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

San Francisco Earthquake of 1906: Bird's-eye view

Reason

High resolution photograph of an old but well known natural disaster, unique viewpoint, shows damage from earthquake

Articles this image appears in

1906 San Francisco earthquake

Creator

US government agency

• Support as nominator — Bleh999 11:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too blurry in full-size, and we don't know if some of the buildings have been razed for re-construction (note the tracks already built), or if it is only due to quake damage. --Janke | Talk 11:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was taken in April 1906 the same month as the earthquake, the exact day is not listed Bleh999 11:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, nearly there, but it lacks crispness. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, one of the pictures from that article was already featured ([2]) and this one is not that good anyway.--Svetovid 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I actually think this is a great picture showing the beginning of rebuilding... gren グレン 20:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marines in Afghanistan

Reason

A high-quality PD image taken by the Marine Corps during its operations in Afghanistan. In addition to the artistic value, I like the contrast between the modern serviceman in the foreground and the ancient mud and stone buildings surrounding him.

Articles this image appears in

3rd Battalion 3rd Marines, Camouflage, Hospital Corpsman, MARPAT, Military camouflage, War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

Creator

United States Marine Corps (Cpl. James L. Yarboro, USMC)

• Support as nominator — Palm_Dogg 21:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's free from any technical problems, has good composition, and is certainly encyclopaedic. Nice find. -Panser Born- (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Unfortunately, I'll have to oppose on account of the whole thing is like one of those brain teaser puzzles you might find online. Everything blends together! I didn't even notice there was a man there until I zoomed in to inspect it! It's a good picture, but I don't think there's enough contrast to get its point across as effectively. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  00:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Palm dogg... the nom says you created this picture... although it's from the military's website... since your user page says you're a Marine... and maybe you've been to Afghanistan... can you tell us anything about how typical a scene like this might be? Is this how things might often look before searching a house or whatnot? I just want to make sure it represents War in Afghanistan or a Hospital Corpsman on duty well (I don't think it represents the 3rd Battalion well) before I support. gren グレン 02:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I thought Creator meant "Uploader". Have fixed that. I wasn't on the Afghan deployment, but the 3rd Battalion Marines I've talked to who were there said that it was a low-intensity deployment (not like Iraq) and that a Corpsman walking around looking for signs of disease would not be unusual. Palm_Dogg 04:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image credit actually includes the name of the photographer (Cpl. James L. Yarboro, USMC), which I have added above to the creator line. — ERcheck (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Support, thanks for the explanation, and adding it to camouflage is the kicker. gren グレン 05:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - I'm not sure I can support it due to imperfect focus at full resolution, and how difficult it is to make out what you're looking at. That said, it is a fascinating photo to inspect: look at the ladder in the center leading up to someone's second floor home! Also, the architecture is fascinating, and it's amazing how *clean* the place is -- little or no litter at all. It would also be a good pic for camouflage. --TotoBaggins 06:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - Nice pic, but I don't think it illustrates that much in terms of Marines, Corpsmen, or the War in Afghanistan. If it were illustrating camouflage, I'd support it, since he's so hard to spot. Iorek85 07:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added the image to several camoflauge articles. Couldn't find any relevant articles on Afghan/Central Asian architecture. Palm_Dogg 07:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then support I shall. Iorek85 08:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral A good composition but there are some technical problems. Ba'Gamnan | Talk 15:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, now that it illustrates camouflage. Ba'Gamnan, what technical problems are you referring to? Spikebrennan 15:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problems of contrasts (for me). Ba'Gamnan | Talk 20:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Spikebrennan--St.daniel ^Talk 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and Spikebrennan. Witty Lama 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, certainly not the best Wikipedia offers.--Svetovid 21:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not sure about any technical problems, but I think it is very encyclopedic for camouflage, shame we don't have the relevant architectural articles, perhaps a request to the relevant project is in order? Terri G 09:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Oooo...nice camouflage. I keep forgetting there's a man standing in plain view in the pic. Encyclopedic pic. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 04:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As per comments above Booksworm ^{Talk to me!} 05:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The top part looks kind of washed out. Spebudmak 14:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines - Afghanistan.jpg MER-C 07:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Yanks mop up on Bougainville

Articles

Bougainville campaign, M4 Sherman

Creator

US Government

Reason

One of the few pictures from the Pacific War that clearly shows actual combat operations in the jungles of the South Pacific islands. The soldiers involved are also dramatically silhouetted by the sun shining down through the jungle canopy. The action captured includes one soldier sprinting for cover as another carefully fires his rifle at a target unseen by the viewer.

Nominated by

Cla68 07:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator. Cla68 07:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Neutral Are there really very few pictures of the pacific war? There seems to be plenty of video footage. And the picture its self is unremarkable with not great composition and very dark shadows. -Fcb981 14:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, Given your considerable knowlage on the subject I will trust that you nominated a picture that impressed you and I will trust that you can evalute the rareity better than I can. Thanks -Fcb981 03:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The South Pacific theater (South West Pacific theatre of World War II, Solomon Islands campaign) was way less photographed than the Central Pacific campaigns. And the pictures that do exist are mainly posed, rear-area, airfield personnel, or after-battle shots. Jungle warfare is apparently difficult to photograph or film and the few military and media photographers who were there appear to have been reluctant to expose themselves to enemy fire. I don't agree with you that the picture is unremarkable. I think it captures the drama of close quarters combat very well. The troops in the picture are using the tank as "rolling cover" because the human beings that they are hunting are, judging by the angle of the standing rifleman, probably 50 yards away or less. You can see how the three soldiers are coordinating their cover-and-fire tactics. One covers from a ground position while the other two take turns firing from either side of the tank and then quickly retreat back into cover. I think that the act of men hunting other men is very dramatic as well as being relatively rarely photographed and I think this photo captures the drama of it in a place where a lot of intense combat took place and a lot of people died, but where there isn't much photographic documentation of what actually occurred. Cla68 23:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• weak support v3 I actually rather like this image, composition included, there is a lot of action and the level of activity / detail pulls you in. The inky shadows are unfortunate though. Debivort 23:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I love this photo. The quality may not be the best, but the composition is dramatic (and I don't think the inky shadows detract too much, in any event). It really captures how terrifying this sort of battle was, and how brave the men doing it were. Calliopejen1 04:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great composition and the quality may be excused due to its historical value. Mgiganteus1 09:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support version 3 Support Being historical, artistic yet informative, all in a rare shot make this one impossible to oppose. J Are you green? 19:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wonderful picture Booksworm Talk to me! 17:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only support Version 1 - no. 3 (especially) has this strange unnatural feel to it.... Booksworm Talk to me! 08:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Whoa. ^8thstar 14:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Version 3 Oppose nominated edit The original is in a bad condition but might be fixable with a good edit. This one is for one not cleaned up and for two blows the highlights even more than the original. I might support a proper edit or a better version if someone can find one. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is another version at Defenselink that shows better detail in the foreground and the tank in the picture. That version, however, cuts off the top of the image thereby reducing the dramatic effect of the sun's rays filtering through the foliage so I chose not to use that version. I don't know of any other versions better than the one I originally listed here. Cla68 07:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The unitedstatesveterans.com version I link to shows that the foliage in the background and the tank are in fact not blown out. Sadly the link through leads nowhere, but it means there should be a better version available (which also shows another soldier on the right). ~ trialsanderrors 07:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The linked version you were looking for is here, thanks to the Internet archive. It's the very same version that is also actually in archives.gov (ID 531183, "Use War and Conflict Number 1185 when ordering a reproduction or requesting information about this image.", NAIL Control Number: NWDNS-111-SC-189099; search at the ARC for "bougainville" to find it, deep-linking doesn't work). But the online version still isn't really large enough. It's also available at the Library of Congress, but only as a thumbnail. If someone could order it at ARC, I'm sure a better scan could be produced. Lupo 12:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose first two. ARC version is too light (and the online version too small), but both versions here are way too dark. Lupo 12:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, I think the the 3000×2325px version from DVIC (description) is perfectly fine. They did not crop anything away, it's rather the two versions shown in this nomination that are cropped. The two shown here are just inferior. Lupo 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and please give this poor image a better name. "The Yanks mop up at Bougainville" is so unencyclopedic (even if DVIC and ARC use it), and "Bougainville_WWII_141" is scarcely better. Lupo 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll support the DVIC version if you upload it. Also, a for deep research, and of course you can give the image whichever name you think is most encyclopedic. ~ trialsanderrors 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I uploaded the better version. I don't see a "move" tab in Commons so how do I rename the image? Cla68 23:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no move option for images. You should add the DVIC version here to be considered for featured status. ~ trialsanderrors 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is here now. It's the top image in this section. Cla68 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Uh no, we don't do it this way. This should be added as a separate image under a different name, preferably by Lupo who found it, and then added here as an alternative to the two nominated versions. ~ trialsanderrors 00:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It would have been ok with me. But anyway, I uploaded it under a neutral name. May I propose the two others for deletion at the commons? Lupo 06:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Fine with me as long as it doesn't mess up the link to the article that uses it (Bougainville campaign). Cla68 06:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think I've replaced the darker, cropped versions in all places. BTW, two things: (1) the two originally nominated images are mis-tagged, they should be ((PD-USGov)), not ((PD-US)). PD-US is used only for images published before 1923. (2) Please do not just copy the highly POV descriptions from U.S. Army (or other official) sites. Try to rephrase! Terms like "Japs" are considered highly offensive, especially at the commons. Lupo 06:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support original from gov. archiveSupport version 3 Softer on the eyes. Uh...little question here. Is that a shell casing hovering in front of the soldier's (the one firing) helmet? That would be awesome if it it was. However, why is the other pic (the first one) missing that shadow? I'm guessing someone tried to clean-up the image and took too much out. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Darn, I think you're right. The black blot is in the ARC version, but not in the large DVIC version. What now? Shall I re-add it to the large version? I'm fairly confident I could do it, and in this case the modification would be a restoration, a correction of an overzealous cleanup done at DVIC, so I guess it should be ok from a moral point of view. Lupo 07:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's unidentifiable, even in close-up. The DVIC version doesn't look cleaned up to me either, so unless we have other evidence that it's a shell casing I wouldn't put it back in. ~ trialsanderrors 07:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah...I guessing that version 1 and 2 were based on the DVIC version, so the "shell casing" is probably a scanning or printing error. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 07:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The DVIC version definitiely has been cloned in the area of the "shell case" (I've uploaded a comparison at approx 200%, above) which is interesting... does this mean the black mark was there on the original print? The first two (smaller) versions are clearly of the same scan; the larger one is a much better scan but is the one with the obvious retouching.. I'm pretty sure the original submission is a high contrast version of the one with the "shell case" in which the mystery object has also been cloned out, only rather more cleverly. I too would be very wary about adding this back in to the bigger version, but I'm fairly sure it is an original detail. If our detectives would like to take the forensic report back to the US govt website, maybe we could uncover an original scan..? Worth a try, I think. mikaul^talk 15:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support DVIC version. Lupo 06:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Version 3 Despite high reproductibility and low historical value. BeefRendang 09:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not unique enough.--Svetovid 11:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Suport Version 3. While all are good the last is clearly the superior shot. Theonlyedge 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Version 3 – This is the best example of a photo from the jungles of the Second World War I've seen. Centy 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• SupportV3 very good picture --St.daniel ^Talk 23:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great photo Electricmoose- Electrifying ^talk 18:53, 5 May 2006 16:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Pending news on possible missing detail (see above) I'd like to support version 3, as it's clearly the best scan, but the shading (performed on the scan, I think) is awful. There's no way the soldiers should be silhouetted to a toneless black while the foreground shadows are a 60% grey, it just looks unnatural and wrong. It's a shame, as it just needs a little tweak to put right. Is it too late in the nomination to upload something better? I'd suggest the existing version 3 just be swapped out for a properly shaded one, to save having a version 4, more voting, etc - what d'you think? Just to clarify, I'm not proposing a version anything like as contrasty and heavily shaded as the original nom, just enough to stop the rest of the scene looking flat. mikaul^talk 19:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Version 3, shows retouching, not encyclopedic. 217.132.79.90 20:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please sign in when voting. J Are you green? 01:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong!. This is a premature conclusion. If the two are different scans it might just be a piece of dirt on the scanner or film in one version and a cleaner scanjob on the other version. --Dschwen 19:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If someone really, really wants a perfectly clean scan, I can go down to the archives and do a 4800dpi one of the slide in the research room. Noclip 12:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have access to a hard copy? How?!? Anyways, I'm fine with the current res of version 3. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The slide is available to the public for scanning through the National Archives. Noclip 13:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe it's just me, but I would love to see an unadulterated scan of the original print to settle the shell casing issue. Please, if it's easy enough for you, I'd realy appreaciate it. Don't worry about dust & scratches, I'll happily do all of that if you upload the raw scan. 3000x2000 pixels is fine. mikaul^talk 16:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would that happen to be at the same site as the Buchenwald slide? --Dschwen 21:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just discovered this NARA/ARC mirror. A great resource, and: they do have the original, uncompressed TIFFs! The Bougainville image is here, with a link to the 3000×2337 TIFF from the NARA (not the DVIC). The Buchenwald image is here, with the 3000×2424 TIFF here. Both TIFFs show quite a bit of dust that could probably be carefully be removed digitally. Lupo 07:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC) (P.S.: Both TIFFs are about 7MB each.)[reply]
      • Awesome, thanks, I'll see if I can get the Buchenwald cleaned up. --Dschwen 07:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The TIFF of the Bougainville photo has also lots of scratches that probably cannot be removed easily. In some areas, it is better than the DVIC scan, though. The shooting soldier, for instance, isn't just saturated black. Lupo 07:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An already cleaned-up version of the Buchenwald picture is also available at the DIV: 2699×2160px JPG (description). Lupo 07:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:U.S. Soldiers at Bougainville (Solomon Islands) March 1944.jpg MER-C 07:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Milky Way over Death Valley

Reason

Very unusual picture, in that they were able to picture both the valley and the milky way in the same shot. Hight resolution, and interesting.

