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

Cypripedium acaule

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 21:51:05 (UTC)

Reason

Clear image of two neighboring specimens in nice shape; bland background contrasts well with the colors of the plant; resolution high enough to print as a poster.

Articles in which this image appears

Cypripedium acaule

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants

Creator

Sasata

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems to tick the boxes. A single plant would maybe be preferable as it would remove the slight overlap, but this is OK. Slightly narrow DOF, but the main stuff is in focus. --jjron (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Preference to new Edit 1. --jjron (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Very pretty flower, and a nice neutral background that does not distract. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I think there's not enough light. --Desiderius82 (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Lighting is good and the background is clear. I uploaded the edit since it seemed to be about 2/3rds of a stop underexposed. You might want to do it yourself if you have a RAW or something, but the loss of precision shouldn't be too bad here. A focus stack might have gotten more in focus, assuming it wasn't windy etc. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for that, Noodle. I suppose I could have done that myself, but I didn't "see" the need until it was done. I tried some focus stacks on some mushroom shots, but almost all were unsuccessful... still need more practice with the new gear. Sasata (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, prefer edit. A nice shot, and the lighting twitch brings it out that little bit more. J Milburn (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cypripedium acaule - Sasata edit1.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 04:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killdeer Nesting

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2010 at 18:35:06 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, dynamic coloring, and "rare" by capturing both eyes of a bird.

Articles in which this image appears

Killdeer

FP category for this image

Bird

Creator

User: Gut Monk

• Support as nominator --Gut Monk (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I have removed this image from the article. As was said, the other image is far superior; the main thing stopping that one from being of FP quality is its small size. There are a number of issues with this one, but, in short, I do not think the camera you used to take this is going to be up to scratch for FP-quality pictures most of the time. To top it all off, your edit warring is completely unacceptable. If you disagree with another editor's actions, discuss it with them on a talk page- the least you can do is explain your actions in an edit summary. J Milburn (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (ec) If this image was being used in Camouflage, it would work better. But in Killdeer, the background makes it far too hard to discern the bird. Too bad the bird isn’t standing on the grass. Not even close to an FP. Also not cropped tight enough. Shortcomings not fixable. Greg L (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since the nominator insists that this nomination be considered (he/she reverted J Milburn), rather than deal with the nominator, I suggest we just WP:SNOWBALL this one since it isn’t even close to FP. Greg L (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I support the Snow Ball. I'm new here and still learning. Thanks for the guidance. Also, could either of you talk to me about how you include your name and time stamp with these replies? User:Gut Monk

• You type four tildes ~~~~. To be clear for the FPC’s shepherd, the nominator has withdrawn his nomination. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Cute bird, but not one of WP greatest images and birds are more easily identifiable from one side. Haha oh, you guys are so mean. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Animals with an eye on both side of their head have that as a defense from predators, bigger field of view. Predators tend to have eyes on the front of their face so they have better focus, I think. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 03:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olduvai Gorge or Oldupai Gorge

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2010 at 16:54:58 (UTC)

Reason

I saw this on WP:PPR and thought it was too good not to be nominated here. To me, it fits all the criteria and has definite EV because it adds a lot to the "big picture" of the area. I have also made an edit addressing some of the concerns mentioned in the WP:PPR page.

Articles in which this image appears

Olduvai Gorge

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Flickr user Noel Feans

• Support both as nominator --Aiyizo (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Great job on the edit, however there's a halo on whole of the near horizon, if that makes sense... Hard to see for the most part, but obvious on the parts with further land behind (above) it... Gazhiley (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I saw that too. That was in the original, and looks like an unsharp mask was applied a bit too strongly. I hoped my denoising would help it out but it really didn't all that much. Perhaps someone with more Photoshop/GIMP-fu can fix it up a little. --Aiyizo (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too dark. Even if lighter, I doubt it is FP material. Greg L (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Original, the edit is better, but I can't conclusively support or oppose at this time.
  • above vote is by User:Iankap99. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
• Oppose There's also what looks like a stitching error on the horizon at about (5700,1370). Time3000 (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jordan, 2006

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2010 at 04:38:03 (UTC)

Reason

This is a very high EV image that is fairly sharp. Any advice on GL assistance requests would of course be appreciated.

Articles in which this image appears

Michael Jordan
List of National Basketball Association season scoring leaders
African American
Charlotte Bobcats
Washington Wizards
Award share
Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year
NBA Defensive Player of the Year Award
Bill Russell NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award
50 Greatest Players in NBA History
Oscar Robertson Trophy
All-NBA Team
NBA All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award
UPI College Basketball Player of the Year
List of players in the Basketball Hall of Fame
List of Omega Psi Phi brothers
Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Joshua Massel. Cropped by en:User:Quadzilla99

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Unremarkable, over-used, over-compressed, noisy, poor composition, and did I say over-used? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without drawing a line between overused and high EV I am going to assume that overused is not a valid reason to oppose and will be ignored. WHat is over-compressed and what is meant by poor composition in this case?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose and Speedy Close Fails criterion 1 on several accounts: artifacts, poor composition, bad lighting. It would probably be a good idea to start nominating at WP:PPR first. Many of your noms lately have pretty clearly failed the FPC criteria. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His eyes look great! --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose, echo Speedy Close per all above... Gazhiley (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Jackson, 2009

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2010 at 00:05:52 (UTC)

Reason

This is a very high quality expressive photo that has high EV as the main image in his biography.

Articles in which this image appears

Jesse Jackson
Karin Stanford
Terri Schiavo case
2002 white supremacist terror plot

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Eric Guo; cropped by Beyond My Ken

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose The color is WAY wrong, whoever cropped it from what I presume was the original (File:Jesse_Jackson_at_Max_Palevsky_Cinema.jpg) did something to vastly oversaturate the image, way to much yellow. His real skin color ([1]) doesn't look like hes about to die of jaundice. Plus this isn't a very flattering portrait and didn't we just promote a picture of him? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Can the color be corrected by recropping from the original or other Graphics Lab techniques?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding the 1983 FA. The 2009 image is used in very different contexts. This one is the main image in his bio.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm doubtful one of the graphic artists could correct the color sufficiently, but that still doesn't solve the other issues: that hes all sweaty and shiny, thus unflattering, and that hes already been recognized recently with a FPC. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can easily add more issues, JPG artifacts and small file size. Considering this is a modern photograph of him, and as far as I know isn't dead yet, it's reproducible, so our technical standards would be very high for a portrait of a modern person. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And how is this picture improving this stub? Karin Stanford? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As far as Karin Stanford goes, I could speak to you left hand guys at FPC as the right hand, but I have shown you a bunch of examples of what they want at places like FAC and FLC and you guys seem to fail to understand what the right hand is doing even when I explain it to you. An image deprived article like this is considered improved by an image like this at all quality review processes (PR, GAC, FAC, FLC) except FPC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would think a picture of her would be more relevent for the article then someone she had an affair with, this image was taken in the oval office, therefore likely PD, if you find the source and crop it, you got a picture of her. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • • You seem to have missed the point. Even now this is not presented as a main image. It is a supporting image and clearly illustrative in its current use. She is only notable because of him. If she was any regular person's baby's momma, she would not have a WP page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm befuddled as to how you can keep claiming we're all a bunch of clueless gits who don't know how to edit articles and you're trying to show us how to do it properly, when your article edits keep making fundamental errors such as misspelling the key people's names and shoving images onto the left side of pages for no conceivable reason. Surely the honourable right hand (?) people at FAC & GAC, etc, don't think the only image in an article should be clumsily placed onto the left side of the article? I've said it before - can you please spend more time getting this basic stuff right and less time telling everyone else why they're wrong and you're right; that will do much more to improve Wikipedia. --jjron (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The image was on the left to leave room for an infobox and/or main image of the subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Have to agree, the white balance was pretty out of wack, though the edit doesn't feel perfect (the shadows seem a bit green around the hairline in particular).The amount of noise is much higher than I would have expected from a 40D at iso 1000. I'm guessing it was underexposed at the time then pushed later in post processing. I did a noise reduction, but I'm not sure something this small and noisy would ordinarily pass. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If the quality ain’t there, don’t despair. Greg L (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I’m really looking for some reason to think this on-the-fly photo of an individual is head & shoulders above other such images. It just sort of looks similar to your generic shot when an AP photographer took a picture as Jesse was gesturing; that’s not remarkable. Greg L (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support edit. I can get behind this, but I have no strong feelings. Not a bad portrait, but it is a little snap-shotty. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose J Milburn’s observation mirrors my own: “a little snap-shotty.” When deciding whether a picture deserves FP status, I can draw an analogy to a chef’s contest: “Tastes a bit like Campbell’s Chicken Noodle soup” isn’t what I would call a ‘big endorsement’ for handing out four or five stars in a French cooking contest. Greg L (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The edit has a high technical standard, but I agree with J Milburn and Greg L. It tastes like sanp-shot chicken noodle. Gut Monk (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fireworks over USS North Carolina (BB-55)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2010 at 22:41:42 (UTC)

Reason

I just like this image. Figured I'd put it up for FPC just so that the pages that use this image field would include an FPC nom.

Articles in which this image appears

North Carolina class battleship, National Register of Historic Places listings in New Hanover County, North Carolina

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Mass Communication Specialist 2ND Class Roadell Hickman (USN)

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The quality is lacking, and I'm really not seeing any real encyclopedic value. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Gee, I like the image, and clicked on it to look at the full zoom. It is certainly very *nice* and I don’t think the quality is lacking. But like J Milburn, I’m not seeing the EV. Greg L (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about patriotism? That's encyclopedic, right? From an anthropological perspective, it could also be considered a study into the significance placed in the honor of a commissioning ceremony for a naval ship. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't really illustrate patriotism, and though there is some of the other, the ceremony itself is hardly wildly important, and this doesn't actually illustrate the ceremony that well. We just have some blurry fireworks behind a blurry, dark ship. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the fireworks aren't sharp, they are cut off, as is the ship... There is also no way of knowing from this picture what type of ship it is - it's just a ship with guns, so is not a good example of North Carolina class Battleship sorry. Nice enough picture, but nowhere near FP... And may I also say that nom'ing a picture purely so a page has an FP nom on it is a very poor reason to create the nom... You should be creating nom's based on quality pictures, not just to make an article look better... Gazhiley (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Interesting composition, but minimal encyclopedic value. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - EV isn't there. There was a reason I nominated it for FP at Commons and not here when I uploaded it... :/ —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Great Egret

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2010 at 08:53:28 (UTC)

Reason

This bird has been over-wintering fairly close to my home for the last few years. It is difficult to approach though, typically spooking within 50 meters or so. With some luck it landed on a nesting box near my position at the time.

Articles in which this image appears

Eastern Great Egret, Egret, Ardea (genus)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

User:Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice. Smooth bokeh. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice depth of field, very clean and high quality image. XeroJavelin (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the DOF really makes the bird pop. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The bird is in such great resolution and the emphasis is definitely on the bird and the thing it's standing on. I look forward to the dissenting views of someone more particular than myself. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. What a great photo Shii (tock) 03:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ardea modesta.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Rumsfeld

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2010 at 00:03:55 (UTC)

Reason

Yes this is another official portrait. This is a high EV image. I am unsure if it is considered an exemplary official portrait and await your feedback.

