of which only mated queens survive the winter.Edit 1 by Fir0002, lightened shadows and cloned out leaf
Reason
A high reslution and good quality photograph of a bumblebee in its natural environment, comparing favourably with the existing pictures. These are hard subjects to shoot due to being normally fast and restless when feeding. The picture is an improved version of this Commons FP.
Support original, as nominatorAlvesgaspar (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit 1 - not relevant -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original Very Nice Dengero (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit1 Excellent image. JuliancoltonTalk 00:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Edit 1 Sharpness is not great but it's an interesting scene which almost makes up for it. Weak Oppose Original shadows are too dark losing interesting detail and the leaf is annoying. --Fir0002 00:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supportwhichever :) -- Laitche (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)both. （＾＾； -- Laitche (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. Good illustration of the behaviour. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Bumblebee October 2007-3a.jpgMER-C 08:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close terrible quality. Nominator: please familiarize yourself with the FP standards before any more clearly sub-par noms. deBivort 15:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted Ineligible (too small) MER-C 03:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What is your standard of "good quality"? It's a half cut-off naked woman laying on a bed. Our actual articles on related subjects are very technical and have top-enc images.. do you honestly think that a naked woman on a bed offers nearly as much as those diagrams, which aren't even featured themselves? :D\=< (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is about pubic hair, not about nudity. It focuses on pubic hair. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose subject is no where near in focus. deBivort 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose This, while it is fine on its own article, should not be featured and listed among wikipedia's best imagery. Juliancolton (Talk) 19:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. As an illustration of pubic hair, far too little space is devoted to the primary subject. As a photograph of a woman, obvious problems with cut-off face (get a photograph of the model holding a signed release and show the entire face). Flat lighting, pedestrian composition. DurovaCharge! 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as ineligible - not in any article. It was in the gallery of pubic hair for about 14 hours before being reverted. I think it should be seen to settle into an article and receive concensus as being beneficial to that article for a while before being even considered for nomination as an FP. TSP (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 03:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose snapshot, nothing exzellent to see Wladyslaw (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sure we can get much better quality photos of people (or animals for that matter) eating. I have a photo of a frog eating another frog. --liquidGhoul (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to say, except that I think that "I have a photo of a frog eating another frog" may be my favourite reason for opposing ever. Rivalled only by the time that a photo of a grain elevator was not promoted for being too grainy. TSP (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wladyslaw. Samsara (FA • FP) 13:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same reason as Wladyslaw.--Trounce (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wladyslaw makes a good point. A better quality photo would be better appreciated. SpencerT♦C 20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wladyslaw, just poor quality snapshot. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question it looks like it has been photoshop filtered. Those who know about old film: Any way that mottled look could be part of the original image? deBivort 23:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about old film, but I do know about Photoshop filters and this is obviously filtered. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the filtering is too obvious. Clegs (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per filtering concerns --Fir0002 00:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's an oilified world out there. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to the weird filter effect--Trounce (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there an original, sans filter? faithless(speak) 01:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - silly filter. Support a real original though. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Cooking in a wok, at the London Mela 2005.
Reason
First of all its encyclopedic, showing the use of a wok and that it is moved while being used. The image is of good quality and res, and the motion blur only helps to show that the subject is moving, making it more enc.
Original - A typical chinese fisherman with his two coromants.Crop suggestion
Reason
It's a very important part of chinese history, and still is important to the fishery industry in china today. Although, I am not very sure about the quality. Decided to take it for a ride in FPC, peer review was too quiet.
Support as nominatorDengero (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the following reasons: main subjects too small, unappealing composition, messy background. Sorry to be harsh, but this is not FP material IMO. --Janke | Talk 09:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be sorry, you're only judging the picture afterall. Dengero (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - messy background, noisy, dull (I don't mean the situation, the contrast isn't good enough). Not really FP worthy. Better luck next time, and give PPR a go, even if it is a bit slow. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added a more encyclopaedic crop, which btw meets the size requirements. Now, <devious>since the beach is not the subject of the picture, you *could* isolate bg and fg and pull the beach up over his head with an appropriate perspective correction.</devious> Then there's the option of background blurring, which isn't trivial to do. Either way, you'd have the monopo purists speaking out against you, and there's always the chance that some local person can upload a picture taken on a luckier day. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is taken in Guilin, actually famous for its foggy scenes if you look some of the pictures. And a clear in China these days.....is quite rare tbh lol. Dengero (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Distracting background. Clegs (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious support - très bien :P hope i got the accent right --HadseysChatContribs 15:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - oh wow. No technical faults that I can spot, very pleasing to the eye, nice curvature brilliant. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice, valuable picture. Galileo01 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. What are the series of bright lights near the top left-hand portion of the city?D-rew (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are a bit distracting (for me at least) at high res. Could they be reduced if they turn out not to be significant?D-rew (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would kind of ruin 'panorama of the center of Paris' thing. - Milk'sFavoriteCookie 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fair enough point I guess =-), though I still think the lights impair an otherwise awesome image.D-rew (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a stadium, the "Parc des Princes" -- Blieusong (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support as long as the fact that the lit Eiffel Tower in the image doesn't blow its PD status. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support Incredible photo. My only two gripes are; it's another panorama (albiet an incredible one), and it seems subtly filtered - some of the lights seem 'blotchy'. But hey, it's fantastic. --Extr3me (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great job with the Canon EOS 400D.--Svetovid (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment - This photo needs a copyright review. All pictures of the Eiffel Tower lit up at night are copyrighted by the company that operates the Eiffel Tower (The tower itself is in the public domain, but the light display was installed...and copyrighted... in 2003. See the Tower's website for details). As such, this photo might be ineligible for FPC because it cannot be free (it currently has a GFDL & CC-BY-SA dual license). This was an issue a while back when we had a positively astonishing picture of the Eiffel Tower at night, and when it went up for FPC, it actually had to be deleted from the Commons instead (See the nomination, which lasted almost 4 months).
There is a chance this might not apply, since the Eiffel Tower is not the only thing in the picture, and that the point of the picture is to depict Paris as a whole. However, I'm unsure if this will hold, because the Eiffel Tower is an obvious focal point.
I hate to be the one to bring up issues like these, but the goal here is a free encyclopedia, and I'm quite certain Wikimedia would prefer to avoid litigation wherever possible. tiZom(2¢) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that comment was a big fat waste of time! Per Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims, as long as the image encompasses a larger area (in this case, the city), then operating company cannot lay claim to the copyright of the Eiffel Tower light display. Sorry!
And, support!!! tiZom(2¢) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing picture. Wow. jj137(talk) 22:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Gorgeous lighting/scene and excellent sharpness however the distortion is pretty bad --Fir0002 01:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The distorsion is on purpose. Instead of setting the anchor point to somewhere on the horizon line and get everything straight, I set it a bit below, hence the curved horizon and hence the leaning buildings. -- Blieusong (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite odd - why did you want distortion? Can you please do a restitch without distortion? --Fir0002 21:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted the curved horizon to "simulate" the round shape of the Earth (Also, I find the picture less boring that way) and translate the feeling you have when looking this scenery yourself. I'll do an "all straight" restitch ASAP, and add it to the "other versions" box. -- Blieusong (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Trounce (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominatorCamptown (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This picture by the same author is labeled as a sunset, yet the shadows are pointing in the same directions... --Dschwen 00:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same author description on both images says it was sunrise. I believe second image is just mislabeled, shots look like they were taken very close in time. Look at the EXIF data, shots from same camera 2 minutes apart. vlad§ingertlk 02:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this image is far too low a resolution and shows heavy JPEG compression. vlad§ingertlk 02:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution's fine at 2,048 × 1,536 pixels. Well above the size guidelines. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose - blown sky. I suppose a request for reshooting is wishful thinking? DurovaCharge! 02:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I must admit, a better picture can be retaken. Dengero (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "grainy" look I see when I click on the thumbnail is not acceptable in an FP - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose picture with wow effect, but - unfortunately - in low resolution. Galileo01 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support This is a pretty good picture and I think the resolution is sufficient, but it does have a grainy look at full resolution. 66.56.128.43 (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful subject, but noisy and the entirely white sky is distracting. --Extr3me (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per above, potentially beautiful, but the blown sky damns the picture.D-rew (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Again, a very nice photo, but grainy in a few sections. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 03:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - five thousand Indians protest against colonial rule in Goa, 1955. Twenty-two civilians were killed by Portugese authorities in this peaceful demonstration.
Reason
This was an important event in the history of the Indian state of Goa. It's good to counter systemic bias when possible, and fortunately this newsreel footage was released into the public domain in 1976.
Support - interesting! deBivort 00:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ah, a bit of colonial history. Muhammad(talk) 11:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This video seems very artifacty. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, agreed, some of this Internet Archive stuff is not the greatest quality--and I have no reason to believe there aren't better versions of the stuff out there. I'm not sure why TIA doesn't host better versions because I'm sure they could get it from the original reels. grenグレン 06:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Spinning Dancer, is a very bizarre dancer optical illusion. It appears to spin both clockwise and anti-clockwise, depending on how the viewer sees it. It is falsely labeled Right Brain v Left Brain test.
Reason
This image is very popular around the net and I was surprised not to see it on wikipedia. Thus I uploaded the image and thought it be good if it was a FP because it is a great optical illusion. It is also doing well at commons FPC
Strong Support as nominatorMuhammad(talk) 06:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is one of the coolest things I've seen in a while - you keep staring at it and then it'll suddenly change direction --Fir0002 09:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Not very encyclopedic, but too cool to not support. Dengero (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This may seem petty to some people, but I'm fairly certain that to anyone who has ever actually had to execute spins in dancing, the fact that this lady is really badly off balance will be such a major distraction as to nullify any other interest the image may have. Let me put that in plain language: if you applied gravity to her, she would fall over. I'm sure she could be animated to in balance without disrupting the illusion. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, look where the image is used--two optical illusion articles. Who knows if it would even work if the dancer were on balance? grenグレン 07:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled that nobody seems to know how it works, and about 1/3 of people cannot make it work. I'm beginning to doubt that this is a proper optical illusion at all, and I certainly doubt our ability to write a coherent article about it. Most crucially, if we can't have a discussion about whether it is possible to create an alternative image that addresses certain criticisms brought up in this discussion, then we should not promote it at all. Additionally, show me how an image that you don't understand can be encyclopaedic. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it works because the image is a silhouette. Thus when the lifted leg passes the standing leg, it may be passing either in front of or behind the standing leg. Depending upon which your brain settles on (for want of a better phrase) you will see the woman rotate either clockwise or counterclockwise. Pstuart84Talk 17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's too vague a description of the mechanism to allow us to produce an improved variant. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to bite. Incidentally, the effect is taking place at the same time in relation to the arms and the pony tail. Pstuart84Talk 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm finding that the only way I can get it to spin the other way is to cover up everything but to the lowest foot, then get it to rotate the other way, then uncover everything. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-12 16:29Z
Comment That's just sick, mostly spins counterclockwise for me but if I look away it can change. --Krm500 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I probably am not normal. I stared at it several minutes and for me she just keeps spinning clockwise. -- Darwinek (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try doing what I suggested above. The key is to cover everything up except the bottom foot, and then imagine that rotating the other way. The rest will "magically" accommodate this new direction. I'm at the point now where I can get it to switch back and forth at will. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-12 23:58Z
Huh, I do it by accident when I read a comment and look back at the picture. vlad§ingertlk 02:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find that when I look at it, it gets "stuck" in one direction, either counter or clockwise, but then if I look at it out of the corner of my eye it "switches" to the other direction and then gets stuck in that. Try looking at it, turning away so that it's in your peripheral vision and see if it changes then. --Nealparr(talk to me) 07:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- You canna' change the laws of Physics, Jim! pschemp | talk 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is unlikely to count unless you provide a reason to oppose. deBivort 03:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did provide a reason. It isn't encyclopedic because it is breaking the laws of physics...gravity being the major thing here. A real person doing this would fall down. Just because its "cool" dosn't mean its FP material, especially since it isn't scientifically accurate. It also isn't the best example of an optical illusion since not everyone can see the direction change. pschemp | talk 06:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd - this isn't a scientifically accurate image on the far simpler grounds that it's bobbing up and down without any upward movement/thrust. But it's not illustrating anything scientific and therefore doesn't need to be scientifically accurate any more than this does. It's an illustration for a noteworthyOptical Illusion not an illustration for dancing --Fir0002 06:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its a crappy optical illusion, much better ones exist that illustrate the concept. It is extremely important that it doesn't work for everyone, that reduces its encyclopedic value down to zero when we are talking about the concept of an optical illusion. The title is the spinning dancer, yet doesn't show an accurate spinning dancer, since that movement isn't possible in life so even the name is misleading. Also, just because it illustrates an article about itself, doesn't mean it FP worthy either. It is nothing special, misleading and a poor example of an illusion. People who vote for it because it is "cool" or "amazing" are the absurd ones. Find a real reason - one supported by FP standards. pschemp | talk 06:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its status as an important optical illusion is an issue to be discussed in the optical illusion article or in an AfD for The Spinning Dancer. But it is quite relevant in its own article. Being nothing special is another story. grenグレン 07:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every picture in every article is "relevant". That doesn't make every picture on WP FP worthy. This is simply not an example of Wikipedia's best owrk and no one so far has supported it for any reason related to FP standards. pschemp | talk 14:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Yes, it does make them worthy, provided they meet the FP standards. We aren't here to judge article notability. 2) Your assertion that people haven't supported it for FP standards violates the Good Faith assumption. 