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

Eurocopter

Reason

Good, sharp, high quality image and a good angle. A possible criticism is the motionblurred rotors: unfortunately I didn't have time to prepare for the shot, I heard it coming, turned around and just had time to take a snap.

Articles in which this image appears

Eurocopter AS350, Eurocopter

Creator

Benjamint 13:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 13:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is the guy in the helicopter taking your picture? --Muhammad(talk) 15:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was standing part-way up the summit with pretty impressive views (for Australia) behind me so I assume he was photographing that --Benjamint 00:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Any chance of geocoding? I was up there and passed through swifts creek maybe two weeks ago, so curious. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 36°58′43″S 147°08′25″E / 36.97871°S 147.14028°E / -36.97871; 147.14028

• Support The motion blur on the blades is acceptable IMO --Muhammad(talk) 00:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the blur is actually desirable - it wouldn't look realistic with stationary blades. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, motion blur looks natural. Fletcher (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support agree with Fletcher et al re motion of blades. Gazhiley (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It's a pity the horizon cuts right through the helicopter, but still an excellent photo. I don't think the blurred blades are a problem at all. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.--Sabri76'^message 08:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Eurocopter AS350B.jpg —Maedin\^talk 07:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black soldier fly

Reason

Good quality, lighting and EV. Replaced a previous, inferior quality image of mine which had been in the article for over a year.

Articles in which this image appears

Black soldier fly, Brachycera

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 01:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is this one superior to your previous image? Prima facie, I see a little distracting blurred object in the foreground that the other doesn't have. In this one the insect has something at the end (like if it was lighted as a cigar) which might be normal but the other doesn't have.  franklin  21:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The object you refer to in the foreground is just a grain of sand. It hardly blocks any of the fly though. Cigar, I can't say --Muhammad(talk) 23:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The poor guy also needs a shower, it is covered in sand. The thing about a cigar is that the end of the abdomen looks like burned. I am almost sure it is not burned but changing its exoskeleton or something like that. But that makes the previous picture of yours a more generic individual.  franklin  23:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• But again, why is it you consider this one superior to the other?  franklin  23:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've got another picture which also shows it covered in sand so I'd say that's pretty normal for them. Personally, I prefer the lighting of this one. If you like that more, I could add it as an alternative. --Muhammad(talk) 00:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I was asking so much to see if I could identify what you were seeing in the other not as good as this one, and it makes me happy to know that I guessed right. The things about the sand and the strange abdomen might or might not be an issue, that depends on knowing more about that species, which I don't. The blurred spot on the sand is what I find more problematic. Usually blurs help to draw attention to the subject but in this case the blurred spot in the bottom is gathering attention itself. I guess because it is surrounded by a band of sharp elements. I tried a little (and quickly) blurring the rest of the sand (or most of it) and I think it solves this. It has to be blurred quite a bit since that spot is already very blurred. I don't know if that counts as excessive manipulation, but if not I think it would be good to do it. You can also add the other image but if I were you I would ponder whether it is the wining card because otherwise, since both images are good, it can happen that they will compete for the votes and that maybe is not strategically desirable.  franklin  05:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See edit --Muhammad(talk) 16:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hmmm... can we somehow get this without the red channel blow-out? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd rather have blown highlights in the largely out of focus foreground and background than clipped blacks on the insect. The blown areas do not look objectionable. If it is an easy fix I'd fix it. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think this one is slightly superior to the older image. Sharpness is a little better. Both have noticable dust spots though, Muhammad! Could you try to clone them out? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done --Muhammad(talk) 16:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 1 Uploaded. I applied a blur to part of the foreground, cloned out part of the sand blocking the leg and cloned on part of the leg from another picture I had of the shoot --Muhammad(talk) 16:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I find the blurry sand in the forground a little distracting... J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know but it's unavoidable. The subject is at such a position that you can not exclude at least some of the foreground, and at such high magnification, DOF is waay too shallow. Usually for insects perched on leaves, there is no "ground" in the foreground, hence a non-distracting compo --Muhammad(talk) 18:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I know what I'm looking at, I think the edit looks a little fake. I am not opposed to the original, as such. J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1-per nominator.  franklin  22:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (Edit 1) agree with above --Sabri76'^message 08:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hermetia illucens Black soldier fly edit1.jpg —Maedin\^talk 07:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White-faced Heron - breeding plumage

Reason

Shows whole bird well. The wind lifting up the long breeding plumes illustrates them well, the rose coloured fore-neck feathers also clearly illustrated.

Articles in which this image appears

White-faced Heron, Egretta

Creator

Benjamint 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Nice photo and composition, but only just scrapes through the with minimum resolution. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a bit low, fixed. Benjamint 01:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Still a bit low, the increase was minimal, but thanks. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It was minimal yeah, but it's now slightly larger than the fir standard ;P Benjamint 04:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, nice. J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good composition, shows plumage nicely. -- Avenue (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice composition. Elekhh (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, agree with above --Sabri76'^message 08:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:White-faced-Heron444.jpg —Maedin\^talk 07:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Raven

Reason

I think the image meets the criteria

Articles in which this image appears

Australian Raven

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. One of your best bird shots actually, I think. Interesting pose, good detail, aesthetic background and good exposure of the blacks (bit of fill flash I assume?). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXIF says flash not fired --Muhammad(talk) 16:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've a feeling the flash wasn't quite seated properly - pretty sure I used fill. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Creepy looking thing. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoth the raven, "Nevermore".. Edgar Allan Poe thought so too. One of my favourite poets. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Diliff. The composition is awesome. --Muhammad(talk) 16:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, leaning oppose. What is happening with the feathers of the neck/face? For contrast look at that non-FP quality shot of what the bird looks like normally. The feathers look damaged or dirty (maybe just really wet), and there are lots of feathers missing under the bill and in a small patch at about 7oclock from the eye. The lack of feathers on the throat, and the damaged ones around the neck removes one of the diagnostic clues to separate this species from the Little and Forest Ravens, reducing the EV. The EV could be restored if an explanation for this oddity is explained, as the photo quality is great and the pose is dynamic, but I don't think it is a representative shot f the species. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bird had recently had a bath, perhaps I should add this to the caption. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would explain the state of the feathers, but not the missing feathers. I will hold off on opposing, but I still feel this is not a sufficiently good representation of the species, which is a shame. It's the bird's fault, Noodle, not yours! Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder if it is part way between juvenile and adult. Birds in Backyards says that "Young birds resemble the adults, but have dark eyes, shorter throat hackles and often the presence of a pink, fleshy gape". This species is sometimes called a crow". here is an image of a juvenile. The bird was also gaping most of the time in a pose similar to this. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll need to check HBW or maybe HANZAB in the library tomorrow. There seems to be a lot of brown on the bird, which would support the suggestion it is young, but as you note the eye is clearly that of an adult. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, the HBW states that the species has extensive bare areas of grey skin on chin. Clearly this is unusually visible on this photo because the face is wet. (The HBW also confirms this is adult - older juvenile birds have hazel eyes). Thus the state of the birds head is entirely due to it being wet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Probably a silly question, but could you tell me what HBW and HANZAB stand for? Noodle snacks (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Stab in the dark: Handbook of Birds and Wildlife and Handbook of Australian and New Zealand something Birds? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, Handbook of the Birds of the World and Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. If neither of them don't know it, it probably isn't known. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I'm so taken with those pine needles. They're gorgeous. Great composition and quality. Shame about the wet feathers, but don't ravens usually look a little rough around the edges? :) Maedin\^talk 07:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Corvus coronoides.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kerouac

Reason

I believe that this on par with the other featured black and white photographic portraits that we have.

Articles in which this image appears

Jack Kerouac

Creator

Tom Palumbo

• Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Mainly it's too small. Sometimes we make exceptions for historical images, but for 60's, we would expect larger. Most if not all of our B&W FPs are larger; we have a larger portrait of Edgar Allen Poe taken more than 100 years before this shot. On the plus side, it's the only image we have of Kerouac in the article which is kind of surprising. Also I think you've overdone it with the contrast boost - we've lost some shadow detail and it changed the appearance of his hair and shirt, even if it does make the skin more dramatic. The edit also caused or brought out jpeg artifacts in the background. Fletcher (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wrote up a long email to send to the address listed on his website to request a large resolution, but unfortunately address was invalid. I share Fletcher's concerns. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above. Possible an excellent valued picture candidate. J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can we close this? You can re-nominate when the larger resolution becomes available. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pyogenic granuloma on a finger-1.jpg

Hubbard Grandstand, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME

Reason

It is a beautiful image of a college football grandstand, depicting a bygone era.

Articles in which this image appears

Bowdoin College, Whittier Field

Creator

Hugh Manatee

• Support as nominator --Ute in DC (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Thanks for your nomination, but this photo is very compressed and has bad JPEG artifacting throughout. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regent Parrot

Reason

Good image of a juvenile (similar to female) Regent Parrot.