Articles this image appears in

Death Valley, Night sky, Milky Way

Creator

U.S. National Park Service

• Support as nominator — Chris H 16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While this is a very impressive artistic panoramic shot, I don't think it contributes to the article significantly. The fact that much of the foreground is very out of focus, it is black and white and contains the milky way sky so prominently only confuses understanding of what Death Valley actually is in my opinion. Good image, just sadly not FP material on Wikipedia. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the technical problems are minor for a night shot (although some cropping might be in order). Maybe it should also be added to Milky Way? ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that panoramas are rather unwieldy to have in article. It can be done; see Along the River During Qingming Festival; but (IMHO) it is best not to have them included unless it contributes something that could not be done by an image with a more balanced aspect ratio.--HereToHelp 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  For the Milky Way article a crop with a better aspect ratio might work. ~ trialsanderrors 21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn because of multiple stitching errors. ~ trialsanderrors 20:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow. Not a support yet, just a general wow. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For sheezy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chickitychina`1`1 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC). J Are you green? 01:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's a great picture, and although it doesn't contribute much to Death Valley, it would probably be great for Night Sky, Milky Way, and Light Pollution. Does a featured picture have to contribute strongly to an article to be FP anyway? --Keflavich 02:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My support is for the unedited version --Keflavich 19:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I support the original which appears to now be part of Night Sky. I think the panoramic currently in Milky Way does a better job of showing the sky than either version of this, so I say keep this one out of that article. Neither version does much credit to Death Valley as it is written currently. If someone adds a subsection on light pollution or a separate article then the original would be well suited to that. Flendon 01:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Diliff. Yeah, it's striking and very nice... but, I am not even sure it does a great job of representing night sky, Mily Way, or light pollution... and yes, WP:FP? #5 states it need to contribute. I interpret as strongly and find "[w]hile effects such as black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject" to be especially relevant to this nomination. gren グレン 07:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about the factoid that Death Valley has the darkest night sky of all U.S. National Parks [3], and one of the darkest skies in the U.S. proper [4]? I don't think color was chosen for artistical reasons here. ~ trialsanderrors 08:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still on the fence about the original, but I have to oppose the edit, that one is way too dark and in no way representative of the actual view the photographer saw. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes you think that? I actually darkened it on second go-around (using curves to avoid blown blacks) because I have grave doubts the night sky was grey. To get anything as light as the original you'd have to have the full moon out. (Just to put numbers on it, the background sky is 98% black in the edit, and 88% black in the original.) ~ trialsanderrors 08:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might be right but to be honest I can't see any detail whatsoever in the hills anymore. I'm not using a great display at the moment so I'm not going to make definitive statements but if the hills (and that rock in the foreground) are only a few points from absolute black then almost all detail is going to be lost even if you haven't actually blown them. In any case, the sky had to have some light in it or would not have been grey in the first place and assuming a relatively linear exposure curve with no dodging and burning, the brightness of the sky would be relative to the brightness of the landscape and the heavy clouds which look to come pretty close to absolute black in parts. If the sky is brighter than the dark clouds then I suggest that is because it because it wasn't actually as black as you imagine. It looks like a fine haze of cloud illuminated by the starlight is partly to blame. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are two separate things: 1. The desired level of detail, and 2. the accurate replication of the actual lighting situation. On the residual light in the sky, certainly there are particles in the air that reflect the background glow. But given this is one of the remotest areas in California I have grave doubts that background glow and starlight create enough light to make features visible at night that are dark even during the daytime. The picture strikes me as post-processed simply in order to enhance those features, with some other drawbacks (e.g. the poor contrast in the sky and on the valley floor). I'd say that if anything my edit is even too light for the actual lighting situation, but of course if the goal is to bring out the features of the mountains we should go with the original. Although I'm not sure why not go with a daylight shot in that case. ~ trialsanderrors 10:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You could be right. As I said though, why are the dark clouds darker than the sky if the sky was virtually pitch black? I think starlight does have the ability to illuminate the foreground if exposed long enough, although I'm not sure that is the case here since there is minimal blurring of the stars. I suspect it was taken with a fast, ultra wide lens with a wide open aperture (in the region of f/1.8 to f/2.8). Just a guess though. As for what the goal is, I would have thought it was to show Death Valley, not the sky which is merely an impressive backdrop. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with many comments above, however, To represent death valley the ENC of the picture is fairly minimal. What it represents well however, is the view of the milky way from earth. To this end, the edit is a vast improvement. Astheticaly, one doesn't want to look at a star image with a gray background and light hills and the edit solved that problem. If this Image was only suposed to represent death valley I'd say it wouldn't deserve to pass on ENC alone and so I think the star angle should be the priority. -Fcb981 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well the sky is certainly not pitch-black (although I doubt it's diffusion from hazy clouds, that would reduce lightness on the ground). The clouds get no light from the stars or the background glow, so they certainly are the darkest feature in the picture. The sky shows the typical gradation that comes from the background glow, but I have strong doubts the background glow is strong enough to light up the upper reaches of the sky in the picture. It just strikes me as the typical night picture where the grey tab of the levels tool is moved to the left in order to lighten up dark grey areas. ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The original lighter version does a good job of showing the light pollution (see that eery glow emanating from above the peaks?). It also demonstrates some features of death valley and the playa, such as the barren landscape and cracked earth. !jim 18:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the edit, Conditionally support the original if someone finds a way to fit it into Milky Way. I think it does a better job of illustrating the Milky Way, from an Earthly perspective, than any of the current images in that article, but I share the encyclopedicity concerns brought up by Diliff and others.--ragesoss 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second this comment !jim 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support for original, oppose edit. I just saw a NZ TV documentary about Death Valley, which is a haven for astronomers and stargazers because of very little light pollution. The time-lapse sky sequence shown in the documentary was very much like this image. Opposers should re-consider if this fact might change their vote - this is a grand image! --Janke | Talk 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 On the grounds this get incorporated into Milky Way, because it illustrates the Milky Way far better than Death Valley. The stars are far clearer in edit 1, so I would give my support to that picture. Centy 00:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think edit 1 does a better job of showing the milky way, but a cropped version might be nice - as it stands, there is a lot of valley shown and the MW isn't quite the central focus of the image. --Keflavich 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support Great picture, really useful on encyclopaedia. Great job! Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 18:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Support The picture was selected as APOD picture. I trust the guys from NASA, who run APOD know the value and the quality of the picture. The picture is in perfect focus and has a big value. Mbz1 | Talk
• Strong Support. This image is just stunning. Surely one of the best NASA pictures.--KaragouniS 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (having clicked on the image to get a closer look while viewing Milky Way, not browsing FPC). I think the image could use a little contrast enhancement, but I prefer the original to the edit, which seems too dark to me. — brighterorange (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; but absolutely prefer the original to the edit. Goodnightmush^Talk 04:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amazing Electricmoose- Electrifying ^talk 18:53, 5 May 2006 16:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Electricmoose --St.daniel ^Talk 13:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose edit — Like brighterorange, I found this picture through the Milky Way article, and was about to nominate it, but it looked like someone beat me to the punch. ♠ SG →Talk 20:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A really outstanding picture M&NCenarius 08:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A note from the maker of this image. Since it is in the Public Domain, I have no control over subsequent processing. However, the intent of the image was neither to show light pollution nor the Milky Way, per se. It's intent is to reveal the fact that it is still possible to view the visible universe from earth from a place of solitude, beauty, and peace. By the way, the "eerie glow" is NOT light pollution, but the natural airglow (permanent aurora), light pollution is virtually invisible in this image. APOD also made an error in saying it was a mosaic of 30 images, it is actually 60 images stitched together. Stretching on the top makes the stars look like lines, a necessary evil in making panoramas that are rectangular in shape with zero distortion at the horizon. The original image is about 13000 x 4000 pixels, I submitted a downsampled representation in 8 bit monochrome. The original image is 16 bit, with more dynamic range than the human eye can possibly perceive in greyscales. I chose grey because under this level of light the human eye is essentially color blind. I thank the nominator for the honor, and can only flinch at the subsequent image processing.Ngc1972 02:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the original version. It is a stunning picture. -- Anirban 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Deathvalleysky nps big.jpg MER-C 07:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a footnote please read that light at night from Las Vegas is affecting stunning imagery like this? You can see the video describing the problem at California Connected HERE - http://www.californiaconnected.org/tv/archives/449 Wikipedia has it own pages on light pollution, caused by light at night, HERE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.40.17 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EpcotImagination

Reason

An interesting photo of a unique building. It is very high resolution and describes the subject well

Articles this image appears in

Epcot, Imagination!, Epcot attraction and entertainment history

Creator

User:Reywas92

• Support as nominator — Reywas92^{TalkHow's my editing?} 15:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not "the best Wikipedia has to offer", just a typical snapshot. You need something more to make FP. Sorry to be so blunt, but take a look at existing FPs... --Janke | Talk 20:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Janke Cacophony 22:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Janke; not quite there. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 16:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheung Tsing Tunnel

Reason

Cheung Tsing Tunnel is a dual tube 3-lane tunnel on Tsing Yi Island, Hong Kong. The tunnel itself may look nothing special, but the location where the photo was shot is usually unaccessible. The photographer was invovled in a car accident, so he had the chance to get off the bus on a highway and took the picture. The quality of the picture is good in general. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 12:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Cheung Tsing Tunnel

Creator

Father vice

• Support as nominator — Jerry Crimson Mann 12:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice picture of a no photography sign... --Dschwen 13:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, that's a speed camera sign!!! And, oppose, clumsy composition, tunnel isn't straight, building cut off, etc. --Conor Campbell 15:15, 27 May 2007 (GMT).
• Oppose, nothing particularly outstanding about this photograph. The composition is in fact clumsy. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Phoenix. Cacophony 16:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, now if you had stood in the middle of traffic and gotten a center-on / straight shot maybe it'd be FP material. Still, a very encyclopedic and useful photo. gren グレン 20:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Leaning to the right on the left, this is irritating and it can be corrected (but not by me) - Adrian Pingstone 16:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose As per comments above Booksworm ^{Talk to me!} 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor composition. --Anirban 05:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above- the composition is nowhere near FP quality. -- Kicking222 12:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Trees in the Sunset

Reason

This is a beautiful image of palm trees in the sunset. It has an aura of the tropics and can be used in numerous articles.

Articles this image appears in

Mumbai, Arecaceae, sunset, Bandstand Promenade, Bandra, Land's End, Bandra

Creator

Zia Gheewalla.

