Good shot of a difficult target - lighting is pretty good considering I'm looking up at it. These kestrels are so frustrating because unlike most other birds they don't fly off at full speed when they see you, instead they gracefully glide away higher and higher and you keep thinking that maybe he'll come back ;)
Support as nominator --Fir0002 11:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very nice composition and I know it must have been a difficult shot but I find the bird unsharp. --Muhammad(talk) 20:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sharpness is quite acceptable, particularly given it's pretty much a 1:1 crop off the original. For instance it doesn't seem any worse than this fairly recent bird FP, and certainly no worse then some of the 1:1 crops you've had featured recently (eg File:Darkling beetle.jpg, File:Homoneura_sp_wb2.jpg)... --Fir0002 03:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - pretty much what Muhammad said. Definitely a good shot, but slightly short of FP for me, in quality. I do appreciate the difficulty though - if you want a laugh, here's my best bird shot. Stevage 03:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sharpness seems fine to me - slightly noisy perhaps, but not beyond the bounds of acceptability at what must have been a short shutter speed. Time3000 (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't know about the sharpness criticism - it does appear soft but I think that is due to the lighting from above coming through the tips of feathers. Anyway, I think it meets all the criteria and is a nice image. |→ Spaullyτ09:24, 24 June 2009 (GMT)
Weak support It's good, particularly in illustrating the wings. Good job recovering the shadows and a tough shot, so lack of fine detail is kind of forgivable. Borderline support. --mikaultalk 12:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak support A wee bit grainy, but still a dynamic and illustrative shot. I can only assume you were balancing a small rodent from your forehead for this. Do we have a barnstar that covers exposing your eyes to attacks from diving raptors? Matt Deres (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks necessary detail for strong EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Nankeen kestrel midflight.jpg Sorry for not closing this sooner; I've been busy. Because it stayed open for a couple more days, it got two more opposes. While I respect these !votes, I have to say it's my fault that they're there. I don't discount them, but based on the other votes, difficulty, timing, and (let's face it) shear luck of this wonderful image, I am promoting it. EV is high as it's a bird of prey soaring, legs pulled in, and looking straight at the camera; one is hard-pressed to get something this good again at reasonable quality. Issues? My talk → --wadester16 18:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Flesh fly, from the Sarcophagidae family "blowing a bubble". One explanation for this behaviour is that it concentrates the fly's meal by evaporation. The diet of the flesh fly is very high in water content. The fly regurgitates the liquid portion of the food, holds it whilst evaporation reduces the water content and the fly then swallows a much more concentrated food meal without the water content. This continues until sufficient amount of liquid is left for the fly. - Australian Museum
Reason
High quality image of interesting behaviour. True the DOF doesn't cover the whole of the body, but the relevant areas (the head) are in sharp focus.
Support as nominator --Fir0002 05:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment good quality macro as usual, but a few concerns. The reason for the bubble blowing you mention is not confirmed and is just a theory. Also, we already have an insect bubble blowing FP though your seems more interesting. --Muhammad(talk) 07:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know because I'm no expert but the guy from the Australian Museum seemed pretty sure of it, and it does make sense. The other likely theory is that it's just fun to do :) I don't think the second FP is much an issue because there are many subjects which have two FP's - eg White-faced Heron - and the other image isn't even used in the articles this image is used in. --Fir0002 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will support if the caption and the articles are slightly modified to show that the concentration of the food may be the reason for bubble blowing, among other reasons. --Muhammad(talk) 16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Made some changes, let me know what you think --Fir0002 03:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Undoubted EV (whatever he's up to – doesn't anyone speak Sarcophagidic?) although I have to say it's a touch over-sharpened for my taste. --mikaultalk 12:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Assuming the caption change as been done. The lighting is too harsh or its over sharpened but the bubble blowing makes up for it. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Personally, I don't see what long, elaborate captions have to do with FPC. This is a great photo of an interesting phenomenon - whether or not we can explain the phenomenon is beside the point. I note that the quality of this pic is slightly lower than some of the other macro images we've had, but we have to make an effort not to raise the bar. This was good enough a few years ago, and it's still good enough. Stevage 06:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A Han Dynasty (202 BC - 220 AD) Chinese ceramic figurine of a lady servant with hands placed in front and covered in long silk sleeves.
Reason
This Chinese grey ceramic tomb figurine from the Han Dynasty (202 BC - 220 AD) period, showing a female servant in silk clothes with arms held in front in a respectful gesture, is illustrative of the fine facial details carved into many Han-era ceramic figures. As far as I know it violates no mandatory criteria for FP status, and is 945 x 1,418 in pixel size.
OpposeDoesn't do it for me, I'm afraid. Looks like a poorly-presented museum piece; out of original context so reduces EV; white balance appears to be off; bottom of the figure is missing; not particularly sharp or detailed. --mikaultalk 12:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mikaul, esp. the crop at the bottom, which I find very distracting. Matt Deres (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A full view of the Giant Buddha Statue of Leshan, Sichuan, China
Reason
The Leshan Giant Buddha is an 8th-century Tang-dynasty (618-907 AD) rock sculpture carved into the cliff face at Leshan, Sichuan province, China. Since its completion in 803 AD, it remains the largest stone-carved image of the Buddha in the world. This image violates no mandatory criteria for FP status that I know of, and is 1,024 × 768 pixels in size.
Oppose Great subject, not so great photo. Looks to have been taken at a less-than-ideal time of day and is of very borderline resolution: 1000px is an absolute minimum and shots like this generally need to be much bigger to qualify. --mikaultalk 11:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unfortunately the 2.0 licensed images that are available at Flickr really stink. You may be surprised to find out that this is one of the better ones available! There are better pics of the Leshan Buddha at Flickr, but none of them have a Creative Commons free license.--Pericles of AthensTalk 12:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per mikaul. reproducible shots like this need to be higher quality. Cacophony (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The file has just been updated to the original, slightly higher resolution after a request.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! It is now 1,600 × 1,200 pixels in size. I hope the reviewers will reconsider.--Pericles of AthensTalk 12:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose very valuable image, but I can not support with the blown out sky and purple fringing at the top of the image. Regards. —Krm500(Communicate!) 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've seen a few Giant Buddha in my own time, so I think something similar is repeatable. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Maybe VP, not sure it would pass there either, to be honest. ceranthor 13:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wuzhun Shifan (1178–1249 AD) was a Chinese Zen (Chan 禪) Buddhist monk who lived during the Chinese Song Dynasty period. One of his many disciples was the Japanese monk Enni, who brought his teachings to Japan. Wuzhun's portrait is now housed at Tōfuku-ji in Kyoto, Japan. This classic portrait painting in the chan style shows Wuzhun seated in his monastic robes while holding a whisk. This image violates no mandatory FP criteria that I know of and is 1,576 × 1,937 pixels in size.
Weak support Lovely portrait but a poor reproduction. It's such a good example but marred by what appears to be upsampling..? Viewed at under 1000px it's ok, just not very detailed. I don't hold out much hope for its FP chances, sorry to say. A better scan would pass easily. --mikaultalk 11:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A panoramic painting showing the Chinese Jiajing Emperor (1522-1566 AD) traveling through the countryside with a huge cavalry escort and an elephant-driven carriage.
Reason
HOLY SHIT, BATMAN! Pardon my French, good sirs, but this painting is simply bad ass to the max. It reminds me of these two featured pictures of Chinese panoramas here and here. This Ming Dynasty panoramic Chinese painting shows the Xuande Emperor's (r. 1425-1435 AD) very lavish procession through the countryside, complete with armed cavalry, tall military banners, large sedan chairs being carried by teams of men, and gigantic carriages driven by teams of elephants and horses. It is 24,894 × 870 pixels in size, for those who like incredibly lengthy images.
Support Superb. I'd love to see this in more detail but there are understandable limitations here. A shame there are some breaks in the silk but this is a very good digitisation. Great find. --mikaultalk 11:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say, Spencer is quite right about the stitching errors. That'll teach me to review noms after bedtime :o/ For those interested, it seems to involve both sides of a single frame about 1600px from the right. A real shame as that's just carelessness on the part of the archivist and would be easy to fix from the original files. --mikaultalk 23:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obvious stitching errors, and a strange line of pixels running along the top. SpencerT♦Nominate! 17:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, current usage (how small it is) in Xuande Emperor, where it has the most EV, is really not-so-good. Perhaps scrolling and a larger height would be better? SpencerT♦Nominate! 17:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the issue of it being too small in the Xuande Emperor article by giving it its own section where it can be displayed as a larger image. As for stitching errors and the line of pixels at the top, let me see what I can do. I will contact someone who is good with image manipulation.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the brown line per request. I'm not too sure that the vertical lines are stitching errors, they might as well be in the original painting, depending on the material and how it was stored. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the vertical lines are indeed stitching errors. If you look closely, in one case, the branches of a tree do not line up correctly. SpencerT♦Nominate! 14:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that sucks. Too bad. It's a beautiful painting.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - HMS Warrior (1860) pictured with the tide in
Reason
Self nom. The subject of the photo is of considerable significance. The second ironclad propper to be built and and the oldest to survive. I don't think the photo breaches any mandatory FP criteria. The angle of the sun in this case was such that it doesn't suffer the blown-out highlights issue that File:HMS Warrior (1860)2008.jpg suffers from. The resolution exceeds FP requirements and is high enough to show the detail of the rigging. I also think the angle works better than the view more to the side such as File:HMS warrior1860june2009fromside.jpg
Weak Support Slightly blured especially around flags, but otherwise a very good picture for a historic ship. Gazhiley (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a good, but not remarkable, photo of a highly accessible ship (it's part of a major tourist attraction which is a couple of hours train trip from London). The modern craft in the foreground and the clouds behind the rigging are distracting and I imagine that they're not there all the time. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked my photos of Warrior from my visit to the ship in April 2006 and they were there at that time as well. On the other hand, there must be times where there are at least less boats present (Saturday afternoons in summer perhaps?). Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry to oppose but this image isn't particularly striking - I prefer File:HMS Warrior (1860)2008.jpg in that respect. While there are no blown highlighs the hull is so dark as to lose much of the detail. The multiple boats around it is unfortunate, though probably unavoidable as you say. Images are held to a very high standard when they are reproducible and I feel this falls foul of that. |→ Spaullyτ13:21, 28 June 2009 (GMT)
Support as nominator --Fir0002 03:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Support while sharpness is somewhat there, the ID is too broad and should be narrowed to at least the genus. The face, which is an important factor of an insect, is obscured, but I can't blame you, they are obviously pollinators. Bug or insect? = EV. ZooFari 01:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I only provided the common name "Yellow Flower Wasp" - added better ID info --Fir0002 04:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. There is no genus page for that ID. I'll create one right now... ZooFari 04:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm personally I find them quite different because here a composition choice meant that part of the head was obscured whereas in your example it appears the head is OOF as a result of photographer error. At any rate I've got an alt with more of the head visible --Fir0002 23:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the alternative the same species? They look totally different. ZooFari 00:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if they're the same species (although they could be as I'm sure there is natural variation between specimens) but they are in the same genus --Fir0002 09:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - For the original, very illustrative, excellent detail, color balance and resolution. - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_. -- 02:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support both, high EV.--Caspian blue 05:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support either with preference for alternative given the head is not as obscured. Good macro - DOF and detail is good. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative, neutral original --Muhammad(talk) 18:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supprt Alt1 - the two bugs look quite distinct from one another; are we sure of the ID? Matt Deres (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt only, the original has the head obscured and dodgy white balance. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question How big was the fly? Why is the image res small compared to your other images. --Muhammad(talk) 10:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was cropped a bit. I seem to have misplaced the raw, so this may be as big as it gets. It is 16 pixels narrower than all of fir's images, and 9 pixels shorter, just to put it in perspective. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was just wondering why the resolution was small since these flies tend to be around 1-2cm. I moved the image to the taxobox --Muhammad(talk) 19:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is the WB so warm? Sunset or filter? Seems warmer than the headless moth shot... --Fir0002 00:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The moth was in the shade. This was in the fairly low sun. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Edit 1 Assuming WB was naturally caused by low sunlight then it's a decent picture. However I'm not that keen on the boot foreground and the DOF/sharpness seems somehow lacking. From an empirical guess at the focus plane and the DOF at f/11 it does seem that the mouthparts should have been in focus...? --Fir0002 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you have such low sunlight at 14.33 ? Richard Bartz (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most plausible explanation is that the time was set wrong on the camera. MER-C 11:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even still, anyone can post an edit. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support (of either one) per Fir0002. The boot forground detracts modestly from a very attractive shot.--ragesoss (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted No quorum. --wadester16 04:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Liaodi Pagoda, built in 1055 AD; at 84 m (275 ft) in height, it is China's tallest premodern pagoda.
Reason
The Liaodi Pagoda of Dingzhou, Hebei, built in 1055 AD during the Song Dynasty, is the tallest premodern Chinese pagoda. Ten centuries after its completion, it still stands at a height of 84 m (275 ft). This is an excellent picture of the pagoda, taken at a perfectly bright and sunny time of day. As far as I know it violates no FP mandatory criteria and is 2,736 × 3,648 pixels in size for those who just won't settle for smaller pictures.
Comment It looks over exposed to me... Time3000 (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perfectly adequate photo, but the composition is a bit dull. So, not exciting enough to be FP basically. Stevage 15:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artifacts and blown highlights. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above except I'm less worried about the composition. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 00:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there someone who might supply a species ID? Not essential but would be good. |→ Spaullyτ18:18, 28 June 2009 (GMT)
Unfortunately that's as good as I can get from a photo --Fir0002 23:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I only found one (dodgily) attributed photo in looking for evidence of Ceriana ornata, which doesn't exist according to the WP article, so I don't know which is right. |→ Spaullyτ23:49, 28 June 2009 (GMT)
Suport. Illustrative and good photo. |→ Spaullyτ23:49, 28 June 2009 (GMT)
Support - Very unusual, high EV, excellent focus and hard to take. - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_. -- 02:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Nice one, I wish the wings were slow enough so that they wouldn't be blurred! ceranthor 13:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to weak per the gleam evident on the abdomen and thorax. ceranthor 21:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol, may I ask what made you deem that "gleam" was undesirable? Don't you think real life objects exhibit reflective properties? :P --Fir0002 08:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I share the same sentiment about the wings, but I wouldn't hold that against the nomination. An excellent photo.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Acceptable that the wings may be out of focus but IMO the abdomen and thorax should be well focused for a FP. --Muhammad(talk) 18:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the abdomen and thorax are in focus... aren't they? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 12:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The angle (slightly from behind) combined with the foreground out-of-focus wing make this a somewhat uncomfortable composition, in my view.--ragesoss (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent EV in Mimicry makes up for any technical weaknesses. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not that keen on the angle, but the lighting and sharpness is good. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 12:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Branch of Flowering White Jasmine, 12th century, Song Dynasty
Reason
This album leaf painting of ink and color on silk is attributed to the early 12th century Song Dynasty Chinese artist Zhao Chang. It is now located in the Shanghai Museum in China. As far as I know, it violates no FP mandatory criteria and it is at a safe size of 2,024 × 1,961 pixels.
Oppose Beautiful image, but not sharp enough for FP and the cropping is also unsatisfactory in my viewpoint. Sorry.--Caspian blue
??? Cropping? You are aware that this image is supposed to be rounded, as it is a leaf-album painting (a popular style in China during the 12th to 13th century).--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A panorama of Moshi town in Tanzania as seen from the Zebra Hotel. Mt Kilimanjaro can be see in the background.Edit1 -Decreased brightness of foregroundEdit2 -Suggestion for projection
Reason
Good quality, colours and EV. The only image in the Moshi article which shows the townscape. Background Mt Kilimanjaro also adds a sense of location. FWIW, even the inhabitants of Moshi had not seen such a view prior to this.
Support lovely panorama with high EV. —Krm500(Communicate!) 23:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak SupportSupport Edit 1. The foreground seems a bit overexposed and there is a fairly clear line where (I assume) you've darkened the background. I can sympathise as it looks like the background/sky could have been hazy/overexposed without it, but I think it would benefit from having a more subtle transition and darker foreground. Nice view with good EV though. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 22:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got an edit ready and have spent the last four hours uploading it but it's not yet done. --Muhammad(talk) 11:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good improvement, looks much better now. How awful that it takes 4+ hours to upload 1.6mb though. ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It took much longer and ultimately failed. I had to restart the upload some time later :( --Muhammad(talk) 19:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not terribly keen with the projection used on the buildings - too much of a curve/lean developing at the edges. I've uploaded a rough edit to show how I'd have liked the projection to look - but you'd really need to apply the warping to the original to maintain quality... --Fir0002 08:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Outstanding resolution and angle of choice (support for the second variation (edit1), the others no). - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_. -- 14:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support edit 1. It's a great image, I just wish a little more of foreground was included.--ragesoss (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Moshi panorama edit1.jpg --wadester16 05:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - From NASA: Image of sand dunes in Rub' al Khali, Arabia's "empty quarter". Acquired by the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer, or ASTER, aboard NASA's Terra Earth-orbiting satellite. Brown regions are sand dunes. Gray regions are the underlying gravel plains. Parallel dunes are typically separated by 1 to 1.5 miles.
Reason
Aesthetically pleasing view of a remote region of the planet. High quality, high res, px-level detail.
Support as nominator -- deBivort 21:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It isn't clear what the lighter coloured areas are though. Please update the caption to inform us. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Needs scale (or, at a bare minimum, some kind of description in the caption as to how large these features are, or the size of the area covered by the photo). Spikebrennan (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that a potential food source adds any EV, but at any rate the eucalypt in this photo fulfils this role anyway: File:Little wattlebird looking for food.jpg (I think it's eating the white scale). I suppose lighting is a bit subjective but not sure what your concerns are here..? If you want it lighter or darker that's easily done. Uses morning sunlight which seems pretty aesthetic to me (eg this uses pretty similar lighting). --Fir0002 09:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything more specific? wadester16 04:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a wild bird - this is its habitat. They don't naturally sit on isolated branches waiting for their photo to be taken, they try blend in. --Fir0002 09:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some leaves in the foreground left part hindering, and the contrast between the color of the tree´s branches and sheets and the bird´s body color is somewhat weird (well... maybe not much). - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_. -- 15:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again I'd like to point that argument really has no place on en.wikipedia where EV is very highly weighted. It's simply a reality that certain animals do not naturally expose themselves but blend in with their environment. A quick look through the mammal FPs gives plenty of examples where part of the animals is obstructed because of the environment [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Also not sure what you mean by the tree's "sheets" or any potential contrast issues? --Fir0002 07:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those other examples are less obstructed (better than this image in my opinion). - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_. -- 14:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unfortunate that a few of the leaves are overlapping the bird, but as Fir said, that's the environment and if it were in a clearer setting, there would be those who'd complain that it was too sterile. No win situation on FPC sometimes. Fir, when are we going to see 5D Mk2 shots?? :-) or slightly higher res images for that matter. Not all of your photos are commercially attractive, so you could potentially upload higher res without jeopardising sales. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 22:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A 5D shot has already appeared by accident but I've got 9 months or so of 20D photos to get through before I start uploading Mk II :) That said I'm planning to upload a Mk II shot on a particular date as I've hinted previously... --Fir0002 05:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution benefits of the 5D Mk II are largely wasted when you upload at 1600x1067 though, but that portrait is nice and crisp, it must be said. ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality shot with fine EV. I like NS's shot too. They're both FP-worthy IMO. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plate IV - The Bellman's Map: Fit the Second. (Original scan)
Plate V - Fit the Third: "But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day, If your Snark be a Boojum! For then You will softly and suddenly vanish away, And never be met with again!" (Original scan)
Plate VI - Fit the Fifth: They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care; They persued it with forks and hope; They threatened its life with a railway-share; They charmed it with smiles and soap. (Original scan)
Plate VII - Fit the Fifth: The Beaver brought paper, portfolio, pens, And ink in unfailing supplies: While strange creepy creatures came out of their dens, And watched them with wondering eyes. ( Original scan)
Plate VIII - Fit the Sixth: The Barrister's Dream. (Original scan)
Plate IX - Fit the Seventh: The Banker's Fate. After being attacked by a Bandersnatch: He was black in the face, and they scarcely could trace The least likeness to what he had been: While so great was his fright that his waistcoat turned white-- A wonderful thing to be seen! (Original scan)
Plate X - Fit the Tenth In the midst of the word he was trying to say In the midst of his laughter and glee, He had softly and suddenly vanished away-- For the Snark was a Boojum, you see. (Original scan)
Reason
These engravings were created with Lewis Carroll's assistance and approval, which makes them have very high encyclopedic value for the poem. They are all restored images. See above for the rest. This is a featured picture set nomination.