Articles in which this image appears

Donald Rumsfeld
United States Secretary of Defense
List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)
List of New Trier High School alumni
Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1988
List of White House Chiefs of Staff

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

U.S. Military

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Looking at the image at 100% magnification, there is noticeable noise/compression artifacts in the background - it looks like it was very slightly digitally enlarged. XeroJavelin (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For a scan of a silver-based photograph, the quality seems quite good. The contrast—I think—is a little low. But I keep wrestling with how these generic U.S. Gov. portraits can be considered as FP material; they really should be remarkable in some way that makes them truly stand out in their genre. Greg L (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I am rare in that I actually like these- the quality is there, the EV is there. I'm happy to see this as an FP. J Milburn (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose To many compression artifacts. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Raeky, XeroJavelin --Banzoo (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Seems to have a red cast, although this is probably due in part to bug 19960. Kaldari (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are compression artifacts and can the graphics lab make any sort of correction?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • JPEG compression is a lossy compression, i.e. it looses image data in an intelligent way to reduce file size. The more compressed it is the more it looses. If you look at the full res file, you'll see blocky squarish compression artifacts. There is nothing that can be done to recover the lost image data. Either find a far less compressed source file or accept the image data is forever lost. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See compression artifact (WHAAOE, you know...) Matt Deres (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Oppose The picture is uneven, there is much more room on the left above the torso, and he is leaning to the side in a very obvious matter, however, high EV. --Iankap99 (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• how is that a problem? This is not the Vitruvian Man. Thoraeton (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but it looks very unnatural. --Iankap99 (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose due to compression artifacts. Matt Deres (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This image is crisp. Gut Monk (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm unfamiliar with the WP language. What does "EV" stand for? Gut Monk (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Educational Value — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Encyclopedic Value ;) Makeemlighter (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, Encyclopedic Value. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I like educational :D but really they mean the same thing. *cough* — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be inclined to disagree; they certainly have different connotations. A diagram may be educational, but, for instance, a portrait of a minor celebrity or obscure politician is not as clearly "educational". J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Podoserpula pusio

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2010 at 09:05:58 (UTC)

Reason

Quite an interesting looking thing.

Articles in which this image appears

Podoserpula, Amylocorticiaceae

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Fungi

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I see haloes. Any fix for this? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think they'd be from the stack. They could be cloned out but it is significant work. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That's one good-lookin' piece of fungus with a side of moss. I see the halos around the caps, too. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The fungus is struggling. Where is the clarity, on it? Gut Monk (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you elaborate, are you referring to sharpness or something else? Noodle snacks (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. You can't makes out the details on the tops of the caps. The lighting in this shot is very difficult to get right because you have a dark background behind a white fungus. Gut Monk (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Oppose The halos are way to obvious and would need fixed to get my support, sorry. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question "The halos": is it a focus stacking software problem? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. Noodle snacks (talk)
• Withdraw because of the halos - might fix them sometime but not atm. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx in National Park

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2010 at 23:45:32 (UTC)

Reason

Provides a great amount of EV

Articles in which this image appears

Eurasian Lynx List of mammals of Croatia

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Aconcagua

• Support as nominator --Iankap99 (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close Underexposed, blurry, focus is on foreground twig. Could be VP if population in Bavaria is very small. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I know this was a lucky shot to snag, but as Papa Lima Whiskey says there are some technical and quality problems with it. The cat looks beautiful and you got it looking right at you (and hopefully it didn't attack anybody!), but the lighting is dark and an arguably irresolvable number of twigs and branches in the way and in the pic. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close I mirror the above responses, distracting foreground and background objects, levels would need adjusted (to dark), and other technical problems that couldn't be fixed. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Give this picture a shot of the “pink stuff” in the paw. Just for kicks, I took it into Photoshop to see what might be done with it. Hopeless. Greg L (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

evaporated tungsten crystals

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2010 at 22:25:24 (UTC)

Reason

and again, I think an another good and EV element photo.

Articles in which this image appears

Tungsten, Group 6 element

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info the tungsten cube isn't dirty. It shows simply the grain boundary on the surface. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As always for this type of work of yours. Greg L (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As always. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- this is a particularly cool one. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Gut Monk (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - almost perfect depiction of an element. Ephemeronium (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Wolfram_evaporated_crystals_and_1cm3_cube.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a tantalum single crystal

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2010 at 22:16:53 (UTC)

Reason

I think an another good and EV element photo.

Articles in which this image appears

Tantalum, Group 5 element

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Greg L (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. J Milburn (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Invaluable work as always Noodle snacks (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - element shown in the best way possible. Ephemeronium (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tantalum_single_crystal_and_1cm3_cube.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego, California

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 04:41:47 (UTC)

Reason

Its a cool picture of San Diego at night. It meets the criterea

Articles in which this image appears

San Diego

FP category for this image

places/panorama

Creator

Rufustelestrat

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not sharp enough, and for the most part not large enough for such a large panorama. Compare to other FP's we have in this category to see how this one really lacks the quality we look for: File:Cologne_-_Panoramic_Image_of_the_old_town_at_dusk.jpg and File:London_Thames_Sunset_panorama_-_Feb_2008.jpg as two panoramas with about the same height as this one (~1000px high). — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The colour barcoding is completely over the top and distracting. Suggests that it's overexposed - if I went looking for blown highlights, I bet I'd find plenty. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose And that’s too bad, because I like this image and its color a great deal in thumbnail size. But when zoomed on its file page, it lacks sufficient sharpness to merit FP. Greg L (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I withdraw my picture again. You guys where right its blury its just i thought it looked good when it was smaller Spongie555 (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Red Bishop

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2010 at 13:00:34 (UTC)

Reason

I was reminded that I had this floating about when I saw the nomination of a related species below.

Articles in which this image appears

Southern Red Bishop

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I rarely chime in first on these taxonomic images, but I have two composition problems. First a perch where the feet are not so hard to identify would be better. Also, there seems to be general discord in the image with the bird looking alarmed and the light feathers looking sort of ruffled.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You want us to identify a stick? That's completely irrelevant and never required for a FP, likewise where is this "general discord" about birds looking alarmed... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I believe he's saying the feet don't stand out enough from the perch due to the angles and colours, not that he wants the stick identified. --jjron (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest its calling rather than being alarmed. Excluding perhaps colour I'm not sure the feet are that important for EV purposes - they might put you in the Passerines, but I'm not sure they'd give you much more than that. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice plumage, but some right crop could be good. Even if the bird is alarmed, that makes it quite funny. Twilightchill t 20:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Support crop 2. Twilightchill t 20:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, lovely. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the original fairly strongly, for what it's worth. Crop two is far too tight on the right for me. J Milburn (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scratch that, the crops aren't that bad. I still prefer the original, but I don't oppose either crop. J Milburn (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original Only — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (especially Crop 2) Greg L (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I hold my vote Until the right side is cropped. --Iankap99 (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean you want a crop that will violate the rule of thirds? explain please. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, after all, many photographs are better with the image centered even with a violation of the rule of thirds. --Iankap99 (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't follow the rule of thirds, nor should one blindly follow it all the time. The reason for a little space is more to do with Lead room. I've provided a crop, but I really wouldn't go any for the previous reason. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support' both edit 1 and crop 2. Thanks noodle snacks.--Iankap99 (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• crop 2 is the one. Thoraeton (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crop 2 was by PLW I think. Agree it doesn't look too bad. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only for the original. The crops ... you can forget it. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What can be forgotten, your level of idiocy or of petulance? Thoraeton (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support crop 2 first, original second, and oppose crop 1: Nice. Shame the bird doesn't appear smaller, but apart from the scale, I suppose he's fluffing up his feathers for a mating display. I think it's worth mentioning on the image description page that this is breeding plumage. Almost hard to believe that they're otherwise a non-descript brown like the female; this shows the difference very well. Maedin\^talk 06:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original or Crop 2. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Euplectes sp PLW crop.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 13:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Summary:

1 general oppose !vote

Nominator supports all

Support only for original / preference for original: Raeky, Alchemist-hp, J Milburn

Preference for crop 1: None

Preference for crop 2: Twilightchill, Greg L, Thoraeton, Maedin

No preference stated: Adam Cuerden (between original and crop 2), Iankap99

∴ Promote Crop 2. Jujutacular ^T · C 13:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clavaria zollingeri

Reason

I said "wow" when I first saw this image just a few hours ago, and immediately created the species article (will be expanding it soon). I think it's a beautiful, clear shot of a bizarre fungus.

Articles in which this image appears

Clavaria zollingeri, Clavaria

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Other_lifeforms/Fungi

Creator

Dan Molter of Mushroom Observer

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I love Dan's photography, I upload more of his work than anyone elses. I think this image could possibly benefit from some mild denoise filtering, but even with that flaw it's very eye catching, looks almost like undersea coral instead of a fungus. I think it would make a fine addition to our FP collection. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, simply wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support composition great - purple fungus great against yellow leaf litter - obeys rule of 3rds etc. but just 'wow' Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well, when my eyebrows arch upwards upon first sight, I suppose it’s a “support”. Greg L (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The white balance is really green. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot reproduce your finding. The histogram looks like the white balance has been corrected. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it looks like someone has pressed auto levels. The large amount of purple would throw that off. The leaves in the foreground look quite green to me. I'll post an edit tonight. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. J Milburn (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer edit. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The edit is REALLY pink, is this how pink the fungus really is? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't answer that question, but I'd suggest using the leaves as a colour reference - they are quite green in the original and (hopefully) neutral in the edit. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The leaves look more "normal" in your edit, yes, but the bright pink of the fungus is just wow if thats accurate. Amazing picture. ;-) — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Neutral I like the image and the colors, but it's a bit fuzzy. I think the original is the better one. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You oppose both? A little fuzzy, yes, but it is a very high resolution. Downsize it a little and then take another look. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the smaller images are like candy to the eyes, but at full size it's like music with muffled static in the background. Is there any hope of a sharper version? I'll support it if you shrink it's proportions by half, it looks good at 1235 x 1104 (1/2 its current dimensions and 1/4 its size but still allowably large enough). --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That just isn't done. All shrinking it would do is lose information. J Milburn (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine, then I withdraw my opposition altogether. I guess it is otherwise pretty feature-worthy. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An unedited version of this photo is available at MushrooomObserver.org: http://mushroomobserver.org/47508

I like the top photo best. The mushroom is already in your face; the yellow leaves and bright green background give much needed distraction. 184.57.122.217 (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, but the point is that the yellow leaves and bright green background are very unnatural. We're trying to document the weirdness of nature here, not lessen it. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, I tend to think the bottom is more accurate and that just adds more of a "wow" punch to the picture, that such a fungus exists. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose edit: Accuracy of colours is more important than looking good for EV. The original also has the wow effect. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far as we can tell, the edit has more natural colours... Compare to the background. J Milburn (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original (from MushrooomObserver) may reflect the true nature and the edit has very different colours. Can someone validate/prove that the edit reflects the true colour and the original is digitally manipulated? May be the creator can be contacted to answer this question. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dan put up an unedited version here (bottom image). Sasata (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The unedited one has colours similar to the original, not the edit. That's means the original documents the true colours with yellow-green leaves. I have seen similar yellow-green leaves in nature, not all dry leaves are brown. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any. Very good EV, just was used for DYK.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Color and Light If the question is about accuracy of color, then I encourage you to look at the natural light photo of the same specimen posted at MO along with this image. In natural light, the fungus appears dull pink. But what is natural light? I found this mushroom while running back to my car to escape an approaching lightning storm. It was booming and cracking and the sky was all green and dark. On a sunny day, the natural light photo would look a lot different. Vibrant colors in the top photo were achieved by using artificial light sources along with flash (edit: meta-data says flash did not fire) and the spooky natural light of a brewing thunderstorm. This photo is a representation of a fungus that can look way different depending on lighting conditions. I think I have shown it in a good light. Shroomydan (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the edit, please. Which do we prefer? Makeemlighter (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer edit. Surroundings of the fungus seem more natural - so this seems to be a more accurate depiction. Jujutacular ^T · C 06:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer edit Agree that the colors seem more natural. Sasata (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer original as it mirrors the colours of the unedited version uploaded by Dan. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer edit, for now, colours seem far more real. Compare to the background. You will note that some arguments in support of the original are completely and utterly misguided. However, if Dan reckons the original is more representative (and, as above, I ask him to look at the surrounding leaves- were they really that green? The "unedited" suggests so, but I can't help but think that it doesn't look natural.) J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer original I don't think it is naturally that bright of pink as the edit shows it, see [2]. I trust the photographer's color choice. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer original - I'd rather have the choice of the person who was there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer original The edit looks unrealistically saturated. I wish I saw the real thing so I could know. I’m just going on impressions. Greg L (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer edit - The leaves shouldn't be green, regardless of lighting method and they have the same lighting as the fungi itself. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer edit Per Noodle snacks. Greg L (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer top image on aesthetic grounds only. I think it is a prettier picture. I took about fifteen shots of this specimen using a mixture of natural light, blue spectrum diode flood lights, and built in flash. The color is different on each photo depending on placement of lights, f-stop, white balance, etc. This image was my favorite of the lot. As someone mentioned, I did hit the auto-levels button and it brightened the image.