• Support as nominator — Nikkul 22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I think it's alright, actually. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 22:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice composition, but the horizontal and diagonal lines running through the picture ruin it for me. Cacophony 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I'm guessing the lines are telephone lines or something...either way, I'm not really bothered by them. It's a very lovely pic, with some encyclopedic value. However, it'll probably be a better FP on Commons. Nevertheless, the pic satisfies all the criteria. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 23:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I bet those those lines could be edited out. Maddiekate 03:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Support for photo in it's original form. The telephone lines are irritants at best but the snap is really good. Kalyan 09:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm sorry, but for me this is just another sunset with palm trees. Like the Guidelines for nominators at Commons says, "almost all sunsets are pretty, and most such pictures are not essence different from others." -Wutschwlllm 11:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, beautiful shot, I don't really mind the lines. Conor Campbell 15:18, 27 May 2007 (GMT).
• Oppose - Nice shot, like many sunset photos, but not exceptional. The centered composition is a little boring and the size too small considering present cameras - Alvesgaspar 14:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not the best colors; just another pretty sunset. Doesn't even seem encyclopedic. Reywas92^{TalkHow's my editing?} 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Insufficient resolution and blurs. Also the pic would be better with the whole shore captured IMO. --Brand спойт 23:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - Lacks enc. If this is an FP, then every other sunset pic is, too. For me to support a pic based on beauty alone, it would have to be dead-perfect, and this one just isn't, as noted above. --TotoBaggins 04:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I'm sorry but those lines really are strange. They ruin the image. If you could edit them out, then I would support.... Booksworm ^{Talk to me!} 20:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis Ball

Reason

Sharp, high resolution, large DOF, likely to be difficult to take a significantly better shot.

Articles this image appears in

Tennis ball, Ball

Creator

User:Fcb981 Self nom

• Support as nominator — Fcb981 07:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: unevenly lit; background especially lacking in light - white background that appears white would be ideal. Slightly lateral flash would be more elegant, to ease up on the strict symmetry of the picture. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think the gradiated background is much of a problem, but tastes do very. And yes the lighting is a bit direct but until I get a flash gun and an external sync unit (hopefuly sometime next month) thats about what I'm stuck with. -Fcb981 14:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I find that toying around presents a few alternatives. There isn't a replacement for "the real McCoy." However, one cheap substitute that I found involves wraping a lamp in tissue, giving very diffused light. The problems are that yes, there is still a gradient (but it's smaller), and that it requires a long exposure (plenty of noise on my camera). Here's an example. By the way, I know that that photo is poor, but I didn't have a lot of time. J Are you green? 16:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. There's a hidden message in the linked picture. Challenge: who can identify the source of the hidden message? J Are you green? 18:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Theres nothing "poor" about your picture, I also admire your creativity, I'll have to try your Idea. Thanks. -Fcb981 15:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is that Hebrew? Also, try bounced flash, get a business card and a rubber band and wrap the card in front of the flash so it reflects the light up, and jack up the flash exposure compensation to +1.0 - +2.0. --antilived^{T | C | G} 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup. I was in a hurry, and I grabbed the first sheet of paper that I saw. I didn't notice that the ink had bled through until my hand slipped while adjusting the curves! Strange.... J Are you green? 02:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, a less distracting background would be more effective for me. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 23:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why not take the photo outdoors in full shade? Shadowless lighting. No need for a flash. No long exposures. Cost: none. Give it a try! Fg2 00:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See this photo for a cheap, easy setup. Fg2 01:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment consider using an unbranded ball, or the unlabeled side - compare with Image:Golfball.jpg. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tennis balls are manufactured and distributed by privet companys. I don't hand make mine and neither do most people. To Suggest that tennis balls are made without a brand name on them is misleading and taking copyright issues, trademark issues, etc. to an extream. -Fcb981 21:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is not copyright, but product placement. Supermarkets and bargain stores in Europe sell unbranded tennis balls. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So do places in the US. Honestly though, this picture only shows one half of a ball and turning it to the blank side is a simple solution. There is nothing extreme about Wikipedia avoiding the appearance of advertising. pschemp | talk 13:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the lighting and the logo. I don't object to logos generally if they are commonly part of the object, but having the logo centered like this is too much like advertising for my taste. --dm ^(talk) 19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green sea turtle

Reason

Very good image of a green sea turtle in its natural habitat.

Articles this image appears in

Green sea turtle

Creator

Mila Zinkova

• Support as nominator — Bewareofdog 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I remember this one from the Commons. I should mention that there were peoples' legs in the background that have been edited out, but I don't think that's too big of a concern. As an aside, how does one take good digital pictures underwater?--HereToHelp 00:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Very clear and well lit. Here to help, you take a look at the camera model? Shockingly, its a 2 MP low end point and shoot. I am stuned by the color quality and lack of compresion. There are some aberrations but its hard to say if they are a result of it being a water shot or poor lens quality. Regardless, more proof that the camera doesn't make the picture. -Fcb981 04:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough.--HereToHelp 20:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, no need to weaken it. A 2 mpx camera can give good magazine-quality images (I've had some of my 2 mpx shots published full-page) - here it is the nice composition and the translucent lighting that determine my vote. I don't oppose of the removing of a couple of swimmer's legs (see both versions at Commons FP), but if there's going to be a heated leg discussion, I'd support either version. --Janke | Talk 11:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only weakened it for what look like aberrations on edges and a bit more grainyness than I like in the shadows. keep in mind that weak support is a positive vote showing that I want it featured but am not totaly vested in it doing so. -Fcb981 14:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should have said "no need for me to weaken it"... ;-) Some aberrations are unavoidable in underwater shooting, unless you have an underwater camera with a dome port - hardly available for 2 mpx digital PS cameras... --Janke | Talk 17:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very colorful, good quality. --St.daniel ^Talk 11:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, that's pretty. Looks good. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Minor quality issues, but overall it's a great shot. --Tewy 21:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, really nice shot, I wish we had more good under water pics.Chris H 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Just curious-- is this an aquarium shot, or an underwater camera shot? Spikebrennan 03:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably underwater, since it's unlikely people would be standing in an aquarium. Chick Bowen 03:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I really don't care about the legs, so either pic if someone really objects to editing them out. Very unique and encyclopedic pic...I don't see many underwater pics on WP. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice framing and lovely colors coem together very well here. Circeus 13:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good moment captured of the turtle's motion. Has a good range of colours for an underwater shot. Aye Carumba Fajita Pizza 14:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -The image is great most notably for being an underwater shot. -凶 20:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, As per 1 (3) 'distracting elements'. It probably does not matter what I say since so many have shown their strong support, but I think the background is VERY disturbing, just because underwater pictures are rare and hard to take should not make us promote sub standard pictures. See [5] and [6] for much better compositions. One rule in underwater photograpy is to point the camera upwards (sure all rules are supposed to be broken, but not this one in this case). Stefan 00:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have to disagree re. camera angle. Pointing the lens upwards would lose the highly enc habitat & surroundings, perhaps the main reason I voted for this picture. --Janke | Talk 11:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you want a wide angle reef picture, not a picture of a turtle. Stefan 00:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Pic looks good for FP. Kalyan 09:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support In my opinion an exquisite photograph; good composition too. Chris Buttigieg^talk 22:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great image. —dima/talk/ 23:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If it is edited, declare what has been done and point to the original (done now). And I cannot chime in to the chant of the marvelous image quality. Sorry, all sympathy for the 2MP underdog aside, the quality is pretty bad and leaves a lot to wish for. --Dschwen 08:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose What are the blown out pink speckles? I think this is an example of an encyclopedic, excellent image for illustration purposes that shouldn't be featured because it simply isn't clear, perfect, and "wow" at full size. The 800 * 600 preview I see on the image page makes this image look pretty darn good, and it just kills the taxobox in the most awesome way; bravo to the photographer, this image is a wonderful contribution to the encyclopedia. However, featured pictures should be impressive at full resolution, and this shot isn't going to be impressive with any side at 1000 pixels. Personally, I do like the composition, as in my experience, sea turtles swim quickly away from the camera, not toward it, and spend more time in deeper water farther away from the bottom. This turtle is coming to say "hi" to the photographer, and is posing is just the most perfect way. This doesn't excuse the technical problems, though. Enuja 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose – Not like this vote matters but this picture is technically very poor, and it is easy enough to reproduce that its these issues cannot be overlooked. Centy 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "easy enough to reproduce"? I'm not sure I understood what you're talking about. Mbz1 18:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It means the green turtle is not extinct and a better quality photo of the same subject can be taken. Centy – reply• contribs – 19:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're absolutely right. The turtles are still around and one could hardly argue that "better quality photo of the same subject can be taken". Mbz1 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
        • I think you just contradicted yourself. And if I may add, green sea turtles aren't exactly common, either. --Tewy 20:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi, Tewy.If you mean that I'm contradicted myself, it is not exactly right. After all I'm the one, who took the picture and I'm really happy with it. Thank you for your support of the picture. Yet I hope that everybody would agree with such a thoughtful conclusion by user Centy that "better quality photo of the same subject can be taken".
            • I meant that in your last comment, you said one could hardly argue, where I think you meant to say one could easily argue, assuming you agree with Centy --[[onclusion is truth for almost any subject and in my opinion is a really great reason for not just a simple "oppose" but for a "strong oppose". After all there's no limit for a better. Mbz1 21:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
• Support, It is a beautiful, very sharp and clear underwater picture. It shows the subect (turtle) very well. It also shows rare live corals with different colors. By looking at background one could clearly see that the picture was taken in wild ocean and not in an aquarium. The picture looks great in any resolution. Mbz1 05:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

My point is the picture is technically very poor (blurry edges, grainy at full size which isn't that big etc.) and just because its underwater, these points cannot just be disregarded as if it were a historically important picture or one which is hard to reproduce. This picture is simply not FP standard, that's why I strongly oppose. Centy – reply• contribs – 12:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The pic might not the best Criterion #1 standard candidate I've ever seen, granted, but it fits pretty much every other criterion perfectly well. Ultimately, those criteria are just guidelines. If people like a pic and it does its job well, I for one will put my ruler and pencil away and just sit back and enjoy it. Support!
  mikaul^talk 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Hawaii turtle 2.JPG MER-C 03:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lantana camara flower and leaves

Reason

It is a clear and sharp illustration of the flower, bud and leaves of the species, adding value to the article it appears in.

Articles this image appears in

Lantana

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Support as nominator — Alvesgaspar 15:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose such a beautiful flower but I don't think this is "wikipedia's best work". I feel that it should be a little tighter cropped, since the top is all dark. Also a lil' grainy. ~ Arjun 17:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, weak support version 2. I think it is Wikipedia's best work, and I love how not just the flower but the leaves are also in focus. the bud is nice, but it would be good if it wasn't cut off!--HereToHelp 20:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good picture, well focused, nice how you have both the open flowers and buds. Graininess is limited to out of focus areas, doesn't seem like it is obvious enough to warrant oppose. Lorax 01:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support original, support version 2. Both suffer from some grain, but I really like the composition of version 2. I'm forced to employ the rule that the difficulty of becoming featured is inversely proportional to the difficulty of the shot. --Tewy 02:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either Superb lighting, although the original should've used a larger aperture. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. The alternative has a less pleasing composition. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Great composition and lighting but the image quality is slightly lacking. Lots of image artifacts, noise and the detail isn't what it could be. The textures are a bit wishy-washy at 100%. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You are quite right, but this is close to the best I'm able to achieve with my Konica Minolta A200, whose known sins are soft images and quite a bit of noise in full resolution. I also suspect that diffraction has some visible effect in these kind of macros, which represent a limitation in terms of DOF. I cannot aspire to a EOS 1D, but I intend to offer to myself a DSLR as soon as possible. Thanks for the support. Alvesgaspar 12:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A good idea. You certainly don't need the EOS 1D though unless you plan to get into photojournalism or sports photography because really the only benefit of those over any other DSLR is speed and durability. Any entry level DSLR is more than capable of great images. The biggest factor is what lens you twist onto the front of it, of course. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support both I prefer the colours of the original and the composition of the alternative, but they both seem pretty encyclopedic to me and any technical issues haven't spoiled it for me. Terri G 14:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Two beautifully composed pictures of two pretty flowers. Everything is nice about them... except for the technical side: too little detail at the given resolution. I'm sure once you get your DSLR you can retake a similar pic with perfect quality. I've been pondering for quite a while about this vote and although it might be arrogant or cruel to punish people for cheap consumer grade equipment we immediately shoot down cellphonecamera pictures as well, don't we? And I somehow feel that we owe the end user the best quality possible. --Dschwen 18:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both. The shots are more aesthetic than encyclopedic: I've seen many similar pictures of flowers and this one, while perhaps particularly colourful and well-composed, just isn't unique enough to justify FA status. Theonlyedge 23:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with Dschwen but I love both images. I hate these dilemmas. Compacts sometimes turn out fabulous detail at full res for some colours (the leaves in these shots are superbly rendered) and then other colour ranges/saturations go into a posterised mulch almost devoid of anything approaching detail. Why, I don't pretend to know. Both flowers look quite a bit better downsampled, but I'm kind of getting tired of suggesting it for compact shots. Ho-hum. mikaul^talk 23:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But these images were downsampled from 3264x2448, which is the maximum available resolution (8 Mp)! By the way, the A200 is a bridge camera, not a compact, and not cheap at all. Two years ago, it was about the same price as the EOS 350D, which had just arrived to the market. What made me decide for this type of camera was the superb anti-shake machanism, now adopted by the new Sony DSLR. Alvesgaspar 08:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to be honest with you though. The better quality image and much higher ISO sensitivity of a good DSLR would probably more than compensate for the anti shake mechanism (and would obviously have other benefits in addition to that). The main downside with DSLRs is having to stop down considerably to achieve a large depth of field. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Over saturated color and what looks like more color problems throughout. dithering and a bit of posterization or possibly artifacts, but mostly I don't like the blown, plasticy colors. -Fcb981 04:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I took another look and I believe that grain is what at first glance looked like overcooked color, I cant imagin why there is grain with an ISO rating of 50 and there is also some slight chromatic aberration. -Fcb981 04:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support version 2 only. I agree with diliff and dschwen that a DSLR in your hands should be a great benefit to Wikipedia :) Blieusong 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. Interesting photographs that really do a great deal for their article. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both are very good although the second one is lacking the color of the first and the first is lacking the light of the second --St.daniel ^Talk 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - These pictures have been here for more than 3 weeks and the last vote occurred 10 days ago. Still there seems to be a clear consensus to promote the first version. Anything wrong with the nomination? - Alvesgaspar 00:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:LantanaFlowerLeaves-3.jpg MER-C 03:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Cathedral Sanctuary

