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

Fluorite

Reason

An aesthetic and encyclopaedic combination of minerals.

Articles this image appears in

Fluorite

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think the extra minerals are too distracting; an illustration of fluorite should be clear enough that a caption shouldn't be necessary to identify what is actually fluorite and what isn't. Also this isn't a particularly compelling specimen - this is far more striking. Finally the blur you applied (?) to the background doesn't really work for me aesthetically --Fir0002 10:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Fir, also, Fluorite has a very characteristic cubic geometry, and this doesn't show that particularly well. de Bivort 21:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, cubic geometry isn't always a characteristic of fluorite. "It is an isometric mineral with a cubic habit, though octahedral and more complex isometric forms are not uncommon". Noodle snacks (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't really exhibit those forms either. de Bivort 01:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Debivort. Based on this image, the cubic structure is essential. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 01:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Sasata (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Render of Balls

Reason

The image quality is high, the resolution is a good 1080p, and the picture adds significantly to the article by demonstrating the capabilities of V-Ray at raytracing. In addition, the picture is very aesthetically pleasing.

Articles this image appears in

Ray tracing (graphics); V-Ray

Creator

Mimigu

• Support as nominator --Mimigu (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well executed, and quite encylopedic at the articles where it appears. Good job! Durova^Charge! 23:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I see neither the claimed aesthetic value, nor how this illustrates V-Ray particularly well. I understand that there is a tradition of using balls to illustrate raytracing abilities, but curved surfaces can be used to make far more interesting compositions. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Looks attractive, but the blurred effects and lighting is not the best for FP. ZooFari 02:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the way so many effects are demonstrated. I thought I was imagining a hexagonal aperture but that's labelled, so cool. I wish more of the image was in focus, but it's ok. Would prefer a slight crop off the left for balance (green ball is cut off, hence blue ball should be too). Stevage 02:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I probably lowered the f-number too much, causing the DOF to be too shallow. I had intended it to have a rather shallow DOF so that the hexagonal aperture can be observed. Also, the blur quality is rather low (meaning that blurred edges are slightly grainy), but if I had increased the number of samples further it would take much longer to render... this picture, as it is, took around 2 hours to render on my Asus M50VM-B1 laptop, and I don't have a faster computer.Mimigu (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, we're in no rush. Unless you're worried about your laptop melting, why not increase the quality and render overnight? 2 hours is nothing in render terms. :) Stevage 06:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Or give someone else the required files and instructions on how to render, then ask them to send back the finished product, if they have a faster PC. I can do it on my desktop (Core2Duo E6750, 2GB DDR2 PC6400, BFG/NVIDIA GeForce 8800GTS 320MB) if you like, doubtless somebody around here has a much more powerful machine, mine's over a year old. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If you don't have V-Ray license, that will set you back 250 USD, and that's just the educational discounted version, otherwise you're looking at a grand. Hopefully you wouldn't have to buy Rhino on top of that... Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah... I had assumed that V-Ray or an equivalent was freely licensed... d'oh. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps I will re-render the picture again with higher settings (and possibly resolution, and I will reposition the camera so that the blue ball on the left is equally as cut off as the green ball on the right, or something like that. But not this week... I have exams. Mimigu (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not an interesting picture. Sorry, but I don't think it would be possible to make a more clichéd 3D rendering than colored spheres on a flat surface. How about a fire-breathing dragon or something? Kaldari (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment A fire-breathing dragon may not show the features of 3D raytracing as clearly, because surely the focus of a picture of a fire-breathing dragon would be the fire effects and the surface of the dragon (e.g. scales). Fire is not generated using raytracing (and is in fact in some cases applied after the model has rendered), and the surface of the dragon would better exemplify techniques such as texture mapping rather than stuff like fresnel reflections... whoever looks at a fire-breathing dragon to notice subtle reflections on its scales? Moreover, a picture of a fire-breathing dragon probably cannot effectively demonstrate the depth of field in the rendered scene (We do want the whole dragon to be in focus), not to mention the shape of the aperture. As such, the fire-breathing dragon would fail to demonstrate the features of raytracing which I had intended to demonstrate with this picture. Spheres, on the other hand, though not necessarily as thrilling to observe, demonstrate, among other features, depth of field and fresnel reflections better than a picture of a fire-breathing dragon would. Thus the picture of spheres may be considered more encyclopedic, in my opinion, as it is more informative than merely entertaining. Also of note is that the spheres do not rest on a "flat surface" as you termed it. Each tile on the tiled floor is in fact slightly convex, with filleted edges. Mimigu (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you took my criticism a bit too literally :) How about a vase of flowers, if you want a realistic example of a scene that could be both interesting and demonstrate numerous 3D rendering effects. Kaldari (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, what's the deal with the weird doubling effect going on in the floor reflection? Is that a rendering bug? Kaldari (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Each tile on the floor is convex, so it reflects like a curved mirror. Mimigu (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Drawing a surface and spheres is very simple, even if the rendering took hours. I don't think it shows any optical effect simulated by ray tracing except reflection. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Look closer. The depth of field effects are obvious. The blue-purple ball left of centre, foreground shows the hexagonal aperture. There's two. Stevage 06:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar glory at the steam from hot spring

Reason

A good quality, interesting image that adds value to the articles it is used in

Articles this image appears in

Glory (optical phenomenon);Refraction;Diffraction

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose photographer's shadow in frame. Otherwise a fine shot. Durova^Charge! 23:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Difficult to photograph this effect otherwise (not saying it isn't possible, but most photographs of this phenomenon *do* have the shadow of the photographer in them). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't the name given *because* it's around the head of the shadow? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose All these light effects like glories, sun dogs and the like leave me cold, I'm afraid. It's probably a good photo of a difficult-to-photograph phenomenon, but it's not very attractive. And the vast majority of the photo is trees, sky, dirt and smoke. Stevage 02:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While this picture does significantly contribute to the article, the image quality is mediocre: In the background, there is considerable chromatic aberration and blurriness. Also, the position of the solar glory is rather awkward; usually the most important object should be in the center of the picture, but in the two photos the solar glories appear slightly to the side and nearer to the bottom of the photo. Whilst I am certain that such phenomena are hard to capture in photos, the FP criteria does not take into account the "level of difficulty in taking the photo" when addressing image quality. Mimigu (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not strictly correct, perhaps it's not formerly defined in the criteria but it's commonly accepted that the difficulty of taking a photo is a factor. For example a building shot must be extremely well taken because a building is quite permanent and hence easy to revisit and reshoot. --Fir0002 10:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The shadow's too much for me (in spite of the apparent difficulty of doing this shot otherwise). Sorry Sasata (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Per Mimigu. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Um, have people bothered to read about what this is meant to be showing? Wouldn't it be more like impossible to do this shot without the shadow? To quote the first line of the article "A glory is an optical phenomenon appearing much like an iconic Saint's halo about the head of the observer", and from further down in the article "The colorful halo always surrounds the observer's own shadow" (emphasis added). Can't exactly get a halo around the shadow if there's no shadow there. I'm just saying... --jjron (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, didn't read the article. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all very much for the votes and for comments. Special thanks to Jiron for taking the time to do my job and explain what is going on with the image and my shadow. Glory is an interesting phenomenon. Let's say two people are staying next to each other.Each of them will still be able to see a shodow of the other, but each of them will see the glory only around his own shadow. If one sees a glory around his head, he could be thinking that he's is very special. Not so fast. As you could see from this image File:Solar glory at hot springs moves after the camera.jpg I made an experiment and took the camera off my face. The glory on the picture moved to my camera shadow, but while my camera was taking an image of the glory around itself, I still saw the glory only around my head. Glories are more or less common from the air. It is quite rare to see a glory not from a plane. Yellowstone with its hot spring is the right place to try. I'm sure that 99.99% of the park visitors miss it because they do not know how and where to look for this. That's why I thought that it might be interesting to make FP from this image and to make more people learn about glories. Anyway... Thank you all again for the interest in the images.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to nitpick, the phenomenon must appear around the *observer's* shadow, but with creativity, that could be more interesting than merely the photographer's silhouette. If the photographer was standing in front of a statue, for instance... Stevage 00:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a photographer was standing in front of a statue, the glory would not be seen. The only way to see a glory is to see your own shadow. The shadow of a statue will close your own shadow and the glory with it.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note:When adding another image to a nomination page, it is best to place the wikicode for the image directly below the first image. This avoids creating whitespace in the page. See my change here and the difference before and after. Raven4x4x (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per Stevage and mimigu. They have some very strong points. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Champs Élysées

Reason

Very high image quality, high resolution, and the artistic use of long exposure time.

Articles this image appears in

Champs-Élysées

Creator

Benh LIEU SONG

• Support as nominator --Mimigu (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Wai Hong (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I find the people extremely distracting. Also, I don't think this has exceptional EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose To me, the ghostly apparitions made this pic some kind of surreal art—which looks cool—but distract from the EV. Admittedly, it would be difficult to get everyone to step out of the way while you took a pic! Sasata (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - with such a long exposure, it's sort of neither day nor night. The focus of this image is the footpath which is...not very interesting. Also not fond of the ghosts. Stevage 06:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Very sharp and detailed as are all of Benh's panoramas, but I'm not convinced about the exposure. As Stevage says, it is a sort of a wishywashy twilight image, lacking in contrast. It is an interesting view and good for the article, but not a stand out FP in my opinion. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Overexposed. Kaldari (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I don't find the ghosts distracting. I think this really shows off Champs-Élysées; I have trouble imagining that another picture could do it much better. The amount captured here is great; plenty of scope. This place has obviously been lit to be glorious at night, which this photo captures. It's always going to be busy, in fact it would be ghostly if it wasn't, and the people present and there in ghost are evidence of that, and yet there aren't so many that you lose the street scene. I imagine that, in daylight, this would all look rather ordinary. Maedin\^talk 18:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Cobb

Reason

Photographically a wonderful capture for 1924, and in terms of encyclopedic value North American reviewers probably need no explanation. Ty Cobb was one of the greatest baseball players of all time, with one of its worst personalities. Still a household name among fans of the game more than 80 years after his retirement. Restored version of File:Ty Cobb sliding.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Ty Cobb

Creator

National Photo Service

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 08:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support - once the caption includes a translation. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope the wikilinks help? Cobb's foot must make contact with the padded object before the other player can catch the ball and touch him. So he drops in the final moment and slides to base while avoiding the other player. The ball is still in the air and the other player's foot is off the base, so Cobb is safe. The context of a triple means he is completing one of the game's more difficult plays. (Hope that's sufficient translation?--the game is ubiquitous in my part of the world and this is the first time I've attempted to explain sliding to third base to an adult). Durova^Charge! 16:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Setting aside resolution this is the least compelling image in the article. Yes the high res is nice but it doesn't mitigate the fundamental deficiencies of this photo. Out of interest why is the stadium virtually empty? --Fir0002 12:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly because this occurred during practice? I found a few shots of him with full stadiums, but none of the captures were nearly as good. The precise timing that's become commonplace in recent decades--ball in the air--was rare in professional sports photography in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Durova^Charge! 16:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the bleachers are the only part of the stadium shown, it is possible that it is just the beachers are empty (or nearly so). The bleachers would not necessarily have needed to be used if the attendance was such that all the patrons could fit in the other seats. I know that some teams closed down the bleachers at times when attendance did not require their use, but I can't speak for certain about this particular instance. Rlendog (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful Oppose I really wish we had more photos like this. Unfortunately, I think neither the quality nor the EV is high enough to feature this. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Makeemlighter. Sasata (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air conditioning unit

Reason

The image has a good compromise of simplicity and detail. I feel that it explains the subject pretty well.

