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

Reason

Great World War II Photo.

Articles this image appears in

*Battle of the Philippine Sea

Creator

US Navy

• Support as nominator CPacker (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose too small. Durova^Charge! 10:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Durova. – Ilse@ 11:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the two above. This is an excellent setup, but I always get a vague sense of disappointment when I see "No higher resolution available" on the image page. Dr. Extreme (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Historic significance

Articles this image appears in

Lyndon B. Johnson

Creator

Yoichi R. Okamoto

• Support as nominator CPacker (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Unquestioned encyclopedic value, but poor composition. MLK is in profile and LBJ looks like he's shrinking away. History and names aside, it looks like the caption would be When will this man stop talking so I can get some aspirin? Very much worth a place in an article, but not the best choice for Wikipedia's main page. And I'm sorry to say that, because it'd be great to feature an image of these two men. This one isn't it. Durova^Charge! 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Durova. It would be great to see MLK and LBJ featured pic but this one isn't it. I wonder of LBJ's thoughts at the time this photograph was taken. Looking at his face in the full-size I bet it was something like Come on, Negro, give me a break. Fine, I'll give ya more rights but ya'll be votin' for me, ok?. - Darwinek (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I actually like the composition; their relative postures and expressions speak volumes about the racial situation as it was then, but the picture is much too grainy, bordering on B&W posterization. LBJ's face is worst hit. Matt Deres (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Matt Deres. I, too, love the composition and expressions, but the quality isn't high enough. See this book [1] (which, unfortunately, isn't cited on the LBJ article) for a detailed exploration of their relationship. Also, Durova, our featured pictures exist for more than just Picture of the Day; i.e. we can promote images which will never go on the main page. If a higher quality image shows up, I'll change this vote to support. - Enuja (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This high resolution photograph shows the Prinsengracht, a 17th century canal in Amsterdam. It presents a characteristic view of the Amsterdam canals by night.

Articles this image appears in

Amsterdam, Canals of Amsterdam

Creator

commons:User:Aforaseem

• Support as nominator Ilse@ 11:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I have no real reason to oppose, as it is a very nice image, but it doesn't pop out at me as being FP quality. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 15:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. de Bivort 15:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Beautiful scene, though not as sharp as it could be. CillaИ ♦ XC 16:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'll bite. Warm and inviting. Durova^Charge! 18:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Beautiful composition but not special enough for FP. Also, I don't like the (unnecessary) small size and the visible noise. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Noise. ^8thstar 21:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose a day picture would probably capture more detail. H92110 (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I am the creator of this photo. I have other versions which are sharper and full size. I don't know how will this photo be treated if I replace this photo now with a better version. Please suggest, thx. aforaseem —Preceding comment was added at 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you can (separately) upload one (or more) alternative(s), so people can choose among them. Compare: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Mont Blanc. – Ilse@ 07:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak-ish Support I actually quite like this picture. It's an attractive shot which made me interested in reading about the subject. On the other hand, it does seem that a more spectacular photo could be taken, and I'd be interested to see what else aforaseem has for us. faithless (^speak) 01:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per 8thstar.D-rew (talk) 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A fetus at 4 months. Clear high resolution file.

Articles this image appears in

Leonardo da Vinci, Study (drawing)

Creator

Leonardo da Vinci

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 10:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support de Bivort 00:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Top enc, but would like to see the exposure evened out a bit. It's a bit grainy and oversharpened, too. --Janke | Talk 09:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the best of my knowledge the original nomination was not sharpened or manipulated in any way. The grain and brightness variations appear to be natural; smudging is visible in the darker areas. Per your feedback I've cleaned up a few artifacts and done a minor adjustment layer. Durova^Charge! 10:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Top encyclopedic value trumps minor technical shortcomings. faithless (^speak) 01:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great value to Wikipedia --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Difficult to have the authorization to photograph and great historical value --Luc Viatour (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Showcases his detailed and distinctive drawing style AND his backwards writing (obvious at full resolution). This picture is a definite asset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrExtreme (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a famous sketch, it deserves a spot on the front page. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Da Vinci Studies of Embryos Luc Viatour.jpg MER-C 09:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution photograph of Pale Grass Blue male and female. (mating).

Articles this image appears in

Pseudozizeeria maha, mating

Creator

Laitche

• Support as nominator Laitche (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfortunately, DOF is all too shallow, that kills it for me... --Janke | Talk 18:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question this image is invisible for me, as are occasional photos elsewhere on wikipedia. does anyone know why this happens? Mangostar (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Info The new version has been uploaded. Laitche (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I can appreciate Janke's DOF issues, but to me that forward focus gives the subject a remarkable clarity. Great enc value. SingCal 01:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The right stuff is in focus. Durova^Charge! 05:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Info I uploaded the new version again. Laitche (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Beautiful composition but a poor exposure solution leading to insufficent DOF. Also, there is obvious posterization of the background -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. DOF is shallow, but I could possibly overlook that if all else was in place. Unfortunately composition also seems to be against it for mine - dark white/light brown butterflies on a tan coloured background is all fairly un-eyecatching, but the final killer is that dark patch taking out the entire top left corner (possibly a well out of focus small branch across the field of view near the lens). FWIW I've tried to improve the caption in the article. --jjron (talk) 11:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Composition, facial expression, good motion blur.

Articles this image appears in

Association football, Goalkeeper, Association football positions

Creator

Master Sgt. Lance Cheung

• Support as nominator -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 10:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - Its okay, a little dull, i would not say this is one of the best images Wikipedia has to offer. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, and because nothing is really in focus. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 14:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No chance that he's not hanging from wires. :D\=< (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. SingCal 01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Increasing the saturation may help. Sifaka ^talk 06:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support from picture peer review, I liked the dynamic action and composition. A striking image. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. As with Jeff, I liked this at PPR, but commented there that it would probably need a bit of 'work' done on it before being nominated here. As it hasn't had any improvements made I can only weak support. --jjron (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Oppose too much motion blur, not enough context (how big is this goal that he is guarding?). I'd support on Commons, but my opinion is that is suffers from a lac of enc. Cacophony (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting reason - aren't all soccer goals a standard size (except for ones intentionally made smaller, such as for children's games)? --jjron (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support interesting, dynamic shot. Muhammad(talk) 14:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too grainy for my liking, sorry --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Hadseys--CPacker (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would it be possible to downsample this a little? I looks good grain-wise at about 2/3 rez, and the dynamic composition might--might--excuse some focusing issues.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The image description and related article provide a good background on the historical significance. Comes from the same source as current FP Image:Felbrigge.jpg and likely to be the only other FPC nomination for an embroidered book (unless non-English sources of comparable quality and importance come to light). A fine image of surviving Tudor needlework with exceptional provenance.

Articles this image appears in

The Miroir or Glasse of the Synneful Soul

Creator

Elizabeth I of England

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 23:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good historic value. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 14:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Image:Felbrigge.jpg was kind of interesting and attractive, a good example of its kind. As another example of its kind this one's just, well, pretty bland. No 'wow' if you get what I mean. --jjron (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – image colors seem te be distorted, there are traces of red and green where they shouldn't be. – Ilse@ 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Elizabeth I = enc. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Ilse--CPacker (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Another great bird photo from Mike Baird. I've been sifting through his flickr archives, and I think this is one of the best and most useful.

Articles this image appears in

Kentish Plover (this is what the Snowy Plover is called outside the US, where this photo was taken)

Creator

Mike Baird

• Support as nominator Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great shot. Brilliant detail in the feathers, including the white feathers. --liquidGhoul (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Original Poor sharpness at 100% - huge res though so I could probably downsample and sharpen to an acceptable level --Fir0002 10:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1 - better sharpness and colours (converted from Adobe RGB colour profile) --Fir0002 10:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support orig * Oppose Edit, because looks 2 artificial for my taste --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either per nom. H92110 (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit de Bivort 17:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original - Oppose Edit- Not everything in the world needs to be downsampled. I agree with Richard, it now doesn't look as natural.pschemp | talk 00:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that the edit makes its colours appear more natural as it's been converted from Adobe RGB to sRGB. If you upload an image in ARGB to the web without converting, the web browser assigns it an sRGB profile. Since ARGB is a larger colourspace the colours look desaturated. By converting them from ARGB to sRGB the true colours are shown in your web browser. In other words the original is unnatural --Fir0002 01:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This edit is not only converted --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 11:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Very well done. Clegs (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Very nice picture. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the caption and image should state that which plumage stage the bird is in. I don't have my Sibley guide with me but I think it is a winter bird (but it may be a juvenile). The breeding bird looks quite different. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the closing delay here due to the possible fuss over promoting the edit? Or do we want more input over which edit people support? --jjron (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll go the compromise edit (2) here. Plus I've suffered a recent lack of energy/enthusiasm recently. If there are no objections by the weekend, Edit 2 sticks. MER-C 08:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Snowy Plover srgb.jpg MER-C 09:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A very good painting of a historical event.