Reason

Encyclopedic value for Cathedral and High dynamic range imaging.

Articles this image appears in

Washington, D.C., (now added to) Washington National Cathedral

Creator

User:Noclip

• Support as nominator — Noclip 13:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Not the prettiest cathedral I've seen, but I'm impressed by the tone mapping as I don't see any haloes or obvious abberations. As with any HDR image being compressed for display on the web it looks slightly lacking in contrast though. You know, you can't claim "Encyclopedic value for Cathedral and High dynamic range imaging" when it isn't in either article! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It is an impressive picture and looks quite natural to me. But the main altar seems overexposed and has little detail. - Alvesgaspar 15:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National_Cathedral_Panorama.jpg#File_links says that the image is only on the following pages: Washington, D.C., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/National Cathedral Sanctuary. Spikebrennan 17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it contributes to the DC article, so what's your point? -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added it to the Washington National Cathedral article - it's in need of more inline images in any case, and this is better than any of the existing interior shots. TSP 22:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point was simply to draw attention to the fact that the photo probably ought to be added to other articles as appropriate, which TSP now did. Spikebrennan 03:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you, and though it should, such a deficiency should hardly be held against FPC candidates. One applicable article is usually enough for me. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 03:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ergo my failure to oppose. Spikebrennan 20:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is there a reason to use HDR on this image? Also, what is giving it the purple look at the top of the image? gren グレン 23:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it certainly compares favourably to non-HDR images from the article, such as this - not a bad picture, but much of the image is too dark to see. The purples, blues and reds in the upper area of the image will be from the sun shining through the stained glass. TSP 00:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great tone mapping, almost like as the eye sees it. The purple look is probably due to the stained glass windows at the top.--antilived^{T | C | G} 01:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I can't support an image with such ovbious stiching errors. Shouldn't the image discription identify it as a stich of multiple photographs? Cacophony 22:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those "obvious stitching errors" look like they're unavoidable as they only occur in the hanging wires and not the ceiling (they are swaying). You may also want to consider that Diliff's Library of Congress panorama was featured even with similarly obvious stitching errors. Noclip 00:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reconsider if you could you at least identify it in the image discription page as a stich. Criteria #7 has a footnote which states: The image description page should have sufficient context on circumstances of image creation and the specific image subject. Right now the image discription page is blank. Cacophony 04:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I'm going to forgive the stitching errors as they seem unavoidable. Apart from that technically very secure and wonderfully symmetric. Centy – reply• contribs – 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support In my opinion a lovely cathedral, lovely photograph. I think it must be the overall perspective that has won me over. Chris Buttigieg^talk 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice pic. The few sticking errors are not distracting can can only be seen upon careful scanning. Encyclopedic and beautiful. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:National Cathedral Panorama.jpg Raven4x4x 08:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino casualties on the first day of war

Reason

Very impressive photograph of a little known war, also the age (1899) makes it more interesting, I think it is quite a good quality image considering the date it was taken

Articles this image appears in

Philippine-American War

Creator

Travb original uploader, but I uploaded a higher res version

• Support as nominator — Bleh999 10:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent quality and very enclycopedic --St.daniel ^Talk 11:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, horrible, and a terrible thing to look at really, but it gets the job done. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above Jellocube27 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - by purely visual means brings to light a little-known conflict 139.184.30.18 14:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, IP users do not have suffrage. MER-C 03:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose Blurry, very bad focus, downsampling would help a little. Might support a sharper version. --Janke | Talk 11:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• support, encyclopedic material and shows the horrors of war. dtj 01:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Don jacob[reply]

Promoted Image:Filipino casualties on the first day of war.jpg Raven4x4x 08:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark matter

Reason

A beautiful composite image taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, that indicates evidence for dark matter, when seen in hi-res many dozens of galaxies including spiral galaxies like our own Milky Way can be seen some 5 Billion light years away giving us an image older then the Earth.

Articles this image appears in

Dark matter, CL0024+17

Creator

NASA, ESA, M. J. Jee & H. Ford et al. (Johns Hopkins U.)

• Support as nominator — ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 10:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Breathtaking but a little fuzzy --St.daniel ^Talk 12:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. I would have uploaded and nommed this image myself, except that it ain't PD. The image is credited to NASA, ESA, M. J. Jee and H. Ford (Johns Hopkins University). Only images credited to the STSCI are PD, as mentioned in the copyright page. MER-C 12:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a PD image, [7] [8]. Other organizations my be contracted "or prepared for NASA under Contract NAS5-26555." - Chris H 15:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing like self-contradictory copyright info. Changed to tentative support, as we are able to argue it's PD. Meh. MER-C 08:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose - I will support the original only, I uploaded it several days ago for the CL0024+17 article.Chris H 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why is that? Anyways, each and every Telescope image we get to see here is postprocessed big time. Astronomers don't care about natural look, they want to enhance the details they are interested in. And in this case its the dark ring, which is completely invisible in the so called original. --Dschwen 17:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry but the blue stuff is just a computer generated gravitational field that has been overlapped, that covers up the real visible light image.Chris H 18:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh... right... well... THEY SHOULD PUT THAT ON THE BOX! It should be clearly stated in the caption. Anyways, I think the composing adds to the enc value. --Dschwen 19:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shallow water waves

Reason

Beautiful picture, well illustrating the scientific idea.

Articles this image appears in

shallow water equations

Creator

user:DanCopsey

• Support as nominator — Michael Hardy 02:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could someone figure out what this is not displaying correctly? I've spent too much time already wrestling with ths software on this one. Michael Hardy 21:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason animated gifs sometimes want to be their original size. ??? Fixed, though. --TotoBaggins 22:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Very interesting and super-enc for waves, which are so deep and subtle. --TotoBaggins 22:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I just realized that there's a significantly bigger and better version of this item here, so I'm withdrawing my support. I'd definitely vote for the bigger one, though. --TotoBaggins 23:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support larger version --TotoBaggins 15:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the larger version is to get voted on, should the link to the image be changed in this section? Does that require some sort of consensus? I would guess it would be necessary then to notify everyone who's opined on this to allow them to edit their opinions accordingly. Also I suppose that any opinion that was actually about the smaller version would have to be idenitified as being about the smaller version so as not to misrepresent people's views. Is there some standard procedure for such a situation? Michael Hardy 20:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is to be voted on. Made it a bit more obvious. We'll probably leave this one open for a few extra days to gather consensus, as one of the oppose !votes no longer counts. MER-C 12:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs an explanation how the image was created on the description page. Like this its just a pretty anim with little enc. --Dschwen 22:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How the picture was created? You mean the software that was used? I don't think that part's important. If you mean the mathematical equations that describe the motion, those are explicit in the article. Michael Hardy 22:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's so hard about writing This animation was created by solving the blah blah equations using matlab and creating a series of output images with the blah command. The animated gif was created using blurp. That's just like providing EXIF data in pictures. So people can learn by example. --Dschwen 14:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - We really need this kind of animations to illustrate physical phenomena not easy to explain in words. But the bathtub is too small for these wavelenghts, as well as the picture itself, resulting in a cluttered and confusing animation. Also, the point of view is not very favourable, a little more above the tub would be better. Finally, eveything happens too quickly, including the friction damping. A rest period should be inserted before the animation re-start - Alvesgaspar 23:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small. Larger version availiable. Duh. Maddiekate 02:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Bigger version added. I've removed the pictures from this nom, as downloading 10 MB of stuff each time someone views this nom or the FPC main page is silly. MER-C 03:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure why this was relisted - the nom didn't achieve a positive consensus within a week, and therefore shouldn't be promoted right? I don't even see 4 supports for this version or the alt, so it shouldn't it be closed? Debivort 23:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concern here is that nobody expressed opinion on the bigger version - the oppose for this reason doesn't count, making it rather borderline. I tend to leave noms like this open for a few more days to see if discussion has stagnated. And the relisting was an experiment of mine. MER-C 12:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support larger version. ShadowHalo 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted , although the larger version might be nominated seperately in a little while. Raven4x4x 08:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll renominate it now. I think this needs a fresh nomination to draw more comment. Raven4x4x 14:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fulmer Falls

Reason

Beautiful waterfall picture, featured at Commons. Pretty much dominates its article page. Admittedly slight loss of quality at 100% zoom.