Comment please state clearly in the nomination that these are restored images and provide links to the corresponding unrestored filenames. Durova273 featured contributions 02:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The arrangement of the images is not good for viewers, l would you reduce the image sizes a bit and rearrange them for better looking? But overall those are interesting and good in shape.--Caspian blue 05:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The images are currently arranged in order, as the set would also follow in the order (as intended as illustrations for the poem). What size would you suggest that they be changed to? The current size fits within my browser with extra space (2 per line). Is this different for other browsers? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a gallery would be more helpful. This takes up a lot of space. wadester16 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions on the format moved to the talk page since I have no reason to bear Ottava Rima's incivility.--Caspian blue 01:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, Featured Sets usually don't go over well. I'm not saying this because I don't want to close a set, just giving you the historical heads up. You may be better off doing these one by one. Dropping 10 in one nom, when it's sometimes hard to get enough votes on one image, probably won't work well. Theoretically, a reviewer must devote 10 times as much time into reviewing this than a regular nom. Sometimes it's just too much. (BTW, while I appreciate the humor in Plate IV, I feel it has little chance of passing...) Oh, and by a gallery, I meant <gallery>...</gallery> wadester16 03:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are a set and only have historical value as a set. And if Plate IV doesn't past, then the set is disrupted. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Just offering my 2¢. Note we have manyengravings from novels that appear alone; typically they give the best overview of the piece of writing. But it's your decision. wadester16 04:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Put into gallery. I couldn't get the poetry to work - it doesn't like HTML line breaks - but the text is still there for someone else to clean up. HereToHelp(talk to me) 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The poetry part was the reason why it wasn't converted to gallery, by the way. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Durova273 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There, I've fixed the damn thing so the poetry displays. However, I don't really feel like coming back to FPC yet, so I'm not going to vote. Unless this entire page gets filled with even more arguing and idiocy over picture arrangement - It runs for a week, people. Endless manipulation of the gallery format, at the cost of actual reviews, is neither useful, nor helpful. - in which case, I shall vote to have all of you hit in the face with a pie. Every day. For the rest of your lives. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better; thanks. Oh, and I prefer blueberry. wadester16 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Delightful set.--ragesoss (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pictures don't have great EV in the article. They aren't really integrated well at all. There's probably enough EV for some of them, but not enough to promote the whole lot. These would no doubt fare better if only the best was nominated. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how there is a section devoted to "illustrations" and they are a set that can only be understood in a whole and are a possible aid in understanding a very complex poem (as pointed out in the article), I question if you have actually looked at the article. As such, your oppose is negated as not actually dealing with the reality of the situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Really? I did look at the article before I voted, and I stand by my comments. All those pictures in that section are quite distracting. The section isn't really about the illustrations anyway; rather, it's about whether the illustrations are faithful to the text. Like I said, one or two of them probably have the exceptional EV required to be FP, but not all of them. Plate 4, for example, certainly doesn't add to the article. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a section discussing the illustrations - which were published witht he first edition and almost every edition thereafter until modern times (when publishing books stripped of their illustrations became common) but you don't feel that having all the original illustrations, compiled with Lewis Carroll's approval, adds encyclopedic value, adds encyclopedic value? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plate 4 is 100% essential to the text - the author wanted that plate because it shows the humor and carries the levity into the illustrations. It distinguishes the pictures as an addition to the work that compliments it and not just mimics it. The illustrations are obviously notable on their own and as a set. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Props to Showmaker's Holiday. NW(Talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't imagine a better version of this. Well done.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - wish you got could get the stem in focus, though. :) ceranthor 12:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to be an atypical species of Celosia which according to the article are characterised by "woolly flower heads" - this appears absent in your shot. Thus the EV doesn't seem terrible high for the article. Also the bar being high for flower shots I'd have expected a focus stack to make the stem in focus - DOF at f/9 is just too shallow. The spider + web is also a distraction. --Fir0002 03:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The woolyflower heads I think appear in the mature phase of the flower as I had seen them growing as well. The one depicted here is probably an immature one yet to develop the cockscombs. IMO spider and web part of the view. If it's how it appeared IRL, why should it be a problem? --Muhammad(talk) 07:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also compared to this recently promoted FP, the DOF is ok --Muhammad(talk) 17:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Per Fir0002, the chosen angle combined with the limited focus depth, plus a composition that feels unbalanced to me, tips the balanced in light of the high standards we expect of flowers.--ragesoss (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A 360 degree view from the middle of 'striding edge' near the summit of Helvellyn in the Lake District. Helvellyn is the tallest summit just to the right of centre. Red Tarn is the small lake on the right, Catstye Cam is the fell directly behind Red Tarn, and Ullswater and the village of Glenridding is visible on the horizon along the far left corner.
Reason
It's a complete 360 degree view of the mountain range in the north-west of the Lake District, taken from a classic and interesting arête on the approach to the summit. It's very high resolution and detailed, and taken on about as lovely a day as is possible in England. :-)
Support It looks heavenly. A near perfect panoramic image.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. How do you manage to get such a good coloured and exposed sky? --Muhammad(talk) 18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With a circular polarising filter, a really clear, crisp day, and some messing around with the exposure of the individual frames so that they blended properly. ;-) It's still not perfect, but I'm happy enough with it. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 19:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question How do you avoid banding using a polariser over such a wide angle of view? Do you rotate the filter as you go around? 124.187.249.231 (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did rotate it as I went around, yeah. Otherwise you get banding, as you say. There will still be inconsistencies in the sky with this method, but I fixed them with adjustments in lightroom on each individual frame as needed. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not really a fan of 360° panoramas. IMHO, two separate cuts (one of the valley, one of the lake) would work better and be much more useful. Presumably you were standing on a ridge, with the lake on one side, and the valley on the other, but you really don't get that sense from the 360° view. OTOH, the resolution and sharpness are awesome, so anyone could crop it and get a good result. Meh, I'm probably being too picky. Stevage 09:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, but as long as the viewer understands that what they're looking at is a much wider view than human eyes can see (even if it's more difficult to visualise spacially), I don't know if two separate images could really match it for EV. A 360 degree view shows the interrelatedness of the whole scene, for want of a better word. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I did a quick crop test here showing just the valley, and as expected, I find it a much more satisfying image to look at. It's sort of the difference between looking at a photo and looking at a CAT scan. Yes, the CAT scan technically contains more information, but the photo is more pleasant to look at. (Just as an aside, I take quite a lot of panoramas, but I've never had one more than about 180° that I particularly liked. You always end up with boring bits, or stuff you'd rather crop out, though you're exceptionally lucky on both fronts here.) Stevage 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same first impression but quickly remembered two things: first, a 360 pano never looks good in 2 dimensions. You need a proper image viewer to do it real justice but, if it's a good capture, simply scrolling horizontally should be just like being at the scene yourself, turning full-circle to take in the view. The second thing was recalling being there myself as a hugely intimidated schoolkid, a 10kg lump of quartzite in my rucksack, braced against a howling gale, taking in the same view, albeit with much less visibility. Nah, this is an awesome capture. Support although personally I'd crop 350px off the top. --mikaultalk 13:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Question At the very top of the image, approximately two fifths of the way from the left side there are some odd streaks of white and greenish blue. I'm assuming they're various reflections of sunbeams (off the filter?) - is there a way to remove them? I love these landscape shots and vote to Support, but would prefer not to have those distractions if they're an artifact of the apparatus. Matt Deres (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lens flare, surely. I thought about mentioning it too. Could be cloned, or just cropped. Stevage 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, lens flare. I think I'll just crop it out, as I agree with Mick that it wouldn't hurt to crop the sky slightly which would also make the top of the clouds look less stretched. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to a graphics program right now to check, but I'd be careful about cropping too much. It's true the clouds look a little off, but the ratio of sky to land right now looks very good. Is cloning or retouching a possibility or not feasible? Matt Deres (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Must have been quite a bit of burning and dodging if you used a polariser. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much dodging and burning as applying graduated filter local adjustments using Lightroom to the frames. Then Smartblend did the rest. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice image and scenery and unbelievably good weather (in England), but the switching stitched work is a bit unnatural.--Caspian blue 16:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Switching? You mean stitching? In what sense is it unnatural? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 16:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..typo, so I fix it. It is hard to describe it in English for me. That is basically agreeing with Stevage's opinion.--Caspian blue 17:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant clarity - I've spent enough time up in the Lakes in my life to know that clarity like this doesn't happen too often... Any chance you are planning a trip up Melbreak anytime soon? The view up the Buttermeer valley, and towards the coast in the other direction is breathtaking... Gazhiley (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does look pretty spectacular. Haven't got any plans to visit again anytime soon as it's a good 6 hour drive from London, but I'd like to go back in Autumn. I'll keep that peak in mind. :-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent detail and commendable lighting. I particularly like the inclusion of the two hikers to give a sense of scale. --Fir0002 06:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance we could get an equirectangular (spherical) projection of this image? This looks cylindrical, spherical would work better in the Panoramaviewer. --Dschwen 19:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality, high resolution and breathtaking view. Andrew18@ 15:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Helvellyn Striding Edge 360 Panorama, Lake District - June 09.jpg --wadester16 14:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A scholar in a meadow, 11th century, Song Dynasty, China
Reason
An 11th-century Chinese painting of the Song Dynasty, painted by an anonymous artist, of a scholar in a meadow (possibly depicting the 4th-century poet Tao Yuanming); this image violates no FP mandatory criteria that I know of and is 1,256 x 2,070 pixels in size.
Oppose. Resolution is not sufficient to reproduce all the important detail of the subject.--ragesoss (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm forced to agree with Ragesoss. Although this is larger than the minimum, it isn't large enough to portray all of the detail at a nice size and with a good enough sharpness. In addition, it could also use some restoration. SpencerT♦Nominate! 01:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Empress Li, wife of Emperor Zhenzong of Song (r. 997-1022 AD)Just as a reference, here is a different upload of the same painting, although it is much darker and smaller (at 800 × 1,143 pixels)
Reason
The official Song Dynasty court portrait painting of the Chinese Empress Li, wife of Emperor Zhenzong of Song (r. 997-1022 AD), sitting at her throne and wearing her finest silks, a crown, and some very unique (or, dare I say, bizarre) ceremonial facial make-up; this image violates no FP criteria that I know of and is 1,755 × 2,589 pixels in size.
Excellent! This is technically not the first support I've ever gotten for a FPC, but the first one was eventually withdrawn from another nomination (due to stitching errors). I'm glad you liked the image! Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't lose hope. Most FPC regulars probably have a majority of their FPC noms fail to be promoted. There's a learning curve. Your batch of nominations certainly have EV, but we're sticklers for the other technical stuff as well. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support another book scan, more visible halftone... like the other portrait down the page a bit, it's a really good subject and just needs half-decent repro to blow me away. The original work is pretty much life-size at 1.5m high, so instead I'm left longing for the wealth of missing detail. --mikaultalk 13:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's understandable, but Google images apparently does not have anything better to offer than this nominated version here. Until someone takes a masterpiece photograph of this painting, this is perhaps the best image of it available online.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The scan just doesn't reproduce the level of detail of the original, and the halftoning also detracts. As Spikebrennan says, though, don't give up!. --ragesoss (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently I'm not too good at judging these things. I'm afraid that anything I propose will just get swatted down! Especially these paintings; all of them seem to have at least one defect or drawback which is unacceptable to reviewers here.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Lofty Mount Lu, by Chinese artist Shen Zhou, 15th century
Reason
Lofty Mount Lu, by Shen Zhou (1427-1509 AD), a Chinese painter of the Ming Dynasty, who decided to depict Mount Lu in this most famous painting of his. If you look close enough, you'll see a tiny figure of a man strolling about in the painting; like Waldo, you should try to find him! (Hint: he blends in well). Lol. This picture violates no FP criteria that I'm aware of, and is 908 × 1,806 pixels in size.
Question. Is the Chinese text legible? Is a translation available? Spikebrennan (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I am only a 2nd-year speaker and writer of Chinese (中文 and 漢字, respectively), so I can only make out a few characters. It is especially hard to read it because I believe it is written in traditional or Literary Chinese (文言). Let me go see if I can get a translation of this. Thanks for showing interest!--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found it! Well, not a direct translation, but the gist of it at least. From this online source, quote: "This painting was produced when [Shen Zhou] was forty one to celebrate the longevity of his master Ch'en K'uan. According to the epigraph composed by himself, the main peak of Mount Lu represents his master whom he reveres. The work is a masterpiece in which Shen Chou's art is condensed." Just a note: the spelling "Shen Chou" here is Wade-Giles, not Pinyin.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Judging this against similar featured content it's really quite small. Is there any chance of a bigger version? --mikaultalk 13:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent question. Doing a quick Google image search shows that there are other versions online, but most are either much smaller, or only a tad bit larger but of lesser quality (i.e. paler, less refined). I do believe this is the best available image of this painting on the net. It is sharp, clear, and the lighting is perfect.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your rationale but the big issue here is actual reproduction quality, not a representation of what happens to be available online. The original is almost certainly a magnificent piece, all of 2m tall and (apparently, though it's far from clear) very well painted. Here it would barely print out at the size of this thumbnail. If a work of art is to not only represent itself well, but also the encyclopedia, we need a much better reproduction than this. It's for this reason that we don't have FPs of most of the major classic western paintings, for example. Not your fault, just the way it is. --mikaultalk 22:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The size is okay and is beyond the requirement for FP, but I'd like to see a sharper image than the current one (or, the nominator could adjust it with Photoshop) Caspian blue 16:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Caspian blue (don't forget to sign your name when voting! ~~~~). I have this "Photo Impression" thing on my computer, but I never use it and am not very good with touching up photos. I'll leave that to the pros! As I am certainly below an amateur in that department. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added my forgotten sig and time stamp, and removed the unnecessary bold marks from your calling since I'm not a subject of the page. :) Well, until somebody fixs the problem, I stick to "Weak support".--Caspian blue 16:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zoomorphic Chinese guardian spirits of day and night, clothed in Chinese silk robes, paintings on ceramic tile, dated to the Han Dynasty (202 BC - 220 AD); on the left is the guardian of midnight (from 11 pm to 1 am) and on the right is the guardian of morning (from 5 to 7 am). This image violates no FP criteria that I am aware of and is 1,208 × 1,140 pixels in size.
Oppose. Badly cropped (parts of the figures are cut off) and jpeggy. Is this a scan of an illustration from a book? Spikebrennan (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question The cropping is unfortunate, but I'm more concerned about the copyright status. A scan from a book would probably be alright if the photographer made no attempt at originality, but I'm not sure photos of three dimensional objects like tiles are so straightforward. Can someone more knowledgeable about such things please comment? Matt Deres (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had this conversation before with User:Jappalang, and it was determined at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Han Dynasty/archive1 that this image is in fact 2-dimensional and flat. That is how the Han Dynasty article (in one way) passed its nomination for featured status. A 2-dimensional, flat image of ancient artwork is public domain. The book which this image is featured in, Robert Temple's The Genius of China (1986), provides nothing in the caption for this image to suggest that it is a raised-relief image, and only states that it is a painting on ceramic tile. The tile in the image is obviously flat, and although the etched painting lines might suggest a raised image, another verifiable source would be needed to prove this.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was less concerned about copyright status and more concerned about the grainy halftone from the book scan. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – scans from books need to be of incredibly good quality (both scan and original plate) to be FP-quality and this is quite a bit short of both marks, I'm afraid. --mikaultalk 13:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's too bad. Perhaps I need to buy a different scanner?--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best scanner in the world isn't going to improve the halftoning in the book. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good quality, DOF, EV and lighting considering it was taken in a pretty dark space between a rock and a stream. Wide crop shows the Web decorations, the spider and the web.
Support Good shot - my only (minor) gripe is that I'd have been happier with more detail on the centre and less of the surrounding web (which is quite uninteresting) --Fir0002 05:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with PericlesofAthens.--Caspian blue 16:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it was a bit sharper it could have been shot of the month for me. Fascinating subject, great context with the web structure in there; lighting is ideal to illustrate the camo effect of the decoration. Superb. --mikaultalk 13:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High EV, detail and illustrates a very original thing. - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_. -- 15:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saw an orb weaver like this last year, but only had my 400 on me. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Argiope sp.jpg --wadester16 14:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note This nomination was incomplete...It was transcluded to WP:FPC at 19:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Featured on commons, appears in several articles with moderate-to-high encyclopedic value. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 19:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWow. That is a superb image. Some of the darker areas are hard to make out, but overall this is an awesome scene.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Shooting against the light is a bad idea photographically so it is a poor illustration for the landscape. Although the wave clouds are somewhat redeeming the composition is too landscape heavy for it to be an effective illustration of the clouds and I like File:Wave cloud.jpg much better --Fir0002 05:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - compare it to the other image in Tadrart Acacus which has an awesome composition. By comparison, the composition in this one is just "nice", with unpleasant fringing on the left of the central column, and very noisy shadows. Looks pretty good in thumbnail, but not so good at full res. No qualms about shooting into the sun, other than that it has caused those effects. Stevage 08:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fir. A lens hood would have helped. ZooFari 16:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - there are issues with fringing and noise, but the problems are not huge and (IMO) are offset by the composition and atmosphere; EV is there in any case. Matt Deres (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, the main subject in the picture is "clouds", so I think its EV is quite good.--Caspian blue 16:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to know how you determined the clouds were the main subject given that it's not even mentioned in the caption and until today didn't appear on the image description page... --Fir0002 09:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, viewing and anticipating differ from people to people because people's evaluation is subjective. At first, I saw the image, all I thought of "the clouds", not the whole scenery, I also have seen "dramatic images" taken against lights by professional photographers for artistic values, so I could not agree with your opinion.--Caspian blue 13:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support but I think the caption could be improved; the clouds certainly ought to be mentioned since they contribute a lot to the EV. Time3000 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fir. It's niether one thing nor the other. I can kind of see why it was featured on commons, where the image itself is all that matters, but actually image quality isn't that hot either. --mikaultalk 13:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Wow, I wish i could be there. Very good, but as Fir0002 and ZooFari said, it could be not dark (just a bit) and a lens hood would be helpful. - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_. -- 15:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I meant to post this yesterday, but I guess I forgot to press "Save". Would anyone with image-editing skills be willing to lighten up the dark areas just a tad? That seems to be the principle "Oppose" reason, and at full-resolution the detail is apparent, so I don't think it needs too much editing (to keep from violating the spirit of FP). -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 15:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support image has strong visual appeal and is very useful to the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted Image quality seems to be lacking and the arguments brought by Fir0002 are extremely compelling. By raw numbers, this nom gets 6.5 S/3.5 O (65%): borderline, but I feel obligated to not pass this due to no consensus. --wadester16 05:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Pied Oystercatcher strolling along the shorelineEdit 2 by Fir0002 - reduced exposure, off centre cropEdit 3 by Fir0002 - tufuse exposure blend, off centre crop
Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wonderful background. ceranthor 11:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose The feet, or rather the talons, are sort of cut off from view in this picture. Other than that, it is lovely.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A shot that managed to get every little bit of the animal would be great, but I don't think the lack of feet here is a particularly glaring omission. Matt Deres (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, sharpness and DOF. --Muhammad(talk) 16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Overall good quality and high EV, but the composition in which the bird is centered is not satisfying in my viewpoint.--Caspian blue 02:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just about the entire beak is blown, making it a funny orange colour. Reprocess it though and I'd probably support. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed in edit - note that as per the article it should be an orange colour! --Fir0002 09:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mean to be an ass, but the edit is really dark. Can't you just do a highlight reduction rather than adjust the exposure outright? Noodle snacks (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Highlight reduction affects the water as well but hopefully edit 2 is more to your liking. I suppose I could do a exposure blend in PS but I suspect that will introduce haloes... --Fir0002 03:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use tufuse or something - that doesn't usually introduce haloes. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or better still, just brighten parts selectively. Assuming you shot it in RAW (I hope you did), you could save it as a 16 bit file and dodge as required without introducing artifacts and posterisation. Just an idea anyway. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 12:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The edited image is not "fixed" for the reason that NS pointed out, so I still prefer the bright original image.--Caspian blue 14:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The tufuse job. For those that are interested oyster catchers don't generally eat oysters. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the tufuse version (edit 3) even darker than the previous one though? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true really. Ideally it'd appear as the first one but with a slight bit of highlight reduction. Perhaps the beak is much more blown than you might think though, hence the darkness. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Pied Oystercatcher on beach.jpg Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the preference is for the original. --wadester16 05:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning oppose - Why does it seem that the head is out of focus? ceranthor 11:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Head is in focus - the back of the head/start of thorax is slightly OOF due to being on a higher focal plane. Simply a limitation of the DOF available at f/11 - which is the largest practical DOF available. --Fir0002 08:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shallow DOF compared to your other images. The end of the insect is out of focus as well. ZooFari 16:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above - there are practical and physical limits to DOF. The angle was chosen to maximise the amount of body in focus and it was shot to the "f/11 macro standard" which has developed on FPC --Fir0002 08:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apart from the out of focus areas, the size is pretty small compared to other insect FPs once the empty space is cropped out. --Muhammad(talk) 16:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being a longicorn beetle its long antennae are a very important feature of the insect so can hardly be characterised as "empty space" - in that respect its is very similar to this shot --Fir0002 08:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the antennae lead to the image having so much empty space and since the beetle is quite big you could upload a larger resolution to compensate for that. --Muhammad(talk) 08:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The extra 200px of background this had didn't add anything to the image so IMO its a fairly pointless gesture... --Fir0002 09:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Focus a bit off the mark. Stevage 23:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I would have preferred a larger resolution for an insect this big. --Muhammad(talk) 11:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Good composition. I accept Fir's take on the limitations here and think the focus is acceptable. Maedin\talk 12:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Photochrom of Kingstown harbor, the main port for Saint Vincent
Reason
Durova really should get credit for this nomination, but I figured since this was sitting in the restoration collection, it should be nominated. Highly encyclopedic, for one. I only added it to the articles below today because it was sitting in the aforementioned collection of images.
Oppose Source link is still broken. Durova273 15:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's ok, not the best photochrom we have and not a staggeringly good image to start with, but enough EV to carry it, I think. --mikaultalk 13:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good resolution for such kind of image. - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_. -- 15:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't see the EV for this. A recent photo could illustrate the articles much better. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obvious encyclopedic value and a great historical image. No recent photo could ever replace this or come close. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A recent photo. ceranthor 18:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so that photo is pretty bad. But I stand by my assertion. I fail to see what the historic photo gives us that a good recent one would not. It's not like either article has a history section. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it's possible to still make changes at this point, but I'd like to withdraw my oppose. The nominator addressed the concerns at the end of the candidacy period. Durova275 23:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not... exactly. But I fixed it now.In any case, there's a whole lot of problems with this nomination: The image is downsampled, and, perhaps more importantly, is located in a completely different continent. I've done a restoration and restarted the nomination with the images accurately placed in Dublin, Ireland. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. Not that it matters, but this is one of the toughest restorations I've ever done. Durova273 featured contributions 02:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I looked at this several hours ago when Durova put this up, and though she had been saying on Skype how hard it was for the past several days, I had to say I had no idea that there was that much to do. But Durova, as always, did a marvelous job, and I hope that this will be the first of several Vinckeboons featured pictures. NW(Talk) 03:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good restoration, and really shows how mysterious California was. Time3000 (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just a great map, love the slick shading and deft hand. Great find. --mikaultalk 13:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's awesome! Very encyclopedic and it totally reminds me of Escape from L.A. and how an earthquake separated Los Angeles from the mainland. Lol.
Original - George Washington (later the first United States President) resigns his post as Commander-in-Chief in December 1783
Reason
An 1824 painting by John Trumbull of then General George Washington formally resigning as Commander-in-Chief at the Maryland State House in Annapolis, December 23, 1783, shortly after the American Revolutionary War; this painting violates no FP criteria and is 3,000 × 1,962 pixels in size.
Conditional support. A fine image of an iconic painting. It needs more detail on the description page: medium and dimensions, current location and owner, whatever details about provenance are known, etc. --ragesoss (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily suspended while the request is carried out. This seems to have delayed all voting on the nom. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, totally forgot about this (figured it would just fail like the others anyway). I added info on the medium, dimensions, current location, and other details about its dating. Is everything fine now?--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A mass of intergrown pyrite crystals. Pyrite is commonly known as fool's gold.Alt - Greater magnification
Reason
I realise posting a billion alts at the start is looked down upon. But I can't really decide which one and I don't make a habit of it. They are from the same specimen. One is essentially zoomed in.