Articles this image appears in

Air conditioning

Creator

Pbroks13

• Support as nominator ----Pbroks13^talk? 19:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No source, and no explanation of what is 'typical'. And the image description page has ~0 info on what the labels mean (nor is it nearby in the article) or what the parts do. Narayanese (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now Would reconsider with sourcing. Durova^Charge! 23:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. Please include page numbers. Otherwise fine. Durova^Charge! 07:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done --Pbroks13^talk? 08:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 17:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The image now has a source and a detailed description. --Pbroks13^talk? 06:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a clear and colorful diagram, but the evaporator section is wrong. A centrifugal fan does not work the way you have drawn. The air doesn't go in the side of the unit, but goes through a big grill in the front. The air is drawn through a filter and over the coil (which cools it) and into the "eye" of the blower, where it is then flung out to the side. Now the air is going perpendicular to its original direction, so it makes a 90 degree turn and is directed out a second vent in the front of the unit. If you look at pictures you will clearly see the inlet and outlet vents in the front. The filter makes the inlet grill look kind of opaque, like with this one.

To fix it, you can:

- Take the bottom blue arrow in the front, reverse its direction, make it red until it gets to the coil, and move it up until it's pointed into the center of the fan blower. Label it indoor air.

- The blue arrow on top can stay where it is, but it should be all blue. This is the cooled air.

- The big red arrow on the bottom can be deleted, as it just doesn't work like that.

The condenser section looks ok to me. HowStuffWorks has a diagram here showing how the air does a U-turn in the evaporator side. Hope that helps. Fletcher (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted without prejudice against rerunning it later, once issues are dealt with. --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarus Crane

Reason

High technical standards, high resolution, beautiful composition, adds EV to several articles; FP on wiki Commons

Articles this image appears in

Sarus Crane, List of birds of Western Australia, List of birds of India, Phnom Srok District

Creator

Luc Viatour

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Alright, I'll say something, since nobody else seems to want to bite. It's cut off. Yes, we all knew these words were coming, so I might as well get them out of the way. Photographically, it's good, as expected of the contributor, but not perfect - I'm sure the photographer would readily admit that the angle between the bird and the sun wasn't ideal - we're spreading the contrast rather thinly between light and dark, just as we're straddling between a full-body and head-only portrait here in a void filled but with trenches. I'm not even going to download this to confirm that the bright patch on the neck is burnt out - contrast issues, like I said. I'm sure it could be argued that this composition is better than a whole-body shot because the patterning of the neck and head provide the species ID. However, the detail of the collar tuft is what's suffered most from the lighting of the moment, and I find myself yearning for more detail of this intriguing feature, as well as some independent confirmation that this is a typical specimen - the wild specimens in the gallery of the same article look different enough for me to raise this issue. Finally, this is highly likely a zoo shot, giving not only a little push to my tendency to oppose, but also making a reshoot a much more plausible possibility for the future. Mostly oppose. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose as per Papa Lima Whiskey, if the lighting was right I'd change to weak support.Terri G (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan Quartz

Reason

A specimen with large clear crystals. I find the rainbow spectra produced by the point source back lighting interesting.

Articles this image appears in

Quartz, Mineral

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Good illustration of the crystalline structure. Durova^Charge! 07:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good shot --Fir0002 10:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good illustration of the quartz. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Nicely done. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Crystal-clear resolution. Sasata (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Staryash (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Absolutely wonderful clarity, good EV. — neuro^(talk)

Promoted Image:Quartz, Tibet.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Carter and Anwar Sadat

Reason

One of the most significant accomplishments of Jimmy Carter's term as President of the United States was the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which had several effects including Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula and the eventual assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Here Carter greets Sadat at the White House shortly after the Camp David Accords went into effect. Sadat was killed the following year. Restored version of File:Carter and Sadat White House.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Presidency of Jimmy Carter, Camp_David_Accords#Consequences

Creator

Warren K. Leffler or Marion S. Trikosko

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 07:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Another great photo. Sasata (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Main weakness is that Anwar Sadat's face can't really be seen. It isn't a major issue since it isn't in an Anwar Sadat article however. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found another shot of Sadat and Menachem Begin shoulder to shoulder smiling to a crowd when the accord was signed. Perhaps adding that to make the nomination a set? Durova^Charge! 08:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is File:Camp David, Menachem Begin, Anwar Sadat, 1978.jpg it? I am leaning towards oppose as colour shots are available. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • File:Sadat and Begin1.jpg (cropped but not restored yet). Does the mere existence of low-res color change your review that much? Durova^Charge! 10:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Depends on if a high resolution colour image is likely to be available. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • What's surprising is that in the mid-eighties when I started doing serious photography, most of the serious amateurs and pros preferred black and white. They were doing their own black and white developing, and color photography was considered lightweight stuff unless you paid a very pretty penny for premium developing (and even then you gave up control over the outcome). Durova^Charge! 05:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good quality, attractive, and decent EV for what it illustrates. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Carter and Sadat White House2.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First silk parachute

Reason

A schematic for the first successful human descent by a frameless silk parachute. A bit similar to a current featured picture; this version has more than 10 times the resolution and illustrates both before and after deployment. Restored version of Image:First parachute.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

André-Jacques Garnerin, Parc Monceau, parachute

Creator

Unknown artist; comes from the Tissandier collection at the Library of Congress

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 22:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The caption at the bottom presumably describes the three figures, but is in French. It should be translated into English on the image page as a matter of course, and because it's not entirely clear what each image is showing. I for one aren't too clear on the middle image for starters, as it looks quite different to the modern use of a parachute, it's not explained on the image page, and doesn't seem to be explained anywhere in the article/s. The articles suggest he jumped out of a balloon, by which I'd assume the basket, but this looks like the parachute was in some way cut loose or separated from a free floating balloon while he remained in the basket, which is clearly not the same as jumping from a balloon. Hmm, something needs fixing... --jjron (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation F1 Parachute canopy. F2 Parachute folded at take-off. F3 Parachute deployed at separation from balloon. (Could probably be improved...) Stevage 10:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - needs to be added to the image page though, unless someone comes up with an improved version. Probably confirms what I thought I was seeing, but as I said above it doesn't gel with the mentions of this event in the articles, as he's not 'jumping' from the balloon. --jjron (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at the article text and seek additional sourcing. Did about 350 miles of driving yesterday (500km) so have been pretty busy off-wiki. Thanks for your help, Stevage, and for your patience, Jjron. Durova^Charge! 23:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the caption is that the parachute was attached to the bottom of a balloon, then released. Stevage 02:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found three sources that support this depiction as correct, and expanded the article citing the most detailed of the three. Also added English translation of the French captions to the image hosting page. Durova^Charge! 01:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support very good historical illistration, my reading of the image is the first view is from above, second is the ascending configuration and the third is the decending configuration. Gnangarra 04:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good restoration of picture with good EV.Terri G (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Nicely restored, interesting with EV. Maedin\^talk 20:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:First parachute2.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mars' Surface - Victoria Crater - colour adjusted image

Reason

It is high quality, high resolution and provides an accurate photo of mars

Articles this image appears in

Mars

Creator

Scottcabal using a NASA public image

• Support as nominator --Scottcabal (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It's already featured. Do you want to replace? I'm not at all convinced yours is more correct since skies on Mars are meant to be red due to suspended dust, the producers are the guys who made and run the camera, the Viking blue skies were due to incorrect calibration, yours looks a lot like the false color version and HiRISE is not true color but near IR + red + cyan. MER-C 12:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if it was incorrectly calibrated can you explain why the ground pics with a dark red sky have a significantly different colour to the ones from above the ground? the sky should be a misty white/blue rather than just blue or dark red which is what i've tried to show in this pic, as well as showing the ground colour to be correct - just look on the page about the Victoria Crater on here... the ground in the pic I uploaded, and the aerial pic of the crater match. I guess If you were physically there it could appear slightly darker than I have shown due to the distance of the sun, but the colouration would be the same. Scottcabal (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the aerial pics are not true color while the ground ones are. MER-C 00:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the image no longer appears in any articles. Speedy close. (I feel a little too involved to nuke this myself). MER-C 00:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think there is potential for improvement in the featured image. They should have calibrated these values before putting them on the guns. Once again, we have an example of a histogram with huge amounts of dead space, and I can actually get a version very close to Scottcabal's by executing an auto-WB command. If we're going to feature an image of Mars that isn't true colour, we might as well use the full dynamic range we have available in our output medium. At the very least, the contrast should be stretched. Oppose speedy at this point. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But they already have. If you want to have a fling, here's some calibration images, which you'll need to combine in such a way to produce something like this (some more info). MER-C 12:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Color channels can be edited independently in GIMP without taking the image apart first, using curves for instance, or using the Color->Decompose/Recompose mechanism (which automatically creates the layers you're referring to). As it stands, the image seems very poorly calibrated since there's dead space both in the value view (i.e. all three "channels" have *some* dead space) as well as the blue gun specifically. Even if the blue gun were to carry a blue wavelength channel, and blue light were underrepresented on Mars, I'm not sure that's an excuse to consign the blue gun to being only 2/3 used, rather than compromising on the final image not having the correct hues as the human brain would reconstruct them (were a human observer actually present on Mars, without a color-filtering visor), but in return giving the user a contrast-rich image. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Upon close inspection this image is fairly drab. Not worthy of FP. Why is 'color-accurate' better than an adjusted histogram image? Teque5 (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment original nomination. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —Wronkiew (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus leaf close-up

Reason

High resolution, shows great detail on veines and pores (the bright dots which are pigments).