Articles this image appears in

Fulmer Falls

Creator

User:Ram-Man

• Support as nominator — Centy 23:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support The motion-blurred tree is really distracting. The water is blown to white in places, but I guess that's unavoidable in places. Looks okay overall.--HereToHelp 02:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me copy what I wrote on the commons: "...Any darker and you lose the detail in the darker regions. I even had ideal lighting to eliminate even more contrasty lighting: taken in the evening near sunset on an overcast day....I've made large prints of this waterfall and the white water looks more than natural in this case. The water of the falls already spans ~65% of the image's tonal range." Can't argue about the blurred branch other than to say that it isn't where the eye is drawn into the image and people I've showed the print to haven't notice, FWIW. -- RM 03:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as author -- RM 03:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. I can sympathise about blown highlights in waterfall photos as it is very tricky to retain the whole luminance range, particularly when the surrounds are dark. My FP isn't any better in that regard. That said, it is very soft at full size and has a big square white hot pixel near the bottom of the falls that should be removed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Minus the hot pixel. I think the softness at full size is a function of the camera (probably the lens) rather than anything else; there're also some sharpening lines around the rocks at the bottom of the falls, which are probably from in-camera sharpening. At near-screen-filling size on my 19" monitor it looks pretty good and I think any more sharpness with that kit would require mosaicing... don't think that'd come off very well with a moving subject like this. Nice shot, Ram-Man. --YFB ¿ 22:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stitching waterfalls usually works quite well - Eg this and this. Moving branches might cause slightly more problems though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not have the technical skill and/or time and/or software to perform stitching like you do, so I take normal pictures with the equipment that I have. I've run into moving branches issues when I tried to do a few HDR images. Same basic issue. -- RM 04:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It can be a little time consuming to stitch panoramas but when you're putting the effort into a photo that you want to consider a keeper, isn't it worth a bit of time to maximise the quality? As for software, there are freeware panorama stitching programs out there, and as for equipment, why did you use the Coolpix 8700 instead of the D50 or D200? The difference in image quality is enormous. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I take so many pictures that processing them in the computer becomes a severe bottleneck. Taking the time to make 1 picture perfect in post-processing means a dozen or so more that may never get uploaded that will mostly be placed in actual articles (depends if the species article exists and if I make it). I have a few panoramas, but the photoshop panorama function doesn't always work too well. I'd be happy to let anyone take a stab at doing a better job at it. I do not own a D200 otherwise I would have used that. Since I have a D50 and 8700, there are a few reasons that I made the choice. If you test chart the 6MP D50 and the 8MP 8700, it has a little more real spatial resolution. I make poster size prints often, and the 6MP doesn't stretch as well as the 8MP does in real prints. It has different control of contrast and other aspects, but it should show more detail. The other reason is ISO. The 8700 has 50 ISO, the D50 only 200 ISO. I wanted the slow shutter speed for the water blur, so the two stops difference is a big deal. The third reason has to do with depth of field. It's my understanding that if you keep the field of view constant, the DoF is constant, but the distribution is not. Thus, the wider focal length of the 8700 keeps the foreground sharper than the D50 would for the same field of view. Images from my 8700 just look sharper. That said, I don't post-process my images as much as most people do, so they don't look as good for FPs, since I don't want to make the post-processing decisions for the users who may one day use the image for any purpose. The fact that this image has done so well without anything but simple post-processing is a testament to the quality of the source image. The fourth reason is noise. For some reason, the 8700's sensor has remarkably low noise at ISO 50 for long exposures. The fifth reason is that the 8700 has 5-step bracketing, the D50 only 3-steps. The sixth reason is mirror shake. The D50 at this shutter speed would suffer from blur due to the mirror slaming, since it doesn't have mirror lockup. The 8700 has no mirror, so it will be sharper. Lastly, it's soft because of the slight camera shake due to the breeze. -- RM 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see your reasoning but I don't agree with most of it. The D50 may have only ISO200 but its lenses will stop down FAR more than the CP8700 can. This results in longer length exposures and has the added benefit of increasing DOF to probably similar levels to the 8700. As for noise, I think you would find that the D50 at ISO400 has less noise than the 8700 at ISO50. Certainly the noise levels aren't particularly good in this image. Not enough to ruin the photo but hardly what I would consider clean. I'm also not convinced that the 8700 has more detail than the D50. Sure, it has more pixels but obviously that doesn't translate into real detail. I find the detail of just about every non DSLR camera has a sort of wishy washy look. The edge sharpness is usually not too bad, but the texture is diluted - probably from internal noise reduction algorithms. Finally, getting back to your reasoning that you take too many photos to spend time post-processing them.. well fair enough, but I just feel that taking many average quality photos is less rewarding than nailing a couple of photos and spending the time to make sure they're looking as good as they could be. I think you would find that the absolute majority of people who use photos on Wikipedia don't take much time to post-process existing images. In any case, I'm an advocate of taking photos in RAW format for the reason that there is so much more control over the photos. Sure, most of your images probably turn out just fine, but to have proper control over white balance, exposure and curves is something that cannot be matched by even the smartest camera. For example, you probably would have had a much better shot at saving the whites from clipping in this shot with a D50 and RAW. Don't get me wrong though - I'm not saying your photography or this image is in any way a bad photo, I just take issue with some of the points you raise. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, and your commons page says you have a D200. Thats where I got that impression from. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I borrow a D200 on occasion when I can, that's why. I don't have it most of the time. I've taken a lot of pictures with my D50 and 8700, often taking a shot from each on a photo shoot (always using a tripod). On long exposures, they both look very similar to my eyes (in terms of noise). I prefer the finer-grain noise produced by the 8700, all else being equal. I'll take the extra ~200 lines of resolution that the 8700 has, which I've seen comparing them side by side. The D50 smokes the 8700 whenever there is harsh contrast, but that doesn't apply to this scene which had great lighting. See here and here under "Resolution/Sharpness". You may disagree, but my eyes tell me what they tell me. You're probably right that stopping down will make both cameras essentially the same in terms of DoF and shutter speed (f/5.5 @ ISO 50 on the 8700 should be equal exposure to f/22 @ ISO 200 on the SLR) I don't like RAW because it slows me down on the photo shoots and on the computer. I use it occasionally. -- RM 23:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Yummifruitbat --St.daniel ^Talk 23:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very Nice picture Booksworm ^{Talk to me!} Vote! Vote! 10:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportAmazing photograph- moving water produces really interesting effect. If a particular photo of the two is needed I vote for version 1. Electricmoose- Electrifying ^talk 18:53, 5 May 2006 16:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, I didn't notice the blown highlights in the fall until I read Diliff's comment, so that doesn't bother me... nor did I notice the hot pixel (which does bother me). It is not very sharp full size or even when I scaled it to 1500px wide. The motion blur on the leaves to the left also bothered me. Since this most likely will become a featured picture I highly recommend filling in the hot pixel with a less jarring color and marking it retouched. gren グレン 14:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The entire image is a bit muddy my guess is from camera shake or possibly the very wide focal length. whatever the reason the sharpness is too lacking in my eyes. -Fcb981 04:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The fall is greatly overexposed.--Mbz1 23:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  • I'm not sure I'd say that it is greatly overexposed. The luminance of the falls covers a substantial range over the 255 discrete levels (approximately 65%). At some point, the limitations of the media have to be considered. -- RM 12:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but what actual dynamic range that 65% covers depends on the contrast settings on the camera just as much as the limitations of the media. Shooting with a DSLR and RAW would almost definitely have improved your ability to recover blown highlights. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Recoverable at what expense? More DR in extreme highlights = Less DR elsewhere (and different detail/contrast levels). Why is it important? The water has little detail: people don't notice the highlights unless they're looking for it. Why sacrifice already low contrast in other areas to dedicate more to the water? You could process the highlights and shadows differently from RAW (like the Shadow/Highlight adjustment in photoshop), but this takes time and isn't "honest" since it changes relative levels of parts of the image so it doesn't match reality. It's personal preference: Where do we want the contrast and how much manipulation is ok? -- RM 18:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Fulmer Falls Closeup 3000px.jpg Raven4x4x 08:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women of India

Reason

This picture excellently conveys what Women of Northern India look like. It also shows the culture and the dress of India as well as North India. This picture can be used as an image on the culture of India, demographics of India, people of India, etc. This image is colorful and conveys efficiently its purpose.

Articles this image appears in

Indian dress, Rajastan

Creator

lakshmi prabhala

• Support as nominator — Nikkul 21:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This image is too small. The nomination should be withdrawn unless a larger version can be uploaded.--ragesoss 21:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Doesn't satisfy criteria #2. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 21:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for that reason I oppose; I don't think that even under a higher resolution I'd be entirely satisfied. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 22:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A request has been made for an image with a higher resolution to the author. It will be placed shortly. Nikkul 22:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, it's a nice picture but there are many higher resolution more centered pictures of Indians. Although Meanest Indian has been changing her licenses to CC-BY-ND-ND :O Some are still CC-BY --gren グレン 00:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This image with a higher resolution is now available on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Indiadem.jpg If someone could please make this image the same (greater) resolution, that would be great. I have no idea how to do that. Thanks so much. Nikkul 15:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Motion blurr. Witty Lama 15:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Thanks for taking the time to request a higher-res pic Nikkul. It's a very nice pic. However, the motion blur does ruin it and it's not as sharp or clear as I would like it to be. Sorry. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Saree is the most common dress of South Indian women and not the one shown above. The image shown above doesn't look like a saree. It looks more like a dress worn by Rajasthani women.--(Sumanth|Talk) 09:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I second what Sumanthk said. The image does not show the dress of a typical south Indian woman (which is anyways too varied to categorise like that).--Seraphiel 10:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To cite an example, Image:Kerala-girl-left.jpg is how south indian women dress.--Seraphiel 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It does look like a sari to me.. but draped the Rajasthani way. And btw.. this is not a pic of a south indian woman.. definitely not dressed like one. This may be a very good addition to Rajasthan, but has nothing to do with South India! Its a good pic btw. I am only wondering what the 'motion blur' oppose is about... will defer voting till I figure that out. Sarvagnya 09:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Sorry to say but the image is grainy in some sorts and resolution could be better... Booksworm ^{Talk to me!} 20:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted Image:Indiadem.jpg The Sunshine Man 17:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers Center, Toronto

Reason

A nice panorama of a Baseball stadium.

Articles this image appears in

Rogers Centre, Baseball park

Creator

• Support as nominator — sikander 04:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Heavy JPEG artifacts, myriad of glaring stitching errors (~800, 1000, 2000, 2400, 3300 px from left at top; 600, 2100, 3100 px from left at centre; 2800 px from left at bottom - these stand out in particular). J Are you green? 04:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, very useful photo but the jagged area by the canopy is just too much stitching problem in and of itself. gren グレン 06:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Major sticking errors that are easily noticeable. Take a look at the railing and the lines in the baseball diamond. Very encyclopedic pic, but the sticking ruined it. Sorry. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Stitching damages the picture. <3 bunny 01:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Stitching errors are glaringly obvious--Benjamint [9] 11:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 04:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rioting at the Bastille

Reason

This gendarme looks like Robocop... Good impression of what it means to encounter these (to be fair, the rioters use cobblestones and probably also Molotov cocktails.

Articles this image appears in

Tear gas, French Gendarmerie

Creator

Mikael Marguerie

• Support as nominator — David.Monniaux 19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• support : good action photograph. Rama 19:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose focus issues, not so crisp overall. --Bridgecross 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Major artifacts on the visor and helmet. Dim lighting and distracting background. Encyclopedic, but not at FP status. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat taken aback by these arguments. One reason why there is a FP process on en:, in addition to the one at Commons, is to be able to reward pictures that have great intensity and topical interest for encyclopedic articles, yet may not be "technically" super good.

In particular, there is no way that one could take photos of a scene of night rioting with ultra-crisp precision and no artefacts. This guy is not posing; he's firing real ammunition at real people. By the same token, the world-famous, Pulitzer-winning photo of Kim Phuc would have been rejected as a FP: blurry, enormous grain, etc.

If the criteria taken into account are the same than at Commons, then the en: FP system should be folded, since it is redundant. David.Monniaux 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agreed : there is a disturbing tendency to obsess with technical criteria which are irrelevant in many cases and produce a heavy bias towards studio macro photography and shots of fornicating insects and swans. Rama 20:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this criticism is overblown. I've frequently seen votes here that say "subject matter makes up for technical flaws" (ex. 1, ex. 2), and to compare the Kim Phuc photo to this one is quite a stretch. --TotoBaggins 21:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same reasoning apply. Sorry, but the Kim Phuc photo is way noisy and blurry. I understand that, of course, a mobile shooting tear gas is less topical than a little girl burned by Napalm, but if your only angle of comment is technical quality, I'm afraid that Kim Phuc does not make it. I may even say that with that kind of elements of appreciations, you'll only find studio or staged photos, or photos of events in bright sunset, but no photos of live events at night. Photos of night events are necessarily somewhat noisy or blurry, because of the limitation of sensitivity of cameras (that is, unless they are "staged" and there is in fact projectors etc. to get decent lighting).

Since the only criteria that appeared to be used were purely technical, the process seemed quite identical to COM:FP, whereas the Commons' FP crowd claims that Wikipedia FPs are judged according to topicality. David.Monniaux 07:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To David: Sorry if my criticism came off as unnecessarily rough. I understand the difficulty in taking the pic but the jpg artifacts can easily be avoided. The very first criteria of a FP "Is of a high technical standard", with the exception of historical pics. Although the pic was hard to capture, the photographer had plenty of opportunities to take better shots...he took at least 15 shots of the "gendarme mobile" from behind the police line. [10] The artifacts might be due to how Flickr handle pics, so I'm sure the photographer has better version. Also, I don't believe it'll be in the best interest of Wikipedia to close the FP system. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 00:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But all these images sport the same insufficient depth of field, numerical noise and sometimes motion blur. Because they are of fast action in the dark. Or maybe because they are not of flamingos shagging in the sunset, I don't know. Rama 05:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The image is unclear and has a limited horizontal capture, which cuts off the full uniform. An unusual angle in additional. --Brand спойт 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the objection directly above. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 22:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the other Oppose comments above. We're mostly looking at the guy's back, and it's mostly in shadow. Spikebrennan 02:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a heavily modified version of the original on flickr, and has even more noise Bleh999 06:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ... and with all of the riots in France it shouldn't be too hard to find another one of them on the streets in the near future. :) Nice, but not FP quality. gren グレン 06:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

with all of the riots in France it shouldn't be too hard to find another one of them on the streets in the near future

This is offtopic, but I think not. The originality of this one is that it took place in central Paris and was done apparently by left-wing political activists (anarchists etc.). This is way different from riots happening in distant suburbs that most people never set foot into, and where nobody with a good camera will go anyway. :-) David.Monniaux 07:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that was tongue-in-cheek. =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, you're right... but since it's such a narrow show and only used in tear gas and French Gendarmerie is my main problem with it. If there was an article about the post-election rioting then maybe this or something like it would be a good image... but, the police man doesn't show the uniqueness of the situation. gren グレン 10:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose For lack of subject illustration, mainly. It's remarkable in some ways, not least the capture conditions, but unremarkable in most others. Also the fact that so much discussion is required to establish what's going on in the shot is telling; there's no real action in it at all. Consequently, higher res or less compression wouldn't really cut it either.
  FWIW, the technical aspects of this shot are way down my list of criteria. I could barely care less about noise, artifacts and resolution for this kind of subject. The fact that noone mentioned motion blur when it was taken at 1/6th of a second during a riot is definitely the most impressive thing about it, but not enough for FP.
  mikaul^talk 13:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong³ oppose Per the other oppose comments. Frankly, I first thought it was a toilet seat, then I thought it looked like someone was spraying his shop-window clean. If only one could see what was actually going on and take a technically better photo of the subject I might be inclinded to support. PS. Please note that my vote is Strong 'to the power of three' oppose - (that's strong x strong x strong) MorningRazor 22:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington National Cemetery

Reason

This image wonderfully portrays the infinite expanse of one of America's most important national sites.