3) You see the figure as rotating in three dimensions right? That's part of the illusion whether you can switch directions or not - after all, there is no depth info here. 4) I suggest you take a breather and reconsider your whole approach to this nomination. deBivort 15:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That it has 2 3d interpretations (CW and CCW) is what I was referring to. Like a Necker cube. Your examples of depth-conveying images are not considered illusions because they are typically perceived in a single way, rather than in one of two ways. That some people cannot easily switch the perception from the CW mode to the CCW mode does not reduce the extent to which this is a classified as an illusion. deBivort 17:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the exact opposite of your earlier comment. Returning to the original issue, it's not a very good illustration, because it seems to spin invariantly clockwise (I assume the reference point is above the figure) for three people here - Pschemp, Darwinek and myself. I'd hope we can produce a better version of it so that it works for everybody. That failing, I have a difficulty with recognising its notability as an optical illusion, or its encyclopaedic value on such a basis. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom deBivort 03:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and no vote. To me, she always moves clockwise; no illusion. I've tried the suggestions mentioned above. I guess my brain is just wired a certain way. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just block out the top part from around the waist and imagine it spinning the other direction. 41.222.30.20 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like apparently some other people before, I've tried all the various bits of advice and it still turns the same way. This is not a very convincing "illusion". Or perhaps it is just that.</sarcasm> Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see this as particularly notable or encyclopedic, sorry. It's popularity on the web seems to be based on the notion that it represents some kind of personality test, which has been conclusively determined to be false (as the article on it says). As an illustration of optical illusion, it's no better than any of the others in that article. Chick Bowen 01:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chick Bowen. And it only spins clockwise for me. CillaИ ♦ XC 02:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe this illusion is not concerned with physics, rather it is supposed to demonstrate the confusion caused by what the eyes see and what the brain perceives. This is exactly what the image does. The mechanism of this illusion is described here. This I know, is not hoax. Those who have opposed because they can not see it spinning 2 ways should kindly read what I have provided. H92110 (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of errors in the animation. A rotating wireframe cube gives the same illusion, by the way. --Janke | Talk 09:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What errors are you referring to? Can you fix those errors please. Muhammad(talk) 10:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask: there is a constant left-to-right jiggle, best seen in the "center" leg (very apparent below, with the stationary "R"; also the distracting up-and-down movement. --Janke | Talk 15:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well executed illusion, fascinating when it works. vlad§ingertlk 03:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ADDITIONAL INFO and help to "reverse" can be found here - this site states it's indeed "difficult" to get reversal. Also, note that the "floating" has been corrected - but in b&w, it doesn't look as good... --Janke | Talk 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funky! I had to view the image out of the corner of my eye to get it to switch directions. howcheng {chat} 08:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm just not seeing the illusion. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Outstanding! This is the coolest image I have seen here all year. Its an excelent find. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like how she bounces up and down and disobeys the laws of gravity. (Yes, yes, I know the picture is illustrating the illusion and not the laws of physics, but it bothers me nonetheless.) I also don't like the asymmetric background gradient. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support I see it now. If you stare at it long enough, it will just change directions. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the article used as the first ref on The Spinning Dancer article, all of those who see it as spinning clockwise have "got excess spleen qi in your left frontal crockus. This means that you’re a vibrant personality whose passions are apparent to everyone around you, but sometimes you are indecisive. If you see her spinning counter-clockwise, the right ascension of your natal chart lies in your sagittal broab and there are Fire humours dribbling out your left nostril. You should see a doctor as soon as possible." LOL --Nealparr(talk to me) 08:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose It's on commons and an FP already, it shouldn't even be here on en.wiki as it's a dupe! It should have an NCD tag. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For those having difficulty seeing the illusion:
Concentrate on the spinning dancer on the left and the one on the right should spin in the same direction
Before Closing Nomination
This message is for the one who closes this nomination. I would like to point out that many people have opposed simply because the illusion "does not obey the laws of physics". This image is demonstrating a biological phenomenon and not something concerned with physics. Others have opposed because they can not see the the 2-way spin. This too, I believe is not a sufficient reason, as it is possible to see it spin both ways with a bit of concentration. Muhammad(talk) 10:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Spinning Dancer.gifMER-C 03:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A Brolga (Grus rubicunda), sometimes known as the 'Native Companion' or 'Australian Crane', Victoria, Australia. This individual is approximately 1m in height.Edit 1 by Fir0002Edit 2 by Fir0002 - cloned out distracting grasses on the middle RHS
Reason
Nice full picture of this rather large wetland bird in an attractive setting, clearly showing all the key markings. I also like the way this image almost perfectly reflects the brolga's pose in the classic (though slightly inaccurate) 1865 brolga illustration by John Gould.
Support as nominatorjjron (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Although it illustrates the bird well, the lighting is not the best, and at full size it is slightly blurry. A quick edit and a cropping could improve this image. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I disagree with Julian. I think this is as close to perfect as it gets. Shame it was moving its foot at that exact moment, but on the up side, at least we have one foot in full view. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think its a good picture and I love the background. It gives it a natural feeling. Muhammad(talk) 16:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - picture looks too normal - this argument seems stupid even to me, but it's true. Galileo01 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Juliancolton...its the lighting.D-rew (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting and composition could do with improvement. BG is not so good as well. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can maybe understand people grizzling about the lighting, especially if they haven't bothered to look at it full size, but honestly, the background is excellent, and composition does a great job of illustrating the bird. --jjron (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at it at full res, and it is quite nice and sharp. That said, the background is a very slightly muddled, green, patchy mass that spoils some enjoyment of the image for me. And the light is (both at thumbnail and full res) is not the best wiki, and certainly you, can do. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, fair enough. The background is a sort of swampy lake, which to me was pretty nice for a wetland bird picture, but perhaps all FPs should be done against a clear blue sky. Sure it would theoretically be possible to get a brolga in better lighting, but this was taken in dappled shade on a very bright day, which is always tricky; I didn't want to blast away with full flash, preferring the natural lighting, but trying to avoid overexposing the sunny bits. I agree the overall lighting looks a little murky at thumbnail, but I liked the lighting at fullsize. The birds aren't especially rare, but going on the article, apparently not that easy to get decent photos of, given they're quite well known. BTW, haven't you railed against people using the "we can do better" argument when used against your noms? ;-) --jjron (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. deBivort 15:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak support It's not as flashy or clear as maybe some of our other bird FPs (which have had the bar jacked up repeatedly over the last few years), but it illustrates the bird clearly and in a natural-looking environment. Matt Deres (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Please consider this a Support for either of Fir's edits. I have no preference between them; the grasses didn't distract me ;-). Matt Deres (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per nom H92110 (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 or 2, Weak Oppose Original- original is pretty flat and lacks wow, but it's a good depiction of the brolga despite the motion blurred foot. The edits give it the necessary punch to bring it to FP level IMO --Fir0002 02:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't quite decide what to do with this nomination. Either way, I'd like to know which of the edits is preferred. Thanks. MER-C 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Brolga-1-Healesville,-Vic,-3.1.2008 edit.jpg -- due to a unanimous consensus for promotion of an edited version of the image, as comments in opposition refer to the original image, and raise issues, such as lighting, remedied in the edited version. John254 01:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Way too blurry, very noisy, and the flash is awful. And again, it is not an FP worthy subject. JuliancoltonThe storm still blows... 22:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please tell me what you point out by saying "blurry" and "noisy"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blurry means the image is blurry. Noisy means it is grainy, or there are spots on the camara's lense, or something similar. The word Noise implys unwanted or excess'. JuliancoltonThe storm still blows... 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Noisy" never means there are spots on the camera's lens. Nor does "noisy" imply "excess," though for FPC purposes it is undesireable. Dust or spots on a camera lens are much too far outside either focal plane to show up as such in the photo. "Noise" is non-image data, typically , a characteristic side-effect of many image sensors. That said, I agree this image is flawed and not FP-worthy. -- Moondigger (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. I can not call myself an expert at imagery, and you know better than I do what the term implys. JuliancoltonThe storm still blows... 00:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its hard to explain. If you look at the image, it is "blurry" around the edges mostly. I don't know how else to explain. JuliancoltonThe storm still blows... 23:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were making a DOF statement, refering to the fact that the subject isn't all in sharp focus.
Oppose I could go on, but the worst part is the amount of flash reflection.D-rew (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on technical grounds. Oversaturated, blown highlights, etc. -- Moondigger (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Óppose- 19 failing nominations should be a clue here. Please stop nominating things until you understand the criteria. It is pretty clear that you don't at the moment. pschemp | talk 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - poor composition, obtrusive flash; not of a high technical standard. TSP (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Moondigger. Cacophony (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close no chance of promotion. Muhammad(talk) 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. Please please please browse through some of the current feature pictures. Try to get a sense of their clarity, artistry, and encyclopedic relevance. --Bridgecross (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please stop nominating so many poor images. This is blurry, very noisy, and way too dark. Also, it is too much like a snapshot. JuliancoltonThe storm still blows... 22:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Poor composition, background, and too much noise. The subject is tilted, too dark, and has portions cut off (especially the spoon.) Maybe edits could help, but I suggest reshooting.D-rew (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Parts of the subject cut off, bad contrast with the background, murky lighting. TSP (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Juliancolton. Cacophony (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close no chance of promotion. Muhammad(talk) 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Nude woman tanning herself at a Formentera beach front.
Reason
Naturism or Nudism is a lifestyle in harmony with nature, expressed through social nudity, and characterised by self-respect of people with different opinions and of the environment. It can also be called a cultural and political movement practising, advocating and defending social nudity in private and public spaces. This image is showing a naturist, showing naturism and non-sexual nudity.
Oppose Horizon tilted, not very appealing pose, looking straight into armpit... A good nude shot needs some pizzazz. (BTW, Flickr is not "creator" so please refrain from using that.) --Janke | Talk 08:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it is applicable to FPC! ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is not applicable to FPC. You are mixing naturism with nudity. Naturism is a form of nudity, but it is non-sexual nudity. Naturism is opposed to clothing, and tells that not wearing clothes is natural. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me clarify: I was not talking about "nudity vs. naturism". To get a support vote from me, any image needs some "wow" i.e. pizzazz - regardless of subject. That "wow" can be either visual, or encyclopedic. This image has neither. --Janke | Talk 11:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry at full resolution, unappealing composition. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What exactly is the subject of this picture? It's too cluttered. This is just a snapshot from someone who didn't really bother to compose the scene. Also, the creator is not "Flickr"; it's McKay Savage. howcheng {chat} 08:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could be practically anywhere. Snapshot-like, no wow. --Janke | Talk 08:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The image is of nothing in particular, and is just a cluttered mess of people's backs. The composition is not the best, either. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No picture subject. Boring. SpencerT♦C 02:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting and sharpness --Fir0002 10:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - poor lighting, unsharp, completely blown sky on left. Sorry, doesn't meet technical quality requirements. Subject is also cut off, and the angle isn't that pleasing. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mario1987 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for technical reasons mentioned above. deBivort 17:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per technical issues. Clegs (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry, poor lighting, and highly tilted. Also, what is that on the ground on the right? Juliancolton (Talk) 14:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Vanderdecken. Cacophony (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Easily one of the most iconic photos of the 20th century. The technical specs are less than ideal, but the photo itself has arguably become more widely recognized than the man. I'm surprised it's not already featured.
Comment. Never heard of him but- the pirate bay? :D\=< (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Could we get a better scan? DurovaCharge! 01:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Iconic picture of Che, and the highest quality version of this picture I've seen; but saturated and aged. Still, it's not like sufficient technology for a better photo existed at the time. --Extr3me (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try Image:Prokudin-Gorskii-19.jpg, from 50 years earlier... By 1960 pretty much every development in modern photography save the digital camera had been made. Not to say this isn't a worthy photo given its historical significance, but you should be aware that technology for better images was very much available at the time (and, indeed, there are much higher-resolution pictures of Che, and in colour, just not with the significance of this one). TSP (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Last time i checked, this image is copyrighted, which was why I couldn't display a similar version of it on my userpage. :) 8thstar 01:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request This image has been recently uploaded and tagged as PD, and it seems that the reasoning is correct (the uploader cited the actual law). I just created this PD tag for Cuba, which is correct to the best of my knowledge (see the text of the law on the talk page). I think the reason this hasn't been nominated is there's been a lot of uncertainty regarding the state of the law in Cuba previously. But can people double-check this reasoning and confirm that this was published in Cuba, not in compliance with US formalities? I don't know how important the photographer was before this photo (i.e. how likely he would have been to have done this). Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image is also present as Image:CheHigh.jpg, with a very different (and nonfree!) license attached. According to Che Guevara (photo), the photographer sued for copyright infringement in 2000, which makes the copyright status even more murky. I am planning to nominate this image on WP:PUI after I get a chance to research and write a very detailed nomination. I think it would be prudent to postpone this nomination until the correct license is established. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That fact on the photo page isn't right; the case settled before trial, and there was a moral rights claim that was probably stronger than the copyright claim. See [6]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course an out of court settlement can't be used as evidence for anything, especially when it's for a small amount of compensation, since a prudent lawyer might recommend settling even if there is only a low chance of losing the actual suit. But I think it's worthwhile to settle the license question in a forum dedicated to that sort of thing, rather than here. If the image is actually under a free license, that would be great, but it seems unlikely to me, given the explicitly stated desire of the artist/family to control its use. If they had believed it is freely licensed, presumably they would not have pursued the lawsuit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm This is not at all what I was expecting, but it does solve my question as to why the nommed image had no pages linking to it (except the Che Guevara article itself) and why it hadn't at least been nominated before. Based on what's been said here, it seems unlikely to me that the copyright issues will be resolved in a reasonable amount of time, so I suppose the nomination should be considered withdrawn and then re-nominated if usage rights permit. Sorry folks; I should have more thoroughly checked the image history on this one. Matt Deres (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are these the highest-quality versions we can get? This image shows Korda with what looks like a high-res poster-sized original, with a good dynamic range, which suggests that the image is not really this small or this washed-out; we just need to find a better copy of it (which would have no more or less legal issues than this). TSP (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per licensing concerns.
