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

Older Archive
Miscellaneous Archive
2004: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


Kashmir Earthquake Destruction

A hotel that was destroyed in the 2005 Kashmir Earthquakle. It was located in the city of Muzaffarabad

The picture is a good representation of the damage caused by the earthquake.; It appears in the Muzaffarabad article.

2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Mikeo 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock Head

A peacock head

This picture is featured in the article Peacock.

Not promoted Mikeo 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arc de Triomphe

Arc de Triomphe, Paris
Stax's cropped version
unbloated;erect
  • Clear your caches; New version in place. This one has no correction to any perspective at all. THEPROMENADER 14:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the history of this image? I see it was originally uploaded by someone else (at high res!) then replaced 6 times by very similar images. It's certainly easier to support high res photos than medium - they have more use to the project, and more scope for image manipulation. Anyway, what exactly did you correct in this version? It might be better to upload to a new file each time so we can see the differences. Also, why do you want to leave the street in? Stevage 15:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first line on my user page mentions that THEPROMENADER was formerly known as 'Josefu'. I did decide to 'go photoshop' a few times and remove those streetlamps and tweak the curves a bit, but I wasn't about to fill more HD space for such tiny changes. What do you mean by 'the project'? - this image is 1000px wide. The street denotes the space the arch appears in, which, if I can say, is rare to see in images of this subject. THEPROMENADER 15:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I was thinking horizontal street. I do think your version would be better-suited to an encyclopaedia. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 20:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's more than perspective that has to be corrected here - the distortion of the 35mm must be straightened or it will never look straight. Personally I think the natural perspective makes it look 'monumental'-ly big, which it is - and does not bother the natural framing of the image - cropped, it leans, but uncropped, it looks correct. But FWIW I'll give it another ol' photoshoppy try. THEPROMENADER 12:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Eiffel, Paris

Tour Eiffel, morning, Paris
  • No, we'll never see anything new if we keep putting through different pics of the same thing ;). I'm all for better pics of the same thing, or alternates, e.g., a night shot. --jjron 14:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the 'better' part. I hesitated to upload this 'version' until I saw how through how many pages the 'original' was used - consider this a 'morning variation' from the place in Paris to take the tower. Don't forget also that the entire esplanade was designed to this 'perspective' end... which is kind of obvious from the photo : ) THEPROMENADER 19:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear your caches: Edited version in place now. THEPROMENADER 14:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kowloon Walled City

Kowloon Walled City

I,User:Jidanni took this picture in 1989 from an airplane of this unbelieveable Kowloon_Walled_City slum. Won't be flying back in time soon, so only copy I got.

Your edit is interesting, for it improved saturation, but it unfortunately gave an impressionist painting look to the picture when viewed at full size. The original picture is already blurry due to some movement, and your edit causes more details losses. The original picture has therefore more encyclopedic value and I restored it in the article. Glaurung 05:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I suggest someone just does some basic levels or something to improve the contrast, and possibly crop it a bit. Stevage 07:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I took that on 19890327 just like I always name my photos. Jidanni 13:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Epsilon

Hurricane Epsilon in the central Atlantic Ocean, as seen from the International Space Station on 3 December 2005.
Edit 01 - brightened (by Froggydarb)

Admittedly, the image is somewhat similar to the image of Cyclone Catarina that is currently featured, but this image is larger, and, in my opinion, much higher quality. It appears at Hurricane Epsilon (2005), 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Tropical cyclone prediction model (due to repeated failures to accurately predict Epsilon's behavior) and Tropical cyclone. The image is from NASA and thus in the public domain.

Not promoted Mikeo 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medal of Honor Grave Marker

Grave marker of Medal of Honor recipient Jimmie W. Monteith Jr. at the World War II Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial
edit by User:Mikeo
edit 3

Self Nomination, appearing in the article Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial

I took this photo in September 2004 during a visit to the Cemetery. I had planned to send this series of photos back to a history teacher in the US so that he could use it in his class while teaching World War II. I was stunned at how well this photo turned out, and, in a subsequent return to the Cemetery in November, I attempted to recreate it under better light conditions without luck. Feel free to edit it if you think you can better affect the lighting (it was partly cloudy at the time).

Promoted Image:Jimmie_W._Monteith_Jr._Gravemarker_03.jpg

Crab spider

Ozyptila praticola

This image shows a spider of the species Ozyptila praticola. It's only 0.15 inch (3,9 mm) long. These crab spiders are quite hard to catch, because they hide themself quickly and I had to wait very patiently to be able to take a reasonable image of this animal.

The image is now featured on Crab Spider. -Ravedave 20:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Ozyptila praticola - front (aka).jpg Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great flood of 1993 in Alexandria, Missouri

Great Flood of 9999, with the Mississippi River out of its banks in Alexandria, Missouri.

I came across the Great flood of 1993 article which included only a number of small, lower resolution pictures (except for the satellite image). I found this photograph in FEMA's photo library (photographer: Andrea Booher), and thought it exemplifies the Great Flood of 1993's impact on agriculture. The photograph also looks well composed and aesthetic. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great flood of 1993 in Festus, Missouri

Great Flood of 1993, with the Mississippi River out of its banks in Festus, Missouri.

I came across the Great flood of 1993 article which included only a number of small, lower resolution pictures (except for the satellite image). This photograph is from FEMA's photo library (photographer: Andrea Booher). In ordinary circumstances, this is a scene that would be familiar to most Americans (and beyond the United States); This context helps one relate to what the flooding was like there. The photograph is also well-composed, in my opinion and suitable as a featured picture. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 07:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flinders St Station

Flinder St Station

Nice image of the iconic station. Night shot removes all the power cables for the trams.

Well that's not particularly fair as I can't access the high area which the historic image was taken to, given half a chance (or even a quarter) I would have loved to have taken this pic from the same position as the historic one. --Fir0002 www 22:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that as enormously unfair, considering you couldn't even be bothered to log in (if you even have an account). Added to the fact that Fir0002 is most definitely not an amateur. He is one of the best photographers on Wikipedia, with almost 50 featured pictures. If you have something constructive to offer, then fine, but insults like that to one of FPCs most respected contributors are not on. —Vanderdeckenξφ 10:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and look, you're a vandal as well...—Vanderdeckenξφ 10:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Directly opposite, you have this. This is the view from Flinders St station looking back: Image:Ac.stpauls3.jpg Stevage 22:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 07:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light Bulb and Filament

File:Light-bulb-and-filament.jpg
Cool and warm at the same time, showing the form of a light bulb that cannot normally be appreciated while in use...

It's eye grabbing and unique, and shows beauty and complexity to something people take for mundane; Features in Incandescent light bulb, orignally uploaded by Iantresman.

Not promoted Mikeo 07:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Snow in Afghanistan.jpg

USS Michigan

USS Michigan in a flooded drydock
File:USS Michigan Drydock.jpg
Edit 01 - rotated, very minor levels correction.

A while back I uploaded this photo of the ballistic missile submarine USS Michigan and placed it into its namesakes article. Since then this picture has found its way on to several other pages on or relating to submarines; however, I feel that the photos placement in the article drydock significantly adds to the article by providing an example of a naval vessel inside a flooded dry dock, and for this reason I am nominating it for Featured Picture status.

Strong preference for the edit to cure seasickness. The periscope can get knotted. :) Stevage 12:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jellyfish in the Sea

File:Jellyfish sprain.jpg
Jellyfish in the sea

I think this is an interesting picture of a jellyfish. Not the best around, but at least it's not taken behind a tank.

It appears in the jellyfish article, and I took the picture myself.

I bet it takes very expensive equipment to get good underwater photographs, and even then you would have to go somewhere with very clear water like the bahamas. Very commendable effort though, far better than any underwater shot I have taken. -Ravedave 03:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clownfish

Clownfish in anemone
File:Clownfish sprain water1 edit01.jpg
Clownfish in anemone (edit by User:Anonymous anonymous
edit by Every1blowz

I suggest replacing the feature picture in the Clownfish article with this. I have several different clownfish shots, some showing in much greater detail the clownfish but I thought this picture is much more interesting.

More can be found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/sprain/sets/1141430/

I thought about it and I have to agree with Stevage on this one. Also, the current clownfish FP needs to be delisted. --Every1blowz 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Gibson 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Inter

This image appears in the A.C. Milan article. The image is a creative commons image from flickr taken by Lordcolus. I think the image shows sportmanship in it's best form. It would be a great picture to feature on the main page during the world cup.

Check the metadata - it was stolen from Reuters. ed g2stalk 11:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's a pity I don't know either of the two players. They may be well known, but if it was like Ronaldo and Thierry Henry or something, it would be much more interesting. Stevage 06:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Materazzi and Rui Costa are two very respected footballers in Italy, perhaps you are not that familiar with international football. The importance of the image might be in doubt, not that of the players. I think its a quality picture that shows sportmanship between two really rival teams, though perhaps is not Encyclopedic enough for a featured picture. Mariano(t/c) 07:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio. Nomination removed. Speedy deleted from Commons. ed g2stalk 11:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ascidians

Ascidiacea, from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur (1904).

This is an antique lithograph from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur, illustrating sea squirts (Ascidiacea or ascidians). I scanned it, touched it up, and uploaded it; Pengo provided the species key.

A lot of the images, particularly the ones with light backgrounds, have some problems and could use better touch-up than what I could do. I never intended to put every one through FPC. I certainly think the whole colletion is something special, though.--ragesoss 22:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
agree. the image itself may be very pleasing to the eyes, but we also have to consider its encyclopedicity.--K.C. Tang 16:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's exactly what I meant by "too fantastic" - you would never be able to recognize a live specimen using Haeckels litho as a reference. --Janke | Talk 14:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes, we can support the whole book as a rare work of art and love, but what many of us can't support here is the lack of encyclopedicity of this particular imgae. A FP is supposed to illustrate its subject in an appropiate manner; a FP is not supposed to be a mere adornment to its subject.--K.C. Tang 03:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plant cell structure

Plant cell structure.
edited version without green border

Created by Commons:User:LadyofHats over on Commons. Incredibly informative to all articles that it appears in.

