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

Silhouette Volleyball

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2012 at 23:11:06 (UTC)

Reason

high resolution and EV, good exampel of Silhouette

Articles in which this image appears

silhouette

FP category for this image

Creator

درفش کاویانی

• Support as nominator --Mamad ^TALK 23:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Currently, this is just another picture in the gallery of a heavily-illustrated article. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per JMilburn. Clegs (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per JMilburn. I don't see how this picture will really add any exceptional EV to the article over the other 29 pictures already in the article. Dusty777 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per EV issues. I love the photo --Guerillero | My Talk 02:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with other comments about EV. Pine^talk 09:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- It is a good picture. However, the subject matter is not important (combination of distinctive, encyclopedic, rare, creative, ...) enough for it to be featured. Sumanch (talk) 06:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redback spider

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2012 at 00:54:30 (UTC)

Reason

An illustrative pose of a very important living Australian Spider (featuring its distinguishing red mark). The photo took quite some effort to obtain, because the subject is small and uncooperative (and dangerous), but I am very happy with the result in terms of quality and composition. An earlier FP of this species was rightly delisted in 2007 Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/Redback_spider, but may serve as a comparison.

Articles in which this image appears

Redback spider

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arachnids

Creator

99of9

• Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Technically speaking, it's quite noisy and not all that sharp when you zoom up all the way, but it looks nice enough at a 50% zoom (which I think still would meet the size requirements) and it's big on wow factor, and has great EV.126.109.231.71 (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::Clerk note: Votes from IP addresses cannot be counted. Clegs (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"are generally disregarded" ≠ "cannot be counted". Not that I expect you to count it, but I think you should quote the rule as it is, without making it stricter. 126.109.231.71 (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, this is perfectly accurate: "Per resolved discussion on the talk page, votes from this IP are to be ignored." Clegs (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It had nothing to do with the IP but whether the user was voting while logged in. That said the IP is getting tedious by voting when he is aware they are to be disregarded. The IP user should just make a comment as they will be welcome. In either case stop commenting on the votes to be disregarded and allow the closer to handle the tally. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per noise. To the anom, the rules state that we judge based on full size, not an arbitrary zoom level. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Would you like me to upload an alt at the minimum required resolution of 531x1000? Thankfully as far as I can read the rules don't "state" anything of the sort, because if they did, that would encourage uploaders to do a bad thing (downsample). Rather, the criteria ask you to judge the technical standard (yes including noise). To do that fairly across different sized images, the best way is to compare them at equivalent sizes to one another (say, perhaps the 1000px, since some pics will come in at that size). I'm not saying you shouldn't look at the full-res, but the IP's argument is sound. --99of9 (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 50% is not an "arbitrary" zoom level, as it's above the minimum requirements. 126.109.231.71 (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Blurry and noisy. If reshot in focus with a better camera, it could be easily an FP. Clegs (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't a problem with the camera. We have hundreds of FPs with that model, including recently. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think that the noise comes from a combination sharpening something that wasn't very sharp to begin with and correcting underexposure, but there is too much of it and not much detail there. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I imagine it is also due to shooting the spider at f/16. At high magnification, this aperture is going to give you significant diffraction softening, but the trade off is that you get the entire spider in focus (including the legs), which is otherwise impossible without focus stacking. Spiders are especially challenging to get past FPC. Either people complain that your image isn't sharp enough/high res enough or they complain that it isn't all in focus. Unless it's a relatively large spider, it's very difficult to do both. Kaldari (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you're both right. Next time I will ensure that I don't underexpose. The exposure was automatically chosen, which was no good for so much white paper and a black subject. But I think f/16 was the right choice for this, because spiders are very three dimensional (and the body-focus was accurate).--99of9 (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of Henry Lawrence Garrett III

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2012 at 10:24:53 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality portrait of a notable person.