Articles in which this image appears

Regent Parrot

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. Seems a touch overexposed (beak and breast) but otherwise another quality photo. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would second that. Can it be re-developed with more balanced values? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks ok to me. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare to edit 1? The difference is quite subtle (didn't need a huge amount), but I think it's an improvement. NS's feedback welcome too. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ditto J Milburn. Great shot! upstateNYer 19:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. Lovely. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 -- Benjamint 01:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - very very nice. Elekhh (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I think this should be redone properly, from raw. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your objection (in reality, not in theory) to edit 1? It could be reprocessed from RAW, but I think the benefit would be minimal. There isn't any blown highlights, just slight overexposure. And the overexposure is mainly in areas of detail, so any benefit of working with a colour space larger than 8 bit is largely lost in situations like that - you simply wouldn't notice any introduced posterisation. So is it really worth insisting on reprocessing it from RAW in this case? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Polytelis anthopeplus 2 edit1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bangkok Night Wikimedia Commons.jpg

Reason

Another great cityscape photo from Benh. High quality, aesthetic and of great value to the Bangkok article.

Articles in which this image appears

Bangkok and Tiger Cub Economies

Creator

Commons:User:Benh

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice EV, interesting to view --Muhammad(talk) 03:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Elekhh (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very good quality for a night image of this breadth... and a great view of the city. gren グレン 02:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support beautiful photo, makes me nostalgic for when I lived there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Very good quality but as per prev night shots up for nom there are several well lit areas that appear to be detail-less due to over-exposure... Im not too technical so not sure if that's exactly the right reason but I know what I'm trying to say! Most noticable on the centre tall building with the well lit white top - I cannot view much detail on the top of that building due to what I think are blown highlights... Other than a few little examples of this the picture as a whole is very good but I can't give full support as IMO I think this harms the picture... Gazhiley (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in agreement with you on that point. If it were me, I would have reduced the exposure a little which, as you said, would have minimised the detail lost to blown highights. Still, as it is, I think it's still a great image. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly... I knew it was something like that... Yeah still a great picture hence support, just not a full support with those issues... Gazhiley (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support wow! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bangkok Night Wikimedia Commons.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crested Pigeon

Articles in which this image appears

Crested Pigeon

Creator

Benjamint 01:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 01:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment sorry for asking for a crop again: I think the right margin is too wide. I find the grass somewhat distracting as it is very sharp on the bottom, and overall much more vivid than the subject, while not providing much information about the bird's habitat. I think an image with this type of background would be better. Elekhh (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've provided a slight crop. To the background however I have to disagree: it tells us nothing about the natural habitat but of it's new adopted habitat, gardens and lawns etc. since the species has expanded it's distribution this is a very typical setting to find one in. Just as I have never seen a city pigeon in anything resembling natural habitat, I have also never seen these pigeons outside of expanses of lush, mown grass such as parks and golf-courses. IMO the IQ and the EV of the pigeon itself is more than mitigating, also NB the iridescence on the wing feathers, I spent quite a while angling myself in order to catch that glint which many photos lack. Benjamint 09:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw comment on habitat as it is missinterpreted and distracts from what I actually meant. Elekhh (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I largely agree with Benjamint, as long as it is not grossly unrepresentative of the natural environment (desert, arctic etc), it's hard to say it's unnatural, especially when it comes to pigeons who tend to be happy almost anywhere they can find something to nibble on. A good photo of the bird without any major distracting elements is the primary goal, and a good understanding of the habitat from the photo is merely a nice addition IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I saw plenty of these on the mainland, almost always on grass like this. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Okay for me. EV and quality are there. Maedin\^talk 07:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pigeon-Crested.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Calm and Carry On 2

Reason

I have recreated this nomination with a new version of the file that appeared very late in the game in the last nomination.

Very emotive and powerful poster, which says a lot. I have it on the cover of a book next to me, on my wall at home, and I have seen the it (and bastardisations) on clothing and the like- in Britain, it is comparable to the likes of the famous Che Guevara photo in terms of its iconic status. This svg is a perfect reproduction, and, as an svg, can appear at any size necessary. There can be no better illustration for the article on the poster itself, and is a decent addition to the other articles on which it is used. I think it could probably be used in other articles as well. Has that "wow" factor that we're not allowed to talk about, and meets all the criteria, as far as I can see. Yes, it's simple, but it's certainly a highly valuable addition to the encyclopedia.

Articles in which this image appears

Keep Calm and Carry On, motivational poster, Ministry of Information (United Kingdom)

Creator

UK Government (design), Mononomic (svg)

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-per nominator. franklin  22:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per previous nom. Assume this one is an improvement. :-) I wasn't that phased by the minor typesetting issues to begin with though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fazed, not phased? Mononomic (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Errr, yes. What you said. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as image recreator. I've traced it by hand, and the alignment and type shape should all be fixed now. Would be a great addition to the FP group. Mononomic (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As per my prev support on orig nom Gazhiley (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per last time. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment EV for Ministry of Information (United Kingdom) seems low given that the ministry made no use of the poster. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Keep Calm and Carry On Poster.svg —Maedin\^talk 07:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plectroctena sp ants

Reason

Something you don't see everyday. I have only seen these large ants a couple of times, usually after a rainfall. A hard to take picture IMO and I got scrapped skin by lying on the ground to take the picture. Good quality, lighting and EV. Also, did quite well at commons

Articles in which this image appears

Ponerinae, Ant, Apocrita

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 11:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- Very funny, the little one is helping the one that is losing biting the other's ankle. All of this was happening next to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Hermetia illucens Black soldier fly.jpg which was probably watching the fight.  franklin  13:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What is the little one? That a baby? Or just a passing small ant? J Milburn (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a different species ant. I don't why it's in the fight though. --Muhammad(talk) 12:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nominator. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, valuable, eye-catching and interesting image. The fact the little one is there does actually bother me a bit, as it could cause some confusion, but I am happy to support. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom. The ground/background is fortunate in that it provides a scale refernce to the image. Elekhh (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Plectroctena sp ants.jpg —Maedin\^talk 07:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Robin at RHS Garden Harlow Carr, England

Reason

good image

Articles in which this image appears

European Robin

Creator

Photography by Paul Tomlin and cropped by Snowmanradio

• Support as nominator --Snowman (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Back-focussed such that the eye and wing are not sharp. A pity. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose; not quite there. Composition is lovely, but as Noodle snacks says, the focus isn't quite right. For such a common bird, I would want to see something of a higher quality. J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leiocephalus carinatus

• 
  Original - Leiocephalus carinatus (shown clinging to a palm tree near West Palm Beach, Florida) is a lizard native to the Bahama Islands, the Cayman Islands and Cuba, and was released intentionally in Palm Beach, Florida in the 1940s.
• 
  Edit 2 by Muhammad.

Reason

Next part of the lizard series. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Leiocephalus carinatus, Curly-tailed lizards

Creator

Ianaré Sévi

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC) updated below[reply]
• Comment Isn't the colour a bit too warm? --Muhammad(talk) 00:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try edit 1? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit2? --Muhammad(talk) 15:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did try taking it that far, but was unhappy that the fg became monochromatic. Well, let's not complicate things. Your edit can be the alt since I actually still quite like the original. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then support edit 2 --Muhammad(talk) 23:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit2-Although I would have left the background without the reduction of temperature, only applying the transformation to the lizard and tree.  franklin  13:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit2: Excellent lizard shot, pleasing composition. Plus I love the creamy bokeh, :) Maedin\^talk 07:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (Edit 2) agree with above --Sabri76'^message 08:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any but ultimately with preference for edit 1. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Leiocephalus carinatus armouri tree cool.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glasshouse and fountain at lalbagh

Reason

Good quality, EV, colours. Very few good Indian pictures, this helps fill the gap

Articles in which this image appears

Lal Bagh, Bangalore, Tourist attractions in Bangalore

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sharp, well composed, pretty good Ev. Fletcher (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good work. People in the photo are good for size reference, but not noticeable enough to ruin the composition. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportBeautifulWai Hong (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Fletcher Gazhiley (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Glasshouse and fountain at lalbagh.jpg —Maedin\^talk 07:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pythagoras theorem

Reason

This visual proof is much easier to understand for the layperson than the algebraic ones. It is also useful for explaining the concept of a mathematical proof.

Articles in which this image appears

Pythagorean theorem, Mathematical Proof

Creator

Alvesgaspar

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow, never thought of it that way. How cool. Don't know how many times I've used that and never even considered this sort of proof. upstateNYer 02:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Query: the "creator" field above seems to contradict the file history, which credits Alvesgaspar. Which is correct?-- Avenue (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alvesgaspar, just habit. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Good EV, but the jerkiness of the movements puts me off. -- Avenue (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a trade off with animated gif. Less jerky motion means more frames and a consequent large file size. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and I can accept that the current version might have got the balance right when it was created back in 2007. However a sub-400K animated gif doesn't seem that big to me nowadays; I imagine we could make it a lot smoother without causing problems. But perhaps I'm wrong. Can anyone point me to a relevant guideline? -- Avenue (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure there is a guideline beyond what has been accepted in the past since animated gifs are not that common. Mediawiki can't resize them to smaller resolutions, so the article thumbnail is the same size as the image itself. This means that at current size it would take about a minute to load on a dialup connection. I really think commons should introduce flash support, but that is another matter. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support for in-place SVG animation would be even better, IMO. Back to this nom: earlier this month the 23MB File:Mandelbrot sequence new.gif was promoted. Even bulking up the proof diagram by a factor of ten wouldn't get us into the same ballpark, so I don't see size as a good reason to accept a jerky animation here. -- Avenue (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yes, it's jerky and could be more visually impressive (at a file size cost), but it's very valuable to both articles IMO and it's unrealistic to expect the same standards as still images when it comes to animations. Wish it came with a pause button though. It would benefit from being a bit slower. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good quality and ev, and personally, the jerkiness doesn't worry me, and slows it down for me just a bit. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the jerkyness needs to be sorted out. I'm not convinced that animation really helps, with these animations to truly convince myself I need to check that the distances match, especially in the last stage that the width of the two squares are really a and b, you need to check with the triangles above. This is actually easier with static images, compare an alternative proof shown right. With the static pictures I can check the required measurements.

