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

Maria Sharapova, 2009

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 17:36:39 (UTC)

Reason

Dynamic and overall fortunate shot, was not nominated previously

Articles in which this image appears

Maria Sharapova, 2009 French Open – Women's Singles

FP category for this image

People

Creator

Misty

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister[t] 17:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't like the crop, a square? And the advertising is quite distracting... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Made a crop out. Brandmeister[t] 18:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shadow is cut off, and still an awkward composition. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's not a big deal amid entire figure being captured. Brandmeister[t] 18:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The problem with this picture is its narrow width. The athlete is thrusting herself forward, but the picture is cropped right in front of her, making it a very awkward composition. The edited version makes matters even worse. I think a much better similar picture could be found. --Desiderius82 (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm not actually seeing any real EV, if I'm honest. It's a nice decorative picture, and the technical quality is pretty good, but this really isn't a standout picture in my eyes. J Milburn (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basal ganglia circuits (2nd nomination)

Reason

Vector image explaining the circuits of the basal ganglia in an anatomically precise and almost artistic manner, facilitating the understanding of Parkinson's disease and other basal ganglia diseases. Improvements since first nomination: Imported raster image of brain replaced with a 100% vector one, as well as more clear distinction between the upper and lower brain layer.

Articles in which this image (or a derived raster of it) appears

• Parkinson's disease
• Basal ganglia disease
• Striatum
• Substantia nigra
• Basal ganglia
• Globus pallidus
• Subthalamic nucleus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

User:Mikael Häggström, based on images by Andrew Gillies/User:Anaru and Patrick J. Lynch

• Support as nominator Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Support: From my POV the image looks great, has a very high potential encyclopedic value and it is of high technical quality. Nevertheless lacks a description, which is not covered by simply giving a reference and a link the basal ganglia article since of the facts lacking are image dependent. I believe that description should at least include 1-the meaning of the color scheme (why some arrows are green, others, blue, and still others red?), 2-comment on the fact that arrows give info on the neurotransmitter used on the connection, wether it is direct or not and wether it is inhibitory or not (it is assumed than a user of the image has to know this). The meaning of the + and - at the point of the arrows should also be given, 3-Info on the difference between inhibitory, des-inhibitory (would not it be excitatory?) and des-des-inhibitory (what does this one mean). 4-The fact that 2 coronal slices have been superimposed (it took me 10 minutes to discover it) to be able to see all needed structures. On the graphic side it is hard to distinguish structure from function. Maybe a different kind of surface, tone, design, (or whatever works) would be better for the arrows. A minor problem are incoherencies in capitalization of neurotransmitters (GABA is understandable that it has to be capitalized but glutamatergic and dopaminergic style should be consistent, and from my POV would be more aesthethic to be in non capitals). A doubt: Is it globus pallidus interna, globus pallidus internus or both are correct? (Second gives more hits on google).--Garrondo (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! A description is now included both in the image page in Commons as well as in the image text in Wikipedia articles. I've bolded and italizized the names of structures - maybe it helps some. Glutamatergic pathways are given in non-capitals and internal globus pallidus is given instead of globus pallidus interna, making interna/internus non-important (vice versa for externa). Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has clearly improved. Nevertheless it is still not clear the meaning of the + and - at the end of each arrow. I would say something like + and - signs at the point of the arrows indicate respectively wether the pathway is excitatory or inhibitory in effect. Green arrows refer to excitatory glutamatergic pathways, red arrows refer to inhibitory GABAergic pathways... Also from my POV it would sound better to say 2 coronal slices that have been superimposed to include the involved basal ganglia structures., but it may be due only to me being spanish. --Garrondo (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I've expanded the descriptions a bit further. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found another inconsistency: why is most text in black but GABAergic, dis-inhibitory an indirect pathway sometimes in black an others red? I would have all in black for consistency. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is green as well, related to inhibitory or excitatory effect. However, it can be confusing without further explanation, so I can make those texts just black in the next update. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be a better idea: it is almost impossible to distinguish black from green, and there are already many colors an info in the drawing.--Garrondo (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this latest update of the image now simply has black text in those places. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope: I think you forgot some GABAergic and left them in red (although I am not sure due to the only slight difference with black...). In addition it also seems that letters linking striatum to external globus pallidus are darker or bigger than all others.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought at least some red should be left to associate with the redness of the arrows. With only a slight difference from black, I doubt it would be confusing. I think the letters in the arrow from striatum to external globus pallidus look bigger mainly in thumbnail versions of the picture, because it is not turned to any degree but completely horizontal. The issue may go away when zooming in to its "natural" size. Mikael Häggström (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Highly encyclopedic. The new caption is very useful, thanks. NauticaShades 13:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Good enc., accurate based on given sources, but the black text over the part of the brain that's shaded black is a tad difficult to read. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 22:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit of dilemma there. Substantia nigra should be rather blackish to distinguish it from it's rather faded color as seen in the derived picture of the circuits in Parkinson's disease, as well as in real pictures [1]. Yet, the text should be consistent with that over the other structures. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could duplicate "substantia nigra" and move substantia nigra pars compacta a bit to the left so it is less over black and the opposite with substantia nigra pars reticulata. Nevertheless only a proposal, it may not work.--Garrondo (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted it some now. The main adjustment, however, was in aligning the borders of the brain slice above so that it covered and brightened up the area below the text. It may make the picture slightly less anatomically correct, but I don't think those few millimeters are of any significance. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support To my eyes, this looks excellent particularly with the new caption. Cowtowner (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is it just me who sees the text as horrendously wonky? What's going on there? Look at "dopaminergic", for instance- "minergic" seems to be lower than "dopa". J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little imperfection in the rendering of svg images in MediaWiki. It doesn't look like that in Inkscape. It gets a little better by pressing F5 to update the page. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How annoying. Weak support; seems good enough technically. I can't begin to comment on its accuracy, so I'll leave that to others. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Basal ganglia circuits.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian anthem at Victory Day Parade 2010

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 07:04:13 (UTC)

Reason

It is relatively rare to have a freely licenced video of a performance of a national anthem. It's presence in both articles in which it is currently present add significantly to the encyclopaedic value by showing usage of a national anthem for commemorative purposes.

Articles in which this image appears

National anthem of Russia, National anthem

FP category for this image

Creator

Presidential Press and Information Office; extracted and uploaded by Russavia

• Support as nominator --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 07:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although I note that for the most part the video doesn't show the performance of the anthem but, rather, participants in the event and landmarks in the Kremlin. The video might also be valuable additions to 2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade and other articles. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demetri McCamey signals a play

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 07:59:15 (UTC)

Reason

I think this is a rare action sports photo that captures a subject in a way that facilitates encyclopedic usage. I also think catching the classic point guard pose of him signaling a play makes this a great photo.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in which this image appears

Point guard
Assist (basketball)
2009–10 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team
Demetri McCamey
St. Joseph High School (Westchester, Illinois)
2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season

FP category for this image

People or Entertainment

Creator

Joshua Beckman (flickr user PhotoVandal)

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Can the tilt be fixed? Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I don't see what you are talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a counter-clockwise tilt - see the vertical bars in the background. One of them is near to the right edge of the frame and clearly leaning to the left. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a GIMP adjustment is suitable, I will try to install it tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks to me that such a correction would cause McCamey to appear to be leaning over. Also, isn't that bar not just along a line of perspective considering it is a straight line at the edge of an image?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still seems to be significantly tilted. The crowd are all leaning as are the railings in the stands. To see where it should be straight look at the horizontal railings near the top of the image - they are sloping down to the left but should be level. With one foot off the ground McCamey really should be leaning slightly to maintain his balance. Just did a quick try straightening it up and it indeed looks more natural. --jjron (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is a head on photo of the foreground main subject, which is an angular photo of background subjects. Is it really possible to adjust all background elements to be straight although they are taken on an angle? It seems wrong to me to make further adjustments. I will give it a shot though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now although the upper railings are straightened to parallel, the fan section above seems to be diminishing in size going from right to left. Was this the proper adjustment?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think I have now tilted to parallel and perpendicular a little better. I saved the revised over old version 2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Have you done a tilt adjustment or a perspective correction? Looks like the latter - why not just fix the tilt? --jjron (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I used the GIMP perspective tool twice (once with the picture rotated 90 degrees). What else are you suggesting? A minor rotation and one perspective adjustment?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • How is that?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Looks better at a quick check. --jjron (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what's so rare about it? Not to take away from the quality of the picture, but if you're just talking about a photo showing a point guard signalling, you could get dozens of such photos at any game at any level in any country, on any given day. Stevage 02:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but check the articles for the great point guards (Magic Johnson, John Stockton, Oscar Robertson, Bob Cousy, Mark Price, Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, etc.) and look for one. Unless we have a bunch of them on commons or in articles we should appreciate this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, but just because we don't have an image doesn't make it rare. Also, he's not really even "signalling". Stevage 04:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • He may not have an identifiable number of fingers in the air, but he is signaling. (Have you ever watched or played basketball). Sometimes a signal can be something like putting your hand in the air and making a small circle. In terms of rarity on WP, there are very few high caliber sports shots because sports photographers get paid a lot of money by newspapers, magazines, baseball card companies, book publishers, etc. for their good work. There is big bucks in sports photography. Thus, WP has historically had difficulty getting properly licensed high quality athletic photography. In that sense it is rare. Sure during any basketball games there are dozens of times that the point guard signals something on the court. However, WP does not seem to have any images of point guards doing this very thing for which they are identified. Now, we have one quality image of a point guard doing something that makes him look like a point guard. We in fact have an image that we can now put in point guard that looks like a point guard doing a point guard thing instead of one of the best point guards chasing a loose ball like any other basketball player.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Edit 2. Questionable enc. in Assist (basketball) (doesn't really show an assist), okay (but not amazing) enc. in all the other articles including of the player himself, because in each, the picture seems to be a part of a gallery showcasing the player (by himself or with others). Point guard is an exception, but enc. is reduced because a picture of any point guard could be used there, making the image replaceable. Nonetheless, it's a decent action shot showing what a point guard does, notwithstanding some small sharpness issues on the player himself. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 3. Acceptable quality, and extra EV because of the signaling. NauticaShades 08:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elakala Waterfalls

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 04:20:04 (UTC)

Reason

Illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more.