Comment In my experience pyrite is usually much yellower than this - is the white balance off or is this just a particularly grey sample? Time3000 (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are they two photos of the same crystal? Because the first looks warmer than the second. Also I'd like to request a zoomed up version without the grey corner - IMO that corner is distracting. Move the frame left and up. --Fir0002 09:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second could probably do with a little adjustment. I don't own the sample so it won't happen immediately if the consensus is for such a move. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To get back to you again. I spoke to the owner of this sample, and he said that pyrite does vary in hue, as do most minerals. He said that this sample may be a little silvery due to a higher arsenic content, or some other impurity, but was not sure. He does have a number of very silvery pyrite samples, and a number of golden ones too. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted (Feel free to try again later, as this seems to have gotten sidetracked) --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Polistes africanusPaper wasp, a biological control considered useful to gardeners since they feed on insects including caterpillars, flies, and beetle larvae. Pictured in Dar es salaam, Tanzania.
Weak Oppose I think your other paper wasp FP has greater EV because it includes the nest in the composition. And while the other FP seems a little underexposed this one seems to have gone the other way and is a bit too bright. Also there is some haloing - particularly noticeable on the top side of the wasp. --Fir0002 09:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Has this needed a lot of highlight recovery? There are some quite heavy dark margins on the petal edges here & there. Nice pic, a bit of fringing wouldn't normally be a big issue, but the bar is high for these etc etc --mikaultalk 12:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has had some, but not tons. Where am I looking for the margins? Should be fixable. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not without virtues, but the composition is a little messy, with only one flower truly in focus (the front one) but others in gradually receding focus overlapping with the front flower.--ragesoss (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My only complaint is the blown highlights. I've contacted the photographer on Flickr to ask for an unprocessed version; if he responds and shares the original, I'll give it a shot at reprocessing.--ragesoss (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer sent me the original; unfortunately, it's a jpeg, but it's well-exposed. I played around with it some, but I couldn't get the same level of pop as in this version without blowing out the highlights. Someone more skilled than me might want to take a crack at it: File:Dean Franklin - 06.04.03 Mount Rushmore Monument (by-sa) - original.jpg. --ragesoss (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted Feel free to try again with a new version. --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Charles IX of France, by François Clouet, painted in 1566
Reason
A 1566 portrait painting of Charles IX of France (r. 1560-1574), by François Clouet (1510-1572); this image violates no FP criteria that I know of and is 1,256 × 2,355 pixels in size.
Oppose. Highly encyclopedic, but appears to have been scanned from a poor reproduction. Durova273 featured contributions 16:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor resolution and coloring.--Caspian blue 19:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A memorial honouring Hans Meyer, the first European to conquer Mount Kilimanjaro. The message states,"IN MEMORY OF HANS MEYER THE FIRST WHITEMAN TO CLIMB MT KILIMANJARO ON 6TH OCTOBER 1889." The message appears first in Meyer's native language German, followed by Tanzania's official language Swahili, followed by English. Pictured in the Kilimanjaro National Park
Reason
Good quality, very good EV. The first and only image on wiki which depicts the memorial, or Han's face.
Oppose. Useful for the article but not the sort of image that screams "FP" to me. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 12:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff. Lacking another dimension or context; kind of analogous with a press cutting. Quality might be good enough for VP though. --mikaultalk 12:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is the underlying material copyrighted? If so, then should come with a nonfree media rationale and doesn't qualify for candidacy here. Durova273 featured contributions 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know but it's government property at a UNESCO world heritage sight. --Muhammad(talk) 14:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most governments retain rights over publications. Am not sure about the status in this instance. Durova273 16:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably need to have freedom of panorama in Tanzania, not sure what the law is there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
Doesn't look good - see [7] 12.6. MER-C 02:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Might need to nominate this for deletion. MER-C 10:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know.. where's the scale on this image? It could be pretty scary at 10 metres tall! ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Much better than the previous male house sparrow in the article and your previous FP. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and high EV in good quality.--Caspian blue 19:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exceptionally clear depiction of the species's most distinctive feature. Durova273 00:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As Muhammad observes this isn't the only good image of this species. The plumage is different, so I'll go check to see if this is a female or just a non-breeding adult (the other has a crest/ is breeding). Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 20:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's been a tradition to limit ourselves to a single featured picture for a species, have doubts about whether that's really the best way to go. There may be reason to promote more than one image where there are purposeful encyclopedic differences between two images, such as male and female birds of a sexually dimorphic species (see house sparrow above) or here, where a distinctive species trait is highlighted in one photograph while other features are highlighted in another. Durova273 03:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't think it is the right way to go. You mention sexual differences there are also subspecies differences, differences based on season (this is clearly a non-breeding bird, but I need to 100% confrm and my books are in boxes till monday) and differences based on age. Throw in images that potentially show behaviour or as you mention highlight different aspects of the bird and I agree there is an obvious case for a case by case approach to this. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 08:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems a bit dark, but then black on white is a bastard. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with NS that it seems a little dark. But it's otherwise very good quality with strong EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 04:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it possible to have a wide image with the speedboat in as well? --Muhammad(talk) 11:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is obviously possible but that would lose detail and focus on the water skier himself (the subject which this shot is intended to illustrate) --Fir0002 08:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, prefer alt A stitched image is probably out of the question. Good quality, composition, and EV --Muhammad(talk) 13:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Who said skiing has to be done behind a boat anyway? Noodle snacks (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the purpose of EV I think it should be noted that those skis are specifically for ski jumping. Regular skis are much narrower, more pointed in the front and much shorter.Meniscus (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I expected "dynamic images" when it comes to water sports, but the angle and composition look a bit dull.--Caspian blue 19:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you prefer the alt which has a bit more water spray. I do have some shots of him jumping (see my comment above) but unfortunately they're all backlit and so not ideal technically --Fir0002 10:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I certainly prefer the alt, the skier's pose, and the composition look much dynamic, so I'd say Support alt. And the File:Water skier jumping.jpg has a quite good EV, so I suggest you to touch it up a bit if you want the image to be shown on the article.--Caspian blue 19:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt - the original is a bit bland. I like the background, the waves, and the more interesting posture in the alt. Stevage 02:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt sweet splashing effects. ZooFari 07:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt. MER-C 13:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shot - is the cinnabar slightly undersaturated? In other images it appears a more vivid shade of red... --Fir0002 08:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But I can't tell if the white balance is off or not–I'm blaming the lighting of my computer room. Otherwise, good enc. and focus. SpencerT♦Nominate! 01:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Top right hand corner is the background paper and can be treated as a reference. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Durova273 03:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good EV and composition. Sophus Bie(talk) 01:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Mating pair of Laothoe populi moths showing both color varients
Reason
This picture is an excellent detailed picture of the Laothoe populi moth; showing an important event (mating) and is also highly visually striking and unique because it shows both common color varients of the moth. Good composition, with moths centered on frame and taking up an appropriate portion thereof; neutral high contrast background makes features easy to distinguish. Overall a great pic.
Support at the res I viewed, image is sharp with good DOF. Slight OOF abdomen of one moth, but still pretty good. --Muhammad(talk) 15:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Muhammad. Durova273 04:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd place it in a higher level moth article. I saw this earlier at the science reference desk. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinatingly beautiful, in an ugly sort of way. Nice setting, good, clear illustration, a proper FP. --mikaultalk 12:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and EV. IMO requires a NR though --Muhammad(talk) 08:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Adds a lot to the article, nice photo, good EV. |→ Spaullyτ09:15, 2 July 2009 (GMT)
Weak support Head detail and great colour carry it; I don't think more DOF would have made a big improvement. I find the composition a little affected, though; one of those where a centered crop would be more impressive. --mikaultalk 12:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm such a party pooper, but the colours look oversaturated to me. Was this taken with flash? (Hmm, looking closely, I think it was - there's a slight shadow from the branch on its belly.) Stevage 02:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it used a small amount of fill flash. But the colours are quite natural - it's an incredibly colourful bird. cf flickr --Fir0002 10:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, I've seen plenty :) That's why I was curious. Stevage 08:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 07:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice but a bit bright for me, maybe just half a stop over. Any chance of a darker version? --mikaultalk 12:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely possible to do a darker version but I prefer this one (sunny day + white clouds = this version being realistic). If there are more people wanting a darker version I'll do a reprocess/restitch... --Fir0002 03:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Fir0002 that the brightness of the clouds seems appropriate and more realistic than a darkened version. My concern is the lack of metadata (in particular, focal length, so that angle of view can be determined, or perhaps this is stitched from multiple frames?) and the difficultly for me, as the viewer, of determining how much of the curved appearance is the actual shape of the clouds and how much of it is an artifact. I'm used to viewing distorted landscape panoramas and so understand roughly how to interpret them (for the standard kind, as a view obtained by panning one's view horizontally), but I'm not sure how to make sense of perspective in this shot.--ragesoss (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point - this was a 5 shot portrait pano at 19mm. FOV is approx 135 degrees. I'll add that to the image description page --Fir0002 08:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Nailed it, and looks more like a "mare's tail" than the other images in the article. Maedin\talk 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not really convinced that a cylindrical projection (which distorts straight lines) is a requirement to illustrate this. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose If the clouds are meant to be straight then IMO this misleading. --Muhammad(talk) 06:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The stitching did introduce most of the curving but the clouds are not typically straight. So personally I don't think it's an issue and the benefits of the extra information from that wide (and tall) FOV outweigh the inherent limitations of panoramic projection. That said I've uploaded a single frame which addresses your concern. --Fir0002 13:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Gustave Doré's first illustration for Miguel Cervantes' Don Quixote, showing Alonso Quixano in his library, surrounded by romances and the ideas from the romances which infested his brain, causing the insane obsession which resulted in him reinventing himself as Don Quixote.
Support per nom. Durova273 04:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, good EV --Muhammad(talk) 16:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good restoration, no noticeable problems. I've definitely seen this before, but not in the book Don Quixote itself. Was this put in a magazine/book elsewhere? SpencerT♦Nominate! 01:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty popular image. You may also know it from Wikipedia: a lower-resolution version was a featured picture on Commons for a while, and possibly here as well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Gustave Doré - Miguel de Cervantes - Don Quixote - Part 1 - Chapter 1 - Plate 1 "A world of disorderly notions, picked out of his books, crowded into his imagination".jpg --wadester16 03:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - "Queenstown, Upper Canada on the Niagara" (now known as Queenston, Ontario), by army surgeon Edward Walsh. From c. 1805. Unrestored imageAlternative - Yellow-blue balance adjusted to show what this would look like with more intensive changes - Nominator doesn't really like doing this sort of thing, but understands that it may be preferred by some.
Reason
A beautiful watercolour, and a stunning image of the Niagara river before it was more developed, relatively early in the settlement of this part of Canada.
Colours adjusted using white background the LoC lays its images against. Minor cleanup of obvious dust, etc, where I thought it justified. As this is the only copy, I have kept the restoration fairly limited. Whilst it's certainly possible to remove the paper yellowing (e.g. File:Edward Walsh - Queenstown, Upper Canada on the Niagara (a.k.a. Queenston, Ontario) age removed.jpg), I did not think it justified in this case, as the image is two centuries old.
Comment As an interesting aside, I'm reasonably certain the high land to the upper right of the image is Queenston Heights, where the Battle of Queenston Heights was fought a few years later. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The high land is in the correct location — I think you're right. Perhaps it should be added to that page? --Misaligned (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pondering that, but am not sure which section to add it in. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A strong candidate. The restoration is crisper and the details show up better. Strong historic (and thus encyclopedic) value. Obviously meets size requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks like it needs perspective correction based on the horizontal and vertical lines. How was it captured? I assume a photograph of it? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no guarantee that a 1805 image will have perfect straightness in the first place, but I believe it's a special photographic device for documents and images at the LoC . Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with that, most likely a rostrum camera. Looking at the hand-cut mat, it's probably down to the way the border was painted. --mikaultalk 08:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support desaturated: I prefer it de-yellowed. Good work. Maedin\talk 06:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative posted per request on WT:FPC. MER-C 06:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Desaturated has a specific meaning, and this is not it: This was a yellow-blue balance adjustment. I've fixed MER-C's wording to reflect this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original only - it's tempting to go for the "cleaner" look and the alt is certainly very attractive, but I think the arbitrary colour shift has made (what I take to be) neutral greys – particularly those bottom left – look too cold and artificial. Correcting for scanner casts is always good, but without knowing how the painting looked before it faded, we can't be sure these age-corrected colours are anything like the original hues. --mikaultalk 08:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree. But I figured it was better to show the possibility I don't prefer, as it is a reasonable choice. But I'll tweak said thing a little to reflect your comments, as I had originally made it as a simple quick demonstration, and if it's going to be voted on... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per explanation of uneven borders. Good work. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Edward Walsh - Queenstown, Upper Canada on the Niagara (a.k.a. Queenston, Ontario).jpg --wadester16 03:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 09:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good quality but EV not quite as good and I would have an angle such as this --Muhammad(talk) 11:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say the EV is not as good in a top down view? I think it's a perfectly valid view for EV purposes as it gives a much better perspective of the wings (an important feature). A large number of current insect FPs use this view - eg your recent Wandering Glider shot. --Fir0002 08:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant EV is not as good because of the minimal exposure in the article. I prefer the other angle for a more dynamic shot. I checked my collection and found one with the angle I prefer. will probably nominate it later. --Muhammad(talk) 12:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak opposeEV is a must. Are you sure you can't squeeze it in there? Can you add it to the genus article? ZooFari 07:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only oppose here is mine. Is it really reasonable that users prefer the other images in the article instead of this one? ZooFari 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC
Maybe. But the flippant commetn isn't helping your case. (And, anyway, after spending a year memorising venation patterns on insect wings for a parasitology course, a good shot of the wings becomes pretty important. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have rephrased my ambiguous comment. ZooFari 18:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right! That's a lot less flippant once it's clear what you meant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted No quorum. --wadester16 03:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support good colours and EV. Focus seems a bit off and background seems artifactual. --Muhammad(talk) 22:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded an alternative. I think it has better focus and a more natural background (to address your concerns).Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the composition of the original. --Muhammad(talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support either focus v. background? A tossup. Durova273 15:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original only, it is sharper, though still a tad soft for no apparent reason. This and the one below are very colourful. Took a while for the new thumb to be visible to me, hence the delay. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Edit 1 Per NS --Fir0002 09:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I started over from scratch and did a focus stack. The wings should be much sharper now. Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which one did you stack? Don't forget to align the frames (two pass is probably best) with combineZP, you get soft results/haloing if you don't prior to stacking. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I focus stacked the original. You can see the biggest difference at the end of the wings. You can see a difference just by looking at the two thumbnails at right. Kaldari (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - "A Word of Comfort", a 1790 caricature of Joseph Priestley as a religious dissenter. Priestley, preaching in front of Charles James Fox who asks "Pray, Doctor is there such a thing as a Devil?", to which Priestley responds "No" while the devil prepares to attack Priestly from behind.
Reason
Joseph Priestley, who is better known to the twenty-first century for his work in chemistry, was also notable as a religious dissenter. He was one of the founders of Unitarianism in the United Kingdom and North America. This caricature juxtaposes Priestley against Charles James Fox, a leading statesman of the era who disagreed with Priestley about religion but often agreed on other issues. Restored version of File:A Word of Comfort.jpg.
Support as nominator --Durova273 19:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good EV. The devil sure has a sense of humour. Couldn't help noticing that the devil is black. --Muhammad(talk) 20:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In color caricatures from this era the Devil also turns out bright red or blue. Will keep an eye out; interesting observation. Durova273 03:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per feedback from Fir0002 I have created a separate article for the artist, and restored and substituted a different work by the same artist at the history of Jamaica article. Will be contacting reviewers in case they wish to change their review. Durova273 18:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – A great piece of work from Durova. Hopefully, I can get my Jamaica one done soon. NW(Talk) 02:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A wonderful composition, nicely restored. Will this really be the first FP of Jamaica? Astounding.--ragesoss (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really don't see any EV in the article/section it is used in which deals largely with the British use of African slave labour and the subsequent uprisings by the slaves - neither subject is depicted in this painting. It seems that this is only getting promoted because we don't currently have an FP from Jamaica - a very poor reason to promote --Fir0002 09:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, would you accept it if the artist had a biography? And/or could replace it at History of Jamaica with a different work by the same artist, to depict the conditions of slavery at that time.
Created a biography for the artist. Durova273 20:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't really find much EV in an article about the painter unless this image is typically associated to the painter (eg the Mona Lisa for Da Vinci) or is typical of his work (cubism for Picasso). That said I suppose it has some EV in William Berryman so I'll switch to Weak Oppose --Fir0002 11:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A definitive works standard cannot be applicable to an artist whose entire life's work went unpublished for two centuries, and whose first museum exhibition occurred in 2007. Durova273 16:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGerardM (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC) .. We have pleanty of landscapes, city panarama's etc that give an impression about what a landscape looks like. This image gives an historic impression of Jamaica. There are classic images like this from other countries and as such this is FP material. The fact that it helps offset our existing bias is a definite boon.[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment If this photo is meant illustrate panning, then I think it is necessary that you mention the shutter speed and aperture. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
200mm, f/5.6, 1/60s --Fir0002 13:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO, this featured picture of the same function also illustrates panning. I don't see why we need to have another FP instead of adding the current one to the panning article. --Muhammad(talk) 15:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - the other FP doesn't show panning particularly well because the lawnmower is coming towards the camera, an atypical situation for panning. This image shows a more typical parallel to camera pan. Also in this image the panning effect is much more pronounced (partly due to being parallel to camera partly due to a slightly slower shutter speed). --Fir0002 13:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This also appeareth in the Lawnmower racing article-have we considered it on merit for being an portrayal of that as well as considering the pan aspect of the picture? Lemon martini (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should consider the merits of the image in each article independently. So if you thought this was had high EV in the panning but little in the lawnmower racing article (or vice versa), the requirement of EV is satisfied (ie you vote according to the usage in the article you feel is best illustrated by the subject matter in the image) --Fir0002 13:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I refrain from voting on this picture because I'm not sure about EV. On lawnmower racing, the shot with 2 lawnmower and the finish flash is definitely better. On the panning angle, it could be used, but then so can many others pictures of moving object. So technically good, but not sure it adds greatly in terms of EV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksempac (talk • contribs) 09:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But surely if it's a technically good image of panning then it has plenty of EV in that article? And I think you'd be hard pressed to find a better example of panning given that the subject is tack sharp and the background is nicely blurred... --Fir0002 10:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We had a similar discussion when Ang proposed one of his racing car picture as a FP with many people disagreeing on what is the best picture to illustrate panning (chicken, racing car, motorcycle ? pick your favorite...). The panning article also reflects this with many picture switches over the years. So let's say I support this picture for the panning value only, we have 2 FP it's reasonable...but then next month someone else comes with a panning shot of moving object X and says it illustrate panning. What will we do then ? Put yet another picture in the panning article ? Start a delist war and see who gets the final FP status ? It's obviously a technical shot, i wouldn't be able to do it right, but the conditions to make such a shot are easily reproducible for a skilled photographer. I'm not trying to downgrade what you did, your picture is IMHO a lot better than the motorcycle FP (delist ?) but is it technically better than Ang's shot ? Not sure, and his shot has EV elsewhere. Ksempac (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus - without prejudice to renomination later: This was badly sidetracked. --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how I'm supposed to do this, but I would like to respectfully oppose this closure. Sure I only put a neutral vote, but raised an important question that goes further than this picture. I would like community input on this question, and maybe then the vote will be easier for every one else. Ksempac (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to leave it open till other people tell us what they think about the EV of this and others pictures regarding the panning technique. To avoid having each month a new FPC about panning. Ksempac (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it'd be better to take that to WT:FPC; we can renominate any actual images once consensus emerges, but, if Fir0002 isn't the one asking, I'm not willing to subject his nom to being the focus of such discussion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good capture, seems maybe slightly overexposed though, and I'd crop the left edge slightly if it were me. Otherwise excellent detail and an interesting subject. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Largely per Diliff. Slightly awkward angle but you often just have to take what nature gives you ;) --Fir0002 12:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Durova273 15:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Well done in all aspects. I like the crop as it is. Maedin\talk 17:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. I have tons of plant images pending id. Where do you have yours' id'd? --Muhammad(talk) 20:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Plants or some people from the local botanical gardens. If it isn't a garden plant then those approaches mightn't be so effective in your part of the world. Academics are probably your best bet in that case. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Support Also, I personally wouldn't crop it. Sophus Bie(talk) 01:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support either but you really gotta look for dust spots before you upload. :-) Or clean the sensor. Not that I can talk - my sensor is filthy at the moment. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<smug>I think I'll just hit the sensor clean button on my Mk II to make sure it's completely free of dust</smug> :P --Fir0002 12:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI 400D has a sensor cleaning function. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A wasted function IMO. hardly ever works for me. --Muhammad(talk) 08:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked on the rear element of your lens? I find that is where most of my dust spots come from. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I've never seen any dust, scratches or spots on the lens have any effect on the photo even when stopped down, except to mess with contrast in extreme cases - they're usually much too far away from the sensor or the focal plane. I guess every lens design is a bit different though. Coincidentally was reading this recently.. Quite interesting. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dust on the front element doesn't show up. I find that at high magnifications that dust on the rear element (closest to camera) does show up though. An interesting coincidence that I posted a link to the lens rentals thing here hours ago. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. How embarassment. I couldn't remember where I found the site when I replied above, but that explains it, sorry. I can see why rear element dust is more prominent than front, but still, if it barely shows ON the sensor unless you're stopped right down, it seems surprising that it could be seen so far from it. I'll take your word for it though. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are the back pair of legs significantly paler than the front two pairs naturally or is that the product of your flash? --Fir0002 12:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are definitely paler naturally. --Muhammad(talk) 21:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info - Support Original good macro shot --Fir0002 06:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 11:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting is too harsh, making the blown highlights hard to distinguish the legs from the plant. ZooFari 15:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the flowers aren't blown. Edit 1 may be more to your liking --Fir0002 13:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt, reconsidering the plant wasn't blowned. ZooFari 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt - I'd have to disagree, I like the lighting, though it is quite harsh. The antennae worry me, but, okay. ceranthor 11:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Has been declared "the most famous photograph in the world." It is universally known as an iconic symbol of rebellion within popular culture, and ironically has been commercially manufactured in the name of capitalism. Something Guevara himself dedicated his life fighting against.
Comment Iconic, yet at 80kb it would be the most heavily compressed FP to be promoted in a very long time. Durova273 15:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As our own article about this picture says, "The legal ownership and copyright status of Guerrillero Heroico is complex and unsettled." I don't think we can easily say this has a free license, one of the criteria for a featured picture.