• Oppose bottom photo on technical grounds. The bottom image is a color edit of a color-edited photo. I'm not adverse to edits, but a better edit could probably be produced from the original image, which is available at mushroomobserver. Shroomydan (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, as per Dan's reasoning above. However, I would certainly support a delist/replace if someone was to create an edit based on the actual original. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer original Good point about the color edit of a color edit, didn't think about it that way before. I'm changing preference to the original as well, and agree with JMilburn's delist/replace option above. Sasata (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the unedited version, File:Clavaria zollingeri 91235.jpg, maybe NS will want to have a second crack at it? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Clavaria zollingeri 90973.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Original looks to have it. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French Man In the Streets

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2010 at 06:10:44 (UTC)

Reason

The 2nd place POTY on the commons for 2006

Articles in which this image appears

Homelessness, Homelessness in popular culture, Poverty in France, Marginalization

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Eric Pouhier

• Support as nominator --Iankap99 (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Homeless man in Paris. --jjron (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; over-processed, small. Artistic and emotive, as are a lot of high placing POTY candidates, but not really FP material, to my eyes. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Good but too small. Try for WP:VPC. Can the creator upload a bigger version? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To both Greg and Reditigerxyz, the image itself is 804×604, i don't know why it is resized to 300x300 here, can someone assist please?--Iankap99 (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can help. I really like this image. But Featured picture criteria #2 requires that that image resolution be a “a minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height.” Here, the thumbnail is only 300 pixels across and no one is holding that against it. But the full-size native file is only 804 pixels across. And that’s too bad, because I think this image is truly striking. It seems to have plenty of “encyclopedic value” (EV) as used in Poverty in France. Greg L (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I understand now. While the resolution is regrettable, images under that criteria have been passed and anything is wave-able, --Iankap99 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose is only due to #2. The creator of the photo has uploaded bigger images on wikimedia. May be the creator can be approached to upload a bigger version. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I like the Cibachrome / SX-70 look. The image captures the eye. But the FP criteria require higher res than this. I suggest Speedy Close as “Not promoted”; that is, unless others here want to wave the resolution requirement based on its other virtues. Is ‘minimum resolution’ waveable or inviolate? When I click on the full-size native file, I’m impressed. Greg L (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been a while since a picture below the minimum was passed, but anything is waveable. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it your opinion that this picture is worthy? --Iankap99 (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It's an emotive picture to be sure, but I would only consider supporting if we were to obtain a version with less artistic effects, per Papa Lima Whiskey's comment below. Jujutacular ^T · C 15:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I’ll vote my conscience (even though it is likely others won’t see it my way). Yes… “worthy.” WP:Ignore All Rules is properly used whenever Wikipedia can be improved when a square peg of a circumstance can’t be pounded into a round hole of a policy. This image, overall, is very impressive. Not being able to zoom in to the point that we can see moles on this guy’s neck isn’t required to appreciate it. The full-size image is very striking and made me stop and stare. I love the Cibachrome / SX-70 look. For the attention-deficit crowd that so prone to sailing past Wikipedia’s main page, that is a good thing. Greg L (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I'm not keen on the very dark edges myself (whaever the technical term is), but my main reason is that there is no way of knowing by looking at this picture that this has anything to do with France... This is just a random homeless guy... Yes, it therefore has EV in Homelessness but as for Poverty in France it's just a nice picture - has no direct EV as not definately France... Gazhiley (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd prefer not to let this nomination pass without having said something about WP:NPOV. If it is the case that this image has been intensively post-processed (e.g. add vignette, reduce saturation) to achieve this particular "look", then it cannot be said to be free of the artist's own point of view, and as such, would fail one of Wikipedia's core policies (linked above). I think the unedited photograph could be just as effective. Apparently, an attempt to contact the author is being made for the first time. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sure. That is a very legitimate take with as much merit as anyone else’s. The FPC criteria requires that “Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.” Clearly, the vignetting is artistic flourish beyond the simple sharpening and color-correction the FPC criteria explicitly says is OK. But the criteria also states that “More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text”; such disclosure was not provided on the image-description page. But then, the vignetting, extreme contrast, and attenuated color saturation—all of which lead to a gloomy effect—are readily apparent anyway. I would argue that these edits don’t “misrepresent” the nature of the image but I understand that others will think it pushes the bounds of POV-pushing too far—like Time Magazine’s treatment of OJ Simpson. My view was that the stylized nature would be fine for a FP because the effect isn’t dehumanizing nor does it backhand France; it is simply a very eye-catching image. I fully well expect others won’t see it that way. It’s been stylized—but not to the point of misrepresenting the image, IMHO—and the image size is below the minimum: two strikes against it. Nevertheless, I voted my conscience since I can easily imagine this image being on the front of Time, Newsweek, or Life magazines. Greg L (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, but something worthy of the front-over of one of those magazines isn't always what we want- the front covers are designed to be eye-catching, emotive and interesting not, necessarily, encyclopedic. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as last time: Small, the vignetting and desaturation aren't realistic. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Over processed and I have real concerns about personality rights issues - given the massive stigma associated with having ever been homeless, it seems totally unethical to use photos of a homeless person who a) is clearly identified in the photo and b) doesn't appear to have given explicit consent to be either photographed or have the photo published on one of the world's most popular websites. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose there isn't enough EV here, not even remotely enough, to justify the very very low (And below our very low standards) resolution. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest speedy close- we have a large number of nominations active at the moment, and this one is not going to pass. J Milburn (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M3 GT

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2010 at 20:25:11 (UTC)

Reason

a high quality, high resolution, striking, dynamic picture of a limited edition motor vehicle being used for the purposes for which it was developed. This picture is used in a large number of wikipedia pages in many countries.

Articles in which this image appears

BMW M3

FP category for this image

Engineering and technology/Machinery

Creator

ultegra

• Support as nominator --Ultegra (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose With only the very front of the car in focus, it is quite inferior for this sort of subject matter. It’s not a depth-of-field issue; the sweet spot of the focus was simply in front of the car and the license plate is about the only part of the car that is remotely in the focus zone. The widespread usage in the other-language versions of Wikipedia suggests only that a better image is not available or not generally known. Greg L (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Out of focus. In addition, as general precedent, license plates should be blurred. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- the image quality just isn't there, not to mention the fact that the license plate should probably be blurred. J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- it appears that some here don't understand how to photograph a rapidly moving subject that is coming towards the camera. The area of focus (the front of the vehicle) is perfectly captured whilst still maintaining the desired motion blur that creates a dynamic image. It would have been simple to have just set the camera to 1/2000th of a second exposure and have had all of the car in sharp focus. Of course, the downside of this is that the car would look completely stationary, merely leaning to one side as if its offside dampers had collapsed. That's what makes this such a standout photo from a technical perspective, something which seems to have escaped some other commentators.bad_roo (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is user's first edits at FPC, and first edits in over a year. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little insulting to the other editors bad_roo - I'm sure they are well aware of how to do what you say, but that doesn't mean it's FP quality... They are saying that this is too out of focus for an FP, not that the photographer didn't know what they were doing... Gazhiley (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare another current car FP: File:Mazda RX-8 on freeway.jpg. Focus with the appearance of car motion is possible even at high speeds. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per focus issues Gazhiley (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Whatever you want to say about focus issues, it's still a bad crop as well. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest speedy close- we have a large number of nominations active at the moment, and this one is clearly going to fail. J Milburn (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Cordray

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2010 at 19:09:04 (UTC)

Reason

This is a high quality and high EV image.

Articles in which this image appears

Richard Cordray
Ohio Attorney General
Solicitor General of Ohio
Ohio State Treasurer
Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions
University of Chicago Law Review
Valedictorian

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

See OTRS ticket #2008061510000901

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Either he has a pointy ear lobe or there is some fairly serious flaw in the retouching of the photograph... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I know that there can be major differences in peoples' thumbs, like hitch hiker's thumb. I've heard something similar for ears, too. Gut Monk (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a flaw in the editing of the photograph, clearly, I was being slightly facetious about it being a flaw with his actual ear. Whatever went wrong with the picture digitally won't be easily correctable and at best will make that part of the picture look a little awkward, since it extends further down around his collar and shoulder. But it's fairly irrelevant at this point since Greg L makes a strong argument of this being a very unoriginal common government portrait, we have no history of promoting these types of pictures. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Every single U.S. senator and house representative has one of these and they are all identical (except for the head atop the shoulders). Nothing special here. Greg L (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The lighting is a little goofy. The right side of the suit is darker than the left. Gut Monk (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for Tony Do you get bonus points for the wiki cup for the most articles a FP/VP is used in that you get promoted? Because the use of the pictures you put in Valedictorian is very suspect, and I'm 100% sure theres far more notable Valedictorians that we have pictures of that would provide more EV to that article then those two. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles need images. I chanced on an article with no images. I had two guys from WP:CHICAGO that represent college and high school valedictorians. Yes there are dozens of valedictorians with WP bios and with free images, but no one was doing the work to put them in the article. Feel free to add more or replace, but makes sure to leave at least one high school and one college valedictorian for the sake of the article. Obviously, I am glad to have Chicago images, but if there are reasons to replace the images go ahead. Don't just delete them however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A reasonable response. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quoting Raeky: Do you get bonus points for the wiki cup for the most articles a FP/VP is used in that you get promoted? God you two crack me up so much I’m getting a stomach ache; probably because I was wondering the same thing! (too funny). Greg L (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a WikiCup judge, I can assure you he doesn't. Restorers and photographers get points, people uploading from other sites or just nominating what they find do not. J Milburn (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I actually misread what you said. However, it is worth reiterating that no points are offered in the WikiCup for "drive-by nominations"- in practice, only restorers and photographers can claim points. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Does FP/VP's in an article increase your odds of getting a FA/GA? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • No. It can help with portals, however. J Milburn (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very good quality, but not FP IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Don't mean to pile on but I have to agree with the above. I'm sure it's a great shot for the article and it does definitely have EV but not something I can really support for featured status, these shots are a dime a dozen. Cat-five - talk 18:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest speedy close- this is not going to pass, and we have a large number of nominations active at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2010 at 01:23:38 (UTC)