Articles in which this image appears

Blackwater Falls State Park, Long exposure photography

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes and/or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other

Creator

Forest Wander

• Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fabulous. Brandmeister[t] 05:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Since it's a picture I uploaded.. lol. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Brandmeister. Greg L (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Beautiful, though I find the composition to be a bit left heavy. Cowtowner (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. The colors look a bit unnatural, but overall well-composed and interesting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It has a wow effect. It is interesting, but looks so unreal. There are no digital tricks, I assumed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose as the digital trick significantly reduces its EV for Blackwater Falls State Park. I would go to the extent of removing the img from the article. Support for Long exposure photography (digital trick) as the subject.
    • I don't see why long exposure would reduce EV that much (it reveals real things you otherwise would not observe so clearly), but I agree with its relevance in Long exposure photography, so I added this to the nomination. Please consider that this is a single nomination, so is confusing if you both oppose and support. --Elekhh (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is an oppose then. The alternate pointed by Avenue is better. Have replaced this image with the alt in Long exposure photography, where the effect is much pronounced. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - too stylized for an encyclopedia photo, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added this to Long exposure photography. It really punches up that article and adds a lot of EV there. Greg L (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree it has plenty of EV in Long exposure photography at least. But the composition does seem uncomfortably left heavy. I prefer the photographer's next shot. --Avenue (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Alt version has a more "classic" composition, but other shortcommings (very dark upper-left corner, tighter framing, strong focus on foreground circle feature) which reduce its EV for the State Park article. Note that I removed Long exposure photography from the nomination as it is still disputed, and distracting from this nomination. Please assess this nomination as is. Currently the above argument reads: "Oppose image A in article B because I would like image C in article D more." --Elekhh (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it could now be read that way, although I meant "in articles B and D" where you have interpreted it to mean "in article D". Sorry this was unclear. I think the EV of either photo in the State Park article is moderate (not strong, not weak), because the waterfall is somewhat in the background of each. The nominated photo is somewhat better on that front, but not enough to make up for its unbalanced composition IMO. It is also more tightly cropped above the waterfall, and the shelf projecting over the swirling pool from the left intrudes enigmatically without really becoming a feature of the photo. So I still oppose it, sorry. --Avenue (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Avenue. Would support the alt version mentioned by Avenue. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I was a bit unsure at first due to the "left heavy" aspect of this picture, but given the alt found by Avenue I definately Oppose this and would prefer the alt to be nom'd as better composition. Gazhiley (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment / suggestion This picture is my wall paper right now, so seeing some ‘oppose’ votes is unfortunate for the nominator, who is also the creator of this outstanding photograph. I understand the rationale: 30-second-long exposure adds too much artistic flourish and detracts from its encyclopedic value when illustrating Blackwater Falls State Park; I just think it unfortunate. I would propose then that the nominator do as did User:Floydian with his time exposure (withdrawn → renomination) based on its use in Long exposure photography. There, this picture perfectly illustrates that particular subsection of the article and does so in a gorgeous way. Greg L (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator isn't the creator of the photograph as far as I know, the creator is ForestWander and has a west virginia phone number on his website. Elekhh's user page says hes in Europe... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. Speed skimming instead of reading. Greg L (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not relevant, but for the record: confirming I am not the creator, I am European, but not in Europe atm. --Elekhh (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that the other version is better for Long exposure photography as the circle is more dominant, but for the same reason this version is better for the Blackwater Falls State Park article, as it shows a wider frame. A bit unfortunate these changes during the nomination, but please reconsider your vote. I still believe this version has very good EV for Blackwater Falls State Park. In reality we don't perceive the world in bits of seconds but as a continuum, and we would hear the sound of the water and see the direction of the flow. Short exposure would have recorded a static view (as we are used to) but not closer to reality. I believe the 30sec long exposure chosen here reveals aspects of the waterfall a short exposure wouldn't have, without compromising other aspects. --Elekhh (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example of waterfall FP with same exposure time . --Elekhh (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• EV was an issue in that nomination too. It was helped through by being used in Neutral density filter as well as Hobart Rivulet. --Avenue (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Elekhh, no one is saying that picture isn’t great for use in the Blackwater Falls State Park article. It can stay there. It should stay there. Damn nice picture. The motion being advanced here is that for it to receive FP status, it should also be featured in an article in which it adds more encyclopedic value. As it is now in Long exposure photography, there, it speaks straight to the heart of that issue and illustrates it very very effectively. So if you A) keep it in both articles, and B) withdraw this nomination, and C) renominate it with a caption and link referencing the Long exposure photography article, it may well achieve FP status based on its aesthetic qualities and its EV to that particular article. Note that I voted “support” already. You can count on another “support” vote in the context of the photography article. Greg L (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you implying that both cannot be feautured and therefore it should be decided which one has higher EV? --Elekhh (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not at all… hey, I’m on your side here. First, I didn’t understand there were two versions of this photo. Nor did I realize User:Redtigerxyz changed the image on Long exposure photography (∆ here) to the Alt version. Given that it was my idea in the first place to add your picture there, I got a bit bold and changed it to the original, more colorful version. I’ve got that one as my wallpaper at this very moment; well done.

          This is not complex. In a nutshell: If the present voting trend persists, it is simply a matter that neither of these pictures can win FP status so long as the caption and associated article remains Blackwater Falls State Park; insufficient EV seems to be the common theme to the “oppose” votes. Now, you can do whatever you please. But I suggest you withdraw the nomination and re-nominate it in association with Long exposure photography and with a caption similar to the one shown here. Greg L (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

          • I see. Well, I wish to reaffirm my nomination of this version based on EV for Blackwater Falls State Park as detailed above. The candidacy of Alt based on EV in Long exposure photography shall be a separate candidate at a later stage. I would like to ask everybody to focus on this nomination for now. --Elekhh (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a good, running precedent for images using long exposure to capture waterfalls. This nomination should not be subjected to special treatment. I think it is also notable that we do not see waterfalls in freeze frames. We instead view them in motion, flowing. A long exposure is a valid way to capture that and does so accurately. Cowtowner (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I agree. The artistic “flourish” of long exposure for waterfalls is pretty much the norm. However, you may be too late, Cowtowner, since I seldom see so many “oppose” votes reverse this late in the game. Let’s keep our fingers crossed. I think this is a very attractive picture that would cast Wikipedia in a very good light for 24 hours when it is on our main page. Greg L (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I just point out that the reason my vote will stay as "Oppose" is highlighted by the example pictures you have included... Notice all 5 of the examples the main subject (which is arguably the waterfall even though the topic is BFSP) is central to the picture, however the nom it is squashed into the top left corner... To me this is bad composition, only highlighted by the alt picture found where the water is central to the picture - the waterfall in the background and the circles in the foreground... When I look at the nom my eyes are immediately diverted to the bright green almost glowing moss, whereas in all the below pictures the incredible effect of the water is my main focus... So I will continue to Oppose this nom, but would happily support the alt if that was nom'd... Gazhiley (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate that rationale and I mentioned the composition was a concern in my support. That said, I'm not wholly sold on the alt. In that image I feel like the waterfall has been squashed into the top right corner. Considering these compositional shortcomings, I've changed my support to weak. Cowtowner (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Russel Falls
• 
  Lady Barron Falls
• 
  Strickland Falls
• 
  Fulmer Falls
• 
  Hopetoun Falls

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the chemical element molybdenum

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 20:24:36 (UTC)

Reason

a high resolution and valued image

Articles in which this image appears

Molybdenum, Group 6 element

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High EV, nice quality -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As always another valuable addition to our chemistry pages, thanks Alchemist-hp! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - clean, crisp image with no irrelevant material (nice black blank background). Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Am I seeing a different image than what is shown to everyone else? I see a very dull grey background, not a black background referenced above. Cowtowner (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a white paper background, not sure what Casliber is referring too.. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant "blank" - corrected above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very nice. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avenue (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --TheMandarin (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice shot, almost pops out of my monitor. —Vartan Simonian ^{talk | contribs} 06:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova⁴¹² 23:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Molybdenum_crystaline_fragment_and_1cm3_cube.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CTA red line rerouted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 14:57:52 (UTC)

Reason

This is a featured picture at German Wikipedia and a fine example of high quality photography

Articles in which this image appears

Chicago 'L' rolling stock
2600 series (Chicago 'L')
Passenger rail terminology
Red Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Urban rail transit
Randolph/Wabash (CTA)

FP category for this image

Engineering and technology

Creator

Daniel Schwen (User:Dschwen)

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. For starters am struggling for EV - in its identified highest EV article it's way down and doesn't seem particularly irreplaceable there. In many other articles it's just in a gallery. I don't really know the rail system, but the claim to fame seems to be that this train has been rerouted to a line it doesn't usually run on, which would actually seem to speak against its EV. Additionally I think the DOF is far too shallow for this particular subject. The blown sky doesn't really help either, though maybe not necessarily a deal breaker, and that '2' sign in the extreme foreground is maybe unavoidable in this instance, but is quite unfortunately placed. --jjron (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Chicago 'L' rolling stock had no main image, I moved it to the main image position. It is in galleries in two stub articles (Randolph/Wabash (CTA) & 2600 series (Chicago 'L')) that don't have enough text to support more than the current main image. It could be the main image for the latter quite easily. I just do not know enough about the topic to judge which should be the main image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added to Urban rail transit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not so much a matter article spamming in an attempt to increase its EV, but sorting out what its EV is - I don't think that's overly clear, especially with the 'rerouting' business. Regardless, probably my bigger concern is the very narrow DOF for an image of a train. (FWIW could I suggest you consider trying to avoid article spamming - the station down the page is in 13 articles, of the 5 I checked you'd added it to all of them in the last few days, and there's a bit of a pattern with your other noms too, for example this is now in 6 articles, the basketballer you've just nommed is in 6... - there's probably not a lot of images that need to be in so many articles, and it doesn't (or shouldn't) increase its chances at FPC). --jjron (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • At one time either WP:WIAFP or WP:WIAVP use to say something about images needing to be in articles for 30 days to make sure it really belongs in the article. In this case, the image is appropriate in every use, and probably one of the better pictures in every article it is included in. WRT the station, that is an incredible picture (as you can tell by the feedback so far). I would not surprised if it is a finalist at commons PotY. It probably improves every article it is in. As for the basketballer, his image surely belongs in 4 of the 6 articles it is in. There are surely better point guards that could be included in point guard and assist (basketball), but not too many of them have the classic pose of basketball point guard signaling the play. We can discuss the propriety of its use further in its own nom. However, I am merely attempting to add his image in places that could use further visual content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't want this discussion to take this nom OT. But perhaps worth discussing this issue on FPC:Talk? --jjron (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good use of DOF to emphasize the subject. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Doubtful EV: the Red Line normally operates in an underground tunnel in this part of Chicago, not on elevated tracks. (The text of the caption in the nomination admits this). For this reason, the image represents a risk of misleading the viewer. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, this could be viewed as a rare rerouting where the Red Line was visible above ground during construction.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the value of this kind of anomaly in the articles which are generally discussing regular use. If there were an article about this rerouting (and I doubt it would qualify based on notability) it would have much greater value in my eyes. Cowtowner (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In terms of misrepresentation, there is only one article (Randolph/Wabash (CTA)) where that is relevant of the six it is now in. In four of the others (Passenger rail terminology, Chicago 'L' rolling stock, 2600 series (Chicago 'L'), Urban rail transit) rerouting is irrelevant and in Red Line (Chicago Transit Authority), there should be a section in the history about the major construction that necessitated the rerouting. If desired, I would gladly remove it from the Randolph/Wabash article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I particularly like how the colors (or lack thereof) came out in the image. The DOF was intentional and I thought worked quite well to emphasize the main subject. Sky is blown, but blends in an looks consistent with lightness levels of the street canyon walls (in particular the last visible house). Ok, enough patting my own shoulder ;-)--Dschwen 14:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yes, I think the DOF was a good choice here. NauticaShades 20:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support At first I looked at this and thought, "boring". Then I looked closer, and found that it is actually quite beautiful and gave me a "wow" response. I'm a fan. upstateNYer 02:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (hopefully leading to a support): The technical and artistic quality of the image are right up there, but could someone please explain the EV? As in, when it's on the main page, what will this image be used to illustrate? J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it is the main image at Chicago 'L' rolling stock, that would be the most illustrative use, IMO. I would ask Howcheng (talk · contribs) for further specifics. I consider this to be a high quality illustration of the Chicago 'L' rolling stock and among the finest example that wikimedia has to offer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, cool. Support. Great shot. J Milburn (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:CTA red line rerouted.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly wing magnification series