Articles this image appears in

Leaf, Citrus

Creator

ZooFari

• Support as nominator --ZooFari 01:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak oppose - for this kind of image, you really want an amazing amount of detail, or something very special. This falls a bit short on both, imho. Stevage 23:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Not really relevant to the nom, but looks eerily similar to one of the stock desktop backgrounds in Vista. --jjron (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hehe, that's a fine reason to oppose :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I think Stevage said it well. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yup, 'tis so. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio? Needs suspension and a deletion tag then. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it violate the copyright law? I took it myself (see its camera details, which is the same as all my other images). ZooFari 02:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Journey

Reason

Believe it or not, the only example of illustration at children's literature was a small black and white nonfree image until this took its place. Elizabeth Shippen Green was a children's book illustrator and this example seems especially apt: a child peers through a train window and imagines palaces in the air. Scanned from the original oil painting and restored from File:The Journey.jpg. Lower resolution version for slower connections available at File:The_Journey2_courtesy_copy.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Elizabeth Shippen Green, Children's literature, Josephine Preston Peabody

Creator

Elizabeth Shippen Green

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 16:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A propos of nothing, you're prompting me to look for some good hi-res scans of the N.C. Wyeth illustrations for books like Treasure Island. Spikebrennan (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC). I can't upload from where I am, but what about this? [1][reply]
• Support This is encyclopedic and relates to the subject very well. An excellent illustration! Mimigu (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent EV and simply beautiful. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Mimigu. Fletcher (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - beautiful in detail. Complete and informative caption. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Are we certain that this is a picture of an oil painting? I don't know that much about painting and the different media, but this doesn't look like an oil to me. Would someone be able to elaborate? Maedin\^talk 19:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what it says in the Library of Congress bibliographic notes.[2] Durova^Charge! 19:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the likelihood that they may have it labelled incorrectly? I'm not certain that the Library of Congress could have got it wrong, but I think it would be very embarrassing to feature a painting as an oil when it might not be. Shame my oil painter friend and I have separated, or I would ask him. Does anyone else think this looks like an oil? Maedin\^talk 20:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • See WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Durova^Charge! 20:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, I know all of those. I wasn't suggesting that it be labelled as something else; I was suggesting that it needn't be heralded in the caption if there was some reasonable doubt. I'm not even suggesting that my doubts are reasonable, which is why I was asking for further opinions, which haven't been provided yet. Maedin\^talk 20:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • We have no source as a basis for doubting the accuracy of the caption. There are many styles of oil painting, and a highly reliable source that states this is in that medium. If a new source emerges to contradict that, then of course that would be a different matter. Durova^Charge! 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The Journey2.jpg MER-C 06:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rust Mite

Reason

Good quality, good Ev and lots of wow. Image was previously nominated here as an alternative. IMO, the picture shows a different kind of mite than the featured one and deserves to be featured.

Articles this image appears in

Mite, Acarina, Eriophyidae, Eriophyoidea

Creator

Erbe, Pooley: USDA, ARS, EMU.

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 11:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very clear and 'otherworldly'. Definitely striking. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's already featured. But if you want to feature it twice, Go ahead. ;) Durova^Charge! 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, on Commons - unless there's a duplicate? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, right you are. Checking further, I nominated it there but not here because it had already been a candidate here and was not promoted in 2005. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mites. Durova^Charge! 18:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thinking this over, support. No reason why not. Durova^Charge! 00:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although what's the white stuff? Possibly sap leaking out?Terri G (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting, and seems like good quality for this magnification. Can someone explain the "rust" in the name? Fletcher (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoating from here, "Rust mites suck juices on conifer needles. When many mites are present their damage gives the needle a dusty, rust-colored appearance" --Muhammad(talk) 03:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, now I get it. Fletcher (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Checking the 'previous nom' it looks like a quirk of that actual nomination that it wasn't promoted then. Looks good. --jjron (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this one is promoted that will be good evidence against the practice of nominating multiple photographs. Fletcher (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe, maybe not. When I said it was 'a quirk' of the nom, I guess I was suggesting the nom was done in an odd way. To clarify, the nom was put up as 'mites', but the three alts offered were very different photos of entirely different species. You would therefore generally expect them to be put up as three different noms, not as alts for one nom, though maybe that's how it was done at the time. --jjron (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, not sure why I didn't renominate this separately back in 2005. I guess back then it didn't seem right for one article (mite) to have more than one featured picture. Oh well, support now. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-02-26 17:54Z
  • Yeah, I also considered that back at the first nom they were maybe all only in the same article. Having two FPs for the same article used to be considered a no-no as I remember it, but seems to be rarely thought about now. --jjron (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Great magnification and detail. And very interesting. Maedin\^talk 19:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rust Mite, Aceria anthocoptes.jpg MER-C 06:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King Vulture 001

Reason

Found this while scheduling main page featured articles. I think it's a great image that deserves to be featured.

Articles this image appears in

King Vulture

Creator

commons:user:Ltshears

• Support as nominator --Raul654 (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That's one freaky-looking bird at full size. Sasata (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question In what environment was the picture taken? The background seems to have a doorknob? --Muhammad(talk) 08:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ltshears would be the best person to ask that to. Raul654 (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Lots of detail, but the composition and lighting is pretty ordinary. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per Diliff. Kaldari (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There appears to be a bright vertical band through the lower half of the image, dead center. Durova^Charge! 16:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Diliff. High res not a featured picture makes. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - High res != FP. Aesthetically very uninteresting. — neuro^(talk) 10:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sushi

Reason

Displays a variety of western sushi and clearly provides visual example of such.

Articles this image appears in

Sushi

Creator

Mrmcdonnell

• Support as nominator --Mrmcdonnell (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this nomination was never listed. Adding it now. MER-C 05:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Depth of field way too narrow; almost everything out of focus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above.
• Oppose. DOF too narrow. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian Terraced Farming

Reason

An interesting angle on beautiful peruvian terraced farms, where different crops and land uses can be seen. Accompanied by good information.

Articles this image appears in

Terrace (agriculture)

Creator

User:Jethrothompson

• Support as nominator --J. Thompson (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this nomination was never listed. Adding it now. MER-C 05:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Like the concept, but the vegetation in the foreground is annoying. Sasata (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose per Sasata. Durova^Charge! 16:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I just find it disorientating, and can't see any good reason for that. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not a particularly good illustration of terraced farming in my book - really looks more like just farming on a hill. Composition isn't great per PLW. I think there's other photos in the article that show terraced farming much better (haven't viewed them fullsize for FP-worthiness). And for the record it only appears in a single article gallery, so insufficient EV as well. --jjron (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lighting issues. The way the image looks down on the terraces is distracting, I would have prefered a head-on view looking towards them (not looking down from them). Spencer^T♦C 21:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folsom Lake in Panorama

Reason

A photo showing a desolate landscape... in the middle of a very popular recreational facility. I love the conflict the image brings forth.

Articles this image appears in

Folsom Lake

Creator

User:J.smith

• Support as nominator -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this nomination was never listed. Adding it now. MER-C 05:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose just for the sake of getting a vote down. Shows us the lake, yes, but composition is nothing striking, the left hand side just cuts out (maybe the shore's too far away?), the right side is clipped too tight at the bank, and there's not that much of particular interest in between. The lighting strikes me as a bit harsh - harsher at least than I'd expect of an FP standard image for this type of subject. And FWIW the photo does not appear in Folsom Lake. (And why's it a PNG?). --jjron (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Image now added to Folsom Lake. Spencer^T♦C 21:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I was going to take the leap too. I agree with Jjron, the composition is fairly ordinary. I think only an elevated position would really give you a decent view of the lake. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanita muscaria

Reason

I think this is a fantastic image of one of the best-known mushrooms - maybe a bit more open and mature than the "classic" image used in a million 1960s images, but I don't see that as a problem, given that if we only showed the classic stage of development, how would people know what the other stages looked like?

Articles this image appears in

Amanita muscaria

Creator

Tim Bekaert

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The white balance seems very yellowish (Compare to File:Amanita muscaria Cuenca.JPG or File:Amanita muscaria 2.jpg). Any chance of a fix? Noodle snacks (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen these fairly regularly - though not in a while - and I'd have said this was right for the mature mushroom, but there's some WikiProject Fungi people around, so let's see what they say. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It would have better EV with the leaves removed at the base of the stem, and maybe the top is a little OOF, but otherwise it's solid. I see what you're saying about the yellow tint; however the stem color for the species is "white to cream" (gills "whitish"), and this is an older specimen, so its in the range of normal. Sasata (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose IMO, lighting is not ideal --Muhammad(talk) 08:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Strong flash photography is almost never ideal and although it does bring out the colours of the mushroom, it does look a bit unrealistic. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is just about to be delisted as a Commons FP because of the poor lighting. See Commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Amanita muscaria tyndrum.jpg. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose Shame about the lighting, which is too bright to see the detail of the gills even.Terri G (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshige II - Iwatake gathering at Kumano in Kishū

Reason

A very high quality Ukiyo-e print, historically, sociologically, gastronomically, and artistically interesting.

Articles this image appears in

Hiroshige II, Umbilicaria esculenta, Lichen.

Creator

Hiroshige II

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Feel free to tweak the capitalisation in the translations - it can be a little ambiguous with these Japanese description-names. Also, the lines in the image are the paper grain, for anyone not familiar with Ukiyo-e. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: High resolution and quality. Has encyclopedic value as an example of the artist's work, and as a helpful look at the way Umbilicaria esculenta has been used in the past. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per nom. Wow that's a big file... I'm considering printing it out as a poster. Sasata (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 16:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A beautiful print; the color is wonderful. Appreciate the informative caption. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hiroshige II - Kishu kumano iwatake tori - Shokoku meisho hyakkei.jpg MER-C 06:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Police Department (N.Y.P.D.) Crown Victoria

• 
  Original (not for voting) - A New York City Police Department Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor on Times Square in New York City, United States of America.
• 
  Edit 1 (not for voting)
• 
  Edit 2 - White Balance Fix, Crop, Sharpen
• 
  Edit 3 - White Balance Fix, Sharpen with Original Crop

Reason

This picture is technically good, visually attractive and it has good EV in the articles it is currently used in.