Reason

This is a high EV image

Articles in which this image appears

Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool
Alfred Caldwell
Lincoln Park, Chicago
National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago
List of National Historic Landmarks in Illinois

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

flickr user Digitalley

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Regrettably it's a good photograph but the image is quite dramatically out of focus and there isn't enough resolution to downsample it to correct for that and keep it within FP guidelines. Interesting building and setting though, so I would of supported if it wasn't so out of focus. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per raeky. Interesting subject, nice angle, too dark, way too out of focus. Shortcomings not fixable. Greg L (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The EV is very high, but the focus isn't there and the reflection of the shrubs in the background draws the attention of the viewer, this could have been avoided by photographing the subject from a different angle (standing slightly more to the left)--Iankap99 (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose as per all above, out of focus... Gazhiley (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I also love this image, but as others have said when viewed at full size the BG looks distorted and even the foreground. If you can sharpen it up a bit you've definitely got my support. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the impression that the problems are not repairable. Should I take this to the WP:GL?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The focus is irreparable... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. When downsampled 50%, it is still out of focus. Greg L (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Downsampled to 800x533 would this stand a chance at VPC?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 1000px by height or width is the minimum I think. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That is the minimum here at FPC, I am asking about WP:VPC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, I didn't answer that question, at WP:VPC there is no minimum, 800x533 COULD pass, but then again down-sampling just to make it look a bit sharper would be looked down upon there as much as it is here. And at VPC we weight MUCH more on EV, and the EV concerns I listed below would come into play. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Unmodified would be my preferred vote on VPC, since we're not worried much about technical issues but more EV issues and slightly blurry doesn't dramatically hurt the EV. The only issue I would have there is that the image focuses mostly on the structure and not the pond, and I would consider an image showing more of the pond higher EV since although the structure is a main feature of the lily pool, it is afterall the lily pool the article is about. Not sure the image contributes alot of EV to the other articles though. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt it'd be hard to retake this with better camera settings (higher DOF, better lighting) and improved composition. If you're only thinking VP, is this something you could go down and do yourself Tony? --jjron (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I use a point and shoot Canon PowerShot TX1. To date, I have not gotten a VP credit with this camera.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't I help you with some baseball pitcher picture that you took a couple of years back which became an FP? What was that done with? --jjron (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Stinks because the photograph has fantastic EV, but enlarged it's really too out of focus to be an FP. Amphy (talk)
• Comment I don't want to oppose since that would just be piling on but I'd also like to comment on how sad it is that this does not meet the standards since it has such great EV. Cat-five - talk 19:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest speedy close to free up space, clearly won't pass from here. --jjron (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Villain caricature

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2010 at 12:06:22 (UTC)

Reason

I think the image actually fits all criterias, perhaps except the caption part. The image was FP before, but was delisted during time of crisis.

Articles in which this image appears

Villain

FP category for this image

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

Creator

User:J.J.

• Support as nominator --_→AzaToth 12:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If the image is all that stereotypical, why don't we have a depiction similar from film/literature or something? This just reeks of original research to me, and is alarmingly clip-arty. J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not convinced of its EV. On what basis can this be called a stereotypical caricature of a villain? Not all villains look like this or wear similar clothes. To call it a stereotypical caricature borders WP:OR. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Was delisted in 2007: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Cartoon Villain Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. For the reasons given during its delist. And stay out... --jjron (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I suppose my vote might well prove to be an “outlier” vote since this image was delisted by a clear consensus, but I *get* what the nominator is trying to do here. This is a very whimsical image that would especially appeal to the over-50 crowd. The quality of the drawing, with that shadow around the eye, is very good. It’s interesting that I recently used the term “Snidely Whiplash” in an e-mail as a metaphor for psychopathic villainy. I think the image of this character certainly has EV value for the subject of “villain.” Not every aspect of the treatment of this topic (villains) must be deadly serious, as if the rod up Wikipedia’s butt has to have a rod up it’s butt. (I mean that in a nice way). Greg L (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. EV concerns, and "clip art"-type artistic complexity is a detracting factor. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Redtigerxyz... Gazhiley (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Moderate support Gotta love an SVG that keeps good quality at all sizes. Not a very complex "masterpiece" of art, but I think it does meet the quality standards. If the decision is that it's not breathtakingly or astoundingly interesting or original enough I guess I can live with that. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm still not seeing this at all; this really isn't FP material for a great number of reasons. I'm just not seeing the EV. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Rip-off of Snidely Whiplash. Kaldari (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought it was Snidely Whiplash and was going to suggest adding it to the article. Antagonist could use an image though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah; for the over-50 crowd, the fact that this is Snidely Whiplash is *a given*. For younger readers, it should apparently be explicitly stated. Regardless, there seems to be plenty of other reasons this one is going down in flames. Greg L (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As one of those younger readers, I didn't get it. My mind went to The Childcatcher and Dick Dastardly (that said, they're hardly current characters...). If this is a direct rip-off from Snidely, then there are copyright issues- we do not allow fan art. If this isn't, then what we have is essentially original research. J Milburn (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still more reasons for this nomination to go rather poorly. I struck my “support” vote. I didn’t realize that this wasn’t supposed to explicitly be Snidely Whiplash and thought the caption here was just poor. Looking now at the file description, it is being passed off as “A stereotypical caricature of a villain.” No kidding; total rip off. It needs a fair-use rationale etc. etc. or I doubt it can pass a rigorous wikipedian white-glove treatment and needs to be deleted. Greg L (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Now I see what others were saying, above. This isn’t a ‘stereotypical villain’; it is Snidely Whiplash being passed off as such. The file page needs a proper description and a proper fair-use rationale. And that seems to be only possible if the image is properly being used in just one article (Snidely Whiplash). This is like a Rolex at a pawn shop: burns my fingers, man. Greg L (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take this as a compliment Greg, but your comments do make me giggle. You have such a lovely style of writing. J Milburn (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are most welcome. Thanks. I’m here to help; particularly on a Friday. Greg L (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly, I don't think it's Snidely Whiplash: I think it's more that, like Snidely, it copies the very early film clichés. If you're not familiar with those clichés, it will seem very similar. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the official Mr. Whiplash. The nose in this one has a loop-back and his top hat is curved here and there is a cleft in the chin. Other than that, two depictions have an uncanny and remarkable similarity. Interestingly, in this depiction of Snidely Whiplash, the nose has the loop-back curve and the hat is curved. This character—a product of Hanna-Barbera—was also used in another character of theirs called Dick Dastardly. The only question now is whether a depiction of what is clearly Snidely Whiplash / Dick Dastardly (what I will refer to as Snidely Whiplash) now represents generic villainy in the public’s consciousness. According to PubLaw, here:

One of the more difficult problems of applying copyright law analysis and protection to graphic characters is ascertaining how such protection will be extended to protect a particular character once that character has taken on a life of its own and the character is no longer existing in the original context in which it first appeared.

The article also speaks to how the courts have adopted the “the total ‘look and feel’ approach;” in this case, it doesn’t seem to be a close call. The above-quoted theory of “took on a life of its own” is the principle of copyright law *appears* to underlie taking this image and declaring it to be a “stereotypical caricature of a villain.” I’m not in the least bit convinced User:J.J., who created this image, fully appreciates the extent to which Snidely Whiplash’s image had “taken on a life of its own” and how the character was “no longer existing in the original context in which it first appeared” in American pop-culture before making his image as he did.

Also take a look at a Google search of "Snidely Whiplash". Either J.J. *reproduced* a very similar image, or his image—which through Wikipedia’s actions has now been put out into the public domain ostensibly as a ‘generic villain’—has now spread into pop culture where it is now discoverable for what it clearly is: Snidely Whiplash. It seems to be a case where WP:OR is the nicest way to characterize what may simply be “copyright violation,” or as Kaldari wrote above, “rip-off.” It could well be the case here that Wikipedia is in a position where it is in the position of changing the way the world works rather than simply reflecting the way the world really works. Regardless, Wikipedia can not be a party to copyright violations and given the uncanny resemblance (total look & feel), I don’t understand why this hasn’t been addressed before now.

I’ve alerted J.J. on his talk page and invited him to weigh in. Perhaps he can replace some conjecture here with facts. One thing we absolutely can not do is find ourselves debating primary legal opinions as to whether Snidely Whiplash’s image now represents generic villainy in the pop culture; if that is the case, we must find a reliable source that states as much. As for the underlying premiss here (that this image is Snidely Whiplash), we can use WP:COMMONSENSE on that bit—it’s not even a close call, IMO, for those of us who grew up on these cartoons, this depiction is clearly the work product of Hanna-Barbera. Greg L (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. BTW, start scrolling down from here on J.J.’s talk page. It appears that this editor is prolific in placing “unsourced images” on Wikipedia and having them deleted over copyright concerns. The one here seems to be just another one to add to the list. I note also that J.J. doesn’t seem to respond to all those posts on his talk page—at least not on his talk page he doesn’t respond much. Greg L (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I grew up on cartoons. It's obvious that there are substantial similarities between this drawing and the design of Snidely Whiplash. You claim that this is a drawing of Snidely Whiplash (and that this is a matter of common sense and "not even a close call"), and I strongly disagree. Clearly, there are significant differences between the two (particularly in the skin tone, chin, nose, ears and hair). It's reasonable to argue that the degree of similarity is strong enough to constitute copyright infringement (an assertion with which I do not agree), but that's very different from the statement that "this image is Snidely Whiplash."

2. You're mistaken in your belief that the Snidely Whiplash character is a "product of Hanna-Barbera"; he appeared in cartoons from Jay Ward Productions. You're correct, however, that Dick Dastardly is a Hanna-Barbera character, so by your logic, Hanna-Barbera committed copyright infringement too.

3. Are you aware that the concept of a top hat-wearing, mustache-twirling villain long predates the cartoons in question? Please compare this image (from the 1913 silent film Barney Oldfield's Race for a Life) and this image (from the 1914 silent film serial The Perils of Pauline) to this image of Snidely Whiplash before arguing that the latter was the original depiction of such a character (as opposed to a familiar stereotype independently utilized by Jay Ward Productions, Hanna-Barbera and J.J. when a clichéd villain was called for). —David Levy 06:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to argue about this. The Foundation has, through its publications, admitted that this is Snidely Whiplash (yes, the Foundation has ultimate editorial responsibility, which is why WP:OFFICE actions exist). This and the fact that the revision history of the Snidely Whiplash article is just a series of insertions and removals of the image, also explain the Google search results. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If The Foundation has admitted it is Snidely Whiplash, that tells me that this image has an improper file name and improper file description and a lack of copyright attribution and a lack of a fair-use rationale. Greg L (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does User:Solipsist = "the Foundation"? —David Levy 16:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered that. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can assign responsibility (and blame) to whomever you please, but the Foundation's failure to correct an erroneous claim not even brought to its attention (inaction) ≠ an endorsement of said claim (action). —David Levy 18:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we don’t need to “argue.” But as this picture was nominated for FPC, potential copyright violation is a germane issue so this does need to be discussed and the proper action taken. This picture had no business ever being used to illustrate our Snidely Whiplash article. It is WP:OR to make something that is so strikingly close to the Snidely Whiplash character that it is passed off as such by Wikipedia and as a result gets used throughout the internet as such (and even used to illustrate the Snidely Whiplash article). The proper illustrations for Snidely Whiplash are those like what is there now: an actual vidgrab from the actual cartoon. Kaldari hit the nail right on the head when he opined simply “Rip-off of Snidely Whiplash.” Greg L (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. You're correct, of course, that attempts to use this image to illustrate our Snidely Whiplash article are entirely inappropriate. And yes, Solipsist should not have described the image as such.