The arguments for the image being public domain are pretty convincing, IMO. We certainly host plenty of images with less substantiated status. Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I was just discussing this last night and here it is on FPC. The arguments are convincing but it's also true that Korda successfully sued for copyright infringement in 2000, so I'd pull up short of describing its PD status as "settled". Not only is it certainly the most iconic photograph ever, it's also the subject of what's probably the most (in)famous IP dispute in history. FWIW, Korda's wishes about reproduction would almost certainly not exclude WP.. I actually have a bigger and better version of this image on file I could upload if we can agree on suitability for FP, at a minimum, remembering that (eg) Fair Use would render it ineligible: mere hosting does not confer eligibilty. --mikaultalk 04:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that they didn't "successfully sue" - it was an out-of-court settlement, which doesn't mean anything in terms of adjudication. At a certain point it's cheaper to settle than fight, esp if you're going to get negative publicity in the process. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. The image's copyright status has never been decided by any court. It's important to note that the cases also involved moral rights (which don't exist in the US), not just copyright. Kaldari (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I dunno, I think I'd consider a $70,000 settlement "successful" ;o) it would appear to be a moral rights issue, but that issue has never been specifically addressed or established any more than actual copyright has. The only issue to settle on this nom is whether or not it can genuinely be said to be freely licensed. AFAICS we host this image further to a discussion that was resolved by slapping a ((PD-Cuba)) template on it with no real consensus. IMO that discussion failed to properly address the first principle of a PD license: that anyone is free to use the image in any way and for any purpose[8]. Successful (as in "complaint unpheld") challenges to exactly that principle with regard to this image (the Smirnoff action and French RSF complaint) show that not to be the case, basically. Whether we should host an image under such contestable (and contested) license terms is moot: we already do. Whether we feature such an image is the issue we must be clear on here. --mikaultalk 04:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have to say that there are some pretty convoluted arguments on the image page. Not withstanding those, it appears to be in the public domain per PD Cuba. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Surely Korda has no opposition to the use of his photograph of Che for educational purposes? Jacob Richardson (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia allows downstream use for noneducational purposes, including commercial purposes. This is the reason FPC accepts only images that are public domain or under free license. Durova273 16:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Korda doesn't have an opinion on the matter as he happens to be dead. Kaldari (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be his heirs who make the claim. Durova273 02:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but his death is relevant. Not being alive, he can't claim moral rights; nor are those rights transferable. His family's recent action over the image is therefore one based on copyright, which is even more relevant... and it's not just Korda's family: Guevara's family have assumed worldwide guardianship of the image and have established a foundation for protection against its continued commercial exploitation [9]. --mikaultalk 04:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am I the only one thinking that the original uncut image with palm trees and some statue is more intriguing? --Caspian blue 16:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not for unresolved licensing issues, but because it's too heavily compressed. WP has very few featured pictures under 100KB; this is about a tenth the filesize we'd normally regard as minimal. Even though the original is iconic, this is not a high quality copy. Durova275 23:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Potentially featurable material, but a poor quality reproduction. MER-C 10:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's that funkiness near the bottom right? Looks to me like a fingerprint on the lens... MER-C 10:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A fingerprint would probably not show. If it's a problem, I can upload an edit. --Muhammad(talk) 15:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Weak Support I'm not thrilled with the composition, but it's good enough for a weak support if you can do something about the funky thing MER-C mentioned. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 13:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What an interesting image mainly due to the green things floating on the water. Would you clarify what they are?--Caspian blue 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The green stuff is Duck weed, how appropriate ;-). Lycaon (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okie, thank you for the info. I've never seen the species cover the whole pond, so it looks quite interesting.--Caspian blue 15:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to say support. --Caspian blue 16:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Durova273 15:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean... the size is fine - 1800px>>1000px min. I don't have anything more on the left, but not sure why you'd want more duckweed? --Fir0002 06:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I need to take the time to get some of the local duck species myself. Some hooligans burned down the bird hide some time ago though :(. Reconstruction has just started fortunately. Anyway, the bird is clearly squinting from the E-TTL preflash, or the sun (it happens) and particularly around the head area the sharpness seems to be a little lacking. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm not sure what you mean by the squinting - looks like it's eyes are wide open to me! I think I might have been a little sloppy with NR around the back of the head which might have contributed to a lack of sharpness (but the fine feather detail can't really be shown at this res anyway). Anyway uploaded an edit --Fir0002 13:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support NS is right about the sharpness around the head. But the strong EV is enough for a weak support. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted No consensus. --wadester16 05:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain your reasoning? I'd say promoted from where I sit. --jjron (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'd have thought 3S + 2 WS - 1O = promote. Particularly since I uploaded an edit which addressed the sharpness concerns which were raised --Fir0002 08:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all likelihood, he missed Caspian blue's comment. It's easy to overlook indented supports. Mention it on his talk page, and ask him to recheck. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, as an uninvolved editor I'd say consensus is to promote. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed a mistake; my bad. I'll fix it tomorrow. wadester16 05:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Promoted File:Female Hardhead duck.jpg Fixed from mistaken non-promotion; my apologies to all parties involved.--wadester16 03:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - "Le Noir Faineant in the Hermit's Cell", An illustration by J. Cooper, Sr. for Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe. This shows the meeting between Le Noir Faineant, or the Black Knight - Richard the Lionheart in disguise - with Friar Tuck. Sir Walter Scott was early in the development of the modern novel, and largely created the genre of historical fiction by skillfully weaving together legends and characters into his own creations
Reason
An interesting image which shows the rather interesting combination of myth, history, and original writing that Scott poured into his works.
Original - Gun and antigun in Day and Night cellular automaton.
Reason
I think this highlights the amazing patterns that can be created in Day and Night as well as highlighting the symmetric nature of the automaton. The colour scheme helps to highlight movement and the animation loops endlessly ending exactly where it starts so there is no jumping or jerking as the animation begins.
Question Can you make the captions more descriptive? I don't really understand what's happening in the image... ZooFari 03:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do understand, but would prefer the image to be a bit larger - it's very hard to make out some of the details on any modern monitor if 1 pixel = one square of the automaton. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’ll answer both those questions: day and night is a 2D cellular automaton, an x-y matrix of discrete points that either alive or dead during on frame and are labelled as such. Each frame in the image represents a generation in which some cells die, some continue to live and some come to life. Day and Life works by the following rules: a living cell remains alive if 3,4,6,7 or 8 surrounding cells are alive and a dead cell comes to life if 3,6,7 or 8 surrounding cells are alive.
And I’ll produce a 2x enlarged image and upload it ASAP. I think more than 2x might produce a gif file that’s a bit too large. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit 1 Large (bilinear) version.
This is bilinear interpolation 2x. Do you think nearest neighbor interpolation (that would retain the square shape of each cell) would be more appropriate? --Simpsons contributor (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First of all, i would like to say congratulations for another great animation. Then, I've got a couple of suggestions to improve the image. First, you need to explain your color scheme in the summary of the file. What does orange/green means ? Second, minor, thing : the anti gun is neatly defined inside a yellow box, but the gun isn't : it is too close to the left side of the image, and some things happens right next to the border, which may falsely indicate that some cells escape to the left. It would be better if you added a black border on the left. And now, here come the big one : I've some trouble figuring out how many structures are involved and what they do. For example, i can't figure out whether the tiny yellow structure on the right side of the light gun is a part of the gun (i.e. without it you can't create bullets), or another structure which is only here to change the period of the gun. Same thing for the dark structure with the same look. Moreover, i don't understand at all what happens at the interface between the light gun and the dark gun...I see that the dark bullet generate a green cell, and somehow that leads to the destruction of the light bullet, but the green thing doesn't seem to get close to the light bullet. In your GoL animation, you used colors to indicate different types of structure, but obviously you can't do it here. So we need to figure out a way to explain all this. If we don't, at least we could put it in the summary of the file. Ksempac (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The string of images came straight from the Java program so there’s no way any cells escape to the left. The colouring scheme is as follows:
So a cell that comes to life is yellow, the shade depending on how many neighbours it has. A cell that remains alive is green and again the shade depends upon the number of neighbours.
I got the pattern from the cellular automata program Golly. Here’s a description of the pattern according to its creator:
"This is a period 256 rocket gun which demonstrates the symmetry of the Day/Night rules, and how a signal can be sent across the border between day and night regions. Here a period 256 anti-gun destroys every other rocket from a normal period 128 rocket gun. Based on a reaction by Dean Hickerson. David I. Bell, May 1997"
Maybe this isn’t a fantastic explanation. If there’s anything that I haven’t made clear please tell me. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit 3 With edges left bottom and top.
Support Ok i get it. But we will have to explain all (colors, interaction between guns, periods, etc...) this in the summary of the picture. Maybe i will do it later. Still, you didn't understand me about the "cells escaping to the left". What i meant is that if someone doesn't know much about cellular automation, he may think that some cells escape on the left. It would be better with a black border on the left, in the same way there is a black border on the bottom that shows the limit of the anti-gun. Ksempac (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I’ll produce a new image with a band of ten black pixels to the left and the bottom. Tell me what you think of it when I upload it. -Simpsons contributor (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit 2 With edges
I'd suggest top is necessary as well. Otherwise, inclined to SupportShoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason edit 3 isn’t showing. I assure you the top, bottom and left have edges now though! I’ll try and re-upload the image to see if I can solve the problem. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see Edit 3 without problem. Maybe you should clear your browser cache. BTW I Support Edit 3 now.Ksempac (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted No quorum. --wadester16 06:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Animated map illustrating the extent of the shrinking of the Aral Sea 1960-2008
Reason
After watching the James bond film The World is not Enough I went snooping for the water bodies in the general region of the film, and eventually my curiosity lead me to the Aral Sea article. I had heard for some time that the sea was shrinking, but I did not realize that the shrinking was this bad until I had a look at this .gif file. After watching it I thought "wow", and then it dawned on me that "wow" could potentially mean FP, so thats why I am nominating the picture.
Comment Fascinating work. Please provide the sourcing in greater detail (specific URLs rather than top level domains, and specific printed works to the same level of specificity as any other featured content program). Durova273 02:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I agree about the need for more specific sourcing... also, would this be better as an APNG? How realistic is getting that done? grenグレン 19:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By sourcing in greater detail, do you mean the actual maps used for the sources or the sources cited in the image itself? If its the former that could take me a while to track down, what with school and everything. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 19:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could suspend the nomination if you think you can get that in a couple of weeks. Otherwise suggest withdrawing and renominating when you're ready. Durova275 22:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see how hard it will be to track down over the weekend, if I can't find anything then I will agree with the suspension of the nom. As luck would have it, both my teachers this semester are somewhat lax, so getting here this weekend shouldn't be too hard. :) TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 04:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think APNG is a good idea for FPs - you'll be excluding Internet Explo[dr]er users, which is about 60% of web surfers. (Same with SVG, but here MediaWiki comes to the rescue and rasterises for thumbnail display.). MER-C 10:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having more trouble with this one than I thought; I guess its going to have wait until after Summer II ends for addressing. I hate to do this, but I would ask this be suspended for a few weeks so I can get clear my schooling first; when school ends this will be my #1 priority. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 19:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted No quorum. --wadester16 06:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the creator of the image, where possible using the format Kumioko
Support as nominator --Kumioko (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Sorry, but the FPC critieria require an image to be at least 1000 pixels in any direction. This does not meet those requirements. Maybe a larger version can be found; this is a good nominee. wadester16 23:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per wade. Can be photographed again so no mitigating reasons. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --ZooFari 20:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 13:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality. I got a picture of one but my focus was off by a few mm. --Muhammad(talk) 14:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support You almost make it look cute. Durova275 22:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support too bad the lower left corner, but good capture of the bug itself. Is it eating something? ZooFari 23:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine for me. Do you have a good suggestion for a contact for fly identification? Most of my usual sources haven't been helpful with a few I have. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - I mainly use the Australian Museum which only rarely gives good fly IDs. I tried out diptera.info (which Muhammad uses) but didn't really get much help --Fir0002 06:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some encyclopedic topics are disturbing. This is one of the most disturbing, particularly after restoration. But it's a part of history and not something to shrink from. The highest technical quality image of its kind I could locate. United States, but lacking specifics on the location and the man's name. The NAACP reports several thousand lynchings took place during 1882-1968. Restored version of File:Lynching.jpg.
Support as nominator --Durova275 22:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a horrifying and disgusting image, but it meets the criteria and is well suited to illustrating its loathsome subject. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a bit grainy, but that's excusable given age. Look forward to cluebatting the PC brigade when this reaches the main page. MER-C 13:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I support this image's promotion to FP status, it's not suitable for the main page. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 06:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose maybe reconsider later, but the composition is my least favorite compared to the other images in the article. The blown head also caught my attention. ZooFari 06:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good angle, no technical problem, beautiful bird, nice background (better than most of the other shots in the article). Ksempac (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown head and unattractive composition. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Focus stacked (by hand) from 3 images. Everything is in focus except for the ends of the antennae. High res, high EV, good lighting, background, and composition.
Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Did you sharpen this? ceranthor 00:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did some sharpening, but I'm pretty conservative about it. Kaldari (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like this, but I can't help but think you can get sharper results than this. Did you perform any noise reduction (that could be to blame)? How far was the ambient light below the flash? Which focus stack algorithm did you use? Noodle snacks (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The noise reduction was on the background only. The focus stacking was hand-masked in Photoshop. I don't remember what the ambient light level was (I think it was pretty low though). Is it better to have brighter or dimmer ambient light? Is it possible I'm still having strong diffraction effects at f/11 due to the magnification level? Kaldari (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it's not a matter of brightness or dimness, but amount of light. (NS, correct me if wrong.) ceranthor 10:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Short shutter speed will reduce any ambient instilled motion. So with ambient only short shutter speeds are good (lots of light). With an ambient/flash mix, exposing the ambient lower will reduce any ambient induced motion blur. Agree that manual stacking with a few frames is best for hand-held stacks. Is this a substantial crop from the full frame (dimensions suggest its possible)? If so then diffraction is probably the strongest candidate. I'd expect the XSi/450D to be a little more sensitive to it than my camera, but it wouldn't show up if this was a down sample. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was originally a 1:1 macro at 4272x2848. It was cropped down to 2342x1756 and then down-sampled slightly to 2000x1500. Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly diffraction related then. Couldn't you get closer? Was it smaller than 1:1? Noodle snacks (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the 4th weevil species I've photographed and the first one that wasn't continuously running away. He was quite shy, however, and would scoot to the far side of the twig whenever he thought I was getting too close. The fact that I managed to get 3 clean shots as close as I did was lucky I think. The only other weevil photo I'm happy with is this one, which was also tricky as it was hand-held while the weevil was moving, but I was close enough to get a sharp picture and the focusing was pure luck. What's your opinion of that one? Kaldari (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let you know on a decent monitor when I get home. It looks pretty good to me, I'd nominate it seperately since this nomination is getting a bit old. I'm not so sure of the climate in Nashville. Photographing them in colder temperatures (early and late in the day, cold days) will make life easier. If you can find them feeding then that will also probably occupy them a bit. Try not to block the ambient light with your shadow if possible. Move slowly, and keep low (many of my insects are taken from a prone position). Noodle snacks (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd give the alt a go, though it is still a little borderline I think I'd probably support. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support great photo but see above. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did some additional work on the focus-stack masking to reduce haloing on the outer hairs and to fix a few soft spots. It's still about the same sharpness-wise, but considering the image is 3 megapixel, I think it should be given a little leeway. It could obviously be down-sampled substantially and still meet the requirements. Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted No quorum, try again with new version later? --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs much more subtle lighting to show detail in that white petal. --mikaultalk 09:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI it is called a spathe. I think that the image you link to is a different species (Peace lily being a generic name for Spathiphyllum in some cases). The lines visible in the spathe there were not present to any significant degree in the species I photographed. http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/5203/spathiphyllumcochlearis.jpg is a rather extreme highlight reduction. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, admittedly I was thinking of more prominently-veined examples I've seen. They're notoriously difficult subjects needing very careful lighting to avoid what you have here IMO, a white shape on a green ground. That's maybe a tad harsh given the effort you've put into focussing and the particular example you chose, but the effect is reinforced by composition and shooting angle. --mikaultalk 11:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A 180° panorama on a clear day overlooking the rural towns southwest of Albany, New York, taken from Thacher Park. Shows the still-rural nature of upstate New York and the Capital District and shows off a good portion of the state park and the north end of the Helderberg Escarpment.
Support as nominator --wadester16 05:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Can't help but think that this isn't the ideal viewpoint - that cliff visible on the left would have given you a wider and less obscured view. And you can barely make out any towns in the image. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, this is what I mean by town (not settlement). Updated the caption accordingly. Oh and that cliff would have also gotten me a night in the county jail. :-) wadester16 08:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; my government is just trying to keep me safe (I sometimes can't trust myself). Tho I think you may be jealous that you don't have a national day to celebrate in UK and your Australia Day just celebrates British domination. :-) wadester16 16:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Next you'll be telling me you can't drink alcohol while standing on the cliff face. Sheesh. Your government is apparently trying to keep one half of the population safe from the other half! Hooray! Anyway, as for national days, there's nothing wrong with celebrating a constitutionalmonarchy as a form of Government... Hmmm, perhaps we digress... :-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 17:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a state park: carry in, carry out (so if one could go on the cliff, assumedly one could get drunk there). Perhaps we do digress. wadester16 17:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You mentioned earlier that you would end up in jail if you went to the cliff to the left to get a better view? When i looked closely at the picture there are people standing on that cliff, and a notice board (presumably giving info as the the view)? Am I looking at the wrong cliff? Gazhiley (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They (and I) are standing behind a wall (roughly 2.5 feet (0.76 m) high); you can see the top of it in the bottom right corner. Step over that and park police have a field day with you.
I can't believe that, particularly as I've spent a bit of time standing at the edge of 80-100m high cliffs recently. The rock formation in File:The Totem Pole, Cape Huay.jpg is 60 meters high in particular, and a popular destination for rock climbers. Incidentally quite a few people have died there. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they should take a lesson from the New York State Park Police. Trust me, the place is watched; even the roads through the park, which are designed for 55 miles per hour (89 km/h) have a 30 miles per hour (48 km/h) speed limit and a plethora of police with radar guns. Probably a waste of my tax dollars, but it's the case nonetheless. And it's not like it's a distant hike to this place or anything, it's a parking lot built on a cliff face, basically. wadester16 05:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case, but the original request was for you to take the pic from a bit further around to avoid the sides of your pic being obliterated by the cliffs in front of you - or is this a trick of the lens and it is all straight? Gazhiley (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likely a source of revenue if they're fining everyone. And as per Gazhiley, presumably you could have still taken a slightly better image from up there, even if behind a small wall. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But then I'd have a grassy cliff in the bottom half of my photo, since the wall sits about 12 feet (3.7 m) from the edge. wadester16 11:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is absolutely nothing special about this image to be worth rating it as featured. Nergaal (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The image is clear and has good resolution, but it is too simple and has a regular EV. In my opinion, it´s not among the best works. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 08:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted I hope noone will mind me closing something I voted on, but since I'm going against my wishes, and it's getting a bit old... --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not the most showy species, but one of the more popular garden species. There is plenty of article material surrounding the presumed extinction and consequent rediscovery of this species available.
Support - don't see any real problems. MER-C 13:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image composition. Sophus Bie(talk) 01:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Durova275 04:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As with all specimen shots of this kind, I'd always prefer some slightly soft representation of the rest of the plant to some nondescript b/g (even if it does look "cluttered") but this is very nicely done. You could really do with cleaning that sensor, btw... --mikaultalk 09:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the dust spot? I'll give the photo a clean in the next day or two. Can't see it/them from a cursory glance. My sensor is frankly filthy, and I give it a clean every so often, but it gets dirty again pretty quickly, just from the amount of use. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All over the background, heavily blurred/NRed so you can barely make them out but I'm used to spotting 'em. More an observation for other shots where the blur isn't an option and cloning's a chore, than a real problem here. --mikaultalk 09:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice capture.--Caspian blue 20:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Flowering Red Flowering Gum (Corymbia ficifolia)
Reason
Not much thought was put into the common name (see caption). Corymbia was recently (20 yrs) split from Eucalyptus. One of the major differences is in the formation of the inflorescences.
Support. Nice composition on this one, appreciate that you can see the leaves and the gumnuts, although admittedly it's hard to tell what angle it was taken from. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 13:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot - per Diliff --Fir0002 12:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and nice color composition! Sophus Bie(talk) 01:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good shot, but the background adds more complexity to the complex subject, so if the creator adjusts it with more usages of "blur", that would be nicer.--Caspian blue 19:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but then people wish for more context. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Pretty colors. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 09:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice composition, I like the way you can see the buds and stalk layout almost within the focal plane. These sort of images would really benefit from another side on shot though. It's not all about the flower detail. :-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 13:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I usually do snap a wider shot (eg http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5586/img0620k.jpg) for ID purposes. As far as FPC goes I tend away from them as the composition ends up messy (below standard) and it is difficult to get even lighting without much less portable equipment (which usually needs 240V). It is also a fact that gardens rarely represent the natural environment of the plant, so any surrounding vegetation tends to be a bit misleading. I've been walking through a fair bit of coastal Tea-Tree scrub recently, and may be doing Cape Raoul tomorrow. I haven't been photographing the wild flowers there because horizontal hail and 45 knot winds is not conducive to quality photography. As spring comes again in particular I should be able to photograph quite a lot in a natural environment. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good stuff, nice light, just enough of the foliage to show its family, lovely detail. Nit-picking, I'd crop a bit from the top/right to knock it off-centre. And clean my sensor. --mikaultalk 09:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can see a splodge or two on this one. I'll give it a clone treatment tomorrow or the next day. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice. MER-C 10:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Om nom nom. Not such a fan of the harsh lighting though. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice shot, but agree with NS, lighting seems a bit fill flashy. Has good EV and might even illustrate herbivore quite nicely. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 13:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Very good EV. Lighting detracts some. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Harsh lighting and size small for so many together, not exactly a macro but still good EV --Muhammad(talk) 20:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A high resolution (1,283 × 2,913 px) image of the Tin Woodman from the first edition of the The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The blue shading is retained from the original.