  

There is also a question of sourcing. To whom should this visual proof be credited? For a featured picture I would really expect good referencing. --Salix (talk): 20:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are ample references asserting that the theorem being proved in the animation is correct. The exact proof doesn't need a reference (it's a proof!). Noodle snacks (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be picky FPC #6:Is accurate. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page and the article gives the proof without reference, its even not clear in the article which of the two rearrangements the text is referring to. Anyway Cut the Knot does give references to the proof,

This and the next 3 proofs came from R. B. Nelsen, Proofs Without Words, MAA, 1993.

The first two pieces may be combined into one. The result appear in a 1830 book Sanpo Shinsyo - New Mathematics - by Chiba Tanehide (1775-1849), [H. Fukagawa, A. Rothman, Sacred Mathematics: Japanese Temple Geometry, Princeton University Press, 2008, p. 83].--Salix (talk): 00:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Wow, what can I say? Thanks for the nomination, Noodle snacks. Yes, I believe that a much smoother animation is possible. But this was made the hard way, frame by frame with CorelDraw. Anyway I believe that the fundamental concept of the "proof" is transmitted. To whom should this particular proof be credited? I have no idea. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:In general, dissection proofs such as these are visually appealing, but they often gloss over significant assumptions and should not be used as a substitute for more formal reasoning. In fact there are several dissection "proofs" that lead to obviously false results (See [1]). This type of proof does have a place though, especially to introduce the theorem to people who don't want to take an entire course in Euclidean geometry. On the file size vs. Jerkiness issue, I don't think file size can be dismissed simply because dial-up connections are going the way of the dinosaur. Now people access Wikipedia through cell phones and even as those connections get higher bandwidth there may be other technologies that come along where large file sizes cause problems.--RDBury (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing square puzzle is an example of one that we have an article on. They usually work by having triangles with slightly different side length ratios. They usually rely on squares for counting area and the like too. In this case a single triangle is mirrored a number of times, so that problem is not going to happen. There is plenty of discussion about in the article section on the rigour of this type proof too I might add. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Noodle snacks (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pythagoras-2a.gif —Maedin\^talk 18:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green Flash (optical phenomenon)

Reason

Great EV, very good quality, interesting image of rarely seen phenomena

Articles in which this image appears

green flash

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. It might be useful to add the time period that the images were taken over to the caption. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Lovely sequence, shows the process very clearly. I agree that mentioning the sequence's duration on the description page would improve the EV. -- Avenue (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I would also like a the time period to be included on the image (but I wouldn't require it for support). Also, green flash could use an image-trim. It's pretty heavy at the moment. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.  franklin  14:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Muhammad(talk) 02:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment have you tried making this into an animation? It could be interesting to see that way. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, it would have been very interesting, but I do not know how to do it. I am willing to email you the originals, if you could do it. Of course it will take quite a few emails to send them all I am afraid :( because IMO, if we are to to make an animation, it will be better to include more images. Maybe an animation could be done from the image from the nominated image? I do have a bigger composite of the same sunset: .--Mbz1 (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Development of Green Flash.jpg —Maedin\^talk 18:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kalapana, Hawaii

Reason

Good EV and quality, a rare everchanging lanscape

Articles in which this image appears

Kalapana, Hawai'i

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Very nice. Might there be a dust speck in the darker cloud just left of the pole, and another between the two vog plumes? -- Avenue (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit conflict, same as Avenue. If I hadn't read the caption I would have assumed that the plane was also a dust spot. Benjamint 10:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a spot to the left, could somebody please add a note? Thank you. To the right from the pole there is a plane and a helicopter--Mbz1 (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note for each speck. Would it be worth adding notes for the plane and helicopter? -- Avenue (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added notes for the plane and helicopter. I am not sure about dust spots. IMO they are too black for dust spots. It might be just another helicopter or a bird there. If you still wish me to remove those two, I will.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're in the best position to judge, so I'll leave it up to you. -- Avenue (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd rather not, the image is up for supporting :)--Mbz1 (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have to darken the sky a lot? (or lighten the land) I was just thinking it looks kind of odd the way the yellow sign suddenly gets darker at the same height as the horizon ... almost looks as if it wasn't excluded from the mask (I'm sorry I'm just being annoying now) Benjamint 18:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question, Benjamint. You do not have to be sorry. Your question is a legitimate one, and honestly I am very glad that such a good photographer as you are showing interest in my image. Now about the question itself. The answer is: I do not remember, but maybe you are right. The original image was lost, when I crashed my hard drive some time ago. It was very upsetting because I lost some absolutely unique images that I took from helicopter. Very few were uploaded to Commons before the crash (Mauna Loa, which is nominated above is one of them), but most images, taken on that expensive helicopter ride, were lost. The image in question is of course not the one that was taken from a helicopter, yet IMO it is kind of unique on its own. I tried to address the problem in my new edit, I also removed the dust spots in question. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Lovely photo, with excellent justaposition of the various elements - tells much of the story in a single image. The plane and especially the helicopter are useful for giving a sense of the scale. -- Avenue (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The image currently seems to be in an image gallery in the specified article. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you are kind of right. Of course I would not like to replace the top image with an active lava flow, but the quality of the top image do not allow to nominate it for FP. On the other hand Kalapana is such a fascinating place that IMO one of the images should be featured. The article is small, and I am not sure how to format it to include the image in the body. Any suggestions? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recreational fishing

Reason

High EV, good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Recreational fishing, Lake Merced

Creator

mbz1

• Comment Some of you might say that because the image shows very little of the lake it has low EV. Let me please prove to you that this image contains almost complete information about the lake:

1. The image was taken on a foggy morning. Early morning fog are very usual occurrence at the Lake.
2. The fishing pier that is depicted at the image shows that active recreational fishing at the lake is encouraged.
3. The fisherman is an Asian American. Asian Americans are the most common fishermen at the lake.
4. The image depicts few birds and kayaks . They are a very usual sight at the lake in any weather.
5. Cane that is seen at the image is growing up all over the lake.
6. Of course the presence of the fisherman with few Fishing rods is a good indicator that fish is common at the lake, but to tell you the truth I've never seen a fisherman catching a fish :) I did see how Double-crested Cormorant did .