2. You state above that the image is "strikingly close to the Snidely Whiplash character." Do you care to address the numerous differences that I've noted? (J.J.'s character doesn't even have green skin.) And how are these characters (including Snidely Whiplash) not "strikingly close" to the silent film villains that I cited? —David Levy 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In court cases like this, the complainant often use surveys of public opinion— (*show someone a picture*) “Who is this?”.

It is WP:OR to make something that is so strikingly close to the Snidely Whiplash character that it was passed off as such by Wikipedia (and was even used at times to illustrate the Snidely Whiplash article). As a direct result of these actions, this image is now being used throughout the internet to depict Snidely Whiplash. All these other people on the Internet aren’t retarded; they know this caricature looks like Snidely Whiplash and they use Wikipedia’s image because it is a high-quality closeup without severe TV-resolution limitations (we even offer a 2000-pixel version of this image). That’s pretty much a “Well… DUH!” thing. The proper illustrations for our Snidely Whiplash article are those like the one there now: an actual vid-grab from the actual cartoon.

Kaldari hit the nail right on the head when he opined simply “Rip-off of Snidely Whiplash.” He applied WP:COMMONSENSE (*ouch*). I’m still waiting for an argument that successfully explains away how this picture isn’t a copyright violation (rip off) without asking us—and everyone else on the internet now using this image as representing Snidely—to “pay no attention to that striking resemblance behind the curtain.” Greg L (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're repeating yourself, in large part via copy-and-paste (indiscriminately including statements with which I've expressed agreement), while ignoring my above responses. Until you're willing to engage in actual discussion (in which you directly address other people's arguments), this back-and-forth will fail to be constructive. —David Levy 17:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did address your question (or tried to). So, to guide you along on this, I’ll point directly to your question: “Do you care to address the numerous differences that I've noted?” And my answer is “there is no need to quibble over such details—the proof is first and persistent impressions of the common person on the street.”

Pointing to details like that are what the defendants’ lawyers always resort to in copyright lawsuits over just these sort of things. Trivial difference were used once in a Big Bird lawsuit. One side was saying “Look, our version of this big yellow thing with a long neck has 2D stripes on its legs whereas Big Bird has 3D magenta bands that protrude and ours has blue eyeshadow whereas Big Bird has magenta eye shaddow.” There were many differences in the details like this. But when one just looked at it, one thought “Big Bird.” And that’s what the defendants were trying to do and they just got caught trying to circumvent “overall look & feel” by purposely trying to engineer some differences.

My point above is that pointing to silly little differences doesn’t matter on twit; in the end, all that matters is what the overall effect on first impressions before the lawyers go to work trying to show how the viewer is such a fool. Thus, the proof in the pudding is that this very image is now being used throughout the internet to depict Snidely Whiplash because that’s what it looks like to them. There’s the proof that this looks like Snidely Whiplash. Period. Full stop.

So our arguing over what we think here is WP:OR. Neither you nor I can act like copyright attorneys; we must point the real world. The impressions of all these sources all over the Internet that have picked up on this image as representing Snidely Whiplash is A) real and B) is clearly justified; they aren’t out of their minds—nor was User:Solipsist when he had a hand in declaring here on Wikipedia that this is Snidely Whiplash. Neither were the editors on Snidely Whiplash when they alternately used this very image to illustrate that article. Nor was User:Kaldari, above, when he opined that it is a “Rip-off of Snidely Whiplash.”

So methinks thee doth protest too much, Counsel, and are grasping at straws when you point to trivial details like how Snidely Whiplash is really green and this one is not.

So, seeing that this is all the argument you’ve got, I’ll get onto the task of having this image deleted from Commons tomorrow. Greg L (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quibbling. There are numerous non-trivial differences between this design and that of Snidley Whiplash. Here's a chart:

Traits	Snidley Whiplash	J.J.'s villain character
Skin color	green	gray
Nose	thin/pointed straight out	fat/pointed down
Chin	large/pointed down/smooth	relatively small/pointed straight out/cleft
Ears	small/non-detailed	large/detailed
Mustache	normal size	extremely large
Sideburns	yes	no
Clothing	cloak	suit and necktie
Behavior	antagonizes damsels/Mounties	unspecified

That last trait ("behavior") is important, as a character's use can constitute (or contribute to) copyright infringement, even when its design is largely dissimilar. (A notable example is the Munchkin video game, which was deemed an unlawful copy of Pac-Man despite the titular characters' non-resemblance to each other.) If J.J.'s character were used in a specific context similar to that of Snidely Whiplash (beyond merely being labeled a "villain"), that would change matters, but this is not so.

You've repeatedly stressed that Wikipedia has inappropriately used the image (both as "picture of the day" and in the Snidely Whiplash article) to illustrate Snidely Whiplash. This is not disputed. It has occurred repeatedly, and it's a significant problem with legal ramifications. You also are correct that this likely led to the image's widespread use to depict Snidely Whiplash on various websites.

None of this, however, pertains to the image's intrinsic properties or its copyright holder's intent. That intent, in my view, was not to create a Snidely Whiplash lookalike (and purposely insert differences to hide this), but to create a villain exhibiting characteristics widely associated with stock villains of stage and screen (just as Snidely Whiplash's creator did).

And that's what we're left with. The extent of the similarity is that both characters are villainous, scowling men with top hats, dark hair and handlebar mustaches. Apart from being drawn, J.J.'s character bears as much resemblance to this 1913 character and this 1914 character as he does to Snidely Whiplash. And like Snidely Whiplash, those silent film characters actually fought heroes and tied women to train tracks. (J.J.'s villain character, conversely, has no known behavioral traits beyond his pose.)

That both Snidely Whiplash and J.J.'s villain character are drawn is a major reason why the latter would be mistaken for the former. I'm aware of no similar cartoon character with wider recognition than Snidely Whiplash, so it's likely that any drawing of a villainous, scowling man with a top hat, dark hair and handlebar mustache would be mistaken by some for Snidely Whiplash (simply because no other cartoon character springs to mind). This doesn't mean that any drawing of a villainous, scowling man with a top hat, dark hair and handlebar mustache constitutes copyright infringement. This is a stereotypical depiction that long predates Snidely Whiplash.

Before you nominate the image for deletion at Commons, please note that such a debate (based on the same arguments) already has occurred. —David Levy 23:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what I will do now. It seems if I am to pursue this at all, the wisest approach is to contact Warner Bros. Entertainment Group. If they “gotta problem with it,” that will probably be the end of this image on Commons. If W-B doesn’t have a problem, then neither do I. Greg L (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Snidely Whiplash is not a Hanna-Barbera character, so Warner Bros. (which absorbed Hanna-Barbera) is not the rights holder.

As noted above, Snidely Whiplash is a character of Jay Ward Productions. That catalog now belongs to Classic Media, whose website displays the contact information that you would need.

Please be sure to also bring to their attention Dick Dastardly, the Hanna-Barbera (now Warner Bros.) character that you describe above as one and the same. Surely, Classic Media will want to seek compensation for the forty years of egregious copyright infringement that you apparently believe has occurred (assuming that it now is clear to you that Snidely Whiplash is not a Hanna-Barbera character). —David Levy 05:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are. Jay Ward productions was absorbed by Classic Media, yes? If they don’t have a problem, then neither do I. Greg L (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Unindent] Honestly, given the amount of copyfraud I've seen, I don't see how them objecting would necessarily prove anything. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest speedy close. Can't see this going much further, and this is taking up lots of room. --jjron (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost-titled painting of the Battle of Trafalgar

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2010 at 01:42:29 (UTC)

Reason

Auguste Mayer was apparently a talented painter and this piece meets the qualifications, is noteworthy and eye catching, looks great small and large, was digitally transfered exceptionally well and I think is a great artistic depiction of a historic event and in that way has EV. I've seen perhaps four or so other paintings about this battle including two linked on this image, but I think this one is probably the highest quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Oil painting

Ship

History of the United Kingdom

Battle of Trafalgar

Painting

FP category for this image

Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Painted by Auguste Mayer, uploaded by Rama