Articles this image appears in

United States Capitol rotunda

Creator

William Henry Powell, 1847

• Support as nominator Bewareofdog 22:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – prominent reflection of (flash?) light in the center of the image – Ilse@ 23:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; a historic picture of an even more historical event. This picture has quite a lot of encyclopedic value to it. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 07:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, technical problems: light in center, part of frame seen at sides, keystone distortion as evidenced by frame. Also blown out sky at right. --Janke | Talk 09:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Poor image quality as per above.D-rew (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The frame needs to be cropped out of the picture. I agree there seems to be some sort of reflection in the center, if someone can fix that, I'd be willing to change my vote. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A vintage photograph of a Bedouin woman in traditional attire. Unusual for one from this period to show her face. This image was popular with a recent GA drive so several editors searched for a high resolution file that would be suitable for cleanup and FPC. Restored from original LoC archives. A slightly different crop, unrestored, is at Image:Bedouin woman (1898 - 1914).jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Palestinian costumes

Bedouin

Creator

American Colony Photographers

• Support as conominator Durova^Charge! 20:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as conominator Funkynusayri (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite striking. SingCal 23:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, beautiful face expression.--Svetovid (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wouln't a more recent color picture of a Bedouin be more encyclopedic? Muhammad(talk) 03:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a discussion of historic textile arts, vintage photographs are highly encyclopedic. This woman most likely embroidered those decorative strips herself. Durova^Charge! 03:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, there are no recent alternative pictures of Palestinian Bedouins in such traditional dress, simply because they don't dress that way anymore. A recent picture would have to show a dressed mannequin, or a model wearing such an outfit, which is hardly as encyclopedic as the "real thing". Funkynusayri (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per all. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 07:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite nice. faithless (^speak) 01:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above.--CPacker (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Obvious ethno-historical featured picture. - Darwinek (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above SGGH ^speak! 12:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, once briefly reviewed this is a no-brainer, at least for me.D-rew (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The picture is beautiful and the resolution is great! --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is an excellent picture in every regard. Dr. Extreme (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all. Medrano man (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bedouinwomanb.jpg MER-C 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Another example of early color photography (picking those PD archives clean). Quite a face. Most of the articles about construction professions don't have any image, so it's good to locate a quality example. Restored version of Image:AlfredPalmerRamos.jpg

Articles this image appears in

Rigger (modern usage)

Creator

Alfred Palmer

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 09:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – it's a pity that the object of the rigger's work is behind the beam. – Ilse@ 11:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is a shame that we can't see exactly what he's doing, but I feel that the picture gives a pretty good general idea of what it is he's doing, and it is an attractive image. faithless (^speak) 01:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good image. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a great photo and really gives a reader a sense of the kind of work that riggers do.--CPacker (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above. EgraS (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:AlfredPalmerRamagosa.jpg MER-C 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Absolute top encyclopedicness, large resolution, historical value

Articles this image appears in

List of tallest buildings and structures in the world

Creator

George F. Cram

• Support as nominator :D\=< (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom. Excellent image.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom.Bewareofdog 18:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the caption says "Old World" but the diagram includes the Wash. Monument. Chick Bowen 20:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question is that a rip in the top right corner? If so can it be reduced? It is quite obvious right now even on the thumbnail.D-rew (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like some type of water staining to me (i.e., this appears to have been scanned out of an old atlas, and it appears either this page or the atlas has been wet up there at some point). --jjron (talk) 11:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support dvdrw 22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, great image but needs a better scan... also, a better caption. gren グレン 00:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak oppose I really like this idea, but this is supposed to be colour-coded and we really can't see them here. As a side issue, I'm also curious about the "Old World" title versus the inclusion of the Washington Monument. Was this done simply due to the then-recent completion of the tower or is there something else involved? Matt Deres (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Matt Deres and because many buildings are not distinguishable. H92110 (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I like the subject matter, but I just don't see why we need to use an illustration from the 1800s to show it. This diagram itself is not historic as far as I can tell (it's just old), and a recent illustration could show exactly the same subject matter just as encyclopaedically, if not better given some of the other oppose reasons. If it was really nice quality its age probably wouldn't matter, but this is all rather dirty and grubby looking; indeed the original image quality itself doesn't appear to be great, for example some of the colours on buildings go outside their borders indicating poor printing. --jjron (talk) 11:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose the image itself is very interesting, but according to the tint guide at the bottom, the colouring is apparently messed up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Animation shows the complex, multi-step process of tablet pressing in a convenient view.

Articles this image appears in

Tablet

Creator

Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs)

• Support as nominator Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I spent a few minutes staring in wonder. Well done. Cacophony (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. What's the deal with the rollers? Do they actually roll? It looks like the tracks just sort of get closer together there and are supported by the rollers- why couldn't they just narrow the track and bolt it down real tight there instead of having "heavy compression rolls" in the way to support it? :D\=< (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The compression rolls do the heavy pressing (yes, they actually rotate) and the punches actually travel directly on the rolls during this compression step. A typical force might be 10 kNewtons on the first set and 30kN (equivalent to about 3000kg force) on the second set. The photo on tablet is a good comparison. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 04:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it but it looks like you should fix the image.. it looks like the punches are hanging from the track and when the tracks get closer, the punches get closer.. the picture of the old press has no track at all- the punches are all mounted to the assembly (no track) and pushed downward by the rollers. :D\=< (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edges of the punches rest on cams. If you look carefully in the photo you can see them. It is really only the lip of the punch that touches the cam. The animation is based on a blueprint of a more modern press which is constructed in a slightly different way, the photo is of a much older machine. Either way, the basic process is the same. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, I still don't get why they spin. They're smooth- how does spinning do anything? :D\=< (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the punches are inserted into a large rotating turret (not shown in the animation for clarity), similar to the photo. When the turret turns, the punches do too, just like a merry-go-round. The punches are analogous to a horse, they ride up and down as the ride spins and moves over the cam. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 15:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain until there is animation in the rollers. Is this 6 frames or so? Then a simple set of dots or other marks on the rollers moving in a cycle of 6 frames would indicate roller movement. --Janke | Talk 09:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but - the small rollers are slipping badly, and there's some slip on the large ones, too... --Janke | Talk 08:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New version uploaded over old one. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now that my petty gripes have been addressed... ;-) --Janke | Talk 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks good. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-26 19:05Z
• Support Thanks for the careful hard work on this one. Durova^Charge! 19:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very informative animation. Kaldari (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I always wondered how they made those little guys. Dr. Extreme (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EgraS (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, definitely encyclopedic. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tablet press animation.gif MER-C 11:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A high quality shot with excellent enc value - I really don't see how it could be improved (but obviously that's for you guys to find!). And I also thought it would be quite a fitting subject for what will be my last nomination for quite some time as I start my first semester of an Aero/Law double degree which promises to keep me very busy!