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 14:34:43 (UTC)

Photographic and light microscopic images
	Zoomed-out view of an Aglais io.	Closeup of the scales of the same specimen.	High magnification of the coloured scales (probably a different species).
Electron microscopic images
	A patch of wing	Scales close up	A single scale	Microstructure of a scale
Magnification	Approx. ×50	Approx. ×200	×1000	×5000

Original

The Lepidopteran wing surface is made up of usually coloured scales, shown here at various magnifications. Higher magnifications require scanning electron microscopy to be used, which depicts objects in a greyscale shading.

Reason

Illustrates both the structure of a butterfly wing at various scales of magnification, and the relative merits and disadvantages of light vs electron microscopy (for possible later inclusion in microscopy-related articles). All images above current standards. Please review this with fairness towards the contributors rather than the nominator. Thank you.

Articles in which this image appears

butterfly, external morphology of Lepidoptera, scale (Lepidoptera)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creators

Michael Apel (nos. 1 and 2), Shaddack (no. 3), SecretDisc (nos. 4 to 7)

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support wow, high encyclopedic value. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Enthusiastic support Highly interesting, highly encyclopedic, and access to SEMs doesn’t come cheap and Wikipedia would be better off with more of this sort of thing. Greg L (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The image nominated below Inachis io Lill-Jansskogen.JPG is much better than image one in this set. Image 3 is very fuzzy, noisy, barely meets the size requirements and is most probably not of the same specie. Images 4-7 all have notable blurry lines. Very good EV but the technicals are weak --Muhammad(talk) 17:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Massive EV in my view; the quality is also excellent for the mediums presented, though a little weaker around image three. I think the third image is, however, forgivable. Cowtowner (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I love the idea, but I think some color closeups of the scales that are of the same species and better quality would greatly amplify the series... I do admit those may be quite a difficult task to get unless someone here has access to a good universities biology lab and the desire to get the images (And specimens). The SEM set is wonderful, and I do agree with Muhammad that the nominated image below (Inachis io Lill-Jansskogen.JPG) would be a better replacement for the first image in the set. I would change to weak support if the first image was changed, support if that was done and the amateur microscopy image was dropped, and strong support if a better microscopy image could be acquired showing the scales in visible light. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'd be inclined to say that just the electron microscope shots would be best- they're quite clearly a "set", while the others are not so much. There are issues with both the first and third shots, and the way you've grouped them in this nomination even shows two distinct subsets. J Milburn (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numbers 1 and 2 are FPs on Commons. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Interesting and High EV. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted set NauticaShades 18:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Chicago skyline

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 00:06:40 (UTC)

Original - Chicago skyline taken from Adler Planetarium 2008-08-16

Current nominee (2008-08-16)

Current WP:FP (2006-10-09)

Former FP (2005-03-02 sunset)

Current WP:FP (2009-04-18 at sunrise)

Reason

This is a current commons FP that is an update of the classic Chicago Skyline picture from Adler Planetarium. Granting this FP status would enable us to replace the usage of the current FP of this view which dates from 2006.

Articles in which this image appears

This is an application to replace the use of the current FP, which is the 2006 Chicago skyline. It would replace usage in the following articles:

Geography of Chicago
List of tallest buildings in Chicago
Historic Michigan Boulevard District

FP category for this image

Places

Creator

Daniel Schwen (User:Dschwen)

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If I understand correctly, I believe this should be a delist and replace nomination. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure about protocol, but I am not saying the other image fails to meet FP criteria correctly. I am just saying it is obsolete. I only think that should be delisted if this one is promoted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Featured pictures are required to be used in an article. If it's replaced it will no longer meet that criteria. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nomination withdrawn and relisted below--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - Withdrawn by nominator. --jjron (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tinder fungus (Fomes fomentarius) in section

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 07:18:11 (UTC)

Reason

Image with EV, featured picture on Wikimedia Commons, featured picture on the Polish language Wikipedia. Used in articles in other national Wikis.

Articles in which this image appears

Fomes fomentarius

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other lifeforms/Fungi

Creator

George Chernilevsky

• Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I sadly have to oppose. The image is only used in a gallery on the English Wikipedia. If the article was expanded and the image was used in a better way, I would certainly be willing to reconsider. J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is correct reason by rules? --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Needs to be in more than a gallery to establish EV. --jjron (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Willis Tower upward pano

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 00:21:57 (UTC)

Reason

This is a featured picture on commons and German Wikipedia. It is also a quality image on commons. Despite being a little light in terms of EV, it represents a masterfully stitched panorama.

Articles in which this image appears

Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower)
Wacker Drive

FP category for this image

places

Creator

Daniel Schwen User:Dschwen

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Not so sure about the EV. To me, a photo with the most of Sears Tower, similar to a File:Sears Tower ss.jpg in a vertical fashion has higher EV. An slanting tower with three other buildings does not appeal to me. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The idea behind this image was to get the main entrance with the new building name on one picture together with the recognizable three-tiered silhouette of the building. I am personally pretty happy with the result, from an "EV" standpoint (the building remains recognizable even from this view, which is how many pedestrians see it by the way) and from an aesthetic standpoint (the picture has a fairly unique look to it which goes beyond haphazard pretty lighting conditions). But the Arkansas-State-Capitol-incident in mind, I am not surprised to see oppose votes here (not meant to sound bitter, just a personal comment on what I perceive to be the general taste in this forum). --Dschwen 16:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think a street level view is equally valuable as one taken from a more conventional (in the FP sense) angle. The image quality is up to par in my view. My one complaint might be the lighting which is somewhat flat but allows for an unadultered view of the subject. Cowtowner (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It's nice that it also shows the new protruding observation decks near the top. -- mcshadypl ^TC 06:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is User:Dschwen considered a supporter of this nom or any of his other images that I nominated without asking him?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't got the time to read all the rules myself, but I would imagine the creator of the picture would not be able to vote myself... Gazhiley (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The creator of the picture is allowed to vote. Frequently, the creator is also the nominator, and the nominator is considered a voter... However, we can't assume his support. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • fair enough... You learn something new everyday... Gazhiley (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have a history of allowing creators to vote for themselves. Alchemist.Hp has done so regularly without anyone raising an eyebrow. I don't see why this should be different here Cowtowner (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC) (forgot to login, sorry)[reply]
• Support btw... Though I would rather it on a nicer day as I think a bit more light would help the picture be more appealing, but that's purely asthetic... Gazhiley (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well ok, to make it official ;-). --Dschwen 13:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I will assume and accept that it isn't really possible to take the photo from further away and that this is probably the best compromise for projection/composition, but the distortion is a bit confusing and it doesn't illustrate the building well enough. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This picture simply fails to give a genuine idea about what the building is like - unlike other illustrations in the article. It barely looks like a skyscraper, and definitely doesn't show its interesting overall structure - it just looks like a boring relatively tall building. Moreover, the lighting is just bad. --Desiderius82 (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support It's true the lighting is flat and it doesn't show the bundled tube design of the Sears tower as well as some other images, but it's an eye catching perspective and shows what it's like at the base of this tower, as people would see it in the vicinity. There's no difficulty seeing this building is much taller than the surrounding medium-height high rises. And there's no rule that only one FP is allowed, only that an FP is "among the best examples of a given subject." It's well done for what it's trying to do. Fletcher (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose While I agree that the building could deserve a street view FP (rather than the usual skyline shot), and acknowledging that is a smart composition, I find it still too distorted, flat lit and with limited EV, as it does not really provide much information about the street context. The name plaque is not so significant IMO, to justify this. I think a perspective from further away could be more informative. --Elekhh (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my god, where did you find that amazing picture? ;-P --Dschwen 01:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry if you find it perverse to use one of your images as evidence for an argument against another of your images... Your overall contribution to the debate is much appreciated :). --Elekhh (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't find that perverse at all. I'm happy you noticed that picture. Everyone is certainly entitled to their preferences. If you don't think this particular shot is worth being featured, so be it. I just object to the notion, that this picture would have been better if taken with a different perspective. It would be a completely different shot with different intention. FWIW the distortions are surprisingly small for the large angle that is covered and the end result reproduces my impressions from the scene surprisingly well (3D would be way better though ;-) ). --Dschwen 03:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm gonna follow GregL's advice now [2] (it is pretty much self-defeating for the self-nominator to get in there and argue with those who vote oppose.) and let this nomination run its course from an observers stand point. Thank's for the comments guys! --Dschwen 03:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I'd full support if it were a nice day with a bright blue sky. Call me picky, if you must. Otherwise, I think this is a fine shot. upstateNYer 02:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Weak EV - I don't see why a photo of this building looking straight up is needed when you can take a better photo of pretty much the same thing from a few blocks away - and there's no excuse for the poor lighting given that the building isn't going anywhere (I hope!) and can be photographed again on a sunny day. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long exposure of a freeway

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 01:04:58 (UTC)

Reason

The photo brilliantly illustrates both the nighttime traffic flow on the highway that is the subject, as well as one of the effects of taking a long-term exposure of moving lights.