• Support as nominator --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too dark sorry - can hardly tell without squinting any details of the ships below the sails... Will change if edit done to adjust levels... Gazhiley (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with the darks and shadows in this pic, all clear and well detailed. Must be a case of different screen settings (I'm on a calibrated IPS LCD). Perhaps if the majority of users are viewing wikipedia on monitors that tend to reduce shadows to "can hardly tell" then there's a need for instructions how to handle it, say, a viewer that presents normal pics "a-la plain LCD". East of Borschov 03:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I have reverted your addition to painting and oil painting- those articles are already very over-illustrated, and, having worked with editors on articles very like them (if not them, I don't remember) concerning images, I can assure you that every image is carefully chosen. Additionally, I am not wild about the EV in any of the uses. It's used nicely in history of the United Kingdom, but it is very much used decoratively. In Battle of Trafalgar and ship, it's just another picture. I would be inclined to say it could help out in the artist's article, where it shows a very different style of artwork to the one already there, but, though that would solve the EV issue for me, the fact remains that this reproduction is significantly smaller than the original. I would like to see more fine art FPs, but I don't think this one's "the one", sorry. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, you got me, I did try to pad the number of articles this image is on, but for obvious reasons it's not hard to see why I would put it there. Might or might not withdraw my nomination of this, I mostly added it to test my FP-worthy-picking ability. Went through like 40 other VERY good pics, one was turned down before, and another already had been promoted. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Better suited to illustrate Macular degeneration. Greg L (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Too bad for you then, the image has so many nice details, almost looks like a photograph, but can we be serious? What specifically is your problem? --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Quoting you: Too bad for you then. Please try to not take these things personally and react in that vein. Your post seems inappropriately combative and we don’t need that here. Greg L (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I meant what's your problem with the image, which you could just have said in the first place, that's my problem - everyone else here has explained what there concerns are, but you're the only one who hasn't and is now apparently trying to draw me into a dispute, we don't need that here, so please stay to the topic at hand. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And I meant quoting you: Too bad for you then. We don’t need combative language like that here over FPC nominations. There are two topics at hand here: 1) your combative post, and 2) the picture. Instead of striking that part of your combative post, you whip out the ol’ Bat Mirror®©™ of righteous indignation over my rightfully and politely asked you to not personalize this (which you clearly did). As Gazhiley wrote above, it’s too dark. I find your “1st Alternate” (are more to come?) doesn’t solve the issue; there isn’t enough dark detail in the scan. Consequently the lightening done for “1st Alternate”, while bringing out some additional detail, also simply turns fields of murky black to fields of murky very-dark gray. Goodbye to you, sir; I don’t appreciate your conduct here and will have nothing more to do with you on this nomination. Greg L (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather than rudely and trollishly hijacking my topic for a bunch of personal attacks on me, I'd suggest you bring your problems up with me HERE. Secondly, thanks for explanation about the image and please don't come back. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh… A Wikiquette alert and then an ANI. Uhmm… I don’t think you got any of this from Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People. It would be nice if you could explain yourself so others could understand your game plan on Wikipedia. I’m sorry, but there is nothing “rude” about politely pointing out that you ought not take things so personally and should refrain from using combative language here. That’s all. Greg L (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The painting is 174 years old, the colors in the original look so grey because over time they've faded lost their luster and I only retouched this to give Gazhiley a nicer version, though I'm not too sure of my own refurbishing abilities and don't really feel I should. So it's greyed up a little, big deal, it's an old piece of art, it's stood the test of time and still deserves featuring. I didn't scan this, I did modified Rama's version on Paint.NET. I don't know if you've ever seen the ocean, for all I know you could've spent your whole life in northern Utah, but that murky gray is what deep ocean water looks like. I'm also not the only one to attempt to revive this image: [3][4][5][6]. People have different methods for making friends, but I'd prefer to friends with someone who is polite, not someone who raises anger. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You're working from a bad source image, the painting's quality isn't at question, it's the photograph of it. It's poor resolution. The whole phrase you can't polish a turd, comes into play here. I think your perceiving negative views on the picture as negative views of the painting, when that's not the case. If there was a better photograph to work with I'm sure it could be restored or even promoted. But with this source, it's not going to happen. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE and starting an ANI on a regular respected contributor here is NOT a good way to make a good impression. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That does not concern you, Raeky, and you better get used to me, too. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure it concerns me, you can't bully people to promote your pictures by trying to get opposers banned if they rub you the wrong way. Keep up that approach and you'll likely be the one on the wrong end of the ban stick. Tongue-in-cheek opposes like Greg L's or even far more harsh opposes are run of the mill here, if you want to keep participating in FPC/VPC you need to learn to take criticism and rejection of your ideas/promotions. The whole purpose of this part of Wikipedia is to judge the merits of pictures on both fairly strict technical grounds and educational grounds. I mean look at some of TonyTheTiger‎'s nominations, hes not resorted to ANI's and trying to get us banned, and I'm sure he's wanted to ring my neck on many occasions for my comments. He's a respectable well trusted member of the WP community and knows where the limits are. I'm happy to work with him but I'm not going to withhold my opinion on his nominations. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, if it did concern you I wouldn't listed you along with him. I don't care what kind of "social hierarchy" you imagine here, but no users are higher than anyone else and neither I nor my vote is worth less than anyone else's, there is no caste system here! Just because someone has more listings of feature-picture candidate edits under their contributions doesn't mean I'm not allowed to disagree with them, and that is not going to get me a banning. I don't mind someone disagreeing, but, call me crazy, I follow WP's behavior guidelines. I've disliked images, but like Gazhiley and Elen I can keep my objections to the facts and let them speak for themselves. If they don't like people disagreeing with them than they should probably avoid me. Anyway, this is a whole major policy/philosophy discussion that's robbing the image of attention, doesn't belong here and we're not going to agree anyway. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly you showed good judgement and restraint in this case, I applaud you. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You're not going to be able to fix this by photoshopping it. My guess is that the original picture fills an end wall somewhere (paintings of sea battles tend to the outsize) - to get the image sharp enough to see it has to be much bigger than the average screen (and larger than 135k). And the painting itself may benefit from a clean.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WithdrawnYou might be right and also THANK YOU for a good example of an oppose, some people here could learn a thing or two from you. I still feel like the image isn't getting fair consideration, but it's clearly not gonna get its due. It might not be featurable but it deserves a heck of a lot more respect than it's gotten here. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can demonstrate extremely strong encyclopedic value and placement it COULD stand a chance at WP:VPC. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Frankly, I think the opposes are a bit mad: This seems entirely in line to how naval battals appear in art, with a lot of dark tones. The edit is completely out of line with artistic convention or natural colouring. Further, many of the opposes appear to be based solely on the thumbnail: at even a slight zoom in, the details people are complaining they cannot see are perfectly visible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there is still detail to be seen in the dark areas. I can’t speak for the others, but I certainly zoomed all the way in before voting. The image is still far too dark for me and there clearly isn’t enough dark information to work with in Photoshop. IMO, this image comes up well short of what I would consider “a high technical standard” required of FPCs. I strongly suspect the others here who found the picture too dark also fully zoomed in as well; it’s only too easy to zoom and that much effort is pretty much expected of anyone who is going to be weighing in with an opinion here. Besides, most anyone with much experience here feels that voting and expressing the underlying reasoning for their vote is an exercise akin to writing in a peer-reviewed paper: no one likes being odd-man-out just because they didn’t bother to actually inspect what is under consideration and instead based their decision off of a 250-pixel thumbnail.

  Oh… I also can not speak authoritatively to the issue of whether raeky, J Milburn, and Gazhiley are “a bit mad” and whether that shortcoming underlies their opinions that are somehow at odds with yours, but according to my 26 other personalities, “I’m” certainly not mad, and my multiple personalities are in the best position to know! So you and I might just have to agree to disagree and it might be best that you didn’t openly posit that those who disagree with you didn’t take the time to inspect the zoomed image like you did, or how others here might be a bit… uhmm… ‘off.’ Of course, if, by “mad,” you meant “angry,” then I again can’t vouch for all the others, but my tongue-in-cheek comment was certainly posted without malice towards anyone and I note that Gazhiley’s (“Too dark sorry”) doesn’t read as angry either. In fact, I suggest that all those who opined that this image does not rise to the level required of FPC candidates deserve a presumption that their opinions were based on the merits of the image and were not based on a lack of due diligence and anger and/or ‘nuttyness.’ Either way, (mad=nuts or mad=angry), I don’t think that’s the case. Greg L (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I zoomed, and I fiddled around with the settings on my monitor to see what I could bring out, before I made my comment (I know I didn't actually !vote, but I wouldn't have said it was good enough for featured picture, because that depends on both the subject and the image quality)Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My oppose was not based on the colours- not being an expert in art history, I wouldn't want to guess whether the colours were right. I wasn't convinced about EV in the placements, and, even more so, I am concerned that this is nowhere near the size/quality of the original. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have been informed that my name is being used in vain here. Not so sure this image belong in Painting, but I like the spirit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about Sea, Ocean, Sail, Wood, Canvas, Cannon, Naval Warfare.. I'm sure theres more. :D — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just drop it, raeky. It stopped being funny a long time ago. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree PLW - Raeky's comment just brought a big smile to my face! Hehe Gazhiley (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Adam--Mbz1 (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to Original version, Beautiful illustration, good representation of a naval battle nice detail Sebastian 21:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tian2992 (talk • contribs)
• Oppose. For me, the main problem is that the quality of the photograph itself isn't up to par. The painting is fantastic and a detailed representation of naval warfare, but the scan has lines driving down the center and both far sides (perhaps tape from a slide in a book?) that cause some colour change, which bothers me. If a better scan--or bigger scan, for those who have a problem with the water detail--can be found, the image's quality and use would benefit greatly. Amphy (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those lines are the join between sheets of canvas (or possibly the wooden frame beneath the canvas creating a lump). Such lines aren't uncommon in large works. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Can I just draw people back to the EV here? In which article are people feeling there is high enough EV? J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle of Trafalgar, ad it would bevery good int he Artist's bio, in which we appear to only have an engraving of one of his works. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really, really not seeing the BOT EV- however, I agree that, if it were added to the artist page, it would have some EV there. J Milburn (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Bay

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2010 at 16:41:53 (UTC)

Reason

Nicely illustrates the key features of the town in good detail showing how they link together and fit into the surroundings; the significant number of people in action throughout the picture add a bit of further interest. Good quality, and despite only being in one article, provides good EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Apollo Bay, Victoria

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I find myself reflexively tilting my head, trying to see more off the bottom of the panorama. Also, the overcast day lends to a gloomy feel. Also, the scene appears to be a bunch of grass with some trees and just isn’t terribly interesting looking. These things aren’t fixable in Photoshop. I can certainly see that this image has excellent EV in illustrating the subject Apollo Bay; we should have more of these panoramas to illustrate places on Wikipedia. It’s just that this particular panorama doesn’t rise to FP-status in its genre. Greg L (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing more to see at the bottom but more grass. I actually cropped some of it off as those fence posts etc you can see the tops of started looking messy. Neither here nor there anyway really cos you complain that there's too much grass as well, so would obviously oppose no matter what was there. --jjron (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't so much because of the EV of what's below the bottom of the frame, it was more just compositionally awkward cropped like that IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I had the same initial impression as Greg L. I think panoramas like this need more height - it feels particularly tight at the bottom. My main concern, though, is just that so much of the town is obscured and it doesn't illustrate the town very well. The infobox image in the article, if composed better and with more detail, would be better suited to a FP in my opinion. Still, it's a good image but just doesn't quite stand out for me. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per above, more height would add nothing. Re second concern, unfortunately I was limited by the physics of light. --jjron (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per above, it would be an improvement to the composition though IMO, even if not to the EV. I don't think you were limited by the physics of light so much as by can't-be-bothered-cycling-to-the-top-of-the-lookout-to-take-a-panorama-with-a-better-view-of-the-town. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 06:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually cycled by a lookout with a great view coming into town (looks to be on the opposite side of town to that other one), but after about 95km in the saddle and whizzing past it at about 40km at the time I couldn't be fagged stopping. :-) Seriously though, I don't think it's a good precedent to be suggesting that these panos of towns should be 'aerial' shots, as we'll have a lot of delisting to do... --jjron (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, don't get me wrong, I can sympathise with being on the saddle all day. :-) But I don't think any precedents were in question. I wasn't, as you alluded to, expecting that all existing panoramas be replaced by aerial shots in order to be FP quality. Plenty of subjects are perfectly well illustrated at ground level - it's just that this one isn't (IMO). It's about making the most of your environment. In this case, there is a perfectly located hill providing a good vantage point to better encapsulate the town - sure, it wouldn't have as good detail 'at street level', but I think you'd gain EV more from it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • My point being you're always going to see more of a place from the air, and you could oppose any ground-level pano for that reason. In some cases being higher up may give better EV, but for most pano shots I'd say it's more a case of different EV, not necessarily better EV. For example here, this image and the taxobox image show quite different things, so you're really comparing apples and oranges. --jjron (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like it.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Should this be in the Great Ocean Road article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, IMO. Sure, the town is on the Great Ocean Road, but there's virtually no sign of it in this image - it illustrates thw town, not the road. I think particularly with panoramas given their awkward proportions, there really has to be high EV to justify inclusion in an article. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 06:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. I specifically didn't add it to that article for those reasons. FWIW I have some other images that better illustrate the GOR, which I'm going to add to that article shortly (not for FPC use though). --jjron (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose mostly per Greg L and Diliff. I don't think it illustrates either the town or the bay (the water probably takes up less than 2% of the image), and the low visibility probably meant that no (scenery) panorama shot on that day was going to come out great. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- this is a little gloomy looking, because of the weather, and it's not really crystal clear what's being illustrated. The bar's been set high with panoramas. J Milburn (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I hate to pile on here. It's a good image, overall, but I don't think it gives enough of a sense of the town - I've been there recently and didn't feel like this works to illusrate it. The other end of the park, by the sign, is where I would have taken an image. Featuring the Great Ocean Road and the town's orientation towards it is important. Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, as you're just talking about a photo of the shopping strip; you see that and more here. I specifically for example wanted to include some of the golf course, which is rather iconic for the town, and a glimpse of how the town and golf course integrates with the bay. Photos from the other end of town show none of that. --jjron (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn to move things along and free up space - obviously not going to swing back from here. BTW, I'm disappointed guys. Five days, five opposes, and yet nobody picked up the pair of 'twins' to use in their vote. :-) --jjron (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Rosella

• 
  Original
• 
  Male replacement
• 
  Female replacement

Reason

Per the talk page:

I've managed to take two photographs of the Eastern Rosella, one male and one female. They have consistent lighting, backgrounds and so on. Being taken at nearly the same time I'm of sure the sex of each animal. I feel that either of these individually is superior to File:Platycercus eximius diemenensis.jpg. The backgrounds are less distracting and there is more visible detail. A male/female pair in the taxobox would also have greater EV in my view. I wish to replace the first image with the other two, placing the new ones in the taxobox.