Articles this image appears in

Arlington National Cemetery

Creator

User:Noclip

• Support as nominator — _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  14:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak oppose - the geometry is very arresting, but the color ballance is way red-shifted and the sky is pretty badly blown in the middle. Debivort 17:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - It has a wonderful composition, but the sky is overexposed, the color balance is off, and the foreground it blurred. ^(H) 17:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Your points are well taken; the sky would look nicer if it were properly exposed. As for the blurry front though, that was one of the main reasons I liked this image. I think it gives an interesting perspective of the picture, not being focused on any one thing specifically. I don't know. I just liked how that was. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  19:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose – I would have preferred a more symmetrical shot of the headstones. Other than that the same problems as per Debivort: overexposed sky, too much red, blurry foreground headstones. Centy – reply• contribs – 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice pic, looks pretty good. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have uploaded an alternate image in order to reflect some of the comments above. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  19:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (not an oppose, just a comment). The sky is kind of flat; a bluer sky might help the composition. The time of year, with few leaves on the trees, is perfect, however. I notice that the composition is focused so that the foreground stones are generally out of focus--the focus seems to be on the ones a few tiers back. I am no photography expert-- what does everyone think about the particular choice of focus here? Spikebrennan 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since a tripod was undoubtedly used I'm confused why you (Noclip) didnt stop down much farther for DOF purposes. Theres no meta data so what stop did you use 8? 5.6?. I too would like to see a better focus across the subjects. -Fcb981 03:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Was this done by rotating the camera in a fixed position? It kind of looks like a cylindrical projection. I think this image would be better served if all the headstones were in lines (and I'm assuming here that they are in neat rows, but it's been 23 years since I've been to Arlington). howcheng {chat} 06:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There is a very visible stitching error in the bottom left hand corner running up and toward the young tree and then up the left hand edge of it's trunk on .--Benjamint444 10:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Just looking at the thumbnail it looks like it may be tilted aswell.[reply]
• Oppose. There are too many points of view that can be very distracting to look at, try a larger pov? <3 bunny 01:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would crop/remove about 1 third from the right-hand side, it's far too distracting and is leading the eye to the wrong place. Chris Buttigieg^talk 19:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oedemera lurida on a yellow chamomile flower

Reason

This is a high quality image of the Oedemera lurida in its natural habitat, adding value to the articles on the beetle and plant

Articles this image appears in

Anthemis tinctoria, Oedemeridae

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Support as nominator — Alvesgaspar 08:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor composition. It really doesn't illustrate anything - is it the flower or the insect? If the latter than it is far too small a part of the image, and the flower is isolated from thee background and very sharp giving the impression that it is the subject. I uploaded a crop for an idea of what I'd be thinking would be a decent shot at the insect - but it's too low res and unsharp to be considered as a nom. Maybe you can do a reshoot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fir0002 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Respectfully disagree on the poor composition. This is a picture of the insect on a flower, i.e. both are part of the subject. That impression of yours only happens when viewing the image as a thumbnail, not at full resolution. - Alvesgaspar 11:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As long as there is no Insect on flower article this limits the usefulness of this image. For enc purposes it would be better to concentrate on either aspect. --Dschwen 12:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There really ought to be an article on Insect-plant interactions - they are such a definitive example of coevolution. Save the picture for when I start that article! Debivort 17:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have some other here, maybe you get some inspiration. Alvesgaspar 22:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose original. I unfortunately agree that the viewer may or may not understand what the subject of the image is supposed to be. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  12:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Fir's crop is good, but it doesn't have the resolution of an FP, obviously. Reshooting seems a good idea. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of Hardwoods and Softwoods

Reason

Adds value to the article by providing clear comparison between the structure of the woods. Resolution slightly too low, but probably the best available on the SEM.

Articles this image appears in

Hardwood, Softwood

Creator

McKDandy

• Support as nominator — Iamramin 21:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Surely this would be better if the images were at the same degree of magnification. - hahnchen 22:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose per hahnchen. Yes, the resolution might not get better but by zooming into each you would see a lot more detail. Debivort 05:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as Creator Firstly, thanks for the nomination! I took these pictures a year or so ago for my degree course. Secondly, the SEM images are designed to show that in hardwoods there are pores (i.e. the big black holes) which are absent in softwoods. The difference in magnification does not affect this comparison, and scale bars are provided if comparison of other features (not the intention of the pictures) is desired. Also, by zooming in to see "more detail" you would loose the overview of the surface which shows the number and distribution of the pores. I understand the resolution of the images is slightly below FP guidelines, but this is the output of the SEM I was using. A similar picture is in the Vessel element article --McKDandy 14:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. They don't show a very good scale (just for visualization), but they do serve encyclopedic purposes. <3 bunny 02:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedra Petri, Altar of the Chair of St. Peter

Reason

A clear view of the St Peter's Basilica's Altar without worshippers. Also, the details of the work on the wall are also quite clear including the light flowing in from the backgroud.

Articles this image appears in

St. Peter's Basilica

Creator

User:Natrajdr

• Support as nominator — Natrajdr 11:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — very pretty place, but the window light is blown, and the picture as a whole is off-center and tilted a little. tiZom_(2¢) 23:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment does it have a CW tilt? Debivort 23:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, but compared to the National Cathedral nomination, this one is of low standard. --Dschwen 11:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Dynamic range problems, notably the overexposed windows. ^(H) 17:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Pielinen from Koli National Park

Reason

A good shot from the classical "Lake Finland" scenery. Especially the rock surface on the right looks very nice. I didn't notice that the horizon is supposed to be tilted, but someone had already made alternative version as seen under it. In my opinion it doesn't look as good as the original, the image quality has perhaps suffered also.

Articles this image appears in

Pielinen, Koli National Park, List of national parks of Finland (altered version incl.)

Creator

Lobke Thijssen

• Support as nominator — Pudeo (Talk) 11:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I made the rotated version of this and yes, it seems that the quality suffered somewhat. I'll try to replace the alternate with a better version. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'd love to support this, living in Finland myself, but the clouds are totally blown, which is unacceptable. Can you go back to the original files and fix this? Then I'd give my parochial support... ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support , great quality and encyclopaedic value.--Svetovid 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose It's nice but a bit non-discript. I don't like the blown clouds either but they are always tough without a polorizer, which is what I always take when shooting clouds. theres also some polorization in the sky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcb981 (talk • contribs)
• Oppose The seriously over-exposed clouds mean that this pic should not be a Featured Pic (making the Support from Svetovid puzzling) - Adrian Pingstone 15:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Center of the Milky Way

Reason

It is a beautiful image with ~ 10 million stars and fantastic example of the center of our galaxy.

Articles this image appears in

Galactic Center

Creator

2MASS/G. Kopan, R. Hurt

• Support as nominator — Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Very nice. I would love to support, but the gray border needs to be cropped first. Reywas92^{TalkHow's my editing?} 16:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why not use the full size version? J Are you green? 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tried to upload it, but it must be too big because it never seems to work. Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 21:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There, I cropped that large version, and now it will let me upload it. Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 21:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support Very nice picture, support 3rd version▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 04:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Third Version. Certainly, this is a wonderful image. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  13:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Sirex and Jared; amazing image. Cliff smith 16:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (borderless hi-res) - "My God, it's full of stars!" --TotoBaggins 18:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - After reading Debivort's comment and looking again, I've reconsidered. It does look overcooked. --TotoBaggins 15:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support borderless high-resolution version. --Brand спойт 20:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ack! oppose - looks like it has been oversharpened / contrast boosted - with a majority of the distinguishable stars spread out to more than one pixel each, and running together. Too many stars saturated out, I suspect heavy handed post-processing. Debivort 23:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Debivort. -- Moondigger 00:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per Debivort. Centy – reply• contribs – 19:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Snipe on a fencepost

Reason

A nice close-up image of a bird that is normally shy and difficult to approach in its wetland habitat.

Articles this image appears in

Common Snipe

Creator

User:Talshiarr

• Support as nominator — Talshiarr 12:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative support. I think the image is sufficiently good to become featured. I might be missing something, though, so, as always, I may choose to change my opinion after other information has come out. For now, though, good image. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  12:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral It's a picture of a bird. (That describes the experience for me.) It has a high enough resolution. I can't find any huge image defects. However, looking at the chest and the wooden post, I have a feeling this image is not as sharp as it could be. I would also have chosen a different crop to avoid placing the bird quite so plainly in the middle of the image, encyclopaedic as that may be! Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The balance of the picture bothers me. The tension is awkward and I keep waiting for the poor bird to fall off the post. Could you re-crop it so the post is shifted to the right and there is more space in front of his beak? It just doesn't need so tight a crop. pschemp | talk 14:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, those were my thoughts exactly! ;) Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try and dredge up the original CD I burned this to, it's an older pic. As to it appearing out of balance, this was taken about 3 seconds before he (she?) flew off. When I do run across them on fences they tend to squat down more. This was by far the closest I'd ever gotten to one though and is the clearest shot. Thanks for the kind critiques, everyone. I need to learn and it's helpful getting other POVs that are more than "Oppose: It's ugly." Talshiarr 01:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The lighting is too poor toward the back of the bird. Other photos on the Common Snipe page show distinctive white lines/feathers of the bird's back that aren't clear from this picture --McKDandy 14:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice pic and I have not problems with the background. --Ba'Gamnan | Talk 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I don't mind the background either. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 22:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Fascinating image, and that bird really scares me, (something about its eye[s]) Booksworm ^{Talk to me!} 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lighting isn't really a problem here, it's actually quite good (looks like either very early or very late in the day? nice..) and composition is just fine, tight and balanced. Why would you want to see more empty space on the left? If anything viewpoint is a bit low, so some detail is missing from the wings/back, but you do get a good look at its beak, legs, feet and underbelly. Complemented by other shots, as this kind of illustration ideally is, this is a worthy FP. mikaul^talk 14:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent and sharp photograph; the paradigm of an encyclopaedic image. Chris Buttigieg^talk 15:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Common_snipe_fencepost.jpg MER-C 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Field Bindweed flower with velvet mites

Reason

Unusual and beatiful picture of velvet mites on a flower, adding enc value to the articles

Articles this image appears in

Acariformes, Convolvulus arvensis

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Support as nominator — Alvesgaspar 11:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What's the other little critter in there? --TotoBaggins 14:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A beetle for sure, but I can't identify it. - Alvesgaspar 14:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ruefully oppose - I really want to support this, since it's just so enc. and fascinating and such a lovely picture, but the poor focus and lack of detail on the mites is a showstopper for me. :( --TotoBaggins 18:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's blurry, TotoBaggins? I don't think I'd be able to see more detail on the mites in real life than I see in this image, so I don't mind the lack of detail. Enuja 01:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I really wish the two articles had more information in them, and that this image contributed more centrally to them, but I do think this image does have real informational content. Maybe this candidacy will convince one of us to expand those articles! If I knew what the mites were doing on the flower, I would add this image to the relevant page(s). Oh well. I still think it's a beautiful image, good technical quality, with a lot of informational content. Enuja 01:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild oppose. I can almost see this having a place in an article about pesticides, or organic farming, or parasitism/commensalism. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttle approaches the ISS

Reason

Great details, you can even see the inside of the cockpit.