Articles this image appears in

Homework

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator Fir0002 11:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for your reasons given...I can't really oppose you. Great handwriting btw =D Dengero (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's a little too neat for most homework, but can't oppose for that ;). Very well composed image. Good luck with your studies. --liquidGhoul (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree lol! And the placement of the penicl case and rubber is so perfect it looks rigged just for the picture ROFL. Dengero (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support difficult to illustrate well, but this does it. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-21 17:58Z
• Support Ugh, I hate doing proofs. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I went through the vector proof and, so far, everything seems to be correct... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - Matt Deres is right, this is a trivial picture (though high quality) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and no vote. The composition is kind of unappealing to me (since the white notebook takes up so much of the frame and the text is nearly upside-down from the viewer's perspective), but I don't know what I would do to change or improve it. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I always feel like a jerk when I oppose something Fir has offered, rare though that is. There's not much to say about the technical aspect (we know he can take a picture!), yet I don't see anything of feature quality here. To me, there are two things that led to my oppose: first, I don't know how useful the picture is - period. This is just some dude doing math proofs; you could give the viewer almost exactly as much encyclopedic content using plain text. I just can't picture someone reading the homework article and still having some question left over that this picture might answer, so (to me) it fails criterion 5. Second, I just don't find this impressive at all; there's no "wow" factor here, nothing to draw a viewer in to learn more about a topic. I usually think it's inappropriate to compare two FPCs that are currently on the block, but I find it incongruous that pictures like those of the Himba ladies should be dismissed as being snapshots, while this utterly mundane (with all due respect) picture is almost universally lauded. Gah! I feel like I need absolution now! Matt Deres (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about the subject matter so much as it is about carefully planning the composition and getting a professional looking photo. But I also oppose purely because it's not very enc. Try commons :D\=< (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Matt's comment above got me thinking about what a high-quality, encyclopedic image of homework should look like, and... this is better than anything I can think of. SingCal 01:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Recognising the photo's technical quality, this just doesn't have any wow factor for me. Pstuart84 Talk 13:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Fir, good luck with the degree - uni years really are the best! Pstuart84 Talk 13:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No they're not. No money, obcenely huge mounting debt, no time for anything but work and studying, slop for food (OK not slop, but no successful adult would touch it), sharing a tiny room with other people and a communal housing arrangement that defies any reasonable expectation of a quiet place to sleep at night, nonstop stress from grades and work. I'd say more than 85% of the people in my dorm have serious sleeping disorders that probably deserve immediate medical/psychological intervention, but of course they don't because that's the least of a college student's worries- most students just drown themselves in coffee. I don't know how things work in Australia, but I can't imagine they're very different. I get that the later stages of life are boring or whatever but adults tend to have a ridiculously distorted view of what adolescence and early adulthood is actually like- the uncertainty far outweighs any excitement. :D\=< (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no wow factor in homework. MER-C 07:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Meets all criteria, and, from a slightly biased perspective, probably as likely a nom to gaining FP status that's related to my profession as we're going to get. Would strong support if they were doing homework for a real subject like Physics or IT ;-). --jjron (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry Fir, the light is pretty flat and does nothing to highlight the main subject. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 17:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've mentioned lighting on more than a few of your recent opposes. I'm just curious, what would you do to improve the lighting? I think that anything more direct direct than this won't help much—shadows help bring out textures in some photos, but here it would just distract from the real subject, IMO. Thegreenj (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may oppose due to lighting fairly frequently, mainly because it is the most important technical aspect of photography. Composition is the other thing you will see me oppose for more than some people. In this photo, it seems like the light on the paper (the central subject of the photo) is indirect window light or other fairly flat reflected light. There seems to me some artificial light from the lower right (probably tungsten based on color). That would be all fine except that the artificial light is aimed to high. It falls mainly on the hand doing the homework and less on the paper. The hand, then, is the focal point of the light in this picture, it appears that the meter exposed for it leaving the rest of the picture somewhat contrast-less with luminosity near that of highlights. The light on the hand is pulling the balance of the image way to the top RHS and the OOF paper at the bottom LHS serves to exacerbate that problem. I feel like the artificial tungsten would have been better placed in the lower LHS of the image and aimed significantly lower. If you are curious about any of the other opposes in more detail. Drop a link and I'll be happy to elaborate. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand what you're saying, but I'm really uncertain it would make much of a difference if what you said were done. Getting the balance right with light is fine and dandy with if you want to perfect the aesthetic nature of the picture, but doesn't it look perfectly natural as it is? Of course the paper has a luminosity near the highlights—it's white! How much contrast would you gain if you moved the lights, and, more importantly, how would that help the picture? Not that I'm questioning the validity of any of your opposes; I just think that you are reading a bit too much into a mundane picture that is really not trying to be more than that. I mean, really, when was the last time homework was exciting? : ) Thegreenj 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to weigh in on the lighting issue the only lighting was natural light from a nearby window - there was no artificial lighting on the hand or anywhere else. --Fir0002 10:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - well taken and illustrative. As to User:Fcb981's lighting issues I think that this is an artistic assessment which is always likely to lead to differing opinions. From my point of view the point of an illustration of homework is the doing of the work (rather than the work itself). Light leading you to the hand first then onto the work illustrates better than the reverse, just as an image of horse-riding is better if you are lead to the rider first rather than the horse. I like the way the composition and lighting leads you across the work to the worker, then back to the work - Peripitus (Talk) 03:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I've been down that road before --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thanks to everyone for your well wishes they're appreciated! And sorry about the subject choice jjron! ;-) --Fir0002 10:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportAt first, I thought it was a picture for the article on vector maths, which that wouldn't be good for; but as it's for homework, it seems like an excellent treatment of the subject. Dr. Extreme (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Peter ;-) --Petar Marjanovic 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment (I've already voted, so don't count me twice!) I can't believe the amount of support for this utterly uninteresting photo. I hate being the guy who seems to want to stir up trouble where none is needed, but there is no way that this qualifies as being a feature quality photo. My opinion is that the support for this picture comes from two sources - people who remember having to do similar exercises and people who want to support something Fir was more personally involved in than usual because they know he's a key contributor. People voting with their hearts. Read the support comments carefully before calling me on an ad hominem. Look, if this was a technically similar photo uploaded by a less recognizable user and his subject was a hand doing elementary arithmetic homework, would the supporters of the current nom also have supported my hypothetical one? I don't think so - it would be "uninteresting" and "have no wow factor" and "be unencyclopedic because homework requires a home setting and none is shown here". A whole lot more people have had to do 2+2 style problems than tackling an equilateral. Matt Deres (talk) 22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's boring and drab. I'm sure it "illustrates the article" very well but its still boring. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Because of its great historical and encyclopedia value.

Articles this image appears in

Phonograph, Thomas Edison

Creator

Brady-Handy Photograph Collection

• Support as nominator CPacker (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The machine shows too little detail, and there is nothing especially unique about the picture, even though the subject is indeed very unique. EgraS (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment An edited version of this is already FP, see here. --Janke | Talk 07:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Sorry I didnt know about the other photo, I added the featured photo to the two articles this photo is on. Can anyone close this nomination up? Thanks --CPacker (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edited version already featured.

Reason

I am nominating this winter panorama of Plunketts Creek (in the village of Proctor in Plunketts Creek Township, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, United States) because I believe it meets the WP:FP criteria. Specifically, it has no technical issues that I am aware of (or that were mentioned at WP:PPR), is of more than sufficent resolution, illustrates the subject (Plunketts Creek) in a compelling way, and "is among the best examples of a given subject [creeks] that the encyclopedia has to offer". I know of only one Featured Picture that is of a creek (Image:USA Lassen NP Kings Creek CA edit3.jpg), but even that is not used in an article specifically on a creek.

I also believe this picture illustrates and adds value to the Plunketts Creek article in several specific ways. The Geology section of that article describes how the creek is in a dissected plateau and at right the creek can be seen cutting into Camp Mountain (it forms a water gap through the mountain just downstream of the site pictured). The creek also cuts through glacial deposits, as can be seen. The picture also illustrates the history and ecology of the creek and its watershed. In the late 19th century the village of Proctor was founded as a company town with 120 houses for a large tannery, which used the creek for its waste disposal. The watershed was also clear cut of all its trees then. Today the tannery and most of the houses are gone, the trees have grown back, and the creek and its ecosystem have recovered to the point that the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources rated Plunketts Creek a "High Quality-Cold Water Fishery".

There is a wider, lower resolution of this image at Image:Plunketts Creek Winter Panorama.JPG. It was originally five photos stitched together with Autostitch and cropped with Paint.net. I cropped out part of a bridge at left per a helpful suggestion at WP:PPR and can upload the original five images if desired. I want to thank Dincher for requesting the article on the creek initially and Ben MacDui for requesting a winter photo of the creek. (A summer version of this scene is at Image:Plunketts Creek in Proctor.JPG.)

Articles this image appears in

Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek) (a Featured Article), Plunketts Creek Township, Pennsylvania

Creator

Ruhrfisch

• Support as nominator Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose First, maybe it's my computer, but it seems slightly blurry in the middle. Second, that shaddow on the left is distracting, and third, the coloring could be brighter. above all, it doesn't have the 'wow' that an FP should have. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 02:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Thanks for your comments. I do not have much experience with image processing. Could it be sharpened to deal with the perceived blurriness? Could its colors be adjusted for brightness? The shadow on the right is from Camp Mountain and since the creek is on its north side and in the Northern Hemisphere, it is nearly impossible to get a sunlit picture without the shadow. I am not sure what the shadow on left you refer to is. I am unable to find a 'wow' factor mentioned in Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria, could you please point it out for me? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Criterion 3 - "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative." —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd like to see a similar picture taken during a different season. Winter would seem, IMHO, to offer the very least attractive view of the creek, i.e. Spring would (I imagine) offer various flowers, perhaps a butterfly or something of that nature, Summer would at least give us healthy looking trees, and Autumn would probably give us leaves with wonderful colors. faithless (^speak) 04:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Thanks, there is a summer picture at Image:Plunketts Creek in Proctor.JPG. The foliage is dense enough that the house is hidden, as is the curve of the creek and mountain to the left in the background. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Overexposed, shadow is very distracting, and imagine shows nothing unique or historical. EgraS (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above. And generally speaking its nondescript. --Mike Spenard (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks to everyone for your comments. Sorry to trouble you for your time. Please withdraw my nomination, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - unsharp, many blown highlights, overexposed. Sorry, better luck next time. Try WP:PPR first, to get a bit of community opinion on your pictures. Don't be disheartened. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: Per WP:SNOW, please withdraw / close this nomination. I took it to WP:PPR and was foolish enough to bring it here without a seconder. Sorry to waste all of your time and thanks again for all of your comments. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you didn't necessarily waste our time. It's still a nice image, but FP is just very strict. I think it would be good on commons as a quality image. Keep trying, and you will soon get the idea of what an FP is. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 13:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your kind words. I fear my camera (which is the best I can currently afford) is just not up to the task (this is my third attempt at FPC). I also worry that even Ansel Adams would have a hard time getting a picture of a creek through FPC - even at their prettiest, there is just not much "wow" factor there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn.