Articles this image appears in

New York City Police Department, Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor and Times Square

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The image is mostly street and the image should not include logos or names of companies. The lights distract as well, but that is not much of a problem. ZooFari 23:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are names of companies in pictures prohibited on Wikipedia? And every aspect of the car is visible...not every picture has to be a close-up. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it can't. I simply said it shouldn't as a candidate of FP. Also, yes, on FP images should be cropped to the subject. ZooFari 01:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although FP doesn't allow fair use, I'm not aware of any consensus against showing company signs, and many of our FPs have such signs visible (example: File:New York Midtown Skyline at night - Jan 2006 edit1.jpg). I would suspect textual signs fall more under trademark law than copyright, but I'm not sure. Regardless, you will have to substantiate the view that signs are not acceptable, as we have other FPs that have them. Fletcher (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say for sure as IANAL, but I would expect that we would have no problem using photos that contain trademarks as long as they are incidental to the photo and not the actual focus of the photo. In any case, I disagree with Zoofari that a FP should be cropped to include only the subject. Often the surroundings are just as important as the subject itself, especially somewhere iconic like Time Square in NYC. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Distracting background, the car makes up only a small part of the photo (this would not be an issue of course if the background told us about the functions of the car etc.) Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit two. Concerns have been resolved, and now a much more dynamic picture. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Encyclopedic: a good clear capture of a New York City police car. Foreground shows reflections on the wet pavement; adds to the urban feel of the setting. Doesn't look like there are any copyright issues here. Durova^Charge! 06:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too much pavement, not enough detail on the car. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - too much red. I suggest tweaking the color balance a tad. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an edit to address this "problem". --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose The edit seems to help color balance, but I find the portrait orientation jarring for a car, which has strong horizontal lines. It also creates too much empty space in the foreground. Fletcher (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Edit 2 The quality is only just sufficient with the crop. The edit fixes white balance and minor sharpness issues. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original per Fletcher, weak oppose crop - seems cramped. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Edit 3 is without a doubt the most aesthetic photograph of the line-up here, but I'm pretty sure we need to crop it for the sake of WP's encyclopaedic value criterion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support to edit 2, but others are probably ok. You have to judge a photo like this in context, and it does add a lot to Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor. There are lots of other photos of the car there, but the dramatic lighting, and background really make it stand out. It's not just a car, it's a New York car. :) A photo with a policeman would be even better though. Stevage 00:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Overly contrasty and distracting unrelated logos in background. --Leivick (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor angle. Very easily reproduced shots like this should be close to flawless. Here is a good example of what an automobile FP should look like. Cacophony (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easily reproducible shot? Good luck with that. It was taken at night in the poring rain in the middle of Times Square, which is always crowded with people. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: This doesn't work for me. I don't think it flatters the car, or Times Square. I would expect this sort of photo to do at least one of those things, if not both. The car is dirty, its markings are chipped in places, the City of New York sticker can't be seen in detail, and the detail and (interest) of all the various things on top of the car are lost by the angle and background. There are umbrellas around, but no people. I wouldn't go as far as Cacophony and suggest that this sort of shot should be flawless, but I think a whole lot more can be coaxed out of the subject. Maedin\^talk 20:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that aesthetic images are nice, but sometimes you have to acknowledge that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and it has to reflect the truth, not an idealism. If NYC police cars are dirty, and Time Square is dirty, then that is reflected in the photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hi Diliff, and I agree . . . I found it disappointing that Noodle Snacks' dahlia graceland didn't make it because it had been enjoyed by a rather hungry insect. If anything, I thought that added encyclopaedic value, as I pointed out in my comments. As far as I'm aware, though, police services and fire services go to a lot of effort to keep their vehicles extremely clean. I assume that this is true in New York City, although it may not be as easy to catch the vehicles at their opportune moments. The car is probably only dirty because it's end of shift on a wet day, and if the other elements of the photo had been good enough, this wouldn't have been an issue. It isn't that the car has to be unrealistically clean. And sorry, I hadn't noticed your comments before, which is why my response is so late!  :-) Maedin\^talk 08:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. I still disagree with the Dahlia nomination though. The difference between this image nomination and the Dahlia is that an image that illustrates a flower should show the complete flower IMO. A random visitor to the article might assume that all Dahlia's look like that, otherwise. But if the image was used in an article that related to bugs eating flowers, then it might be ideal, although even then you should expect to see a bug actively eating it, not just the leftovers! ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That said, by the way, I agree that the composition isn't ideal. :-) It's just that I sometimes take issue when people want a photo to look prettier it simply isn't the reality of the situation. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, Diliff, where do you stand on this one then? :) Stevage 05:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay okay. I Oppose. I disagreed with some of Maedin's justifications, but I agree with her conclusion. ;-) Compositionally, I don't think that side-on is the best view of a car, and I can imagine a busier but more interesting view of Time Square. It is a difficult location to shoot, but I'm sure it could be done. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd actually agree with the Dahlia nomination, I didn't realise it'd been eaten, neither did most of the supports, therefore it would have been misleading. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You and Diliff have a point about the dahlia, :-) Maedin\^talk 09:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Las Meninas

Reason

High-quality reproduction of iconic artwork

Articles this image appears in

Las Meninas (via imagemap template, so it's not shown in file links), Western painting, Baroque painting, Diego Velázquez, Museo del Prado, Spanish art, several more

Creator

Diego Velázquez

• Support as nominator --Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Famous painting; one of the images we really ought to feature. Durova^Charge! 00:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meant to support earlier. From my initial look, the photograph seems ok but the painting itself seemed not in very good shape, but there's not much we can do about that. Fletcher (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Does this need a slight CW rotation? The ceiling and picture frames on the rear wall are tilted. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure. This comes direct from the Prado, and one would think they know what they're doing. Looking at the other versions of this on the commons, this is probably in the middle in terms of rotation (some are slightly clockwise of this, some are slightly counterclockwise). Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a line that catches your eye as out of place, PLW? At far left that's a canvas on an easel, so of course it would be tilted. The rest seems fine, unless you've spotted something I haven't? Durova^Charge! 16:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, Durova, I apologise for my mistake. "The ceiling and picture frames on the rear wall" should of course have read "easel". It's the same thing, after all, and "easel" is a much more professional way to say "ceiling and picture frames on the rear wall". Unfortunately, wiktionary doesn't have a reverse look-up. Which brings me back to my other fault, that I make very exact statements when they aren't really required, so I use technical phrases like "reverse look-up" and "ceiling and picture frames on the rear wall". At yet other times, I can be overly sarcastic. I'll work on it, I promise! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The gallery below demonstrates the effect of rotating the image so that the left edge of a background picture frame is vertical: doors, door frames, and floor boards end up slanted. Three factors might account for this: the canvas might have might have gotten slightly loose over three and a half centuries, the original artwork might have been a couple of tenths of a degree off, or else Diego Velázquez accurately depicted a frame in the background that was hanging incorrectly on the wall. Durova^Charge! 15:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What's up with the vertical lines all over it? And the speckles? Surely this could benefit massively from some attention from one of our restorers? J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a natural effect of how oil paintings age over time. With internationally famous artwork a conservative approach is worthwhile. Durova^Charge! 21:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Definitely. Maedin\^talk 20:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Las Meninas 01.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Promenade

Reason

A detailed and interesting view along the promenade in Brighton, a popular seaside city in the south of England. Admittedly, this is a busy composition, but I think the scene is interesting and manages to show a lot of activity and sights within the frame (best viewed at full size obviously).

Articles this image appears in

Brighton

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The blonde woman by the Brighton's Smoked Fish Shop apparently has a massive hole in her back through which the pavement is visible. Also, a lot of the promenade is in shadow-- would a shot a few hours earlier in the afternoon been lit better? (I've never been to Brighton, so I have no idea what would be the best time of day to shoot). Is this shot less encyclopedic due to it being taken during the "off-season"? (Again, I have no idea whether that's true). Spikebrennan (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, I don't know how I managed to miss that, as I had a good look at it to make sure there were no faults. The panorama blender has obviously decided to make it look like a window into her soul or something, as it has a definite rectangular shape to it. :-) I will endeavour to fix that issue. I guess voting should be held off on voting until this is corrected, to confirm I can definitely do it without causing other stitching issues as it is quite a serious fault. As for it being less encyclopaedic, I wouldn't say so. It probably has slightly less people walking along the promenade, but other than that it doesn't change significantly. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I've just uploaded a replacement over the top of the original that addresses the stitching fault. It also happens to be slightly higher res (no significant change to the detail visible though I don't think). I also forgot to respond to the issue you raised of the shadows. It is pretty difficult to take any photo in winter that far north without shadows of some kind, as the sun is never directly overhead. I don't personally see them as distracting, and the elements in shadow aren't particularly dark. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now there appears to be a problem with the man in the gray hooded sweatshirt near that blond girl. It looks to me like his left shoulder/arm are missing. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure that this is a fault, but I can't check the original files at the moment to confirm. If it is a fault, it isn't a major one and only visible to pixel peepers. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps not. Just thought I'd mention it. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Interesting photo, it's a bit like a where's wally: what's going on in that first boat on the left? What *is* that girl doing with that anchor? Does that man on the right have a dog between his legs? What is a "smoke house"? etc :) Stevage 03:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I tend to take a lot of those Where's Wally kind of photos (Joss Bay, Richmond and Watson Bay). I guess some of your questions may remain unanswerable though. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Composition lacks focus, leading the viewer to wander around aimlessly, much like the people in the photo. And unlike the beach photos cited above, the "Where's Waldo" aspect isn't as interesting (for better or worse!) when the people are wearing all their clothes.  :-) Fletcher (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue that the lack of focus is the point though. The promenade isn't one single object/concept. It is a number of different things (people, shops, the pier in the background, the random boats and artwork etc) all combined in a (relatively) compact composition. But I accept your reasoning. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There's nothing really happening in the image; yeah, people are wondering around aimlessly, going about their daily lives, meandering and such, but I think that's one of the reasons I like it: it makes me a bit homesick. I agree with Diliff that the prom is made of a number of individual things, and so there isn't really one thing to focus on. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suport Personally I love this type of picture - most pictures I take tend to be of "random" scenes like this... I hate posed pictures of people so much prefer to take a pic of people doing their normal thing - seems more interesting to me... Gazhiley (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like it as welll...it's a normal scene, not looking staged or anything. Per nom. Spencer^T♦C 00:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, there is nothing technically wrong with this image (although the writing on some of the signs seems odd). I just don't think this is the best way to represent the promenade. It shows a tiny portion and doesn't seem to be a very good way to represent it. I'm thinking what is really needed is some kind of aerial shot. gren グレン 23:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly do you find odd about the writing? There has been no photoshop trickery.. The writing's as-is. And yes, an aerial shot would be interesting, but completely unrealistic to expect of a FP! ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shadows of the boat is a bit distracting but overall lighting is good. --Muhammad(talk) 04:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Brighton Promenade, England - Feb 2009.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pharyngeal jaw in moray eel

Reason

Brilliant illustration, high res, might need minor editing (watermark remove?).