Articles this image appears in

Space Shuttle Orbiter, STS-121, STS-121 Timeline

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator — Chris H 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I sort of remember an extremely similar pic that was nominated before. I forget how long ago. I might be hallucinating though. ;) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is "upside down" more enc, or more "zero grav"..? It looks fine (and is easier on the neck!) the other way up. As far as FP goes, there are so many of this kind of shot that I'm inclined to be extra strict on the criteria. It's a little bit flat (could use a small curves tweak) and the tail is cut off (not a huge big deal, but might be if it ever needed a clipping path) Other than that it's pretty cool. Might support a rotated version, certainly a less cropped one. mikaul^talk 09:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - NASA has set a very high bar for themselves, and this image doesn't measure up IMO. Too washed-out, inverted subject hurts enc, and cut off tail. --TotoBaggins 18:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I added a new version.Bleh999 07:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is a makeing the shuttle orange an enhancement? Please choose a less valuing and more descriptive caption. --Dschwen 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Photographic conditions don't always result in the true color levels, these are more accurate Bleh999 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was actually what I was disputing. What do you base your colorcorrection on? The Shuttle tiles are yellow/orange in your edit. I would think that NASA isn't completely moronic about calibrating their images, and in fact the original looks more natural to me. Please don't take this the wrong way, but have you had a look at the calibration charts at the top of this page? Is your monitor maybe adjusted a bit too cold? --Dschwen 23:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose edit 1 Flipping kills the encyclopedic value, weak support original. Noclip 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

point taken, but it certainly is easier to see cockpit details in the rotated version, this could be useful in the case someone wanted to label such details, most definitely encyclopedic Bleh999 22:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I dont really like the added yellow color cast much either. -Fcb981 15:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

View of Zug before 1547

Reason

Interesting image showing how the town of Zug was in the 16th century.

Articles this image appears in

Zug, Switzerland

Creator

Johannes Stumpf

• Support as nominator — Cryptophile 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice change from the usual categories of photos we have here.--Svetovid 09:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I'd love to support, but I cannot understand the strict B/W reproduction. It would make more sense to reproduce an analogue signal with as close a digital representation as possible. I am certain Johannes Stumpf didn't create this as a matrix of black and white dots. I like the subject matter, but I need a more realistic reproduction of the original to support. J Are you green? 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with greenj. The original is out there; we just have to ask the person who digitized it to do a better job. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-28 17:27Z
• Oppose — Agreed. A full-color would be best, but I suppose a grayscale might be ok too. But the b/w just doesn't look right... tiZom_(2¢) 23:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support It does a great job illustrating 16-century Zug. The focus should be on what it illustrates, not the illustration. As this was published in a book around the time of its creation, black and white suits it well, as it is a PRINT, not the original sketch. Jellocube27 02:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - Weak Support as per comments above. But is of Historical Interest Booksworm ^{Talk to me!} 14:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per J, because a better of this subject is possible.--ragesoss 08:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar Barbary Macaque

Reason

This is a fantastic photograph which clearly shows the details of a Barbary Macaque's face. I know someone is going to come in and complain about the subject being cut off, but the purpose of this photo is to depict the face, not the entire body. ♠ SG →Talk 17:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Gibraltar Barbary Macaques, Gibraltar, Barbary Macaque

Creator

User:Chris Buttigieg

• Support as nominator — ♠ SG →Talk 17:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Top of head cut off, hurts enc. --Janke | Talk 20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Like I said, this image is about the facial features of the Barbary Macaque. There are plenty of monkey pictures showing the whole body. ♠ SG →Talk 21:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose Fantastic picture, but poorly framed. I can't support it when so much of the top of the head is cut off and there is so much space under his chin that is not. I'm not saying that his entire head needs to be shown, but it is cropped too close to his left eye. Cacophony 22:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Exquisite detail around the eyes makes up for the poor composition, IMHO. Very enc. and interesting. --TotoBaggins 04:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As the photographer I feel that people should bear in mind the fact that the photograph’s most important facet is to portray the facial features, as opposed to the face or head for that matter. For instance, if you take a closer look at the eyes you can even see that they are exceedingly reminiscent of a human’s. Fair enough it’s not the best in composition, but you can hardly argue that a commonplace whole-head photograph would have been far too dull. Chris Buttigieg^talk 09:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh oh. Reminiscent of a human's will almost surely become the next entry on Conservapedia's enumeration of ways in which Wikipedia untowardly prefers science to superstition. Joe 00:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Subject cut off. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to too-tight cropping/framing on top. I understand the purpose is to document the macaque's facial features, but the framing is distracting all the same and eliminates what most would consider to be part of the face -- the brow/forehead region over the left eye. -- Moondigger 13:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - honestly, how could you oppose this? It's like people weigh up intangible positives against tangible negatives like "entire subject is not in shot", and simply prioritise the tangibles. This image is great: it's incredibly sharp, it's detailed, it's attractive, and it's caught the subject with a nice expression. Like I was saying on another image: would you expect to find this sot of image in a print encyclopaedia? Yes: you might have one photo of the whole body, or even several animals together, and a close-up shot such as this, just on the face. I agree that in an ideal world the image would be cropped to include slightly more of the brows, but that's a minor complaint. Cherish what we do have. Stevage 00:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. In this case I agree that if the aim of the image is to present the facial features, then this image does that, although it could still be improved with more direct lighting. Anyway, I can deal with a baby monkey crying but are you sure that isn't one of the Teletubbies?? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you have a point there, although wouldn't you agree that someone must have had a serious problem with the Tellytubby designing? Chris Buttigieg^talk 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think it makes it. --Cody.Pope 12:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support as the crop is too tight really. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 16:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Its very hard to get the lighting right to get a facial shot of those damn monkeys, I tried lots of times. --Gibnews 16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Technical issues at full zoom with some of the single whiskers. Agree that crop is too tight and no argument of facial features is going to sway me. Facial features means I want at least the whole head. Centy – reply• contribs – 17:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Depicts the macaque's facial features in great detail as well as having the subject looking straight at the lense. Getting a Barbary Macaque to do this only happpens occasionaly and when it does its about three seconds before it attempts to snatch the camera! Congratulations on this great photograph. Gibmetal 77 01:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have no criticisms - Adrian Pingstone 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This may make the teletubby cry, but I can't tell what the entire head is supposed to look like. ShadowHalo 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're a heartless monster! ♠ SG →Talk 04:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think reflects the animal well. I don't mind that the subject is cut off, as I think it achieves it's purpose well. Nic007 03:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The photo is a bit too close-up, but I don't think that detracs from either the encyclopedic value or the beauty of the picture. -- Kicking222 12:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Framing is good. The scalp is not part of the face. —Pengo 23:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I like the image a lot, actually. My only criticism: it seems a bit superfluous in the context of the Barbary Macaque article itself, which already has two macaque images. SingCal 06:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Gibraltar Barbary Macaque.jpg MER-C 09:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ships at Superior Duluth

Reason

I like the colors and the composition

Articles this image appears in

Economy of Minnesota

Creator

Randen Pederson

• Support as nominator — Ravedave 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak oppose While the ships look great, the background is not well focused and a bit noisy.--Analogue Kid 04:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The background has not to be focused ! Ericd 17:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to lack of encyclopedic value. Cacophony 05:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cacophony. It's pretty, but it doesn't really illustrate anything in particular. J Are you green? 14:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cacophony; fairly good picture, but a touch noisy for my liking. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice picture of ship but the background is to distracting --St.daniel ^Talk 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This image is a cacophony. Oppose per cacophony. --TotoBaggins 23:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fennec fox

Reason

I'm new to this, so please excuse me if I'm doing this wrong. I think this is a good image of the animal, in what seems to be close to a natural setting, and (maybe?) of high enough quality for consideration here. John Carter 21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Fennec, Wildlife of Algeria, List of mammals in Tunisia, List of mammals in Niger, List of mammals in Morocco, List of mammals in Mali, List of mammals in Libya, List of mammals in Chad, List of mammals of Algeria

Creator

User:ladypine

• Support as nominator — John Carter 21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfortunately there is some jpg compression. Also, the pose isn't great (not especially captivating) and the tail is cut off. A perfectly usable image, but not FP quality. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 21:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• support edit 2 is the best close up pose in commons of this fox species, and for that reason alone is worthy of FPC Bleh999 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the edit; I like it. Why not crop a few slivers off the right side, though? -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 16:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice pictures, both of them --Mbz1 18:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
• Oppose either: Big vertical shadow stroke is distracting in edit. Original colors are washed. Circeus 19:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both are very good pictures, I almost support the first one over the second. --St.daniel ^Talk 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - He looks like he just woke up at noon in a zoo. --TotoBaggins 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at the caption ;-) Circeus 03:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Why all the supports? Poor composition, unimpressive lighting, compression artifacts (which the sharpening in the edit has served only to exaggerate) and a generally dull and lifeless photo. Of a cutesy fox. mikaul^talk 15:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Washed colours, fur still blurry when fully zoomed. Vertical shadow a distraction. Centy – reply• contribs – 20:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CMS Descent

Reason

The image is a very impressive animation showing the fitting of this huge piece of technology into place. Even though it itsn't of high resolution, the quality of the animation more than makes up for this.

Articles this image appears in

Compact Muon Solenoid

Creator

webcam

• Support as nominator — Eoin 14:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure what information should be conveyed by this little clip. You can barely make out any details, and the only additional benefit from animating the process is a visible downward motion. Fairly thin IMO. --Dschwen 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I don't think it adds very much to the article and is low quality. Maybe a decent quality OGM, but, I don't think a gif is the best way to show this. gren グレン 08:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this. Far too small even for an animated GIF - no detail to be seen. If someone would like to create a new animation from the images for this view (120 frames) and and alternate view (135 frames), keeping the resolution, then I'd support. As for now it fails even the enc criteria, because it's too small to see much of enc value. E4T2A2—Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Vanderdecken. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 16:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - I oppose due to the fact that this is a tiny image. If a larger version can be uploaded then I will change to support Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?} 15:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drottningholm Palace in Sweden

Reason

It's a good, full shot of the Palace

Articles this image appears in

Drottningholm Palace

Creator

Sxenko

• Support as nominator — Sxenko 03:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment has a bit of chromatic abberation and leans to the right. If the latter was fixed, I might be inclined to weak support it, despite the non-ideal off-center angle. Debivort 03:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Yellow of the building is blown, texture is wishy, washy at best. Big smudge in the sky above the right tower, (sensor dust??) otherwise I think the lighting is pretty uninteresting, a bit lacking in saturation. -Fcb981 04:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you actually find single blown channels distracting? I never do, even when they are pointed out to me in FP noms. Debivort 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I usually dont mind a few blown highlights or some flat red but this case is a bit different. The saturation is low maybe artificialy so in which case I would bet that the yellows were just above being blown (due to the frontal lighting) and were killed by noise reduction and desaturation. Also, since the yellow is the main color of the building I find its loss of detail a signifigant problem. -Fcb981 15:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. A little too much dead space (would have been a nice pano subject), sensor dirt, and a slight (subjective) CW tilt. --Dschwen 14:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very nice, lovely sky. The lack of tourists or other distracting objects is particularly pleasing. The off-centre composition is a little unusual, but seems to work. While there isn't much detail on the wall surfaces, that's not a major problem. Photos of buildings get a little better than this, but not a *lot* better. Stevage 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I keep wanting to lean to the right to center the building. Also as mentioned there's an obvious bit of sensor dirt above the rightmost dome. Otherwise a nice shot of a handsome building. But....hmm. Either go more off-center for more appearance of depth or square it up right in the middle, IMO. This is halfway in-between. Talshiarr 15:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose its alright, but it could be better and as it is reproducable a better picture could be taken --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -its not a fantastic shot, but its nice, and has good composition. -Nelro 18:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Chromatic abberation at the edges of picture, and whole photo is little blurred to me. Centy – reply• contribs – 19:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whale Shark

Reason

Very Beautiful picture that appears in three articles.