I have fixed the framing though due to the way the callout is done it is extremely hard to move it around without botching either it or the background so for the moment I have left it as is and will be working a a version with that change later. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely difficult? I just copied and pasted letters from other words into place. --BRIAN0918 22:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the membraneous vesticles? it contains letters not contained in any of the other words and the ones in that section are hard to make use of without overly fading / destroying due to the green background. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 05:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose for borderless version; there is too much white space around the edge, and (in both versions) the dark green shading doesn't line up with the black outlines, especially on the lower right. If there was color spilling over all around it, in natural-looking ways, this might be stylish; as it is, it looks sloppy. Regarding the callout, I was talking about filamentous cytoskeleton; the one that touches the actual diagram is not a problem, in my opinion.--ragesoss 00:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does affect the quality of this image. If scaled to higher resolutions (e.g. for print) this PNG will not look sharp, whereas SVGs scale infinitely well. Redquark 16:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The leukoplast (most commonly spelled leucoplast) is a non-pigemented plastid (i.e. chloroplast) and typically only occurs in non-photosynthetic tissues - which is slightly problematic since this cell also has chloroplasts (and it should since they are a defining character of a "plant cell") - and should probably be removed for simplicity and accuracy.
  2. The membrane around the vacuole is called the tonoplast - this should be added, the vacuole also takes up a lot of the cell - which is not really reflected here. The "wheel of cheese with a wegde removed" seems to be the best way to demonstrate with spatial relatioship between organelles in cells.
  3. The spatial relationship of the rough and sooth ER and the golgi is kind of weird - and might be better illustrated more like this - the smooth ER in the FPC are disconnected in this FPC image - when they are in fact continuous - and I think the "small membranous vesicles" shouldn't be there (vesicles are small membrane bound compartments that move stuff between parts of the cell, especially in the ER - they are not big wormy things). It should probably also be shown that the rough ER is rough because of the association of ribosomes. The golgi is usually just referred to ad a Golgi body.
  4. The filamentous cytoskeleton should probably be a different colour so it's not confused with the ER.
  5. Why does cytosol label point to a red circle? when cytosol fills the whole cell?
  6. For clarity things that are a part of a superstructure should be labelled together like this encarta diagram - which is not accurate but has nice clear labels.
--Peta 03:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The plasma membrane is a layer that is in between the cytoplasm and the cell wall.

Promoted Image:Plant cell structure-en.svg Raven4x4x 09:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla coil discharge

Electric discharge showing the lightning-like plasma filaments from a Tesla coil. (Click image for detail)

Demonstrates several phenomena, looks good at high resolution

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama of Forbidden City

Panorama of Forbidden City, Beijing, China
Edit

Not promoted . Diliff is right. If the full-res version is uploaded it can be resubmitted. Raven4x4x 09:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf Green Tree Frog

Leaf Green Tree Frog Litoria phyllochroa

This frog is very similar to another four species Litoria barringtonensis, Litoria phyllochroa, Litoria pearsoniana and Litoria nudidigitus and the taxonomy of these species is currently under review. This specimen was found at Darkes Forest in NSW Australia, which is on the hybrid zone of two of these species (Litoria phyllochroa and Litoria nudidigitus). This specimen, along with other Darkes Forest specimens appear to show characteristics of both L. phyllochroa and L. nudidigitus.

This image appears on the Leaf Green Tree Frog page and was created by Froggydarb

  • There is currently two FP of frogs, one is my photo of L. caerulea, and the other is the Haekel print. There is also frog spawn. So, I don't really see it is as bad as a lot of other subjects yet, but I do agree with you. --liquidGhoul 07:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Litoria phyllochroa.JPG Raven4x4x 09:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubrovnik

Nomination of a peer reviewed pic that was sitting there, from the peer review:

I thought that this image, with minor touch-ups, could be a potential candidate for featured picture. The exposure and compostition look to be very good as it is, in my opinion; Picture can be found in the Dubrovnik article. Image was uploaded by Neoneo13.

Yellow Snail

The white-lipped snail Cepaea hortensis. Original by Every1blowz.
File:Snail-WA froggydarb-edit 01.jpg
Edit 01 (Froggydarb) Cropped to get rid of the the brighter green leaves and the blown out sky in the upper right hand corner.
Edit 02, by Fir0002.
File:Snail-WA 03.jpg
Edit 03, by Mad Max.
Edited, by wolfmankurd removed some blown highlights.

I think the image may be up to featured picture standards, and it has encyclopedic value too as it is currently in two articles, snail and White-lipped snail and could probably fit into more. The image was taken by me.

Hello everyone. Since no one has tested out Promenader's idea I took the liberty and did it myself. This edit should keep everyone happy (the field of view and the picture's composition are retained, the bright green leaves aren't as distracting, the blown out sky has been patched up, the size is reasonable for the file’s resolution and the image is slightly sharpened).
I have one request; please be a little more specific as to which edit you'd prefer. I've counted 12 votes so far that do not specify which edit they like so by default those votes count towards the unedited original. 9 votes prefer edit 2. --Every1blowz 13:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original seems to have beat all the edits by a few votes, so unless anyone plans to change their vote soon it has been 7 days so I'll go ahead and make the original a featured picture. --Life is like a box of chocolates 10:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Support for edit Two. Perfect. --Pharaoh Hound 13:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, my preferences in descending order are edit2, edit1, edit3 and oppose edit 4 ("edited") (which "fixes" blown highlights but does nasty things to the leaves). Stevage 11:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's only edit --Fir0002 10:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
I think you got a little confused - I actually created edit 2. Updated captions --Fir0002 www 22:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! —Vanderdeckenξφ 11:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure but just by looking it's obvious froggydarb cropped the picture, but otherwise everything else seems about the same. Fir sharpened the picture a little, and there's a slight increase in contrast. In my other edit I just fixed the blown out sky and changed the hue and saturation of the leaves to try out Promenader's idea. Wolfmankurd seems to have changed the color of most of the leaves into a more solid green without the highlights. In any case I went ahead and promoted the original as it had at least one more vote than the rest. --Mad Max 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure. I think Edit 2 has the consensus. Please see this discussion. --Fir0002 12:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Edit 2 as per discussion. --Fir0002 09:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Snail-WA edit02.jpg

Lower Manhattan

Lower Manhattan Skyline from the Staten Island Ferry
Edit 1 - Corrected lean and colour/contrast. Also wider on the right side and slightly higher resolution as a bonus ;)

Another image from earlier in the year. This is a 12 segment panorama that I took from the Staten Island Ferry, and is very high resolution (Original 7952x1875, Edit 1 12000x2510). I was surprised that I was able to stitch without any (perceptible?) flaws as the ferry was moving towards Manhattan quite quickly.

True. The colors are also a bit too murky for my taste. Diliff, if you fix these two things, I'll support - because you're so good, I can ask for somewhat higher standards from you... ;-) --Janke | Talk 12:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto :) chowells 12:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I'm not sure what to think of that. ;) Well, it depends what one defines 'significantly' as.. I just had a look at the image and the far left building on Manhattan has a 2% lean, by the next building across it is 1% and by one-third of the way across it is imperceptible - not what I'd call significant but I accept there is a lean.. I'll give it a re-stitch anyway. As for the colours, what changes would you prefer? I can't change the weather! It was a bit murky... :) No seriously, I'm sure that some auto-levelling can neutralise the slight magenta tint (which I suspect was due to the low sun near the horizon). Give me 24 hours and I'll see what I can come up with. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I may suggest, you might try an "Auto level", then fade that back to 70% - that got me a pleasing result without removing the "atmosphere". (Note that I only uploaded a small test image, and that I'll leave the stitching to the experts... ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does this one look? I couldn't correct it exactly the same way as you as I re-processed the images from RAW with slightly different colour balance settings but it seems approximate to your edit. Its also probably still not PERFECTLY straight, but a panorama of that size is actually very difficult to work with. To see how each minute change affects the image, you have to let it build the panorama (which can take 15-20 minutes). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Now this is worthy of having a Diliff credit line... ;-) Removed my sample, in order not to confuse voters. --Janke | Talk 06:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, the 2nd is far more pleasing. chowells 18:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Lower Manhattan from Staten Island Ferry Corrected Jan 2006.jpg ~ VeledanTalk 09:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco earthquake

Panorama of San Francisco in ruins from Lawrence Captive Airship, 2000 feet above San Francisco Bay overlooking water front. Sunset over Golden Gate. May 1906.
Edit 1 by Vanderdecken. I can also remove the text at the bottom left, if nobody objects.
Edit 2 by User:Janke
Edit 3 by Fir0002

Excellent view of San Francisco after the earthquake of 1906, with the sun setting over the Golden Gate. I've cleaned up some of the dust/scratches in the image, but it could use a bit more work (maybe even contrast and white level changes), which is easy to do. Consider this a first draft until specific concerns are proposed and addressed.

  • The new Janke edit is better than the original. Janderk 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:San Francisco in ruin edit2.jpg ~ VeledanTalk 09:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flashpedia (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old Saint Paul's

HDR image of Old Saint Paul's church, New Zealand
Edit

This is a beautiful HDR image taken by User:Deanpemberton. Used on Old Saint Paul's and High dynamic range imaging.

  • Weak oppose of the Original. I agree with Veledan, the edit is sharpened too much. I've given some more thought to its size, much smaller than I would like, however I suppose it is technically big enough. Also, I forgot how difficult it is to get a not hazy image in a church. Even with all my reconsiderations I still do not think that it is FP material, I find the image rather boring. --Pharaoh Hound 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nommed it primarily as a picture of a church. If we're more interested in HDR as such, the two top pictures on High dynamic range imaging would probably be more appropriate. I chose the bottom one because it provides a better view of the whole structure. Redquark 13:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Church is actually incredibly dark? And we're talking about promoting a brightly lit photo of it as being "encyclopaedic". Seems to contradict point number 6 - it's simply not "accurate". Is this the downside of HDR? The image would be more accurate with high contrast, dark points and bright points. Stevage 07:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Old saint pauls 2.jpg Tough to draw a consensus but I make this a pass at 10.5/4, giving half weight to weak votes and counting Pharoah's vote only once ~ VeledanTalk 10:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RG-12

Good photographs of non-US armoured vehicles are not all that common, and so I'd like to nominate this photo of a Land Systems OMC RG-12 armoured vehicle. I feel it adds value to the article by being a clear representation of the subject matter, as well as being fairly pleasing to the eye. It is used in the RG-12 article, and the photo is my own.

Not promoted ~ VeledanTalk 10:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Giant Grouper

A Giant Grouper at the Georgia Aquarium
Edit by Fir0002
File:Georgia Aquarium - Giant Grouper 3.jpg
Edit by Mad Max

I haven't nominated anything in a while but it seems like the standard of picture candidates has been slipping a little. ;) Heres a photo I took earlier this year of a Giant Grouper. Its quite high resolution and detailed considering it was shot through a ~1 inch thick sheet of glass. It also shows both the grouper itself as well as the smaller fish that tend to follow it for safety.