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. I have to admit, I'm still not convinced of the EV of this image. It might typically be foggy, but the dark side of the moon is typically very dark too, but that doesn't mean we should feature a photo of a black rectangle. ;-) And Asian Americans might be the most common fishermen at this lake, but it's not evident that he is actually Asian, and if you have to explain this sort of thing in an image caption then it's not really telling us as much as you imply that it is. It's an aesthetic and interesting image, but just doesn't tell us as much about the lake as a FP could or should IMO. Having said that, the EV is better in recreational fishing, although I think that a photo could show fishing better without a silhouette. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the image and comment on it. I only cannot understand why the vote was only "weak oppose" :) I am not sure I agree with your statement about that it is not evident that the man is an Asian American. Before I uploaded the image to Wikipedia I submitted it to a stock photo site. It was rejected. Guess why, they wanted to have a model release :)
To tell you the truth that image reminded me a story about a student, who was taking geography exam. The question was Sakhalin. The student was not ready for the exam, but in the last moment she remembered a song about Sakhalin. She started to recite the song : "What, could I tell you about Sakhalin? The weather on the island is great." Professor said: So, what could you tell me about Sakhalin? The student responded: It is an island. Then she continued with the song: "The surf makes my clothing salty, and I live, where the Sun rises." Once again professor stopped her, and asked:So where Sakhalin is located? The student responded: It is located at far East. Then she continued with the song: "It takes some time for the mail to reach our harbor" Professor asked: Please name an industry in Sakhalin. The student responded: They have a harbor there. She continued with the song: "Sometimes I come to the rocky cliffs at Strait of La Pérouse. Professor said: You even know the name of the strait! You deserve an "A", good job! Sorry for the long story, but I did use it to prove that my image has EV. :)
In any case I'd like to thank you one more time for commenting on the image. I am always trilled, when you do, and I mean it. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose- almost all the elements of the picture are either blurred or dark which I see unjustified since "normal" images can be produced (e.g. the one in the infobox of Lake Merced). (Not part of the oppose argument: The Asian person could also be native American/Sudamerican since they also can have this shape of the face)  franklin  05:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not blurred, they are foggy :) This particular image could not have been any brighter because the sun would have been overexposed then. It is a mood image, which shows the mood of an early morning at the lake. IMO infobox image is kind of boring. Anyway thanks for your review, Franklin. I understand and have absolutely no problems with your and Diliff oppose reasons, while still believing that the image is of a good quality and EV. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thanks for the nomination. It is refreshing to see a different approach at FPC. I agree the image does provide a lot of information about the lake. I think what is missing is an element which would make it clearly unique to this lake, as probably there are many lakes which are foggy and good for fishing. The design of the balustrade unfortunately doesn't appear to be unique either. However, I think it might have sufficient EV for recreational fishing, as it illustrates a typical fishing scene on a foggy morning. I also think you were a bit shy to place your image towards the bottom of the article, so I moved it up a bit :) Elekhh (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I am glad you understood the image! I've changed the subject as you suggested, and I hope that maybe now Diliff will reconsider his weak oppose to weak support because he also said that fishing is a better subject for this nomination :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support While the EV for Lake Merced is low, it's pretty good EV for recreational fishing. Because it's recreation, the mood or emotional aspect is more relevant than it might otherwise be (why do we do what we do?). And the picture captures a very relaxed, peaceful atmosphere. It's surely not the most educational picture possible, but then, not all human experience takes place under "encyclopedic" lighting conditions. Fletcher (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if the image is now about recreational fishing it is even more uncalled the mist, the darkness, the blown-up sun (not for being that way but for being that way in a dark picture, distracting from the fisherman). For Lake Merced I could assume being misty is tipical (although misty doesn't imply that everything has to be dark) but for fishing... I believe that it is dark because the sun is there inside the frame and is there for two reasons, either it is a mistake (hopefully it isn't) or it is there on purpose. But then the picture is more about the interaction sun-fisherman-mist. That's why Mbz1 calls it a mood image. But a mood image compromises the EV. One can't see what the fisherman wears, what he brought: is he really wearing gloves? Do we need to bring gloves? Is that a cloth over the fence or just a newspaper? I don't know. How many questions can remain unanswered for the choice of everything being dark.  franklin  06:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin, you reminded me a story about one elderly woman. She got a strong pain in her lower back. The pain was so strong, she could not go to a hospital, and asked a doctor to come to her house. The doctor was very young, it probably was her very first house call. The doctor examined the elderly woman, and asked: "Aren't you in labor by any chance?" The woman responded: "Oh, no, dear, I would have never allowed myself to go to labor by a chance." I remembered the story because you said you hoped I've got the sun into my image by mistake. I would have never allowed myself to get the sun into my image by mistake, I assure you. The image is not about fisherman, the image is about fishing, and the atmosphere of fishing. It is not important what fisherman wears, what he brought and so on. It is the atmosphere that made the scene somehow special to me. The fog that made the shapes of trees, birds and kayaks softer, the sun, the sun glitter in the lake, the birds... Having said this, I do realize that everybody has a different taste, and I thank you for taking time to comment on the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice that I said "hopefully it isn't": hopefully it is not by mistake. And then I continued assuming the other possibility.  franklin  16:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Franklin, please do not get upset with my story and me. I just thought it was funny that's it. It also reminded me that when I nominated this image of mine File:Foggy sunset with Brown Pelicans.jpg on Commons, one user said that he wished the sun were not the sun, but a lens flare :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't think we should feature many images like this, but I don't rule them out. Like I said, the mood actually contributes to EV; it explains why (some) people likely enjoy fishing. Note that we have separate articles for fishing techniques and fishing tackle, among many others, where more technical images are appropriate. This image is a good illustration of the recreational aspect. And contre-jour is an established photographic technique so I don't think it makes sense to complain it's too dark. The question is, is the technique effective, and I think it works well here, placing emphasis on the man and fishing rod. The missing information is not all that important: what he's wearing would depend on the weather and location; what is draped over the rail seems trivial. Oddly, besides a drawing, the article has no other images of someone actually fishing. Fletcher (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe the image is useful in the contre-jour article. (By the way, thank you, I didn't know that term) Another thing is that contre-jour doesn't imply that things should be dark-dark [2], filling flash could be used. In this one it wasn't, at least not the one in the camera. In general not all techniques are suited for encyclopedic use in subjects outside of the technique it self. It is true that the article needs more suited images and this one seems better than the ones that were there. I expected to see Hemingway there but he is not even mentioned.  franklin  16:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose EV is compromised due to the lightning. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per previous comments. It well illustrates hard to capture attributes of recreational fishing such as calm or solitude. I also find it does a good job in "making the viewer want to know more" per FP criteria. Elekhh (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The image contains the silhouette of a fisher with a rod in a murky brown fog, apparently fishing from a pier among weeds in a lake. It may have merits in some technical areas, or viewed from a certain aesthetic. But it doesn't have merits as an image representative of recreational fishing. The opinion above says this "well illustrates hard to capture attributes of recreational fishing such as calm or solitude". I think viewers are more like to react to it as somewhat suffocating and depressive. There are many aspects to recreational fishing, and this picture captures practically none of them. It might be a good image for an article on depression, with a caption something like "The twilight of hope". I am concerned that if this picture becomes a featured picture, then that status might be used to force its use onto key fishing articles as the lead picture. There have already been attempts to push this picture as the lead image on angling and recreational fishing. In both cases, it is quite inappropriate. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody tried to push anything. Yes I added the image to angling. It was removed. Did I say anything else about the image? The only thing that is inappropriate here is the language you have chosen to use.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the language I have chosen to use is inappropriate, then please explain why it is inappropriate. If "nobody tried to push anything", then please explain these diffs: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] --Epipelagic (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I added image to angling and to Recreational fishing at the same time. You removed it from angling, but let it be in Recreational fishing. Did I revert you on angling, did I ask you to reconsider? No, I did not. Should I have asked you before adding image to angling? No, I should not. You do not own the article. Where do you see "pushing" in those two edits?
2. Elekhh liked my image better than the one in the article now, and put it to be the lead image. You reverted the user's edit, Elekhh never reverted you. Where do you see "pushing" in this edit?
3. Elekhh went to the talk page of the article to discuss the changes. Discussing changes at an article talk page is not considered to be "pushing". Articles talk page are made for that very purpose.

Conclusion. You reverted my edit and Elekhh in two different articles. Neither me nor Elekhh ever reverted your edit. That's why I do consider your language inappropriate. I do not really care about you opposing the nomination, but please do not say that somebody was attempting to push the image. Nobody did. BTW you constant talking about that the image is good to illustrate depression is not very appropriate either, and could make one depressed. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any edit warring, only some proposals for improvement, and an open discussion regarding the merits of the image. Let's keep focused. Elekhh (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(edit conflict):::::So you were talking to me? Here's the history of one article. How many times I edited it? Two times, first, when I added the image, second few minutes later, when I changed the caption. Any "pushing" so far? Here's the history of other article. How many time you see my name here? Two times, first, when I added the image, second few minutes later, when I changed the caption. Any "pushing" so far? What have I done wrong in your opinion? I guess after talking to you I will consider go fishing myself just to relax and get rid of depression you know.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do find your language very inappropriate. We don't shy away from harsh criticism here, but it should be constructive. Thus, you don't say, "this image sucks," you say it is unsharp, overexposed, etc. While the mood of an image is inherently subjective, you could say you find it more gloomy than relaxing without going on and on about how badly you feel about it. Tying it to depression, a mental illness which has nothing to do with this image, is over the line IMO and makes it seem like you are just trying to demoralize the photographer. Further, saying someone is trying to "push" an image makes it sound like there is some sort of sinister manipulation going on, rather than good faith edits to the encyclopedia. I was amused to see in the edit history that it was you who removed the image from Angling and moved it from the lead in Recreational fishing. Consider if it might be just as accurate to say one editor with ownership issues over certain fishing articles is pushing to remove the contributions of others. Fletcher (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness... This thread seems... very disorganised. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of you incivility. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If have in any way been uncivil, I apologise. But again Mbz1, instead of just making accusations, you need to explain how I have been uncivil. There is now a pile on of supporters from this page attempting to to instigate this image as the lead image on recreational fishing. And why are you trying to stigmatise depression Fletcher, calling it a "mental illness"? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask you to apologize, I asked you to respond my questions that you never did. So one more time:
I have never reverted any of your edits, just the opposite you reverted me and Elekhh, and then you said: " There have already been attempts to push this picture as the lead image on angling and recreational fishing. In both cases, it is quite inappropriate." Please in plain English explain to me, where do you see pushing? What I have done wrong?
Please stop talking about the discussion going on at the article talk page. It is an appropriate place for such discussions, to call it "pile on" and.or "pushing" is inappropriate.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, that's enough. I've said what I think about the picture. I don't want to keep trying to respond to these shifting quicksands. Mbz1 says the attempts to make the picture the lead image in fishing articles is not happening. Others can draw their their own conclusions. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "pile on" of supporters at the talk page, have you forgotten that you linked from here to the talk page? I had been unaware of any discussion there and simply found it courtesy of your link. And I in no way stigmatized depression, nor am I sure why calling something a mental illness stigmatizes it, unless you presuppose mental illness is shameful in which case you are guilty of stigmatizing, not me! For the record I was referring to clinical depression which is the sense that you seemed to be using the word when you said the image should be captioned "the twilight of hope". Fletcher (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I can't see what all the fuss is about. It is a beautiful picture that provides a certain very real atmosphere - "a typical fishing scene on a foggy morning," as someone above termed it. It actually shows a person fishing as opposed to a girl simply holding a fish. I admit it is a very cute little girl but there is more artistic merit in the Mbz1 picture. As for the comment above that the fog in this picture is a "murky brown": I would just wonder if perhaps your monitor needs adjustment, as I see a cool silver fog myself! Stellarkid (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps it's my monitor. I see a dreary pollution smog rather than a cool silvery fog! --Epipelagic (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Fletcher. Broccoli (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Email canvassing for support, are we Mbz1? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard about WP:AGF or you are having difficulties not only with being fair and civil, but also with assuming good faith?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. EV is low in both articles, not a wonderfully composed picture - it is dominated by the sun shining through the fog, and the dark shadows, rather than the ostensible subjects of the image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also opposed to users trying to force an image into the lead of an article against editors wishes. This is above everything an encyclopedia, and encyclopedic value comes first. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And looking at the histories of those articles, I see that this was not done - I withdraw and apologise. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that yet another user confirms that the image was not forced to any article.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support Been thinking about this for some time now, and while I agree it may not be ideal for illustrating the lake IMO the image is suitable for recreational fishing and is the sort of image I remember seeing in story books I used to read. --Muhammad(talk) 16:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God Speed

Reason

I don't think there is any denying that this is an image of high quality and striking composure, the image helps to capture a very victorian view of medieval chivalry, and does so at the same time as being aesthetically pleasing. At 1,702 × 2,382 pixels should be more than sufficient from a technical point of view. And I believe that it adds encyclopedic quality to Edmund Leighton by displaying not only Leighton's perception of the medieval community, but also by providing an example of his work. (Image is in the public domain).