Articles in which this image appears

Henry Lawrence Garrett III, United States Secretary of the Navy, USS Iowa turret explosion

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

James P. Vineyard

• Support as nominator. I'm aware that this photo has some noise issues but given the age of the photo I think it's acceptable. --Pine^talk 10:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, but while this image is useful, it's not of high quality. Garrett is in a fairly awkward and artificial pose, and the fact that half his face is in shadow is quite problematic. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral -- I like the pose, but the graininess bugs me. We have older images that are sharper. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Quality and EV are acceptable. No reason not to feature that I can see. Clegs (talk) 14:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turret loading picture set

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2012 at 11:07:40 (UTC)

Reason

I'm nominating these three images as a set. They appear in the article USS Iowa turret explosion to illustrate how the ship's turret guns are loaded normally. An explosion occurred in the Number Two 16-inch gun turret on April 19, 1989. The explosion in the center gun room killed 47 of the turret's crewmen and severely damaged the gun turret itself. Two major investigations were undertaken, one by the Navy and then one by the then-General Accounting Office and Sandia National Laboratories.

Articles in which this image appears

USS Iowa turret explosion. Also, I have added the first image to Gun turret.

FP category for this image

Engineering and technology/Weaponry

Creator

PHAN William Holck, USN

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 11:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would appreciate it if someone could make these images appear side by side instead of showing up vertically here in FPC. Thanks! Pine^talk 11:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you to J Milburn for help with formatting. Pine^talk 11:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't like the camera angle. Pics 2-3 look like the guys are standing on the wall (not that it is that BIG of a deal, it just gives me a headache, and reduces the enjoyability of looking at the pictures), and there is a guys hand in the right side of each picture (causes distraction from the main subject), and there is some noise/graininess throughout all of the pictures (not that big of a deal, the pictures are 26 years old, and with film, comes some grain.) The pictures have excellent EV, but I don't believe it can outweigh these minor issues. Dusty777 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Nice set, but the first picture should be rotated 90 degrees clockwise. All photos could use some chroma noise filtering. O.J. (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There is indeed a lot of grain. I have a sneaking suspicion this is a scan of a print, not a negative, and not necessarily a great print either. Is there something unusually rare about these to offset that quality problem? Wouldn't this have been done in pretty much the same way many times on any ship with guns of this size and type? Chick Bowen 23:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These photos were taken in the same turret that exploded in an incident that killed 47 crewmen. See USS Iowa turret explosion. Pine^talk 05:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I got that. I meant, is there anything distinctive about this set up or the process they're following? I mean, if the purpose is to show the right way to do this in contrast to the wrong way that led to the disaster, then it seems like a series that showed what was going on in a clearer way would be more valuable, even if it was taken in a different (but similar) turret. Chick Bowen 19:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ginevra de' Benci

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2012 at 06:46:08 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, notable work by notable artist.

Articles in which this image appears

Ginevra de' Benci, List of works by Leonardo da Vinci, +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Leonardo da Vinci

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support large, good quality image of work by notable artist. Pine^talk 09:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A beautiful image, wonderful background, excellent detail and by the master. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Awesome. —Eustress ^talk 20:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Exquisite. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Leonardo da Vinci, Ginevra de' Benci, 1474-78.png --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works Progress Administration Maid Poster

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2012 at 17:50:56 (UTC)

Reason

This is a high quality WPA poster

Articles in which this image appears

Household Service Demonstration Project

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Works Progress Administration. Digitised by the Library of Congress. Uploaded by Ras67 (talk · contribs)

• Support as nominator --Guerillero | My Talk 17:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose support Quite small filesize (609 KB, probably because of poor digitalization), blurry, but good subject anyway. Brandmeister t 17:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the file size, not the pixel count, the measuring stick you are using? --Guerillero | My Talk 18:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the image is a bit small for a poster (that is probably smaller than the original dimensions). Brandmeister t 23:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Someone please take a clone tool and remove those smudge marks, cement-colored spots, etc. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Poor quality, blurry and smudge spots. Clegs (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conan O'Brien

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2012 at 18:56:55 (UTC)

Reason

Forgive me if I'm off-base with this nomination (it's my first time here), but I found this image on Flickr and find it both visually striking and leaving me wanting to know more about the subject, on top of the fact that I'm already interested as the page in question is my next FL nomination.