Reason

clear, large PD image, illustrates both the event, the ship the missle, looks good, good quality, very few images that show all the pyrotechnics of missile launches.

Articles this image appears in

USS Lake Erie (CG-70), USA 193, Missile, Vertical launching system, Oliver Hazard Perry and James Lawrence

Creator

US Navy

• Support as nominator SGGH ^speak! 12:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, fascinating image DBaba (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The images lacks context for interpretation. – Ilse@ 17:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose subject material cut off, the missile flame and missile body are not entirely within the image, the image is off center, and the background angle is awkward. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support with request to rename. The phrase "Don't give up the ship" isn't pertinent to a normal missile launch, and to use that as the title for an image where flames are present confuses the uninformed because uncontrolled fires are a very big deal at sea. In an actual fire emergency, sailors may be ordered to save the ship by performing actions where where particular individuals have little or no chance of survival. If renamed to something more appropriate such as "Naval Missile Launch", count this as support; otherwise count this as an oppose. Durova^Charge! 19:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll make that move now. Will leave this the same otherwise it will mess up formatting. SGGH ^speak! 22:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has been renamed, Image:Missile launch on ship.jpg. I have also added a cropped version. SGGH ^speak! 22:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cool, thanks. :) Durova^Charge! 23:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • To clarify, I have no objection to the original crop. It's perfectly acceptable to have those words in the background on the bulkhead, especially next to a bell. Durova^Charge! 01:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Encyclopedic value for the Oliver Hazard Perry and James Lawrence articles. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 23:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Dislike the spacing in the image and the angle from which it was taken.--TBC!?! 00:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Doesn't do a good enough job of showing the missile launching. Without the caption, it appears that the ship itself is on fire and missile was there by coincidence. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​^{talk•contribs} 06:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose hard to work out the size/perspective (even when not cropped), and a wall of fire unfortunately isn't an optimal lighting setup. The quality of the subject (the missile) is very low and grainy.—Pengo 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

One of Giuseppe Arcimboldo's incredible paintings surely is worthy of FP status. If someone finds an even better example, I won't object.

Articles this image appears in

Giuseppe Arcimboldo, Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor, Vertumnus, Hidden faces

Creator

Giuseppe Arcimboldo

• Support as nominator Janke | Talk 10:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – the painting itself is nice, but this version fails featured picture criterion #1 due to compression artifacts. – Ilse@ 10:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Uploaded Alt. 1 - this is larger, and a much higher quality scan. (Note how the artist has signed his work in a clever fashion - see full size image...) --Janke | Talk 14:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image quality of alternative 1 is much better, although the color halftoning of the print (that was scanned) is visible when viewed on full size. – Ilse@ 16:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Original per above, oppose alt 1 because we don't really see the full picture. Dengero (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK this is the full picture. "Summer" exists in several versions, and this earlier one does not have the leaf border seen on the 1573 version... --Janke | Talk 09:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nono, I know this is the full picture, but because its only the side of him, and completes his body with (clothes?) material, it doesn't really have the fruity taste to this picture, which is what this is meant to be about. The top one is perfect, except for the quality criteria. Dengero (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt 1 I didn't notice any artifacts in either picture. But the alt is better quality and less paint peeled off. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality image showing anti-Japanese propaganda by US.

Articles this image appears in

Propaganda

Creator

WPA Art Project (U.S. government)

• Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry for being blunt, but this is just part of a POV/POINT spam nomination series by a user that should spend some more time reading WIAFP, checking out the history of previous FPC, and coninue nominating in maybe one month or so. --Dschwen 17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I don't think your vote was based upon the quality of the image, but instead upon an opposition to the recent activities of the user.D-rew (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The quality is bad, but your are right, I extrapolated as I didn't want to waste anymore time with his nominations. Checking just confirmed that suspicion. --Dschwen 19:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The nommed image was just added to the Propaganda article today, where it joins many other propaganda images. Time will tell whether the image "adds value" to that article; but I don't think that it's possible to fairly assess that yet. The image is also kind of blurry-- is this the best scan that we've got? Spikebrennan (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually I noticed the size problems with the previous anti-Japan propaganda two noms. down and located this larger alternate from the Library of Congress site. Gave it a quick 15 minute restoration (it didn't need much). Tried a few ways to sharpen it and this was the best balance. It was the only image of this type I found in an hour of searching. Suggestion to nominator: please withdraw other two candidacies. Could find a place at Anti-Japanese sentiment and similar articles. Durova^Charge! 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support excellent example of period propaganda Shifthours (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor quality and fairly uninteresting as propaganda posters go. I also agree with Dschwen point, this guy is being a complete douche bag. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eek, Have people been filing their teeth to bite the newcomers extra hard? This is someone who's brand new to this and seems to mean well. His first two noms were a little off target so I helped him out. Not sure whether this one will fly, but it seemed like the right thing to be friendly and offer a helping hand. Chew on my ear if you disagree, please. Durova^Charge! 03:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hear hear. WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and all those other things that we should all know by now. SingCal 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the guy that made about 20 failed noms last week, including some highly questionable subject matter? (See here for starters.) I think there were a number of polite prods made last week for him to spend some time here learning the ropes before jumping in again, which may help explain the less polite reaction seen on these. --jjron (talk) 11:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A particular user being annoying doesn't give someone else the right to break the no personal attacks rule.D-rew (talk) 18:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I don't know why I put that here, you obviously weren't attacking him. You were just trying to help, sorry if I sounded accusatory.D-rew (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's true - I was just trying to point out that Durova's comment about him being 'brand new' and this being his third nom weren't actually right, and that some people are possibly questioning whether or not he really does 'mean well'. --jjron (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I apologize if that was inaccurate. The basic idea of this type of propoganda poster is a good one. Perhaps the FPC criteria should be updated to give people a realistic idea of how much leeway voters actually give for historic material. I've seen other people read that page, trust what they saw, and make noms that were out of step. Made the same mistakes myself, at first. Durova^Charge! 06:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Low quality, adds no value to the article, and not a famous propaganda piece. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-28 14:28Z
• Weak oppose High enc, but quality is too far under the FP bar for my taste. SingCal 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The guy may be a douce bag, nevertheless I think its an interesting photo. It's eye-catching, and it adds value to the article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please refrain from personal attacks. They don't add anything of value.D-rew (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, I apologize to the nominator. I just think there should be a rule against nominating more than two photos on the same subject in the same day or even week. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Historical image showing anti-Japanese propaganda in the US.

Articles this image appears in

Propaganda, Anti-Japanese propaganda

Creator

In public domain in the United States

• Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Way way way too small for FP.

Comment: According to Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria, "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's probably possible to get a larger resolution version of this image or one like it. Durova^Charge! 08:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry for being blunt, but this is just part of a POV/POINT spam nomination series by a user that should spend some more time reading WIAFP, checking out the history of previous FPC, and coninue nominating in maybe one month or so. --Dschwen 17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh I completely disagree. Propaganda is certainly eligible for FP and is not at all a POV issue. :D\=< (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small, not historic or rare, or a famous propaganda piece. It may work for the Anti-Japanese propaganda article, but that is not even an article, just a stub. (note: I uploaded the pic originally, and I also added the mentioned exception to the Featured Picture Criteria page). — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-28 14:30Z
  • Hm. :D\=< (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Historical photo? Yes. Interesting? No. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Originally promoted in a unanimous but hurried vote with a little bit of WP:IAR as a holiday idea for Valentine's Day (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/"Love or Duty"). After it ran on the main page some editors objected on procedural grounds, so it's been delisted for a regular vote. No disrespect was intended. Putting this forward in the usual manner (as the second edit, without the Library of Congress imprint).

Articles this image appears in

Gabriele Castagnola, Chromolithography

Creator

Gabriele Castagnola

• Support as nominator Durova^Charge! 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good image. :D\=< (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great image of a beautiful painting.--TBC!?! 00:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Gladly Support and happy we're being thorough.D-rew (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• After thinking bout it I would like to see some mention in the caption of what we can learn from this painting about the artist's technique/timeperiod/etc. for encyclopedic purposes.D-rew (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The most I was able to find was about chromolithography. Hope that helps. Castagnola prints are still sold but there's not a lot of citable information about him on the Net. Durova^Charge! 03:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks.D-rew (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support One of best candidate for featured picture I have ever seen. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good image. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 13:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I believed it met the requiremetns last time and I still believe it does. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I, personally, was surprised that this was delisted, and I'd be glad to see it put up again. Dr. Extreme (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very Sharp--. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) (talk) 01:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Very nice! Medrano man (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Love or dutyb.jpg MER-C 11:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Something different to the usual western images that go through FPC. An earlier version of this image was nominated at FPC last year and just missed out on promotion. It went back up on PPR and I'm nominating this touched up version from there.