Support as nominatorChuck Marean 21:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although there are instances in which extraordinary circumstances cause us to set aside the image size criterion (or at least to promote images that aren't quite 1000 pixels on at least one side), this image is certainly not so significant as to merit our overlooking its being just 380x200. Joe 21:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy close. This is ridiculous - please read the criteria! deBivort 22:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted, figures cut off. Surely there's old pornography better than this. 68.7.184.116 (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose not encyclopedic. Muhammad(talk) 11:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the people opposed this image because this image has technical problems like dark, uneven exposure, tilted etc. But could you please explain how an image of Kama sutra is "not encyclopedic"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Sexual intercourse and its portrayal in art are perfectly good encyclopaedia topics. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An image may be encyclopedic, however this one isn't. An encylopedic image should be one from which one can learn something. This image does not do that. Muhammad(talk) 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, not everybody is as good at group sex as you...--Svetovid (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if this image would be in Kama Sutra, then it would be enc. As now, in group sex, I certainly agree it's not - because the group is cut off... --Janke | Talk 16:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke. Would support if significantly better quality and not cut off. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, while there is no reason to delete this image, the lack of copyright information makes me wary about featuring it. It's obviously not his own work and it might very well be PD through age but... also, it's not a very good reproduction. grenグレン 06:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per quality problems identified above. A pity-- this would look great on the main page. Spikebrennan (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A poster with twelve different species of flowers from the Asteraceae family. The two most representative subfamilies were included: the Asteroideae (about 70% of all known species) and the Cichorioideaea. (14%). Individual photos in full resolution can be accessed through the links in the picture file.Cutting out issues - poor cutting out resulting in the background showing throughCutting out issues - poor cutting out resulting in a loss of detailAlternative - A new subfamily, containing about 11% of all Asteraceae is now represented by #6 - Galactites
Reason
A high quality and detailed depiction of some well-known flowers, in the style of the old encyclopedias. This time, almost all images are FP or Quality Images. Let me answer two questions before someone asks: the disposition of the flowers in the poster was driven by aesthetics only; and yes, it will be nice to have a poster with all Asteracea subfamilies if and when there are suitable pictures available.
Support as nominator (prefer alternative)Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that this will be nice to do when those pictures become available, and when that time comes, I hope it will be possible to use Latin names rather than numbered labels, for usability. Meanwhile, I'm sure this will do well on Commons, but I'm doubtful of its encyclopaedic value, just as I was of the other recent nomination (Syrphids, iirc). Specifically, this one is not comprehensive as an illustration of Asteracean diversity because it doesn't show a variant lacking ray florets altogether. I also suspect (without checking each one) that this poster includes only species growing in Mediterranean climates (of which admittedly there are many more than in other climates), so it would seem more suited to articles about Mediterranean Asteraceae, or perhaps, at a slight stretch, Mediterranean flora as a whole. I'm also surprised that the Glebionis has only been keyed to genus level. Is it a troublesome taxon? What I do like is that the flower colours seem roughly representative of the family (lots of yellows, quite a few whites, other colours possible but rarer). Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, let’s try to defend my lady. First, I’ll answer the questions. Yes, most of the flowers are growing wild in Mediterranean climates, but not all. For example, #8 is from Central America and #12 from South Africa. That is right, I could not get a complete identification for the garden cultivar Chrysanthemum in #4, maybe someone will be able to help. Yes, I could have included a flower of the Carduoideae subfamiliy, but I wasn’t able to adapt the available photos (like this one) to this kind of representation, with a black background. And now for the enc value of the poster. I think there are various levels of enc interest in a picture, from the “entry level”, where the main objective is to catch the attention of the reader for the most relevant aspects of the subject (just like with the coloured plates of old encyclopaedias), to the “specialist level”, where scientific accuracy and fine detail should prevail. In the entry level, aesthetics, simplicity and high graphical quality are important elements. And I really believe this poster is among the best “entry-level” illustrations Wikipedia can offer. I’m sure it is possible to design a poster, or a set of posters, which show the family in a more comprehensive way. But, as I said above, we are here limited by the available good quality photos, and the oportunity of doing it might never arrive. - Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this will help. You may have to recover some of the green parts of the flower. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Samsara. I have arrived this far, but the quality of the masking is not as good as the other ones -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found it helped me to create a duplicate of the original layer that had the green channel blacked out. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice masking etc. As for conveying the full diversity, I don't worry too much. It is reminiscent of the Haeckel posters that show morphological diversity rather than cladistic diversity. deBivort 15:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I respect your opinion. I still think if morphological diversity is the point, we should include a flower that lacks ray florets. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something like Carlina vulgaris might be a reasonable compromise, which has bracts instead of ray florets. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very enc. An image like this can never be comprehensive - but even in thumb size, this has the eye-catching effect that I feel is one of the most important features of a FP. And WOW, it looks good in full size! --Janke | Talk 17:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Alvesgaspar defending his lady. Lycaon (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty and encyclopedic what more could you want from an FP support --HadseysChatContribs 23:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better than your last composite but still not up to scratch IMO. Some of the flowers exhibit very good sharpness however there are several with poor sharpness; #1 in particular, and to a lesser degree #3, #4, #8 #9 and #12. Also though the black background is a good idea, a lot of the cutting out is shoddy - this is detrimental to both aesthetics and enc. In particular image #11 (no. 6 in the examples file) is terribly cut out with the background strongly coming through, and #6 has lost a lot of hair detail resulting in an unenc representation of the flower. --Fir0002 01:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the hard work in noticing those masking impefections. They are now corrected to the best of my skills. That took maybe less time than doing all those nice illustrations of the flaws -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fir, well done for examining the detail of the cut-outs and noting the loss of hairs in #6. This is an encyclopedia not a picture book, so the detail, even at the level of the hairs, should be accurate. So, reluctantly, I oppose - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree this is not only a picture book. That is why all high resolution versions (with the "fundamental" hair details) are easily available through the links in the picture file. According to my reasoning above, that is what I would call a "second-level" enc layer. With such a negative comment, one keeps wondering if the oppose vote (sorry, "opinion") was indeed reluctant... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Alternative added, with a representative of the Carduoideae subfamily, containing about 11% of all Asteracea plants (special for Samsara) ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh, you removed the only bright spot... :-( Seriously, I support either version per consensus. Re. small technical errors vs. enc: This is a compilation, the originals are available - so what's the problem? --Janke | Talk 07:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that as a compilation it isn't very good and hence shouldn't be an FP IMO --Fir0002 11:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dont like the black background otherwise great work :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A clear and sharp electron microscope image of a parasitic worm emerging from the antenna of a black fly. 18 million humans worldwide are infected with this worm and 300,000 people have been blinded permanently because of it. Slightly smaller than usual for a featured picture (I've looked for a larger file and couldn't find one), but strong on encyclopedic value and heebie-jeebies.
My-skin-is-crawling support - The image is below 1000px in size, but not by much. Given that the parasite is nicely highlighted, there seem to be no problems with coloration or artifacts, and the subject is clearly visible in all its gruesome detail, I think it can be given a pass for resolution. --jonny-mt 09:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm vaguely supportive of this, especially because we have far fewer EM pictures than we should. However, I do wonder whether Onchocerca should link somewhere, perhaps a short article based on species:Onchocerca? Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hacked up a quick stub. MER-C 13:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Let's face it, we're not going to ever get another one with the worm crawling out of the antenna. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose until clarifications made. Is it normal for the worm to come out of the antenna? According to the article, it's normally transmitted through fly saliva. The image also doesn't tell us if this is the larva coming out of the antenna, or the fully-developed worm. Is it that the larvae inside the fly have fully developed and are consuming the fly? If not, what's happening here? So, while it is interesting, is the image encyclopedic? In other words, does it explain anything? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-14 17:07Z
Life cycle Onchocerca volvulus (provided for background).
Emergence from a segmented antenna is one of the few locations where the infection would be visible and demonstrable in an arthropod. It wouldn't be feasible to attempt scanning electron microscopy of a transmission; see Scanning_Electron_Microscope#Sample_preparation. According to the Onchoseriasis article, young larvae inhabit the fly's thoracic muscles and migrate to the head and proboscis as they mature. Some of them transfer to a new host when the fly bites a human. For illustrations of human infection, see Google images. DurovaCharge! 21:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, having nominated several SEM images for FPC, I know a little bit about how the specimens are prepared. That is why I want to know if it is normal for the worm to come out of the antenna like that, or if it is simply something that they set up to happen, or if it started to come out of the antenna as they were preparing the specimen for the SEM. If it's just a random shot of little relation to anything that normally happens, this would be comparable to an image of a person with a tape worm coming out of their nose for no real reason whatsoever, and then putting that image in the tape worm article and calling it encyclopedic. Bottom line: was this situation manufactured, or is it something that normally happens. If it's manufactured, it's not encyclopedic and is misleading to the reader. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-15 13:55Z
If you find a citation for this suspicion I will withdraw the nomination. Since it's normal for these worms to emerge from the head of a black fly, I'd say the better analogy would be of a tapeworm emerging from a person's anus. That's very encyclopedic and if I find a high quality image of that I'll certainly nominate it too. Now excuse me while I open a soda and get some pretzels. This conversation is whetting my appetite. DurovaCharge! 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's normal for the worm to come out of the mouth, not the antenna, correct? Or am I missing something not mentioned in the article? And if it's not mentioned in the article, how is the image illustrating anything discussed in the article? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-15 19:42Z
I doubt a roundworm has enough of a nervous system to realize it's taken a wrong turn and the proboscis is thataway. DurovaCharge! 22:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does a tube worm know where he's going particularly. That was the reason for my comparison. It's not encyclopedic. It depicts no process described in the article. If it is meant merely to illustrate the worm, a much better image (comparable to other FPs of animals) would be necessary. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-15 23:21Z
Support Yuck. Can I stop looking at it now? Highly enc. Clegs (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Good image but it's too small --Fir0002 01:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well highlighted Smundra (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support As to size, I would like to invoke two cherished principles, WP:IAR and the law of I Don't Give A Shit. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jonathan Swift: "So, naturalists observe, a flea/Has smaller fleas that on him prey;/And these have smaller still to bite 'em,/And so proceed ad infinitum." --Janke | Talk 08:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Brian is right, and my support above is conditional - i.e. that this is not "manufactured". OTOH, why would any scientist do that? (I assume few non-scientists have access to SEMs... ;-) One possibilty is of course that the caption is misleading; the parasite is not emerging, but was only residing in the antenna, which was broken during preparation. --Janke | Talk 14:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Janke for this explanation. I was wondering about the worm emerging while there is still a piece of antenna on the end. Shouldn't this be clarified in the caption? Mkruijff (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support High encyclopedic value, very interesting shot. This photo would definitely make me want to read about the subject. faithless(speak) 14:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive restoration, potentially useful in a number of articles. - PKM (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a nice photograph, but I don't like this caption. "traditional" is a relative term, and the caption doesn't say much else. The caption at Navajo rug is much better: "Navajo family with loom. Near Old Fort Defiance, New Mexico. Albumen print photograph, 1873." It explains that it's a loom, and suggests they are one example of a Navajo family, not the photographed essence of "traditional life among the Navajo people." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightyquill (talk • contribs) 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable point. I've changed the caption per feedback. The reason I hadn't originally used the same caption at this nomination is because, as PKM points out, this is more than a photograph of a family beside a loom. It also depicts hunting equipment, maize drying, and other aspects of Navajo daily life from 135 years ago. DurovaCharge! 05:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor sharpness/lack of definition --Fir0002 10:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Washed out colors/detail by unfortune directed lighting --> result: lacking plasticity --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
neutral I don't mind the colors or lighting - this is how praying mantises typically appear - very camouflaged. That said, for such a large insect there could be more detail. The bar for insect shots is so high. deBivort 17:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Travel poster for train service from Paris to Rome, depicting the Temple of Saturn at the Roman Forum, 1920Unedited version, for reference.