Articles this image appears in

Jaw, Moray eel, Pharyngeal jaws

Creator

Zina Deretsky, US National Science Foundation (after Rita Mehta, UC Davis)

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, no real artifacting but this should compress better as PNG / SVG. Also, I think we should remove the NSF seal and the symbol on the bottom left. Also, could probably remove the border. gren グレン 03:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - Might want to bring this over to Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop and ask for these to be done. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the border and watermarks. I have requested conversion at the graphics lab for png or svg. ZooFari 17:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PNG conversion will only give a smaller file if you flatten the gradients, and I'm not sure that that would make a better picture. The same comment goes @SVG conversion. I predict it will look a lot less appealing, and at 230kb, this is already a slim JPG file considering its dimensions. You can try PNG conversion for yourselves to see if you can come up with a smaller file without loss in quality. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, converting won't help in the direct sense... it's remaking as a PNG / SVG. Mostly so it will scale well, I thought that was the main reason we only really promote diagrams in PNG or SVG. gren グレン 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• New Version Thanks to Pbroke13 for rewriting it as SVG. What do you think? Adjustments can be made by the way. ZooFari 00:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In my opinion a fun picture of the day, however, the illustration is poorly colored, making it seem as if the muscles are the primary feature of the second part of the illustration. Needs work. Strong oppose A featured picture should feature what it is featuring, and this image does not, and this whole board now seems to be a private club with only input from the regulars welcome or dealt with. This image will not be seen on the main page by the experts here alone, it will be seen by a general audience, and this image gives misinformation by labeling what is primary in a manner that recedes it into the background, according to the caption, at least. --KP Botany (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, what do you mean by "private"? This is a very open discussion; anyone is allowed to put in their input. And, all input is used to make a decision, so I'd have to say that this is not private by any means. Secondly, just because the background is blue and the font is a different shade of blue does not mean it doesn't feature what is trying to be described. Besides, do you have a better color scheme in mind? I feel that if you are opposing, you should bring in a suggestion to fix the problem described, especially if it is a strong oppose. --Pbroks13^talk? 00:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I posted this five and half days ago, the first time. You ignored my comment, and a color change (my suggestion) would have helped me to make a decision. I oppose because the feature of interest is lost in the color scheme. I strongly oppose because of this. If a featured picture does not feature what it is supposed to feature it loses encyclopedic value. --KP Botany (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry if you feel that I ignored your comment, but as you can see, my first time commenting on this page was today (yesterday UTC). ZooFari gave me requests, I just did them. But now, I've decided to get involved in the discussion. What I was trying to ask you is what color scheme would you suggest? I'm no color expert, so I look to you guys for specific suggestions to make the image better, not just a general "color needs to be better." --Pbroks13^talk? 01:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just lighten the red a bit for the muscles, which are very important for pharyngeal jaws, and make the bones themselves darker, doing the same for the accompanying text. That should do it. --KP Botany (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hows that? I removed the other labels per Stevage's request. Does black look good? I also fixed the colors. What do you think? --Pbroks13^talk? 19:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment FP criterion 7: "Has a good caption". Also, does "Moray eels" really need to be in the picture? It seems superfluous since the file name, the picture description, and the caption in the article list the species. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is better within the image, as people who may want to use images on Wiki will already have a title and captions. ZooFari 00:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How hard is it to change three pages? Removing it will allow you to crop out the negative space, meaning the thumbnail will contain more pixels of the actual jaw. I'm not a fan of the the blue fading to white background, either. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are right. I have asked the SVG uploader to do the removal and crop, and the new version is now update to the right. ZooFari 00:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support SVG Also, since the new image was only put up on the 19th, I'm going to pop this up the page a bit, as it was effectively suspended Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would like to see more consistency between the two states, eg label "muscles" on both. --Fir0002 12:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done --Pbroks13^talk? 19:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd also like to see better labelling. IMHO the best would be to *only* label the pharyngeal jaw, and to use an arrow or line to point it out precisely. The "oral jaw" and muscles (in particular) are pretty self-explanatory. The text as it is sort of floats around and doesn't really show what it's labelling - particularly the PJ label in between the two eels could be labelling anything. Consider this a support if that's done. Stevage 10:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Good points, the labeling is just not useful. However, the muscles and oral jaw should all be labeled, as the pharyngeal jaw does not work without them, yet, somehow it is not what is emphasized in the illustration. I think if the coloration is improved and the labeling changed the image will be improved as well, or its value as an encyclopedic illustration. --KP Botany (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• •  Done How does the black text look? And do the lines work for you? --Pbroks13^talk? 19:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. If I was quibbling, I'd avoid the lines actually crossing the jaws themselves, and I'd use the text "pharyngeal jaws" rather than "jaw", but not important. If KP Botany really wants the muscles labelled, I'd suggest using a more specific term than "muscles" (ie, what muscles are they?), and a smaller font than that used for the jaws. Stevage 02:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller font would be good. I don't quite like the first labeling of the pharyngeal jaws location. You know, now that you bring it up, they're technically pharyngeal jaw bones and pharyngeal jaw muscles. I don't understand how that would enhance an otherwise good illustration for the laymen. Maybe you could elaborate? --KP Botany (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I looked it up, just at onelook.com, and it says in the medical dictionaries that it is just the bones, so I suppose just the bones is okay. It seems less encyclopedic when the muscles are so involved. Still don't understand why it has to be all the muscles for a general pictures for the layman. It should say Moray Eel, though, because their pharyngeal jaws are very unique. If it's labeled just "pharyngeal jaw" it should be a typical one, not a unique one. I like the coloration as redone as I think it puts emphasis and is cleaner and clearer than the prior. Support when Moray Eel added back to illustration. What's the caption, though? --KP Botany (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, "Moray Eel" is now labeled. There's a caption for it (what do you think?). Also, the lines aren't over the jaws. Now, I'm a bit confused. Are the bones and muscles to be labeled? If they are, smaller text would be good; however, should there be lines pointing like the pharyngeal jaws are? --Pbroks13^talk? 18:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope noone minds, but it's only in the last couple days that things calmed down here, so I've moved it up the page to make sure that consensus is achieved, without the need to run this again later. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support SVG per the long discussion above me. ZooFari 04:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support SVG From my understanding, this meets FP criteria. Nice work. §hep^Talk 08:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support SVG Meets FP criteria. --Pbroks13^talk? 19:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support SVG High EV, better as an SVG. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I like it. --KP Botany (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pharyngeal jaws of moray eels.svg MER-C 07:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One More Step, Mr. Hands, And I'll Blow Your Brains Out

Reason

As promised, another hi-res scan of a PD children's book illustration. (Yes, earlier generations considered Treasure Island a kids' book). A propos of nothing, see here [3] for the 1885 edition's illustration of the same scene in the book. Besides-- we need a good POTD for September 19.

Articles this image appears in

N. C. Wyeth, Treasure Island

Creator

N. C. Wyeth, illustration for a 1911 edition of Treasure Island

• Support as nominator --Spikebrennan (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant weak oppose. Excessive reflections on LHS. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - very weak pic Little Professor (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Highly encyclopedic, well known novel and artist. I'll be uploading a version with the edges sharpened slightly. Durova^Charge! 23:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Papa Lima.-- mcshadypl ^TC 03:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Tempest

Reason

This one was a fun one - heavy damage to the left side, including some sort of mold. Luckily, I was able to fix it all. Mwahaha! Anyway, high-resolution, Shakespeare, major artist - what's not to love?

Articles this image appears in

The Tempest

Creator

George Romney (painter), B. Smith (engraver), etc.

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although it seems that George Romney created only the painting, not this version. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've clarified. It's all on the information page, but I summarised a bit much here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Suggest altering the creator line to 'unknown engraver, based on a painting by George Romney'. Either way, fine ev for the article it illustrates. Maybe you could work on getting an FP for each of Shakespeare's plays? These are wonderful. :) Durova^Charge! 16:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the engraver is B. Smith, who the Library of Congress thinks may be Benjamin Smith. He's credited in the lower right of the image. See the image information page. As for getting an FP of every Shakespeare work - well, you saw the troubles I found with the Titus Andronicus one =) Think I could get six or seven, at the least, though. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Wish I still had my old high school copy of Shakespeare. It had wonderful artwork. As many as you could do would be great. :) Durova^Charge! 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent quality image of artwork... with prints, even more so than paintings, it is important to be able to see the marks made by the artist. This would also be an excellent illustration for Stipple engraving (which really needs its own article at some point... sigh) Lithoderm 22:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: So well restored. And the EV is high—it's Shakespeare, after all! Maedin\^talk 20:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: nice restoration and wonderful imagery.--Caspian blue 02:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:George Romney - William Shakespeare - The Tempest Act I, Scene 1.jpg MER-C 07:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aida

Reason

I think this poster - almost certainly showing the triumphal march in Act II, Scene 2 - is one of the best images we have for Verdi operas. A rather nice, detailed lithograph, as well, if not, perhaps, the most delicate. If I missed anything, just tell me and I'll do my best to fix it up.

Articles this image appears in

Aida. Could reasonably go in others, but this will do for now.

Creator

The Otis Lithograph Co

• Support as nominator Support Alt 1 - Kaldari's right. It's better. I was so busy fixing the damage that I forgot completely about colour (also, I looked at the bar, but didn't realise the leftmost one was magenta, with red next to it. Magenta looked such a bright red....) --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Needs sharpening. What happens with a lot of these slide film reproductions is that the focus may be slightly soft. If you don't have a 'sharpen edges' filter on your software, load an uncompressed file and I'll do it. Only takes a minute. Otherwise ready to support. Durova^Charge! 16:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have one beyond a basic "sharpen" tool, as far as I can tell, but I've been automatically uploading a PNG as well as a JPG for all these images. See Image:Giuseppe Verdi - Hippodrome Opera Company - Aida_poster.png. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Alt 1. It's a useful tool for correcting edge blur without making an image look grainy. Next time you upload one of these slide film copies in soft focus, ping me at user talk and I'll run a quick filter on it. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 00:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 1. Colors corrected per color key in original photograph. Edges sharpened. Kaldari (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Aida poster colors fixed.jpg MER-C 07:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fadeaway girl

Reason

Coles Phillips was a U.S. illustrator whose most influential innovation was the "fadeaway girl", in which foreground and background color match to create an impression of negative space. Cover art for an issue of Life Magazine, his principal publisher. Digitized from the original artwork. Restored version of File:Coles Phillips Life.jpg; smaller size version for slow connections available at File:Coles Phillips2 Life courtesy copy.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Coles Phillips, Life (magazine)

Creator

Coles Phillips

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 00:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good EV, and just beautiful. my new userpage pic! Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very pretty. -- Papercutbiology♫ (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Yes, wonderful in all ways. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm glad to acknowledge of another great artist who produced such the gorgeous image!--Caspian blue 02:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Coles Phillips2 Life.jpg MER-C 07:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma Ball Vid1

Reason

Self nom but I feal it is a good video that shows the movement aspect of a plasma ball better than an image could. It is nominated here because featured videos (unlike featured sounds) dosen't appear to have got off the ground.