  • Support edit 3. It looks even better now. (and by the way, I don't think the fish hideous at all, on the contrary he's very regal looking) --Pharaoh Hound 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for fixing up that error Diliff. Yes, I see that it wasn't you that attached this picture to the Goliath Grouper article. Let me just emphasise though that I don't think anyone should be nominating or supporting known erroneous images, after all this is an encyclopaedia, not just a photo gallery. --jjron 09:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a matter of asthetics. I think the blue water goes better with the yellow fish; they stand out more, as opposed to the original's teal color. Also, it may be just me, but the teal color seems to give the water a "murky" look, which I'm just not liking. The grouper has also been slightly sharpend in Mad Max's edit so that's good. --Life is like a box of chocolates 09:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have been through the argument of aesthetics vs accuracy in the past, but as the original photographer I can confirm that the water WAS a little murky in reality and the original colour is quite accurate. I run all the photos I take through a raw processor and colour-correct if I feel it is necessary. I can understand this is a subjective thing and I can see how the edit by mad max looks 'cleaner' but I don't think that sanitising an image for aesthetics is always as important as people seem to believe. An imperfect subject is equally valid if it is photographed well. For reference, This is a photo taken from the same aquarium (although not exactly the same tank or lighting conditions). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change my vote in response to this new information, but it really doesn't matter that much. I don't see how slightly changing the color of water in any way changes the photo's accuracy in any significant way. I mean, the photo illustrates a grouper, and in both photos the grouper is still there, the little fish are still there, and so is the rock, and they're all about the same color (the rock is a little redder but whatever). All that has changed is a slight variation in the waters color, what's the big deal? In fact, I like both the original and the mad max edit about the same, and in fact they are about the same, except as you said mad max's looks slightly "cleaner" and that was enough for me to prefer it. --Life is like a box of chocolates 10:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree that the difference is minimal, but the accuracy is still important IMHO. The colour of the grouper in question has also changed - it isn't just the water and rock. That said, the colour of a fish under water will always be tinted by the surrounding water so it is difficult to see the 'original' colour of a fish without pulling it out of the water. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. I'll admit it makes very much sense to keep the water the same color if you plan to use this photo in the Georgia Aquarium article. However, if you're just going to use it to illustrate the grouper in the grouper article, then the difference in the waters color is not a significant issue. On a lighter note I have to commend you on your other photo, very cool shot man--Life is like a box of chocolates 10:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Georgia Aquarium - Giant Grouper.jpg ~ VeledanTalk 10:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kamakura

kamakura,japan big buddha

clear and beautiful image; should be on the page for Kamakura, Kanagawa, japan

I'm wondering if that should be such a hard limit. I noticed the featured pic on today's main page (the apartheid sign) didn't meet that requirement. Perhaps it should just be a "desirable attribute" like any other. Stevage 18:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed in the past - we've made exceptions for historically significant images where we may not have access to the original. I think that was probably one of those. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ VeledanTalk 10:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paddletail

Paddletail, Melbourne Aquarium
Edit1 by jjron to bring out tail from background
Edit2 by M jurrens bumped up the color, removed water noise, made the water more blue and lush, hammered out contrast.

Hope Diliff doesn't mind me riding the coattails of his Grouper nom, but I like this shot. It illustrates the Snapper article well and was quite difficult to get - as with Diliff's it was taken through thick glass and low lighting which tends to make for difficult conditions.

  • Support edit 1. It's even better now. Edit two has way too much saturation. --Pharaoh Hound 12:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I think the key word is diagrams. There are no actual photos that look any good. As for the composition, I think it's pretty much ideal for encyclopeadic purposes isn't it? I mean that's the angle all the diagrams are drawn at - persumably for easy identification. I could understand the "plain composition" if this was the Commons FPC where something a little more artistic is required, but for en FPC I think it covers all the points on Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? quite well. I think even the "head on" angle Diliff used in his Grouper shot was what some people considered a defect - "I don't think we get enough of the grouper". But obviously I'm biased and it up to you guys to decide... --Fir0002 www 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A good photo is superior to a diagram, of course. But this photo, taken in profile against a plain background, is not so different from one -- and yet has less encyclopedic value because a diagram is perfect in ways a photo can't be. I agree that this photo isn't an egregious violation of any of the criteria, so I opposed weakly. I just don't think it's FP material. Is this really going to make a reader want to know more? -- bcasterlinetalk 01:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd be surprised, fish (or at least I've found) are extremely hard subjects to capture. Unless you have an underwater camera you have to shoot through the thick glass and low light of an aquarium. --Fir0002 www 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that there's a great deal of skill/luck involved in managing to capture such a fine representation of a fish like this, but IMO a FP should have a bit of "zazz" that this image lacks. I don't see how THIS image is any more worthy of FP status than any other clear shot of a fish. What makes this image any more "FP material" than this image?--Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe the example you chose wasn't really that good to argue your point (cut off subject, lack of sharpness, burnt out fluro blues) but I understand your point. Just for my benefit, what exactly is the difference between my photo, and Diliff's photo of the Grouper. Why is that so overwhelmingly support while this pic isn't? Just wondering so that I can improve. --Fir0002 www 11:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not the one to ask, since I voted Oppose on the grouper as well. ;) If I had to speculate on what would make your photo "better" (i.e., what would make me vote Support), I'd say that a bit more of the surroundings might be nice, or a more interesting background. All in all, I'm just not sure that a "vanilla" shot of any fish would do it for me. I don't know what else to say, sorry. Like I said, it's really a good shot of the fish, and invaluable to the article, but ultimately I don't think that it's "the best WP has to offer", although it certainly is the best shot of that fish. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, they're both ok shots. However, this pic makes me think "some fish", while the grouper pic goes "what the hell is that?". From an encyclopaedic point of view, they're both fine - but the grouper one is more interesting with the surrounding smaller fish and the space, and the "aquariumness" is less obvious. The grouper is also facing the viewer - a more interesting shot. Anyway, just my $.02 Stevage 18:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ VeledanTalk 10:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red headed Rock Agama

File:Red-headed Rock Agama.JPG
Red-headed Rock Agama warming itself in the morning sun on a cliff face overlooking Nakuru National Park, Kenya. (August 2005)
File:Red-headed Rock Agama( without blow highlights).JPG
Red-headed Rock Agama warming itself in the morning sun on a cliff face overlooking Nakuru National Park, Kenya. (August 2005)[edit 1attempted to fix blown highlights]
Edit by Fir0002

I saw this picture from Chris huh, and thought it look brilliant. So I nomiated it. I just love the vivid colours. It adds a LOT to the otherwise very dull article. Hope he doesnt mind :D

Comment I could be able to fix that. Would that help? I think I should get the permisiion fist though. Wolfmankurd 18:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did my best the it got quite dark in the process, Wolfmankurd 22:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I'm not sure that that's the "best" that we can manage... anyone wanna give it another shot? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the highlights are still blown - but instead of being white, they're now an uniform medium gray - no detail whatsoever in the now darker "highligts". --Janke | Talk 06:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- even in Fir's otherwise good edit, there are no details in the blown-out tip of the snout and the neck. What is lost in the original, can't be brought back by any edit. Changing to weak oppose, though. --Janke | Talk 13:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Fir's edit is obviously supported to supplant the original in articles, but still only 10/8 so not promoted to FP ~ VeledanTalk 10:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast Coastline New Zealand

Typical rugged coastline of the West Coast

I think this image is very striking and effective. Appears in West Coast, New Zealand and also Coast. Picture created by me.

Not promoted ~ VeledanTalk 10:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iguazu Falls

The Iguassu Falls, on the border between Argentina and Brazil.

by Misiones Province's official website (from [5]) In various articles, among them Iguazu Falls. I think that this captures particularly well the whole area of the Falls, and was Picture of the Day about a year ago. I found it looking though the various World Heritage Sites of Latin America, and hope to put it on the Latin America Portal.

Not promoted ~ VeledanTalk 10:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Flinders Street Station, Melbourne

Flinders Street Station, Melbourne, 1927

Since it looks like the Flinders St Station candidate from last week won't get through, thought I would nominate the historic 1927 image that so many people said they liked. Some interesting things include the mix of motor vehicles and horse drawn carts on the streets, and it appears the trams are electrified, at least in Swanston St (earlier than I would have thought). To me it is a fantastic picture of the station, has historic and encyclopaedic value, shows how little (and much) the station has changed in eighty years, and is pretty good size and quality for its age. It appears in the Flinders Street Station, Flinders Street, Melbourne, and Melbourne articles. It was uploaded by User Gsl on commons. Don't know the original photographer, but it is in the public domain as it's out of copyright.

  • I wish they'd make trams do hook turns! BTW, if you were serious, the hook turn article doesn't mention this, but if my memory serves me correct hook turns weren't introduced until somewhere around the early 1980s. Most horses and carts were off the streets by then. :) --jjron 10:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Swanston and Flinders St intersection 1927.jpg ~ VeledanTalk 10:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuevas de las manos

Hands at the Cuevas de las Manos in Santa Cruz Province, Argentina.

This is an informative picture of one of the caves at Cuevas de las Manos. It clearly shows the hands, and is pretty too. It has also, against very stiff competition, become one of the images on the World Heritage Site page, and the only Latin American one. Appears in: Cueva de las Manos; World Heritage Site. By: User:Marianocecowski

- Find a larger version, and I'll support. This is a captivating image! --Janke | Talk 13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For quite some time, the general consensus has been at least 1000 pixels in one dimension - this is 800 by 600, but I'm ready to support it too, if no larger one can be found. The "standards" for FP are evolving all the time, but exceptions can - and should - be made for extraordinary subjects, such as this one. --Janke | Talk 14:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I can get support for this, I'm happy to reinstate it. That is, as long as exceptions can be made. Estrellador* 15:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will support, and apparently liquidGhoul, too. Yes, please reinstate, and if User:Marianocecowski can provide a larger image, all the better - just overwrite the smaller version! --Janke | Talk 16:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstated, then :-) Estrellador* 16:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Errr, I'm sure I have a bigger version somewere. I'll try to upload it tomorrow, ok? Should I do it under the same name? Thanx. Mariano(t/c) 16:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done: 1600x1200. Hope you like it. Mariano(t/c) 06:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:SantaCruz-CuevaManos-P2210651b.jpg ~ VeledanTalk 10:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania physical map

Huge & very detailed map of Lithuania

This map took long several months of work and now it illustrates Lithuania and Geography of Lithuania. It is a huge map, one of the best (if not the best) maps online. Created by User:Knutux using Inkscape. SVG source is also on commons. If any map is worth FP, this is it.

In fact, that was my only negative response, too. The "overflow" is so common on maps that I didn't even react to it, originally. --Janke | Talk 07:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, you can freely redraw a map without infringing copyright. The data on a map is factual, not "artistic", and facts cannot be copyrighted. The coloring, typography and other details can be, so a specific map (or map style) can indeed be copyrighted. But, a caveat: IANAL... --Janke | Talk 20:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't copyright national borders. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain what I mean about the copyrights to maps. Many cartographers (at least those in the U.S.) insert a few fake features into their maps in obscure areas. They do this so they can more easily prove copyright infringement against publishers who make maps by copying theirs. If a given feature doesn't actually exist, how can a publisher claim they DIDN'T copy from a competing publisher's map, containing the fake feature? I admit I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly certain that (at least according to U.S. law) you cannot copy a map (by hand or otherwise) unless the source you're copying from is in the public domain or is under a free license. -- moondigger 01:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: IANAL and TINLA. Maps (other than those produced by the U.S. Government) are copyrighted, and may not be reproduced by any method without explicit permission of the publisher. Map copyright infringers are subject to the same copyright infringement penalties that apply to copyrighted writing. This is U.S. law, and may not apply in other countries. I found several references to this, including one that summarizes the issues pretty well here [6].

I don't know how this particular map was produced, and am not making any accusations. But because we don't know from the description how the map was made, it is worth considering. -- moondigger 02:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Even if .png is thought acceptable for a map, it's still only 8/6 not counting Black & White's conditional vote ~ VeledanTalk 10:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC) ~ VeledanTalk 10:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrain of Norway with red snow

A satellite image of southern Norway with snow shown as red highlights the terrain. Especially the fjords Sognefjorden and Hardangerfjorden are clearly visible.