Reason
Early twentieth century color advertisements had gorgeous tones. I've fished this travel poster from the Library of Congress archives and tried to give it back the luster it had in 1920. The classical setting doesn't hurt for encyclopedic value.
weak support very nice scan - technically great - but doesn't really seem to illustrate either of those articles particularly well. The history of rail, sort of, and the temple article less so. deBivort 17:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Debivort. I actually have a bunch of posters in my house with very similar images-- I love that style of graphic design, but I agree that this image is of limited encyclopedic value for the two articles mentioned in the nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered this image, languishing as an orphan. It's a super-high-res shot of an obviously notable politician. You can count his pores, and there's nice bokeh. The lighting is a little dark on the right but maybe this could be edited if it's bothersome? I think it captures his fiery oratory well. This probably shouldn't be on the main page for a while, but regardless it would be a good FP in my opinion (and is about a million times better than the John Edwards one).
Ari Levinson (appears to be this guy, who I just sent a facebook message to confirm he is the uploader) Yep, just got confirmation that he was the uploader so we're good to go. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm no photog, but it's a lovely photo for all the reasons laid out above. I even like the shadow on the right; it's artsy, but not in a cloying way. --Friejose (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 Much better quality than the John Edwards photo that's currently FP (except for the nose hair). — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-15 21:53Z
Support amazing detail for a free image. Nasty noze hare though. deBivort 22:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)ww[reply]
Support with no complaints about the lighting. This is gorgeous. Love the eyes (but tell the man to trim that nose hair). DurovaCharge! 22:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 1 does it for me. Thanks. DurovaCharge! 01:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the Edit 1 better. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With half of the supporters mentioning an out-of-place hair or two, I went ahead and got out the nose trimmers. Chicago god (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 per nom, sans nose hair. Chicago god (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Great shot --Fir0002 10:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support edit 1 - great shot, skilful edit (great politician). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support edit 1 good quality picture. H92110 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, I wonder why no one cares about the lighting... 8thstar 18:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of what makes this portrait dynamic. His face is adequately lit. Along with the knit brows, half turned head, parted lips, and slightly wrinkled shirt it gives this shot an unstudied look. Frankly I don't care who this is - the man could be a high school biology teacher and I'd support because it'd look like he's about to convince a classroom why Gregor Mendel's work was groundbreaking. Whatever is on this man's mind, he really cares about it. DurovaCharge! 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original with no complaints about the nose hair - this is part of the man, like Oliver Cromwell's wart, it simply belongs. Excalibur (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Part of the man"?? I'll agree that with certain people a scar or a mole is certainly "part" of them: a feature that is connected to their identity. Cindy Crawford, for example. Nose hair is not (and I hope does not become) a defining feature of this man.Chicago god (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, preference original. Clearly an excellent example of the best of Wikipedia. I don't think there's any pressing reason to remove the hair and stain - they're part of the original, and are barely visible at most resolutions - but I don't have very strong feelings. TSP (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is the waviness is the background... normal? grenグレン 06:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's normal distortion caused by the short depth of field. For portrait photography, a short depth of field is preferable in most cases.Chicago god (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like "normal distortion" to me. Compare these images taken at the same event. Anyway you look at it, the background colors don't match. The square, dark zones in the corners look to have been added or enhanced to create the subliminal image of a cross. --HailFire (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the third to last image on the page linked to. That background is consistent with the one in the image here. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the shadows on his face are reversed, and the white band across the middle is quite different in width and angle. The latter could be due to a change of perspective, but the shadows? The image metadata indicate Date and time of data generation 02:04, 28 October 2006 and the extended details show Software used Adobe Photoshop CS2. --HailFire (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that I'm a bit poor at detecting subtle differences between images. However, the details from the software would have been added even if it was used for something as simple as cropping and nothing more. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photo seems to have been taken from a quite diffent angle from any of those on that page. The Wireimage photographer seems to have been positioned more or less in front of Obama; this photographer seems to have been positioned at his left shoulder, so only got a face-on shot when he turned his face to the left, as the photo clearly illustrates. Given this, surely we'd expect both the background and the shadows to be different? I can't see any signs of major editing in the image itself. TSP (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 Met him at a rally last weekend, got my copy of The Audacity of Hope signed. :) But in all seriousness, great shot, and the minor alteration to remove the unflattering aspects is in no way a substantial change, and only improves the quality of the picture. faithless(speak) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No problem with the quality, but at least to me, the harsh light is very distracting. Clegs (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Clegs. Don't understand why everyone is fawning over this picture to such a degree. Yeah, it's very high resolution, but the lighting is pretty poor in my opinion. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Edit 1. Very nice photo. Interesting, high resolution, good sharpness. Does not currently appear in any article, however. Perhaps it was removed from the Barack Obama article? Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed from Barack Obama, although I'm not clear on the editor's reason for doing so. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put the photo back in place. It was removed from the "Political Advocacy" section for no reason. If giving a stump speech, at a university, during a presidential election, in which you are a candidate, is not an example of advocating your politics... then I don't know what is. 68.166.155.242 (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and lord knows this isn't a politically motivated opposition. I find the photo unsettling-- it looks like he's turning around to demand that the photographer go away and leave him alone. Spikebrennan (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't want your photo taken either if you just remembered that you didn't trim your nose that morning. 68.166.155.242 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a very good portrait, unappealing facial expression. --Janke | Talk 09:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not anger. It's the struggle for change and something different! :) — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-18 14:33Z
Oppose per poor facial expresion and other minor issues. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. Excellent resolution and quality. Other then that, it stands out from your run of the mill portrait shot in that it shows an expression, which I find quite appealing and catching. The lighting isn't necessary to the photo but doesn't detract from it as far as I see it. --Mad TinmanTC 14:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting 8thstar 16:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The image was again removed from Barack Obama (see here). The editor added a section to the talk page regarding changing the image but didn't explain why he removed the one being discussed here. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent lighting. Makes him seem to come out of the shadow into the light, together with the facial expression it makes a very natural and dynamic composition. The background tones are a perfect fit for the picture. Fabulous picture. --Dschwen 16:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to harsh lighting and weird facial expression. A studio shot would be much preferable. Cacophony (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, Strongly Oppose Edit 1. If the subject had nose hair and a shirt stain on this occasion, it is falsification of reality to remove them. (This comment applies more generally than to this one image. I know that this kind of over-eager modification of images is regrettably common on this page, but I hope that we can all agree that misrepresentation of the actual encyclopedic subject matter should be an absolute no-no for an encyclopedia. In a science publication it would constitute academic misconduct.) --mglg(talk) 20:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edit is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. In no way does it misrepresent the subject. On the contrary, I would argue that keeping the nose hair and the stain would be a misrepresentation: on any given day, the subject is more likely than not to be seen well-groomed and in a shirt free of stains. Chicago god (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an image on the subject 'Barack Obama', not the subject 'Barack Obama on 27 October 2006 at 18:05'. So it's not a misrepresentation.--Svetovid (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1...this isn't a science publication.D-rew (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either Fantastic resolution, and the lighting is quite dramatic...it almost looks like a studio photograph rather than an actual photo taken at one of his speeches Seriphyn (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, oppose edit. On first glance, the lighting seems a bit harsh, but it suits the expression and there is still plenty of detail in the shadow. I hope we aren't reduced to literally whitewashing images; the nose hair and shirt stain are features, not bugs.--ragesoss (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Obama Portrait 2006.jpgMER-C 12:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Red-backed Toadlet (Pseudophryne coriacea) from eastern Australia.Edit 1 by Fir0002 - NR, colour balance, sharpening, corrected lens (?) shadow in lower RHS
Reason
Clear and accurate photograph of this species, which is quite hard to photograph due to its nocturnal habits, small size and bulging eyes (need to get a second flash very low to the ground so the eye doesn't create a shadow over the rest of the face).
Tentative support I think with a bit of sharpening on the front foot, this will work. Samsara (FA • FP) 13:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Edit 1 - sounds like it was quite a difficult shot to get, however I think you could have positioned your second flash a bit better so that the shadow cast by the head was minimized. --Fir0002 10:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
neutral - I'm ambivalent by this nom. It seems like a case where the subject may just not be conducive to an FP - the lighting is harsh, as are the highlights. I don't know if subject matter can/should preclude an image from promotion, so I'm going neutral here. deBivort 17:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both - Sorry, but the lighting is just not right -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both bad lightning/not sharp enough. —αἰτίας•discussion• 11:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Poor lighting and sharpness. Also, it took me a couple seconds to figure out what I was looking at, and at first glance, it hardly looks like a toad. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 12:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Head profile of the Carpet Python (Morellia spilota mcdowelli), from eastern Australia.
Reason
Very clear and informative photo, especially for the forked tongue article, which previously did not have a photo. An engaging photo for Morelia spilota.
The diamond/carpet pythons are known for their patterns, so I think an image showing the whole body would be more appropriate. It may be good enough for the forked tongue article, though. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-15 14:03Z
Yes, I agree, that's why I didn't say it was particularly informative for the Morelia spilota article (though that article is for the entire species, not the subspecies), but more as an eye-catching photo to bring people in. It is so hard to get a good photo of a 2m long snake that has good detail and is aesthetically pleasing. -liquidGhoul (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great H92110 (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support scale detail is great at full rez, and it's a decent illustration of forked tongue. deBivort 17:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - meets all the criteria.--Svetovid (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor focus, blurry, and poor lighting especially in the eyes, where the flash is too harsh. Also, it doesn't have the 'wow factor' that an FP should have. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, the size is very large & the detail able to be seen in the scales in great. нмŵוτнτ 02:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Morelia_spilota head.jpgMER-C 12:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Heliconius ismenius, also known as the Tiger Heliconian or Ismenius Tiger, is a Nymphalid butterfly that occurs from Mexico to Colombia.
Reason
For those of you that don't like butterflies, don't worry, we have only 66*2 - 20 = 112 FPs to go to catch up with the number of bird FPs and remedy systemic bias (because there are twice as many butterfly species as there are bird species). I'll try to start nominating some other insects as well, so the bugs and beetles (the latter making up 25% of known species) don't feel hard done by.
Comment Can you ID the butterfly from this photo? Would a shot of the open wings be more useful or does it not matter for this species? --liquidGhoul (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you probably know, the Heliconiids can be tricky due to the large number of morphs for each species, and complex mimicry relationships. I went with trusting the photographer on this one. The identification is consistent with others from reliable sources on the web, e.g. [7] There are mimics for this morph, e.g. [8]. I'm not qualified to ID Heliconiids, and some people who work with them have also told me they don't feel qualified. A lot of people seem to trust the label that comes down the supply chain. I'm not aware of mimicry at the pupa stage, so perhaps we can trust the live butterfly exhibits of the world to get it right (where I think this was taken). AFAIK, they don't typically stock mimics for the same morph, because visitors like to be able to tell them apart. When showing mimics, they pick the less perfect ones. I'm afraid that once you start doubting the ID on these species, we may have to take a whole lot of them off their articles, because none of them in their image descriptions point out the characters that were used to key them. I've checked a whole bunch of them, and they are consistent with others on the web down to minute details. That said, consistent with expectation, I did find a small number on flickr etc. that were very likely incorrect. If you have a field guide handy, I'm happy to be educated. Samsara (FA • FP) 13:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for the length reply. I don't really know too much about butterflies, so I'm glad you verified for me. I had assumed that if you can't ID by pattern (which seems to be the case), then it would probably be some microscopic morphological feature, which is usually the case with insects. As such, it would be unreasonable to expect such a characteristic in a photo. Support. --liquidGhoul (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Quite nice in terms of sharpness and the dew, but I really dislike the portrait aspect ratio - definitely should have been shot in landscape; and it was taken at an unfortunate angle resulting in a leaf cutting off it's front legs. Also proboscis is motion blurred --Fir0002 10:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Lammergeier or Bearded Vulture, Gypaetus barbatus ("Bearded Vulture-Eagle"), is an Old World vulture, the only member of the genus Gypaetus.Alternative1 with more wing detail
Support Alternative 1 only. Far more compelling at fullsize, lighting is better (especially on top of the head), and it's got a tail! --jjron (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. The alternative is nice, but it's stuck on an encyclopaedic no man's land imho. If we had one that was up in the air soaring, I would support, because that gives people a great opportunity to identify them in the wild. This one is a very nice photograph (maybe lighten the feet a bit). Gotta stick to my guns. ;) I know there is another FP on commons, which I'll pre-emptively weak oppose for showing only part of the animal (caution: battle ground ahead). Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-emptive oppose per Samsara. Versions here are far better. ;-) BTW, isn't the Original in more of a no man's land with that odd missing tail? --jjron (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you just accused me of picking arguments with you? Samsara (FA • FP) 01:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support alternative - Far more interesting than the original, showing the tail ad wings. I would give a full support to a larger file and a less tight crop -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative1 - a much more dynamic shot, illustrating just as much of the bird. I only wish it was oriented with the horizontal as the long axis, but still quite deserving. Matt Deres (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support both -- Laitche (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative 1, the nice pose shows unusually much of a bird. Narayanese (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, weak support alternitive Very nice. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say the same as Julian: Strong support original, weak support alternative They're both amazing pictures, but the first one is superior, in my opinion. нмŵוτнτ 02:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original - eek! ← κεηηε∂γ(talk) (contribs) 12:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Bartgeier Gypaetus barbatus front Richard Bartz.jpgMER-C 07:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The last four full-blooded Tasmanian Aborigines c1860s. Truganini (c1812 – May 8, 1876), the last to die, is seated at far right.Edit 1 by Fir0002
Reason
Seems appropriate in a week when the Australian Government finally said "sorry" for the Aboriginal Stolen Generations (see here).