Most of the opposes at FPC last year were to do with the quality being average and it being 'easily reproducible'. Well, the edit has upped the quality, and as the PPR nom says, no better pictures have been forthcoming. Given that photography is, let's say, 'highly discouraged' in here, neither are they likely to be anytime soon, thus rather counteracting the 'easily reproducible' argument.

Highly encyclopaedic and attractively composed, this is one of the best photos available of the Kaaba on the internet, and has since been picked up by several news services.

Articles this image appears in

Kaaba
Hajj
Muhammad
Most sacred sites
Masjid al-Haram

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator jjron (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support better alternatives are not available. Muhammad(talk) 14:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Absolutely encyclopedic. Would prefer a panorama shot, if a replacement can be found. Until then, this gets my vote. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Top enc goes ahead of quality, supporting since no better has been offered. --Janke | Talk 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - low technical quality and small size while it's not historically significant.--Svetovid (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if this same photo was 'historic' (from say 100 years ago) you'd possibly overlook your quality concerns? Muhammad can correct me if I'm wrong, but part of the point here is that this is the same thing these people would have been doing 100 or 500 years ago - in other words this is definitely historically significant, and I don't see that the age of the photo itself changes that. You just don't get photos of this. --jjron (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the people are doing and wearing in this picture would have been the same, as jjron said. So it is historically significant. Muhammad(talk) 03:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that Svetovid's point is that we sometimes make exceptions from technical quality requirements for images which display a significant historical event and therefore could not be retaken. That isn't the case here; this is a recent photo of a regular event, so could be retaken. TSP (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a regular event, but as jjron pointed out in the nomination, taking pictures is discouraged in these areas. With the tight security and the crowds, it is difficult to take any decent shot. Muhammad(talk) 16:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. "So it is historically significant." Thanks for the opinion but I don't think so.--Svetovid (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - There is nothing special enough in this picture to justify a promotion to FP. Technically, its is on the low side (size, sharpness, detail), and the fact that it is probably the best available picture depicting the subject is not a valid reason. Of course, its enc value is not affected by not being a FP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On wikipedia, unlike commons, encyclopedic value is a greater factor than quality. You have acknowledged its encylopedic value. And that itself is a reason to allow it to be featured. Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria allows for exceptions to be made for unique images. This image is also among wikipedia's best works, satisfying the 3rd criterion. Muhammad(talk) 03:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar and Svetovid--CPacker (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it is the best that wikipedia has to offer. -- carol (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Problems with compression artifacts, noise and focus, which becomes most clear when you look at the people in the front; also problems with the composition, the two minarets almost seem to be on top of the Kaaba structure; so image fails featured picture criteria #1. I'm sure there are better photos of this topic. – Ilse@ 10:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to ask but can you please give an example of a better image? Muhammad(talk) 16:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind you asking. I'm not sure any of the pictures in commons:Category:Kaaba would pass a featured picture nomination on Wikipedia. I think a wider version of this cut off photo would make a fairly good chance. Also, I believe that this photo is of higher quality than the current nomination, although it has no good focus. – Ilse@ 17:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This photo is 650x601 px, which is way below the minimum size requirements. The image does not have much detail too. The 2nd photo was nominated here and recieved only one support, and that too from the nominator, making the one nominated here a suitable candidate. Muhammad(talk) 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, if I understand correctly, when asked to show us a better quality image, the answer is to show worse quality images - and that's apparently a suitable reply? --jjron (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sure there are better photos of this topic possible. – Ilse@ 08:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's a bit of an absurd argument though - I doubt there's an FP that you couldn't argue that it's possible we could get a better photo for. Of course it's possible, but we're not seeing it, which maybe suggests it's at least unlikely. --jjron (talk) 11:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think the compositions of both images I suggested are more interesting than of the nominated image. If their technical quality was better, they would have a chance as an FP candidate. – Ilse@ 23:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just because it's highly encyclopedic doesn't mean a poor quality image should be featured. The composition is good, though an overview image would give readers a better idea of the massive scale of the crowd. The image is supposed to depict the Kaaba, but the focus seams to be at the background buildings. --Krm500 (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: yearly event, still ongoing, quite reasonable to expect much higher standards. gren グレン 12:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its 8 months since I last hear this and I still haven't seen any better images. Muhammad(talk) 16:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Use software to convert it into a cross stitch design.... -- carol (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • but that line of argument would go for thousands of other articles with mediocre images that could be taken. My recommendation is go on Islamic forums, ask friends, etc. find people who have better images and then get an OTRS for permission from them. gren グレン 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - despite enc, very poor quality. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Interesting subject, but it needs to be a much higher quality photo.--TBC!?! 00:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Let's not do a disservice because we can't find a better photo.D-rew (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close Featured status is out of question and per other opposes. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close can not be used here. In case you didn't notice, the picture has received 5 supports. Muhammad(talk) 12:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Close can obviously be used here and the maximum voted are oppose votes. Poor quality image. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it cannot. You've made plenty of quality edits, so I assume you're not being malicious or stupid, but you need to familiarize yourself with how this part of WP works before you nominate or vote for more images. A speedy close is appropriate when the image under consideration obviously and objectively fails to fulfill one or more of the criteria used to judge FPCs (with appropriate leniency for historical works). This image does NOT objectively fail any of the criteria and therefore should NOT be speedy closed. This nom is going to pass or fail based on how voters want to weigh the possibility of there being a higher quality photo made available. That is entirely subjective, so we need to go through the normal procedure. Matt Deres (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based on technical quality. I do sympathise on the difficulty of taking the shot and the lack of better alternatives, and it's a good image for the articles, but still, I don't think it's Featured Picture quality, and the existence of other photos, even if they're worse, suggests that a new image, which could be better, COULD be taken. The problems with this one don't seem to relate to the difficulty of the shot, rather to the quality of the camera. I don't think that promotion should be based on happening to be the best shot currently available to us; hopefully a lack of great images on a topic will spur photographers on to the challenge of taking a great image for it, rather than resting on our laurels with what we have. TSP (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support On an EV basis, this is obviously FP material, and as long as the quality isn't distracting I'm willing to overlook some flaws. SingCal 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support It's a flawed picture, but I think the difficulty in obtaining the shot over-rides the problems. To adequately shoot this scene, you're probably looking at a tripod setup and that just doesn't sound feasible. Matt Deres (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For a place such as Mekkah, the image has very high standards. This pic has its primary subject, the Kaaba out of focus.EgraS (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Medrano man (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per SingCal --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose – Too small, low technical quality, has a feel of a holiday snapshot. A much better one can be taken. Centy – reply• contribs – 12:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is public domain footage from a film real operated by Bill Genaust as he shot the second flag rasing on Iwo Jima. The film size is small, but it shows the moment the marines and navy corpsman rasied the second flag atop suribachi, and in my opinion has high historical value, hence the nod at FPC. This image originated from the Commons, and was the selected as a media of the day for August 23. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima

Creator

Bill Genaust (USMC photographer)

• Support as nominator TomStar81 (Talk) 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great video with historic value, is a little grainy, but that comes with age. ~ Dreamy ^§ 22:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Because the original film is in color Shifthours (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Support color version Shifthours (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This user has very few contributions, and has been registered here for less then two weeks. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • [2] Shifthours (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inappropriate for the nominator to point out.. :D\=< (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I apologize, as it was not my attention to act out of line. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also inappropriate to redact statements :) Use strike tags (restoring) :D\=< (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry (again), and thanks for your help with this. I apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Shifthours. – Ilse@ 02:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The image of the colourized version is actually a fake that is re-colourized. ~ Dreamy ^§ 02:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the first time I have ever heard that, every source states this footage by Bill Genaust (who died shortly after this was taken) was shot on 16mm color film Shifthours (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've uploaded the colour (and higher resolution) verion which Shifthours linked to above. It doesn't appear to be colourized, but if it was then it would obviously not be suitable for FP. Time3000 (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That looks real to me. Don't know why it takes like 6 guys to lift a flag though. :D\=< (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it doesn't... --jjron (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original too small, the original video would be much better resolution. gren グレン 00:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Had a hard time deciding on this one. The video is a PD alternative to the Pulitzer-winning photograph, and that has issues all its own (there were actually two flag raisings with different people and different flags). Still, it marks an important point in the Pacific theater of World War II and the particular act of raising the flag on that little sulfur-smelling rock in the ocean had an important impact on U.S. public opinion. The three Marines from the second flag raising who survived that battle went on a successful fundraising tour. So yes, it's an important event. Durova^Charge! 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support color version. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both. Ordinary quality, poor framing. The famous still image would be a different story, for obvious reasons, and despite its other issues. --jjron (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either--Mbz1 (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.ogv MER-C 11:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very clear and encyclopedic image.