This image is currently used in Geography_of_Norway. I'm nominating it because it shows the terrain of Norway(and especially the fjords) very well at the same time as it is quite different from most satellite images. I think it is really striking and has great encyclopedic value. I considered adding a cropped version to Fjord, but since that article already has a great satellite image of fjords I decided not to bloat the page with a somewhat similar image.

Not promoted ~ VeledanTalk 11:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greylag Goose

A Greylag Goose in St James's Park, London

Just throwing this image into the fray. I accept that it could be more encyclopaedic if the goose was standing up and its whole body including legs were visible, but I feel it is still high enough quality and pleasing to the eye to be worth a nomination.

  • I have not carefully considered your pochard picture, but my gut response is that there is a reason for it to be missing the legs, i.e., it's swimming. Similarly if it was sitting on a nest, there would be a reason for legs not to be there, and it would be encyclopaedic for different reasons. To put it bluntly, this goose is just being lazy. --jjron 07:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are lazy geese unencyclopaedic and unnatural? ;) The only thing that doesn't help this image is that part of the goose is obscured but I don't think the reason why is particularly important - whether it is swimming or sitting, it is still equally natural. However, I don't feel that a featured picture has to portray a subject definitively and completely if it is assisted by other (perhaps less spectacular) images in the article. A FP is just a lead image to an article, where a more complete overview of the subject can be found. Thats how I see it, anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought you'd like the jibe about the lazy goose ;). And who said it was unnatural? I agree with what you say about the FP, of course no (or almost no) pic can portray all aspects of a subject. But some of us clearly feel the missing bits do matter in this case, and can't we have that opinion? Also I do think the reason matters, like just as a random example I would probably be far less likely to support a picture of a sleeping lion than a prowling lion, both with the same amounts of body missing. BTW, not sure if you wish to retract the part about FPs being the 'lead image to an article', as I notice lots of FPs and FPCs, even those attracting lots of supports right now (yes, including this one) are NOT the 'lead image' (and yes, I realise this was when you nominated it). But if you stick to that argument everyone here better retract their support right now. (And I said right from the start that I like the picture!). --jjron 06:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't plan on retracting my statement about FPs typically being a 'lead image', but I probably should clarify - I meant to say a lead-in image. I didn't mean they had to be the first image IN the article, I was refering to how most people come across the FP. They see it on the main Wikipedia page as the Featured Picture of the Day and decide to click on it and/or the corresponding hyperlinks to article(s) to find out more. Featured pictures wouldn't exist on wikipedia (at least not on the En Wiki - they would on Commons) without an article to contribute to. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Greylag Goose in St James's Park, London - May 2006.jpg 15/7 discounting anon votes (please log in to vote) ~ VeledanTalk 11:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A traditional Batak House

A traditional Batak house

This is a traditional Batak house in Sumatra Utara (North Sumatra), Indonesia. Created by myself, it appears in the batak article

No editing can bring "back" something that isn't in the original image. It can be darkened, yes, but the sky and part of the wall will still be stark white. Sorry... --Janke | Talk 08:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
user only has edits on FPC --Fir0002 07:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Not promoted -- moondigger 23:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U-2 Photo

An overhead photo of a Soviet medium range ballistic missile site on Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis
File:MRBM Launch Site 2.jpg
Retouched by User:Black and White

This is one of the most infamous photos ever taken during the Cold War: A U.S. reconnaissance photograph of soviet missile site on Cuba, taken from a Lockheed U-2 spy plane following the Cuban missile crisis.

Side discussion related to quality vs. importance vs. rarity, etc moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/U-2 Photo.

Promoted Image:Cuban missiles.jpg (+10/-4) --moondigger 00:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wedge tailed Eagle

Wedge tailed Eagle

This photo is a magnificent photo of the Wedge tailed Eagle and illustrates the article well. It also appears to be high resolution and is more than big enough to fit the size guidelines.

Unfortunately this isn't my image so I don't have the original. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fpwannabe

user only has edits on FPC --Fir0002 07:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Not promoted -- moondigger 00:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Squid, 7 meters long, encased in ice

Giant Squid, about 7 meters long, encased in ice, in the Melbourne Aquarium

Although there are some obvious flaws in the clarity of the image, they were unavoidable since the object is frozen in a 3.5 tonne block of ice. The 250kg squid was caught off the coast of New Zealand is approx 7 m long. The photo was taken in the Melbourne Aquarium, who purchased the squid at the cost of more than $100,000. Pretty amazing subject, which adds significantly to the article.

What is this blurry mess? Surely not a FP!
Another boring photo
Yet another
And another
And one more
Here are a few quick examples. You've already said you wouldn't support the only known photo of Chopin, no matter how important, simply for the lack of aesthetic appeal (which was true for all photos back then). I'd suggest going to Commons FPC, where your stricter criteria would be more at home. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 04:37
Brian, let's pretend I never said anything in the strikethrough text. I know it really bothers you to think I would use criteria to judge an image that you don't agree with. What's left after we ignore the stuff you're objecting to is still an "oppose." -- moondigger 12:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Just don't selectively read the Featured Picture criteria in the future. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 14:16
Don't understand this comment - can't someone just go back there (the Melbourne Aquarium is minutes by foot from Flinders St Station) and take a "better" shot with some foreground elements to show the scale? Sure, giant squids are hard to photograph, but this one isn't going anywhere. Stevage 08:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easier to simply add a scale in Photoshop, like other featured pictures, such as this. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 14:20
Agree about adding a scale. Most 'foreground elements' would mess up the picture. What do you want, some smiling relative of fir in front of it? -Ravedave 17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- moondigger 00:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyr and Fenrir

Fenrisulfr bites off the hand of Týr

Public domain; illustrated by John Bauer; appears in Fenrir.

I just love this. Old, brilliant depiction the most awe-inspiring lupine of all time. Anyhing that can kill Odin gets my vote ;)

Note: Your first thought might be that it seems too empty, but just look at it for a while. It creates a wonderful sense of space.

  • I don't really get what the big deal is about size around here. What's the point of having images that are too large to fit on the screen? Anyways, this will probably get killed by quality buffs, but I still love it for its artistic merit. And how can you seriously say it's unencyclopedic? Anything else I can kinda understand but it is certainly ecyclopedic.--SeizureDog 19:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the picture actually of? What is it? Witty lama 04:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The picture should be of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions." --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • THough I oppose, I would sugggest that if want a picture featured based on its artistic merit or anything like that you should look to the commonssay1988 04:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- moondigger 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Antelope Canyon 2 / Sandstone

Red sandstone interior of Lower Antelope Canyon, Arizona, displaying characteristic layers

I took this in Lower Antelope Canyon while hiking through. It was briefly a part of the Antelope Canyon article, but has been edited out as there were too many photos in there, making it look like a photography gallery rather than an encyclopedia article. I added it to the article Red, and I think it enhances that article, demonstrating various reddish hues. Note: Janke added it to the sandstone article, and it works very well there.

Comment: Yes, I've seen other great pictures of this subject (in National Geographic, for instance), but can you point to any GFDL ones here on Wiki? --Janke | Talk 11:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think Mikeo and Zambaccian are thinking of Upper Antelope Canyon. I have taken many of the more stereotypical shots in Upper Antelope Canyon, with beams coming down from the top, but that's not what's depicted here. You can't take shots like that in Lower, as it has a completely different character and 'beams' are almost non-existent. This is one of only three shots from Lower Antelope Canyon available on Wikipedia or Wiki Commons. In fact, until I updated the Antelope Canyon article here, one might not have known there even was a different slot canyon called Lower Antelope Canyon, with a different character than Upper. They're not the same place. -- moondigger 12:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, Upper antelope 2 md.jpg is a better shot, isn't it? This one is a bit...well...you don't really know where you are or what you're looking at. Stevage 13:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know... I kinda like this one better. I actually like its abstract nature. However the one you mention was taken in Upper, though it's not a stereotypical Upper shot with a beam of light streaming down from above and striking the sand, so I don't know how well it would go over as a featured picture candidate. -- moondigger 13:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, this might not be the place for it, but I just wanted to comment on the stereotypical Upper Antelope picture, with a shaft of light streaming down from above and striking the ground. Almost every one of those photos (or the scenes they depict) is manipulated, and doesn't accurately depict a natural scene. You can't actually see a beam of light from the side naturally. The not-so-big secret is that somebody (usually one of the guides) scoops up sand and throws it in the air in the vicinity of the light beams, then runs out of the shot while photographers snap away. The sand and dust in the air renders the light beam visible from the side.
Now I'm not saying that many of these images aren't striking. They are. But my philosophy is to take pictures of natural scenes in their natural state, so it's not the kind of image I'm going to contribute, especially when there are already several available on Wikipedia and Commons. -- moondigger 14:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not rush through. I took hundreds of pictures that day, and this one (amongst others) appeals to me a great deal. I wouldn't have nominated it if it didn't. On two photographer's forums it garnered almost universal praise, though I suspect what they're looking for in an image and what Wikipedians are looking for in an image differ. (FWIW, most of them were getting sick of seeing the same typical sunbeam-style Upper Antelope Canyon images over and over.) -- moondigger 20:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would *hope* we're looking for different things :) We're an encyclopaedia after all. Hard to say what this is illustrating - you say it's "lower antelope canyon"...well, if you say so. As you say, it's sort of abstract, which is the exact opposite of encyclopaedic :) So, "nice image, what are we supposed to do with it?" Stevage 20:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: this is one small part of Lower Antelope Canyon, about 2/3 of the way through the length. Because Lower Antelope is a slot canyon, it is very narrow. (In parts you can touch both sides with your outstretched arms, and it's even narrower when you pass through the opening in this photo - I had to turn sideways to fit through carrying a camera backpack and tripod. If you view the image at full resolution, you can see tread marks in the sand at lower left from sneakers of people passing through.) It took me about three hours to get through the whole thing, stopping frequently along the way to set up the tripod and take photos. The next time I return, I will plan on spending more time inside -- maybe 4 or 5 hours if they don't kick me out.
As for encyclopedic value, I think Janke's idea to put it in the sandstone article was an excellent one. The layering and color of the stone (visible in thumbnail, much more prominent at full resolution) are typical of the sandstone in the southwestern U.S., which is mentioned in the article. -- moondigger 21:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
user only has edits on FPC --Fir0002 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Promoted Image:Lower_antelope_2_md.jpg (Note: Ignoring vote by the user who has only contributed on FPC.) Depending on how 'weak' votes are counted, this is either +14/-3 or +15/-4. If it were a closer vote I wouldn't promote my own image, but in this case I don't think it will be a problem, per the advice I got on the FPC talk page. -- moondigger 01:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CricketPositions

A complete guide to the names of all the fielding positions in the game of Cricket.
Edit1 by Stevage to correct minor problems as listed below.

The names of cricket fielding positions are fantastically complicated, and I'd never come close to understanding them until I came across this. It's clear, it's ingenious (a red dot for the basic position, and yellow dots for variations), and it's actually pretty to look at. I can't vouch for its accuracy (the terms "long hit", "long stop" and "long leg" are new to me). Other than that it's just brilliant. Update: I should point out that it's used at fielding (cricket) and adds a lot of value to that article.