Oppose - lots of stray dots around and undocumented restoration. MER-C 03:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now removed the stray dots. What do you mean by undocumented restoration? All I did was remove the blueness that filled about half of the background (attached to the chapter heading).— The Man in Question(gesprec) · (forðung) 05:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you didn't get them all (still see five, three near the bottom of the image). If you edit a historical image, you must disclose what you did on the description page. MER-C 13:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have removed all the dots I can find. I have added "with blue chapter plate and stray dots removed" to the description. Is this picture good enough to be a featured picture? — The Man in Question(gesprec) · (forðung) 20:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, per Durova. It seems illogical to leave out the final stroke, and I agree that it is (more likely) cut off unless convinced otherwise. MER-C 13:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not good enough, no problem. But I'm very certain the foot is not cut off. A close look shows that the "cut" line is not a straight cut, and that the outlines thin as though the pen were lifted from the page. This picture was not taken from a first edition, but it was taken from a very good edition, and I see no reason they would have cut the foot off. (In addition, the foot did not appear near any point on the page that would easily inspire its cropping.) Durova suggests that a better scan can be obtained. If so, than I'm happy to have this opposed. But what would be better about this proposed scan? — The Man in Question(gesprec) · (forðung) 21:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Cut off at the foot, and we can get high quality color scans from the first edition. Durova275 04:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's what we've got already. If you'd like to work from the same source material I could get you a link. Durova275 03:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Complete foot.[10] Although this image seems preferable.[11]Durova275 03:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current featured picture, scanned directly from a first edition printing.
All right. I restored the foot and, based on the above picture, removed the blue. And maybe I'm off-base, but it seems like the one I scanned is of just as high a quality – the slight blurriness is just because of its size. But all right. I don't want this picture featured if it isn't worthy. — The Man in Question(gesprec) · (forðung) 04:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Sorry to keep commenting, but why is that second image preferable? Since this picture illustrates the Tin Woodman article, shouldn't it be of only the Tin Woodman? (Also, the second picture is of the Tin Woodman frozen, as opposed to animate, and there's a plant going across his leg.) — The Man in Question(gesprec) · (forðung) 04:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using the page you provided, I have made a much sharper version. I don't know what difference that makes. — The Man in Question(gesprec) · (forðung) 05:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't thumbnailing. Try resaving without progressive compression. Durova278 20:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - The present town of Dún Laoghaire (or Dunleary) dates from the 1820. In 1807, two ships leaving Dublin crashed on the rocks between Dún Laoghaire and Blackrock, with 400 lives lost. This leant force to a movement to build a new harbour for Dublin, and in 1816, funding was procured and the construction began. The town-under-construction was renamed to Kingstown after a visit by King George IV in 1821. This harbour caused development of the area to vastly increase, railway lines were created connecting the town to Dublin, and it soon became a fashionable suburb. This image shows Dún Laoghaire, still known as Kingstown at the time, while still in its full Victorian glory.Option 2
Reason
Dún Laoghaire was hit by a bomb in WWII, this irreversably changed the view. Also, this was a fashionable Dublin suburb of the Victorian period. Also, yes, we've seen this before, but I did not see the image until today, and thought it'd make a fun quickish restoration. There were a lot of problems in last week's nomination. I don't propose to list them. Two restoration options: They vary in colours alone. Interestingly, the limits of the photochrom are surprisingly similar to electronic versions of photographs: Photochroms evidently could not create a perfect gradient of tints, so there's something a little similar to posterisation in the clouds, but for mechanical reasons. This is because we're pushing the limits of 19th century colour photograph technology (please don't oppose over this! It was the best the technology could do!)
Comment I'm confused. Isn't the same picture as the one in Recently Closed Noms? But it's supposed to be of Saint Vincent (island) there. Can someone straighten this out? Makeemlighter (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, nevermind. I just saw what you said on that nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the attribution there was completely wrong, and I've removed it from the St. Vincent articles. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support alt 1. Technically not the best photochrom. The water in particular is unrealistically placid. Weak supporting for historic EV due to subsequent wartime damage. Durova275 04:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted No quorum. :-( --wadester16 03:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The romanticized engraving of Flavius Josephus appearing in William Whiston's translation of his works.
Reason
A high resolution (717 × 1,000 px) illustration of 17th and 18th century perceptions of Flavius Josephus which retains as good of contrast as possible from the original work (a woodcut engraving).
Oppose Sorry, but I own the original edition that uses this, and I'm very sure I can get something much better as soon as I have a working scanner. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Perhaps my edition was not printed with as high a quality as yours. But please do upload it, then. — The Man in Question(gesprec) · (forðung) 22:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does help if you're realy lucky and get one from the very early 19th century =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image appears borked. :( Would you mind a reupload? MER-C 13:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind - servers just had a hiccup. MER-C 14:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still can't see it. ZooFari 19:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's really odd - the image is still there and regenerating the thumbnail works. See WP:VPT#Extreme slowness? for more about the server problems. MER-C 03:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks okay now. Odd. ZooFari 05:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This slightly battered butterfly is surely not the best example of the subject. Also the exposure (flash?) or subsequent processing have lost the subtle blue areas - the centre of the roundels on the rear wings, the pale line at the rear wing tips and sometimes also seen on the edges of the front wings. Perhaps the red channel has been boosted too much to highlight the red and orange areas. The lack of texture in the pale yellow and white areas suggests they are over exposed. Not your best work :-) I will see if I can find a better example for the article page :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're referring to in terms of blue areas - the image you put in the article doesn't demonstrate them neither does the field guide I used to identify this photo. Furthermore very little processing was done to the image and we've had battered butterfly FPs before... --Fir0002 11:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look carefully at the pale lines at the tips of the rear wings, my photo doesn't show it as well in the centre of the dark round circles on the rear wings but it is there too. Not a major feature for sighting them in the field maybe, and also not at all evident in your photo but noted by others[12]. Better educational value to find a complete specimen and better detail don't you think?. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another that shows it a bit better File:Yellow Admiral 08.JPG (The image straight from the camera, needs a good crop etc) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not 100% sure what you're referring to (perhaps circle them out) but I'm assuming you're talking about the very pale blue lines on the inner edge of the wings? In which case you will of course note they are present in my pic but not in a particularly blue hue. If they are "supposed" to be blue, it's quite trivial to tweak the image to make that happen --Fir0002 10:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image, but to increase its EV, the article that has the image would be expanded. :) --Caspian blue 17:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted No quorum. :-( --wadester16 03:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I find that the lighting detracts from the image, as does the blurry bottom quarter of the picture. I'm not familiar with the Moomba or with water skiing generally, so I have no comment about the EV. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Far too dark in the foreground, and no encyclopedic value to speak of. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 06:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the lighting is a question of taste - I really like it because the context of the event (Moomba) is shown by the spectators along the bank but the focus remains on the water skier - but the EV is surely unquestionable as it illustrates a core event of the annual Moomba festival..?
But that's where the lighting comes into play. You can't really see anything aside from a boat and a water skier—both silhouetted, with no real detail as to what is going on.
Upon further consideration, I have changed to a weak oppose. The foreground being de-emphasized is a good thing I suppose, as it draws attention to the boater and skier, but this brings up another issue: the background is quite distracting, especially the fence. Don't get me wrong, I like the picture, but I don't feel it represents Moomba or the people involved very well.-RunningOnBrains(talk page) 19:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the very fact the background is visible means it does illustrate Moomba. Without it this would be just a generic water skiing image. And it's not very helpful to complain about the fence because for safety reasons the fence runs the entire length of the river bank - it's just not possible to show the crowds and the water skier without the fence. The exception to the being when they jump - I've uploaded such an alternative which is hopefully more to your liking. --Fir0002 00:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to appear like I'm caving to pressure, but I'm changing again to neutral. I am new at WP:FPC and defer to more experienced editors. This isn't to say I'm withdrawing my concerns, but if others dub them to be irrelevant then I won't argue. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 00:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to oppose per above. The alt is nice but it doesn't fit Moomba. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark and the composition is bland.--Caspian blue 03:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see I'm not going to win this argument, and possibly I am wrong and it is too dark, but I do get the impression that people are becoming a little closed minded in what constitutes good lighting (closed to evenly, front lit subject matter). Brings to mind a video I watched recently which I thought some might benefit from taking a quick look at - at about 1:12 and in particular 1:20 --Fir0002 03:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - RAN "Squirrel" helicopters during an acrobatics demonstration
Reason
Quite remarkable photo of two RAN "Squirrel" helicopters flying perilously close to one another during an acrobatics display at the 2008 Melbourne Grand Prix
Support as nominator --Fir0002 11:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can the contrast be fixed? ZooFari 23:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by the contrast..? Seems a well contrasted image to me - RGB values range from near black to near white. --Fir0002 10:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he's talking about the colour of the choppers against the sky, maybe an unfortunately good camouflage... --jjron (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately the overlapping between the 2 grey helicopters makes the picture confusing, and the background compounds this. Ksempac (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Yes, the image is confusing due overlapping and (perhaps) indirect camouflage, if this is fixed, the image should be better. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 09:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't really do much about the overlap - that was the point of the aerobatics - and the grey cloud + grey paint can't really be changed without a lot of PS work. I've got a shot of a single Squirrel Helicopter on a reasonable blue patch of sky which I'll upload soon --Fir0002 11:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Good photography but confusing composition. A good quality single helicopter image would be more valuable. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 19:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Fine image, but lower-than-standard FP comp. ceranthor 14:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per due to the composition and color - the gray helicopters crossing in the gray sky do not add much educational value to the articles .--Caspian blue 17:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 11:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Beautiful image, but since the composition of the subjects are almost symmetrical, could you adjust the angle a bit, so the roulettes can be looked like flying horizontally?--Caspian blue 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportFormation flying is probably a reasonable article addition, perhaps even something to do with airshows too. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original I find the flight formation more attractive and the Alt 1 feels too cramped. Ksempac (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - For the alt-1 only, both images have high EV, but the second one has more detail for the airplanes. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 09:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Both Original is too small, Alternate's composition not ideal. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Since the Alternative and original have the same number of votes, I'm letting Fir0002 decide which he wants to be promoted. Will close after this. --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Original has a clear consensus, especially when you consider that as Fir's original choice for the nom you'd assume it was the one he thought was best. --jjron (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup sorry for the slow response - I'd prefer the original to be promoted --Fir0002 13:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Roulettes flying in formation.jpg --wadester16 16:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Pyrite from Ampliación a Victoria Mine, Navajún, La Rioja, Spain
Reason
Yes, it is more silvery than gold. These are fairly large crystals. I'm told that the sample is worth about $AUD500. The surface was highly reflective, hence the near white section.
Weak support The mineral itself looks great, the EV is high and the overexposed face isn't a problem. However, the background is very blah, and the shadow to the bottom left is a bit distracting - is it possible to whitewash the whole background to be uniform? Maybe that would look better. Also, I think a much tighter crop would be better. Stevage 01:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Annoyingly the reflective faces on the pyrite are causing the uneven background. I could probably make it a uniform grey, which would contrast better than white with the reflective faces. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is really a beauty. I am not so concerned with the background of the image, I don't think it is too important in this case. Actually, a coin placed for scale would be nice. Milen (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work --Fir0002 10:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've come here to see if I should nominate this emerald, but this one looks great, too. If we go for a geology/mineral image, I don't think that we need to bother with nominating another one. Zara1709 (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The emerald probably wouldn't pass for image quality reasons. No reason why there can't be many mineral images. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice but please do something to the background such that the right side of the mineral does not blend into the background. Nergaal (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Outstanding, this one's rare. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 09:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Pyrite from Ampliación a Victoria Mine, Navajún, La Rioja, Spain 2.jpg --wadester16 16:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The zinc works at Lutana, is the largest exporter in Tasmania, generating 2.5% of the state's GDP. It produces over 250000 tons of zinc per year. The Zinc works was historically responsible for high heavy metal levels in the Derwent River
Reason
It shows the location with good context (river and mountain). It fits well in it's location at Zinc. Useful to provide context for the location of Incat. Lutana was formed to house Zinc Works workers, so has importance there. Zinifex is the company that currently owns it. The zinc works is definately notable enough for it's own article.
Strong support Take note, future panoramographers - this is what a panorama should be. Strong subject, and clear reason to use a panoramic image. Surprisingly for a factory image, it's actually pleasing to look at, and the EV is strong. Great lighting (love the shadows from the crane's power cables on the red roof) and no immediately obvious cloning errors. My only objection is the width of the image - I would suggest making a cropped version available too. For example, from just right of the power pole at left, to just left of the long grey green-rooved shed at right. Out of curiosity, what is the black speck at far left, just over the power lines? Stevage 01:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly sure it is a marker so that aircraft don't hit the power lines. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Above the power lines, though? It looks suspended in mid air! Also, it looks like there is a slight bowing of the panorama. The pylon on the left is leaning right slightly, and the poles on the right are leaning left slightly, which probably accentuates the bowing of the bank of the river which I appreciate is due to the perspective. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 19:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Although I do agree that for an illustration of the Zinc Works (and IMO that's really what the image is about, not Incat) it's a little too wide with irrelevant detail --Fir0002 10:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is definetly awesome. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 09:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agreed with Fir that it seems a bit wider than necessary, but I'm not sure where you could crop it without it looking a bit unbalanced, so I'm happy with it as-is. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 13:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. EV is a little weak in some of the articles but still good enough. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:The Zinc Works and Incat.jpg --wadester16 16:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions What's with the underside of the top LH leaf? Front and back of the leaf seem to be in focus so not sure why the underside would be blurry? EXIF suggests there wasn't a focus stack? --Fir0002 10:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The top-left leaf seems to be pointing backwards unlike the other three, but you're right, the OOF underside part should be roughly the middle of the leaf, and the rear side seems to be in focus ... Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 12:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is a stack. The OOF underside appears to be further away on the basis of the individual frames. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful composition and colours. Pending any discovery of fakery, the OOF leaf is not an issue to me. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 12:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a really cool-looking flower. Also, encyclopedic, well-balanced, good depth, etc. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 15:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I want to own one of these now. Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very nice. Technically good. Maedin\talk 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent detail, very strange plant. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 06:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the position, the focus, and the colors cause this to be very appealing. Definitely adds encyclopedic value. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Correa Alba RTBG.jpg --wadester16 16:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 11:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: it's been removed from the article less than 40 minutes after you added it. One of those cases where it is best to let it settle in the article before nominating. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, having re-read the article, I'm not quite sure what the reason for removing your image was. The editor said because it was taken in Australia, it wasn't the right subspecies, but the article explicitly states that it is native to both Australia and New Zealand... I've reverted his change. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 12:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly off-topic discussion on WP:NZ
I'm a little sick of WP:NZ. Haliotis australis for example, redirects to Paua which is just a bunch of info about new zealand. Pukeko is a case of clear WP:NZ wash in my view, and is in need of a serious rewrite from a neutral perspective. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need a re-write, it needs merging into the species article (see my original discussion here, I had other things to do and forgot to push it). The Oz/NZ subspecies is not distinctive enough to merit its own article. But that is a matter for another page. This image would be suitable for the main article on the species, Purple Swamphen. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 01:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ Noodle snacks: Like most of these articles, the only reason they have a NZ bias is because they are were written about the NZ occurrence of the species, and were usually written before anyone else bothered to write an article about the more general occurrence of the species. So don't be sick about someone having bothered to write an article, be sick about no one being interested enough to generalise it to occurrences elsewhere. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue it is actually easier to write a generalist article. To quote the article creator: "I created it because ... as a New Zealander, I looked up pukeko and got overloaded with info about purple swamphens from other countries". Noodle snacks (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone put a collapse box around the above discussion (I've forgotten the syntax)? Somewhat irrelevant to this nomination... --Fir0002 10:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The contrast between the bird and background gives it an almost cut-out appearance and the white balance is way off (too red). But I really like the alt1 version, but think you need a tighter crop if you want to use it in the info box on the article page (I don't think the Aussy version is a different, or substantially different, sub-species, so it is perfectly fine for the article page) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the auto-white balance correction was too much, so manually adjusted it slightly. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alt seems to be the only one with realistic colours in my experiance with the bird. It is called a Purple Swamphen, not a blue one. I'd like to see the original with the colour balance of the alt. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
!? "The translation from the Greek means 'purple black', though they are more blue than purple"[13] --Tony Wills (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying the alternate has the most realistic colour based on personal observation of this species. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've overwritten the original with an edit which has the exact WB of the alternative - the difference was extremely slim (4850 vs 4700, +12 tint vs +13 tint) as I expected. Not that fussed but the edit is somewhat inaccurate because the background reeds are not a bright green but are a mixture of dying (yellow/brown) and green reeds. So IMO the original is more accurate --Fir0002 10:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original only though the image is little bright.--Caspian blue 20:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt1 version, great photo of the bird in its natural habitat, without the indecipherable, artificial looking, background of the "original" --Tony Wills (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original I shall attribute the colour difference to lighting. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original – looks about right to me. Strong frontal lighting is bound to turn those iridescent feathers a very saturated blue and the ruddy background could be due to anything, especially if it's eg land reflected in water. If the WB measures the same as the alt that's all you need to know. Nice shot too! --mikaultalk 12:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original Good EV and quality. Color looks better in this version. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was wondering if people have been considering Fir's Alt1 version at all, few comments about it. Why do people think the original has better Educational Value than Alt1 ? --Tony Wills (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imo the alt is below standard for detail. Higher detail = greater EV if all else is equal. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realise in the 'original' the bird is larger, but what detail differences do you mean? I see the Alt1 as a superb illustration of the bird in its natural habitat, right down to the turned head and alert look (whereas the 'original' has the look of a cow daydreaming while chewing on its cud ;-). --Tony Wills (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before it could be eligible for promotion to FP, Alt 1 would have to actually be in use in the article, and it isn't. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 11:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very unexciting compared to the pictures we already have on this subject. --Dschwen 04:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this one of docked boats is more exciting?! --Fir0002 04:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least there are real Powerboats on it. This looks like the lawnmower race of powerboats ;-). --Dschwen 11:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha - I'd be surprised if those are much faster as they're much larger - look more like luxury boats. At any rate this boat clearly matches the description of the article which talks about high power to weight ratios rather than bulk and use in water skiing. --Fir0002 10:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much prefer the original. Good EV and quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a textbook featured photo. No noise, high quality, an action scene, and fits the article. --Garretttaggs (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry, but I think the images are not good enough for FP.--Caspian blue 17:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The other recent pic is better for water skiing. Not much for Yarra. Isn't really what I'd call a powerboat either. Also underexposed (though that is obviously correctable). Noodle snacks (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one for Waterskiing because it shows the boat that's pulling the dude. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think both are important in waterskiing as the two subjects are co-dependant - without the speed boat the activity is practically impossible and obviously the skier itself is also crucial. Also I think this image makes a very valid addition to the Yarra river article in the section it is used (Recreational uses). Finally as I noted above to Dschwen, while this may not be the largest or visually stunning powerboat, the article defines a powerboat as one which has a high power to weight ratio and commonly used for recreation (such as waterkiing). And being the official towboat for the IWSF World Water Ski Championships I think this boat fits the bill. --Fir0002 12:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Speed boat and water skiier.jpg --wadester16 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A 2 x 16 segment panoramic view of Keswick, Derwent Water and the surrounding fells, as viewed from Latrigg north of the town
Reason
Unfortunately the weather wasn't quite as generous as with my previous Lake District FPC, but there's detail a-plenty, a good vantage point over the town, and dramatic and interesting scenery.
Could you adjust the level? The image looks a little dark even thought I bear the weather in mind.--Caspian blue 17:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, but the levels are already very carefully adjusted. As you say, due to the weather, the exposure ranges from bright sunlight (on the right side) to heavy shadow and haze on the left/distance. If I brightened the shadows any further, it would increase the haze/decrease the contrast. As it was, I waited over half an hour on the side of a windy hill just to get the shot as it is. If I lived there it would be trivial to reshoot on a sunnier day, but unfortunately I don't. This weather is quite typical of the Lake District though. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 19:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Latest stable release that is. It works in iexplore, so not sure what the problem is. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3.5 is stable. Was released very recently. I've had that problem with Firefox 2 and 3 on my work computer intermittently, but never on my home PC. Not sure why it does it either. Could be memory related perhaps. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, it just happened to me with this image on my laptop using FF 3.5, but re-loading 3 seconds later worked. Strange. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only unfortunate thing is the haze, but can't do much about that. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support this picture is interessest as well with the haze – Wladyslaw (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wish I was there... Time3000 (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent detail and decent lighting. I'm particularly impressed with the level of detail in the more hazy sections of this image --Fir0002 10:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the son of a couple of locals (well, next valley over) I can agree that this is about the best of the average weather you are going to get in this area... You may be lucky and get a nicer day, but it's called the "Lake District" for a reason - there's a fair amount of water! Lovely crisp image even showing my dad's shop! Gazhiley (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Outstanding, not only a good EV, but this image is an example of the essence of beauty. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 09:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - my first reaction was wow. On a closer look, my reaction became "holy crap". You can figure the rest out from there. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Keswick, Cumbria Panorama 1 - June 2009.jpg --wadester16 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I prefer the pose of the alternative one (shown on image page) but the legs are clearer on this one. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 01:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would have preferred more space at the bottom but still pretty good and a surprising change from your panos. --Muhammad(talk) 09:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Skylark 2, Lake District, England - June 2009.jpg --wadester16 16:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support What an eye-refreshing image in the good quality and composition. High EV of course.--Caspian blue 04:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the only commons image for the genus, but the one with the clearest detail. Excellent EV, illustrating a naturally occurring specimen on the Tasman Peninsula (would be cold down there in July!) Good foliage and fruit detail, a nice image that also reads well in the articles at thumbnail size. Melburnian (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Had some fun in 45 knot winds and horizontal hail! Quite right on the genus. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dust spots --Fir0002 10:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, HQ image that nicely displays the subject. Good depth as well, so you get a fuller picture of the subject. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 13:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice picture, good focus. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 09:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - positioning, crispness, and visually appealing gives this high encyclopedic value. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Leptecophylla juniperina 2.jpg --wadester16 06:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry to oppose such an appealing photo, but I'm concerned that the clouds take up a fairly small part of a not very high resolution photo. There also seems to be a strange softness that I wouldn't expect - possibly excessive NR, though I wouldn't have thought that this resolution at ISO 100 would need any. Time3000 (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Will have to agree with all of the points made by Time3000. It does look like it's had some 'artistic' post processing done. There's no way that amount of vignetting is normal at f/8 either. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, just looks like a grad filter + vingette to me though. Noodle
Comment It looks like any other sunset to me; There are stars visible in the dark area, which says to me its not vignetting...I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. Also, note that it is a 30-second exposure, which explains the softness of the landscape and other features. These clouds are typically very faint and seen well after sunset, so these seem like necessary artifacts of the long exposure to me. I can't speak to NR because I'm not sure what that is. The idea that the clouds themselves take up too little of the scene seems like a valid concern, and let me know if I'm wrong on any of my other points, since I am just a beginner at photography and WP:FPC. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 01:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – a bit unfair to shoot this down for PP reasons, isn't it? I can think of quite a few recent promotions with a sight more "creative post-processing" than this one. I'm not sure there was any grad filtering or vignetting here anyway. Exposure would have to be a little "under" to bring the cloud luminance out and if it needed a small contrast boost to display properly it's not exactly what I'd call manipulation... bearing in mind this was shot with a 16mm lens on or about the solstice, I'd say the darkness of the sky is relatively natural. Certainly no more unnatural than the other shots on the article page. Softness of moving detail at 30s exposure is also normal & not NR-related. I'd agree it's a bit of a wide view, yet maybe better as it is aesthetically, hence the weak support. --mikaultalk 08:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PP was just just one of the reasons for me. As Time3000 mentioned, the actual subject is a small, low res part of the scene and the entire image is already only just large enough to be eligible. I don't think the solstice has anything to do with it. Only the incidence of the sun below the horizon and the present weather conditions should affect the lighting on the sky at dusk - the time of year only affects how fast the sun sets. Bear in mind also that it was 16mm on an APS-C camera, so more like 25mm on a FF camera. Finally, it wasn't softness so much as plasticy lack of texture in the water/sky that we were referring to. It may or may not be, but it just looks a bit like overdone noise reduction. The resolution of the subject is probably alone enough to oppose, but the others just added to my feeling that it's more an artistic shot than encyclopaedic. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the lack of texture is at least partially caused by long exposure. PP isn't an issue for me, but the small size is. No excuse for not using something a bit longer in focal length. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the wider view is almost certainly aesthetic, rather than encyclopedic, which is kind of forgivable under the circumstances. This has, I agree, reduced its FP potential. However in my experience midsummer night shots often produce heavily graded skies long after sunset, as the horizon stays remarkably bright almost all night. In a decent dark sky area this can be quite pronounced and, with the "right" exposure/contrast setting, often gives results very like this. I mentioned the solstice as an oblique ref to that and a possible explanation for the apparent heavy post-processing, rather than anything specific to that date. --mikaultalk 05:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What an awesome picture, I believe that this is amog the best works on wikipedia. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 09:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made this wide view composition because it comes close(as close as my 16-45mm f4.0 let´s me) to what the human eyes see when looking for/at the nlc´s, there was no "big pp" done( only small level adjustments and sharpness added)certainly no noice reduction and no vignetting added!! ?' - Noctilucent cloudsI´ve made about 20 shots that night and they were all similar. note that it was almost too dark so a 30 sec exp was used. that´s why the water "freezes" and looses it´s sharpness and detail (and also because of the strong wind that night!) I don´t care about any nominations, I just want to tribute to wikipedia as good as I can :-)--Hrald (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Well I stand corrected. I still think that the size of the clouds is a little small to make it a FP, but it is still a valuable image for Wikipedia and thanks for sharing it! Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 21:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great picture, i dont agree that the clouds arent the focal point of the image. The brilliance of the scene draws the eyes to the clouds --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be the month for correcting systemic bias about the Caribbean. This time another of Johannes Vingboons's seventeenth century maps. High ev, and just fascinating to work with these detailed manuscript maps. Restored version of File:Hispaniola Vinckeboons.jpg. See also compressed courtesy copy at File:Hispaniola Vinckeboons4 courtesy copy.jpg (for slower connection speeds).