Articles in which this image appears

The Legally Prohibited from Being Funny on Television Tour

FP category for this image

Either Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Ryan, from Flickr

• Support as nominator --– Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. At 1024 pixels wide, this image squeaks past the minimum technical requirement for a featured picture, but at that size we would have to ask for the main subject – Conan – to be sharp, and he just isn't. The digital display behind Conan introduces a distracting moiré pattern. The lighting on Conan is also doing something weird to his skin tone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor lighting, out of focus, distracting background, odd composition and technical quality. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor frame and poor lighting.Alborzagros (talk) 06:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, but come back here and try again. Take a look at the current Wikipedia:Featured Pictures to see what we like. :) Pine^talk 08:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wish I could... Visually interesting, but like some of the others have said, it's too blurry and a little on the small side. Keep trying, though :-) Clegs (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh well. I'm no expert on picture quality, but I'd like to learn. I have another in mind I'll nominate soon. Since this is a unanimous oppose, no need to keep it open until the 8th. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As suggested by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Death of Procris

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2012 at 11:54:15 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, beautiful painting.

Articles in which this image appears

The Death of Procris, Procris, Cefalo e Procri, +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Thought to be Piero di Cosimo

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks a bit noisy and soft to me. Brandmeister t 23:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is cut off. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Odd, the one you've linked to is cut off as well. Darn.

Withdraw no point in continuing with a defective image. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electric steam iron

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2012 at 22:16:13 (UTC)

Reason

This is a typical product shot isolated on white as you might get from a stock photo agency. This image is high-resolution, sharp and in focus from front to back. The angled profile shows off the steam plate as well as the handle, at the expense of the controls. We currently have no featured pictures of small domestic appliances and this category of images is poorly covered by WP/Commons. Btw, the soleplate has a textured speckle finish -- that's not noise. I hope you like it.

Articles in which this image appears

Clothes iron, Russell Hobbs.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Other

Creator

Colin

• Support as nominator --Colin°^Talk 22:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: My only niggling issue is that the reflection is cut off. I get that you wanted it so it doesn't look like it's floating, but perhaps a short shadow would have achieved that effect. So I dunno.. Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - OK, well as I said it was just a minor thing that I noticed and since no one else has an issue with it my qualm has been relieved. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Good quality, high EV. Didn't notice the shadow until it was pointed out, so I don't think it's that big of a deal. Clegs (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm missing where the reflection is cut off, so unless someone can point that out more specifically to me and the cut seems bad, I'm supporting. Pine^talk 11:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- I have no issues with the reflection. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppprt per comments above --e^xtra999 (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I love the way the angles converge near the tip. And that it's purple ... not a color we usually think of when we think of irons. And the detail. It's so crisp. I can see some CA along the edge near the top at the highest resolution but ... it's so slight that I think it would be impudent to base an oppose vote on it. Daniel Case (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I bought this very model and in this colour last year based soley on aesthetics. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Crisco 1492 and Daniel Case and Saffron Blaze's reasons. Alborzagros (talk) 07:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Electric steam iron.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide time zones

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2012 at 10:54:13 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, meets size criteria, good level of detail

Articles in which this image appears

Time Zone

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Phoenix B 1of3

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 10:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: some of the numbers (esp. around Nepal and Myanmar) are very hard to read. Any chance we could get a larger version? Does that work with PNGs? Clegs (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Added alternative. This one is larger and more aesthetically pleasing. O.J. (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely alt much better than the original nomination. I think the date line could be better emphasized and labelled. It misses Antarctica, and does not indicate territories with daylight saving time. Oppose original for dizzying colour scheme, inconsistent font size and lack of detail due to limited resolution. --ELEKHH^T 20:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Diagrams like these are much better as SVGs. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've been thinking for a while that some version of a timezone map needs featuring, but I don't think it's either of these for the various reasons already mentioned above, esp. Elekhh and Makeem. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt is out of date, with Samoa and American Samoa on different sides of the date line. Russia also changed something recently, IIRC, I'm not sure if this is correct here either. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not out of date so far as I can see. Samoa and American Samoa are now on opposite sides of the date line. The Russian time zone changes of 2011 seem to all be up to date. 130.88.141.34 (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh wow, I got that news story very wrong! My apologies. I'm gunna support the alt now, it's pretty good! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Askalan (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both Original for poor use of colours and factual inaccuracies and missing information (Keeling Is.; Tokelau; Lord Howe, Norfolk, and Chatham Is.; Maldives; and BIOT ) alt for lacking Antarctica and not being SVG. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polet Airlines An-124 RA-82075