Articles this image appears in

Eastern Rosella, List of birds of Australia

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Platycercus eximius diemenensis.jpg

Nominator

Noodle snacks (talk)

• Delist and Replace — Noodle snacks (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace environment looks more natural. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace obviously better. -- Elekhh (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace good work. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace. J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Platycercus eximius diemenensis male.jpg and File:Platycercus eximius diemenensis female.jpg. --Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White-faced heron

• 
  Delist (breeding plumage)
• 
  Replace (non-breeding plumage)
• 
  Not in article (FP, breeding plumage), plan to reinstate
• 
  Taxobox (FP, juvenile)

Reason

There are Juvenile and Breeding Plumage FPs for this species. I propose to delist this one in favour of the new one so that there can be a featured picture of each in the article. No single image could give the same EV.

Articles this image appears in

White-faced Heron

Nominator

Noodle snacks (talk)

• Delist and Replace — Noodle snacks (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace If I understand you correctly, is being delisted, and your proposing replace with .. the other two images ( and ) are not part of the nomination and are just to illustrate how the new FP if passes will fit with the other 2? Slightly confusing I must say. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep, that is the proposal. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace. This seems sound- clearly, there is room for the three different images. Which do you intend to use in the taxobox? J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps 2 and 3. The juvenile should probably go in the body of the article. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be my choice, as well, unless the males and females have different plumage? J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace: Agree with reasoning. Maedin\^talk 08:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace. Yeah, makes sense, but to be honest this is a case where I don't really think this should have been a D&R. If you were replacing the breeding plumage with a better breeding plumage one, then sure, but you're replacing a breeding plumage with non-breeding, then just reinstating a different breeding plumage that's already featured to the article. Confusing for sure. Lighting on the delist nom isn't optimal, the replacement is good but should probably have been a regular nom. --jjron (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Promoted Image:Egretta novaehollandiae Tasmania 1.jpg
• Delisted Image:Egretta novaehollandiae Tasmania 3.jpg

This will be treated as two separate nominations, a promotion and a delist. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1910 Houston Pano

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2010 at 04:52:35 (UTC)

Reason

A very decent set of photos for the time period, valuable to show the state of the city then. Restored / stitched version of File:1910 Houston pano - original.jpg

Articles in which this image appears

History of Houston

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Unknown / Haines Photo Co. Restored by Jujutacular

• Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^T · C 04:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks fine to me, and a great historical record of the city at the time... Gazhiley (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The resolution seems pretty low with height = 636 !! Is there a way to obtain a higher quality scan? It should be noted that the stitching lines are clearly visible at full resolution. --Banzoo (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We gotta cut older photographs some slack. The first photograph was way too grainy (which springs from the “rubber stamp” action of shrunken pitch being used to imprint ink on paper). I think we can forgive these things in images that were taken when guys who fought in the Civil War were still around. My problem with this one is it is framed too high. As it loaded in, I found myself reflexively tilting my head (where’s the rest?). Greg L (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not questioning the technical issue when the photograph was taken, I understand that this is an old photo. But this shouldn't influence today's modern scanning and stitching methods to digitize the old photos. For instance, try comparing to this panorama which is few decades older than this one. --Banzoo (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't debate, a higher quality scan is certainly possible, but it's certainly better than LOC's first scan. As for stitching though, I honestly don't see any lines. Could you annotate them on Commons perhaps? Jujutacular ^T · C 21:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have added 2 annotations on where the stitching are visible (difference in sharpness, and/or lightness), you might need to adjust the levels in order to match the colors between intersecting pictures. --Banzoo (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've made some adjustments which have hopefully addressed this issue. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don’t believe this is a digital stitching. Why would someone take a series of photographs in 1910 like this? I think it is abundantly clear that this panorama was made as such back in 1910 and this is just a single-piece scan of the original. What one got for seams back then is what we get today. I was doing stuff like this in 1969: photographers actually had to use scissors. Greg L (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Someone put the pictures together by hand in the original: seen here, with clear lines between the photos. I digitally stitched those seams. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see. I struck my above post. It was “scissors and white space between them (way too easy). Although it might be *nice*, I wouldn’t expect someone to tackle the task of making the seams disappear after deleting the whitespace. I might add though, that the far-right frame could be lightened to make that junction look less noticeable; that’s the only one that jumps out at me. Greg L (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. Has potential, but it has some visible and distracting colour banding in the sky along the stitch lines. Since this is B&W, does anyone have a problem with applying complete desaturation? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastiano Venier

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2010 at 13:05:03 (UTC)

Reason

This fine art reproduction is large enough to make out most of the brush strokes, which I think is probably sufficient resolution, though I'd ideally wish for a little more. I don't think I need to defend this image beyond that. As you may have noticed, I'm trying to seek out a variety of historic artworks to add to the FPC variety while I work on my current projects. [E.T.A. ...I was uploading one of those other projects, and forgot I was long enough to nominate this. God, this cold is making me absolutely loopy.]

Articles in which this image appears

Sebastiano Venier, House of Venier. It has been in those articles for some time. If promoted - hence indicating others agree with my appreciation of this - I'd suggest adding it to the article on the artist.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Jacopo Tintoretto

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've seen the image before. Looks like a decent scan, but would be nicer at the resolution higher than the current one. Twilightchill t 16:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The crop looks a little severe. The dimensions given on the image page are 125 x 105.3 cm, which would suggest it shouldn't be much taller than it is wide. J Milburn (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fair point. Withdraw. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Grandin

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2010 at 02:02:24 (UTC)

Reason

Encyclopedic Value. Temple Grandin was born an autistic person who couldn't "speak before the age of 4," yet went on to be awarded a "Ph.D. in animal science." In addition to her economic importance—developing a standard for humanly processing cattle—she also is a fire cracker with quips like this from her TED talk.

Chris Anderson: You once wrote, [and] I like this quote, "If by some magic, autism had been eradicated from the face of the Earth, then men would still be socializing in front of a wood fire at the entrance to a cave." [Why did you write that?]

Temple Grandin Response: "Because who do you think made the first stone spears? The Asperger guy. And if you were to get rid of all the autism genetics there would be no more Silicon Valley, and the energy crisis would not be solved."

Temple Grandin is worth FP because she's of EV.

Articles in which this image appears

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin

Creator

Steve Jurvetson

• Support as nominator --Gut Monk (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While I agree she deserves an FP, this image has her face badly out of focus. =/ Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Badly out of focus. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Like raeky said, it is seriously out of focus. Bad crop too (though that is fixable, but there’s no point). Greg L (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A featured picture of Grandin would be a good thing; however, this one is not up to scatch technically by a long shot due to focus issues. Suggest speedy close. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give me a day or two. I found two much higher quality photos, one by a professional photographer, and I'm trying to negotiate copyrights. Gut Monk (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. Just run a new nom if you get them. --jjron (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Info Premature closing overturned. Closers should not be "involved", and two speedy close votes are currently required as a minimum. Hence this minimum could not have been met. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointless bureaucracy. What do you hope to achieve by doing this? Would you like someone else to speedy close it instead? How about you do it? J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As well as being dead wrong: "two speedy close votes are currently required as a minimum" - so when did you make up that rule for us? And you're now also trying to tell us that anyone that closes can no longer vote - "Closers should not be "involved"". Add to the fact that the nominator has basically withdrawn this, saying he's found better photos, which will need to run as a new nom anyway. I would overturn your overturn if I had time atm. --jjron (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Actually, you did. It was made up, was it? ;) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • I also support reverting the overturn- not only are these guidelines not written anywhere, but they are clearly contrary to what has been happening recently, and, in any case, this would be a fairly clear case when the guidelines should be ignored for the sake of ease. J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As clear a case of WP:IAR that can be. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, so me, jjron and raeky all seem pretty convinced this was a solid close. Are we three enough? Or are we too involved? Not involved enough? Or do we need more? Perhaps the fact the nominator began looking for images to replace this, or has said he's perfectly happy with it being closed? J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think raeky is just pointing out that WP:IAR exists, which I could invoke just as well. :) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The trouble is that, if we're ignoring rules, it has to be justified. I'm really not seeing why you've brought this back, apart from the sake of the rules/process. J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • So your little meditation about IAR did not reveal to you that we need to avoid any semblance of bias in our actions, which is what we've set up our rules and processes to do? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Nope. I'm not trying to impress anyone and show off how unbiased Wikipedia is, I'm trying to clear out some noms that are clearly going to fail. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You're still the only one that's specifically said that they want this speedy closed, so the basis for a speedy has not been established according to what Jjron expounded. It's up to voters to open their (virtual) mouths and actually say what they want - if indeed they do! So please use the key phrase, don't expect closers to guess what you really meant! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn by nominator The nominated picture is of high EV, but it is of low technical standard (TS.) Would an Admin please close this nomination because I, the nominator, withdraw my nomination because I am seeking the copyrights to a higher TS photograph. (hint, the link to the higher TS picture I'm seeking is found at the following link.) Gut Monk (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Following link

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upland Sandpiper

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2010 at 12:32:22 (UTC)

Reason

All the obvious checkmarks are there - high resolution, not overly manipulated shot in sharp focus under a free license. I think it's encyclopedic, and adds significantly to its article since the only other shot was a very low res pic where the bird was crowded out by grass. I also think he's rather an attractive little bird, and well captured.

Articles in which this image appears

Upland sandpiper

FP category for this image

Animals

Creator

johnath

• Support as nominator --Johnath (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nicely done. It may benefit from a crop (I'll leave that to people better at that sort of thing than me) but the focus is good, the pose/composition is nice, and this adds well to the article. At first I thought this may be a young one, but after looking at some other pictures, they all seem to have that petite look. J Milburn (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer crop. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice work. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like it, but I think some cropping around the sides and top wouldn't hurt, the background is blurred and not very important to the image other than just being nice green colors. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see J Milburn already beat me to that thought. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, cropping makes sense - I've added a cropped version and replaced the version in the article since, to my eye, this is unambiguously better. --Johnath (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm with you, I'm supporting the revised version more now, I love how bold the bird now looks and how the eye is drawn to it. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support crop — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support crop. Twilightchill t 07:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support crop Gut Monk (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support crop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.109.92 (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support crop. Love the background colour and how it compliments the bird without overwhelming. Amphy (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the kind words - and for the support, everyone. First time through the process here, but so far so good. --Johnath (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why isn't this in the William Bartram article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect that with time, since Bartram was a noted illustrator, illustrations will be judged to be more relevant than photographs, even if this particular bird was effectively dedicated to him by Alexander Wilson (René Primevère Lesson is given credit for the actual genus name, so it seems the reference to Bartram was in non-canonical usage until 1831; note though that Wilson's death (1813) precedes Bartram's (1823) - assuming the latter was still lucid, he would seem to have been appreciative of the gesture). If you do add the image to the article, make sure you spell out why it's relevant. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume your instructions on adding the imagee are to the nominator and not me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Be bold. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or not. --jjron (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • In your case, presumably. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think Tony needs any encouragement to be bold in placing images in articles. :-) --jjron (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:UplandSandpiperOntarioCropped.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 13:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BP Bridge parapets

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2010 at 08:00:12 (UTC)

Reason

This is a unique feature that is well documented with this photo.