Support My computer almost exploded from trying to open this, but it was worth it. Great quality and good EV in the history article. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support high encyclopedic value and an appealing restoration. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Hispaniola Vinckeboons4.jpg --wadester16 06:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Kumioko (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no visual clue to actually linking the medal to the recipient (which is the only reason this would be notable at all); plus the trimming of the flag is completly random. Nergaal (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's technically very good; agree composition could be improved with a top/bottom crop. Also true that there's very little EV for the article it appears in but it would be pretty good for Medal of Honour. I'd say this has good potential value, just not very well utilised. --mikaultalk 08:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great information and it appears to be sourced properly. But I would prefer another cartographic projection that makes areas near the edges more visible. Mercator projection for example. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Mollweide projection is an equal-area projection, so the reason that areas near the edges are so small is because they are that small in real life. Mercator exaggerates extreme northern/southern areas (Greenland is not the same size as Africa!) so using this would give a misleading impression of their relative size, and hence the total rainfall they get. Splitting the projection in the Atlantic and Indian oceans would result in less skew in far NE, NW, SE and SW areas; but I don't see the current projection as a problem. Time3000 (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's too difficult to see what's going on in Alaska, New Zealand, etc. Also, the black lines for longitude, and to a lesser extent latitude, are distracting. Maybe you could make them thinner. I love the idea of this picture, but these two issues really hurt the EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:MeanMonthlyP.gif --wadester16 06:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Size is approximately 3cm. --Fir0002 10:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it dead? Why are its legs like that? Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No its quite alive. I can upload an alt in a more natural environment when commons starts accepting uploads again --Fir0002 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Original - Questionable encyclopedic value. There are already no less than seven featured pictures of Polyphaga beetles (and dozens of high quality images). There are also already two featured pictures of Flower chafer beetles (and one Commons featured picture). If you want your picture to contribute value to Wikipedia, why not write an article on the species or genus rather than putting it into articles that already have better images available? Kaldari (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seven FPs out of 300,000 species in that suborder doesn't appear to bad a ratio to me! I'd have started a stub on this species but unfortunately I couldn't find any substantial information on this species on the internet. I might try later at the uni library when semester starts next week. But I think EV remains independent of the existence or non existence of the species article. Because it is a high quality, well identified shot, all it takes is someone else (collaborative project) to piece together an article. I'd also suggest that this is of equal, if not higher quality than our existing FPs and makes a fine illustration for Polyphaga as well as Flower chafer. --Fir0002 00:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that there are too many featured pictures of Polyphaga beetles. I'm saying that since there are already seven, probably at least one of those should be used in the article, especially since they show the beetles in a more natural setting. Kaldari (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't really see much advantage to a "more natural setting" as they usually involve a substantial trade off in DOF, lighting and composition (distracting elements). At any rate I've got an alternative which might suit you better --Fir0002 05:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Alt 1 - Definitely an improvement on the original (although I know others will disagree). I hate insect photos that look like clinical specimens. If you've never read Jean Henri Fabre, I strongly recommend it. Imagine Ralph Waldo Emerson as an entomologist. Anyway, my point is, DOF (and/or technical perfection) isn't the most important consideration for Wikipedia photographs. Even though the DOF of the Alt isn't perfect, it's adequate and natural looking, and you actually get to see more of the insect because of the angle. (Isn't that the point of wanting more DOF?) The lighting isn't great, although I know it's extremely difficult to get good lighting on scarab beetles (which makes some of your other photographs so impressive). Also, the cropping is a bit tight on the top, but you probably know that. I would probably give it a Weak Support except I still think the EV is weak. Maybe I'll write an article for it this weekend if you don't beat me to it. Kaldari (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, could you provide more information on the map and its source? I think you should translate the original captions on the map in German to English.--Caspian blue 23:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)--Caspian blue 23:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, poor my English. I meant "translate captions appeared on the map", not German sources about the map.:)--Caspian blue 21:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it's quite a nice map of historical value but it's not the best representation of the subject. 1) it's in German and 2) it's not very easy to read. I think using this data and transferring it onto a current European SVG would be a much better way to represent this data (presuming it is still considered a reliable source of data by modern standards). I just am not exactly sure what a well scanned old map like this has to offer about the subject. If it was being used to talk about the study during the early 1900s of languages and populations in Europe that would be another thing... but it's just showing what was where in the 1900s which I think a clearer (but well detailed) map is preferable. grenグレン 14:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Rubens Barrichello waving to the crowds at the end of the 2008 Australian Grand Prix
Reason
Rubens waving to the crowd after finishing sixth at the 2008 Australian Grand Prix - a race in which only 7 of the 22 cars finished the race. Rubens would subsequently be disqualified and reduce the number of finishers to 6. Good technicals (particularly given that I'm shooting through a fence).
Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An EV issue could be that nothing places this at the event of its sole article. Is there is reason it's not being used at Rubinho's article say (other than there already being copious images of him in the car)? --jjron (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I decided not to add to the RB article because of there already being an image of him in the "Earth Car". I think the EV in the GP article is quite good because as I mentioned already the race was marked by the number of retirements. This shot is quite interesting in that context because it shows Rubens waving after surviving the race when ironically he would join the ranks of the non finishers because of a disqualification. I've now also added the shot to Honda Racing - replacing a poorer quality shot of Jensen. We'll see if it sticks --Fir0002 09:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent detail of the car. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 09:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely a quality shot, but it just doesn't have much EV in that article. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has enough EV in my opinion. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 14:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know how difficult it is to spot these in the wild, but I'm not loving the composition. Certainly, that's its habitat though. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support top marks for habitat and detail; maybe a little too much habitat... works better for me cropped in tight to a vertical format. Missing feet is a minor issue. The bird looks a bit "lost" in this setting, I think. --mikaultalk 12:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's partly the point - these birds live in the undergrowth. I'll upload alternative with less habitat once commons sorts itself out --Fir0002 00:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That alternative is really good. Composition is much better, it's a shame that the environment is a bit unrepresentative. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 15:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 The second picture is much better than the first as far as the pose of the bird, plumage show, and seperation from the undergrowth. My only concern is it seems a tiny bit bright. This may be because of the lighting of the day and I wouldn't have mentioned it, but the greenery and bark seem to be light for undergrowth to me. Zulualpha (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Original, Support Alt 1. Both are good images of a difficult to photograph subject, but I prefer the Alt 1 even though the habitat shown is not as representative. The detail of the bird and the composition is far better. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 15:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 per Diliff. Durova279 16:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 if you adjust the level The current image is too bright, so I upload a derivative work of it just to compare the two.--Caspian blue 02:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that too but found it made the face too dark/contrasty (which happened in your edit). I'll have a go at selectively darkening some areas and preserving most of the lyrebird (it looks more natural to me in the original) --Fir0002 09:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that sill looks washed to me. In addition without the presentation of File:Superb lyrbird in scrub-E.jpg, I can not compare all images since you removed the alt.--Caspian blue 16:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Superb lyrbird in scrub.jpg --wadester16 03:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another cracking encyclopedia shot, very nicely lit, could do with a bit more headroom but no less featurable for that. Kudos. --mikaultalk 12:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent in almost every respect. --mikaultalk 12:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love this picture ! the bird seems to be striking a pose just for you. Ksempac (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture is Excellent quality! You can see the individual lines of the feathers (as far as photo quality goes), the color is great, and the pose is amazing! Well done!Zulualpha (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding shot. Cacophony (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but if you tilt the angle a bit (5 degrees?), the bird's pose would be more dynamic.--Caspian blue 23:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot - although I've actually found them quite approachable at Lakes Entrance --Fir0002 09:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very Nice! --xperienc 1745, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Support great image and the position of the bird is very interesting. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Historic lithograph of the Middle East, encyclopedic at the Gulf of Aqaba article as well as at two artists' biographies. Restored version of File:Isle of Graia.jpg.
Support—very good restoration; additional details in the description would be welcome however. —Ynhockey(Talk) 19:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I think the original (untouched version) with subtle tones looks better to me.--Caspian blue 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ooh, I love Roberts, and this looks great. Have a few of my own - Roberts is one of the best documenters of (broadly speaking) Arabia in the 19th century, so pretty much all his work is worth featuring. Two tiny points: The blue-yellow balance seems a little too blue, and I'd be inclined to make it a little brighter - Roberts tends towards pastels in the sky and backgrounds. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting and encyclopedic. The colors in the restoration really pop out, especially the blues and the reds, which are hard to see in a small version. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 05:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe too many ducks for FP's. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 09:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a quota. If we feature every duck species in the world, that would be impressive. Durova279 16:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may or may not be the case near fir, but this species is also far more timid than Mallards here. It isn't a case of going to the local duck pond and throwing bread. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support high encyclopedic value and appealing. Also, the position of the bird with the water is interesting (is it standing?). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is - this is near the bank of a pond --Fir0002 12:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Usual amount, obviously had to crop a bit given the physical size. This is clear from the dimensions ratio. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Oppose. I find the scale bar distracting and less than useful. I would support a version without the bar. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a scale constitutes useful information? Noodle snacks (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the scale bar is necessarily the "right" way to do it. Without the caption, the bar in this image looks like someone whited out a copyright watermark or something. I don't think that the image itself needs to convey the size information. That sort of information (useful as it is) strikes me as more appropriate for a caption or body text. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - Size seems fine to me. In fact, there are too many full res featured pics which lack sharpness. The scale bar doesn't distress me, however I think images should be independent when possible so I'd support it with either no scale bar or else 2mm notated above the bar in within the picture. -Ben pcc (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can always note the distance at the focal plane. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted No quorum present. --wadester16 13:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where is the sourcing? Why doesn't the drop with the cross over it have the same shading? Noodle snacks (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don´t think it is pictographically distinguished, but it´s also suited to be a VP. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 16:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically good (although NS's remark about shading is right), and nice EV (or maybe I'm the only one who doesn't know theses facts ?). Would be even better if someone could add this missing shade on raindrop A. Ksempac (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a beautiful illustration, although I'm not sure part E is 100% accurate. See [14] and [15]. Kaldari (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support appealing and has high encyclopedic value. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I admit this probably has high EV, but I've some trouble figuring out exactly what I'm looking at, so I would be grateful if someone could expand the summary. I can't understand why there are so many colors in a sample of almost pure metal, and I have no idea of the depth of this sample which looks completely flat in this picture. Ksempac (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excelent Photo and Motive. HBR (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Cu-Scheibe.JPG --wadester16 05:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lance Corporal Kevin C. Quihuis Jr. (USMC). Not a WP user
Support as nominator --Kumioko (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Shallow DoF (pehaps due camera aperture): the foreground of the image is blurry. But good resolution. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 16:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - A good photo besides the DOF issue, just not a photo of anything, if you understand.--Garretttaggs (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A real shame that the focus wasn't on the foreground figure; this would have been a winner, as it is the eye is drawn to the shifty-looking guy up the back and all the dramatic tension evaporates. Looks amateurish as a result & not FP material. --mikaultalk 12:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just love all theses mineral pictures, which have both beautiful colors and high EV with all the geometrical form theses minerals assume. Keep them coming ! Ksempac (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Ksempac, this one is really awesome! - ☩Damërung☩. -- 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Decent photo of a really amazing specimen. Some of the focus stacking looks a little odd but for this sort of subject it's definitely excusable. Have you considered building a light tent for these shots? You'd lose all that "dirty" shading. --mikaultalk 02:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support This is a no-brainer! Gladly support.--Garretttaggs (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice colours, but slightly artifacted. MER-C 09:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - visually appealing and would definitely add a lot of encyclopedic value. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support What wild stuff! Very sharp, I don't see the artifacts MER-C refers to. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 13:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Oppose. Not to be a killjoy, but the size indicator doesn't "do it" for me. I'd support a version without it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For an encyclopedia surely the additional information > aesthetics? Noodle snacks (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply throwing in more "information" to the photo does not perforce make it "better" from a FP standpoint. Why not add in a representation of the rhombohedral crystal structure? Why not add in the Bismuth square from the periodic table? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of the image without the scale bar... I also rotated and cropped to fix what looked (to me) like a tilt in the original. I'm not suggesting that we use my modification (for one, it's been re-JPEGed twice now), but this is a crude attempt at showing what I thought would make it "better" in my eye. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note : Use of scales has already been discussed in the talk page. A majority of people approved their use since it add great EV (without a scale, you can't guess the size of an insect or a mineral you never saw before). I admit that in some cases it's hard to put a scale without damaging the picture, but that's not the case here. In this nomination, the scale is not distractive, and can be easily be cut/cloned out if someone needs to do it (for aesthetic or printing purpose). Therefore it should stay. I oppose any alt that removes the scale. Ksempac (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admit it's not as distracting as on the current nom for that fly, but I still don't have to like it. ;) That said, does anyone else see the "tilt" I'm talking about? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not simply include its dimensions in the tagline instead of using the visual field as a stage for "relationship" info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.163.249 (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Promoted File:Bi-crystal.jpg Clear consensus for scale. --wadester16 05:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Thousands of Christmas wreaths are nestled against headstones in Section 27 at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Va., on Dec. 15, 2005.
Master Sgt. Jim Varhegyi, U.S. Air Force. Not a WP user
Support as nominator --Kumioko (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photo seems to have been taken at a slight angle and on a cloudy day, so it's not a visually arresting photo of this annual event. The EV is also relatively low. Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose artifacts and blurring issues. ZooFari 04:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Nice resolution, but blurred foreground. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 16:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice at thumbnail, but blurry and grainy at full resolution. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - VADM John Bulkeley, USN in his dress whites in 1988Alt 1 by User:Diliff - Selective noise reduction avoiding the face, hands, hat and medals, and minor touching up of scanning artifacts.
Reason
I think this is a good portrait of a United States Navy Admiral and Medal of Honor recipient
Support as nominator --Kumioko (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately, it's full of artifacts, probably caused by oversharpening.
It's not full of artifacts, it's a (very nicely) scanned film-based shot showing a bit of film grain. Noise reduction, IMO, would ruin it. If it is to be judged fairly, it shouldn't be examined the way we do digital shots. --mikaultalk 07:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does have jpeg artifacts, but whoever it was that opposed was probably referring to the noise, I concede. I don't think you can categorically say that noise reduction would ruin it though. It would certainly ruin detail if strong NR was applied across the entire image. Or more to the point, in this image it would accentuate the jpeg artifacts which are buried in the noise. Using a bit of intelligence and only performing noise reduction on areas without texture minimises the detrimental effect of NR as per Alt 1. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 12:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, whatever turns you on ;-) you've just demonstrated exactly what I was on about though, for me it's now a manipulated derivative of its former self and just looks weird, all that gritty detail giving way to selective smooth bits. The background looks good but maybe algorithm-based NR would look a little less "tweaked". Perversely enough the alt's margins and transitional areas now look slightly artifacted to my eyes. Ho hum. --mikaultalk 02:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that there is some artifacting around the 'transitional' areas as I had feathered the selection before running NR - perhaps I feathered it a little too much, but a sharp transition would potentially look worse. The thing is, like I said, all the artifacts were there to begin with - you just chose to ignore them because it was old-school film and consistently artifacted across the whole frame. ;-) When you say algorithm-based NR, what exactly do you mean? The noise reduction software analyses/profiles the image before performing NR on it, so in that sense it uses an algorithm. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the masking I guess. I dare say the software you used can be tweaked to identify and ignore fine detail and it's that I was referring to. IMO you're generally ok with chromatic stuff and (digital) luminance noise but it's nowhere near so good on uniform film grain where the even best-tweaked algorithm is going to have to be so aggressive that detail loss is unavoidable. In any event I prefer a global correction to avoid these odd-looking (IMO) textural variations across the image. Masking digital shots is always a good idea, but with film-based stuff you should do all or nothing; if grain is bad enough to really need NR it's probably beyond redemption anyway. OTOH if there's good detail that would be lost even with extremely skilful global NR, it's probably best left as-is. --mikaultalk 12:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the touch up. --Kumioko (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (alt-1 only) - Great noise reduction by Diliff. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 16:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1. I don't have a problem with the selective NR and I think it allows you to focus on the subject instead of the noise. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whilst I have to commend the noise reduction of the edit, the face still has a little too much noise for my tastes. 03:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labrat256 (talk • contribs)
Promoted File:VADM John Bulkeley 1988 NR edit.jpg --wadester16 05:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Durova279 04:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Isn't it really in PD? How so? The architect died in 1997 and drawing was published between 1979 and 1981.--Caspian blue 04:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This architect donated a portion of his papers into the public domain. Durova279 05:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for the reply, then, would you state the information on the image page and in the nom with sources if possible (from book or news)?--Caspian blue 16:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It already is fully stated: the source is the Library of Congress (linked) and the PD template has a second link to the rights information on the Paul Rudolph collection. This is how such things are normally notated. Durova279 19:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not seen the original but the colour balance appears too magenta, and the tonal balance slightly dark and compressed, compared to other examples available online. This one for example may be a little too far the other way colour-wise, but gives an idea what I'm on about. Very nice illustration, be good to get it right. --mikaultalk 07:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a point. Uploaded a new color balance over the existing filename (older version still visible in image history). Durova279 04:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rare catch, so encyclopedic value is very high. I wonder about the color, as it was not that old to weather so badly (the original). Perhaps the LoC just botched holding it. Details in the restoration come out nicely. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The building is white, so I am left wondering a bit why this is magentaish, but seems to be a feature of the drawing. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just doesn't fit the criteria. Hard photo to take indeed, but we know you're capable of a true FP on the subject. Main problem is low detail as a result of crop.--Garretttaggs (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User has 7 edits, all but one of which are to FPCs. MER-C 05:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Very good for a 1:1 crop, but just off FP quality to me. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A Swaledale ewe in the Lake District, England.
Reason
It's a very detailed and interesting view of the Swaledale breed of sheep, native to the north of England. This photo is taken in its natural habitat, the fells of Cumbria.