Articles this image appears in

Mont Blanc European Union

Creator

User:Nattfodd

• Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Impressive..... but how about crop the bottom a bit? the bottom left dark bit of snow is sorta ruining the beautiful scene. Dengero (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No sense of scale, very bad focus on mont blanc itself :D\=< (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very impressive photo --Cradel 11:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I prefer these alternatives. Pstuart84 Talk 14:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative 2 - An amazing panorama with excellent photographic quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, support either alternative. The original isn't nearly as good as the alternatives. Cacophony (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Its a nice photo, but... I agree there is no sense of scale. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any they are all great mountain shots among wikipedia's best. Our standards seem to be getting out of hand. de Bivort 16:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 2--CPacker (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT2 Captivating. Lots to look at and ponder(that 2nd column from the left needs some repair!). Top notch. --Mike Spenard (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – To me, the lack of any human presence and a sense of scale adds to the charm of this picture. Excellent quality and a captivating photo. Centy – reply• contribs – 12:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:PanoMontBlancHDR_edit_1.jpg MER-C 11:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

((Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Scoti===Hurricane Katrina===

Reason

Shows a famous storm, NO THERE IS ONLY 2 HURRICANE FEATURED PICTURES!!!

Articles this image appears in

Hurricane Katrina, Disaster

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator Elena85 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, since it's off-centered, and not a very good image of a hurricane, IMO. The eye isn't very clear, for example. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional oppose Considering this is hurricane Katrina, I think this definitely should be in the FP archive. However, is this the best photo you could find? It needs to be cropped and possibly enhanced, which I would be glad to do for you. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Agreed with ErgoSum88. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Storm is off center and cut off at the right. Would be better if Florida could be seen, IMO. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think this is a wonderful image, showing a snapshot of life in New Zealand in 1863, particularly the all-too-rare view of Maori life at that time. A note on restoration: I've attempted to compromise in the restoration between the two possibilities of dealing with the lines between the glued-together woodblocks: I made them less visible, and edited them out as much as possible from important parts of the image such as faces, but allowed some traces of them to remain.

Articles this image appears in

Hawke's Bay Province, Māori, Pā

Creator

M. Jackson

• Support as nominator Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Historic, ridiculously high resolution, and as you say, an interesting snapshot of life. Dr. Extreme (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, you think this is high resolution, you should've seen my working copy. It was about 8000x6000px, I shrunk it down about 25% a side. to help blend in my restoration. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I noticed a couple of lines, but they don't detract from the overall image. Would it be completely blasphemous to suggest a reduction in overall resolution? The nature of the woodblock print means that it has to be viewed from some distance--as it is now, you can't really tell what it's supposed to be at full resolution. --jonny-mt 15:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those will be the gaps between the woodblocks I mentioned - removing or not removing them has proven controversial in the past, so I tried to compromise by leaving some traces of them, but removing them from all the important areas. As for a reduction in resolution - well, it's an A3 engraving, and probably needs to be about this size to reproduce well at its original size when printing it. However, you do have a good point, so I've set up some sub-pages to assist viewing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Defer to others the degree to which woodblocks gaps should be preserved, although I err more on the side of more preservation. I do have a question though; what's with the grey smudges visible in white spaces in the foreground (especially the man's hat on the right)? I would expect the original is just white and full-black from the ink. - Enuja (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's mostly the remains of text-bleedthrough from the other side of the paper, mixed with dirt, smudging from the page pressed against it, etc, etc, etc. - in the end, this was from a very old newspaper, with all the problems that causes. It was much worse before the cleanup, but I probably missed a few spots, as going for perfection is all too often a case of "that way madness lies". And, of course, the final shrinking down from 8250px wide to 6000 px may turn some small black marks into grey itself. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. - Enuja (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Good restoration, encyclopedic subject. Durova^Charge! 07:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Durova. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support diego_pmc (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:1863 Meeting of Settlers and Maoris at Hawke's Bay, New Zealand.jpg MER-C 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

i have recently noticed that when my images are featured they become more viewers and this increases the chances for them to be translated and to move into other wikipedia proyects. i want to try to feature my main diagrams so that they can get improved and or better distributed... plus i think it is of a great enciclopedic value...

Articles this image appears in

Flagellum

Creator

LadyofHats

• Support as nominator LadyofHats (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Top notch diagram. Only thing missing is the disclaimer not to use it under mousetrap --Mike Spenard (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor point Does not say what type of flagellum it is, and this editor is far too sleep deprievd to be trying to deal with this =) Sheesh, I thought "Well, clearly there's the Type III secretory system in there, the one used by plant pathogens and Yersina pestis so it's Eukaryotic."... god, I'm stupid before my coffee. It's Bacterial, of course. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done it aded the label in the description page -LadyofHats (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then Support! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support - I will support strongly if the text background is made transparent - at the moment, the two columns of text are on white boxes which seem randomly distributed and don't even touch the edges of the image. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can not take the white squares away since they are there so that text can be readed ( when removing them there are still colors bellow that would make reading the text confusing). would it help you if i extend them so that they go out up to the borders?. i can not make them both have the same width becouse it would be useless empty space on the right.so what do you sugest?.-LadyofHats (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might suggest having a white background under the whole thing. I can't see any reason to have a transparent bg on this image. I might also suggest changing the stroke color on the L-Ring to be black or blue other than red, which looks weird. You may want to add a label that says Cytosol. I'm also confused about the label Cell Wall, my understanding is that the inner and outer membranes, together with the periplasmic space in-between, all together make up the cell wall. Is there a reference to check? Otherwise very nice image, Support. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My main references are: [3],[4], [5], [6], between others, where the first 3 are my main sources. I changed the colors. -LadyofHats (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, make the entire background white, just so that the sections of BG don't stand out. Remove the current white boxes, then fill the entire BG with white again. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support,Oppose I'd like to see a mention that this is from a Gram-negative bacteria in the caption because Gram-positive flagella and eukaryotic flagella are quite different. I also believe this type of flagella also moves in a rotational fashion, not so much a whip like action.D-rew (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • i do have a diagram of an eukariotyc cillia. but tell me what is the diference between a gramm positive flagella and one gramm negative? if it is so big maybe i should do 2 diagrams -LadyofHats (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's big enough that its not trivial. The main differences are in the attatchment points, because think about it, for a Gram-positive its gotta go through one plasma membrane, but in Gram-negative its gotta go through two which involves a whole other smattering of proteins. Here are some outside links to other diagrams to give you something to work with. Scroll down to section figure 2.47 about 2/3 the way down the page. There are also some good diagramshere. This page fig 1.4 should show you some of the differences in how they move(note it is a Eu flagella that acts like a whip (a la sperm), but a Pro flagella that spins like a propeller).Also note that eukaryotic cilia aren't the same thing as eukaryotic flagella. Here are the differences between cilia and flagella put simply.D-rew (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't even get me started on spirochete flagella. My point is that there are a lot of different types of flagella, and a lot of them don't look like this, so I think some specification is in order.D-rew (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ok i got what you mean :P geesh, i think the more diagrams i do the more complicated they get. I have changed the description page to astop it

to do :P -LadyofHats (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Yup, complicated is right. Keep on keepin' on though, well made diagrams are always useful and much appreciated. =->D-rew (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would still like to see a specification of the type and a correction of the motion of the flagella.D-rew (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support de Bivort 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeSupport The flagellum looks straghely squeezed against the outer membrane, and shouldn't it the junction be a ~45 degree angle compared to the rotor? And the caption should mention what type of bacteria it is (a proteobacterium?). And it doesn't have any references. Narayanese (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • squeezed against? i didnt got that part, can you explain?. my source makes the hook 90 degrees. but i changed it a bit since some other sources do show it less inclinated. I added some information on the description of movement. and none of my sources metioned a specific kind of bacteria. so i have no idea if it is or not a proteobacterum or not. Plus if you read a bit up in this discussion you can see the links to some of my sources. The reason why i dont place them on the description page is that they are external links and with the time they tend to become invalid. -LadyofHats (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've only seen unipolar flagella myself and they point out from the cell and only start bending a lot further out, but at second thought I suppose the amphitrichous/peritrichous; ones do lie close to the membrane like in the picture. Now I see your sources, good. I looked up the hook angle, it's 65 degrees in Salmonella (Foruta 2007, PMID 17142059), so your current bend is ok.Narayanese (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Is there issues regarding the caption lines at different sizes or is it my browser? -62.172.143.205 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I changed the caption, likening it to a propeller. (source: [7]) and specifying organism. Narayanese (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Flagellum base diagram.svg MER-C 11:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Excellent image

Articles this image appears in

Acapulco

Creator

A. Boot ?

• Support as nominator Bewareofdog 21:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It would be nice if it was a bit larger, but I'm not going to look such a beautiful gift horse in the mouth. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It adds to the article--CPacker (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Puerto de Acapulco Boot 1628.png MER-C 11:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

abank Place.jpg))

Reason

The map shows part of the western coasts of Europe and North Africa with reasonable accuracy, and the coast of Brazil is also easily recognizable. I think this is a feature picture.