Articles in which this image appears

Long exposure photography, Ontario Highway 401

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others

Creator

Kennymatic (Flickr user, CC-2.0-attribution)

• Support as nominator --ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It beautifully illustrates the concept of night-time, long exposures. Greg L (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Awesome night shot of Highway 401! The long exposure really enhances the photograph, showing how busy the highway is even well into the night. Haljackey (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A great example of long exposure photography and is well composed.Jdenm8 (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As I did before. Cowtowner (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm confused. Wasn't this just nominated? Makeemlighter (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me too. It was withdrawn and nominated here in less than 30 mins? And the votes here look a bit dubious... --Muhammad(talk) 06:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd presume that the claim to EV is now in Long exposure photography. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really, Muhammad: “dubious”??? It’s just like Noodle snacks wrote, above. Read the concluding threads on the closed nomination. I wrote there that if this picture was renominated on the basis of supporting Long exposure photography, I could vote ‘support’ (a change from my original ‘oppose’ vote). The nominator withdrew it, renominated in context of the new article (with the appropriate caption), and I voted as pledged. Seeing the withdrawal, I simply wikistalked Floydian to find this nomination before it got transcluded into FP’s main page. No collusion and no forgeries; just people who were active in the withdrawal & renomination process. Greg L (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Muhammad is probably talking about Jdenm8, who had 7 contributions before supporting here. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I noted his plural “votes”. Perhaps just a typo… Greg L (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great EV for LE - not so sure about 401 as the method of photography does not give a full view of how busy it is - it could just be 1 or 2 cars per lane for all we know... Gazhiley (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other photos show the traffic on the 401 in the day, a true indicator of its density. This only indicates that there is still traffic flow late at night. The light would also be far dimmer with only two cars per lane. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Still much too noisy. See this photo for a good nighttime long-exposure (already featured). Jujutacular ^T · C 14:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Say… that is a splendid photograph of architecture. However, its time-smeared elements aren’t nearly as pronounced and notable as in this one. It clearly adds EV at its primary use (Munich); not so much to Long exposure photography. Greg L (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying it should replace this photo in long exposure photography, I'm saying it is an example of long exposure nighttime photography that is of much higher quality. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. That photo is an outstanding long exposure nighttime photograph. It was well deserving of its FP status. Greg L (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Good EV for Long exposure photography. Pronounced effect. I would replace this picture in Ontario Highway 401, if a better replacement is available. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too noisy. If it's going to serve as an example of a type of photography it should be technically very strong, but isn't. And it should not have been renominated as we pointed out this flaw previously. Fletcher (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee. Not even an “IMHO” at the end of your post, Fletcher?? I do hope you will forgive those who think the noise more of a gray area than the deal-breaking matter of pure fact your opinion might lead one to believe. I also note your “Royal ‘we’ ” (as in …“as we pointed out this flaw previously”) in the previous nomination. Looking over that now-closed thread, I’m not seeing anyone else there being concerned about noise, so it appears by “we”, you mean “you.” I guess my willingness to overlook such a minor shortcoming means I may never be Charlie the Tuna material with exceedingly good taste. (*sigh*) Greg L (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should have said as I pointed out previously, and Jujatacular pointed out above. Fletcher (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Fletcher and Juju. upstateNYer 02:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, don't like the composition. Too tight at the top (or crop off more), cropped lamppost at the bottom. Also the withdraw/renominate procedure is a bit fishy. --Dschwen 17:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope... just a withdrawl and renomination, but you're welcome to look through the histories and logs and do some sleuth work if you think there is a big coverup here. The initial nomination was far too underway to add something to it, and several editors felt that the picture was worthy, but that its usage did not produce the highest EV. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, but all that changed since the nomination-reset is the inclusion in Long Exposure Photography. Sorry, I'm just not in love with this pic :-(. --Dschwen 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Dschwen. The composition is below par for something that's as common as long exposure of motorways. These photos should be of a very high standard for it to be FP as it is easily reproducible. --antilived^{T | C | G} 02:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although not a scholar of photography, I consider this an appealing image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Nice shot, but I´m not comfortable with the image noise. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --NauticaShades 00:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knight's Tour

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 18:24:24 (UTC)

Reason

An extremely simple (23kb) animation that nevertheless illustrates the chess and mathematics concept of a Knight's tour.

Articles in which this image appears

Knight's tour

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams

Creator

Ilmari Karonen

• Support as nominator --Spikebrennan (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC) and support alt 1 but not alt 2 (because the checkerboard pattern in alt 2 is more confusing than helpful) Spikebrennan (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Very interesting. High encyclopedic value to be sure. I could support if the color of the squares changed when the knight has reached them. As it is, it's not immediately clear when the tour has been completed. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same while watching it before i read the comments. Also i'd prefer it to go a bit faster. Qwfp (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Support Alt - squares should be color-coded for status and the animation needs to be faster. Kaldari (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed that this has great potential, but I agree that we need some sort of colouration. For a start, it would be good if there was a white/black divide, and, secondly, it would be nice if there was some way of differentiating between visited squares and squares at which the knight is yet to arrive. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. By the end of the tour the board is getting rather crowded. It would be nice if there were some way to more easily determine which steps were new. Here's an idea: Give the path a border. Newer parts of the path should draw over older parts. Then it will be clearer what happened when. (I would also like to echo others' comments on coloration. It would be nice if the chessboard squares traditionally colored white and the chessboard squares traditionally colored black were differentiated, and it would be nice if the squares that have already been visited were colored. And it should be faster.). Ozob (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The speed and the coloring are issues but even if they were fixed this image wouldn't say FP to me. It illustrates the concept but it's not particularly eye-catching or artistic. Mathematics is often not a very visual subject. When it is you can get stunning images but this doesn't seem to be one of those cases.--RDBury (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Spikebrennan's request on my talk page and the comments above, I've prepared an alternative version with shading of visited squares and with twice the speed of the original. Also, now that GIF scaling works again, I've rendered the new version twice as large as the original (which still leaves it under the 12.5Mpx limit). I've also updated the Perl source to match the version used to generate this new version. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support ALT I knew that adding color would make the animation clearer, but wow, it is extremely revealing of the pattern. Most interesting is the formation achieved precisely halfway through the tour. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either alts, prefer alt 1. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt only. Without question excellent. Cowtowner (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC) (was not logged in at the time)[reply]
• Support Alternative 1, Neutral on Alternative 2. Well executed, informative animation. NauticaShades 20:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative 2 is too busy, in my opinion. NauticaShades 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is better than the original, but I think it can be made better still.
  1. The black and white squares should start out colored in their traditional manner; or better yet, colored similarly to File:Knights-Tour-Animation.gif. When a square has been visited, shade it, but preserve the underlying coloring. I think it would look good if you tinted visited squares blue.
  2. The board still gets crowded by the end. As I said above, I think the solution to this is to put a border around the path so that the order in which the squares were visited is a bit more clear.
  3. Replace the arrowhead with a picture of a knight. Ozob (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like what you really want is File:Knights-Tour-Animation.gif, only with a larger board? That would not be hard to do. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Almost, but not quite. File:Knights-Tour-Animation.gif does not display the path that the knight took, and I'd rather that the visited squares were tinted instead of having a ×. Ozob (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm even more pleased with Alt 2, now that it's up. I have some further comments, though:

  Several other editors have commented that the picture looks "too busy" or "too confusing". I think I have an exegesis of that idea: When I looked at this picture on my iPhone, I thought that the light squares were pure white and the dark squares were pure black. Where the path crossed the dark squares, it was invisible. When I looked at this picture on a full-sized monitor, I was able to see that the dark squares are actually a deep brown, but they are still very dark. Because the color of the dark squares is so dark and the color of the light squares is so light, there is a tremendous amount of contrast in the picture.

  If you do a Google image search for "chessboard", you turn up three different kinds. (1) Computer generated. These are usually pure black on pure white; sometimes they are gray on white or dark gray on light gray. (2) Photos of real chessboards. These are usually dark and light wood. (3) Exotic collectors' sets. Of these, I think the most visually pleasing (for our purposes) would be (2). Alt 2 is a variant of (1), whose colors I think are too visually chaotic to be comfortable with.

  As before, I still do not like an unadorned black path, and I would still like it to have a border. With a slight border it would be easier to see it against the squares of the chessboard (no matter what color they are), and it would be possible to tell which moves came first and which last. I also still think it would be good to replace the arrowhead by a knight figure. Ozob (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (for now) Having not read any of the above discussion, my initial reaction is that the colors of the squares should be checkered, black and white. After that, I can see the interesting nature of this concept and can support it, but only if it actually looks like a chess board to the mass public. upstateNYer 02:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly I don't think you're giving the 'mass public' enough credit. The article in question is about a relatively advanced mathematical problem, after all, so I think it's overwhelmingly likely the reader will recognize the grid as a chessboard. NauticaShades 10:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a closed tour (i.e. knight returns to starting square) would be more interesting --118.139.11.47 (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt. Excellent animation of the concept. For the purpose of this illustration, actual square color isn't really significant. It's worthwhile to use white and gray to designate which squares have been visited. Durova⁴¹² 23:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  None of the additional decoration is necessary; not even shading the visited squares is necessary. The question is, how can the information be presented in the most useful and beautiful way possible? For that I think the square color is significant: Not only does it help observers relate the diagram to actual chessboards, but it will help them to see that the knight must switch from a dark square to a light one or vice versa at every step (which is an important fact for the mathematical study of knight's tours). I think that this picture has got a lot of potential, and I hope to see a revised version soon. Ozob (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Every possible move a knight can make will switch from dark to light or vice versa, that's not a specific aspect of the knight's tour. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but this fact is particularly important for the existence of a knight's tour; see the article. Ozob (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alternative 1. Alternative 2 shows light/dark squares with a red tint for visited tiles. Personally I find it version too confusing to support - there's just too much information to take in at once. Time3000 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt1, weak support alt2, neutral original. Have fun, closer. J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 1, weak support original - these show the concept well. Oppose Alt 2 - the colour of the squares is unnecessary information, and makes it harder to see what's going on. Ephemeronium (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Knight's tour anim 2.gif --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janne Wirman

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 11:31:39 (UTC)

Reason

Keyboardist with keyboard, on stage, during a show, typically attired. Composition could be better, but resolution and quality are okay. And I like yellow.