Articles in which this image appears

Parapet
BP Pedestrian Bridge

FP category for this image

maybe Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

flickr user laffy4k

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; I wasn't really sure what I was looking at at first, and the EV is practically nonexistent. It's just tacked on to the bottom of both articles. J Milburn (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Where's the bridge? Gazhiley (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the nomination is about the parapets, not the bridge, you might be opposing too quickly. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can oppose as quickly as I like thank you... The pic has been nom'd for the article BP Pedestrian Bridge yet there is no way of knowing in this picture that this is a bridge... Parapet - ok but only ok... the other pictures in that article demonstrate Parapet's better IMO... This picture is unnecessary for the article as it is sufficiently imaged... And tbh the more I look at this picture the more it seems over-exposed to me - very washed almost, especially on the buildings behind... That better IdLoveOne? Still a very strong Oppose Gazhiley (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I could've said your original reason sounded bogus, irrelevant to the issue and like something some totally unexperienced newbie to WP:FPC would say as quickly as I wanted to, but no, unlike you I was more patient as stayed to the topic at hand, that's all. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? Are you really saying my comment was away from the topic at hand?!! If a picture is nominated as representing the BP Pedestrian Bridge then my comment of "where's the bridge" is ENTIRELY relevant to the topic at hand... And speed of opposing has nothing to do with whether you're a newbie or not - it was obvious to me within a few seconds that this was terrible EV-wise for the bridge, so I made the comment... Grow up... Gazhiley (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the nomination was called "BP Bridge" that would be a different story, but it's not, it's "BP bridge parapets," meaning just that. This particular aspect of the bridge is what we should focus on and whether or not it's feature-worthy for what it is. Your argument that you're opposed to this just because you can't see the whole bridge is half moot, and the fact that you're so crabby about this issue means that you're the one that needs to grow up. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm striking my last comment - I apologise I was (and still am) very ill and therefore grouchy when I wrote the above comment... I am however sticking to my stance that while this picture is being used in the bridge article, it is therefore irrelevant what the nom name is - I strong oppose as the bridge is not in shot... Gazhiley (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • (supplement) NBD, I actually did agree with you and didn't really think it stood much chance, maybe if it was from a higher angle and we could see more than just a few feet of its outer shell... Maybe even SOME of the bridge.. Get healthy soon. =) --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since the bridge loops back around, I think it works in parapet, but it is too small and tilted to meet the criteria. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1280x960 is within the acceptable dimensions. I am not sure what you mean by tilted?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose small, bad crop, tilted.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. My reasons for opposing are covered completely by the other opposes before me. -- Jack?! 15:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I do not think this can pass- suggest speedy close? J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Composition really not FP quality. Agree with speedy close. --Elekhh (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose also agree with speedy. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora australis

Reason

A fantastic image from an unusual angle. The low light explains the graininess, and it would be hard to get a better camera into this position.

Articles in which this image appears

Aurora (astronomy)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Sciences/Astronomy

Creator

NASA/ISS Expedition 23 crew

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Whoa. Support, the amazing EV and the difficulty of recreating make up for any technical shortcomings. --Golbez (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pretty crazy shot of the aurora from space, very good EV. Technical issues should be less of an issue, it's difficult to get equipment into space and we have to take what we can get. If in the future something vastly better is produced from space like this then we can look at a delist-replace, but for now this is pretty amazing. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak OpposeSupport edit great ev, but poor resolution (less than 2MPixels): the upload history shows an earlier version with higher resolution (12 MPix). I suggest to suspend the nomination until someone uploads the original picture and checks the relevant license information.--Banzoo (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourced the raw camera image from [7] which is much larger... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the edited version. I did previously express disapproval of this picture, but given the noise removal and larger resolution found, I can support. A very different view of the aurora - most people probably haven't seen this angle. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I do like this image, spectacular and good EV. At ISO 6400 and 1/6s I'd say light was pretty low, so some technical 'issues' are expected and excused for a unique opportunity. Could do with more prominent placement in the article. Neutral on the version at this stage. --jjron (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Good God from Goldsboro, as my granddaddy would say. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning. upstateNYer 21:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (either) Now millions more will have a chance to see something wondrous. Greg L (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit, the edit made a big difference --Iankap99 (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose edit. Edit looks heavily artefacted and is three times the file size. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're the same size? What you looking at? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File size, as I said: 2.14MB for the original, 5.76MB for the edit. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • He probably saved it at like JPEG quality 11 or so, which is prudent since everytime you save a JPEG it looses quality, so it's best to save edits of JPEG's at high jpeg settings to prevent anymore loss. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Raeky is correct, though I use GIMP, which numbers it a little differently. The apparent artifacting is actually the remaining parts of the graininess - while you can conceal it more than that, you do lose a bit in the process, and I decided to go very minimal. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nothing stops the fact that you're losing information, and I'm not convinced that the despeckle filter is the correct one to use in this case. When you've got glowing ions in the "air", how can you determine what's noise? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Superb. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support original Very strong EV, but pervasive grain (yes, I do understand the conditions) detracts some from the overall quality. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since Wikipedia is a place of learning, I thought many who voted “support” on this one would like to know about the Solar storm of 1859, also known as the “Richard Carrington flare.” It was a coronal mass ejection that was a once-in-a-thousand-year event. Notwithstanding the rarity of such an event, Richard Carrington, a solar astronomer, happen to be mapping the very sunspot that produced the flare. He was making measurements using an 11-inch projected image on a white-topped mapping table when the white-light eruption burst forth with blinding intensity. According to our own Wikipedia article, the next day, “Aurorae were seen around the world, most notably over the Caribbean; also noteworthy were those over the Rocky Mountains that were so bright, the glow awoke gold miners, who began preparing breakfast because they thought it was morning.” More about Carrington’s Sept. 1, 1859 super-flare is available here at NASA’s A Super Solar Flare. That article speaks of how “Just before dawn the next day, skies all over planet Earth erupted in red, green, and purple auroras so brilliant that newspapers could be read as easily as in daylight.” It also tells of how “telegraph systems worldwide went haywire. Spark discharges shocked telegraph operators and set the telegraph paper on fire. Even when telegraphers disconnected the batteries powering the lines, aurora-induced electric currents in the wires still allowed messages to be transmitted.” Greg L (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. Oh, BTW, my 88-year-old mother was born in 1922. She lived in an old mining town that had wooden sidewalks and a single, dirt road through town. Mail in the winter came by horse-drawn sleigh once a week. When she was six years old, there were several old men in their early 80s who lived in cabins on the edge of town. They had come to north Idaho to escape being drafted into the Civil War. My own mother met men who might well have witnessed the Solar Storm Of 1859. Greg L (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original upstateNYer says it best - stunning Gazhiley (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Neutral Important image for sure, but not very good quality at full scale. All versions are too fuzzy, maybe just reduced size image instead? Nice, but irrelevant, story Greg. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. That’s because it was supposed to be a nice but irrelevant (off on a related tangent irrespective of voting) story. ;-) Greg L (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• IdLoveOne, you've said that elsewhere as well. That's simply not a valid argument- we do not downsample simply so something looks higher quality. J Milburn (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's just a suggestion because I do want to support this, but with the graininess as it is I just don't feel this is one of the best images on Wikipedia. We've got plenty of images as astounding as this that were even harder to get and make and in higher quality, therefore I don't support these candidate images - As is, but that's my minor opinion and everyone else sees it differently than I do anyhow. This is a great image, so I guess it'll still be nice to see one of these get FP. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WTF. How is the 12 image of a fully illustrated article great EV and images that are the main image of multiple articles not high EV?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is maybe why you are having issues with FPC editors - EV isn't just based on whether it is the main or indeed only picture in an article. it's whether that picture tells you what you need to know about the subject... This is a great and pretty much unique angle of the Aurora Australis and as such has high EV in an article that as you pointed out has 12 other images... Having the other images there does not reduce this picture's EV... The pictures you spam across multiple articles have low EV for their placements as the pictures usually have no bearing to the article other than co-incidence or "say so"... For example your sports centre picture the other day... Saying it should go in Counterweight is not right, as it does not show a counterweight in the picture, and therefore the picture has low EV. there may be counterweights in the building, but you cannot see that from the picture, and thus the picture is a bad example of counterweights... So irrespective of how many pictures are in the Aurora (astronomy) article, this picture has high EV as it actually shows the topic of the article... Gazhiley (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree 100%. We’ve all seen a gazillion pictures of the aurora from ground. Seeing one from this vantage point (like the ISS was going to fly right over the top of it) is an exceedingly rare privilege. This is a truly amazing image that provides insight into the large-scale structure of aurora that one can only imagine from an earth-bound point of view. Greg L (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original - the noise only adds to the amazing piece of art that this picture is. - Negative Twoth —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Support per above. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I know that there is a really big snow ball above me, but I don't find this image inspiring. While naturally wondrous, it lacking in clarity. Gut Monk (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good EV.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I get that the quality isn't omg!brilliant, but this is an incredibly rare image and the fact we have it at all makes the EV very, very high. I prefer the original for the colour quality, but either works. Amphy (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the edit vs. the original, please. Which do we prefer? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Original Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Either, with a preference for the noise-cleaned one. I think it actually makes it easier to recognize cloud features. It certainly doesn’t make anything worse. Greg L (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose edit I'll repeat my arguments from earlier: Edit looks heavily artefacted and obscures the fact that these are glowing ions hopping about. Same camera, same ISO convinces me that the "noise" is in fact the phenomenon for which EV is being claimed. another sample from an independent source Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the same exposure time? And the same lighting conditions? No. Both are factor in producing noise. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beyond the ISO rating, it's mostly heat through incident light that causes noise; arguably, if the exposure is the same for two images, exposure time shouldn't matter much. I haven't heard any proper reply to my hypothesis that the scatter is caused by uneven distribution of the actual ions that cause the aurora. I think that's the main point here in terms of EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The noise appears to be uniformly distributed across the image and it was dark enough that the camera had to be set at ISO 6400. So, in my opinion, the noise is just from the usual sources, Shot noise, Thermal noise etc. The exposure time is also sufficient to blur cloud movement, so supposing that there was some uneven distribution, then I don't think you could see it here. I don't feel that I know enough about atmospheric physics to really comment on the plausibility of uneven ion distribution, but I don't think you'd see any such distribution in this photo. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Original I would support the original over the edit, since the edit does loose some image detail. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Original over edit. Color quality's better IMO. Amphy (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Aurora Australis From ISS.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Close, but the original has it. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Bear Running

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2010 at 06:02:56 (UTC)

Reason

The criteria seems to be met and EV is certainly there.

Articles in which this image appears

Eurasian Brown Bear List of mammals of Croatia

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Malene

• Support as nominator --Iankap99 (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Oppose as largely out of focus... Shame though, as it's an otherwise well captured shot... Gazhiley (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (also reluctantly) as per Gazhiley. It appears to be a depth of field issue; some parts are in decent focus (droplets, much of the front of the animal) but too much of the picture is too far out of focus (front legs, foreground). Still a nice shot, though. Matt Deres (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]