Articles this image appears in

Piri Reis
Ottoman Navy
History of the Turkish Navy
Islamic geography

Creator

Piri Reis

• Support as nominator Dsmurat (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close, way too small. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the true version (2.000 × 2.753) is from commons [8]--Dsmurat (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the local mainpage image, so that problem with the incorrect size should be solved. Royalbroil 04:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The commons version is a dreadful, artifacted scan. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not interesting, content/detail not brilliant (at FP level). Royalbroil 04:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Still too small for the text to be readable. Lack of detail overall. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-28 14:27Z
• Regretful oppose. Obvious encyclopedic value, but technical problems with the scan prevent me from supporting. Please renominate if you get a better version. Durova^Charge! 17:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A beautiful shot with a high technical standard, of a subject by an important architect. The essential features of the building are clearly captured, and elements indicative of Gaudi's style are all prominent (the biomorphic curves and trencadís-like texture, for example), giving it wonderful EV.

Articles this image appears in

Antoni Gaudi, Barcelona, Casa Mila

Creator

Diliff, licensed under GDFL

• Support as nominator SingCal 16:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, shooting the picture at night worked perfectly in this case. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 17:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support Wladyslaw (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Gaudi certainly deserves an FP. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is great to know that Casa has my name ;)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An unusual building and a great photo thereof. Dr. Extreme (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Need I say more? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Casa Melika --Mike Spenard (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Gaudi is great. Sathmar (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Casa Milà - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg MER-C 09:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

quality and natural vision to Moon, no view to NASA

Articles this image appears in

Moon

Creator

Luc Viatour

• Support as nominator Luc Viatour (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Lighting is bad :3 :D\=< (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I actually like the lighting and think that is a good photo. The definition of the craters are really nice.--CPacker (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nothing against having more than one FP on a topic, but for those interested, our other moon FPs include an animation showing libration, a full moon shot by the same photographer, and a (somewhat related) eclipse sequence by Fir. Personally, I'll go with a weak oppose, but only because the full moon shot is so good. Matt Deres (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportThe craters are seen much better, when the Moon is not full--Mbz1 (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but only for the bit of moon that's lit and even the full moon will show crater details at the edges (as our FP does). Also, as per Kaldari, the subject is cut off. While you and I know that the deep shade on the left really wouldn't have any details anyway, the position of the subject seems to follow the cartoon idea that the crescent moon is really a crescent (and not an apparent crescent due to the angle of illumination). Matt Deres (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right about cartoon, but IMO it might be impossible to show half Moon in such details together with the Eartshine.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose. I would prefer if the image weren't so tightly cropped on the left. Kaldari (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I hate to oppose such a nice photo, but it doesn't really add anything to the article. There are shots of craters on the page already, and I agree the full moon shot is good enough. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would this do better in Lunar phase? There's a crescent moon pic in there already, but no half moon shot. howcheng {chat} 00:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it might be a good addition to the article IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant oppose Cropped on the left. It may be possible to clone in some blackness and fix this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that possible? We might need some serious panorama stiching-wizards in here. Diliff? :D\=< (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This painting shows the arrest of Prince Diponegoro by General de Kock in 1830, which marks the end of the Java War (1825–1830) in the Dutch East Indies. The scene symbolizes colonialism: the colonial power rules over the indigenous people in the colony. The painting was made by Nicolaas Pieneman, and is now in the collection of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam.

Articles this image appears in

Java War, Diponegoro, Hendrik Merkus de Kock, Dutch East Indies

Creator

Nicolaas Pieneman

• Support as nominator Ilse@ 22:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, it's an OK scan. Even if the painting has merits it should have a extra-ordinary scan. gren グレン 00:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scan is comparable to the scans of these featured pictures Image:Orlando Furioso 20.jpg, Image:VanGogh-starry night ballance1.jpg, and Image:Charlotte Corday.jpg. – Ilse@ 07:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's only something I could compare if I knew original size of the images. gren グレン 17:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, is it really supposed to be this green-ish? --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 17:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes; the scan is probably taken directly from [9]. – Ilse@ 01:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Aesthetically and artistically beautiful, good example of lenses, and fallen rain drops. it also displays a high level of technical skill, and high resolution.

Articles this image appears in

Rain, Refraction, Lens

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Zidel333 (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question – What is the encyclopedic value of this image? – Ilse@ 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia use can extend to an excellent example of reflection, as well use in the Golden Gate Bridge (perhaps as a gallery), lense (planoconvex?), raindrops, image flipping, etc. Zidel333 (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Picture is currently only used in the rain article where it adds no encyclopedic value. Kaldari (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added to refraction. howcheng {chat} 06:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Enc value is acceptable for the article's that it's in, and technically very sound. SingCal 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose A breathtakingly beautiful image, but I can't see the value of it here. Try commons? Wow: I somehow totally ignored the articles it was being used in, somehow thought it was for the Golden Gate Bridge article. Support. Dr. Extreme (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wikipedia should and does surprise, as well as being purely factual. This is well photographed, surprising and memorable. It is a good illustration of the way surface tension creates a lens effect. A definite yes vote. ProfDEH (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment that is really cool. Guest9999 (talk) 17:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to support it then ;)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Oppose - doesn't illustrate rain. Illustrates droplet, or refraction, but not rain per se. de Bivort 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I please ask, if you read the caption? I'm afraid I have not noticed anywhere in the caption that it claims to illustrate the rain.On the other hand rain droplets belong to rain (there are no rain with no droplets). That's why the image might be good for rain article as well as it is good for refraction article.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops - space out on it being included in refraction already. It claims to illustrate rain above in the "articles this image appears in" section. As an illustration of refraction it is non-ideal. I would prefer a more diagramatic photo with simpler geometry. de Bivort 23:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I please thank you for not getting upset with my comment and changing your vote?I've added the image to lens too. I'm not sure it will be allowed to stay there, but I hope it will. IMO the image might find the use for the explaining of the phenomena to school kids, for whom diagramatic photo with simpler geometry might be a little bit boring.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A very good image with the great composition, high quality and high encyclopedic value.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and taken by an awesone photographer ;-) --Dschwen 00:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course! May I please count your comment as support? I mean after we figured out the difference between crepuscular rays and shadows ;-)--Mbz1 (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It illustrates the point of refraction well, and its eye-catching. I'm all for it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A well-made diagrammatic picture for refraction would be great, but I think a well-made photo like this, which shows the effects of refraction in an interesting way, is also valuable. Mila, are you working on a book of optical phenomena photographed on the Golden Gate? Matt Deres (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi,Matt. Thank you for your question. I am not working at any book and I never will. I just like to take pictures and atmospheric optics is one of my favorite subjects. I've always wanted to see the Spectre of the Broken. At one point I considered to go to Broken, Germany just to see it, but then I realised that San Francisco and Golden Gate Bridge in particular is the great place to see these rare phenomena. May I please also thank you for forgiving me my ignorance? (I believe you know what I'm talking about.)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Illustrates articles it is in well, but it would be better if it was at a higher resolution. --Dave (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:GGB reflection in raindrops.jpg MER-C 09:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is an excellent image, with high resolution, and good technical quality, and is also high in enecyclopediac value. It is also a featured picture on Wikimedia commons

Articles this image appears in

Earth, Apollo 8

Creator

Bill Anders

• Support as nominator Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 17:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not 100% sure, but wasn't the original in color? --Janke | Talk 18:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so, but I will check for you. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 18:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the original was in color, but our current FP of the subject is. This is it here. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one is very nice. This one is different, though, and would be fine as an FP. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, not really; it's in B&W for no reason and shows substantially the same kind of image as an existing FP that's in colour. I guess the position of the earth is more evocative in your nom, but not to a staggering degree. Oppose. Matt Deres (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Previously nominated by me once already and it was at that time that the color one was favored. howcheng {chat} 06:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for telling me. However, I fell this one is different, and could easily stand alone as its own FP. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 14:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A black and white picture like this makes me understand when we went to space/the moon. It is also the first picture of the moon landscape's contour that I have seen. Xilliah (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, but why does a B&W picture make you understand why we went to the moon? Does the colour picture obscure that understanding or fail somehow? I've got to admit I don't understand your reasoning on this. Matt Deres (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He actually says it makes him understand when we went to the moon, not why. The only thing I can think is that when we went there there was no such thing as colour?? :-) --jjron (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The sheer number of works is represented by the many volumes displayed here. It's hard to display them all, and I've uploaded some alternative images, if folks would like to see them.

Articles this image appears in

La Comédie humaine

Creator

Scartol

• Support as nominator – Scartol • Tok 16:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Noisy, subject cut off, poor lighting. CillaИ ♦ XC 17:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to withdraw this nomination, but I'm not sure how to do it. If anyone could offer some ideas on how I might improve any of these images and/or remove this nom, I'd appreciate it. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 18:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't use flash next time. Set up lighting much farther away from the books, soft light (maybe put a piece of thin paper over the light to soften it, or just reflect the light of a white material), and put the camera on a lower ISO setting. Remember, a FinePix A205 is only an entry-level point and shoot digital camera, so you'll need to make up for the relatively low quality of the camera (compared to most shots we get here, which are taken with DSLRs) by being kind to it and giving it the ideal conditions in which to shoot. Regretfully Oppose. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A beautiful image showing several notable landmarks of downtown Honolulu, such as the First Hawaiian Center, Aloha Tower, Honolulu Harbor, and the museum ship Falls of Clyde.