Articles this image appears in

Plasma_lamp#History

Creator

Myself user:geni

• Support as nominator Geni 21:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Ridiculously blurry- filesize is not a limitation here, this is wikipedia. Anyway we could have a razor-sharp barely compressed video this size and only be a bit larger than some other FPs. Also, the entire audio track should be cut out with an OGG splitter :D\=< (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Froth's concerns having been aired, I'd love to see a bit more hi-def version and would absolutely support it. SingCal 16:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

currently haveing camera issues bot once sorted yes I can give it a go.Geni 02:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support if the video is reshot - I successfully nominated the still version of this years ago, I'd be interested to seen the video one too. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That being the case could this be withdrawn for the time being (not quite sure how that works here).Geni 18:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okey I've reshot. I can't get the resultion any higher without loseing FPS.Geni 22:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have fallen off the nomination pile. Relisting it. MER-C 05:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Do these things make noise, or is that just background noise in the original? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They make a quiet hum, but only if you put your ear right up against them. For the purposes of the video, cutting out the sound channel completely and having it totally silent is the best way to go (does it actually have no sound channel or is it just a silent one? Removing the channel would shrink the file a little). We should add on the description page though, "This video intentionally has no sound" so people don't think their soundcard's bust or something. And for the second one, maybe emphasise that the video is not sped up in any way - someone could assume it was from the fast motion. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - now it's reshot, the quality and size are fine, the soundtrack (in fact, lack of it) is appropriate and it's educational. Well done. As per Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Offering multiple bit-rates it might be a good idea to make a smaller version (just scale to 25% of the size with an appropriate bitrate) for thumbnailing. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Vanderdecken. Concerns are assuaged. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Vanderdecken and Shoemaker. Durova^Charge! 16:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Plasmaball vid2.ogv MER-C 07:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai archer on horseback

Reason

An illustration (c. 1878) of a samurai archer on horseback.

Articles this image appears in

Yabusame

Creator

Unknown

• Support as nominator --Xavexgoem (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Who's the author? I can't vote on something that I can't give credit to. ZooFari 03:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually plenty of featured pictures have unknown/anonymous authorship. Author attribution is not an FPC requirement. Durova^Charge! 03:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What is it depicting? A warrior from an earlier (i.e. not 19th century) time? Or someone taking part in sport archery? Narayanese (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was made after the Meiji Restoration. It's unlikely that this is a drawing of an "actual" samurai, or a recollection of what they used to look like. Likely, this is an illustration of an intentionally anachronistic samurai in an event. So probably more sporty than samurai-y (per se) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes me doubt it fits at the current place in the article, which is a section about sport/ritual. The section "The decline and revival of the bow" seems like a better place. Narayanese (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Just to pile on... has the contrast and/or saturation been boosted here? It also seems a little on the pink side to me. mikaul^talk 11:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt 1 fixed the red-tint; the picture was fairly saturated to begin with; Alt 1 also fixes the overly saturated paper. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but I would like to hear an answers to above questions also. M.K. (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not sure why Xavexgoem hasn't answered by now, but as his coach on this restoration a few comments may be appropriate. To the best of my knowledge neither the contrast nor the saturation was boosted. In fact, the saturation was selectively reduced on the background paper. This needs an upload of the unrestored version for comparison. Authorship was uncredited in the original bibliographic notes and needs to be noted as unknown in the upload. Regarding the depiction, this was created shortly after the Meiji restoration during a transitional period in Japanese history. Durova^Charge! 16:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Request suspension - there are a few kinks to work out, yet. And this is my first FPC nom, so I'm not entirely familiar with the entire process, so a lot of things are missing. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Relist Xavexgoem (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, strongly prefer original: colours seem dull in the alternative Nice work. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sasata (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Without additional info about the period this samurai is supposed to be dressed as, etc (see concerns above), I don't think the EV is there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support edit EV seems a little tentative (one article)so weak support, and prefer non-pink backgoround.Terri G (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs further input as to which version and enc. MER-C 02:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the same reason as Calliopejen1. Narayanese (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not enough info on this image to give it EV for FP status. ~ ωαdεstεr16_{♣kiss me}^{i'm Irish♣} 03:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrymander

Reason

This is an iconic image of American history that most American citizens should recognize from middle and high school history classes. It is a political cartoon that depicts a bizarrely shaped congressional district in Massachusetts in 1812 created solely to keep the incumbent congressmen in office by "rigging" (if you will) the election by having a significant majority of same-party voters in the district. US congressional districts change every 10 years after the US Census finishes its work (hence the action taking place in 1812). The governor at the time was named Gerry and eventually, the animal in this cartoon (a dragon) was likened to a salamander, giving way to the term Gerrymandering. The term is still in common use in the American vernacular today.

Articles this image appears in

Gerrymandering, Essex County, Massachusetts, Portmanteau, Elbridge Gerry The image was just added to Elbridge Gerry

Creator

Elkanah Tisdale (1771-1835) [References: D. C. O’Brien, “Elkanah Tisdale: Designer, Engraver and Miniature Painter” Connecticut Historical Bulletin, Vol. 49 No. 2, 1984, 83-96. Kenneth C. Martis, “The Original Gerrymander” Political Geography, Vol. 27, No. 4, November 2008, 833-839.] (uploaded by Chowbok)

• Support as nominator --ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support You beat me to this one. Highly encyclopedic; good find. Clone stamp out the stray spots, please? Durova^Charge! 02:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done as far as I can tell. My first ever retouch (if you could even call it that). Seems GIMP is easier to use than I expected. Let me know if I've missed anything. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very good for a first time effort. :) If you get the bug do let me know; historic political cartoons can be very encyclopedic and relatively easy to restore. Best regards. Durova^Charge! 18:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would it be worthwhile/possible to fix up the white patch on the lower part of the wing, and the A of Andover? Sasata (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative But I'd suggest tweaking the levels so the lines are darker - it'd thumbnail better. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High enc., good quality. I'm suprised that there isn't one like this already featured. Spencer^T♦C 21:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original reviewers please comment on edited version. Wronkiew (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The Gerry-Mander Edit.png MER-C 07:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cobb

Reason

One of W. S. Gilbert's most successful non-musical plays. Tom Cobb, a hilarious little farce, wowed reviewers and the public alike, but, like many of Gilbert's non-Sullivan works, it faded into obscurity in the early 20th century. This is, perhaps, the only major contemporary illustration for the play, as there were only a few newspapers doing illustrated reviews at the time.

Articles this image appears in

Tom Cobb

Creator

D. H. Friston

N.B. This was nominated before, but... It's probably one of the only, or one of very few historic images of one of Gilbert's major non-musical plays, and wonderfully illustrates its article. So I'm going to ask for reconsideration.

• Previous nom --Fir0002 12:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Only previous oppose asserted insufficient ev, and it appears to have plenty of ev at the article it illustrates. Durova^Charge! 23:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Very low EV. What scene is this? Which characters? This picture tells me nothing at all about the play. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentConditional support Makeemlighter has a point; I'd probably support if the caption mentioned that info. Sasata (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be able to get it, just might take a day or two. Will have to go to the original newspaper again. Proceed with conditional supports if it's a major issue. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to MER-C - if I haven't got the info when this closes, can you just shove this into suspended? It shouldn't take too long, but I am a University student, I have other time commitments. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support as per makeemlighter.Terri G (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As per Makeemlighter - give us the EV! Thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening of Act III:

SCENE.--A drawing-room, shabbily furnished, in MR. EFFINGHAM's house. COBB is discovered smoking a pipe on balcony with CAROLINE. The EFFINGHAM family is discovered grouped:--MRS. EFFINGHAM seated; old EFFINGHAM leaning on her chair, with his arm round her neck, and BULSTRODE standing moodily behind. As curtain rises CAROLINE enters from balcony, and throws herself at her mother's feet.

Obviously, there was either a slight change made to this in the original production, or the artist mis-remembered when trying to work from his sketches. But it's pretty clearly this scene, and shows the much-praised Effingham family of the original production. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tom Cobb.png MER-C 01:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Fox in winter coat

Reason

This picture of a wild fox (nicknamed Freddy by the photographer) was taken in the middle of the winter in the photographer's yard. I think it meets the FP criteria as it a) has high EV, in the article Red Fox, b) is of sufficient quality, and c) is of a sufficient resolution. (It's also hella cute!)

Articles this image appears in

Red Fox

Creator

Rob Lee

• Support as nominator --Xclamation point 23:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — So cute! Yes, I know that's not part of the criteria... — Jake Wartenberg 23:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per jake. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — agree with Jake. Extremely cute, and a good picture at it. Goosta (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is this users second edit. The first was a userpage edit Noodle snacks (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although the picture is little dark, wow......the subject is tooooo cute to oppose! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspian blue (talk • contribs) 01:58, 2 March 2009
• Oppose Undersaturated and cut off, insufficient depth of field. And presumably because of the 85% jpeg encoding (which is rather low for an FP candidate), it dips into artefact country on the neck. It's a clear-as-rain oppose to me. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it may be a little undersaturated and a little cut off, getting an up close picture of a wild animal such as this is extremely difficult, and should be taken into consideration. Xclamation point 04:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can appreciate the difficulty in closeups of wild animals, but you got too close unfortunately! Noodle snacks (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually had a look at the flickr source. It seems there are plenty to choose from (which puts forward the argument that this fox is in fact fairly tame). see this set. I bet there is a superior image there somewhere Noodle snacks (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Extremely difficult"? Hardly. Foxes are commonplace in many areas. I took this horrendous photo when a fox wandered up totally unexpected in a national park, and stood waiting for 30 seconds. It was actually too close for my crappy telephoto! Anyway, the FPC here is a very nice photo at thumbnail size, but blown up it's pretty noisy and lacks detail. Stevage 23:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per PLW, and it seems underexposed too. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Papa Lima Whiskey and Noodle Snacks - but it is a cute picture :) - Fastily (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Aww, cute. Oppose per PLW: my principal objection is the fact that so much of the head is cut off. Other featured animal head-shot portraits do not have this problem. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Noisey, not very good lighting/contrast. Kaldari (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Cut off. This greatly detracts from EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Insufficient technical quality, bad composition and poor EV. --Jf268 (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haeckel's tree of life

Reason

This is a cleaned-up version of an evocative and well-known design by a significant historical figure.