Articles in which this image appears

Edmund Leighton, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight#Themes, courtly love, castle

Creator

Edmund Leighton, and uploaded by Grendelkhan.

• Support as nominator --Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm actually not wild about the EV in the artist's article, but I have added three other articles to the list above in which it is used- two FAs and one in which it is used in the lede. I would personally love to see more fine art FPs, and this seems like a good candidate. However, without knowing the original size of the painting, I'm not sure I can easily judge this reproduction. Also, the source link is dead. J Milburn (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply ah, sorry about the source link, fixed now. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, not fixed because I can't access commons, the correct source, however, is: http://www.artrenewal.org/pages/artwork.php?artworkid=5210 Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good digital reproduction and good use in articles. Also, I've fixed the source links. Diego_pmc ^Talk 17:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm a tad leery about enc., but it has high quality. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Penrose Tiling

Reason

Penrose tiling would not be easy to understand without images. The rotational symmetry and aperiodic structure are quite clear in this example. It is also an SVG.

Articles in which this image appears

Penrose tiling, Rhombille tiling, Mathematics and art

Creator

Inductiveload

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not the most exciting of things to my eye, but a great FPC. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I can't honestly say that seeing the image makes me feel "FP," but the quality is good and the EV is strong. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment some minor visual defects in the image. SOme of the lines down the centre are thicker than the other edges. Also wondering if a different colour scheme might draw out the contrast between the two tiles a bit more. --Salix (talk): 23:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the thicker lines just because of the rendering? I can't see it. I could create an edit with changed colours, any personal favourites? We need to stick to a scheme that works for the colour blind. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's just because of the rendering. If you click on the image and then click on "This image rendered as PNG in other sizes" and 2000px, you can see clearly that all the lines are the same thickness. Ozob (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A slightly more colorful image of the Penrose tiling was used on the Jan. 1977 cover of Scientific American, and a variation of it was used 30 years later. That image is a bit more eye-catching but the additional colors add extraneous information that I think would detract from its encyclopedic value. The fact that there are only two colors may lessen the immediate visual impact, but one of the points of interest here is that only two types of tiles are needed and the point would be lost if there were more colors. This is more like a Bach Cello Suite than a Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto but I'd think there would be room for both here.--RDBury (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Salix was talking about adding additional colours, just changing the two here to something with greater contrast. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Valuable, good format, clear. Maedin\^talk 12:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chestnut Teal Duckling

Articles in which this image appears

Australian Wood Duck

Creator

Benjamint 12:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 12:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article seems a little over-illustrated, and there is not a single mention of the ducklings. Quality-wise, this image is there, but in the current article, it is adding little. Perhaps contact Casliber (talk · contribs)? He's someone who would be very able to write a decent article on an Australian bird. J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to completely disagree; in no way does one each of male, female and duckling constitute overillustrated. IMO that's perfect, and even if it had 20 images, if this were the only one of a duckling then it would still be important. If the article doesn't currently mention the ducklings then that means the image is even more important. Benjamint 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that where a species' appearance is variable a well illustrated article will have representations of all the different ways it can look. Having a male, female and chick is not over illustrated, for this species it could probably have a male in ellipse plumage and a juvenile bird too. It would be great if the article was longer, and with as many featured images as this has it may well be worked on soon (but bear with us, there are lots of birds that could have better articles!). Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Always nice to have a juvenile image to compliment the adults. It's a stub, but it isn't gallery-like. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I expanded the article a bit, and I think the image now fits in much better. Elekhh (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Great work, Elekhh, thank you. Fits well in the article. Good EV and quality. Maedin\^talk 07:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice image. -- Avenue (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Australian Wood Duck duckling.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Join, or Die

Reason

The historical value of the cartoon in the context of the American Revolution is immense. The picture's printing quality is only due to the technology available at the time. The uploaded version is of a high quality. It meets all criteria as far as I can see.

Articles in which this image appears

Join, or Die, Benjamin Franklin, American Revolution

Creator

Benjamin Franklin

• Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We can do better. It looks like this is a restoration of the original: [8] (which has much higher resolution). I'll take a shot at producing a better restoration. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wasn't really happy with the result of my work: File:Franklin join or die2.jpg. Jujutacular ^T · C 06:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Your version is more accurate to the original print. Sir Richardson (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I'll post it: Alt. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One interesting thing did come up through restoration. You'll notice on the library of congress information page about the print it lists the state letters: "S.C., N.C., V., M., R., N.J., N.Y., [and] N.E.". At first I thought - what does the 'R' stand for? Rhode Island? On closer inspection however, there is a brown smudge on that letter, forming it into an 'R'. It was originally a 'P', which I assume stands for Pennsylvania. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The image could be added to Albany Plan, the union to which the picture is suggesting. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, I'm not really seeing it. J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subiaco Abbey and Academy

Reason

This image is of extremely high quality and the subject matter is stunning. It exemplifies the subject and is of interest around the world.

Articles in which this image appears

Subiaco Abbey and Academy, Frank Stanford, Ordre de Saint-Benoît, Liste d'abbayes bénédictines, Abbaye de Subiaco (Arkansas)

Creator

Image furnished by Subiaco Abbey

• Support as nominator --Jarhed (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The crop at the top is too tight, and some other quality issues as well.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not sure if same issues Mbz1 refers to, but blurred in foreground, distracting dark patch lower-right (thought initially it was shadow but seems too thick to be shadow - poss lens obscured?) Plus distortion on angle of building - it seems to be all leaning to centre... Gazhiley (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; even on the thumb, the distortion is obvious. It all looks a bit Alice in Wonderland. J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mauna Loa

Reason

Huge EV, very good quality. a very rare view from the air

Articles in which this image appears

Mauna Loa

Creator

Mbz1

• Comment Please correct my English in the caption
• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Wonderful colours. I have edited the caption here and on the description page. Can you add any information about the location? A geocode would be ideal, but even just the general area would be useful (the northeast rift zone, say). -- Avenue (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geolocation was added. Thank you for fixing the subject.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I was going to oppose due to huge shadows making details hard to view, but that's not shadows... I never thought lava went THAT dark so good EV as I've learnt something today... Gazhiley (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Very nice image. I would crop a bit from the bottom for better format and proportions. Elekhh (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Nominator. Rare photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mauna Loa from the air.jpg —Maedin\^talk 19:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slender Ringtail

Reason

Articles in which this image appears

Slender Ringtail, Austrolestes

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very nice. J Milburn (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Really like the sharpness and detail across most of the damselfly.Fletcher (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above --Muhammad(talk)
• Support sharp and good composition. --Elekhh (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Austrolestes analis.jpg —Maedin\^talk 21:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eclectus Parrot

Reason

Sharp and nice lighting.

Articles in which this image appears

Eclectus Parrot, Psittaculini, Eclectus

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Nominator --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be sharp, but I think that it is not very well composed. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very nice colour, details and composition --Muhammad(talk) 13:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it does not show the colours that would be visible from the front. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - good quality image. Can you confirm the subspecies? Elekhh (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a side view and only the tips of its feet are seen. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. Accept Snowman's point that the pose is not ideal, as the characteristic plumage which differentiates the subspecies is on the abdomen. Still I find it a high quality image with very nice composition. With the recent abundance of bird images on FPC it seems that the expectations are gettting higher :). Elekhh (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Only a minute portion of the red and blue is shown, and it would be much better if more of the blue and red is seen in a more frontal picture. It is not a very good angle and so the bird looks almost entirely green. It would be better to show a view where more of the front is visible and more of the blue and red can be seen. I do not think this view of a parrot is a very good image to put in infoboxes. It is not well composed - only a small portion of its feet can be seen and its colours can not be seen well except for green. To me this has much less EV, because its colours are obscured. Even if the subspecies was known, the EV would not be elevated because its colours are not shown well. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Maybe a silly question, but why's it so puffy and fluffy? I did some Googling, and I didn't see any other parrots like this one- see this, this and this, for instance. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say it was trying to keep warm, except the weather on that day was mid 30s, so I'm not sure. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a female version of this bird at my home. They fluff up like this from time to time, but often for only a short bit of time. To me, it appears something similar to stretching, or a "chill", but I am not an expert by any means. Did you get to hear this bird? These birds are extremely loud! --Chrismiceli (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Snowman. Lovely photo, but I agree about the problems with its EV in those articles. It is a good illustration of the "fluffing" behaviour, and I would reconsider if it found a home in an article covering this. -- Avenue (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in complete agreement with Avenue. This a lovely shot, and very well illustrates this fluffing, whatever it is. If we can get an an article somewhere on that, I would support. I will ask around... J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have asked Casliber, who I know writes about birds, here. J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a book reference: [9] Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose because of fluffiness. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment many birds in captivity in Australia are apparently hybrids between polychloros and solomonensis, as Sydney's Taronga Park Zoo had many of these in a large aviary many years ago. The Australian subspecies macgillivrayi is way way up the top of Cape York and hard to get to. Some more recent birds are actually of this subspecies. I have not read enough about the subspecies to be able to check which one it is. Another way would be to contact Melbourne Zoo. If I have time I can try and ring them today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —Maedin\^talk 21:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aedes aegypti

Reason

Good quality, EV(clearly identifiable due to prominent white markings), resolution(for such a tiny subject). Few mosquito FPs.