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2012 at 02:59:36 (UTC)

Reason

Extremely high quality image of this aircraft in landing configuration which is prominently placed in the aircraft article infobox

Articles in which this image appears

Antonov An-124

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Sergey Kustov

• Support as nominator --Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 02:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High quality, excellent representation of this aircraft. Clegs (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this could do with reframing to give it a bit more lead room. No land marks visible and a uniform background, so no problem with that. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good EV, high clarity, large photo. Pine^talk 11:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice image, good quality. Nice to see what it looks like before landing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great EV. Great picture. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Polet Airlines An-124 RA-82075 in flight 28-Jul-2011.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiram Wesley Evans

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 03:02:17 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and resolution, illustrative of both the main subject and his position in the KKK

Articles in which this image appears

Hiram Wesley Evans, Grand Wizard

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

National Photo Company, restored by Crisco 1492

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm gunna make a very unpopular move, against pretty much everything WP stands for, and oppose due to the subject. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering we promoted this image of lynching (very graphic, so it'll never be on the front page), I don't think this is a criteria. I agree that we should not look like we are supporting the KKK, but we are also an encyclopedia. The Klan is, unfortunately, something we cover. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the image also should not be on the main page if it gets promoted (like lynching and some other). Brandmeister t 19:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no issue with that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose both on composition grounds. The background is too distracting. Essentially its a snapshot taken in 1925. Old yes, but a snapshot is still a snapshot. Clegs (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And the edit? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose both. Sorry, but I don't see this as a very compelling photograph, with a strange severity in the focus contrast between the subject and the rather busy background (and the crop only calls more attention to that severity), nor does it have particular historical value, since it doesn't illustrate anything in particular happening. In defense of Adam above, I think the comparison to the lynching picture is not very apt; that picture shows an example of an event that played a huge role in American history; this one is just a guy in a costume. Chick Bowen 22:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra Capitals vs Logan Thunder

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 01:06:11 (UTC)

Reason

Per the other basketball nom.

Articles in which this image appears

Women's National Basketball League, Logan Thunder,

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While this has good EV, it lacks impact. A tighter crop around the players might help - all the empty seats in the background detract from the action the photo shows (though they do sadly illustrate the difficulty elite female sports teams have attracting crowds). Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had a go at a crop. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support crop Good quality and good EV (as noted above, the somewhat barren background sadly adds to the EV here). Nice work. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree--cropping out some of the dead space at the bottom might add to the BANG factor.
• Support crop -- Impressive, especially since you were close to 100 metres (330 ft) away from the action when taking this shot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that far. EXIF says 25.3 meters ;). JJ Harrison (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Odd, it looked bigger. Either way, good shot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support crop. Excellent action shot. Clegs (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Is this during an actual game? I'm just wondering because I don't see any fans in the seats... Spencer^T♦C 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but most of the fans were on either side the court, rather than at the ends. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. By my count the arena wasn't even half full. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unclear what is going on in this photo and who the Thunder are playing against. —Eustress ^talk 15:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Only four support. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White-necked Petrel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 01:04:16 (UTC)

Reason

This image is a little smaller than some others that I nominated (the bird was further away). However, this is the only confirmed sighting of this bird within Tasmanian waters, and this, and one other photo that I collected are the only images on commons of this species.