Between European settlement in 1803 and the death of Truganini in 1876, the Tasmanian Aborigines were entirely wiped out as a unique people. This heart-wrenching image shows the last four survivors in the 1860s, clearly having been dressed up by their 'conquerors' in European finery for the photo - the misery and humiliation of these proud people is palpable.
It's just below normal size 'requirements', and admittedly image quality isn't fantastic on modern standards (remember this is taken in 1860s frontier world though), and those grumbles seem pretty irrelevant here anyway.
Strong Support as nominatorjjron (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The size can be neglected for such a picture. Such sad expressions on their faces:( --Muhammad(talk) 11:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - What an incredible, and moving, photo. I had no idea that there were photos of Tasmanian Aborigines, I'm very glad you brought this to my attention. --liquidGhoul (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support All doctors say that size doesn't matter... ;-) Of course, if a better scan is ever found, this one can be replaced. --Janke | Talk 14:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slight preference for Fir's edit 1. --Janke | Talk 11:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question - couldn't this be greatly improved with a levels adjust? deBivort 15:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tried it, but that accentuates the grain. The soft contrast is suggestive of daguerrotypes and albumin prints, so I wouldn't change it. Actually, the photos on the DT page are all too contrasty. Few people today get to see actual DTs... --Janke | Talk 16:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I wish we had a better quality version. This, for example, is a pretty good quality photo of the lady in question (though I don't know about copyright status). Matt Deres (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC) I've been considering the opinions and points below and come to the conclusion that I just can't sustain a 'support' argument, however much I'd like us to have one of Truganini. Please consider me a very reluctant oppose. Matt Deres (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great historical value trumps less-than-ideal technical aspects. faithless(speak) 01:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose I downloaded it with an eye toward restoration, but that's not grain we're looking at here. There's a serious problem with the file. Have a look at the thing at 300%. I'm tempted to call it lossy compression, but it's got an almost tile-like regularity that pervades the entire image. Surely there's a better version somewhere of this. My heart's with the nom, but I can't support it in this state because if I do then I'd have to nominate about a thousand other equally important images whose technical problems are less serious. If you get a better copy of this I'd be honored to help in a restoration. DurovaCharge! 02:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Tasmanian Aborigines were a genetically and culturally isolated population for over 10,000 years, from the end of the last ice age when Tasmania was separated from mainland Australia; this is about the same time for this one small island as the native populations of all the Americas. This was wiped out in a little over half a century. This is a remarkable picture of the last four individuals, and one of the few pictures depicting them at all. And you have a thousand other pictures that are equally as important? Maybe there's a better version, who knows, but these sort of photos aren't as readily available in most countries as in the US. And since when do we judge pictures on how they look at 300%? --jjron (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although images don't need to be judged at 300%, that's a good resolution for judging certain aspects of digitized degradation the minimum resolution I work at for restorations. This particular file cannot be restored. That's a function of its digitized state, not any comment upon its encyclopedic value or photographic meric. The comment above about other images is a function of having reviewed nearly 200,000 files with an eye toward restoration, not a denigration of the subject's importance. A better version of the same photograph almost certainly would be featurable. DurovaCharge! 07:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have seen better quality versions of this image, better quality images of Trugannini and of other Tasmanian Aborigines alive in her lifetime - Peripitus(Talk) 08:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I attempted a quick edit but as with Durova I soon decided that I couldn't really make too much out of it --Fir0002 10:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The size does not matter for me. I think Fir002's edit is better, so I support it. But if due to the edit, the picture's value decreases, then support for original. H92110 (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Gotta agree with Durova on this one. Clegs (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reasonably good copy of extremely important photograph. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The quality's not terrible by any means, but Durova claimed that a better version could be found, so I have to say not this one. нмŵוτнτ 02:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus MER-C 12:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naturism or Nudism is a lifestyle in harmony with nature, expressed through social nudity, and characterised by self-respect of people with different opinions and of the environment. It can also be called a cultural and political movement practising, advocating and defending social nudity in private and public spaces. This image is showing a naturist, showing naturism and nudism.
Oppose Too dark, tilted, unbalanced composition, subject cut off. --Janke | Talk 08:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - poorly shot and composed snapshot with no special appeal - Peripitus(Talk) 11:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Subject cut off. This is the internet, there has to be a more well-composed shot of someone nude, somewhere out there. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-18 14:27Z
A good quality image showing food preparation by soldiers, in wikipedia there are vast images of cooking, but this type of image, i.e. cooking by soldiers during wartime is lacking. This is a specific type.
Strong Oppose Very Blurry, and it is nothing special. Also, the glare is terrible and the composition is extremly poor. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody cooks. The FP criteria does not say that just because it is an image of soldiers cooking, that it is FP worthy. And even if the content was good, it is still extremly blurry, and that is more of my concern. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Julian is right. We need an FP on cooking, but this is not that FP.Clegs (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Very snapshotty, blown windows to the point of distraction. Enc value is trumped by the sheer volume of technical problems. SingCal 16:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not even a very good snapshot. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SingCal, Clegs. Cacophony (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close no chance of promotion. Muhammad(talk) 06:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted . --John254 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominatorSamsara (FA • FP) 13:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really love the first one, it is crisp, well framed and a great habitat shot. The second is not of the same quality, I would much rather the bird facing the camera slightly. --liquidGhoul (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support first Very crisp. The second one just seems more bland.SpencerT♦C 20:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1, Weak Oppose Alternative 1. Nice shot - and must have been hard to get considering the focal length that was necessary. That said I feel a bit cheated quality wise as coming from a Mk III and a sensational lens it should have been a lot sharper - particularly Alt 1 which is below standards IMO. I suspect the degradation occured during some kind of NR as it was shot at ISO 800. Might be worth asking for an original... --Fir0002 10:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Fir0002's explanations. H92110 (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support anydeBivort 17:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternitive 1, weak support others. Very well done. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support original, weak oppose alternatives 1 & 2 The original is the most aesthetically pleasing and it shows the most detail. нмŵוτнτ 02:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Greater Yellowlegs2.jpg --John254 22:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Birth of Venus by Sandro Botticelli, c. 1485 Tempera on canvas 172.5 x 278.5 cm (67 7/8 x 109 5/8 in.) Uffizi, Florence.Alternate.
Reason
One of the more famous paintings from the Italian Renaissance with allusions to classical mythology, and a good quality image file large enough for featured picture consideration. A representation of the human body that is neither exploitive nor gratuitous.
Fair question. Wikipedia has been using both so the editors here might as well choose between them. DurovaCharge! 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question, which is closer to the actual painting's dimensions?D-rew (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original nom. is slightly larger. DurovaCharge! 01:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm...that's why I asked the question.D-rew (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to say then; the dimensions of the original are listed in the original version caption. It's a large painting. DurovaCharge! 02:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I asked was because it looked (to me) like the original was stretched horizontally. I did the math, which I was trying to avoid in lieu of sucking at math, and the found alternate is closer to the actual dimensions of the original painting. That's all.D-rew (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The point may be the different aspect ratios; the original nomination is noticeably compressed vertically relative to the alternative. I can't help with which is more accurate; the dimensions for the original given on the painting's article give a ratio of 1.62, as against the original nomination's 1.70 and the alternative's 1.59; but any differences there could be down to cropping as much as stretching. The alternative looks a little more convincing to me on aspect ratio, but I'm not sure about its colours - the red of the sheet and the white of the Venus' arm look over-brightened to me. TSP (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did some research: the first image does have incorrect proportions and should be excluded on grounds of accuracy. A ratio in the area of 1.6 is correct. I'd support the "alternate" Changing to neutral—if I imagine an FPC standard for art reproduction both in terms of tone and detail I'm not sure this cuts it. (It opens the door for many paintings to be "featured" otherwise.) We should feature only the best-quality public domain reproductions that can be found. –Outriggr§ 02:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose both The original has issues with vertical compression and the alternate has possible issues with warmth/hue. Both seem to be too small to adequately illustrate the detail in the original; after viewing at full size, I instinctively clicked again thinking that I wasn't looking at the actual full image. The detail image from the article illustrates the amount of fine detail lost and the possible issue with the colours. Matt Deres (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both per Matt Deres.D-rew (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nom Maybe we'll have another go at this sometime if a better file version becomes available. DurovaCharge! 11:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
very encyclopedic, this image is colorful, well detailed, plays a part in the Dougong article and is also the featured picture on the Commons for 17 February 2008.
Support Exactly the kind of architectural detail that needs to be photographed in detail. Fascinating. DurovaCharge! 20:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zapp Brannigan: I hate these filthy neutrals, Kif! With enemies, you know where they stand, but with neutrals—who knows. It sickens me.:D\=< (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The firefighter is slightly blurry, but I have a feeling it is more because of the smoke then anything else. Otherwise, a good image. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Muhammad. Mario1987 14:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good pic, high quality, moving and evocative. Cirt (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose too much pathos in my eyes, according to the FP-criteria a picture the ground zero where you can see more of the demolition would be much better Wladyslaw (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Champagne is often used to celebrate, here the podium finishers of the 2007 Tour of Gippsland spray each other.
Reason
High quality picture showing an event synonymous with the podium in many sports - the champagne spray. I think one of the strengths of this image is that it shows the spray at various stages - the winner (centre) is already well into his bottle, whereas second on the left is just starting and third on the right hasn't opened his yet.
Support as nominatorFir0002 22:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose encyc. is okay and the technical side is alright, but I just get no "wow" from this picture at all. When I saw this pic in the thumbnail, I had no desire to learn more about champagne celebrations, though I was curious who the comically tall middle figure was. Matt Deres (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with everything Matt Deres said above, but have reached a different conclusion. Encyclopedic picture, good quality, and while I don't find it particularly interesting, that certainly doesn't mean that others won't (I imagine fans of bike racing will find this much more interesting than the rest of us). faithless(speak) 14:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Picture is too busy to easily see what is going on. Also, no wow factor. Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- boring, looks vaguely like guys wanking in thumbnail. Its just not clear, too much business and I think there are better things that represent the topic. pschemp | talk 05:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --Janke | Talk 08:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I love the champagne globules frozen in midair, looks really cool.. but looks snapshotish, not like anything of encyclopedic importance is going on :D\=< (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I also think the champagne midair is great. My big problem with the photo is the hidden podium, which makes one of the guys look hugely taller than the other. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 07:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - An U.S. Army Staff Sgt. and his military working dog wait at a safe house before conducting an assault against insurgents in Buhriz, Iraq on April 10, 2007.
Reason
Good quality image showing working dog and relation with human.
oppose - as an illustration of a dog per se, this is lacking - the dog is unsharp and not being a "standard" dog. Maybe if the article found a home in a more appropriate article - like "Military Canines" or something like that. deBivort 17:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not an illustration of a dog, the image is showing the relationship between dog and human. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason I said that is that you only included "dog" as the article illustrated by the image in the original nom. Glad to see it is used more specifically.
weak oppose there are the same technical issues, and really, I would like to see the dog in its military capacity if possible, rather than waiting around. deBivort 20:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mario1987 17:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Clegs (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - low technical quality, and the subject is not that unique or portrayed in a unique way.--Svetovid (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do you mean by "the subject is not that unique or portrayed in a unique way"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a historic photo and a relatively easy to reproduce scene.--Svetovid (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - View from Vatnsskarð pass, east across Skagafjörður valley, south of the town of Varmahlíð. Iceland, November 21 14:05pm.
Reason
One of my favorite photos from my recent trip to Iceland. Captures the mood of this place very well with low angle high saturation arctic lighting, hanging valleys, and nice topographic relief provided by the partial snow covering. Shows most of the "town" of Varmahlið, and lots of the fjord. 5-part pano, if I recall, stitched by hand, downsampled for sharpness. Self-nom.
Support as nominatordeBivort 21:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The fence in the LHS is quite distracting and looks like you could have got a better vantage point from on top of the rocks on LHS --Fir0002 10:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well fine - I disagree though - this vantage was chosen to put some silhouetted detail in the FG. I wonder if anyone else is going to comment... deBivort 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK since you ask, here's my comment: If it weren't for the fence, I might support. Now I'm neutral ;-) --Janke | Talk 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose It's OK but rather conventional - nothing about it really grabs me by the throat. Excalibur (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe maybe conventional for those living in the heathlands - but less so for us not living in glaciated valleys. Cheers though.. deBivort 22:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak to Moderate Support Very nice image, but you really have to zoom in to see any details. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"have to zoom in to see details?" Isn't that the way details normally are in high res images? Ugh .... this nom makes me want to take a wiki break. deBivort 17:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing personal. It's just that when viewed as a thumbnail, it is hard to see specific things. It is a very nice image, how ever, and you should keep trying. Juliancolton (Talk) 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. this is typical of panos. And why we are asked to evaluate images at their full rez. But thanks for the opinion. deBivort 17:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let's try to get things started here. It's a high quality picture of an interesting mountain range, and I have no problems with the issues others have raised. And as far as complaining because you have to zoom in to see details? Come on. Give me a break. you're supposed to have to zoom in to see the detail on a panorama. Clegs (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and that is why I gave it a moderate support :) Juliancolton (Talk) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus MER-C 07:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - "Hataori" (Weaving) woodcut print by Yanagawa Shigenobu, 1825-1832.