Articles in which this image appears

Janne Wirman

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Tuomas Vitikainen

• Support as nominator —Maedin\^talk 11:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- It looks like the best image of him on Commons but is not an exceptional photo (blurry areas on him, blown highlights, grainy). Also the guy is young other better pictures can appear. Gnemetropos (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I would love to support a picture like this, but, although this is emotive, I can certainly imagine a better shot of him. J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Jackson 1983

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 00:00:36 (UTC)

Reason

This is an encyclopedic image with high EV throughout the project. The image is used broadly on wikipedia in two versions as depicted herewith. This nomination is about the uncropped version. If it passes or fails, I may still nominate the cropped version as a WP:VPICS.

Articles in which this image appears

Jesse Jackson presidential campaign, 1988
Jesse Jackson presidential campaign, 1984
Jesse Jackson
Rainbow/PUSH
Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Omega Psi Phi
Civil rights movement
Bradley effect
South Side (Chicago)
North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University
1988 Democratic National Convention
Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2000

FP category for this image

people

Creator

Warren K. Leffler, U.S. News & World Report

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Which image is being nominated? File:Jesse Jackson, half-length portrait of Jackson seated at a table, July 1, 1983.jpg? If so the other image is unnecessary and causing confusion, I recommend deleting the box with two images and links... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This probably best belongs being considered at WP:VPC as it clearly “adds significantly to articles” it is in. Here, there is a high standard for excellence as regards technical quality. I think this image has excellent lighting and contrast range. However, I find that this is not “of a high technical standard”. The 3200 pixel width is clearly oversampled as film grain can be seen even at one-quarter that resolution. Though it could be photoshopped very easily, the hair on the original negative doesn’t help. Among gray-scale images, I can’t see how this can be considered as being “among Wikipedia's best work”. Greg L (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support I think this image easily checks the boxes for indoor no-flash 35mm photography, though it is currently oversampled. Pending a down sample (and hopefully a removal of the hair) I would support this. Cowtowner (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a down sample?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Less digital resolution so it is appropriate given the film grain. Greg L (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a GIMP newbie, I am not sure if that is within my powers. Plus, I certainly wouldn't know how to remove a hair, even if I could see it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I see the hair now on his open hand, but am powerless to fix it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Photography_workshop... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 07:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I personally can't see any hair in his open hand - to me tthe hair cowtowner is refering to is the above his right shoulder above his ear level... Gazhiley (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guess that was his jacket cuff in the background. I don't see anything at ear level. I see a white scratch or hair near the top of his hairline level. Does this nomination need to be suspended for the graphics lab request?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit I have submitted an edit removing the scratch or whatever it was. The big problem with the image is actually the motion blur of his hand. You may wish to consider this FP of Saddam Hussein, where the picture's EV won out over the technical flaw. While Jackson is still alive, unlike Hussein, this picture was taken when he was younger and, I would say, much more relevant than he is now - so it can't be replaced by a more recent image of higher quality. The downsample was to 75%, where it is still grainy, but I thought it better to err on the side of too much resolution than too little. I can provide the edit at full resolution if people find downsampling objectionable. Fletcher (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your technical assistance. Did you also correct the other version that is also widely used on WP?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done so now and have uploaded a version to commons. Hope that works ok. Fletcher (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit. Good portrait, good EV, and the quality isn't bad. NauticaShades 11:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit This photo really brings out the personality of the subject. I actually like the blurriness of the hand because it indicates motion (or seems to, maybe it's a depth of field issue). Can the graininess of the original photo be smoothed out more? It very noticeable when viewed at full resolution. In general, candid shots should be encouraged here.--RDBury (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question If the edited version passes, is ther a protocol for replacing the image in articles?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the SOP is the closer does the replacement... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Excellent photo which easily meets the criteria Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A 1.35MB edit of a 30MB TIFF? It doesn't happen every day that we get an original resolution that good; no reason to waste it. Also, quite a number of dust marks were missed and nothing was done to correct for fade. Durova⁴¹² 23:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "original" in this case is photographic film. You can scan it to create whatever size TIFF you want but the film only captured so much information so at a certain point higher resolution gives you nothing but individual grains in the film emulsion. If the photo was a long exposure in bright light of a still subject in perfect focus then there might be 30 megs of information, but in this case there is 1 meg of information and 29 megs of noise. Not that I have any issues with the photographic quality, we don't need Ansel Adams here, but you shouldn't oppose the nomination based on file size.--RDBury (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose While the quality of the original/edit are disputed, the EV is lacking. Considering the subject, the context of the image seems generic. Nothing in the image by itself says much about the subject and the long list of reasons he is worth reading about. Afrazn Beauti (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually an excellent piece of photojournalism: the eyes and hands are very expressive. If the original weren't downsampled so badly I'd support an unedited version for FP. Durova⁴¹² 04:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that the noise is induced by downsampling, rather than being an artifact of high film grain? I might reconsider if you could clarify. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit, per Fletcher. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jesse Jackson, half-length portrait of Jackson seated at a table, July 1, 1983 edit.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 08:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Obama official portrait headshot

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2010 at 00:19:40 (UTC)

Reason

I don't think we should be waiting for a better shot of her. This has high EV and is high quality. This and another full length crop from her official portrait are used throughout WP. I would nominate the uncropped version, but it is not used on WP. The other version is currently a VP nom at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Michelle Obama official portrait crop‎

Articles in which this image appears

Michelle Obama
List of Alpha Phi Omega members
Family of Barack Obama
List of First Ladies of the United States
List of current United States first spouses

FP category for this image

People

Creator

Joyce N. Boghosian, White House photographer

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. Really don't like the composition of this (or any of the others, but particularly the headshot). It's far too front-on, and cropping out both arms just doesn't work IMO. And the resolution is just sub-par in the headshot crop. Yes, it's above the minimum specs, but it's not sharp. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official portrait version usage on WP

Left: official portrait - unused on wikipedia
Center: cropped portrait used in African American, First Lady of the United States, Office of the First Lady of the United States, List of First Ladies of the United States
Right: cropped headshot used in Michelle Obama, List of Alpha Phi Omega members, Family of Barack Obama, List of First Ladies of the United States, List of current United States first spouses

• Oppose The quality isn't very good. Additionally, what's with her eyes and forehead? Her hair is raised too high in my opinion. Haljackey (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose. Fantastic expression. Too bad about the composition: the curtain looks like it's growing out of her head. Durova⁴¹² 23:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The curtain thing is hilarious with the crop, but I don't see the EV. Afrazn Beauti (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose She has helmet hair. I like the curtain growth though. :) Maddie ^talk 01:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phidippus mystaceus jumping spider

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 20:25:56 (UTC)

Reason

Glorious closeup, makes the spider look like an alien, or a teddy bear. Bright background colour unusual. Reminds me a bit of the Honey Monster.

Articles in which this image appears

Phidippus_mystaceus Jumping_spider

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arachnids

Creator

User:Opoterser

• Support as nominator --Mr badcrumble (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Love it. Greg L (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support wow! hasa wow factor. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not sold that this image is up to our standards for insect and arachnids. The DOF is shallow and the resolution is limited. The other FP on the jumping spider page is of a considerably higher quality. Cowtowner (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Definitely has wow, but it's too small. --Avenue (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I'm afraid I have to agree. I am willing to ignore the size requirements when appropriate, but, despite the rather fascinating subject, this does not come up to the standard we've come to expect from our multitude of (for want of a better term) creepy-crawly pictures. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As a non-technical photography buff, I like this better than , which is overcropped, IMO. I think this has astounding creepy-crawly wow!--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noodle snacks (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why isn't this picture, which is an FP, even in the article. Is it the same species?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Images are supposed to illustrate the subject. Unless the subject is "Things that look like aliens from a certain angle" I don't see how this qualifies. I'm not even convinced that it belongs on WP at all.--RDBury (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EV definitely there, DOF is good, resolution not an issue yet. Why everybody gets hung up on captions and rationales, I will never understand. Anyway, if some of you would be willing to use or upload the rest of these images, that will be time well spent. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't think it's particularly clear exactly what we're looking at. Noodle Snacks' ultramacro might have very limited DOF, but at least you can see a little more clearly the individual features/limbs etc. This one looks more like a furry Jabba the Hutt to me. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support the picture itself is very good but I have to agree with the comments above. It needs to significantly add to a significant article. Haljackey (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not quite correct. It needs to significantly add to *any* article. It's not for FPC to decide whether a subject is notable enough for an article - the process for that is AfD. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone explain to me why the featured pictures ( and ) are not in the Phidippus_mystaceus article and only one is in Jumping_spider, while this one is in both?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are around 5000 *known* species of jumping spider, of which P. mystaceus is one. HTH Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per Dilif´s comment. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Drunkard's Progress

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 23:56:37 (UTC)

Reason

This is a lithograph by Nathaniel Currier supporting the temperance movement by showing the stages of alcoholism in the United States. The lithograph was drawn in January 1846 to support the growing anti-alcoholism sentiment which culminated in the United States with the passage of the 18th amendment to the United States Constitution, which outlawed the manufacture, transportation and sale of all alcoholic beverage within the United States. Despite its best intentions, the amendment proved to be a spectacular failure, and was ultimately repealed by the 21st amendment.