Articles this image appears in

• Whale shark
• Fish
• List of red sea sharks
• Public Aquarium
• Georgia Aquarium

Creator

User:Zac Wolf (original), User:Stefan (added cropping)

• Support as nominator — St.daniel ^Talk 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That's just about the best quality possible for shooting a fish through several inches of plexiglass. Nice saturated colours. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 12:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice pic Ba'Gamnan | Talk 19:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There seems to be a vertical line just left of where the shark's forward left fin splits off. I think this is a seam in the Plexiglas (the kind that's filled with translucent, but not transparent, gooey material). Oh well.--HereToHelp 17:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, good. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 18:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Some artifacting around the edges, but well composed. --Tewy 18:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The original file shown on the description page doesn't have these artifacts, if someone wants to perform another crop. --Tewy 18:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually the 'artifcats' you can see is sharpned noise, I have blurred the whole picture except for the actual shark to make it stand out more, the shark have been sharpened, but I need to have some 'buffer' around the shark so now you see some sharpened noise around the shark. Maybe I should have used less sharpening, please feel free to improve the process. Stefan 00:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Since I did this version I obviously like the picture. Stefan 00:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not sure what everyone else is seeing. It's so obviously an aquarium pic that it comes out looking really snapshotish. There's nothing remarkable in the composition - side on to the camera. No interesting background, and the backlighting leaves the shark in shadow with a very bright glarey background at the top. And of course due to the glass and water, the whole subject is slightly blurry. Compare this to the mandrill that got rejected last week - a much, much stronger image. Stevage 02:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ramblings to be ignored: - Interesting how different we are as humans. Here I see one of the best pictures of a whale shark I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot), sure it is in an aquarium, it is not 100% sharp, it has a seam, it is a bit artificial but it is a VERY good shot as a species shot, it is a bit over manipulated but is high res so it is still good enough. Compare this to the mandrill, (where I did not vote) which had severe oversharpening effects which disturbed me a lot, it was a bad species shot but much more artistic, OK so far not so strange, then we have Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Green sea turtle which is a IMHO a VERY messy picture with a very disturbing background, IMHO the worst of the three pictures, only good thing about it is that it is underwater and that is 'excotic' for people, this picture is 'only' from a aquarium, therefore 'snapshottinsh'. OK take this as a ramble, no offense, nothing personal, I'm not trying to change your opinion just wondering how different we are, we are all entitled to our own opinions, the green turtle will become featured, mandrill did not, here I do not know, the world is strange, have a good day! :-) Stefan 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original shot is actually better IMO. Wow factor due to size comparison, nice composition, and it doesn't try (and fail) to hide that it is an aquarium shot. --Dschwen 08:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I was about to say that. The original is far more interesting - I really like the composition with the people in silhouette as a shark swims over their heads. Perhaps not an FP either (though conceivably for something like Aquarium), but the original image is so contextless and dull. It does explain why the cropped version is so fuzzy though: too far from the glass, and too far (with insufficient telephoto) from the subject. Stevage 00:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just as a explanation, I made the crop to have a good picture to put in the taxobox in the whale shark page, there it is at least IMHO the best picture so far, there you want a picture ONLY of the shark. Also a comment abou the shape of the fins as per below, I think it is because it is a juvenile, but not sure. Maybe it was hurt when captured. Stefan 01:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I aggree wih Stevage, but, as per the suggestion above, I have added the original uncropped picture to the Public aquarium page, where I do believe it adds real value. I think the uncropped version is the only suitable one for consideration as FP to which I would give support. The picture also appears in Georgia Aquarium --McKDandy 16:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I fail to see the problems that Stevage mentioned. I think this is a great image for FP. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, ack Stevage. Wierd vote. There even is a visible seam of two glass panes running through the image. --Dschwen 19:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I agree with Stevage... and the seam right on the head of the shark is not so good. gren グレン 20:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sadly, oppose. I was really excited as I first looked at this nominated picture on the main FPC page. I didn't even know Whale sharks could be kept in captivity! However, there are numerous problems with this image. 1) Artifact rostral to 1st gill slit looks like a gill slit; I promise you, Whale sharks have only 5 gill slits as they are not a member of Hexanchidae. 2) Area just rostral of artifact is very blurry, and the rest of it is quite grainy; you really don't get a good idea of what the shark looks like 3) The impression of the shape of the pectoral fins you get from looking at this image is misleading; they both look very blunt, and the one in front maybe even injured. Compare the shape of the pectoral fin in this picture with the shape in the drawing, the picture from the maldives, and aquarium image with two whale sharks. 4) Previously mentioned sharpening artifacts around the shark. 5) The blurriness of the background is actually really distracting to me, probably because the small fish in front of the shark and the jacks under its pectoral fin are not blurry. 6) Least importantly, the previously mentioned aquarium joint is distracting. Personally, because it conveys the size of this species, doesn't mislead about shape, and because a small image in a taxobox doesn't have to be particularly high resolution, I'd actually prefer the whole-shark shot from the Maldives in the taxobox to the nominated image. I know this is not the place to discuss which image should be in the taxobox, but I just want to emphasize that this isn't the most encyclopedic of the current images of whale sharks. Enuja 03:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC) I don't support any version; color enhanced crop (version #2) still has problems 1, 2 (although not the last half) 3 & 6 and has the new problem of being too altered to be a featured picture. Enuja[reply]
• Oppose per other oppose comments listed above. -- Moondigger 13:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I really like this picture. It is a sharp picture. Wikipediarules2221 23:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added another crop from commons, which has better color depth --Bleh999 05:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . This one took a lot of thinking about; it's rather close but I'm not quite able to call this consensus to promote. Raven4x4x 08:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was too hasty here. And too harsh. I'll move this to the 'requiring additional input' section. Raven4x4x 14:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose – Feels to artificial to me. Centy – reply• contribs – 19:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swaledale Mother and Lamb

Reason

Wikipedia has been short on photos with a lot of artistic merit lately. I notice that this is the only one of Vaelta's that hasn't been nominated yet, so should be worth a shot.

Articles this image appears in

Swaledale and Swaledale (sheep)

Creator

Vaelta

• Nominator — Benjamint 02:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy close I'm worried this isn't a good faith nomination, but the image is over sharpened with lots of detail missing in the blown whites. Debivort 06:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree get over Vaelta. There is no reason to bring up dead issues. -Fcb981 00:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say Vaelta is a dead issue yet... J Are you green? 04:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the more reason we should close a potentially sarcastic nom early. Debivort 05:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose only because of the really obvious pixel problems (they're quite clear around the ears of the little one and the horns of the big one). However, let's keep the discussion here limited to a discussion of the image itself rather than trying to read the creator's mind. If it weren't for the technical problems, I would support promoting this image. It's way better than this one, for example. Spikebrennan 17:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy close Can someone please close this obvious bad faith nom? mikaul^talk 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Obviously there is some previous story behind these comments. Anyone wants to clarify the problem with the user? - Alvesgaspar 13:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow! where have you been? Try here, here, and here for starts. Just read through Vaelta's contributions; the list is not that long, and it's definitely intriguing... J Are you green? 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Try User talk:Vaelta#NPA this, too. To be honest, looking at Vaelta's image contributions, all of them are too small and oversharpened. Sour grapes? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - only just big enough, blown, oversharpened with colour fringing and blurry (cloned out?) areas. Not to mention that the neutrality and motive of the nominator and author are severely compromised. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good grief. Judge the picture on its own merits, not on the basis of whether you like the author or nominator.Spikebrennan 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil personal attacks can be removed from discussions at any time. This nom probably qualifies as a personal attack. Debivort 03:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Good composition but very poor photographic quality: overexposed, blurry, very little detail and small. Alvesgaspar 21:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Questionable nominator motives aside this image fails on so many levels to meet the criteria for an FPC most of which have been mentioned above. Cat-five - talk 16:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Debivort 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 401 at 18 Lanes

Reason

Highway 401 is the busiest highway in the world, and has a very impressive cross-section through Mississauga, Ontario, Canada at 18 lanes wide. Add another 4 lanes for exiting/entering traffic, another 10 lanes for paved shoulders, 3 concrete berries, advanced digital signing, great lighting and drainage systems, and other safety features.

Articles this image appears in

Freeway, Ontario, Highway, Highway 401 (Ontario), Dual carriageway, Local-express lanes

Creator

RingtailedFox

• Support as nominator — Haljackey 22:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem, unless the uploader received permission this file is on flickr as 'all rights reserved'[11] Bleh999 00:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Poor color depth (this could be corrected), a lot of noise, low resolution, good enough for encyclopedia, but not up to the standards of other featured pictures Bleh999 00:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added an edit with colour enhanced. It's an interesting photo, but i would still like it to be larger, with less noise. Chris_huh^talk 00:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, because the resolution is not high enough to show the berries.--Svetovid 08:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm willing to forgive the noise because this picture really does a good job of illustrating the most important features of this highway (namely, that it's got a lot of lanes and that it's congested). Since I assume that the picture was taken from some sort of aircraft, I don't know how replicable the shot is. Spikebrennan 17:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The colour enhansement that Chris_huh made add a lot of extra detail to the image. The photo was taken on a cloudy day, which would explain the extra noise in the image. Excellent editing job Chris_huh! Haljackey 22:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm allowed to vote as the uploader of this GFDL image, right? If not, then disregard. I think this image is good, but the edit by Chris_huh is also quite good. Either are worthy of being "Featured Pictures". :) RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 02:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Going against the crowd on this one. It's a picture of a road, there shouldn't be quality issues. More specificly, the sky at top should be properly exposed, there shouldn't be heavy noise, it should be 3 times the size. The lighting should be more interesting than it is (unsaturated hazey light). Other than that fine, I love the composition. -Fcb981 05:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Me too. Techincal problems aplenty, poor lighting, not compelling or striking enough for FP, for all its high enc value.
  mikaul^talk 11:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, nothing special here. Needs a higher resolution for me. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose its not special at all 81.110.125.162 17:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC) thats me Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the image as a copyright violation. It's a copy from a flickr image with 'all rights reserved' indicated and no attempt has been made by the uploader to explain why he considers it to be under the GFDL. I'm also going to delete the edit as equally infringing. Nice work, but sorry we can't keep it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted MER-C 03:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Djouce

Reason

Excellently illustrates the subject matter.

Articles this image appears in

Djouce, Deforestation, Wicklow Way.

Creator

Conor Campbell.

• Support as nominator — Conor Campbell 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose very bad jpeg artifacts. Sorry. Debivort 22:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the mountain itself is fuzzy and the immediate foreground is littered with jpeg artifacts.--HereToHelp 22:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, is there no better version? The quality of this one is too low unfortunately.--Svetovid 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately not, it was taken last summer with a poor HP, although I should be able to go back with something a lot better in a couple weeks... Conor Campbell 11:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The 'halo' effect at the mountain-sky joining region is a typical artefact of not great photoshopping. --Javit 10:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The quality is too low. Looking at the deforestation article, nominate 'View from macmillans lookout - benambra.jpg' instead.--Svetovid 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starfire Optical Range

Reason

Caught My Eye (Wow)

Articles this image appears in

Starfire Optical Range

Creator

United States Air Force

• Support as nominator — TomStar81 (Talk) 08:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 01 Photographing lasers probably creates a lot of photographic noise, I uploaded a version with noise reduction Bleh999 11:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, strong oppose edit 1 — The original has too much noise, the edit has blurred the edges too much. ♠ SG →Talk 13:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Yep, amazing sight but irredeemably poor image of it. It's another "featured subject" submission, where the subject matter is far & away the best thing going for it. Don't get me wrong, it's a valuable addition to the encyclopedia, it just isn't an outstanding photograph. The edit is no better, I'm afraid, possibly worse, as the sky now looks mottled as well as multi-coloured and the whole image is soft. mikaul^talk 14:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True but the edit looks better even as a thumbnail image, the noise is very distracting. I don't think this image can be made into FPC status, it is damaged beyond repair Bleh999 22:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose, unfortunately. MIck's thinking very well parallels mine, and I am inclined also to think Bleh's conclusion to be quite right. Joe 03:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why can we see the lasers? Lasers are coherent light, so the photons all go into one direction; they don't bounce around. Therefore, you can only see a laser beam when there is lots of stuff in the path of the laser beam, so that the light can bounce off the stuff and hit your retina. The picture in question looks like it was taken on a clear night, when there wouldn't be anything to bounce the light off of. So what is the laser light bouncing off of? Enuja 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• even on a clear night there is dust and droplets of water vapor in the air. Adaptive optics lasers are pretty bright to begin with, so lots of photons are there to bounce back. Debivort 00:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The exposure time is also extremely long...notice the stars moving in a circular pattern. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 03:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laser

Reason

Looks Cool

Articles this image appears in

Laser, Photon, Eye protection, Applied physics

Creator

United States Air Force

• Support as nominator — TomStar81 (Talk) 08:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per previous nom, great enc and subject matter, average-to-poor photo. mikaul^talk 14:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, for now needs to be cleaned-up. There is a lot of data there to work with. --Cody.Pope 16:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]