Articles in which this image appears

Aedes aegypti, Mosquito

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 01:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent photo, EV is clear. Jujutacular ^T · C 06:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jujutacular. upstateNYer 01:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very good image. --Elekhh (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Aedes aegypti.jpg —Maedin\^talk 21:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trachylepis striata

Reason

Well identified, quality and EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Trachylepis, Trachylepis striata

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 12:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't there a slight rose tint? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I don't see it. Edit? --Muhammad(talk) 18:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added. Don't have much time. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice composition. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "quick edit". Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note to closer, I don't see much of a difference so either one is fine by me --Muhammad(talk) 13:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Trachylepis striata edit.jpg —Maedin\^talk 21:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noisy miner

Articles in which this image appears

Noisy Miner

Creator

Benjamint 04:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 04:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The lighting gives the feathers a weird look. [10] --Muhammad(talk) 08:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt. I can confirm that this is indeed what they look like - a good image. Just be thankful there isn't a featured sound nomination for this animal! Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original is my preferred composition but either one for me if consensus goes the other way--Childzy ¤ Talk 16:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. Weird looking thing. Whichever is promoted should be used as the lead image. J Milburn (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose original Agree with Muhammad on the strange lighting and colours. Was this taken with flash? Oppose alt per same reason, and less successful composition. Elekhh (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —Maedin\^talk 07:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rufous-collared Sparrow in Buenos Aires, Argentina

Reason

good image

Articles in which this image appears

Rufous-collared Sparrow

Creator

dfaulder

• Support as nominator --Snowman (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The beak is slightly out of focus and the image is a bit noisy but resolution makes up for shortcomings. Sharp and well composed. --Muhammad(talk) 17:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But its a pity the bird didn't look at the photographer. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Sorry. Seems to be a fairly common bird, and I'm not wild about the angle this has been taken from- this shot is a much better angle. Again, it's a little out of focus, but is a high resolution. I think a better image than this one will be forthcoming. J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —Maedin\^talk 07:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naajaat

Reason

This rarely visited place can only be visited via helicopter from Upernavik or by private boat. The weather was exceptionally good on this day with really good visibility, calm wind, clear sky and sun. The individual photos are from a compact camera and not excellent, nor was my original stitch from 2007. However, Noodle snacks was been so kind to give it another try with stitching it, and I think we has managed to get the best possible out of it, and I now dare to nominate it. My English is not great. Thus, reviewers are encouraged to tweak the caption is needed. --Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in which this image appears

Naajaat

Creator

Photos by Slaunger, stitch by Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator, prefer edit --Slaunger (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Edit 1. Very nice scene, but it's a shame that the ice is so badly overexposed. The stitching looks fine. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support per Diliff. We don't get many pictures from that part of the world. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Information I agree with the concern about overexposed areas. It would have to be something that should be mitigated due to others aspects of the photo (rarity). However, I have nominated it at Commons as well and here, Herby has been so kind to work on an edit which has repaired a lot of the overexposure, especially on the Greenland ice sheet: File:Naajaat panorama 2007-08-09 2 cropped USM downsampled edit.jpg. I guess it would be relevant to put up as an alternative edit here? I am not that familiar with the circuitry here though. How would I do that? --Slaunger (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that edit is an improvement, although the blown highlights in the ice cannot be recovered. I'll put it up as an edit for you. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for adding the edit, Diliff. Yes, information, which is not there cannot really be recovered, only "guessed" :-). --Slaunger (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose both. The scene is great, the ice is overexposed. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV. A little bit of lost details of ice does not bother me --Muhammad(talk) 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support IQ not the best, but the scene is spectacular. Fletcher (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Muhammad & Fletcher Gazhiley (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit, I am not overly bothered about the ice either. Very nice shot. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit The "overexposed" ice is a very small part of the image (which is very good). I think it was less than 5%. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Naajaat panorama 2007-08-09 2 cropped USM downsampled edit.jpg —Maedin\^talk 07:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin Bug

Reason

No species article yet, but really helps explain the statement "They use the long rostrum to inject a lethal saliva that liquefies the insides of the prey, which are then sucked out" in Reduviidae. Also useful in Rostrum (anatomy) for similar reasons.

Articles in which this image appears

Reduviidae, Rostrum (anatomy)

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sugestion: In the Rostrum article I would use a cropped version of this image instead. One that leaves out most of the insect and focus on the thing, and then in the article for the insect use the whole image such as it is. If that is done, would that invalidate claiming for this image (as it is) the use in the rostrum article?  franklin  06:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose DOF seems shallow, cluttered composition and I don't particularly like the lighting. --Muhammad(talk) 13:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good EV for rostrum and per below, Neutral--Muhammad(talk) 17:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support couldn't disagree with Muhammad more about the composition, which I like quite a bit. (It's kind of nice to see the bug that got away in the corner.) This has to be one of the coolest insect images I've ever seen, and illustrates very well what a rostrum does and how these animals feed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I'm with Calliopejen, I think this is good. Maedin\^talk 12:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I'm with Calliopejen1 completely. Also, there's instant-EV when the article on the species is written (someone could easily rustle up a one-paragraph stub in a few minutes). J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, meets all criteria. I don't find the composition too cluttered given the difference in colour between the bug and its habitat. --Elekhh (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Of course! Obvious EV and very good quality. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gminatus australis with Beetle.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Tree Stump

Reason

good quality image, adds to the two articles due to its clarity and it being freshly cut. Also reasonably interesting composition

Articles in which this image appears

Dendrochronology, Tree stump

Creator

Childzy ¤ Talk 16:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am not an expert but I think the picture's EV for dendrochronology is fairly limited. Firstly, I doubt that dendrochronologists would be interested in studying such a young tree. Secondly, even if they were interested, they probably wouldn't cut the entire tree down, since using a drill to extract a sample (as illustrated in the article) is probably a much easier method and means that samples don't need to be studied in situ. The section of the article that this picture is in talks about 'taking samples' from a variety of sites and discusses the applications of dendrochronology to historical/archaeological research... making this picture of a single, young, fully-felled tree particularly inappropriate. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• i can see the issue, its just that the article for tree rings directs to Dendrochronology, the image is intended to show a clearer view of tree rings. I've removed it now, it does has more value in tree stump i guess anyway--Childzy ¤ Talk 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The EV in dendrochronology could have been improved by polishing the stump so that the rings were visible more clearly. More generally I feel that the angle to the stump is too acute, the image is underexposed and the sharpness is borderline. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Noodle snacks- additionally, I'm not really seeing why the image has to be so dark. J Milburn (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Noodlesnacks and J Milburn. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greensburg High School tornado damage

Reason

High quality & resolution, high EV for tornado damage

Articles in which this image appears

Tornado, May 2007 tornado outbreak

Creator

Greg Henshall of the Federal Emergency Management Agency

• Support as nominator --Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Lacks clarity ie seems out of focus to me... Most of the surrounding rubble and greenery seems to be slightly blurred and the brickwork of the building itself seem almost plastic in appearance due to blurriness... Only weak oppose though due to high EV and the fact that this photo cannot be re-taken unless time travel is conquered! Gazhiley (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed some typos in your comment...I looked at the picture full size again, and I'm not seeing the blurriness except some on the left-most areas of the picture. Are you sure the rest of the blurriness you see isn't the windswept greenery and grass/dirt/who-knows-what blown onto the bricks by the tornado? I'm just not seeing it except for to the left of the building. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support; not technically perfect, but certainly gets across the feel. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Plover

Reason

flying shots so mitigates the slightly lower IQ than usual (IMO), shows the wing spurs and facial mask well which are both destinguishing features of these birds.

Articles in which this image appears

Masked Lapwing

Creator

Benjamint 13:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator, and this is the crap being swooped out of me ... I left quickly after taking these ;-) --Benjamint 13:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - They are both good, i'd go with the first. I think the image quality is negligibly different from what we would expect. Good shot! --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Its pretty soft. I'm not sure if it's motion blur or just plain out of focus. Your bravery is to be commended however. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An interesting bird in flight, I could overlook some quality problems for that one.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support first photo. Not sharp, but high EV for threat response. Some leeway for a fast flight shot is reasonable IMO. The second photo doesn't have the same wow for me. -- Avenue (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Noodle --Muhammad(talk) 16:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, though I like the picture a lot. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eilean Donan castle

Reason

Quality picture (FP on Commons), good illustration of the subject and its environment.