Well, I know it's not rubbish. This [7] mostly confirms it, but differs somewhat on "short leg" (but that looks like a mistake to me - would be forward square leg maybe). Also it calls "sweeper cover" "cover sweeper" and moves it backward.
This [8] mostly confirms it, but I now realise our image is missing short mid-wicket. Theirs is very generous on the "silly" positions (chickens), but they also interpret "short leg" as being forward of the crease, and "square short leg" as being level with the crease (ours has neither "square short leg" nor "forward short leg" (on the other hand, we have "backward short leg" which they're missing). Their "deep fine leg" is also a bit different. Still no sign of "long stop" or "straight hit". Stevage 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[9] confirms "long stop", but adds the position of "long leg". I'm wondering whether there is another division "leg" between "fine leg" and "square leg" (would make sense for our "backward short leg"). "Square fine leg" sounds suspicious to me - that should possibly be "long leg"? Stevage 19:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[10] confirms long stop. [11] sort of confirms "straight hit". I see we do actually have "long leg" after all (but it's not in the dangermouse dico). So all in all, seems pretty good, just missing silly mid wicket and there seems to be some confusion about the fine leg area (not surprising, people aren't often positioned there, and it's usually in position to something creative like a someone sweeping a lot or something. I do notice that the "sweeper" position should probably be drawn as an arc, as according to dangermouse it cuts across several boundaries. We could also possibly have one or two colloquial positions like "cow corner" (according to DM it's virtually the same as backward square leg). But these are quibbles. Stevage 19:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chicken - just using in the normal sense, some one who is afraid to risk injury in the name of sport :) Cow corner - a pejorative term. Googly - a real term, just a delivery that turns the opposite way to usual. Stevage 23:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea, but what's "traditional"? I think the red dots are meant to indicate "primary" positions (eg, cover vs deep cover, point rather than silly point). However, some of them (long stop and straight hit in particular) are almost unheard of in the modern game. On the other hand, mid-off should technically be a variation on long off (or perhaps the other way around). It would be weird and misleading to bold terms like long stop...on the other hand, it's quite subjective deciding which ones to bold (should slips and gully be bolded?) Ok, I've had a stab and uploaded over my previous edit. In the end I bolded the most important positions, and made a couple of other tweaks, explained in the image history. Stevage 07:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cricket fielding positions2.svg Promoting Edit1 per discussion of technical accuracy. -- moondiggerdkdksa;kl 02:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentosa Shrubs

Shrubs form the word "Sentosa", greeting visitors who head towards the island's Visitor Centre.

This picture was photographed by me and it appears in Sentosa, the article. The words are displayed very clearly and not too bright, either. The palms that "flank" the shrubs give a "panoramic" impression.

Not promoted -- moondigger 02:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covent Garden Street Performance

A crowd is entertained by a performer in front of Covent Garden, London
Edit
Edit02

This is a segmented panorama stiched from around 10 images vertically. I like it for a number of reasons. I was really quite happy with the stiching, as there are (as far as I can tell) no stitching faults or even duplication or movement of people between frames, the perspective is interesting, showing the performer in the context of the crowd and the Covent Garden markets. I know that some people may not like the curved (cylindrical) perspective, but this panorama has an angle of view of approximately 160 degrees and is therefore unfortunately difficult to avoid.

Heh, just found them - guy in a dark jacket walking through the crowd from left to right. Stevage 20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see FPs according to this formula: pretty + encyclopaedic = FP. This image, which I like a lot, isn't particularly pretty, and it's not hugely encyclopaedic - it adds something to the Covent Garden article, but looking at the image doesn't tell you "what is Covent Garden"? Which of the three big buildings in the mid-ground is part of Covent Garden? Is the square with the people part of it? It would probably illustrate something like street performing better. And it's nice, and very well executed, but not *pretty* - even in London, the sun occasionally shines. Don't take it badly ;) Stevage 14:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the formula in general, but there are occasional exceptions. As for it not 'defining' Covent Garden visually, its pretty difficult for any one image to do that. Covent Garden is technically just a location that happens to have a market in the middle, not a specific building. I totally understand that sometimes a subject is just too difficult to portray in a FP-worthy way and I can accept that. I'm not taking it that badly - I just enjoy the banter. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- moondigger 02:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoover Dam

Hoover Dam

This is a stunning picture. I'd love to see it featured. It's on the Dam and Hoover Dam pages. It was apparently created by Lilybay.

Not promoted -- moondigger 02:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kremlevskaya Naberezhnaya street, Mosocw

Kremlin Embankment and Moscow skyline with Cathedral of Christ the Saviour on the left and Kremlin on the right
Modified version

I saw this image on the Moscow article and thought it met FP standards. It was taken by Dmitry Azovtsev.

  • Its OK to repost imgaes here, so long as enough time has past by since the last nom. TomStar81 19:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- moondigger 02:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Blushing Bride" Hibiscus

Hibiscus syriacus "Blushing Bride" variety
Edit by Amina skywalker

Hibiscus syriacus, "Blushing Bride" variety, which appears on the Hibiscus syriacus page. I took this photo last summer (2005) while on holiday in Texas. It may require some cropping or other adjustments, but it is provided here in the full-size JPG image as produced by my camera. It may be that the more distant blossom being cut-off will disqualify the photo, but the fact that it is outside the zone of focus may mitigate the defect.

Unfortunately, the blossom had already begun to "fade" for the day when I took this, but I think it is, nevertheless, a beautiful shot of a popular variety of Hibiscus--even if it does not qualify as a featured picture. Before submitting, I searched long and hard for any other "good" photo of this variety of Hibiscus and found none. It is amazing how poor the photography is on most horticulture sites.

Not promoted -- moondigger 03:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angel of the North

The Angel of the North is a modern sculpture by Anthony Gormley which is situated in Gateshead, UK.

This picture has great contrast and the subject is well defined under the blue sky; created by myself.

Not promoted Froggydarb 06:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camellia japonica

Flower of the Camellia japonica plant

I find that an image like this is rare to find, especially of this plant breed. Many people do not focus on how beautiful the Camellia plant species can be. Camellia japonica is also used in some Japanese teas which are rarely found in the US. It appears in the Camellia article, Fir0002 created it.

Not promoted Froggydarb 06:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DNA

The general structure of a section of DNA

I'm not sure this is featured picture quality, but the topic is rather important and I think deserves an FP. If you don't support it, please try to give me hints on how to make a better one :-)

Comment regarding the "rainbow pattern": There have been some questions regarding coloring. The rainbow coloring of the two backbones is not arbitrary. In general usage, the 5' end of nucleic acids is colored blue, while the 3' end is colored red, and the intermediate sections vary in a rainbow-like fashion. I didn't make this up, folks ;-) mstroeck 20:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response regarding rainbow pattern I've consulted five different university-level molecular biology textbooks, and none use the rainbow pattern in representations of the DNA helix. Though I did not look very hard, I found no different colors for 5' ends vs. 3' ends either (in any case, 5' and 3' coloring could be used only to illustrate direction of strand and would not be suitable in a cyclic pattern like this). In the textbooks, the two strands are given different colors, so they are easily distinguished. Shading of the helix is used to represent twisting state, with same shades at every 360 degree turn of a strand. I agree that such shading makes much more sense than rainbow shading. (see my vote 'oppose' below) Jens Nielsen 09:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's called "DNA Overview.jpg" for a reason ;-) I understand your concerns, though. I am planning a much more detailed second version of this, but I would like to keep this more or less as it is - as a general overview. Regarding coloring, see the note I added above. mstroeck 20:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I used iMol for Mac OS X and (of course) PhotoShop. mstroeck 19:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above as to why the backbones are rainbow-colored. I am planning to add a very accurate description soon. mstroeck 20:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just found the Peer review for this thing: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/DNA_Overview
Oops, even I had forgotten about that. I should have linked to that, thank you for including it. mstroeck 20:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for going off-topic, but Mr. Lefty, that thing on your user-page must be one of the funniest things I've seen on Wikipedia :-) mstroeck 20:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Janke! Do you mean a legend in the picture, or on its page? I'm currently trying to track down the data file I used to make this image. When I have found it, I will add a complete description of the chemical structure to the page. mstroeck 07:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The legend would hardly be visible in the thumbnail, so better to put it on the image page. Something like on this one: [12] --Janke | Talk 08:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As mentioned several times already, there’s no key/legend – it’s therefore really just a pretty-coloured picture. Perhaps a good start would be the elements, since you’ve gone to the effort of colour coding them (I think). As I see it, blue = nitrogen, green = hydrogen, red = oxygen, purple = phosphorous – am I correct? And, BTW, if that is correct, where’s carbon? I just can’t see that at all. Also not sure how you would then code the molecules, e.g., the bases, though perhaps they would need to be labelled individually.
    • Green is carbon, and hydrogens are not drawn. --Bernard 19:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Why do those purple/red molecules penetrate the helix ‘backbones’? Are they the deoxyribose sugars, or the phosphate groups perhaps, which would give them some reason for being there? I don’t know, because there’s no key! I’m actually assuming they’re the phosphate groups, but if so, they should be bonding in some regular way with the sugars to the form the helices. These don’t all appear to be bonding, although looking very closely most do bond, so it could just be ‘our’ perspective that’s the problem. What is actually bonding with what is also an issue (especially with that missing carbon). Now if the molecules are what I think, the ‘backbone’ shouldn’t then IMO be shown as those solid bands, as it’s the phosphate/sugars that form the backbone – if you want the bands there perhaps they could be semitransparent, as they do help with visualising the thing.
  3. Why are there such huge gaps between some of the base pairs? Some appear to be touching, others you could drive a truck between. Again, is it just our perspective causing the variation? Regardless, I think the hydrogen bonds should be illustrated in some way to show that the base pairs are actually bonded (and how), even if there is a gap between the actual molecules.
    • You do know what a 3D representation is, right? There aren't different sizes in the gaps; you're just seeing different angles... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 22:52
      • Well, the molecule seems to be vertical or with just a slight tilt, so Jiron's comment makes sense to me. --Bernard 19:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I’m not convinced that there’s always a purine and a pyrimidine base bonding. Again though, without the key or labelling, it’s hard to tell for sure.
  5. Again it may just be perspective problems, but I swear some of those nitrogenous bases, or at least the sugars, are looping around the outside of the shown helix bands.
  6. The horizontal and vertical scales are inconsistent. If you use the horizontal scale, the vertical height is only just over 3nm, not the 3.4nm it says it is. Is it legitimate to use two different scales in one diagram? IMO it’s not.
I really do like this, and think it has great potential, and apologise for being so harsh because it looks like it would have been a lot of work (and look, some of my assumptions and criticisms may be wrong). But the accuracy of something like this is pretty important. I’m sure I’ve seen it suggested before that maybe there should be a separate page for evaluation of this type of picture as opposed to the usual photos. That may be right, because too many people seem to support these diagrams just because they look pretty, with no regard for their accuracy (the cricket picture a couple of days ago was the same thing). Perhaps some of the criteria for judging these are different. I’ll wait with anticipation for your improved version. Maybe I’m being too picky given that you have said it’s just ‘an overview’, however I don’t think it’s a FP – not yet. --jjron 08:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When the legend is within the picture, it is (a) either unreadable without enlarging the picture, or entirely too large when the picture is enlarged, and (b) very hard to edit and translate (i.e. change the text, not just the colour). Zocky | picture popups 15:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I notice colors of atoms are different from, for instance, the other drawing in DNA. Is there a standard for atom colors? Probably there can be variations, but it seems to me that green carbons are very unusual. You can also have a look at the Commons category for molecules for more drawings. How can we feature a drawing that detracts so much from conventions?
  2. As Jiron said, it is strange that sometimes the atom bindings cross the helix bands and sometimes not. Also, the whole molecule seems to be leaning on the right toward the top, why? It would be good to have the original molecular data to help understand (a PDB file perhaps?).
  3. I am going to be a bit picky, but the colors in the helix bands are not continuous and the bindings between sections are not clean.
  4. For information, what exactly has been done in Photoshop and what in iMol? Looking at iMol's web page, it seems it can make similar images by itself.