Articles this image appears in

History of evolutionary thought, Tree of life (science)

Creator

Ernst Haeckel. Nominated version restored by User:Ragesoss, further adjustments by User:Durova in alternative.

• Support as nominator. I prefer the color version, but the Alternative by Durova is another possibility. --ragesoss (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original - I too thinkt his is one where paper tone adds instead of detracting. There's no colours to bring out, after all. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support (original) Great EV here. Excellent quality scan. -- mcshadypl ^TC 02:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Agreed about paper tone. How accurate is this portrayal compared to modern evolutionary understanding? Discrepancies should be noted in the caption.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either Good EV. I suppose if forced to choose I'd take the original, but it doesn't really matter to me. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Great EV. Could be my rubbish screen, but the alternative looks pink.Terri G (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tree of life by Haeckel.jpg MER-C 01:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Bure

Reason

High quality sports photograph, a rarity on Wikipedia.

Articles this image appears in

Pavel Bure, Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy, Calder Memorial Trophy, etc...

Creator

Hakandahlstrom

• Support as nominator —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 13:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not a very interesting picture. Shouldn't he be shooting a puck at a net or something ;) Kaldari (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- like Kaldari stated, there isn't much be shown here. Maybe if he were shooting the puck into the net in a camera angle so great, then it would be better than this one where he is just standing clueless ;)--₮RUCӨ 19:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Notablity lacks for a FP. The shadowing is not great either. ZooFari 23:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean how well the man is known. What I mean is that where is his notablity shown in the photo? It only shows that he is a hocky player. An image with his actions should be included. ZooFari 01:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Kaldari. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't think that a hockey player FP need illustrate them in action, any more than a politician FP need illustrate them in a legislative assembly. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montana state capitol

Reason

High resolution chromolithograph print. Unique historical depiction of the building; very good EV. Restored version of File:Montana state capitol.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Montana; Helena, Montana; Montana State Capitol; Montana State Legislature; List of Montana-related topics

Creator

Geo. R. Mann

• Support as nominator — Jake Wartenberg 06:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support God, that must have taken you a while. This excellent work, and I love all the detail - if you zoom in, all the people and things you can just see even at 2000px wide turn out to have a surprising amount of detail. I presume there isn't an article on the Montana state capitol building itself for this to go in? Also, have you considered sending a link to your work to some Montana legistators and such? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an article. No idea how I missed that—replaced the lead image. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 18:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Excellent picture.--₮RUCӨ 19:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Remarkably detailed, and the sky helps to give it the necessary 'wow factor'. Reguiieee (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. per Shoemaker's Holiday - Fastily (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, really love the sky. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is there anything about this depiction of the building that gives it special EV that a current photograph wouldn't have? Makeemlighter (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its artistic merit is quite high, and that quality of it would be very difficult to get in a modern photograph. Its high quality and resolution also mean that it has at least equal encyclopedic value than a hypothetical modern photograph, but the artistic value and age gives it more inherent interest. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The left corner reads 'Copyrighted by Geo. R. Mann, architect'. Durova^Charge! 16:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...Wait. The building wasn't done being constructed until 1902, so that means that this is the original - what d'ye call it - mock up? - for the State Capitol by the architect. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Montana state capitol 2.jpg MER-C 01:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen

Reason

Continuing my current opera kick, I found this excellent poster for Bizet's Carmen. I actually ended up having to restore it twice, as I discovered a better version after doing the first. Ah, well!

Articles this image appears in

Georges Bizet, Carmen

Creator

Liebler & Maass Lith.

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - For an image from the 19th century, this is a very good quality image. Xclamation point 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - La fleur que tu m'avais jetée / dans ma prison m'était restée... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A very impressive restoration. Kaldari (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rosabel Morrison - Carmen poster.png MER-C 01:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Pierre Cambronne

Reason

Good details and exposure, used in several wikis to illustrate Pierre Cambronne, French general of the Old Guard at Waterloo.

Articles this image appears in

Pierre Cambronne

Creator

Eusebius

• Support as nominator --Eusebius (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. The quality/detail is good, but a cropped image of a statue isn't ideal, as (IMO) the setting/surrounds of the statue is often interesting and important. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The crop compromises on EV. — neuro^(talk) 02:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per neuro. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early science fiction

Reason

Old conceptions of the future often look quaint, and this one is downright charming. Notice the couple flirting through the rooftops at lower left. Restored version of File:Aerial house.jpg. Reduced size version available at File:Aerial house3 courtesy copy.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Albert Robida, History of science fiction, Scientific romance, Steampunk#Proto-steampunk

Creator

Albert Robida

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 02:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent depiction of early science fiction. Well known artist, visually interesting. Chillum 02:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am going to see if I can get a better copy from the original. Chillum 02:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Does anyone know why I can't have an image with more than 12.5 million pixels suddenly File:Aerial_house3.png when I have uploaded 35 million pixel images before without issue File:British Columbia Parliament Buildings - Pano - HDR.jpg? This makes it very hard to have the best possible image. Chillum 04:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the .png bug. Durova^Charge! 05:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As it stands, it's a DOS vulnerability. You can't use progressive JPEGs either. MER-C 05:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tim makes a very good point there. I will try tomorrow with a better jpeg than what is up. I will link to the png from the jpgs file page. Chillum 06:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This is a marvelous find.--ragesoss (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support What a great image!--Caspian blue 02:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, lovely. Greatly benefitted from restoration. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Aerial house3.jpg MER-C 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Letharia vulpina

Reason

High quality, with fantastic contrast and colours. Looks great at high resolution, and is highly encyclopedic as a great illustration of a specific species. Most of the objections in the previous nomination should be addressed by this crop.

Articles this image appears in

Letharia vulpina (current version will be replaced if promoted)

Creator

Jason Hollinger

• Support as nominator. Thanks to J Milburn for the first nomination, which is mostly copied here. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anything changed between this and the previous nomination except a crop? Noodle snacks (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Contrast stretch, which really didn't have much effect on this image. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Also, the un-cropped version is a candidate at VPC. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 13:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - most of the opposes of the last nom had to do with things now cropped out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The crop still doesn't address Mfield's oppose from last time: "suffering from some pretty unpleasant halation and chromatic abberation, especially on the branch and the bits of the fungus/lichen itself that are on the edge of the DoF. Either way it is distracting. At F8 on a Casio EX-Z1080 I am not sure whether it is purely the lens or if it is compounded by diffraction on a sensor that small. It is obviously not well suited to plant photography at this distance/magnification though." Spencer^T♦C 22:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I've not yet been able to see that flaw, maybe due to the technical language used by Mfield. Where is it? I understand the first part of the comment is about haloes, but I don't see any. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Halation is blurring of light around the out of focus areas - it causes that vaseline on the lens look, where the out of focus areas themselves blur into the in focus areas so you don't get a clear delineation. It is what you can see where the out of focus background seems to melt into the edges of the plant itself and most notbly the branch at the bottom (which is itself out of DoF, but not anywhere near as much). I think the bit on the branch is more acceptable than the soft focus result on the top extremities of the plant, being the subject. At any rate halation is very unpleasing to the eye - it is commonly found in primes like cheap F1.8 primes wide open but I would imagine that the cheap lenses in P&S cameras exhibit a lot of it, its just that normally they aren't operating at such wide apertures and narrow dof and the effects are less often observable. Mfield (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not knowing the definition of halation either, I decided to look it up, but your description of it doesn't seem to match what I've found from other sources. Essentially a number of them describe halation as specifically being an issue of the emulsion used in film (not digital). (Source 1, Source 2 and Anti-halation backing). That said, I understand the issue you're describing and I have seen it on my cheap 50mm f/1.8 lens... I guess the thing is, it might not technically be halation? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lens effect I am describing is quite separate from film halation, but it is the only term I have ever heard used to describe the out of focus smearing at wide apertures as I and you describe. Here a and section 2 of hereare references which link it - incorrectly or not - to axial chromatic abberation. Mfield (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Halation/inadequate DOF, per my comments above and on original nom. Mfield (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I am the original nominator, and I maintain that this is an excellent and striking illustration of the species. The tightened crop has improved the image (especially when viewed as a thumbnail) and I have replaced it in the article. J Milburn (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for inadequate depth of field to capture the subject. Wronkiew (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, mainly for DOF.--ragesoss (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald cockroach wasp

Reason

IMO, wasps are much harder to photograph than bees and flies as they hardly stay in one place for a long time. I found this wasp near a cockroach and thus it was more cooperative. This picture is of good quality and good EV. The foreground may be distracting to some, but it is unavoidable. The image is the only decent image wiki has of any member of the family, genus and species of the wasp! The wasp was on a cement sprayed wall looking down.