Reason
A clear illustration of an early nineteenth century Japanese loom and component parts: several heddles with their mounting and attachments, which the weaver controls with her foot, and a beater in her hand. Restored version of Image:Japaneseweavera.jpg.
Oppose Nice picture, but not the most encyclopedic. This isn't in any articles on the history of weaving, and it appears that modern photos could be found of these items (which would be much more helpful to readers). Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Automation has changed the industry and these tools no longer exist in the same form on machine driven looms, and none of the photos of hand operated looms at commons illustrate these components as well as this particular woodcut. DurovaCharge! 05:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But hand-driven looms are still around nonetheless and a much more illustrative photo could be taken. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The advantage of this illustration is that it shows a weaver using both heddle and beater at a good angle without any distracting background. I've sorted the related Commons categories and searched the Library of Congress archives. None of the photographs I've found illustrate those things as well as this. DurovaCharge! 11:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there isn't one at the moment doesn't mean one couldn't be created. Aren't hand-driven looms still in wide use in developing countries? I've seen them in Cambodia but I'm not sure if they had these particular parts. (See Image:Cambodia weaving.jpg - if you got a decent camera in a place like this you could get a good photo of these parts as they are used today.) My big problem is that going to the article page, these images gave me no idea what these things look like or are made of in real life. (Or even which parts of the loom they are.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed around 1500 images of that sort. Heddles and beaters are large and detailed items and the shot tends to look busy. The cleanest compositions come from museums where the item can't be touched. The alternatives are workshops or home settings where cramped spaces limit angle options and the background looks distracting and/or confusing. DurovaCharge! 01:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Japaneseweavera.jpgMER-C 08:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominatorMario1987 14:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, and I don't see the details until I zoom in fully. Also, it does not improve the associated article and make people want to read more. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no detail at low rez, very confusing at high res. Clegs (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Interesting. Sathmar (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Shouldn't the map be in .svg format? Muhammad(talk) 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific reason why? Mario1987 19:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because .svg images are vector images, hence can be zoomed endlessly without loss of quality. (At least I think so) Muhammad(talk) 11:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - This is not a map, even less a military map! This is a diagram showing the cartographic coverage of some(topographic?) series of maps. That should be obvious for the nominator, as there is very little detail, contrarily to what he says. Should be removed of the article or, at least, the caption be corrected with reliable information -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image page says "work of the United States Federal Government". So who is the creator? Muhammad(talk) 11:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this image has no source info. MER-C 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 08:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A male syrphid fly (Eristalinus taeniops) feeding on a Common Hawkweed flower. Notice how the long tongue (proboscis) is used to reach the nectar inside the flower. The eyes reaching at the top of the head (holoptic eyes) is typical of syrphid malesAlternative - Cropped version
Reason
A detailed and high quality depiction of the head of a syrphid fly, clearly showing the proboscis and compound eyes. The picture is used to illustrate various articles on the anatomy and behaviour of insects. The beauty of the unusual and gorgeous eyes is a bonus...
Moderate Oppose While the compostion is OK, it is hard to tell without reading up on it what exactly I am looking at. A better angle from the side would be better. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the side, the holoptic eyes (typical of the syrphidic males) are not visible. Please check this one. - Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but more people would be able to recognize the actual insect than the holoptic eye. I must say I like the one from the side better. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is not used to represent Hoverfly - the image is used in compound eye and holoptic only. As representatives of those the enc is excellent (imo). shasYarr!/T|C 15:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my reasoning above shasYarr!/T|C 15:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per shas. SingCal 16:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, oppose cropped edit. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice shot, with all necessary details in focus. In the articles mentioned, the cropped version is more enc, but I'll go with consensus there. --Janke | Talk 18:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original. The cropped version doesn't make much of a difference. Ilikefood (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either Gorgeous image, and a great illustration of holoptic eyes. Slightly prefer the uncropped as the composition is better aesthetically, but I don't mind the cropped one. --liquidGhoul (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Eristalinus October 2007-6.jpgMER-C 08:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Line art depictions of man and a woman designed to educate extraterrestrials about the appearance of the human body, from the Pioneer plaques.Second image - The illustration on the Pioneer plaque.
Reason
It is a historical image showing a picture which was included in Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft. Pioneer 10 was the first spacecraft which traveled through the asteroid belt, which it entered on July 15th1972. It was also the first spacecraft which made first direct observation of Jupiter. Pioneer 11 was also build for observation of outer solar system. Due to the long range of these two spacecraft, these plaque was included on them, so that in case of any encounter with extraterrestrial life-form, they can know about human on Earth. So I am nomiting this historically significant image for FAC.
Weak Support I don't have a real reason to oppose. However, it doesn't have the extreme 'wow factor' that other FPs have, so I weakly support. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what do you mean by 'wow factor'. This image is historically significant. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is, while there is no strong reason for me to dislike the image, I don't look at it and say "Wow, this is a good image!". Juliancolton (Talk) 13:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photo of the actual plaque is already a featured picture. Edited versions were proposed at the time, but there was a clear preference for the original photograph, for historical significance. I suppose it wouldn't be impossible for the SVG to be promoted as well, to reflect the good work that has gone into the SVG conversion, but basically there is already an FP of this. 14:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, redundant of existing FP. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Spikebrennan. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Spike. --Janke | Talk 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this image was proposed before and not accepted for being redundant. It's still redundant now. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 08:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The London Eye at night, viewed from Westminster bridge
Reason
The lights look good, the Thames looks great with the reflection of the lights, i think this is a decent picture to be featured showing how good London looks at night.
Comment Appearance on a user page means nothing. Muhammad Mahdi (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is slightly tilted, but what really breaks the deal for me is the poor compostion and the glare. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, we already have a superior FP of the eye, and this one does not significantly contribute to the article! It just appears in the gallery section (which should be trashed anyways per WP:NOT). --Dschwen 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much sky/river and not enough London eye. It is a highly reproducible shot that should be held to a very high standard.
Not promoted MER-C 08:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good subject, but it's just too blurry at full resolution. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Focus plane is behind her on the wall. Also, flash lighting is really bad here. Lastly, the creator is not Flickr; it's Staff Sgt. Michael Kropiewnicki of the U.S. Marine Corps. howcheng {chat} 08:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flickr do not create anything. Photographers post thier photographs in Flickr. So whoever is the photographer, the photograph is posted in Flickr. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "creator" field in the FPC nomination is supposed to be the photographer (if the image is a photograph). I think that you guys are in agreement on this. Oppose per above. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --Janke | Talk 09:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above opposes. Lighting, bluriness and again, Flickr being the creator doesn't seem fit. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support Great face, surprising subject. Could we get another version of this with a better background? It's not like I'm predisposed toward the woman + beatdown factor (checks username, whistles innocently). DurovaCharge! 18:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything wrong with admitting that the picture is more interesting because it's a woman.. I doubt those glamour shots from awhile back would have gotten so many votes if it was a man (checks genitals, whistles innocently). :D\=< (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious answer. :) Really, though, I wish we did have more FPs of women doing active things such as sports, etc. DurovaCharge! 16:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish we had more FPs of women doing anything at all. In a quick survey of past FPs, I see 102 of men/boys, 30 of women/girls, 19 with both men and women, and 6 undeterminable (but based on what they're doing, probably men). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is cluttered and the flash lightning is harsh. Cacophony (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 08:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Australian Red-eyed Tree Frog (Litoria chloris), native to forests of eastern Australia.Edit 1 Leaf cloned
Reason
It is a clear, illustrative photo of one of Australia's most beautiful frogs. Sorry about the tonnes of frog photos, this should be the last for a while. I haven't been on wiki all summer, which is frog season!
Original - The Brandenburg Gate is a former city gate, one of the main symbols of Berlin, Germany, and is the only remaining gate of a series through which one formerly entered the city.Existing FP
Reason
Looks really nice; I can't see anything that would detract from it's quality to the point of it being ineligible to be a Featured Picture.
Support as nominator —Animum (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Way too much HDRI effect for my taste. Would prefer a more realistic photo. Kaldari (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support clear, sharp, and cool colors. Excellent pic. Clegs (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support a tad TOO sharp, otherwise I like it =D Dengero (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The image seems a little bottom-heavy. Would cropping some of the sky help balance the image? Spikebrennan (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image seems a bit small to me and somewhat tilted. Also, isn't there already a FP of the Brandenburg Gate? -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is, but it only shows the quadriga on top. MER-C 07:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Good quality image, but it looks slightly too digital. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks great Mario1987 14:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just a show-off pic, most of it is black, parts are overexposed, it has little detail (despite the obvious sharpening attempts). --Dschwen 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dschwen. Cacophony (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Looks like too much manipulation has gone on; the dark area seems overpowering. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely great. jon (blab) 17:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution and manipulated sharpness. --Krm500 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support first image. crassic\talk 03:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 09:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF is too small, bad lightning, seems to be “over-flashed” (see the eye of the frog). Altogether not enough. —αἰτίας•discussion• 11:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't see what's wrong with the eye of the frog. There are two flash bulb reflections, which is something you see in most professional frog photos anyway. They can be cloned away, but personally I don't see it subtracting from the quality of the photo. --liquidGhoul (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent capture. Clegs (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is excellent as is DOF, but the flash is just too harsh. It's not just on the eye, but on the skin as well. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The flash does not seem like a major issue to me. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Juliancolton. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good image quality. Ilikefood (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:New England Tree Frog - Litoria subglandulosa.jpgMER-C 09:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we already have a Hitler/Mussolini FP: File:Hitlermusso2 edit.jpg. howcheng {chat} 00:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They were both pricks, but the photo is good support --HadseysChatContribs 20:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The image has some scratches that a restoration could probably remove. Was this photo actually known to have been taken by Eva Braun, or was the photo simply in her photo album that was seized? If the former, this fact is remarkable enough that it should probably go in the caption. Spikebrennan (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say. Here's what NARA has to say about the albums:
These albums are attributed to Eva Braun (four are claimed by her friend Herta Schneider, nee Ostermeyer) and document her life from ca. 1913 to 1944. There are many photographs of Eva, her sisters and their children, Herta Schneider and her children, as well as photographs of Eva's vacations, family members and friends. Included also are photographs taken by and of Eva Braun at Hitler's chalet Berghof (or Kehlstein), photographs of Hitler and his entourage, visitors to Berghof and the scenery around Berchtesgaden, and some studio portraits of Eva and members of her family.howcheng {chat} 08:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. Didn't know Eva Braun was a photographer. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. What a stupid tie. Cacophony (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not nearly as good as the Obama pic below. I hope the voters here realize the difference between FPC and the Presidential Election (whicht does not start until November by the way...). --Dschwen 04:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing this picture to another FPC isn't a legitimate reason to oppose. The timing of the presidential election is also irrelevant to this particular image meeting the featured picture criteria. What are the shortcomings of this image as they relate to the featured picture criteria? Per Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#How_to_comment: All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that can be addressed.Cacophony (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing to another FPC is a perfectly legitimate reason. Please review the FP criteria and check out point 3, which is comparative as well. To determine if a picture is among Wikipedia's best you have to compare to other works. --Dschwen 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this isn't particularly better than most of the politician images. grenグレン 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Despite obvious encyclopedic value, this is neither better nor worse than many other formal portraits. No partisan statement is implied in this vote. DurovaCharge! 07:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 3: is among Wikipedia's best work. This is competent formal portrait photography. What sets this apart is the importance of the subject, and maybe that's enough for some Wikipedians. Yet it's also composed in a style that has been done equally well many times over. Compare to Image:Javier Solana (2007).jpg, that shows a statesman at work in a less studied moment. DurovaCharge! 03:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding any reasons. Please elaborate. Cacophony (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's just rather run-of-the-mill. Perfectly serviceable portrait, but nothing to get that excited about. I will admit though, it's certainly a better image than the rather poor-quality example for Barack Obama below that everyone seems to think is so great. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes; good portrait, but no wow. --Janke | Talk 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing wrong in this picture and looks real FP material. Support as per nom. 13:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gppande (talk • contribs)
Oppose per Durova, although I think that this is a better portrait than the Obama one. Nonetheless, I don't like the way the subject's jacket blends into the background, which makes him look like a floating head and tie. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Decent portrait but doesn't strike me as anything with the "wow" required--much like all of our other politician photos. I don't like how he looks disembodied either... Mangostar (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 08:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Come on, it is blurry, grainy, and an image focused on a bowl of ice cream is not an FP worthy image. JuliancoltonThe storm still blows... 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't agree that photos of ice cream are off limits for a FP, but this one isn't anywhere near the technical quality required. Highly reproducible images like this should be nearly flawless. The entire left half of this image is out of focus. Cacophony (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per above, plus msot of the icecream is cut out, can be retaken easily with better quality. Only thing in focus here is the almond on the right. Dengero (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this way tilted from the original? The bank is at a very strange angle. Also I'm not sure I see the encyclopedic value here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pretty, but dubious enc value (this could be a creek or stream), and it looks quite tilted. deBivort 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very encyclopedic. Tilted and too much of a close-up shot to be of much use in the article in question. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Debivort. Cacophony (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose what is this? Poor quality, not to mention it is way too snapshotty. It isn't even of a particular subject. All-around not FP quality. JuliancoltonThe storm still blows... 22:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is about river pollution and slums adjusent to river. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
River pollution? That is not an FP worthy subject. And above all, the technical quality isn't good. JuliancoltonThe storm still blows... 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
River pollution is not FP worthy? You are saying only a nice image of a river will be FP worthy, not the negative aspect like pollution? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose River pollution is a fine subject for FP, but this particular photo is not FP quality. Not the best composition and there's all sorts of weird chromatic aberration and other things that seem strange-looking but I don't know the technical names for. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to poor focus and lighting. Highly reproducible shots like this should be much higher quality/resolution. Cacophony (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technically really poor/nothing for FP. —αἰτίας•discussion• 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 05:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The German invasion of Poland was the immediate cause of several countries' entry into World War II, and Polish cavalry action during that invasion was among the last major military actions ever to have been conducted on horseback. Restored version of Image:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew (1939).jpg.