Apart from that, I can see strengths in this drawing: atoms are of a good size, and the black borders help distinguish them. --Bernard 19:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted There are some questions about the accuracy/design philosophy of this diagram. A modified version that addresses at least some of the concerns expressed above would likely be promoted, judging by the comments. The utility of such a diagram is obvious. -- moondigger 16:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daffodil

File:100 0321.JPG
Daffodil
File:100 0321 edited.jpg
GarrettRock edit: all I did was lighten the photo up a bit.

I think this shot captures the unique structure of an ordinary Daffodil. This photograph was taken during a visit to Longwood Gardens, Pennsylvania. This picture appears in the article: "Daffodils."

Above user "67.33.193.152" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user "Polarqueen"/"Christine" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're right, Pharaoh's hound. There should be more peace in this world, like you. Thanks for spreading the love! :) In fact, maybe none of us should criticize each other's work, since none of us are professionals, anyway, and we all have different tastes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cd78 (talk • contribs)

Above user "Cd78" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want your photo criticised, this is probably not the right place to promote it. Stevage 10:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted

New York Pigeon

File:3780.JPG
Pigeon on the Empire State Building

I think this is a really neat photograph that captures the size of New York City. This was taken ontop of the Empire State Building. This photograph appears in the article: "New York City."

Above user "Polarqueen" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Hmm, sadly "philosophical statement" is not really compatible with "encyclopaedic". It would be much more interesting at pigeon, but overall it doesn't really show either NYC or the humble pigeon well enough for FP. Stevage 08:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmm, sadly you don't know how to spell "encyclopedic." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.193.152 (talkcontribs) 14:13, 16 June 2006

Hmm, sadly you don't know how to indent comments. --Tim1988 talk 14:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, sadly, both 'encyclopedic' and 'encyclopaedic' are valid depending which side of the pond you live on. —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have had to re-nominate this page because the original nominator didn't do it properly (they created a new section on FPC rather than a subpage). Also note that User:67.33.193.152 (a suspected sockpuppet) removed several negative votes, so I have reverted the page. Please continue voting as normal, placing votes above this notice, but remember to check the history.Vanderdeckenξφ 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted

Eclipsing binary star

Animation of two stars rotating around each other, with the plane of orbit in line with the viewer, so they eclipse each other. The line at the bottom displays the intensity of light viewed due to the eclipses.

Granted, this is a small image, but I think it does a very good job of illustrating the eclipses of two binary stars and the intensity of light due to that.

Not all featured pictures have to go on the Main Page. And would you object to all of the following already-featured, animated pictures? [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 3 support,8 oppose Ravedave 02:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orchids

Orchids hanging in one of Montréal Botanical Garden's greenhouses.
Moondigger edit

I find that the orchid is a highly beautiful flower and this photo showcases such. Perhaps what is most appealing are the bright colours of yellow, pink, and purple that are speckled on each pedal. This particular photo was taken in one of Montréal's Botanical Garden greenhouses.

Above user "ButterLips" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 2 support, 3 oppose Ravedave 02:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flower Covered Beetle

Flower Covered Beetle in Jardin botanique de Montréal.

Fantastic shot of a Volkswagen Beetle at the Montreal Botanical Gardens.

Not promoted 1 support, 6oppose Ravedave 02:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetically Pinched Can

Pinched aluminium can, produced from a pulsed magnetic field created by rapidly discharging 2 kilojoules from a high voltage capacitor bank into a 3-turn coil of heavy gauge wire.
Pinched aluminium can (Edited version)
File:Aluminium-can-pinched edit.jpg
Pinched aluminium can Moondigger edit

With an equivalent amount of energy that could kill 250 people, the electromagnetic discharge that distorted this can is quite impressive, and appears in the article on the Pinch (plasma physics)

  • I guess there are differently levels of information; one of the most important characteristics of a pinch is its shape, something which is very difficult to see with magnetic fields. What created the pinch is secondary; a lightnng bolt is equally illustrative, but is it important to show the cloud that somehow formed it? --Iantresman 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've now added an edited version of the image below. --Iantresman 15:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know -- the corpse of a person who had actually died by poisoning could be instructive, if it showed some characteristic signs that distinguish the death by poison from some other type of death. Likewise this can shows the characteristic damage inflicted by a particular device. Therefore I think it could be instructive, but still oppose FP for this particular image due to image quality concerns. However an image that showed the can and the device (or at least the coil of wire attached to the capacitor bank) in the same frame would be even more instructive, per Gmaxwell.--moondigger 22:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
user only has edits on FPC --Fir0002 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Above user "fpwannabe" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see a problem unless he votes again on one of his users, I did a check so far he has only voted once. PPGMD 15:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 5 support 11 oppose Ravedave 03:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian Nuthatch refit

Eurasian Nuthatch
Eurasian Nuthatch, edit 1

Nice and corrected photo giving some idea about size of the animal. Photo by pl:Wikipedysta:Jojo, used in article about Eurasian Nuthatch.

*Support edit 1. --Pharaoh Hound 14:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. When I made my previous votes I hadn't seen the current FP nuthatch photo, this image isn't nearly as good. --Pharaoh Hound 23:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made an editing pass, but I'm out of time for now and it's still not right. The bird has been pulled out of the shadows a bit, and the noise has been reduced. Some of the more obvious cloning marks on the right edge of the frame have been eliminated as well. But the cloning marks around the bird's tail are still there and still distracting. I may be able to work on it some more later today, or maybe somebody else could have a go at it. -- moondigger 15:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree with both of you, who obviously don't appreciate the fact that he is feeding the wild bird out of his hands! I think that this picture is beautiful, and I would love to frame it and put it on my wall!

fpwannabe

user only has edits on FPC --Fir0002 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Above user "fpwannabe" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 3 support 6 oppose Ravedave 03:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willys Knight

I think it is a very good vintage picture and is also an impotant symbol of the fight against the vandals here on Wikipedia.

Not promoted Ravedave 03:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dante and Virgil in Hell

W-A. Bouguereau's Dante and Virgil in Hell (1850)

This comes from Commons and is in public domain. It is a scan of an 1850 painting by one of that period's best artists. The image is striking and a good example of his style and the use of the Dante's Inferno as a subject. There may be a problem in the quality of the scan. What do you think? It is at William-Adolphe Bouguereau.

I particluarly like the way the kneeling man's back looks like it is made out of clay - the way the other man's fingers are digging into it! Witty lama 09:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user "ButterLips"/"Dessie" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Dante And Virgil In Hell (1850).jpg Ravedave 03:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wave-cut platform

Wave-cut platform, a geological feature caused by the sea's erosion of cliffs, seen at Southerndown, near Bridgend, South Wales.
File:Wavecut platform small.jpg
Downsampled to 1595x800, virtually no detail loss, but got rid of edge (compression) effects and softness, image is still large enough.

A composite of three images taken from the coastal path at Southerndown. It's a little soft at full resolution, but I think this is a good illustration of wave-cut platform nonetheless. The tide was well out, leaving a large area of the platform exposed. Used in Wave-cut platform and Erosion.

I bet you're comparing both tumbnails on a LCD or laptop screen! The colors are exactly the same in both images, but an LCD will show a vertical color/contrast difference over the screen area. LCDs are not the best screens for evaluating color and contrast. If you have a chance to look at this on a CRT, you'll see what I mean. Or, you can load both image pages (not the full-size images) in browser tabs, and switch between them - no visible color change. --Janke | Talk 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Just by scrolling up/down I can see the images change colour (slightly). I never knew that. Witty lama 07:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's only contributions are on FPC --Fir0002 08:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 08:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bokeh

Image:Josefina with Bokeh.jpg - Bokeh on a photo shot with f/1.2 aperture

This picture beautifully illustrates the bokeh effect produced by large apertures in out-of-focus areas.

Moai Rano raraku

A cluster of Moai found in the Rano Raraku crater
File:Moai Rano raraku edit1.jpg
Edit 1 by jjron: slight change to tonal balance, smoothed sky, and resized
File:Moai Rano raraku edit2.jpg
Edit 2 by jjron: as per Edit 1, but with slight crop

Striking photograph of some truly bizarre sculptures.

That's because a new, larger & better version has been uploaded! So, full Support, now, for the consensus version! --Janke | Talk 08:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't like the crop much, it makes the statue look like he has his nose up against some glass or something. It also brings out the space at the right hand side too much - the rock doesn't really bother me. Stevage 17:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Moai Rano raraku.jpg --Fir0002 01:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Linkia Starfish

Blue Linkia starfish among coral and Anthias on the Great Barrier Reef.

After reading WP:WIAFP I feel this picture meets every requirement, it is of high quality, large, and well done; It appears in Coral reef and Great Barrier Reef, and was created by Richard Ling.

How can highlights be "slightly" blown? Stevage 11:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually there are varying degrees of blown, since you asked. There is blown on all three colour channels (ie white) and then there is blown in just one or two colour channels (which results in a rather flat textured blue/red/green highlight. Both are blown, but the white one is going to be more obvious and annoying). I assume Janke meant that parts of the highlights were blown. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user "tiger35" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about the image lightened and sharpened? Dark jedi requiem 19:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:Blue Linckia Starfish-2-.jpg
Sharpened, lightned.

fpwannabe

user only has edits on FPC --Fir0002 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Above user "fpwannabe" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 01:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neoregelia

This Neoregelia traps rainwater in its core to provide nutrients to itself.

This stuning photograph shows a bright purple and green Neoregelia at its core with inflorescences (the purple flowers) being sustained by trapped rainwater. The colours and proximity of the photo make it especially beautiful.

  • Comment: Very well, it's not a flower, but I stand by my original statement about the framing. --Pharaoh Hound 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user "ButterLips"/"Dessie" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user "polarqueen"/"Christine" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tiger35

Above user "tiger35" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fpwannabe

Above user "fpwannabe" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
user only has edits on FPC --Fir0002 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 01:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarracenia flower

Cutaway view of a Sarracenia flower with anatomical parts labeled

The floral anatomy of Sarracenia (the North American Pitcher Plants) is unusual and the accompanying pollination mechanism is relatively complicated; I created this image to clearly illustrate the morphophysiological features so that the pollination process could be better understood. This image appears on the Sarracenia page, and a version with German labels appears on the corresponding German de:Schlauchpflanzen page.