Articles in which this image appears

Prohibition, Temperance movement, Teetotalism, Prohibition Party, Anti-Saloon League, International Organisation of Good Templars, World League Against Alcoholism, Methodist Board of Temperance, Prohibition, and Public Morals, National Temperance Society and Publishing House, Flying Squadron of America, Prohibition in the United States

FP category for this image

link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)

Creator

Nathaniel Currier

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 23:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I love the image, and have seen it before many times, but unfortunately the scan is just not up to FP standards. NauticaShades 10:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I remember why it's so familiar! I uploaded this years ago. I can't believe I forgot. NauticaShades 23:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose At the highest resolutions, some of the print hard to read.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TonyTheTiger. The Utahraptor ^Talk 00:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Detail/image quality is lacking. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as above. I'd love to support this, but the scan just isn't quite there. J Milburn (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 14:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed per WP:SNOW. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Clark

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 00:42:38 (UTC)

Reason

This is a high quality and high EV image

Articles in which this image appears

Wesley Clark
List of awards and nominations received by Wesley Clark
Oklahoma Democratic primary, 2004
Valedictorian
1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
Kosovo War
Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2004
United States presidential election, 2004
List of United States Military Academy alumni
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe
Democratic Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2008
Democratic Party (United States) vice presidential candidates, 2008

FP category for this image

People

Creator

United States Army

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm normally happy to support pictures like this (unlike many) but this one is really, really dusty. What's the deal with that? J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is that something that the graphics lab can correct?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would strongly suspect it wouldn't be too difficult a job. J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have made a request.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is a classic image of a member of the U.S. military. The studio setup is a generic one. There are literally millions of pictures of exactly this same quality and depth of field, etcetera, and it utterly escapes me how this can be regarded as one of Wikipedia’s best works and be set aside for special treatment. In the context of the Wesley Clark article, I would support this image for WP:VPC. Greg L (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there are that many that are in use in WP in support of encyclopedic content as effectively. The EV of this image in its current uses is well above average compared to those millions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You name the modern-day general, and we’ve usually got one of these generic military portraits. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if there isn’t a written MIL-SPEC-like specification describing how to set up the photo studio for these images. Note that Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria has a eight-point test; adding encyclopedic value is #5. All I’m saying is it utterly escapes me how one of these exceedingly generic military portraits satisfies point #3 (Is among Wikipedia's best work) and, given that the scan is so dusty I can’t see that it remotely passes #1 (Is of a high technical standard); I also find the contrast a bit flat. If I was 20 years old, I could summarize my response as: “Dude… it’s one of those military portraits and it isn’t even a clean scan.” Greg L (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand. I am just putting the better images in WP:CHICAGO FAs and GAs out here for discussion, which will fall how ever it falls. Thanks for taking the time to consider this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Don't know if it will make much difference now but the dust has been removed and the contrast has been increased slightly.  Fallschirmjäger  ✉  20:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• That was one of the dustiest scans I have ever seen. I’ve cleaned Edit2 (at right) some more. If his uniform had that much dust on it real life, he’d be peeling potatoes for two days. I still have to vote ‘oppose’ for one of the reasons stated above. Greg L (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Certainly a notable subject, but awkward composition and expression. FPC usually expects a higher standard of modern formal portraits. Durova⁴¹² 23:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's only an average quality image, and questionable EV. The dust and poor focus are only small issues in comparison to the fact that there are plenty of images of the subject that are better.Afrazn Beauti (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As the author of the Wesley Clark article I love having a high-res image like this to lead things off, but given the clear consensus on generic government portraits (I fought this battle for a while with the Obama portrait) this isn't up to FP standards. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I definitely suggest nominating this at WP:VPC. NauticaShades 10:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North America's Busiest Highway: Evacuated.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 03:50:13 (UTC)

Reason

A rare photograph showing King's Highway 401, the busiest highway in North America, with only one vehicle on the road. This high quality, high resolution photograph was taken during the 2008 Toronto Propane Explosion when part of the highway was closed as a safety concern due to the highway's proximity to the main blasts.

This image also does an excellent job displaying the collector / express system used along Highway 401's widest and busiest sections. It's deserted state reminds me of the wide, deserted roads in North Korea. The only difference is that Highway 401 is normally clogged with traffic. This picture is truly an anomaly.

In addition, this is the third picture of Highway 401 to be nominated. Learning from the constructive comments from the other two nominees, perhaps this third time will be a charm!

Articles in which this image appears

Ontario Highway 401 and the 2008 Toronto Propane Explosion

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others

Creator

Kenny Louie

• Support as nominator --Haljackey (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might I suggest asking the author for a coloured shot? Noodle snacks (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The picture really is impressive, and I love the photo contrast. It really showed how serious the event was at the time. wishfulanthony (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm really not seeing why this should be in greyscale. J Milburn (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've contacted the author who said he will be searching for a colour photo later today. The grayscale will be replaced by the colour photo if he can find it. Haljackey (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose I agree - this photo was taken in 2008 and the greyscale detracts greatly from its EV. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose- there is absolutely no reason for this to be in greyscale. We should not be promoting modern images from standard cameras that are greyscale for no particular reason. J Milburn (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've contacted the author for a colour image and he will be searching for it later today. If he can find it, I will replace the image with a colour photo. Haljackey (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply Here is an example of the same section in colour from the author, however this was not taken during the propane explosion event. Do you like it better? I have also contacted the author for a colour shot of the B&W one. Haljackey (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I find this to be an interesting and unusual image of a highway. Greg L (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I feel the black and white nature of the photo helps further the seriousness of the situation. Keep in mind that nothing with colour exists on the highway (except maybe that one car, but it could be Silver), so there really is no EV lost to the lack of colour. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't be in the business of "furthering the seriousness of the situation"- we're in the business of reporting how things were. We set a dangerous precedent if we start allowing random artistic adjustments to the image. We have no modern greyscale FPs, and I've seen plenty not promoted purely because they're greyscale. J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria has point #8 (Avoid inappropriate digital manipulation) that, among other things, states “Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.” It’s safe to say that all digital cameras (this image was shot with a Canon EOS 5D) shoot in color. Are we to ban grayscale images from hereon if the photographer’s or wikipedian’s reasoning for converting to grayscale happened to be nothing more than “ ‘cause I like-ta”? Deciding to use grayscale instead of color is always purely aesthetic choice. If one likes an image in grayscale, great. If not: So sad / too bad and we vote ‘oppose.” Greg L (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. We don't want to make the picture seem too serious, or too heavily edited. I've been in touch with the author and he will be looking for the colour photo later on today. It will replace the grayscale image if he can find it. Haljackey (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is the community now supposed to poo-poo grayscale in the digital camera-age? Grayscale might not be best for this image. Or maybe it is best. But logic founded on the notion that grayscale is inherently too heavily edited makes no sense and there is no wording in FPC that indicates such (and for good reason). Ansel Adams always shot in black & white. He did so freeways too. Your post suggests that artists who shoot with digital cameras (color) and then covert to grayscale should be frowned upon from hereon. Uhmm… I’m not buying that logic. Sorry. If you don’t like this image in grayscale, that’s fine (and your “opinion”). But there is certainly nothing inherently wrong with grayscale images as a class for FPCs. Greg L (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's fine that certain known photographers shoot in greyscale- they often do all sorts of other things to their pictures (certain lenses, tinting, whatever). That's great- we'll report upon them, their methods and their work as appropriate. However, we aren't here for some kind of mass artistic project, we're here to build an encyclopedia. We should be in the business of documenting things as they are, were and will be, not make random artistic choices. If you want to illustrate the road, show a picture of the road, don't show somebody's artsy view of the road. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A huge explosion kills people. A highway is evacuated for safety reasons. Does a picture of the empty highway significantly add to the article on the explosion? IMHO, no. A highway is constantly busy. Does a picture of it during evacuation for safety reasons significantly add to the article on the highway? IMHO, no. I admit the picture is impressive, but I'm trying to say I don't see any real EV. [And I also disagree with greyscale (here, not in general): it makes one think the picture was taken in the fifties.] --Desiderius82 (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, if you don't think this photo significantly adds to the Highway 401 article, may I ask which photos in the article significantly add to it? This highway IS constantly busy (most likely the busiest highway in the world but that claim is unsourced) so seeing it empty is a rare feat indeed. As for the grayscale, I am in the process of getting it changed to a colour image since it seems to be highly demanded here. Haljackey (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • By "significantly" I obviously (OK, maybe not that obviously) mean "significantly enough to be granted FP status". --Desiderius82 (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's constantly so busy, I can't really see why an empty road is such a great illustration of it. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are already ~20 that show it busy. This one contrasts that. It was a notable event in the history of the highway. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sounds more like a news event than an encyclopaedic event - maybe if the explosion happened on the highway itself, and even better if it was pictured, it would make more sense. But a nearby incident that closed the highway...hmmm. --jjron (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The gray scale is distracting and gives a first impression that the photo is old, which is not the case. The EV is thus affected. Not convinced of its EV. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll withdraw this submit a colour nomination, unless someone is able to change my mind. It seems many like the photo but oppose the grayscale. Haljackey (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• New: By the way, here's the colour picture. Does it look good enough to start a new nomination? Let me know. Haljackey (talk)
  • Don't withdraw this nom. Just upload that one as an Alternative and we'll decide in this nom. I'd definitely support. NauticaShades 09:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternatively, a new nom could be started. Either way, yeah, upload it, replace it in the articles and see how it goes. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alternative Ok, I've uploaded the color version.NauticaShades 13:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Personally, I would contact all opponents of this nom to make sure they understand the drastic change to the nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative was leaning support of B&W.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Alternative for same reasons as for the original. --Desiderius82 (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Alternative, Oppose orig... Same as per Desiderius... It's great for the second article quoted about the incident, but not about highway 401... Definately prefer colour version, but not enough EV for main article for a support... Gazhiley (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the colour version has been uploaded. I don't think it will be withdrawn after all. Still, I think a new nomination could commence for the colour version to give this candiate ample time to get enough support to reach featured picture status. What do you think? If not, am I allowed to strike out all the votes before the colour alternative was uploaded? That would minimize confusion and remind past voters to resupport or reoppose. Haljackey (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am neutral on the colour version at the moment, but I do feel it should replace the greyscale image in the two articles. The greyscale image should not be being used in that way. J Milburn (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The colour image has now replaced the grayscale, and has taken it's place in the two articles. Haljackey (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative and Support Color Edit: I found the original color to be too dark and uploaded an edited version. I think this picture clearly passes all requirements for FP status based on its use to illustrate 2008 Toronto propane explosion. An evacuated highway is very interesting looking. To achieve a consensus, my ‘support vote’ may apply to either color picture. Greg L (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sky is now blown out on your color edit, that alone probably rules it out from FP criteria... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. I like the colour version better, not the colour edit. Haljackey (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you support the colour version? (Not the edit.) If so can you put that below? Keeps this organized. Haljackey (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative as I didn't nominate or upload it. This nomination is also starting to become a bit messy. It might need to be organized, having separate sections for the the three photos or have a new nomination submitted entirely. What do you think? Haljackey (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seperate sections wouldn't be great, although I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a new nomination. J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We'll see how this goes. If things fair well for the new colour picture, a new nomination might not even be needed. I tried to organize this a bit, and put a line where the colour version was uploaded. By the way, are you still neutral or do you support the colour alternative now? If so can you put it at the bottom of the votes? This way it stays somewhat organized. Haljackey (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The color edit unfortunately looks overexposed. Juliancolton (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You beat me to it - was just about to point out extremely blown highlights especially the car park bottom left... Gazhiley (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'm a bit concerned about that as well Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative (NOT color edit, which has blown out highlights). I think the rarity of this event, the closure of such a major highway, adds significant EV to the 2008 Toronto Propane Explosion article. It's probably not very important of an image though for the highway's own article, but enough it could remain if that article since it does have a section about the explosion and the image does illustrate the seriousness of the explosion to close off such a major artery. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative - the color version looks great, but, it could lose its real impact compared to the original version. The colored picture shows great effort, though, which looks nice. wishfulanthony (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.75.88.174 (talk) [reply]
• Support Alternative (Not edited version) High quality composition and very technical shot illustrating a rare occurrence on (possibly) the world's busiest highway. If all the fugly mugshots like the one below this are worthy (that one aside because its quality was crummy), then I do not see why this is not. Besides the opening picture (of the explosion), this one has the highest EV in 2008 Toronto Propane Explosion. In the article on the highway, it shows the closure of one of its busiest sections in its entirety (the section through Toronto has never been fully closed since it was built in the 1950s), and provides a key illustration to an entire section of the article devoted to it! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Perhaps that could be added to the Highway 401 article? A stronger description of the event relative to the highway would make this picture carry greater weight in the article. Haljackey (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative, but not the edit. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative - The alternative is colored nicely, making it more realistic than adding too much brightness. –CG^Talk 04:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Evacuated Highway 401 Color.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 13:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you very much! Do you know what day it maight be displayed on the main page? I'm not sure if I have any power to suggest a date, but August 10, 2010 will be the second anniversary of the Toronto Propane Explosion. Displaying it then would be a good contrast to the event, especially if the event appears on the "On this day..." section on the main page. If it is shown on a earlier or later date, I don't really care. I'm just happy that the picture reached featured picture status. Thanks again all your support everyone, you made this happen! Haljackey (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try talking to Howcheng. He more or less runs WP:POTD and might be able to sort it out : ) NauticaShades 17:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks a lot! Haljackey (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic view of BP Pedestrian Bridge