Articles this image appears in

Emerald cockroach wasp, Spheciformes, Ampulicidae, Ampulex

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator, Original, Edit1, Edit 2 in order of preference --Muhammad(talk) 14:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Support Edit 1. Although the DOF and composition are not ideal, the difficulty of the shot and it's EV makes me inclined to support it. The thing that is actually most distracting to me is the orientation of the ground. Looking at the photo I have no idea which way is up :P Kaldari (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wasp is looking down at an angle. Does that explain anything? --Muhammad(talk) 05:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what's the surface it's on? --jjron (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I incorrectly assumed everybody would know what the wasp was on. In Tanzania, some walls are sprayed with cement and when the cement hardens there are these small heaps of accumulated cement. I am not sure why the walls are sprayed, maybe its a design or maybe to stop robbers from climbing over them. The wasp was found on such a wall, looking down. --Muhammad(talk) 10:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've seen that type of surface, though it's not that common in these parts - that was probably one of several guesses I would have made as to what the surface was :-). A type of cement rendering I spose. So the next (dumb) question is, was the wall on this angle, or was it vertical as you'd expect? And if vertical, why is the image therefore at this angle? --jjron (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think I may have leaned slightly to keep away from the paralyzed cockroach and hence the tilt. Not a dumb question at all :) Will upload a rotated version later tonight --Muhammad(talk) 15:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Though good enc., the DOF is too shallow, and the tilt of the image is somewhat bothersome. Spencer^T♦C 22:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the tilt, this was how the wasp was. I can upload a straightened out version but ts does not not look as interesting. Regarding the DOF, most of the wasps body parts are in good focus, including the antennas. Having the wall in focus is impossible without losing out on something else. --Muhammad(talk) 05:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tilt is understandable, so that's why my oppose is weak. I still think the DOF could be big enough so that the whole subject is in focus (i.e., the legs). Spencer^T♦C 16:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm, a rotate and a small crop may look better...some test previews on my computer look a bit better. Spencer^T♦C 20:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Weak support edit 1. Spencer^T♦C 02:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Shallow DOF terribly distracts. ZooFari 01:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any, but preference for original. The DOF is very much normal for a macro shot and the composition is ideal to make the most of the DOF, so I have no complaints. I can't make my mind up about whether the tilt is ideal or not. I have to admit that it does make it a bit harder to view the wasp from this angle, and I don't know whether you can rotate it without cropping out the animal itself, but I support it either way. Between yourself, Fir0002 and Macro Freak, you have lifted the macro bar very high. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional Support: I'd like to see this rotated to the left 90°. Do you think that will improve it? I tried it and I thought it looked much better and less "bothersome". Maedin\^talk 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1: Just right with that rotation. This one doesn't give me vertigo like the original does! Maedin\^talk 19:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - In contrast to some others I like the DOF effect and angle. Its a good macro with everything possible (and important) in focus. Composition and the dull background make the subject pop out - great shot - Peripitus (Talk) 11:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have uploaded a rotated version. Some of the tilt is still there which I can remove at the expense of even more background and foreground being lost. --Muhammad(talk) 19:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The cropped version is much better, but it gives the false impression that the subject is on level ground. Should it be rotated 90˚ so the cockroach wasp appears to be on a wall like it really was, or is that too distracting?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For encyclopedic reasons, I don't think it makes much of a difference. The wasp can be found on level ground as in the edit and vertically as in the original. --Muhammad(talk) 03:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Original, Strong Oppose Edit 1 I think the EV is high enough that the somewhat distracting angle and DOF are acceptable. I think the edit is inappropriate manipulation. Maybe it's just because I've seen the original, but the wasp in the edit looks odd on a horizontal surface. I much prefer to see the wasp as the photographer did. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you're not - the photographer has already said this was on a basically vertical surface, but he had to lean to take the photo. As HereToHelp suggests, I wouldn't mind seeing a vertical edit as well (was going to dump one up myself, but I guess Muhammad may as well since he's got the source). --jjron (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't call rotating and cropping an image as inappropriate. For encyclopedic purposes, both orientations have similar value. --Muhammad(talk) 16:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 2 Uploaded. Got named a bit funny but upload speed is too slow to do it again :)--Muhammad(talk) 16:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can sympathise, though seemingly few others here can. Indeed I have suffered the dreaded 'jpg.jpg' mistake on uploading alts in the past myself, and have also just left them. :-) --jjron (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've managed to do the Image:Image: a couple of times, actually, after copying the full image name when uploading an edit. ;-) They can be renamed by an admin on Commons though, from memory, so you don't have to upload a new version. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a template ((bad name|correct name)) that has to be used after another correctly named version is uploaded so that the admin can delete the incorrectly named. At least that's what I always do --Muhammad(talk) 11:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose others. Has enough detail on the wasp, and I rather like the angle and foreground/background effect.--ragesoss (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Let's stick with the convention that the direction of gravity is down. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                                                                          |  
                                                                         \|/
                                                                          V

Promoted File:Ampulex compressa.jpg MER-C 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Water Babies

Reason

Scan of an original illustration by Jessie Willcox Smith for the children's book The Water-Babies. An unrestored version can be found here.

Articles this image appears in

Water Babies, Jessie Willcox Smith

Creator

Jessie Willcox Smith (Illustrator)

• Support as nominator ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per above discussion, and some followup, the crop is a reasonable choice if no border of blank paper is to be allowed. That said, it worries me that, in order to crop it without a border, part of the art was lost. Even if the borderless version is preferred in Wikipedia articles, the lack of an alternate uncropped version means that anyone using the restoration in future will, by necessity, have to leave a small part of the artwork out. No vote. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. No issue about the signature. Atlantic Gateways (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think this is a beautiful and interesting image. However, picking up from where Shoemaker left off, I'm wondering if there's some tiny rotation or negligible stretch that could be performed on this image to put all of it in the rectangular frame. In my mind, it would hardly affect the rest of the image, but be a lot more professional. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely not. Stretches usually end up being pretty messy. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And why is that? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• [Off-topic discussion moved to WT:FPC]
• Comment in the "off-topic discussion" (err, not really...), Shoemaker offered to upload a crop with the picture fully preserved, along with a bit of frame. This might be helpful. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm also uncomfortable supporting this excellent image because of the crop. Nothing wrong with leaving a border of blank paper when images aren't precisely rectangular. I hope it's possible to get a wider crop to vote on.--ragesoss (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul Jones

Reason

The most successful US Navy captain of the American Revolution, and the only one daring enough to raid British home waters. From a high resolution etching made during Jones's lifetime after his victory at the Battle of Flamborough Head. Restored version of File:John Paul Jones.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Battle of Flamborough Head, John Paul Jones

Creator

Carl Guttenberg engraver. From a drawing by C. J. Notté.

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 19:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this must have been before his glory days as Led Zeppelin's bassist. Sasata (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Though I'm having some technical issues viewing the original, are the black dots throughout the etching (for example the one when viewed top left, full-res) from the original...and what's your opinion on editing them out? If I'm being confusing I can upload a picture highlighting what I'm seeing. Spencer^T♦C 02:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have uploaded a crop of a section (upper left) highlighting what I mean. My upload is rather jpeggy, and you may want to compare my upload with the nominated image. Spencer^T♦C 02:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Good eye. Could we suspend the nomination for a day or so while I attack that? :) Durova^Charge! 03:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspended. Spencer^T♦C 00:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "day or so" is now over two weeks. Is this ready to get out of suspension yet? --jjron (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Relisting should occur soon. Spencer^T♦C 00:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another 24hrs is up (8 times over). Durova suggests "If it's not ready by then I'll start from scratch another time". Time to close...? --jjron (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes. Durova, I'm closing this, but feel free to relist once you're ready. Spencer^T♦C 17:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Spencer^T♦C 17:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth II Bridge

Original - The Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, as viewed from Greenhithe, 2.5km east of the bridge in Kent. The bridge provides the most easterly crossing of the River Thames, as part of the M25 orbital motorway which encircles London.

Reason

It is a high resolution panoramic image of virtually the entire span of the half mile long bridge and the night time lighting provides an aesthetic view (it tends to be quite hazy during the day due to the significant industry in the area) in which the bridge is able to stand out.

Articles this image appears in

Queen Elizabeth II Bridge and Dartford

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It doesn't add anything particular to the article beyond aesthetics. Considering the nominator removed this image from the bridge article, the replacement night shot shows comparatively little, I think that article is now in a poorer state in terms of using images to convey educational value to the reader. If the idea of this shot is to convey span, this image that the panorama has replaced did a passable job in my opinion without needlessly taking up the entire width of the article. I think the width also induces an uneccessary break of flow in the dartford article, and is of questionable value there, considering the view of the bridge from that far away is not synonymous with Dartford at all. This is Wikipedia not Commons, where featured images are intended to significantly inform the reader about the subject, which this just doesn't. Having said that, it is a visually nice image. MickMacNee (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're a bit confused. I never removed this image, and it is still in the article now. I removed this image, which is a poorer quality view from practically exactly the same angle as the panorama and therefore a bit redundant in the article. And I completely disagree that it doesn't add anything particular to the article. None of the other images show the entire length of the bridge from Kent to Essex. If that doesn't make it a useful image, I don't know what does. And I also disagree that the view from Greenhithe makes it unsuitable for existing in the Dartford article, as the bridge itself is in Dartford on the southern side, and is therefore relevant to Dartford and nothing says the bridge has to be taken from Dartford. The image that I replaced in the Dartford article was also taken from Greenhithe (a different location) anyway. The only point that I can appreciate the merits of is one of aesthetics in the article, although I personally disagree that it significantly breaks the flow of the article. I think quality encyclopaedic panoramas add visual flair to an article, but I know that a number of others disagree and I am obviously biased towards them, so it isn't a black & white issue really. But please reconsider its validity on the basis of adding to the article, as I think a full view of the bridge is about as encyclopaedic as you can expect of a bridge photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support MickMacNee's arguments are a little unusual here. "Cut-off" compositions are usually not given favourable reviews. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, whenever a new image is added to an article, it tends to polarise the article regulars who either love it or hate its presence, and tend to navigate their way to the nomination as a result. :-) It seems that his interest in this nomination stems from his involvement in the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge and Dartford articles, rather than FPC, and his review doesn't necessarily correspond to our usual criteria and expectations... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guilty, never been in a Wikipedia FPC before, but as I read the rules, this is not merely the same as a Commons one, featured images need to dovetail with and complement article content, and not merely be a nice picture. In my initial oppose I had made a mistake misreading what images had been added/removed, and if it had been the case that the image showing for example the concrete supports had been removed in favour of this panorama, that imo would have been a net negative to the article. MickMacNee (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes you're right, English Wiki FPC is different to the Commons one in that encyclopadic value is a significant portion of the criteria. You seem fairly rational so I don't doubt that you are able to make an objective decision on the nomination, and indeed the criteria is written to allow the uninitiated to get involved without too many teething problems, but it is still inevitable that without the participation, you won't have a full grasp of where the bar is set and what sort of images we're trying to feature. No problem though, you're still entitled to your opinion and no disrespect intended. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A blank user page always has its downsides. MickMacNee (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Excellent twilight panorama. Durova^Charge! 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice image, good enc., high quality. Spencer^T♦C 20:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment On the monitor I'm using (not necessarily good) I find it very dark in the "thumbnail" version, which obscures the detail. Perhaps a little earlier in the day would have been better. I'll try to take a look on another monitor so I can vote one way or the other, but at the moment I agree with MickMacNee. Terri G (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MickMacNee didn't mention that it was very dark... What part of Mick's argument do you agree with specifically? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support tending to 'Weak'. I've said before that while these twilight/night-time shots look nice, I think they compromise EV (I realise you justify the choice of time above for this one). Concerns from 'article regulars' always worry me a bit as well (which is why I'm not usually a fan of fast-tracking noms) and EV for Dartford does seem limited. Still it does seem to have value showing the whole bridge in good detail and has a certain 'wow'. --jjron (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and convincing reasons above. ~ ωαdεstεr16_{♣kiss me}^{i'm Irish♣} 19:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]