Articles this image appears in

Honolulu, Hawaii and Aloha Tower

Creator

ErgoSum88

• Support as nominator ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Neutral I ask the original photographer to look at recent featured cityscape pictures. This photo would certainly have been promoted 3 years ago when standards were lower, so I will remain neutral on moral and precedence concerns. However, the sky is in poor focus and the background is not as sharp as it could have been. The lighting is also not very great. EgraS (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did look at the other photos before I nominated this one, and there are very few urban photos which are not panoramas. As I said, I considered this more of an encyclopedic photo rather than just another pretty picture. And I quote from criteria #5: Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value. In fact if you compare this photo to another featured photo that was nominated 3 years ago as you mention, Image:I-80 Eastshore Fwy.jpg, then this photo would be of some comparison. Perhaps we should delist the I-80 photo but that is a discussion for another forum. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakish oppose. It's ok, but I've seen much more visually striking and spectacular skyline images.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I fixed the slant. Sorry, it was so slight I didn't notice. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not quite up to the clarity of some of our other cityscapes and the area in the foreground is cut off. Matt Deres (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice photo, but not really up to my resolution standards for cityscapes. Dr. Extreme (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I know I'm biased because I took this photo, but let me just take a minute here to remind voters that this is not a contest for the "prettiest pictures." I know this isn't a perfect photo, but it was taken from the perch of an open helicopter, so its kind of hard to keep steady. I framed the shot to capture three prominent landmarks in Honolulu, as the caption states. The forground is cut off because that wasn't part of the area of interest. Part of the FP criteria is adding "value" to the articles the photo is used in. If I thought this was just a pretty picture I would've nominated it over at the Commons. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ergo, sell me on the 'information value' of this content. I'm willing to grant information precedence over artistic value. However, what is the current level of expectations for city landscapes FP'd for information value (examples anyone)? --Mike Spenard (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples, sure. See Wikipedia:Featured pictures, or more specifically Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places. Probably most relevant to this image are the Urban and Panorama categories. --jjron (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I realize this photo is not of the highest quality, taken with a cheap camera from a windy helicopter. My argument is that the photo adds value to the article which it is featured in. There are plenty of mediocre photos which are promoted because: 1. "It is a photograph ... which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer." 2. "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more." 3. "Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." So in response to these criteria I submit: 1. This is the best photo of downtown Honolulu Wikipedia has to offer (I realize I'm biased, but hear me out). 2. It shows three landmarks and their relationship to each other, each with its own article. 3. It clearly shows the tallest building in the city and demonstrates just how much taller it is than the other buildings (which isn't much). And thats about all I can say about it. After reading the FP criteria it was my understanding that this wasn't a photography contest, merely a place to promote quality photos which add value to their respective articles. Obviously, a better photo could be obtained since Honolulu isn't going anywhere, so if anyone thinks this photo doesn't deserve FP status then by all means oppose it. This is my first nomination so I really didn't know what to expect, and I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but I'm not giving up without a fight. ;) --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It is well composed (in my opinion), illustrates the topic well, and is of adequate size and resolution.

Articles this image appears in

Photographer

Creator

Stromcarlson

• Support as nominator Kakofonous (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent resolution, great focus, and highly illustrative of the topic. Dr. Extreme (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Well composed, but the gray tarp is really distracting. The FP for photographer ought to be really outstanding. -Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 00:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Over saturated background. Grey tarp detracts (whats the point of photographing an object you can only see 2/3rds of and is covered by another object that is nondescript?). --Mike Spenard (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It isn't a bad picture, but there's just nothing special about it; zero 'wow-factor.' faithless (^speak) 08:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mike Spenard. Cacophony (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mike Spenard Mfield (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not to sound like a broken record, but I'm jumping on the Mike bandwagon. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per faithless. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per faithless. It's a guy taking a picture. Purple Is Pretty (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposethe backround is not good. the lens is the only good thing to see in this photo --Ulughmuztagh (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

shows a well defined hurricane

Articles this image appears in

Hurricane Ophelia (2005), List of North Carolina hurricanes (1980-present).

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator Elena85 (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What makes this special? It's just another hurricane, tons have been promoted already. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a question here. While I am not supporting or opposing, Which FPC criteria is against multiple FPs of the same subject? Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 21:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I hate to judge a photo not based on its own merits, but this kinda falls into the "all sunsets are beautiful" category. Yeah its a nice photo of a hurricane, but what sets it apart from all the other hurricanes? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is nothing historical, unique, or interesting about the photo. It doesnt illustrate what Wikipedians dont know about hurricanes. EgraS (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nothing special about it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per User:EgraS Seddon69 (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not a very good image of Ophelia, or of any tropical cyclones. It just doesn't have the 'wow' that an FP should have. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 03:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

shows really intense hurricane with pinhole eye.

Articles this image appears in

Hurricane Wilma, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season.

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator Elena85 (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is the hurricane semi-transparent? MER-C 02:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional opppose The photo was most likely taken during the early morning or evening hours, when the cloud contrast isn't as great, which is why the hurricane is transparent. Hence my conditional vote, if someone can fix this or find a better photo of Wilma I'd be willing to change my vote. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I think this might be a synthetic composite of Wilma and a satellite map - compare with this NOAA image... Hurricane clouds are hardly transparent, even in morning or evening? --Janke | Talk 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is a poor quality photo. Many better quality photo's exist f ima and other hurricanes. Seddon69 (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Much better tropical cyclone images could be found. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 03:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.

Reason

Have you ever wondered, where sea foam comes from. I have not until I noticed this beautiful, colored sea foam at California tide pools. I believe the image has high encyclopedia and educational values.

Articles this image appears in

Plankton;Reflection;Interference;Foam

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DisclosureThe image was added to Reflection and Interference articles today and I am not sure it will be allowed to stay there, but I hope it will because it shows a natural interference and interesting reflection. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I don't feel it shows the foam in context enough - I like the colors etc. but I'd prefer to see for example some rocks/sand/ too, something for scale. With this image you could equally be looking at bubbles in a kitchen sink. Mfield (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your oppose is absolutely fair. I added alternative image, which shows less foam, but rocks, algae and shells to prove that the image was not taken in a sink. I also added alt 1 to other version at the original description page because I still like the original better. Maybe it will do it for you. May I please also mention that one could see some algae at the upper right corner of the original image? May I please also mention that the bubbles of sea foam differed a lot in their sizes? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Interesting art shot, but not enough encyclopedic value. (Yes, there is an encyclopedic explanation, but neither of the images are particularly useful to further that explanation.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enuja (talk • contribs) 05:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As you could see the caption of the image provides a very detailed explanation about the subject. The question is how to make Wikipedia readers to read the caption. IMO the more interesting the shot is the more Wikipedia readers would be interested in reading what is this interesting (artistry) shot is about. May I please ask you to take your time and to explain to me what kind of image of the same subject would have been useful to further the encyclopedic explanation of seafoam. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the question is not how to get readers to read the caption. The question is what encyclopedic information that image itself contains. Because you stated the image will probably be removed from reflection and interference, because the way that the green is interference is completely not addressed in the interference article, and this isn't an exceptional shot of reflection, as it's just a silhouette of you, I was evaluating the encyclopedic nature of this image for plankton. There isn't even a wikipedia article on sea foam (it's a redirect to a particular confection). If someone started an article on sea foam, and an image of sea foam that included the sea (or at least the beach) in the background, was taken from down on the ground, didn't include any (or any distracting) reflections of the photographer), and was of high technical quality, then that image on that hypothetical article might be a featured picture. - Enuja (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Thinking about it, the different image I describe would be encyclopedic for a soild section about sea foam in the plankton article. - Enuja (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've never stated the image will probably be removed from reflection and interference. I've stated just the opposite. Like with all my nominations I feel this way: I saw the phenomena, I took an image of it, I know what it is and I did my best to share my knoledge with the others, but failed, which is just fine with me. Thanks.I withdraw my nomination. --22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Are you serious?!?!?! I was just about to nominate this!!! Support! -76.252.61.105 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't seem encyclopedically applicable to any of the articles listed as hosting it. de Bivort 03:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the vote, de Bivort. (I really mean it, I like when my images are voted for or against does mot matter), but may I please ask you, if you noticed that the nomination was withdrawn :)--Mbz1 (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about encyclopedic value of the image. In reflection article it is the only images, which gives an introduction to Specular reflection at a curved surface. In Interference it is the only image which shows how Interference may occure in Nature,in Plankton article it is the only image, which shows how dead plankton looks, in Foam article it is the only image, which explains in details where seafoam comes from. Yes, IMO this image has lots of encyclopedic and educational values. I withdrawn my nomination not because I agreed with the opposers (I do not), but simply because I am very, very tiered from all this FP process. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted

• Withdrawn. Julia\^talk 19:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]