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 00:34:12 (UTC)

Reason

The EV of this image is due to its archaic nature. The Chicago skyline photography is defined by three locations. The most classic photography of it comes from the Adler Planetarium (See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago skyline at sunrise‎ where several examples exist) and from observation decks at Willis Tower and Hancock Center. As WP:CHICAGO director who stumbles across a lot of Chicago photography, these are the three iconic views of the city's architecture. This particular 2007 view no longer exists (see File:WillisTowerPanorama01.jpg which shows how Legacy Tower impedes the view). Although the Willoughby Tower seems to impede the view of the rest of Millennium Park, it serves as a reminder that this is a view from within one of the world's most phenomenal skylines. Its highest EV uses a cropped version of this image. Since Willoughby Tower predates the Bridge by several decades, the view was never unimpeded.

Articles in which this image appears

BP Pedestrian Bridge (cropped version)
Millennium Park
Jay Pritzker Pavilion
Columbus Drive (Chicago)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

Flickr user KE4SFQ

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Had to read article to find out what this picture was of, as its such a tiny part of this picture... Plus this picture is not in the article for BP Pedestrian Bridge - as admitted a cropped version of it is... This is therefore technically a different picture and thus this nom should not include BP Pedestrian Bridge as a location of this picture... I have taken the liberty of striking this link... Gazhiley (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose partially per the above, the subject is not clear and the image is very busy with extraneous elements. Cat-five - talk 05:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I completely agree. I just can't tell what I'm looking at. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's a great photo, but the quality simply isn't there. Sorry! Haljackey (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Pile on. Per all previous ‘oppose’ vote comments. Greg L (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all the other oppose comments. The Utahraptor ^Talk 00:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 16:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed per WP:SNOW. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Island after the 2003 blizzard.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 12:51:52 (UTC)

Reason

Illustrates our Alpine Fault article well

Articles in which this image appears

Alpine Fault

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Views of Earth from space and satellites

Creator

Jacques Descloitres, MODIS Rapid Response Team at NASA GSFC

• Support as nominator --Avenue (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great EV and plenty of 'wow'. NauticaShades 13:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, looks good to me. J Milburn (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This image illustrates something geological that is related to the fault, but it does not really illustrate the fault. The second image in the article probably illustrates the fault better and that is the only use of the image. If this were for a storm notable enough to have its own WP article, I might consider the EV sufficient. I just don't really see the EV of this image that does not directly illustrate the only article it is in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image illustrates the strong topographic relief along the fault scarp, along with its course through the South Island. It even shows the transitions into different plate boundary regimes at each end, if you know what to look for, especially its branching into the broad Marlborough Fault System in the north. If by the second image you mean the map of southern Zealandia, I don't see either being redundant. The map illustrates the wider Zealandian and plate tectonic context of the fault, but doesn't show the topography well. (The map also seems to show the Alpine fault extending much further north than it really does.) --Avenue (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm prone to support, but have a comment to make. There are three very similar images illustrating this article, South Island, and Southern Alps. The encyclopedic value of such an image is undoubted, and while I'm not prone to shoehorn images into articles, I wonder if any would be better replaced with another. I don't know enough about the eastern boundaries to comment meaningfully on whether it could illustrate Southern Alps, but think it obscures too much of Banks Peninsular to illustrate South Island. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the nominated image is not the best illustration for the Southern Alps article, either. Even the current picture there has a bit much snow IMO, especially in the south (Fiordland) and southeast (e.g. the Remarkables). I do think the nominated picture is by far the best of the three for the Alpine Fault article. But that's no surprise: I added it in 2006, replacing the picture that now graces the Southern Alps article. --Avenue (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I like this better than the other two. However, I don't see the encyclopedic value because the explanation given above for its importance is not even in the article. So it is illustrating something the article does not discuss. I.E., I don't know what a scarp is, the word is not in the article and you are telling me the EV is related to the scarp. The caption in the article and the caption/reason in this nomination need to make very clear why a single-use image has EV. Aren't there non-geopgraphical articles that this would add EV to? I am by no means a reg here, but I am a proponent increasing the use and visibility of nominated articles since these are suppose to be the best we have to offer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• At least for our purposes here, scarp=escarpment (linked in the caption above). While the article certainly needs work, I believe that the image's main EV (that it shows how the fault forms the sharp western edge of the Southern Alps) is explained clearly enough. --Avenue (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, I prefer the image at escarpment (File:Alpine Fault SRTM (vertical).jpg), which shows us a fourth example of this subject. If any one of this subject should be an FP, it is that one, IMO. I am not a technical judge, but on basic assessment of aesthetics, this image finishes in 2nd of 4 compared to others. However, among those that show the hole island it is first of three. With such an abundance of choices to illustrate this speciific example of this subject, I think I will continue to oppose unless an additional use of the image is found. Would it be appropriate in blizzard, winter storm, snow, climate, meteorology or some such to add a minor bit to its EV even though it would be replaceable in any such uses.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Fair enough. As an isolated image, I prefer that one too (although I miss the lakes). I'd support it in the escarpment context, but I think the nominated image has more EV for the Alpine Fault, due to its greater realism and broader view. --Avenue (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• After looking at all the images in the related articles more closely, I see that it pretty much depicts the escarpment in a way that someone not familiar with the topic would understand. I am beginning to feel that it does have some EV, but I remain unconvinced that a single use image that could easily be incorporated into several articles has significant EV. It certainly does not have any more EV than the main images at South Island, and Southern Alps and it may have less EV than File:Alpine Fault SRTM (vertical).jpg or File:Alpine Fault SRTM.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree. I will just point out that an FP only needs to have EV in a single article. --Avenue (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Avenue's first answer to TonyTheTiger above - you had me at "this"... Plus in this picture it kinda looks a bit like a willy! ;-) hehe Gazhiley (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support almost looks like Scandinavia with the way the cloud cover is. Haljackey (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've edited the caption a little to make clearer the fault in the image, which addresses my concerns about encyclopedic value. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support. I didn't agree that your edit to the article made it clearer, though, so I've reworded the caption to try to address both our concerns. --Avenue (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:South Island blizzard 2003.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 13:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sul Ross statue

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2010 at 13:18:26 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image, good EV for both the Sul Ross and Texas A&M articles.

Articles in which this image appears

Lawrence Sullivan Ross, Texas A&M University, Pompeo Coppini

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

Sculpted by Pompeo Coppini, photographed by Jujutacular

• Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^T · C 13:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a useful image in two FAs, but something seems odd about the lighting.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too dark. It's hard to tell at a glance where statue end and tree to our left begins... Gazhiley (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It would be incredibly useful if we could talk about the copyright status of the statue itself on the image page; especially as there is no freedom of panorama for statues in the United States. J Milburn (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statue was erected in 1918 -> public domain. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I missed "on the image page". I've added this information. Jujutacular ^T · C 15:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too dark. Since the subject is the statue, the shot is too far away and too busy. The composition is a generic, square-on one that comes up short of having potential for being among Wikipedia’s best works. Greg L (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Gazhiley; also dubious EV for any of the cited articles. Spikebrennan (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The color balance seems too warm, and the composition is fairly ordinary. I wouldn't say the EV is dubious, just not outstanding. Fletcher (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 18:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn. I'll be taking criticism into account and possibly re-shooting another time. Don't want to waste any more of peoples' time however. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain formation in Carbon County, Utah

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2010 at 00:34:43 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality photo, focuses on one subject

Articles in which this image appears

Mountain; Carbon County, Utah

FP category for this image

Places

Creator

The Utahraptor

• Support as nominator --The Utahraptor ^Talk 00:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• PPR nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, but the rock surface is not very sharp focus-wise at all, and there is a white halo around the top of the rocks... Not quite good enough for me sorry... Plus to call this a mountain to a fell walker is a little rich - it's more of a rocky out-crop of a larger mountain than a mountain in its own right... But might just be the angle it's taken from... Gazhiley (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a mountain, I said it was a mountain formation. An outcrop is a type of formation. The Utahraptor ^Talk 12:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I almost forgot. That "white ring" around the mountain is just clouds. The Utahraptor ^Talk 12:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is in the article for Mountain and thus EV is weak there... Plus the ring I'm refering to is definately not cloud - it's a haloing... Although I'm not technically minded enough to know what causes it, I know it when I see it... Gazhiley (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, having looked through the Mountain article, it's really out of place in there as the rest of the pictures are of the alps, himalayas, mount olympus, and other impressive mountains of the world... And then there's a picture of a rocky outcrop on the side of a hill/mountain ( we can't tell from the picture how high the land behind it is to actually know for def if it is even a mountain)... So based on that alone, let alone the haloing I'm sticking with Oppose... Gazhiley (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I have to agree with Gazhiley, I'm afraid. As a "check out this random rock" picture, it's not really there. If we had an article on the specific formation, I'd be more inclined to support. J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nothing special in my opinion, and I guess others above me agree with this statement as well. I'm sure there are some more interesting pics like this. Haljackey (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 05:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Leading the People

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2010 at 10:06:09 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by PawełMM (talk • contribs) 10:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Liberté, egalité, fraternité! A relatively good quality photo of an absolutely iconic painting. The number of articles it is used in is indicative of the amount of symbolism in this painting.