Support Another one where I'd have cropped it less tight at the top, but it's still probably the best sheep shot we have, complete with winnets. --mikaultalk 01:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Durova279 02:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A fellow came up from Wales and spilled half a glass of wine on its back. Durova280 00:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As one of the english wikipedia's most active, sheep friendlyexperienced saavy welshman, I concur that this fine specimen has been captured in all its glory and I may have to examine it more closely in my own time :) Seddσntalk|WikimediaUK 00:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Swaledale Sheep, Lake District, England - June 2009.jpg - ☩Damërung☩. -- 08:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --☩Damërung☩. -- 02:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose heavy JPEG artifacting. MER-C 02:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Speedy Close per MER-C. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose limited appeal to general users of Wikipedia--Millrick (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify your reasoning? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 23:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't really know what JPEG artifacting is since I am still new to this but I think its a good image. By the way its just US Marine not marine soldier. Its kinda like saying US sailor soldier or soldier soldier. --Kumioko (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, so basically a jpeg format picture isn't going to pass this if I am understanding correctly? --Kumioko (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
False, but images with visible artifacts at 100% generally don't succeed. MER-C 11:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of our FP are JPEG. What is important is how the original file was converted to compressed JPEG. Sometimes FPC with lot of JPEG artefacts can be recompressed from the original uncompressed file to suppress JPEG artefacts. Things like which software you used (forget MSPaint), and compression rate influence heavily the quality of the final image. Ksempac (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted - ☩Damërung☩. -- 09:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A landscape of one of the trails that settlers used to cross the Rocky Mountains into the Pacific territories of the United States. Sketch made in 1859 shows deep wagon ruts in the unpaved route through a mountain pass; scarcity of traversible passes was an important determinant of trail routes. Restored version of File:Cherokee_Pass2.jpg
Support as nominator --Durova279 04:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool drawing. Pretty good EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I note the remains of a signature top right. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do like the retouch, and the EV looks good. --Kanonkas : Talk 22:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way the colors come out. This appears to be the original. The restoration is very nice and brings out the details. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a conversion to a non-progressive JPEG and a reupload to debork thumbnailing. Wikipedia's thumbnailing servers don't like large progressive JPEGs. MER-C 09:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please reupload as a non-progressive JPEG per above. The sharpness is lacking, f14 is too narrow. I think you could have picked a better time of day/year too. Shooting into the sun tends to worsen haze, cause flare and leave the sky blown. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had a month to make the shot... My fault I didn't get it right. I was trying to get the foreground in relative focus as well as the background to create a sort of vista effect. Any idea on how to increase the sharpness next time around? --Garretttaggs (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try about f8-9 instead of f14. See Airy disk for the physics justification. Biggest problem is shooting straight into the sun though frankly. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per NS, minus progressive JPG concerns. MER-C 06:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The "slope" of the horizon is distracting, aside from above listed concerns. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As is just so happens, that is the natural lay of the land, as I had my tripod dead level. In fact, there is a hidden stream in the forest on the right hand side of the valley where all the water flows to. You can even see the mouth of the River Foyle and it is also perfectly level. --Garretttaggs (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm seeing something different. For example, when I look at the "bay" or other body of water in front of the far hills, I see a definite curve from the left to the right side. One would imagine a body of water should be "flat" across it's whole surface. I would be surprised to hear that that would be a true representation of the lay of the land. Perhaps an error in the stitching algorithm? Or, if this was a single shot, some sort of barrel distortion? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having your tripod dead level does not prevent curved horizons and so on because of parallax error. I am not sure what software you used to stitch this, but you might want to read up on vertical/horizontal control points for the future. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually of the opinion that this is simply an illusion provided by the fact the bay gets wider and thus the shore line stretches further back in the horizon, giving the impression that the water level varies at points when in fact it is just more water on a different parallel.--Garretttaggs (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted - ☩Damërung☩. -- 09:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 13:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Sorry, I love the subject, especially its plumage, but it's not a full support with the background, which I dislike. ceranthor 14:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can sort of see what Ceranthor means about the background, but it's being picky as the composition on this one is excellent, the colours are vigrant and the image is sharp (but as it should be for the resolution provided!). Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Good enough contrast and focus. Durova280 04:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Background doesn't bother me at all. Nice shot. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This bird is intently posing for a featured picture. And! I love the background. -Ben pcc (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Musk Lorikeet jul08.jpg --NW(Talk) 19:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - oversharpened around trees and HDR appears overdone (water looks too blue!) MER-C 07:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Takes opportunity to point out it isn't HDR, or even a exposure blend (just a grad at the top). Noodle snacks (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, but it's still oversharpened. MER-C 07:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose HDR or not it seems to have been overcooked in post processing - too high contrast (some can be attributed to sharpening as MER-C points out). And the graduated ND just doesn't work that well for me; it doesn't look natural --Fir0002 12:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Kumioko (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Blown whites, source link returns 404 error. Durova280 04:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. MER-C 06:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what blown whites means but here is the correct link. [16] --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the upper left corner where the image goes completely white? With an image of this age that effect is usually the result of poor image processing. Such as attempting to brighten the image to correct for fade, without really going in and putting much time or attention into it. Sad to see that because the original has good composition and a better digital file might be worth featuring. If you'd like to write to the hosting institution and ask for a better scan, that might help. I'll volunteer to do a courtesy restoration if they supply a good quality image file: minimum 10MB in uncompressed TIFF or PNG format with no scanner streaks. Durova280 17:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invitation to assist, I doubt they have a better one but I will see what I can find. --Kumioko (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes an institution is willing to do a new scan if they understand there's a possibility an item from their collection could be selected to run on Wikipedia's main page. You can assure them that they will receive source credit, with a link back to their website. Durova280 22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a little more info on blown out whites. You may also want to have a look at this and this, too. wadester16 15:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Fir0002 11:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting, and shallow DOF with awkward focus --Muhammad(talk) 12:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow almost a full house - just missing composition! :P What don't you like about the lighting? There are no harsh shadows, no blowns..? Similarly DOF comes from f/11 and can't really be improved upon. And to be honest I'm actually quite satisfied with the DOF in this shot because one way or another all important areas are in focus - although no one leg is 100% in focus the combination of all legs gives a complete picture of what the spider's legs look like --Fir0002 13:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darn, I knew I was missing something ;). Seriously though, the body itself is not in focus as I would have liked. Lighting, I find too yellowish. --Muhammad(talk) 16:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find the focus is centred on the body so shouldn't be any issues there. Possibly you're referring to sharpness but again I think it's up to scratch for such small subjects. OK, so you're more concerned with WB than lighting? In which case I could easily upload an edit (probably will tonight or tmrw) but it's pretty accurate - you see the leaf it is on is just beginning to wilt (note the decaying areas) so it's not as deep green as you might expect but rather it's beginning to turn yellow. --Fir0002 12:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't suppose you have something with a wider DOF? I don't mind the lighting or choice of focal point, but I do find myself wishing that more of the legs were in focus as well. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that's as good as I have and its pretty much the best DOF possible. Note as I mentioned earlier you wouldn't really gain much information by having more legs in full focus because they're all the same. --Fir0002 12:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I like it, and I think the dof is acceptable. But it is rather . . . greeny/yellow, in a sickly, off-putting way. I don't really support altering images so they are less like reality, but I wouldn't mind in this case! Maedin\talk 10:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General George Washington Resigning his Commission, by John Trumbull
Landing of Columbus, by John Vanderlyn
Discovery of the Mississippi, by William H. Powell
Baptism of Pocahontas, by John Gadsby Chapman
Embarkation of the Pilgrims, by Robert W. Weir
Reason
Featured Set Nomination: Declaration of Independence was first nominated and successfully promoted in August 2008. While it is exceptionally famous, it shares the same room as seven other notable and wonderful paintings in the United States Capitol rotunda. This is an effort to complete the set, which identify key points in early American history. Each painting is 365.76 by 548.64 centimetres (12.0 by 18.0 ft). And just a friendly reminder: evaluations should be based on the full resolution version of each image.
Articles this image appears in
United States Capitol rotunda is where they reside together. Each is also used in other articles as well. See the respective image pages for more info.
Comment. Featured sets have been controversial in the past, and fair enough too, as they're awkward to evaluate, and awkward to handle as FPs. What I did last time I had a set was to combine them into a single image, and link to each individually on the image page. Just an idea. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, but this just recently passed with ten images. I would argue these have higher EV (not knocking the other nom, but these do have a legitimate place in American history). wadester16 15:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having looked through them all. We have to decide if featured sets are OK once and for all rather than debate with each nomination. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should be nothing wrong with featured sets as long as the quality of each picture is up to snuff. I could see them as being a bit harder to pass, considering how one bad apple might spoil the whole bunch. However, each one of these images is worthy of an FP star, so why not all at once! Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except it is NO harder for them to pass - the 'bad apples' are just overlooked. It means you get multiple FPs for the price of one, which should not happen. --jjron (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
??? What do you mean "which should not happen"? What are you suggesting here?--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His point is that if one is bad, but a voter thinks the quality of the others outweigh what's lacking in the one, it's not fair; each image should be promoted on its own merit. It's a very fair argument. I personally believe all of these meet the expectations of FP status. wadester16 03:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Just checking. I thought he was suggesting something else; but as I (and you just now) stated above, every one of these pictures is worthy of FP status.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Pericles, you probably haven't been around here long enough to know that I am 100% opposed to the concept of featured sets. I have explained previously how they should be handled, in short either each image is nominated individually, or as Diliff says if they really belong in a set they are combined into a single image and judged in that context. --jjron (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been here since 2007. Your point is taken, but given the fact that there are already featured picture sets, like this one, I see a precedent for the acceptance of featured picture sets. Let's hear what others have to say.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, though perhaps you should have known then that I am opposed to them :-). My personal take is that all existing sets should be auto-delisted and renominated in one of the two forms I mentioned above, which would remove the 'precedent'. It was a mistake to ever let one through to start with to set the precedent. --jjron (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question If they're all good enough, why not just nominate them each? Makeemlighter (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, albeit reluctant - I just wish they were a bit bigger. Still, the sizes compare to the other featured paintings we have which were taken in situ by Wikipedians, so I'm going to support. Weak because several of them have dark bands on the left and right sides. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In light of the above discussion on sets and SMH's comment, I just randomly opened one of these. Does someone knowledgeable and uninvolved with this nom want to honestly say that this would get promoted if it was nominated individually? --jjron (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a set, but would consider them as individual noms. I don't think they all meet FPC standards of quality and EV. BTW, seems like we need to formalize some policy for dealing with sets. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - the bands are a little problematic, but the colors come out nice and clean. I feel that they are definitely encyclopedic and outweigh the problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[I believe this is failing at the moment, as it doesn't have three full supports excluding nominators? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Hmm, I never thought of it that way. I don't think I've ever not passed a nom that still had 4 supports even if 2 were co-nom supports. I see your point, as you're following the rules (albeit strictly), but I don't really think we should be punished for working together on the nom... wadester16 05:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, that is precisely why the rules are worded that way - to help ensure a minimum level of scrutiny. I remember a featured sound debate where they had three nominators, which would make it eligible for promotion even though nobody commented on it (fortunately, people did). MER-C 11:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through each painting one-at-a-time:
Surrender of General Burgoyne — Is the lighting on the rump of the horse bright, or is this how the painting is painted? In addition, the tilt seems off; look at the framing on the bottom and the left side.
Surrender of Lord Cornwallis — I really don't see any problems with this, just regular, expected wear and tear. However, is the shading line running along the right from lighting, or is that different fading?
General George Washington Resigning his Commission — Pretty decent quality with this one, although there is a 4 px grey line on the far left side that I think should be cropped out. I can't tell if it's the frame or the painting.
Landing of Columbus — There's a significant amount of frame appearing in the top right; I don't know if this can be fixed. (A crop would remove some of the painting itself). And it looks blurry in the article for some reason.
Discovery of the Mississippi — Banding issues and frame at the top right and left. This almost seems vignetted because of the darker corners.
Baptism of Pocahontas — Definite tilt issues. Needs a slight clockwise turn.
Embarkation of the Pilgrims — The frame needs to be cropped out.
Overall, Weak, weak oppose set because of concerns in some of the above, in addition to the banding pointed out by Shoemaker's Holiday. Some of these I think could pass, others need work before passing, and others I don't know about them passing. SpencerT♦Nominate! 14:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Spencer, you write: "Is the lighting on the rump of the horse bright, or is this how the painting is painted?" It is most certainly how the painting is painted (or rather, how it has been degraded); look at this Google image search of every single other photo taken of this painting.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. That's for that one. [continues looking at the pictures]. SpencerT♦Nominate! 19:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As a set. Do not see the huge importance of the rotunda and, as these paintings may change, would degrade the quality of the set. If this were to pass, we would have precedence for a set of the paintings in the Louvre, or the Hermitage, or Buckingham Palace, or whatever other building combinations might be dreamed up. Sorry, this isn't how I think our featured process should work. Maedin\talk 10:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I just want to point out, though, that these paintings won't change. They are permanent additions to the walls of the rotunda, being set into niches in the wall made specifically for these paintings. They were commissioned specifically to be in the Capitol rotunda and have been there for over a century and a half. wadester16 18:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I hadn't specifically realised that, I was referring more to potential damage, either to the paintings or the building. But I agree that it's unlikely they'll change—at least not any time soon! Maedin\talk 18:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, gotcha. I didn't realize your meaning initially. wadester16 18:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok, I hadn't made it clear :-) I appreciate the information, anyway. Maedin\talk 19:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted I hope noone minds: I have voted, but I voted opposite to closure, and this had dragged on quite some time past closing date. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - noisy. MER-C 02:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose has potential, but very underexposed at the moment, plus fixing that would boost the noise a lot. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the graduated tint. ZooFari 19:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is up with the beak? Noodle snacks (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its extremely deformed. That is a nice picture, but it should not be the taxobox image as it is not representative of the species. I don't know if we have an article on bird deformities. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 02:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not representative of the species. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Even if we have an article on bird deformities, it still is unacceptably (JPEG) artifacted. MER-C 09:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What artifact? - ☩Damërung☩. -- 22:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image I found on Flickr is one of the best images of the East River and the two nearby bridges (Triborough and Hell Gate) which I have ever seen. This image is a large panorama with an amzaing view. It should meet the criteria.
That's astonishing how similar the two bridges look. Stevage 02:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; for all the (warranted) notoriety that the SHB gets, one would think this would get similar acclaim, especially since its 15 yrs older than the SHB. I had never heard of it before this. wadester16 16:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've lived in Queens most of my life and didn't realize we had a tale of two bridges. It makes me want to take a visit to Astoria Park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack2008man (talk • contribs) 07:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Aniruddha.Raste (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It should be in an article. Regardless, The plant is out of focus an needs some sharpening. The composition isn't hot either; the carnivore is obscured, decreasing the encyclopedic value. There are thousands of similar carnivorous plants, but this one is missing its main identification features. A photo showing the entire plant would be a better target. ZooFari 04:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info --Aniruddha.Raste As far as my knowledge goes this plant is not a carnivore. —Preceding undated comment added 07:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Ah, well it looked like it but I realized it wasn't a nepenthes. ZooFari 17:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close not in an article. MER-C 08:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks the sharp focus required for a featured picture. Nonetheless, thank you for the image of this interesting plant - I have just made a short article for it. Melburnian (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - OOF, noisy, poor composition, odd straight lines on the LHS. MER-C 08:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thank you for the image (since it fills in a gap in coverage). The view is really too tight for much encyclopaedic value. Something like [17] or [18] is closer to ideal in my view. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It does have EV for it illustrates a part of the plant well, but as an overall representation of the plant it's not the right crop/view. I can't support it as a FP because of that. — raeky(talk | edits) 17:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - An unsharp image. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 22:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 1, colors subtly remapped. Auto levels with minor clipping allowed and used this time instead of unique curve for each image. EVs manually set in Hugin because its photometric optimizer kept turning good highlights into blown.
Reason
Mt. Hood is the second most climbed mountain over 10,000 feet in the world [19]) and it's very hard to find decent photos of its terrain, so this revealing panorama should be very encyclopedic, especially to anyone interested in mountains. For the general audience it shows neat phenomena such as volcanic activity and rock fall and is generally an interesting image viewed up close (would make a nice puzzle!). Quality is pretty good, there are some seams but they're well hidden and almost unavoidable anyway for this kind of picture. Main worry for me is the noise in the shadows.
Please, do not get the impression that this is a shameless plug for the company that took the photos. For one thing I'm actually a contractor, for another I consciously avoided using our fancy expensive physical DRM protected software to assemble the pictures because I knew that the result wouldn't be as good as Raw Therapee + Hugin + my manual work. So if anything I'm committing disgrace.
Support as nominator --Ben pcc (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no evidence of permission, blown highlights. You have the RAWs, so you should tone map this. MER-C 08:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MER-C, assuming it is a satellite image. Satellite images have awkward angles anyways, so I'd oppose for its composition. ZooFari 16:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not a satellite image, it's taken from airplane flying a scant half kilometer above the peak. I know it's unusual, but there aren't many featured pictures of this kind (and none by Wikipedia members) so I thought it might interest. Personally, I think that the biggest weakness of this image is that you really have to get close and spend some time viewing it to appreciate it; thumbnail and even 1024 wide preview are nothing special; it's not like you can see rockfall or volcanic smoke at those scales y'know. Anyway, colors remapped, permission is pending (would it be appropriate to suspend? I'm not sure how necessary formal permission is since I'm one of them, but anyway it's pending.). -Ben pcc (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Detailed at full size, but I really can't make head or tail of what I am looking at. I think something at 45 degrees or similar would give a much better sense of scale and height. We do need more aerial photography, that said. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per noodle snacks. deBivort 20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The angle of the shot is unpleasant; I would have preferred an image showing the figure's faces. ZooFari 04:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMHO this is the best way to take this picture. The memorial is a direct reference to this famous picture with soldiers going from left to right, and faces not visible. Ksempac (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think you'd struggle to find a 10px square of that picture that's not displaying heavy jpeg artifacting.--bad_germ 07:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. MER-C 08:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This was previously nominated in April 2006 and failed to get much support. Standards have increased significantly since then. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most famous (and futile) actions in British military history, from a lithograph produced the next year. Restored version of File:Charge of the Light Brigade.jpg.
Support. Great EV, very interesting scene and you're right, it fills a massive void in our FPs. Would love to see other photos of similar content. One minor issue - it looks like it could benefit from a little more contrast or increasing the black point to 15-20ish, but as I said, minor issue. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support possibly agree about the black point. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Good shot. Original definitely looks over exposed though. One concern is I don't think it should be in the Hay article because strictly speaking this doesn't look like hay which is dried - it seems to be some form of fodder to be fed to livestock while it's still green. --Fir0002 02:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 or a future enhanced edit by Muhammad from the originals. Something different and interesting. Agree with Fir on the use in Hay (I am inclined to remove it from there myself, but will give Muhammad a chance to explain). Also I'm bit uncomfortable about the caption including a predicted use for the material, so perhaps Muhammad could also clarify whether this is a typical practice or whether he has clear information that was indeed the use of the fodder (if I'm making sense). --jjron (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to remove it from the Hay article. I considered doing so myself before nominating the image but was not very sure. I presumed the grass was to be used as fodder because the area I had visited, has some zero-grazing, indoor cattle and it is a common practice to feed them with grass from a nearby area. Since care of the cattle during grazing is usually left to the youth, some families may not have an old enough responsible son hence the transport. --Muhammad(talk) 08:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So as I read what you say, it is quite certain this is being taken to feed cattle, but it's an assumption that it's being taken to feed the family's cattle. Captions appear to have already been tweaked in the articles, though description on image page (and caption here) perhaps need an update. Removed from Hay per above discussion (note, if it's not hay this does mean the image filename is also incorrect - can one of our Commons admins rename it?). --jjron (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated articles to with the new image names --Muhammad(talk) 03:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, knew I forgot something. Minor details, minor details... wadester16 05:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you suggest changing the caption and removing family? --Muhammad(talk) 15:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry, ended up not very clear. You really need to remove anything that's a prediction or assumption (e.g., 'going to feed family's cattle') per Wikipedia:No original research#Original_images. --jjron (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. MER-C 08:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. Great shot of daily life. Definitely FP stuff. - Darwinek (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 well done. Cacophony (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. I'll break my boycott of GFDL 1.2 images to support this one. Great shot. Kaldari (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Less than perfect composition, with the shoulder cut off; and unfortunate lighting with the subject's eyes obscured by shadow. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK about the other stuff but whats wrong with the composition? Or are you referring to the shoulder?--Kumioko (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - way too grainy, green hair and chromatic aberration. MER-C 08:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As above. Also, due to the perspective and the shadow around his eyes, this picture doesn't convey very well what the person looks like. Labrat256 02:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really needs some fill flash. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is fill flash?--Kumioko (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fill flash might help. Set your camera to -1 to -2EV in sunlight or other harsh lighting conditions. It lightens the shadows. The majority of my bird shots use it to some degree. Glasses can cause issues, but in this case the reflection wouldn't appear on the glass. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator —kallerna 10:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - lens flare and background posterization (JPG artifacts?). MER-C 12:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Don't think you caught the bee in a good stance. Deeper DOF would've helped. Photos of bees on flowers are not unique at all which lessens the "wow", it's encyclopedic but needs more source of "wow". -Ben pcc (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although profile is interesting, I agree with Ben pcc. I feel there are different stances the bee could have been caught in to make a better picture with more "wow". Also, to me it seems that the petals/center of the flower are the focal point instead of the bee, which makes the right wing and what little of the right side of the bee you can see out of focus. --Zulualpha (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addition to above, I understand the flower is the focal point (and the topic of the article); however, since the bee is on the flower, I feel it should be in focus as well. A difference of one or two inches further away from the subject (or a little less zoom) would have made a great deal of difference, IMO. Finally, the bee is actually obscuring some of the flower. --Zulualpha (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice artistic shot of the falls but still has good EV. I would have cropped the bottom of it more though, it feels a bit empty and unbalanced at the bottom. You must have jumped in to get this shot! Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compositionally a great shot, but I feel the exposure was too long and it looks a bit weird in the foreground with the blurring of the water there. You can go TOO long with a shot like this and I think this is a prime example, you've lost all visual representation of actual water due to the exposure. — raeky(talk | edits) 14:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose . Unfortunately, I am inclined to agree with Raeky's assessment. Something like a 10s exposure might have been perfect. As it stands, it doesn't look much like water anymore. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point. Based on my own experimentation/experiance I'd bet that you'd find it difficult to tell the difference between 5 seconds and 30. There are strong differences in the sub 1 second range (contrast 1/5th vs 1/3rd), and minor ones from 1-5 seconds (1.6, 8). This only applies to waterfalls, the results vary much more with the sea. In the available light, same aperture, no ND and an ISO boost to 400 the exposure for this shot would still be around 2 seconds. I'd like to do a geometric progression of shutter speeds for a shot at some point for comparison purposes. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bow to your greater experience with waterfalls. My experience with water movement/shutter time is limited to waves coming in to shore. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the exposure is fine for the waterfall, but the water flowing into the pool of water in the foreground it was way to long, probably would of looked better to have a much faster exposure so you still get the sense of water in the foreground instead of foggy mist. Maybe two images one faster exposure and longer for the waterfall then making a composite. to bring the best of both exposure together. But thats my opinion that the foreground just looks way to fake/weird with that longer exposure. Amazing shot though. — raeky(talk | edits) 17:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice use of Av and Tv. --TitanOne (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I agree with the comments above, the appearance of the foreground could easily mislead people as to the nature of the water, limiting encyclopaedic value. Guest9999 (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose per above. I'd suggest nominating at Commons:Commons:FPC - I'd definitely support it there. Time3000 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Very artistic, but the foreground is confusing. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 22:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compositionally I don't feel this picture has what it takes, the camera angle for the subject is probably not ideal. Shot from almost directly below and nothing else in the frame except the balloon and sky isn't visually interesting. — raeky(talk | edits) 14:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Kumioko (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could use a good restoration. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, the colors are obviously not correct and faded, so it does need restoration before we proceed, recommend it be Suspended until restoration. — raeky(talk | edits) 14:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for future reference, how does that process work. Is there a seperate submission process for restoring an image? I have several that I think would fall in the same category. --Kumioko (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can bring them to the Image Lab and request it. Not sure how many restorationists there are there. I'd be willing to take whichever one you like the most and do some work on it. Restoration can be a long process, and I have my own that I'm working on now. wadester16 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When looking for good FP candidates from the Toni Frissell collection, I had looked at this before and I came down on the side of not restoring/nominating it. I do think the photo is quite good in comparison to the other photos that are up at commons[20], and it's possible that this angle isn't possible today because of the area set off for visitors. I'm not sure. I'm not really sure exactly why I don't like the image - I guess it looks kind of artificial/staged in that the way they're standing doesn't really make sense - why is the guy on the outside of her, and not the inside? And you'd think they naturally would be facing toward the tomb rather than away from it... Their facial expressions are also kind of strange and unnatural. It's also a little odd to feature a historical photo that isn't showing something historical, though I suppose it might make sense if such an angle isn't possible today. Anyways a little food for thought. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My first good butterfly picture (unless you count this one). The wings are damaged and the tips are not in focus. Lighting is good although not completely natural looking due to the flash. Encyclopedic value is decent, although other (lower-quality) images of this species/pose exist on Commons. Composition is good.
Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Durova280 17:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per stunning image. I think the contrast of the various colors really makes this stand out. As such, it adds more to the encyclopedia than a standard image would. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Better, but still not perfect. EV good enough to make up for lingering issues. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Makeemlighter. MER-C 07:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad exposure, not-so-good composition. Blown highlights are not that much of an issue though. ZooFari 05:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Over-exposed.--TitanOne (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice fix.--TitanOne (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I went back to the RAW file and backed off the exposure and contrast so that there aren't any blown highlights now. Load these both in tabs to compare: newold. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Good portrait of the animal, but pity about the background (I assume that this is a zoo enclosure rather than normal habitat, right?) Size reference (even in the caption?)Spikebrennan (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Size added. Doesn't the background look like a beach ;)? --Muhammad(talk) 06:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Be good if you could clone out the "horn" it's got (discolouration in the sand directly above the eyes) --Fir0002 12:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1The background doesn't affect the image of the animal, once the 'horn' is removed. The image of the tortoise is a nice image from a decent angle. Labrat256 03:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the edit. Background doesn't bother me ;-) ZooFari 16:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think we're starting to see a dangerous precedent emerge on FPC concerning the illustration of plants - it seems to have become standard practice to simply get a close up image of the flower on a heavily blurred out background. Don't get me wrong, sometimes this is appropriate and useful for the article, but for many plants it's far from ideal. In this case I strongly think it would have been much better done with a wide angle lens and a lot more DOF. Eg this shot I took ages ago on my Kodak or something like File:Tagetes-1.jpg has far more EV because it shows much more of the plant and IMO doesn't suffer unduly with clutter. The "visible" leaves on this shot have no EV at all because they're blurred far too much. Aside from my concerns with EV I don't like the unnatural (as in man made) looking red object on the RHS and the composition feels a cut off - I'd have liked this better in portrait with more of the stem visible --Fir0002 12:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precedents aside. Fir's linked examples to lead me to question the white balance on this. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (precedents aside) After reading fur's comment which points out flaws which I did not immediately see (such as the red object on the RHS) I have to agree that the image could be better. Support Alt 1 if any. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After searching out other images [21], this one seems to be taken in a studio or against a brick wall. Although I appreciate the color of the flower more because of this, there just isn't a lot of EV; much of the plant is left out of the picture. --Zulualpha (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose appears just pasted onto blank background, edges don't look natural. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes any difference, this was exactly how the image was captured. --15:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The closest the United States ever came to losing a war on its own soil against a foreign power: the British burned Washington, D.C. in 1814. This image scanned from an original watercolor and ink depiction taken shortly afterward. Restored version of File:US Capitol 1814.jpg.
Support as nominator --Durova280 04:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGerardM (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC) It is images like this that bring home history as you can hardly imagine today ... If this was the capitol of the USA, what a different world it must have been.[reply]
Support This is an invaluable image with allot of EV. Excellent restoration work Durova. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong encyclopedic value. There are a few things that could be better in the original, but it is a very good restoration. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and funny image as well as it good quality, so I like it.--Caspian blue 21:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In case anyone is wondering, the mural depicts former Philadelphia mayor and police commissioner Frank Rizzo. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I question the copyright status of this considering the mural makes up such a large portion of the image. wadester16 01:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would appear to be in violation of US freedom of panorama laws. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't fair use be applied to this case? I mean, I don't sell the panorama here on Wikipedia. Didn't the same discussion arose, with Diliff' nomination of those tiles commemorating 9/11? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not by any means an expert on freedom of panorama, but it seems clear to me that the mural isn't the subject of the picture here-- it just happens to be in the picture. Contrast this. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And also, from my understanding of freedom of panorama in the US, it allows photography of buildings as the exception. Is this art, or is it a building? ;-) I have no idea where the line would be drawn, but there is certainly the argument that the art is part of the building and not intended to be standalone. In any case, my 9/11 image went to a deletion request on Commons and the conclusion was that it was valid because each tile was incidental to the overall composition, so it was essentially De minimis. I would say it should also be the case here too, but IANAL. ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I do this simply by logging in at Wikimedia Commons, go to the image itself and select in the lower column on the left "nominate for deletion"? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Copyright seems to be OK. Might pay to run it through a deletion just in case though. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The possible copyright concern aside, I don't see a reason to support. It's a photograph of a parking lot on the left, garbage on the right, and the main feature (the street scene of the Italian Market) obscured mostly by parked cars. I find the overall composition unconvincing. wadester16 19:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, this panorama shows every aspect of the Italian Market. Starting on the left we have a roman catholic church (Italians mostly are roman catholic), a welcome to the Italian Market sign, the mural which depicts a historic scene of the market and a sign explaining that this is a landmark of Philadelphia and telling its history. In the middle you have the license plate from Pennsylvania. To the right of the cars (and behind them) you have the traditional vendors, a cafe (gentrification of the area), the balloons with the American flag, the garbage and a sign of the DiBruno bros. Further more, it shows the banners saying ninth street, the architecture and the satellite dishes on them. This is what I saw as a tourist visiting the Italian Market at a time, when the market was still up and running. I've walked down the entire market and found this the best spot to capture it all in one photograph. Below Washington Avenue it is all Mexican (so no Italians left and no other nationalities present). Also, there were less vendors than I had expected, while there were a lot more shops. Last but not least, the empty lot on the left is no parking lot. It's an outside sitting area, where you can have a rest or take a drink/eat something. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be less inclined to oppose if the cars were not in the way and more than a full third of the image wasn't taken up by pavement. And IMHO, you're pushing the extent of EV a bit by citing license plates, the flag, and satellite dishes. Sorry, wadester16 07:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats ok, we're all entitled to our own opinions :). ==Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a great image taken in what I would consider to be a very ordinary looking area. I think that some of the editors who add images to the Sydney suburban articles could learn a thing or two from this panorama. I think that the image could probably do with a little height though PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. You sound like a man with an agenda judging by your name and user page. I agree with you and your 'American Idol metaphor' though. The thing is, some areas are of historical and cultural importance even though they're not attractive scenes, per se. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a good view of the market. Limited EV because of this. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Shouldn't the number plate be blurred? Maedin\talk 10:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. We've never had any rule about that before, and Wiki isn't censored... If we can take a photo of a homeless man living in his own filth and feature it for the world to see, I think we can handle a visible number plate. ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, :-) Maedin\talk 16:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A depiction of daily life in Jamaica from the early nineteenth century. Watercolor, ink, and pencil. Created between 1808 and 1816.
Reason
At Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plantain Walk, Jamaica Fir0002 raised an objection to the encyclopedic relevance at the History of Jamaica article. So here is a less colorful but more pertinent work by the same artist, which depicts a dark-skinned family watched over by a light skinned man in a top hat. Most of the island's population during the time when this image was made were enslaved people of African descent, who worked on plantations dominated by a small British elite. Have made other changes per Fir0002's input that are documented at the other FPC. Considering that Wikipedia has hundreds of FPs for many first world countries, two about Jamaica doesn't seem to be too many. Restored version of File:Jamaica hut.jpg.
Support as nominator --Durova273 19:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please renominate when the paining is finished. --Dschwen 19:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Going at it a bit more seriously than ↑ this, there is no mention regarding the fact that this looks "unfinished". Is this meant to be this way, or is it a work that was never completed? I used to visit many art museums and never experienced a sketch that was only partially water-colored. Typically an artist will choose one medium, not mix the two. wadester16 19:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the artist's biography, this was one of 300 sketches and watercolors that he made in preparation for a series of etchings about Jamaica. He did not live to complete the etchings project and the preparatory artwork was neglected for nearly two centuries. His first museum exhibition occurred in 2007. Nonetheless, the encyclopedic use is its historic value as a depiction of Jamaican colonial plantation culture. Most depictions of that culture from that era, such as this famous example, portrayed the ruling elite class rather than the slave economy that was the source of their wealth. This image took two days to restore, and if its use of partial pigmentation (which appears to draw attention to its central subject) is so objectionable I could locate a third image and work on that also. When one tries to please everyone one pleases no one: please come to agreement what the priorities are--esthetic or encyclopedic? Durova273 20:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As wadester aptly recognized: My comment wasn't to be taken serious. I actually agree with your assessment, that partial pigmentation draws attention to the central subject. --Dschwen 21:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That information is essential to the nomination and should definitely be added to the image page. First question any reasonable user will ask is: is this done on purpose or was it never finished? The current image page description leaves one wanting, even if it was the official LOC caption. Much of this image's EV comes with the history of the artist, IMO. wadester16 21:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For this reason the image page contains a link to the artist biography. It could be viewed as patronizing to additionally copy material which is already available that way. Durova273 22:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree; I very much prefer a thorough caption for any image on this project. Might as well offer as much information as possible if it takes minimal time to add and offers interesting, unexpected historical context. wadester16 23:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the unfinished picture in progress, but I feel the image should go to Sketch (drawing) or Watercolor painting rather than the currently used article? --Caspian blue 06:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was my first thought as well. --Dschwen 15:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, I oppose. EV is weak in the two articles.--Caspian blue 00:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Again I don't think this is a particularly strong illustration for the history of Jamaica. The connection between this painting and slavery is tenuous - certainly not a "feature standard" illustration of the subject --Fir0002 13:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO the EV is pretty good for this one. The simple colours are somehow eye catching. --Muhammad(talk) 14:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGerardM (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC) A small attempt to remove some systemic bias. It is both a nice piece of art AND it provides a view on a time long gone by. GerardM (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (to make sure that arguments are available .. you can always image the "as per nom")[reply]
Oppose sorry but at the first glance the image looks boring and the theme is way too subtle. Nergaal (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure where boring is on the featured picture criteria. Personally, I find a lot of the insect featured pictures quite boring, but those types of shots are still useful and encyclopedic. The same applies here. This is a useful and encyclopedic piece of art, and opposing because you simply dislike the type of artwork is unnecessary. NW(Talk) 05:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way" eliminates boring pictures. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It doesn't have exceptional editorial value, but neither is the image forced into the article. Per statement above. NW(Talk) 05:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't care that it was unfinished (as someone says it's kind of nice so you could even think it is intentional), but the EV just isn't there. I can see 1 white guy, fours black person, a non-descript house and what looks like a banana trees. This could describes quite a lot of places, nothing indicates the time, the relation between people (i.e that the black people are slaves), or their condition of living. Actually, the thing i find most EV worthy are the trees' sketches, but you could find quite easily real pictures of theses trees. Ksempac (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the time period, see 1795-1820_in_fashion#Men.27s_fashion: the white man wears apparel that is easily recognized from the period--top hat and tails became formal wear afterward. Nearly the entire black population of Jamaica was enslaved, with the few who were free usually living in towns. And not that it matters, but the trees are plantains. Durova278 14:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me EV for a picture is "what valuable information can i get from this picture ?". Here i knows this picture was made by someone circa 1800 while he was in Jamaica. I then look at the picture and can get the following details : In Jamaica, circa 1800, there were white people, black people, and plaintain trees (thanks for the name of the tree). I can also get a few additional details about how theses people were clothed. No where in the picture something remotely suggest that : plantains was cultivated by humans in Jamaica or that black people were enslaved. I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying you know it by others sources, not through this specific picture. On the other hand, this other recent FP had a lot of EV : white people were hanging everyone meaning they were obviously in charge, but still tried to promote equal treatments and fraternity for both Europeans and indigenous people meaning indigenous people weren't slaves. If you want to show plantains plantations or slavery in Jamaica, find a picture of someone working on plantains, a picture of a black slave being abused, or a picture of an official sign promoting discriminationKsempac (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC) PS : Unrelated note : linked pictures are quite striking, and I'm glad WP has them so that everyone can see and remember how cruel and stupid humans are.[reply]
I find it strange that the only images you consider to have EV happen to be those that show Europeans in an abusive and aggressive manner. You do realize that such treatment represents only the minority of the time, and that such an emphasis as you suggest goes against NPOV, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer on your talk page since it's completely irrelevant to this nomination Ksempac (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement and your actions are enough to make it certain that your claims about lack of EV are invalid when applying various policies that Wikipedia holds dear. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Clear EV as it can easily fit in many pages which it is currently not in (like an expanded page of William Berryman, who is clearly notable and can be expanded quite a bit). Also, the topic of British rule in Jamaica is clearly notable enough to deserve its own fork, which it probably should have. I can also think of quite a few other pages that should be around which this image could easily fit in and add great value to which aren't yet here in addition to the ones that are here. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though, to point out, you shouldn't be voting on the potential of the nominee, but the actual use of it. That would create a very negative precedent. wadester16
Actually, I think just the opposite. Encyclopedic Value is objective, not subjective. We must think of the encyclopedia as a work in progress and must strive to fill in the pieces. Encyclopedic value is not what is current but what is ideal. This has obvious value. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safe to say that the article mentioned in criterion 5 ("Adds value to an article") is an actual article not a hypothetical one. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because in English it clearly does not state that it must be an actual article. Cars add value to people's lives without having to actually be owned or an actual example of such. That is how all value statements operate. The fact that there is not one individual image in that sentence suggests that in its very nature it is hypothetical. Please, your argument is completely unfounded and it only reveals that the opposes lack any actual merit here. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It really has nothing to do with the opposes, and you bringing them up shows an inherent bias. EV is based on use of an image in a current article, or one created for the image itself, which ideally should be created before the image is nominated. FPC is not made for potential EV. You clearly have your logic backwards. wadester16 08:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Whilst some people think the EV *may* be lacking at present (I however do not), I still think it is worthy. «l| ?romethean ™|l» (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've thought long about this one, but I just don't see the EV in this; I don't believe it to be one of our 'best works'. wadester16 01:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enough EV, but nothing special, is not something that I could consider as one of the best works in wikipedia (so still oppose). - ☩Damërung☩. -- 15:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't this supposed to be closed after 7 days? Because if it was, this wouldve promoted. Now, it's ambiguous. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't follow on that, but wasn't the 7 days + 2 days of inactivity adopted ? In that case, nom is OK, since it saw constant activity. Or did we end up agreeing to disagree and leave this undecided ? I'm ashamed to admit I don't know. Ksempac (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I'm pretty sure it's 7 days + 2 days of inactivity --Fir0002 11:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seemed to be the consensus but nothing was finalised. As it says at the top of the section, the old status quo still stands, i.e., "Nominations in this category are older than seven days and are soon to be closed. Votes will still be accepted until closing of the nomination.". HOWEVER, I believe Wade may have set an awkward precedent a couple of weeks back with one of Fir's noms where he discounted the votes made after the seven days was up (which were opposes and would have changed the outcome - ah, found it)? Therefore not sure how we should deal with this. FWIW the complete lack of reasons given in most of the supports makes it even more difficult as arguably there's a number of votes that could be discounted, or at least the opposes with strong reasoning could be considered to carry more weight. It's hard to determine what those supports are thinking, which is a bit careless in what was clearly going to be a controversial nom, e.g., we could potentially discount Caspian's oppose as that seems to have been addressed, by why should we do that simply because he has given a reason, when we will likely count votes that don't give us the opportunity to understand their reasoning? --jjron (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a request to two users to close this nom; neither have gone for it (I don't hold it against them, I'm just pointing it out). I agree that 'precedent' was a bit awkward, but for the most part, I had closed things on time (that one being an exception). I wish there was a template to just end voting on a nom, rather than closing it (SH and I are currently the only closers recently, but are both involved with the nom, so couldn't close). This could have brought voting to an end, but the opportunity wasn't there. Maybe we should consider that or have a bot add a nom to the "older than 7 days section", indicating that voting is closed at that point. At least until the new regulations are put in place. wadester16 08:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is dead, and I consider it closed. The current discussion as to whether we should overhaul the closing process is at WT:FPC#A provisional closing system for FPCs. So we can't decide what to do with this nomination? MER-C 10:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I don't think the "new" system would have affected the outcome of the kestrel nom - last vote was on the 27th which makes >2 days of inactivity before the 7 day closing time cut off (30th). That's of course if you adopt a strict approach to the closing time (which I guess is what most people wanted in terms of establishing a degree of objectivity) --Fir0002 13:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is we're not using the new system, and under the old system which we are still using votes have always been accepted until it's closed. --jjron (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, Wadester recently closed a nomination that had opposes after the seven-day period as promote, saying it was his fault that he had left it open. That leaves a confusing precedent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the point I made in my original post just above and which Wade discussed also... --jjron (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfA and AfD have generally always accepted late "!"votes as valid even if they come after the seven day mark. I suggest that we follow that for here too; I see no reason for us to diverge from the "anyone who has a point to make is welcome to make it until a final decision is made" model. NW(Talk) 18:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The big pow-wow of a few weeks back struggled to nail down a shut-off point precisely because there was a lot of support for a more open-ended, transparent closing procedure. The two things seem to be incompatible but don't have to be, so long as it's understood that (a) clear promotions clearly don't need any more than 7+2 days and (b) controversial noms clearly do. If this was a poll, all would rest on closure date. But it's not a poll and where opinions differ, time must be allocated to thrash out a consensus. This nom, to me, appears to be a no consensus result, as there are significant, robust, unanswered oppose arguments. If that's unsatisfactory for whatever reason, we should be discussing those issues here – answering the opposers and scrutinising their validity – not debating the need for discussion. --mikaultalk 22:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's so robust or significant about them. If I did, I wouldn't have voted "Support". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Maybe my own bias showing... looking again, EV is the issue, a point made by several opposes and not addressed at all in many supports (ie without comment) with at least one support arguing that EV could be there in future, non-existent articles. It's this last point I think sums up the nom's FP suitability. Most of the opposes are concerned (and supports concede) that EV rests only with the painter and the medium. We have a similar issue with photographers from time to time. Proof of that sort of EV always going to be burdensome. --mikaultalk 01:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's being used in watercolour, and shows how a reasonably notable painter sets out his plan for a watercolour and began work on it. That's pretty high EV in that article alone. Plus, it's a contemporary, but reasonably unromanticised view of a plantation in Jamaica - that lack of romanticisation makes it useful in the plantation article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so we both managed to iterate our opinions on the candidate. It still remains to interpret consensus (if any) from the open period of the nomination. I'm still of the opinion that there is none. --mikaultalk 05:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support. I'm not going to get dragged into the nitty-gritty of whether this is still open for input. If it IS still open, I support. Otherwise, you'll have to figure out whether the above constitutes a consensus. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus : As there may be some strong difference of opinion on this subject, I would like to explain the process and thoughts by why I came to this conclusion. I very carefully surveyed the articles the image resides in and determined that EV is weak; I combined this with several well-reasoned opposes stating that EV is weak; and furthermore did not find the supports convincing in explaining or overcoming this defect. This is not a clear example of British rule, of the tensions or slavery of the period which it purports to depict (as implied by the article), or the main crop of Jamaica, or a typical plantation, or a watercolour that typifies the English school (that the watercolour is by a British artist is the only link (and a tenuous one) as far as I can tell). I have only summarised, because it does not seem to be the habit to give long descriptions here, but I would be more than happy to explain all of this in more detail. Just ask. Maedin\talk 19:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why we need to use raw numbers, not closer's consensus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that if you did count the votes, and included the nominator in the supports, then you'd fall short of a 2/3rds majority (either with weak being 0.5 or 1). I still think we need to implement the 7 + 2 days to avoid closing time drama. I think we should just implement changes gradually, rather than having repeated proposals that no one can agree to. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No you wouldn't. 13 supports v. 6.5 oppose is 2/3rds majority. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General agreement was > 2/3rds in that discussion I thought, in which case it isn't. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support" - top of WP:FPC. It doesn't say more than two-thirds, it says two-thirds. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
_001.jpg)
_sand_dunes_imaged_by_Terra_(EOS_AM-1).jpg){kind=spacer}
Plate I - Illustration of the opening of Fit the First of Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark.
Plate II - Illustration of the crew, as seen in Fit the First.
Plate III - End of Fit the First.
Plate IV - The Bellman's Map: Fit the Second.
Plate V - Fit the Third:
Plate VI - Fit the Fifth:
Plate VII - Fit the Fifth:
Plate VIII - Fit the Sixth: The Barrister's Dream.
Plate IX - Fit the Seventh: The Banker's Fate. After being attacked by a Bandersnatch:
Plate X - Fit the Tenth
Done Put into gallery. I couldn't get the poetry to work - it doesn't like HTML line breaks - but the text is still there for someone else to clean up. HereToHelp (talk to me) 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
_001.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_age_removed.jpg)
.jpg)
Surrender of General Burgoyne, by John Trumbull
Surrender of Lord Cornwallis, by John Trumbull
General George Washington Resigning his Commission, by John Trumbull
Landing of Columbus, by John Vanderlyn
Discovery of the Mississippi, by William H. Powell
Baptism of Pocahontas, by John Gadsby Chapman
Embarkation of the Pilgrims, by Robert W. Weir
.jpg)
2008.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](/en/File:Goldmantelziesel.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](/en/File:Wild_Boar_Habbitat_3.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](/en/File:Humpback_stellwagen_edit.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](/en/File:Tree_lion_2.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](/en/File:Prairie_Dog_Washington_DC_1.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](/en/File:Opossum_2.jpg){kind=link}
_-_original.jpg){kind=link}
-Spoonbill-2,-Vic,-3.1.2008.jpg){kind=link}
_original_scan.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_from_east%27.jpg){kind=link}