Articles in which this image appears

White-necked Petrel

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good shot. Question should the black be a little darker, or is the bird more of a white and medium gray? Never seen this species (they don't make it to the eastern US), but to my eyes, the pictures looks like it could use a little more contrast. Clegs (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which bit of the plumage are you referring to? Apart from when breeding on a few islands, it is an open sea bird, and highly unlikely to be seen from land anywhere, not just the eastern US :). JJ Harrison (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good, at 1.7 MP is the resolution lower than your usual? Not that it matters. --TehGrauniad (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Almost an abstraction ... I caught myself wondering what company logo this was. Nice. Daniel Case (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Agree with Daniel. The composition with the sea and the angle of the wings is very pleasing. --Colin°^Talk 11:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All reason above. Alborzagros (talk) 07:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pterodroma cervicalis - SE Tasmania.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvin's Albatross

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 00:59:48 (UTC)

Reason

Prior to this cooperative bird I've only had one or two brief flybys on previous trips. It was once considered a subspecies of the Shy Albatross. Most of this species breed on the Bounty Islands, 670 km south east of New Zealand.

Articles in which this image appears

Salvin's Albatross

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support tail seems a little OOF, but otherwise I like this. Pine^talk 09:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well done. Clegs (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with a question. Is that the original saturation? Interesting colour for the water... Of course, last time I was on the open(-ish) sea it was in the Sunda Strait which was more light teal in colour. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite natural, and mostly a reflection of the sky. Air pollution would most likely mean that Indonesia's sky is a different colour. I think the significant water depth difference (several kilometers vs tens of meters) could help a colour change too - it is easy to stir up sediment in shallow water. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. As I was between southern Kalianda and Sebuku, it was much shallower. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very good, has this been nominated before? --TehGrauniad (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but I have nominated one or two other images of different species with a similar composition before. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Thalassarche salvini - SE Tasmania.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mezcala Bridge 2nd try

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 09:24:56 (UTC)

Reason

Large image with good EV for the article, already featured on Commons, previous FP nomination failed by only a half vote.

Articles in which this image appears

Mezcala Bridge

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Jujutacular

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 09:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator at commons. Tomer T (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: It's a very good shot. Well positioned and clear. ComputerJA (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The fisheye effect from the stitching is blowing it for me. Also, about a quarter of the image doesn't actually show the bridge. Crisco 1492(talk) 05:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great shot. The extra on the left showing the area's scenery is part of what makes it so good, IMO. Clegs (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with Crisco, the fisheye effect distorts the view for me. —Eustress ^talk 02:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mezcala Bridge - Mexico edit1.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 5S, 2O Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Johnson

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 18:21:29 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, good portrait of high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Craig Johnson (author)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Guillom

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both edits Tomer T (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment White balance is too yellow and needs fixing. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added an edit. Tomer T (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit My only remaining gripe is the noise levels. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit -- Interesting pose. Edit has better colouring and somehow seems to have less noise. The hand is out of focus, but no biggy. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Added Alt-2. I adjusted the WB and applied some selective noise reduction. O.J. (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either Edit with pref to Alt2. Good portrait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs (talk • contribs)

• Oops. Yeah, that was me. Clegs (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Still a lot of noise on the underside of his hat. God Emperor^Talk 16:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Photo is from an awkward angle, there's a shadow over part of face from hat, head is positioned behind body since leaning back, blurry microphone in foreground is distracting —Eustress ^talk 02:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Only four supports. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaden Flycatcher

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2012 at 11:43:42 (UTC)

Reason

An attractive Flycatcher I spotted in a few places around Canberra. I didn't manage a shot until this male at the Botanic gardens though.