Support seems a bit small to me, but I think the historic value makes up for that. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Click through to see it full size; this is actually one of the larger images up for FP candidacy. The thumbnail shows 250 horizontal pixels, so the appearance of smallness is just a byproduct of the aspect ratio. DurovaCharge! 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. It was just the particular monitor I was using at the time. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good photograph. - Darwinek (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality is largely unsatisfactory. As I understand nom picture's original is this, so nom is cleaned up also. I remonstrate with this as well.M.K. (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the nomination does specify that this is a restored version of that other image, and the image page specifies the alterations that were performed. Why the remonstration? This is already fully disclosed. DurovaCharge! 10:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A wake-type ocean surface wave created after the passage of a ferry.Edit 1 - Sharpened and adjusted focusEdit 2 - Same as edit 2 but larger in size
Reason
It is an excellent image, and it is featured on wikimedia commons
Comment. Where's the surfer? :) Kaldari (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For something this commonplace, the resolution should be significantly higher, IMHO. CillaИ ♦ XC 18:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can edit it a little and adjust the sharpness. Just give me a few hours. Juliancolton (Talk) 18:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I removed the edit, as it is not for FP consideration due to the heavy downscaling to way below 1000px. The orginal gets an oppose. Nice composition, but for a common object the quality should be much higher. --Dschwen 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-added the image, let people oppose the edit if they think it is too small but the size is considered a guideline for a reason and even if it's below the guideline people have the right to weigh in on it. Cat-five - talk 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I applaude your newbie-friendlyness, but putting a 738 × 600 pixel image of an easily repeatable subject up for candidacy is just an utter waste of time IMO. --Dschwen 03:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both it is a nice wave and would be a good shot other than the fact that the original is not sharp enough and I have to agree with Dschwen that the downsampled version is regrettably too small, even being flexible within the guideline the smaller size makes it harder to work with for various applications (articles, front page, print edition... etc) within and WP. Cat-five - talk 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not all that familiar with image editing, so is there any way to sharpen the image without making it smaller? Juliancolton (Talk) 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you could make it seem sharper with a small-radius unsharp mask. Thegreenj (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Narrow FOV, nothing's really in focus :D\=< (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing Special. Dengero (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Again, it's nothing special, and it's slightly to narrow. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above, plus cluttered background. Also, "Buldog" is a rock band. It's a "Bulldog" --Bridgecross (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Awesome pic. Beats things like the current featured pic, the citric acid cycle. --EndlessDan 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, nothing for FP. Nowhere in focus, not really encyclopedic. —αἰτίας•discussion• 22:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 05:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Elizabeth I (7 September 1533 – 24 March 1603) was Queen of England and Queen of Ireland from 17 November 1558 until her death. Sometimes called The Virgin Queen, Gloriana, The Faerie Queen or Good Queen Bess, Elizabeth was the fifth and last monarch of the Tudor dynasty.
Reason
I dunno why such a fantastic picture as never been nominated. It's main article is also featured, and this is perhaps the only proper picture we will get of this historical figure.
Oppose looks like scan and jpeg artifacting in there. deBivort 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the left side cut off? the words appear to go off the page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This scan shows the first word, "Non," which is right up against the frame (the frame itself has been cropped). Chick Bowen 03:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks like it was scanned out of a book since you can see the halftoning. Kaldari (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose her headdress is cut off and artefacts --HadseysChatContribs 22:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose several problems, but the halftoning can't be fixed. Worthy subject, something better should be available. DurovaCharge! 00:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 05:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy, distracting white sky, grey waters and you can't really see the "wow" of the picture when sewage (presumably) leaking out on the side there. Dengero (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More likely rust, I'd think - I think that's where the anchor comes out from. TSP (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per above. All in all not quite enough for FP. —αἰτίας•discussion• 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 05:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Himba are a pastoral ethnic group living in northern Namibia, and breed cattle and goats. Himba women are famous for covering themselves with a mixture of butter fat, ochre, and herbs to protect themselves from the sun. The mixture gives their skins a reddish tinge. Women braid each others hair and cover it in their ochre mixture.
Reason
Himba are an ethnic group in northern Namibia. They consists of about 20,000 to 50,000 people. It is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons.
Neutral. Good shot, but it seems like something they'd feature on commons, not here. It's just not very encyclopedic :D\=< (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing from hide box, people on talk (and me) don't think it's necessary to hide this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to composition. The partially-hidden kid messes up the composition. It would be better if both people were clearly visible, or if this were a solo portrait. Also, she looks like she's walking out of the portrait. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without bias against the subject matter, but rather on photographic merit. The subject's face is mostly in shadow and the lighting and composition could be better. DurovaCharge! 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 05:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Himba ladies about 15 km north of Opuwo, Namibia.
Reason
Himba are an ethnic group in northern Namibia. They consists of about 20,000 to 50,000 people. The image is showing two Himba ladies. The image is a Quality Image.
Weak Oppose I get a snapshot flavor from this one, too. The woman on the left is covering her face, the woman on the right has a shadow all over her, and the whole frame has an imbalance to it. Again, too many technical issues for me to feel good about supporting it. SingCal 07:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Male Northern Elephant Seals fight fiercely each year. Unsuccessful males will not mate at all, while successful males have harems of 30 to 100 females.
Reason
The elephant seal reproduction system is quite fascinating, and this is a great action shot highlighting the battles between males for who gets to reproduce. This was cropped from a larger photo, so if anyone wants to make an edit, you should check out the original on flickr.
Weak Support Although the techinal quality seems OK to me, somthing about it just doesn't seem FP quality. I'm not quite sure what, but it is just doesn't have the 'wow!'. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Why isn't there a 'wow' in two elephant seals trying to rip each other's heads off??? BookswormSprechen-sie Koala? 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets all the criteria.--Svetovid (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as per above. The action in this image and the emotion is very strong - very high 'wow', IMHO. BookswormSprechen-sie Koala? 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Parachutes open overhead as waves of paratroops land in Holland during Operation Market Garden, one of many operations by the 1st Allied Airborne Army, September 1944
Reason
An interesting photograph of paratroopers during WWII, and one of the few instances of images of mass paratroopers being photographed while dropping from their planes.
Support as nominatorTomStar81 (Talk) 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For its time period, it could easily be more sharp. There are other technical issues, as well. Juliancolton (Talk) 17:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just looks, well.... funny. Somethings goofy with the quality and coloring. Clegs (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original well done. —αἰτίας•discussion• 23:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support originalper Richard Bartz. pschemp | talk 05:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support both Excellent image. I am amazed at how sharp it is for a creature, that in my experience, is next to impossible to capture clearly with a camara. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. Wow. Ilikefood (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Colibri-thalassinus-001.jpg Closed by MER-C; final part of text appears to have been lost. --jjron (talk) 12:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering that Marxist regimes (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) were responsible for more than 100 million deaths in the 20th century, I think it's generous that the poster only shows 3, and I think the method of death shown is really humane as opposed to the pick axes used in Cambodia. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 01:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry for being blunt, but this is just part of a POV/POINT spam nomination series by a user that should spend some more time reading WIAFP, checking out the history of previous FPC, and coninue nominating in maybe one month or so. --Dschwen 17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with what the poster says, but it's obviously part of a POV smear campaign. I disagree with the word "supposed" in the caption as well. A better word would be "inevitable". -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 01:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted . Ineligible (fair use) MER-C 04:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Isabel
Original - Hurricane Isabel Approaching North Carolina's Outer Banks
Reason
Shows how large a storm can get in comparison to North America
Support as nominatorElena85 (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was going to nominate this today! It shows the comparison to land, per nom, and it contains great encylopediac value. It also has good technical quality. JuliancoltonThe storm still blows... 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support =_= no... I was :| :D\=< (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good image and high resolution--Cradel 11:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An excellent picture but i have concerns with the outline that cuts through the middle of the storm. Although it helps gain perspective, the florida panhandle provides this suffciently and i fnd it extremely distracting. I would support this nom if another version can be found that does not have this outline. Seddon69 (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Oklahoma State Capitol in early April.
Reason
It is a good, descriptive picture and contributes to several Oklahoma related pages. It is also a better photo than most state capitol pictures on Wikipedia.
Support as nominatorCPacker (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very grainy, a bit noisy, sky slightly overblown, unsure/not much encyclopedic value. General Oppose. Dengero (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Denegro. Image quality is just a bit poor and slightly overexposed. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per reasons already given. It would also be nice if that ugly tower structure wasn't off to the side there. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it an oil well? And would Oklahama be Oklahoma without an oil well in the front yard of the capitol? ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, its an oil well. They are all over the Capitol site.--CPacker (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I thought maybe it was an oil well at first, but that seemed too silly to be a possibility. Guess I was wrong. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator:D\=< (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Southcentral Alaska (where I'm from) seems to remain white year-round, which isn't correct. Not sure what's happening in that bit of the animation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's some serious noise problems, which makes it look like central Australia is getting snow (in the middle of Summer!!). --liquidGhoul (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too small to be useful. Also, this is a poor map projection to depict the whole world, causing large distortions. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar and liquidGhoul, much too small and noisy to be FP.D-rew (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like I remember something almost exactly like this being nominated before.D-rew (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. First of all, the aforementioned noise problems. Second, we need to know what year this is, as snowfall is different every year. Having a clock showing what month it is would be good, as it would let me know the southern hemisphere isn't being completely ignored. Finally, it would be nice to see it sped up - it's not like each frame confers needed information, it's the whole movement that matters. --Golbez (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 08:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator:D\=< (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I'm not sure about this, but I had a feeling the middle is slightly out of focus. Looks yum though. Dengero (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC). Oppose after looking a the pictures given by froth. FP quality, especially with hazelnuts and raspberry clearly contrasted the non-FP qualities of this image. Dengero (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like to think of it like how could you possibly make a more encyclopedic image of potato chips? It's high def, mostly in focus.. good enough? :D\=< (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The caption annoys me. We call jelly jam, and jello jelly. Language varies. Anyway, pettiness aside, not a particularly interesting or original subject, even if the photo has good quality. --Extr3me (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geez dude, mellow out, it's called a joke. I have to oppose though, for the reasons already given. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it and fail to see how a better composition can be achieved
Moderate Oppose Technical quality isn't the best, and it isn't a very interesting subject for an FP. JuliancoltonThe storm still blows... 14:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I chuckled slightly at the immature caption, but there is zero 'wow factor' here. Perhaps BBQ chips would provide a more interesting shot? </joke> faithless(speak) 02:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 08:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Pigments for sale at a market stall in Goa, India. December 2005.
Reason
Already a selected picture for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts portal, and maybe feature-worthy. A high resolution file that combines ooh, pretty colors impact with encyclopedic merit and a little bit of countering systemic bias, as an example of textile-related commerce in the developing world.
Support. Some focus and grain issues towards the back, maybe a bit of downsampling is in order. But it stands on its own. :D\=< (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'll bite. Might benefit from slight downsampling, but looks great regardless. Kaldari (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Chester Cathedral at dusk viewed from the city walls to the east of the Cathedral.Edit 1 - Oops, my bad, uploaded the wrong version.Edit 2 Restitched after reprocessing source images for white balance and contrast etc.
Reason
The previous nomination failed. To address the concerns, I've been back to the Cathedral, reshot it with 9(x3) bracketed images at 35mm, tonemapped it, stitched it in Hugin and blended in Enblend. Chester is originally a Roman town expanded in the middle ages, with a tight street plan. See here. The cathedral merges with the city to the west, the cloisters are to the north and the aspect there is not very appealing, the south side is better and should be the subject of our photograph. From the southwest we cannot get far enough away without major distortion, because of the proximity of St. Werburghs street, so this view from the south east, is I think, the best alternative. (Taken near the campanile to the right of the aerial photo above.) Please let me know your comments. There's a much bigger version if people would prefer.