Articles in which this image appears

Eilean Donan, List of islands of Scotland

Creator

Eusebius

• Support as nominator --Eusebius (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Very nice, but IMO should have been panorama because of the unfortunate crop on the left.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I prefer the original version for being less artefacted, which gets 1/4 of a full support from me. 98% jpeg quality should keep most people happy in spite of the slight blur - it's also possible that a better edit will be made from the original. If you're unsure what I'm referring to, you should take a close look at what the sharpening has done to the appearance of the plants at the foot of the castle, which now look uncomfortably like renaissance general purpose shrubbery. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think the sharpening etc is fine. Looking at other photos I think the image would be improved with more to the left (per mbz essentially). Noodle snacks (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mt Anne from High Shelf Camp

Reason

It wasn't really my intention when taking the photo, but this actually turns out to be an excellent illustration for this habitat. It replaced File:Huon river tasmania in summer.JPG in the flora section of the Tasmania article. Prominent endemic species include Richea pandanifolia, Richea scoparia and Athrotaxis selaginoides. It is annotated a bit here.

Articles in which this image appears

Tasmania, Heath (habitat), Plant community

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Nice, but is it tone mapped? The tonal range looks a bit peculiar and inconsistent. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in the HDR sense no. There is a graduated blend between two exposures, but its very minor, the unprocessed RAW looks quite similar. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm ok, colour balance definitely seems a bit off to me. Too pink. Look at the soil in the foreground - it looks distinctly pink. Likewise the vegetation and rocks. Obviously I wasn't there, but I've uploaded an image that I think is more realistic looking. What do you think? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the edit is a little too green looking at the shadows on mt anne in particular. Seems to be closer to neutral though. I'll try and get around to uploading a slightly greener one over the original unless you want to do it. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. You can do it, given you were there. I'm sure there was some pink glow in the clouds from the sunset, but the scene just seemed to be too pink-tinted (due to incorrect colour balance, not just tinting, I mean), as the bushes and soil which should have been in shadow appeared just as pink as the more exposed areas, although I suppose it is possible that the sky directly overhead was also pink, and reflecting into the shadows. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice image that captures context and species detail simultaneously. Melburnian (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, prefer original. The dolerite columns across the tarn are nicely lit. Some indication of scale in the description would be nice; are they really over 100m high, as the route descriptions here suggest? The pinkness of the ground doesn't surprise me given the colour in the clouds to the right. -- Avenue (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scale is accurate on that page, though the bottom of the east face isn't quite visible. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, preference to original per above and I also find it more visualy appealing. Benjamint 14:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either pref to alt as more realistic colouring and IMO therefore better EV, however orig is also good enough... Gazhiley (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with preference to the edit. --Muhammad(talk) 13:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mt Anne from High Shelf Camp.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The break of Mavericks waves

Reason

Amazing shot, high quality and EV, huge "Wow"

Articles in which this image appears

Surfing; Mavericks (location) Big wave surfing

Creator

Shalom Jacobovitz

• Comment The nominated image is great! Yet I put mine low quality image as the lead image for Mavericks (location). I did it because IMO my image that was made out of 4 images is more encyclopedic. It shows the break of a wave from the beginning to the end. May I please ask you while commenting on the nominated image to state your opinion about the lead. I am more than willing to replace my image with the nominated one, if you believe it will be a better lead for the article. Could you please also comment, if the title of the nomination should be changed to "Big waves surfing" ? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The alternative was done by request of Wikimedia Commons reviewers. I personally prefer the original much more. It is more encyclopedic IMO.
• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support prefer original. Great EV for big wave surfing --Muhammad(talk) 16:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original version. The out-of-focus area in lower left seems to be a closer wave, which is understandable. The edit in the alt version is clean, but makes the wave appear to get steeper again near the photographer for no apparent reason. -- Avenue (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How do we know that this high-res version is CC-licensed? The one freely licensed on flickr is a lower resolution. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The high resolution image was emailed to me as an attachment by the photographer himself. He changed the license on Flickr because I asked him to. I emailed the links to the image and to the articles image appears in to the photographer. So Shalom is fully aware of what's going on. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer has since begun uploading his own photos to Commons, at a similar resolution.[11] We could ask him to upload the original of this photo himself too, if there is any doubt. -- Avenue (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either version, prefers edit. The blurred area in the original is distracting for me. I find the clone less distracting albeit it may not be a very accurate representation of the waves in this very small area. The nominator has done a good job in negotiating licensing terms with the creator. Photographing the Mavericks in this manner cannot be done from the coast. You need to be in a boat close by (as in this case, which is risky from a personal safety point of view) or hovering in a helicopter over the waves. It is rare that photos from these sources are freely licensed, so I find it is a quite unique contribution and great action shot (although the technical qualities of the photo could have been better). --Slaunger (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, as per others --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, with preference to the edited one. Obvious EV and beauty. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:2010 mavericks competition.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surfing rainbow

Reason

Good quality, high EV, adds value to the article it appears in

Articles in which this image appears

Rainbow

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- A nice picture of a mediocre rainbow. Not the subject of the picture. It is the surfer instead. Abisharan (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Almost first edit of a bran new, and rather strange user! Well, welcome to wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, you recently replaced an older image of yours with this which was subsequently reverted (and called vandalism for some reason...). I'd recommend letting its usage in Rainbow stabilize before it goes up for an FPC. gren グレン 17:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Who thought I would have a problem with replacing of my own image?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw untill it is stable in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment don't know if it will reach consensus on the article, but personally I think the surfer distracts from the rainbow, and your other spray bow picture you replaced seemed to have a stronger rainbow than this one. Fletcher (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right the rainbow was brighter in the other image. IMO the surfer improves the composition, but basically I decided to let go on that nomination, as well as on the article itself, and let them do as they wish. I was upset my change was called "vandalism" so unfairly, and if you add to that the absolutely ungrounded accusations in canvassing down below, you may figure out what my day was like :( Anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and I was called "strange" who knows why. I guess people like to use adjectives and labels for emphasis. Abisharan (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More likely she saw it as unusual that someone with no contribution history would immediately find his or her way to FPC. Are you an established user who had to start a new account for some reason? Fletcher (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why would that matter in any way? It is the picture the main business here. The most attractive part of the main page is the picture of the day... the rest is just following links, and this was the one on top when I commented. No need for conspiracy theories and it makes no difference that I am not a new user. Abisharan (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abisharan, you are right,there is no need for conspiracy theories. I am sorry I came up with one. Please do accept my apology. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense was intended and I don't assume bad faith - but you shouldn't be surprised it's a red flag to start a new account and jump right into a forum where voting goes on. Fletcher (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why is it a red flag? what could it imply? If at least there were a second oppose vote but there isn't. I don't take it as an offense, it would be really hard to offend me in the web environment but I do think it should be taken as a lesson, to take a vote with cold blood and as impersonal as it should be. In the end, it is supposed to be something about the picture, in this case. 128.100.68.3 (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desargues theorem

Reason

Its easier to make sense of than "In a projective space, two triangles are in perspective axially if and only if they are in perspective centrally".

Articles in which this image appears

Desargues' theorem, Perspective (geometry)

Creator

DynaBlast

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not much to say here, but I didn't understand before I looked at the image, and did understand afterwards. The image quality is good. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The lead at Desargues' theorem would be extremely difficult to understand without this image. Very valuable. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original. The lines Aa and Bb are shown as meeting somewhat to the right of the point labeled the center of perspectivity, and below the line Cc. This flaw is visible even at the nominal size, and is more obvious in the larger renditions linked on the file description page. I agree the diagram has high EV, and the flaw is small enough that it shouldn't hinder understanding, but I think a diagram should be free of visible defects to become an FP. -- Avenue (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm really not seeing that. To me the lines all go through the exact same point. Perhaps it's confusing because the lines are dashed? Jujutacular ^T · C 17:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, he's right, and I'm surprised I didn't spot it. Look at the dashed lines- they cross (on dashes) around 4mm to the right and 2mm below the center of the dot representing the center of perspectivity (at least, it does on my screen, sorry for the not-so-technical explanation). This should really be fixed. As such, oppose until this is fixed or an explanation is forthcoming. J Milburn (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see it now. I've made an alternate to account for this. Let me know if I need to make any alterations to it. I Support ALT Jujutacular ^T · C 23:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd prefer the default size of the alt to be a little bigger. J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Now defaults at 578×430. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for fixing this. Is there any chance of making the lines a bit thicker (like the original)? It lets you see the diagram at article size clearly. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lines are a bit thicker now. Jujutacular ^T · C 13:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On reflection, I have another concern. It seems like the axis of perspectivity is parallel to the line Cc, but I don't believe this is a requirement for perspective triangles, and showing them as parallel could mislead readers into believing this is a necessary condition. I don't believe showing them as parallel makes the diagram significantly easier to follow, either, so I would prefer for those lines not to be parallel. -- Avenue (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This occurred to me too, but I personally do feel that it makes the diagram easier to follow. I certainly see where you are coming from, but I remember when I did this kind of thing at school, making one of the lines completely horizontal, if possible, did make the issue a little simpler. J Milburn (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the lines being horizontal is okay. What he's saying is making two of the lines horizontal implies a relationship where there needn't be one. I've made an adjustment for this, thank you again Avenue. Jujutacular ^T · C 15:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Fast work. -- Avenue (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good now IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT. Not only have the technical fixes been made, but I think the ALT is a little prettier. J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT. This version addresses my concerns. High EV, makes the article much easier to follow. -- Avenue (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Desargues theorem alt.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plover Chick