Articles in which this image appears

Leaden Flycatcher

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all Has a snapshotty feel and continues the recent trend for over-exposure. [1] is an example of a better composition. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bird is white, not grey. The exposure is correct on a calibrated sRGB display. I was there. Said calibration includes a luminance level (how bright the display is) and ambient illuminance level (how bright the room is). JJ Harrison (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't even need to talk about the bird, there's plenty of evidence all over the picture that this is overexposed. Whatever your procedure was, that's one smotherbucking skewed histogram you've produced there. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per PLW2. I don't feel it has a snapshot look to it, but it is slightly over exposed. Dusty777 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit1 uploaded. Adjusted levels per above concerns and added mild sharpening. --jjron (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cranking up the saturation isn't going to help matters much. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't touch it if you'd care to actually read my image editing summary stated in three different places. --jjron (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Check the saturations (if you know how), they are different. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't care, because as already stated four times, they weren't touched. It seems that both God and Adobe work in mysterious ways ... --jjron (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it's just your technical understanding that's lacking. You don't have to actually manually change saturation in order for it to be affected by what you're doing. Think about it, do some experimentation. I know you won't, but don't come back later and say I didn't encourage you to try it for yourself. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're welcome. --jjron (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit1 after further consideration. --jjron (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 looks good. Pine^talk 10:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Good shot. Clegs (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit Per above Dusty777 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both with a preference on the edit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit but I do agree with PLW2 that the edit too saturated and the original is too bright (so am still hoping for edit 2). --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're all waiting for Mr. Harrison to redo it from RAW, are we not? Since you were happy enough to support a jpeg version, I've added an appropriate edit. However, the loss of detail on the breast can only be remedied from RAW, so I'm not going to support my own edit. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, and yes, for the record, even if we don't get a RAW-remix from JJ, I support Edit 2 as my preference amongst those avaiable. --99of9 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit? Makeemlighter (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Preference for Edit 1, Edit 2 is okay. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Preference for Edit 2, Edit 1 is okay. Pine^talk 05:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit1. --jjron (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• No preference. Clegs (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In order to break the deadlock, I'm going to say Prefer Edit 1. Clegs (talk) 14:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit 2. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Original. :P JJ Harrison (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you still support the original only then I think you're supporting a non-promotion. :) If so we can reconsider. --jjron (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer edit 1 if it has to be one of them. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's rather unnecessary scaremongering. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Myiagra rubecula - Australian National Botanic Gardens edit1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English stonecrop

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2012 at 13:41:26 (UTC)

Reason

This image exemplifies triumph in adversity, a hardy plant flourishing in a crack in the rock. (This is my first nomination for Featured picture.)

Articles in which this image appears

Sedum anglicum

FP category for this image

plants

Creator

Cwmhiraeth

• Support as nominator --Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Blown highlights on the petals (they are very white, not textured) and the framing leaves a little to be desired. I'd want some more head room around the plant; right now it seems cut off at both the top and bottom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both per overexposure. Darkening the picture doesn't fix the loss of detail that happened when the original was overexposed. Clegs (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per above, and because the busy, detailed background prevents the viewer to distinguish the plant from the rock very well. Spencer^T♦C 03:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both good EV, and the background is OK because it shows this organism in its regular habitat according to the article, but the image lacks sharpness when viewed at full size. Pine^talk 08:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NYPD Ford Crown Victoria

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 05:07:40 (UTC)

Reason

large clear image, in multiple articles, good EV

Articles in which this image appears

Police vehicles in the United States and Canada, Police car, Police transport, Law enforcement, Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, Ford Crown Victoria, Law enforcement in the United States, New York City Police Department, United States

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

Cezary Piwowarski [[2]]

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 05:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This photo has been in some articles for more time than other articles, but I'm not expecting anyone to remove this image from enough of these articles to make a significant difference in EV. Pine^talk 05:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose good photo but not very striking. Plus it's arguable that the design schemes of police cars may as a whole be subject to copyright even if none of the individual elements would be. Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being striking is not a requirement for Featured Pictures; please see Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Regarding your concern about copyright, wouldn't it be illegal to take photos of lots and lots of vehicles if that was the case? Pine^talk 08:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". That's what the FPC say. While I find this to be an effective illustration, certainly enough to be a quality image on Commons, I don't find it compelling. It's just an NYPD car on the street. That's all it wants to tell me, and all it can.