Comment The composition is very nice, in my opinion, particularly bearing in mind the limitations you've mentioned. However, the colours and contrast seem pretty odd. The image overall seems to be low-contrast and lacking highlights, and seems very flat on well-lit areas - look around the fourth window in on the transept, and at the tower. In other areas there is what looks like posterisation - the strongly-lit area on the far right, and also possibly the red on the tower. I'm hoping that these are things that might be fixed by redoing the blend, as I really want to like this picture, I just don't think that the contrast is quite right. TSP (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TSP - I uploaded the wrong version (oops!) see edit 1. Highlights will be a little flat because we're using HDRI - the floodlit areas just blow out if you attempt to get the dark detail, or the dark areas underexpose if you go for the flood lit areas - this a tonemapped compromise. The floodlights are monochromatic too which adds to the slightly odd looking stone - Edit1 should cool it all down though. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 2 - Ah, much better. Sadly I'm at work now and on a rubbish LCD screen, but looks FP-quality to me. TSP (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both versions sadly. The tones still look very washed out and surreal, albeit less saturated in the edit. Thats the trouble with tone mapping. You may be able to work with high dynamic range, but actually compressing it down in a realistic and accurate way can be difficult. From my experience, some HDR scenes just do not and cannot work (at least in ways that would be acceptable on wikipedia). I'm not saying this is definitely one of those scenes, just saying.. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 20:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm - thanks for your comments. On that basis, I'll have a look at compositing my underexposed shots for the lower half and blending them with the mid-high tones from the top and seeing if that works better - might be worth a shot. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, try to see what works and what doesn't... I wouldn't give up just because someone tells you it won't work. ;-) If you were interested, I could have a look at the originals and see if I could work with it. Up to you. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 22:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Way too much HDRI effect. I would support a version with more realistic tonemapping (or not HDRI at all). Kaldari (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose tbh, I liked your failed one better =/ maybe another shot? I must appreciate your effort though, keep up the good work! Dengero (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I've added another edit without tonemapping....comments? I reprocessed all the source files for contrast, exposure and white balance - the floodlights were really warming it up to much. Diliff, if you want a stab, would you like the source NEF files? Email me if you're interested, that would be great! --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, better, I think. A bit harsh around some of the lighting, but I think it's better to include that harshness than try to limit it off and get flatness. How accurate are those colours? They're quite radically different from the first edit, but I could believe either depending on the colour of the lights; though I'm not sure I quite believe that sky. TSP (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had the foresight to take a white balance shot, which got me most of the way there - for the main building and sky. The tower then came out very blue because it's lit by a different kind of floodlight, so I bodged carefully adjusted it to suit. :-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the colour temperature could go up a notch, but I'd like your feedback first. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could stand to be redder, but then I wasn't there. I wouldn't worry too much about processing the colours of different areas differently, if you think it's necessary to accurately represent what you actually saw. One small issue - does it have a bit of a tilt to the right? I'd originally simply attributed this to perspective, but I think it does apply to every upright.... TSP (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will maintain my regretful Oppose. Nice edit, but makes it look too fake. if you look at the previous nomination, it is the yellowish glow that makes it appealing. Now it just looks like a haunted church. Dengero (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Edit 2. By far the best of the three but the colour balance is still a little bit funky. Colour correction is hard sometimes, particularly when you've been working on an image for a while and you start to get used to the wrong colours and stop noticing how weird they look. ;-) I know thats happened to me, and it takes for me to come back another day to appreciate just how bad it looks. Still waiting on the raw files Joopercoopers, are you still planning on sending them? I'm not sure if I could make a huge improvement over Edit 2, except perhaps with the purple tower! Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 20:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all And Oppose any taken from that same location. The composition is IMO awful. The image quality is fine... but this photo is missing the two most important aspects of photography: good light, and composition. There is a tree that obscures most of the building and from this angle the tower (area of most interest) is in the background. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 16:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how actionable this is. Please check out the aerial photo and let me know where you would prefer the photo to be taken from, particularly regarding 'the tower in the background' - if there's a way to get it in the foreground, i'd be interested to hear it.--Joopercoopers (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes there isn't a FP worthy angle... Is that tower on the upper right-hand side of the grounds open to the public? Could you persuade the management to let you in one evening? What about the tall building in the very bottom left corner. Can you get to one of its upper floors? Any of the other buildings around have open apartments that you could as the landlord to let you see... Then offer £20 for a quick photo shoot out the window? -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 21:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first free-standing campanile to be built in the UK since the 16th Century was Addleshaw tower at Chester cathedral in 1974 The building on the right of the aerial photo you mention is the Addleshaw tower (see image left), you will note its only fenestration is a small band of fixed leaded obscure glazed lights and so would be useless to photograph through. Addleshaw tower is the reason I can't move any further to the left to clear the tree (if you're interested the position I took the main photo from is visible on the wall, just to the left of the tower - the wall drops 30 feet immediately behind). The tall building to the left corner of the aerial is the town hall - I can get access to it, but this shows the cathedral from the side, where the cathedral merges with the city - it is not immediately apparent where the cathedral ends and the city begins. Elevating the view point may put the tower into more prominence, but will expose the lead roof - cathedrals were never designed to be viewed like that, the ground level shot I show is precisely how they were intended to be viewed. In any event the most notable thing about Chester cathedral is not it's bell tower, it is the south transept - shown clearly on the images here, which is the longest in England. I'll add that to the caption perhaps, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the composition. The tree is an inconvenience, but are we saying there will be no FP's of buildings if they have trees next to them? If anything, if a building is closely surrounded by trees, it would be unencylopedic to produce an image that didn't show them. The building's details are repetitive, those that are obscured can be inferred from the parts that can be seen. Additionally, it is important with architectural photography not to make the mistake of divorcing a building too much from its surrounding context. The temptation is always there to treat an architectural building as 'objet' without considering it's relationship to its site and surrounding context. (To closing admin - please note) I've handed the nef files over to Diliff and taken him up on his kind offer to see what he makes of them. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, you can't get a better viewpoint easily. But I would say there is something fundamentally wrong with the composition. The tree takes up much more area than the tower and rest of the cathedral, it doesn't serve as a frame and there are even branches obscuring the main subject (the tower). See if you can even move a few paces to the left and get the tree from touching the main tower. I'm not saying I would support, just that I think it would help the picture. Truly, its a good image, I just can't support this composition for architectural photography. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the raw files Joopercoopers, and they weren't quite what I was expecting. Usually when you create HDR images, you take a bracket of 3 shots per frame (with a wide range - 2 stops apart, for example), all with the same exposures (ie 2 seconds, 8 seconds and 30 seconds), but what you seem to have done is mish-mashed the exposures. Some of the frames have 2 shots in total, some have 3 shots, some have identical exposure lengths, some are random, but there is no consistency in which to put together the HDR image and tone map it. I'm sure its possible, as you seem to have combined them ok, but even so, the actual range of the exposures is minimal, so in certain frames, all of the shots are still overexposed around the light sources, which makes it problematic for tone mapping. I've managed to adjust the white balance so that the tower isn't as purple though (with a sacrifice of more orange on the lower parts than your edit 2), but I haven't attempted to stitch and tone map the image as I just don't think it is going to work very well. Bottom line is: You need to bracket the exposures with consistent exposures (2 stops apart, or perhaps even more for a scene like this where the DR is large), and you need to be consistent across the whole scene. You can't have 30 second exposures in the dark areas and only 3 seconds in the light parts. It doesn't matter if that results in some of the shots being extremely overexposed. Photomatix will ignore this, but it DOES need all parts of the scene properly exposed by ONE of the shots in each frame. Otherwise it will result in the dull lighting in the highlights and extreme noise in the shadows. Apologies if I've come across a bit hard here, but the methodology needs a bit of work IMHO. ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 14:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for trying Diliff - D40s don't autobracket, I was trying to maintain the same depth of field and so kept the aperture priority on and adjusted the exposure correction to -+1EV - sounds like this isn't enough variety. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, aperture priority is what the problem was. Go to full manual and spot meter. Find the darkest shadow in the scene, meter it and put it about 2/3 of a stop under neutral on the meter. Right down or remember that shutter speed. At the same aperture, meter the brightest highlight you can find in the scene and set it about 2/3 of a stop above neutral on the meter. Then, find the difference of the two exposures and set that as the middle exposure for the set. Then expose all the scenes with all three (or more) shutter speeds... On manual mode. The problem with aperture priority is that the exposure the meter choses for each frame (and each shot) will be different thus messing up the bracket. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah genius chaps thank you. I'll head back over for more shots this week weather permitting - I've had an idea about the composition - if I jump the railing into the garden of remembrance I can take the shot a few feet forwards and also foot or so lower than previously, this should keep the detail of the gable in view while shifting the bows of the offending tree upwards - we'll see. Suggest we close this nom. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help, and good luck. A little less tree in there and you'd earn my support. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 04:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 08:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - An 1887 composite facsimile of the Tabula Peutingeriana by Conradi Millieri.
Reason
A high quality reproduction of an incredibly important historical artifact; excellent stitching and color matching. The height is 70 pixels short of the FPC minimum, but given the length I hope we can overlook that.
Support as nominatorSingCal 03:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is the particular value of this nineteenth century recontstruction of an imperial Roman map? DurovaCharge! 08:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that the historical value of the map itself is self-evident; this particular reconstruction is of a quality and legibility so as to be readable by modern non-scholars, something problematic (for lack of any better term) about earlier versions and that I think is the real unique value of this particular rendition. SingCal 16:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you locate a less JPEG artifacted version I'd support. DurovaCharge! 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - tried to hold off, but really needs a less artifacted file to deserve FP. Please renominate if something better becomes available. DurovaCharge! 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose huge amount of JPEG artifacts, rendering text unreadable. If there is a less compressed version, please upload. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-20 14:16Z
Weak Support - of important encyclopædic value, but it is a facsimile, after all. BookswormSprechen-sie Koala? 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I would prefer to see the original though this facsimile has enc interest and the advantage of being readable. I believe that in the original Tabula Peutigeriana the first sheet (the one with Iberia) is missing. I'm curious about the origin of the left most part of this facsimile. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose the artifact, especially around the labels, makes it clear that there was a better uncompressed scan and that is might be possible to get it. grenグレン 02:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For some people wonderful moment, for some people tragic Northern betrayal, definitely landmark act and definitely featured picture. - Darwinek (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great historic American photo.--CPacker (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support historical image.M.K. (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The caption might want to point out the huge number of pens sitting in front of Johnson-- he used them all (a letter or a part of a letter at a time), and gave them away as souvenirs of the occasion. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support and note hat Spike suggested (with source). нмŵוτнτ 22:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Lyndon_Johnson_signing_Civil_Rights_Act,_July_2,_1964.jpgMER-C 08:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A visual example of the GPS constellation in motion with the Earth rotating. Notice how the number of satellites in view from a given point on the Earth's surface, in this example at 45°N, changes with time.
Reason
This caught my eye some time ago, and I decided to take a chance an nominate it for FP status. The image shows a simulated orbit of the U.S. GPS system and the number of these satellites that are avaliable for use at a given point on earth at any one time. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominatorTomStar81 (Talk) 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is an interesting idea but the animation is much too small to be useful -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not really that useful, in my opinion; you can't tell what it's even representing unless you read the article. It could just as easily be a representation of an atom or the solar system. Dr. Extreme (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted . --John254 02:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very clean, high quality photo with nice color on the beak, feet, wings and reflection.
Articles this image appears in
American White Pelican
Creator
Alan D. Wilson
Support as nominatorCPacker (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral to weak oppose While it is a nice picture, the coloring isn't the best, and it is very slightly blurry at the wing.
Support Good picture, shows white pelican species well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by APBTgirl (talk • contribs) 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose because of the blurriness at the wing. It's a breathtaking photo, though, as long as you don't zoom in too far. Dr. Extreme (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 12:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quorum not met.
Original - Diagram of a marine sextant, an instrument used at sea for measuring the altitude of a heavenly body above the horizon. The value of that angle, together with the knowledge of the time at the exact moment of the observation can be used to calculate a line of position.
Reason
A detailed and precise diagram adding significant value to the article about the sextant. The drawing is geometrically consistent and accurate, in the sense that a real instrument could be based on it. A simplified "working" version was used in this FP animation.
Support Good technical quality. The gradients look like natural lighting. The file page could use a source to verify accuracy. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 08:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC
Oppose. The text is shape data rather than text, i.e. it can't be edited.Kaldari (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not to be an expert on svg. It is fixed now -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'm not sure what this shows us that isn't already illustrated in the animated FP. As far as level of detail goes it's superior, but it doesn't seem like anything important was missing. If we want a more realistic picture, why not just take a photo? Matt Deres (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 12:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quorum not met.
Weak Oppose Poor sharpness at 100% and not a particularly breathtaking subject to overcome this. --Fir0002 11:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support Original Not bad - but the framing is a bit clumsy. 
Oppose Original, 
this image is featured and has a lot in common with it; if McCoy Tyner is featured then I think this photo deserves it too. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
, 
and to an extent even 
. --jjron (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Support Edit 1 – The edit appears to have corrected the problem I had with the strong (probably unrealistic) blue colour appearing at the edge of the birds. Apart from that I cannot really fault the composition or the other technical aspects of this picture. Centy – reply• contribs – 21:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
and who is standing immediately to the left of a guy with a bowler hat. Spikebrennan (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Isn't anyone else finding it striking that this image is (1) apparently the only photograph of one of the most famous speeches in the history of the United States being delivered, and (2) both Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth (his assassin) are in the picture? Spikebrennan (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
. Would you say it should not be an FP because it does not show the whole dragonfly? Muhammad(talk) 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Original - Bee feeding on a twisted pair of yellow coneflowers
Original Edit 1 by Fir0002 - NR, sharpened, downsampled
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
by John Gould.
.jpg)
Oppose – Secondary subject cut off, poor quality at high resolution. Centy – reply• contribs – 20:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
a.jpg)
![[4]](/en/Image:Mandelpart2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