Articles in which this image appears

Masked Lapwing

Creator

Benjamint 06:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 06:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not a hard photo to take, apart of course from getting the crap swooped out of you. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it a new trend to not provide a reason? --Elekhh (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - how did the link document lack of reasoning? if u support u obviously think it meets the requirements, comments go on top of that --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elekh is talking about the template not being filled in completely, and in this case, the "Reason" field being removed entirely. I have to admit that I've often found it difficult to say more than "meets the criteria". Perhaps the rationale is that if you haven't considered the criteria by that point, you might at least stumble and go back to check them. We seem to get the occasional ineligible image nominated in spite of this. Maybe there should be a size criterion banner at the top of the FPC page. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good, interesting high EV photo meets the requirements --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak suppose I much prefer the previous effort - the higher resolution allows to see the down feathers clearly, whereas in this image, they're anything but clear. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppose? I'm guessing this means you're neutral... Makeemlighter (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportVery cute.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ten days and only 4 supports. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarawera rift crater

Reason

Helps show not only the size of Tarawera's 1886 eruption, but also the type of rock produced. The scoria comes in a beautiful range of colours, both in the fissure walls and on the crater floor. Revegetation is proceeding slowly due to the subalpine climate and unstable ground.

Articles in which this image appears

Mount Tarawera, Taupo Volcanic Zone

Creator

Avenue

• Support as nominator --Avenue (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I wonder if you might have been better up on one of the ridges, but then you'd loose foreground information about the rock type. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rare view of craterWai Hong (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Peripitus (Talk) 05:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I'm sorry, I think the quality is too poor. It's not sharp overall, and particularly blurry on the right side. Maedin\^talk 18:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Maedin. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Inside the Tarawera rift.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum

Reason

I don't think that too many people have such a thing floating around the house.

Articles in which this image appears

Platinum, Native metal, Sakha (Yakutia) Republic

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Looks to me like most of the overexposed areas at the centre of the specimen have been crudely painted over with a grey brush. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "grey areas are fixed (false layer)". Platinum is a high glossy metal. I think it is Ok if we see a small "overexposed" areas. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- looks much better now. Detail is excellent, EV is very high, small amount of overexposure not a huge problem. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As anyone who has studied GCSE science will tell you, one of the properties of a metal is that it shines. It would be misleading not to see some shine. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral as creator (otherwise alternatively Support) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Shine's fine. The upper front corner seems a little unsharp, but the high EV and excellent detail elsewhere outweigh that for me. -- Avenue (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer original. It seems more natural, and I don't feel the nugget needs to "pop out" more. -- Avenue (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice quality and rare object --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd prefer the background to be whiter but this good as well --Muhammad(talk) 14:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer edit 1, IMO the white setting allows the nugget to pop out more --Muhammad(talk) 16:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 1 Uploaded Made background white. --Muhammad(talk) 16:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Maybe a VP, but not a FP. I don't see anything exceptional in this image except the value of the object. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  A VP is only possible on commons, not on en:wikipedia, de:Wikipedia, pl:Wikipedia, .... The value of an object is one of the FP criteria also the high resolution, the DOF and the rare object. Of course your opinion is though accepted. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • But there is already a VPC page on Wikipedia! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ups, thank you. I did not know it. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Request: Would voters comment on edit 1, please? Maedin\^talk 10:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit 1 increased the overexposure in many areas of the nugget itself, ultimately leading to a loss of detail. I realise that the nature of the subject means that some overexposure is inevitable, but nonetheless I prefer the first version. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from the grey background, I did not touch anything else. The nugget is unmodified --Muhammad(talk)`

• It looks different to me when you compare both images at 100%: see the comparison I uploaded. As discussed above, the overexposure isn't itself problem: but when more areas become overexposed, and more white bits join together to form contiguous areas, then detail is lost. I wouldn't oppose Edit 1, but I prefer the original since fine detail on the platinum itself is more important to me than the shade of the background. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It was additional my new edit over the edit from Muhammad. I made it also somewhat brighter. But the main: we are voting here for the original image! NOT for others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't notice that, so my apologies for the confusion. I still prefer the original to both versions of Edit 1: I've already stated the reasons why I dislike Edit 1 in its current form, and Muhammad's first version has problems with the detail along the top edge of the platinum. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer original. And how about we take this opportunity to declare "uploading over the top" as a bad idea (tm)? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• info only the original is here a featured picture candidate. All the edits are legal, but not a FP candidate. :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you stop jabbering on about things that are completely against the established practice at FPC? Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Platinum-nugget.jpg —Maedin\^talk 12:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burnley

Original - A panoramic image showing the town of Burnley from Crown point road. To the far top left of the image is the imposing Pendle Hill, with the Yorkshire Dales visible in the top central background. The left of the image shows the town centre of Burnley and Turf Moor can be seen in the very centre of the picture. To the right the areas of Brunshaw and Pike Hill can be seen. Also two of the 'Burnley Future Schools' sites can be seen, one behind the football stadium and the other in the foreground to the right of the image.

Reason

a large, detailed and very wide pano showing the town of burnley as well as a host of features in the surrounding geography. Suggested to try here from Peer Review

Articles in which this image appears

Burnley

Creator

Childzy ¤ Talk 18:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Childzy ¤ Talk 18:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- high res, good EV, nice detail. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That picture looks raght gud n all quality laik... Proof if needed that life ain't no longer grim oop in that ther north... Gazhiley (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice to see something local :) J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like this pano too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yep - --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Something should be urgently done about the blue haze in the background. This is not supposed to illustrate the weather conditions, but the town, so there's no excuse. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But surely if the blue haze is in the background then it is not a problem? I don't see much of a haze over the town itself. The large hills in the background are quite far away, so I don't see the blue haze as being particularly unnatural or undesireable. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- Big is not necessarily beautiful or valuable. Sorry, but I can't see a specific reason for promoting this picture other than the size and detail. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the level of detail in this is exactly the reason to nominate it... Each to their own tho... Gazhiley (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a great illustration of Burnley? Is that not reason enough to nominate? Yeah, Burnley perhaps isn't the most exciting of places to many eyes, but this seems like a solid panorama to me. Shows the environment, the kind of housing, gives a feel for the modern town. If I was to criticise, I would say it doesn't speak much about the history of the city, but that's not what it set out to do. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To compare, take a look at today's POTD. It's a view of what I take to be a fairly typical settlement for the area, but looking at it tells me so much- I've never been anywhere like that, I'm transported into a different world. Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and, equally, many people will have never been anywhere like Burnley, and what they imagine it to look like may be completely wrong. J Milburn (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Great panoramic picture. -- BigDom 09:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Burnley Pano.jpg —Maedin\^talk 12:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding Behavior of Carpilius convexus

Reason

High resolution, high EV, high quality, underwater image taken in the wild

Articles in which this image appears

Crab

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. While it's at an early stage of the attack, it is quite clear what's going on. I'm happy with the quality, although if anyone can put in an improved edit, I might support that, too. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, interesting one. The article is a little lacking, but this is still a high quality shot documenting important behaviour of a crab. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done on the species ID, by the way. I've taken the liberty of making a few small changes to the caption. J Milburn (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I always found amusing the euphemism comsuming for what we commonly call eating or devouring. Good EV, though! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent illustration of behaviour. --Avenue (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Carpilius convexus is consuming Heterocentrotus trigonarius in Hawaii.jpg —Maedin\^talk 12:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phelsuma dubia

Reason

Reptilian FPs are few and lizards seem to be doing well so here's another one. The only picture in its article. Previous image in article was of lower quality and probably misidentified( or juvenile)

Articles in which this image appears

Dull day gecko, Reptile (Under camouflage in defense)

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 09:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Blurring on tail and distracting background (white bits) - I thought I was viewing some form of optical illusion picture until I read the details as I just didn't see the animal... Still support though as once you know what ur looking for it is a good picture of an animal I had never seen so good ev... Gazhiley (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Composition is interesting and eye catching. It's the sort of composition that you tend to see in wildlife photography competitions. Shame you didn't get it more straight-on, so that everything was in focus. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think this is slightly but significantly below our standards, and if it were from any photographer that isn't an FPC regular, we almost certainly wouldn't promote it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —Maedin\^talk 12:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco skyline

Original - The image depicts San Francisco Bay, Golden Gate Bridge,San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge and San Francisco skyline

Reason

High EV and quality. We have few FP on San Francisco and Golden Gate Bridge, but if I am not mistaking it is the first FP nominated image, which shows San Francisco and his two famous bridges in connection to each others

Articles in which this image appears

San Francisco Bay

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Muhammad(talk) 10:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support beautiful fog photo. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Yes, a beautiful picture. But where is SF bay? I only see the Golden Gate bridge clearly. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]