Articles in which this image appears

Liberty Leading the People, and many, many, many, others.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Eugène Delacroix

• Support as nominator --NauticaShades 10:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't think the colours are as good as they could be- compare to this one. That one also lacks that horrible crack across the middle. We need more fine art FPs, so it would be good if we could get this through, but I'm not convinced right now. J Milburn (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I think the crack is unfortunately part of the canvas itself, so it's just been shopped out of your example. Perhaps someone could saturate this one ever so slighty? The one you linked has nice colors, but it's quite heavily artifacted and is also of a lower resolution. It also loses a lot of shadow detail with such saturation. NauticaShades 12:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • New, saturated version of image . PawełMM (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Great, ok. New edit: what do you all think? NauticaShades 10:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That goes a bit far, don't you think? Particularly for red. Try somewhere in the middle. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I tend to agree. I'm afraid I don't have the tools to do it. Anyone willing to give it a shot? NauticaShades 19:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose edit. "Digital manipulation" is acceptable when it corrects flaws in the photographs, not in the objects (here:the painting) depicted in the photographs. The edited picture is clearly oversaturated. For the same reason, I would be dead against any edit that would not include the painting's cracks. I think the original is just fine, so I simply support (original). --Desiderius82 (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could believe the original is a bit undersaturated compared to the original. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) [reply]
    • Well, this could only be decided for sure by someone with actual access to the painting itself, but I guess he or she would be difficult to find right now. The next best thing is to compare this picture with the picture on the Louvre museum's website, here. Desiderius82 (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This Louvre image shows that the crease is indeed part of the canvas, and so versions without it have been modified. NauticaShades 07:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose edit: Comparing the original to the version available on the Louvre's website ([3]), the colours are probably okay. If anything, ours is brightened too much, but without seeing the original it will be impossible to tell and is within reasonable bounds. The edit is way too over-saturated, but even half that boost would be too much, I think. Maedin\^talk 16:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support. Makeemlighter (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia lindleyana 2v2

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 14:28:11 (UTC)

Reason

okay let's try this again. This is a less cropped version, showing the striking yellow flowerhead against the vivid blue sky with some ant pollinators trawling though the flowers. Left in this time are part of an old flowerhead and leaves to the left to add to the EV. Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Banksia lindleyana.

Articles in which this image appears

Banksia lindleyana

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

Casliber

• Support as nominator --Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This particular file isn't currently used anywhere in the article space. J Milburn (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I replaced the previously nominated image with the image nominated here at Banksia lindleyana. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Good EV, and passable quality. NauticaShades 18:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Passable quality, per Nautica. Ants crawling on it definitely add EV in my opinion. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support, as above. J Milburn (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, would like to see at least the Genus of the ants identified though... are these flowers pollinated by these ants and if so is it a specific monotype that does it? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen any literature on the genus of ants which visit this banksia (or any banksia) and am not an entomologist. I can ask a n expert to take a look and see if they can identify to genus level at least. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment would it make sense to incorporate this somewhere in Banksia.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say no, Banksia is already heavily illustrated. If the ant's species can be identified and it's a primary polinator for this species of flower, then the image would be relevant for the ant's Genus/Species page possibly. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Below our current standards, due to shallow DoF, harsh lighting, and vignetting. Room for improvement in the composition, too. Maedin\^talk 15:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • • It was in a desert where I took the photo, hence I sorta felt the lighting reflected that. Erm, how would you rejig the composition? can't do much about DoF I concede...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Only 4 of 5 required supports. Makeemlighter (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Würzburg Residence

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 21:53:28 (UTC)

Reason

This is a great panorama of the Würzburg Residence and the beginnings of its Court Gardens, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. It really brings out the harmony and elegance of the Baroque architectural style.

Articles in which this image appears

Würzburg Residence, Johann Balthasar Neumann, Maximilian von Welsch

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Rainer Lippert

• Support as nominator --NauticaShades 21:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. It's a nice panorama with good composition, but the image quality is slightly lacking. It's particularly noticable in the detail on either side of the building, but thankfully not too bad on the subject. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I noticed that. Luckily, it doesn't seem to affect the detail on the building itself : ) NauticaShades 23:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I find the composition impressive.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Images added to Johann Balthasar Neumann per discussion. NauticaShades 10:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Has a good resolution. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per Diliff. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Some fun little things going on (burgular? UFOs? Eiffel Tower?) but a wonderfully uncluttered photograph, well taken, that illustrates the building extremely well. I have absolutely no problem supporting this. J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oooooo this is like Where's Wally! I can see the burglars and the Eiffel Tower, but where's the UFO?!Gazhiley (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above the left side of the building- I assume they're distant birds. I'll be honest, that was the least interesting of three :) J Milburn (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per J MilburnGazhiley (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A nice high resolution photograph of an architectural wonder. By the way, what's with the rock in the front? Haljackey (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support per Dilif. The quality of many similar pano FPs is a bit higher, but is still a nice image, an I am happy it features a human to demonstrate the scale of the building. --Elekhh (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Good illustration of the subject. Central to the article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• ??Comment?? Just how in the world does one have shadows on the right-hand end of the building that are caused by the sun coming from the right, while over on the other end of the building, the shadows are coming from the other direction? There can only be one sun. There appears to be too much photoshopping going on here, including in clouds above the center of the building. Greg L (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If the sun is comming, let's say, fron the front, and since the building is wide you will manage to see the shadow of the columns on the left to their right and those of the right to their left. Just in the same way, in perspective, you see parallel lines converging. Abisharan (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not possible. You are describing parallax across a building. The sun is 93 million miles away; the angle subtended across the width of a building is too small to measure (though it could be calculated). There can not possibly be parallax effects with the sun unless the building were so wide it spanned across multiple time zones. Moreover, the parallax effect you are describing that could be produced with a single, nearby light source would produce shadows heading the opposite direction from what we see here. If a single, nearby light source (not the sun as you described) was located in the courtyard in front of the camera, the shadows would be heading towards the right on the right-hand side of the picture and the opposite would be true on the left-hand side; that’s the opposite of what we see here. Two light sources would be required to produce these shadows.

  Let’s imagine we’re looking north. On the right-hand side of this picture, the sun is casting shadows as if it is rising in the east, right? Now look at the left-hand side of the picture; the shadows appear like the sun is setting in the west. This is absolutely impossible. I can think of only two ways to explain the shadows in this picture: 1) different photographs were taken at different times of the day, or 2) one photograph was taken but there was mirroring and a pile of retouching done.

  After studying this picture very closely, it appears it was #1: photographs taken at entirely different times of the day and stitched together. It clearly appears that the left side building was photographed at a different time of the day. Check it out closely. Start with the right-hand side of the building and work your way to the left. Note how the shadows all look like the morning sun if we’re looking north. Then, as one gets to the center of the building, the shadows suddenly reverse as one works across the four columns. This image is impossible hocus pocus and seems to have gone well over the line with regard to Featured Picture Criteria #8: inappropriate digital manipulation. Greg L (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is in fact quite possible - see below. --jjron (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Interesting picture. Greg L (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not what I am saying. The reason is much more simple than that. Since the sun is so far away the lines passing through the columns and their respective shadows are almost parallel. As are most of the lines in this picture. Nevertheless you see them converging. That is what I am saying could be happening, which is the most common of the illusions, perspective. No parallax or conspiracy needed to explain it. Of course, I have no idea how really the picture was produced. But if so simple explanation is at hand and in WP we assume good faith... Do the experiment. Find a street going East-West, step in the middle of it (carefully) and look at the shadow of the traffic lights in both sidewalks. Abisharan (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This building faces East and the file's meta-data says it was generated at 7:56 (I guess it is AM) which agrees with the sun coming right from the front. Abisharan (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For the deeper shadows in the circle in the center just search the building in google maps. There are taller trees on that side and again, If the image was taken that early with the sun coming right from behind the photographer you will get them there. Abisharan (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, Abisharan is quite right. If the photographer was centred onto the building it appears the sun was just slightly over their right shoulder. For a similar effect refer to my Australian Parliament House image where a morning sun was coming from behind and a bit to the left. You can see a bit of the effect in the portico where the shadows on the left and right differ, while not actually completely 'changing direction', but the further spread the things are the more you get the effect - look at the cutouts in the roofline and the short posts in the foreground where the shadows do 'change direction'. I can assure you there was no trickery in the production of my image, it was all taken within a matter of a couple of minutes. --jjron (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. I was full of a colossal boat-load of crap. All we are seeing here is viewer-perspective parallax where the sun is almost exactly behind the photographer. I’m sorry for inducing everyone to have to spend time explaining the drop-dead obvious to me. Greg L (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am totally confused on the architect. The caption suggests four architects, but the image is included in the article of a fifth architect. What gives?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The palace took something like 80 years to complete. Many architects, including the four others in the caption, were employed as consultants. Johann Balthasar Neumann was the main architect, I believe, hence the image in his article. I've fixed the caption to reflect this. NauticaShades 14:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Not sure why you did not include it in a couple other architects, but I will leave that to you. I have struck my oppose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the other four were just consultants, and three of their articles had images already, so I thought it wasn't necessary. I've since added the image to Maximilian von Welsch, though, since his article lacked any images. NauticaShades 10:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support per Diliff. --jjron (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very interesting building and well executed photograph. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]