Still not happy that "style" is pointed to twice - once plainly "Style", and once descriptively "Umbrella shaped style catches pollen". Why not combine them? In any case, it should be "Umbrella-shaped" (hyphenated). Hmph. :) Stevage 11:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Englishtitles2-1.jpg --Fir0002 01:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waterlily

A blossoming waterlily at Hodges Gardens, Park and Wilderness Area
Edit 1 - Reduced size a bit to "improve" focus; adjusted color and noise; eliminated a few of the more distracting speckles on the petals.
File:Bluewaterlily edit02.jpg
Edit 2 - by Fir0002

This beautiful, blue waterlily is shown at the peak of its bloom. I'm pretty proud of how this pic turned out and I think that I finally have something worthy of becoming a Featuring Picture. This image can be found in the articles about Hodges Gardens, Park and Wilderness Area and Nymphaeaceae.

Above user "ButterLips"/"Dessie" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is user's first WP edit. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a brightened version of Edit 1. A little more saturated, too. -- moondigger 12:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user "polarqueen"/Christine is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tiger35

Above user "tiger35" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user "fpwannabe" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
user only has edits on FPC --Fir0002 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
I would rely on a site like that. One can easily take a picture of a blue-colored waterlily and post it on a site and say it is N. caerulea, but does it mean it actually is? Here are two links to a more reliable source: N. caerulea N. colorata. This cultivar is possibly one called 'Pamela' but again, it's really impossible to be sure, because there are so many hybrids out there. --Hecktor 09:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 01:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canon EOS 350D front

Canon EOS 350D/Digital Rebel XT
Edit 1 - by Fir0002, color corrected

I really like the quality and the fact that it shows a good angle of this type of Canon camera, with a background that complements the subject; appears in Canon EOS 350D, and Aka created the image.

Closed - Not Promoted Withdrawn by image creator. -Ravedave 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hippo pod

A pod of hippopotamuses in Luangwa River, Zambia.
A new version with improved color and contrast.
Edit by Fir0002

This high quality photograph was taken by Paul Maritz in 2002, and uploaded under the GFDL. It illustrates a pod of hippopotamuses and appears in the Hippopotamus and Cetartiodactyla articles. While it does not depict the entire body of the hippopotamus, it does show most of their heads in detail from multiple angles. Another featured picture, Image:Hippo skull dark.jpg, may show the jaw structure better. This image also shows how the animals group together, and how they swim in the murky river (using their noses for air).

  • 'People' may be getting better connectivity, but not ALL people, and not for a long time. And people certainly do not have this now. Wikipedia should be a resource for all, not just the well off living in the 'right' places. This is my original argument, and I am yet to hear an even vaguely reasonable response. Re South Korea's internet access, I believe you (MDD4696) are correct, and I'm sure other 'non-western' countries also have great access, e.g., Japan, Singapore and others - so what? Identifying other people that are in the same position as rich westerners is no reply, and surely they are less likely to be using English language Wikipedia anyway? And if you think broadband's not cheap in the US, then you should try getting it in other countries. Besides that simply reinforces my argument. If you can't get cheap broadband even in the US, then if you make all images unnecessarily large that cuts out a lot of the population from access to the best resources, the people that probably need access to a great free educational resource the most. Perhaps someone out there wants to answer, 'No, Wikipedia should only be for the wealthy'. I would hope not. And as I said above, if Fir0002 can produce an edit at a third the file size but with the same resolution and an undectable difference in quality as the other edit, then it can clearly be done, so why don't others do it. This is not resulting in 'mediocre images' and is not 'crippling' the FP. --jjron 10:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's no reduction in resolution or picture quality, obviously a smaller file size is preferable. I think it's debatable how much you can truly reduce the file size with "no" loss in quality though. Aside from that, what is wrong with my proposal about creating lower resolution versions of large FPCs as needed? Are you saying we should downsample the San Francisco image up at the top of the page because people on 2400 baud modems in the 3rd world can't download it quickly enough? Why not just create a 1/8 scale image and link to it from the desciption page? That way we don't have to sacrifice the highest quality source and people can still download it even with "poor" connectivity. Again, I'm unconvinced that the "typical" Featured Picture can be drastically reduced in file size without affecting resolution and/or quality. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By definition, JPEG is a lossy file format; you'll always get 'some' loss. I'm talking about stuff that a normal user can actually detect. I don't think we are really in that much disagreement. My problem is with people that can't be bothered to consider file size. As I argued here (please read) and above, we need a balance between size and quality. There's nothing wrong with making lower res versions, but Wikimedia already does that type of thing, and as Fir0002 has already said, that is not entirely satisfactory. What's wrong the person uploading the image, who is presumably an expert, at least taking file size into consideration? Do you really think it's reasonable for an edit to more than triple in size from the original? (And BTW, yes I supported the San Fran pic, and yes the file size concerned me, and yes I think some careful saving probably could have reduced it without sacrificing quality; that's part of the reason I supported the original version which was almost 2MB less than the first edit). --jjron 07:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that we're fundamentally in agreement on the issue. I just think that saying that people "can't be bothered" with file size might be a bit harsh. The explanation given above was a concern for the highest possible quality, not a "willy nilly" disregard for file size. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps harsh, perhaps just to the point. I have seen several users honestly admit in the past that they haven't considered file size when it's mentioned. And MDD4696's first reply to Fir0002's comment on file size (above) was "File size isn't really a concern, is it?". To me that's saying he/she hadn't bothered with it - perhaps I'm misinterpreting what he meant? I know why it tripled in size, I just think the 'experts' need to think about what they're doing, because everyone has to live with the consequences. --jjron 06:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support the third version by Fir0002. savidan(talk) (e@) 16:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, if that were true, I don't see how that'd be a problem. Where is it written that FP's must be separable from a textual description? Second of all... it's a photo of a hippo pod... and it looks like a photo of a hippo pod... what "additional information not present in the image itself" is it that you're referencing? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say FPs had to be "separable from a textual description." I'm saying that a featured picture should be impressive visually, and not only after somebody has read about it. It should make the viewer want to read about the topic the picture is attached to - and not because they're wondering what it is that qualified a featured picture as 'featured' in the first place.
That said, as I look at it today I find myself agreeing with Witty lama about it just not being arresting enough to be a FP. It's a bunch of hippos. There are no obvious flaws like poor focus or compression artifacts, but that just means it was correctly photographed and processed. If all we're looking for in a FP is a lack of technical flaws and "encyclopedic value," then almost every picture I've seen attached to any article qualifies. In my mind there should be something that separates a featured picture from other properly-exposed, properly-processed images with encyclopedic value. It might be hard to define, but I know it when I see it. I don't see it in this image. -- moondigger 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think it has that "something special", fine... but you said before that it only gained significance once additional information not present in the image itself is known. I'm still unclear as to what this additional information is with respect to this image. Nothing in the discussion above or the photo's caption or description page seems to indicate anything other than the obvious... this is a photo of a pod of hippos. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My fault for not explaining clearly what I was hinting at. Somebody said something about pictures of hippo pods with this many hippos in them being rare. I took that to mean it was unusual to see this many hippos together. Looking back, I don't think that's what was meant, but that's how I understood it at the time. In any case, I still oppose the nomination for the reasons mentioned in my previous post. -- moondigger 01:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
user only has edits on FPC --Fir0002 07:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Above user "fpwannabe" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the larger image looks pretty cool, especially the second version, but, again, it loses a lot in the smaller size.—johndburger 15:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Hippo pod edit.jpg --Fir0002 23:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Concert Hall

View from Grand Avenue
File:WaltDisneyConcertHall edit.jpg
Edit 1: Brought shadows up a bit, adjusted hue slightly, reduced noise in sky.
File:WaltDisneyConcertHall edit2.jpg
Edit 2: Same as edit 1 except shadows not brought up as much.

A striking piece of work, the Walt Disney Concert Hall, by Frank Gehry, is in my mind unquestionably one of the most innovative pieces of architecture in the world. Seen at Walt Disney Concert Hall, released to public domain by the copyright holder. This is an excellent photograph.

  • Comment. It's a tough subject. The reason for the dominance of shadow areas is that there are two blown-out highlight areas in the lower right, and one smaller blown-out area center left. To minimize the blown-out areas, the rest of the photo is darker than we'd prefer or see if we were viewing it directly. (Visual perception shifts as we direct our attention to different areas of the actual building, but doesn't have enough information to work with to do the same thing with a photo of the building.) I'd like to make an attempt at editing it to see if I can bring up the shadow areas a bit without making the blown-out areas any worse than they already are. I'll try tonight. -- moondigger 19:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more comment. It also suffers from uneven polarization -- the sky at center is a deeper blue than the sky at right, probably due to using a polarizer on a wide-angle lens. For some people this isn't too objectionable, though it really bothers others. For me it's a matter of severity, and this isn't too severe. It's nearly impossible to correct in post-processing, though. -- moondigger 19:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 2. Much improved. I don't mind the polarization problems very much (in fact, I dodn't notice them until you pointed them out). --Pharaoh Hound 12:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I just noticed two spots in the image that appear to be the result of dust on the camera's sensor. One is in the upper left corner of the front-facing wall over the sidewalk; the other is in the upper right area of the darkest (left-facing) wall. I've removed them from Edit 2. -- moondigger 01:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not dust on the lens. It's dust or dirt on the sensor in the camera. Dust on the lens is way too far outside of the focal plane to show up.

Promoted Image:WaltDisneyConcertHall.jpeg --Fir0002 23:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cane Toad

Cane Toad Bufo marinus
File:Bufo marinus2.jpg
Edit 01. Not cropped as tightly and not as bright.
File:Bufo marinus3.jpg
Edit 02. Balance lighting, bring out the frog a bit, auto-colored but with only a slight clip on the highlights BRIAN0918

I found this image while look through Froggydarb's gallery, when he had the Litoria phyllochroa up for FPC. It is really clear, looks very good in full resolution and is encyclopedic.

This image appears on the Cane Toad page and was created by Froggydarb

Above user "Philby power" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Philby Power" is not a sockpuppet of GarretRock, I know that for a fact. Froggydarb 22:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • I'll upload one that isn't cropped as tightly. Froggydarb 06:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User is a vandal --Fir0002 00:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Unfortunately thats what happens when taking pictures at night. Froggydarb 07:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't move too much, could you try a long exposure (eg, 3 seconds?). Or, are they active during the day at all? Stevage 11:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be hard to find one during the day. Froggydarb 14:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, take a sheet of white paper/plastic, or aluminum foil, set it up on the opposite side of the subject to reflect some flash light into the shadows. (Would it even be possible with these hoppers, are they active or lethargic? ;-) --Janke | Talk 12:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Na, it wouldn't be all that easy. They do hop around a bit and it just to difficult when you are out in the field to do that. Besides you are too close to the subject for this method to really work, and even if you could get far enough away you couldn't position the reflective surface to bounce the flash under the chin of the subject. The only way this could really work is if I had more than one flash, one on the camera and one on a mount pointing under the chin of the subject. Froggydarb 12:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about a flash/long exposure combo ? (forget the exact term for this) Stevage 16:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you still get slave flashes - the ones that have a photocell that trigger them when they "see" the camera's flash? A couple of those would do wonders! --Janke | Talk 20:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the brightness that's the problem so much as the strong shadows, and regardless of editing it will still look like a flash was used (I hate flash, it looks awful). --Pharaoh Hound 19:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that is just discriminating against all nocturnal animal pictures. You need to use a flash, it's that simple. Froggydarb 03:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, you don't technically need to use "a flash", you need to use "lighting" - which could incorporate one or more flashes, or static lighting (presuming that it doesn't scare the creature off). A flash is obviously a hell of a lot more convenient though :) Stevage 17:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I guess I should support it, it's encyclopedic and (besides lighting) is atractive to look at. --Pharaoh Hound 12:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 2 --Pharaoh Hound 00:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's attractive to look at? You aren't from Australia are you :)? --liquidGhoul 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, I'm Canadian. We haven't been invaded by Cane Toads :). --Pharaoh Hound 21:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd weak support if the lighting can be fixed even more. Obviously you can't edit the shadow underneath the animal, but I wouldn't mind the picture being slightly brighter. It seems overall too dark. Your first edit Brian is better than the original, but not quite in the ballpark yet. --Mad Max 02:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user "tiger35" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you suggest what lighting should be used. Froggydarb 09:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Failing daylight I would suggest ideally a macro flash ring or an umbrella flash. This is obviously specialized and expensive equipment but it is probably the only real solution. By using a mounted flash you could direct the flash onto a white piece of paper to get a diffused "reflection flash". Also by using a tripod and relatively slow shutter speed/high ISO you could use some of the ambient light and require less flash --Fir0002 10:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 00:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cobh waterfront

Cobh waterfront, County Cork Ireland

Image by J. Pollock from Wikipedia Commons

Above user "Polarqueen" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fpwannabe

Above user "fpwannabe" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
user only has edits on FPC --Fir0002 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Is that just a personal feeling? We only set a minimum for the longer side of the image, and this one is wider than 1000px - the 430 is not technically in breach of that restriction. Stevage 09:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's mainly a personal feeling, but I think with panoramas the 1000px restriction doesn't apply. I personally think that the restriction should not be in terms of pixels wide but megapixels. As despite having 1400 pixels of width, the picture is only 0.6 megapixels. --Fir0002 11:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 00:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilia National Congress

The National Congress Building of Brazil, in Brasília
Edit 1-The National Congress Building of Brazil, in Brasília
Edit 2-The National Congress Building of Brazil, in Brasília

I think that this is an image that demonstrates well both the National Congress and the general look of Brasília. I think it is high quality and distinctive. It is big enough and has a free licence. I found it whilst browsing, and thought it looked excellent, so I have nominated it. It is by xenïa antunes, and appears on Brasília, National Congress of Brazil, Politics of Brazil etc. (sorry about the page name - it is a typo).

Agree, experimenting in the browser suggests that it's much more pleasing if you crop to just allow enough of the road to be able to understand the geography of the windows to the right of shot. Stevage 15:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just one problem with a crop: the product will probably end up too small unless a higher res version of the original is available. ---Pharaoh Hound 19:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that means the image is too small then. We want 1000xN pixels of useful content, not just 1000xN pixels of whatever :) Stevage 08:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone know if the long flat building to the right is part of the same building? If so, it should be in the photo (as it is). Stevage 08:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is the actual parliament building itself. It is horribly represented here in all edits (still oppose). --P199 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like (Support) the second one. I understand all your points about there being too much road, but the article on Brasília seemed to imply that roads were very important in that city. Oh well. Thanks for the edits. (BTW, Edit two is wll over 1000px.) :-) Estrellador* 07:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 00:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Flower

This picture captures the beauty of nature in Ouray, Colorado. I took this picture after a storm while vacationing in Colorado this June. This picture appears in the article "Wildflowers." This photograph is of a Penstemon strictus (Rocky Mountain Penstemon)Scrophulariaceae (Snapdragon Family). It looks blurry since I had to downsize it,but it isn't blurry when you enlarge it .

Above user "Polarqueen" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I think this is a good photo so, tomarrow I will attempt to determine what type of flower it is an get is placed there, so if people colud hold off for now it would be appreciated. Thanks. -Ravedave 04:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above user "daniellebercier" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Hecktor 20:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposing one photo does not make the promotion of another photo any more or less likely. Each photo is judged on its own merits by most of the participants here, even if we don't always agree. People have different opinions and different standards. It might be difficult, but try not to take opposition to your photo personally. -- moondigger 23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 00:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom

The march

An image that very clearly displays the size of the protest and the location, is very striking following some minor clean-up from moondigger, and is used to it's full encyclopedic value IMO now that I've added it to a couple other articles. Worthy of the featured picture tag, IMO.

  • Comment Might I ask you reconsider your vote? I ask because WP:WIAFP clearly states for requirements 1 and 7 (Be of High Quality, Be Pleasing to the eye) that "The more historically-important an image is, or the rarer its content, the less aesthetically-pleasing it may be." This image is of a 1963 March (clearly impossible to get new content, coupled with the high resolution making it rare) and very historically important as the site of one of the most famous speeches of modern times. If your opposition is weak and based only on that one style element of the photo, I would ask you consider the WP:WIAFP. Thanks either way! Staxringold talkcontribs 00:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay fine, "lol," you convinced me to change it to a Weak support. Like i said earlier, I really do like this picture: it's quality, it's significance, etc. BUT, that hat...it's just a bit much. That's the only thing. So don't get me wrong, I do like the picture, "but that hat!" I would give it a Support, maybe even a Strong support IF IF IF the hat wasn't as prominant in the photo. I'm not sure if that can be cropped out though. It would probably take away from the photo significantly. Is it possible there are any alternate versions? That might be a possibility. But then again, this all might just be me, (not liking the hat). Tewy 05:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:March on Washington edit.jpg Raven4x4x 04:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1993 North American Storm Complex

Cool picture. I think it should be a featured pic.

Can't the low res and jaggedness problem be fixed? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 23:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, unless a better version of the original image is found, otherwise there's almost nothing that can be done to improve the quality. --Pharaoh Hound 00:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. an image with better resolution, or
2. even better, a high-resolution visible image —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Runningonbrains (talkcontribs) .

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yamdok Yumtso

File:Milopengtibet2.jpg
Yamdok Yumtso in September.

Another breathtaking view of nature...

Agree with Mad Max. Not sure on my vote. The clouds are a bit over sharpened too. Stevage 23:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user "fpwannabe" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Milopengtibet2.jpg Raven4x4x 04:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Panorama

A panorama of the Melbourne skyline.

A truly stunning image that is a real eyecatcher. Excellent resolution as well. Truly beautiful.

  • I don't mind at all, as long as it benefits the picture. Political Mind 19:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, quite a stunning picture! Political Mind 23:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Melbourne Docklands - Yarras Edge - marina panorama.jpg Raven4x4x 04:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Head Crater

A panoramic view from the rim, showing the inside of the cone, the city of Waikīkī, and the Pacific Ocean

I've never submitted a picture to FPC before, so sorry if I screw up! This is a rim-to-rim panorama of the inside of the Diamond Head crater, in Hawaii. Like the caption says, you can see the city, the ocean, and the crater's belly...besides which, I just think it's a relatively artistic piece. Let me know what to fix.

Appears in the Diamond Head, Hawaii article. I took the picture. Thanks!

fpwannabe

Above user is "Dessie" is suspected sockpuppet Butterlips --Mad Max 22:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user "ButterLips"/"Dessie" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: Actually, about 10 buildings of eastern Waikiki, including Liliuokalani Gardens is visible on the far left. Since this is a panorama image, the left edge is in the north-northwest direction and the right edge is in the south-southeast direction.--Endroit 03:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honolulu, Oahu would be redundant, since the entire island is Honolulu county anyway. Since it's not using a formal placename address ('Waikīkī, Hawaii' would be incorrect, for example) I don't think it's technically incorrect in the caption. Keakealani 01:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Astrodome during Hurricane Katrina

The Astrodome during Hurricane Katrina

A very detailed, striking image of the makeshift shelter offered Katrina refugees in the Houston Astrodome. Depending on how you look at it it may be too emotionally cold but it's also very encyclopedic.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orb Weaver Spider

Orb Weaver Spider

Alternative Version: Image:Orb weaver spider day web02.jpg

I think this makes a great compliment to the shot by night of the underside of the orb weaver.

  • Here are some of my spider photos. This is a very different pattern, and a pretty good photo if it wasn't for the glare. Here is one of another pattern, with the white stripe down the center. It is a pretty crappy photo, but you can see the diversity out there. This is a St. Andrew's Cross Spider, but you can see how much better it looks straight on than on an angle. --liquidGhoul 09:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly aware that there are many variations, but I don't think finding obscure patterns make the picture any more encylopaedic (maybe even less so because they are not typical of the spider). There is a lot to be said for top down macro-photography such as in the example you show, but it makes the picture (to my mind) rather common and sterile. It may be that I was aiming for something a little too artistic, but I purposely avoided the "standard" top down view (particularly since I had already taken one of that view). --Fir0002 09:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your top view is heaps better than this one. This photo only has about 30% in focus, and it isn't a particularly interesting or encyclopaedic section. Also, you already have a FP of an orb spider which looks remarkably similar to this. Yes, it is very important for the article to include the most common form (although I have never seen this one, must be native to Vic), but for a FP, we are looking for stunning, and unfortunately, this one is not that stunning. Some of the other morphs are. --liquidGhoul 10:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonquil Flowers

Jonquil Flower

Alternative Versions: Image:Jonquil10.jpg, Image:Jonquil12.jpg, Image:Jonquil flowers at f5.jpg

Nominated a year ago, this picture had a final tally of 3/1. Since it didn't reach the minimum of 4 support votes it failed it's nomination. I still feel that this is a worthy image, so I resubmit (with two alternatives for extra choice)

Personally I find the droplets/off center a good thing. But that's just my taste. --Fir0002 08:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Declaration of Independence

A photo of the United States Declaration of Independence

This is a high-resolution enhanced image of the United States Declaration of Independence. This image is a version of the 1820s William Stone facimile. This image is from the commons, and can be found in the articles United States Declaration of Independence and Human Rights. I am nominating the image for its historical importance.

Probably just scanned at an angle, can and should be straightened. Stevage 23:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like it was scanned at an angle. The edges of the paper line up with the edges of the picture. Maybe it's just a tilt from writing it out by hand. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-18 03:06

Promoted Image:Us declaration independence.jpg Raven4x4x 04:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit Stall in Barcelona Market

Fruit Stall in Barcelona Market

Grabs attention, good color, quality; Appears in "Fruit", by Daderot.

user only has edits on FPC --Fir0002 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Above user "fpwannabe" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
user's only edit --Fir0002 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]