I see others have clarified for you that I did not mean the design of the car itself—as one of the few people on Wikipedia who seems to fully understand our fair use policy, I'm fully aware of the "useful articles" distinction—but what is called the livery of the vehicle (I knew there was a word for it!). Yes, I'm also aware that most of the other elements save the department shield are simple geometric shapes and strings of text that do not constitute a full sentence. However ... consider that this free image I took later became the basis for this copyrighted magazine cover even though the latter arguably has less claim to any individually copyrighted elements. And arguably, painting a police car this way makes it a three-dimensional public work.

But, since there seems to be no U.S. copyright case law I can yet find on the copyright status of vehicle livery with a mix of copyrightable and non-copyrightable elements (French law may be stricter), I won't push this any further. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • See also [[3]] Pine^talk 09:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, mainly on technical grounds. There is a post blocking the tyre of the car and the background is rather busy. Legal considerations are that it may need to have it's license plate blurred as it is still on the road and the design scheme mentioned above. Most cars, if they have a plain paint job, probably don't apply. However, a specific paint design may be copyrightable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand how an elaborate paint job might be copyrightable. However, if paint jobs on police cars are copyrightable, it seems to me that the absurd result is that no photos of police cars would be permitted on Wikipedia. The same would go for uniforms of many kinds of private and government workers. Although I'm not a lawyer, I would think that the design is not sufficiently creative to qualify for copyright protection. Pine^talk 10:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • About the copyright. The painting is constituted of a blue line and some text, like POLICE (it would be PD-Textlogo, below the threshold of originality) and a logo, which is de minimis. I don't think based on those elements the composition in itself is copyrightable. If you don't share those views, you're free to open a DR in Commons, to settle the matter. --Dereckson (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a note that I've also requested comments about the copyright from administrators Moonriddengirl and J Milburn. If others would also like to express views please feel free. Pine^talk 10:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that I said "may". My oppose is mainly for the technical issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for clarifying. Since there seems to be concern about the copyright I think that it's reasonable to try to get a definitive resolution. I understand why there is concern although my feeling is that in this particular case the paint job isn't copyrightable. Pine^talk 11:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Aside from the logo, I agree. As noted by Dereckson, in this particular case the logo is probably de minimis. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Failing any definitive (and unlikely) evidence to the contrary, I'd suggest all further votes should simply focus on the image and not concern themselves with the copyright mumbo-jumbo. --jjron (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Short answer: It's fine. Long answer: IANAL. That said, I think it's alright. Obviously, the car itself is not copyrightable, while the logo is. The paint-job, theoretically, could be. The logo is quite clearly de minimis, and so its inclusion is fine. The paint-job isn't, but it seems simple enough that it would be PD anyway. (To pre-empt, freedom of panorama does not apply here at all.) If there are any issues that could come up here, it is the inclusion of the numberplate, not copyright. There will also presumably be laws about misrepresenting the police (y'know, implying endorsement, suggesting that you are a police officer, that sort of thing) but providing that this is used appropriately in context, that shouldn't be a problem. J Milburn (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not gonna argue the EV here, but there's too many distracting elements (post in front of car, very busy background) for it to be a FP. Clegs (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hooping Life

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 11:31:26 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, interesting pose. We rarely have free posters for new or at least recent films, so this is a nice breath of fresh air.

Articles in which this image appears

The Hooping Life, Amy Goldstein

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment

Creator

Amy Goldstein

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: She's really noisy. Does that have an impact on quality considerations, or is that moot because the original is that way? Clegs (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have an issue with it. It's better than the old-school way of doing these posters, like on File:Deep Throat poster 2.jpg. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder whether it's an intentional effect. Brandmeister t 20:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Image noise is a hurdle for me, and since I can't determine whether it is intentional or just poorly done, I must vote on the default, which is the standard FP guideline of no image noise or graininess. —Eustress ^talk 02:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with Eustress. Pine^talk 08:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As with the "Flying Fish poster", this is not a scan but the original poster artwork direct from some designer's PC. The poster is dire. The photo quality is dire. The article this image appears in is dire and appears to contain nothing but the blurb from the back of the DVD. I suspect WP is being used to promote this film. Rather than being "a nice breath of fresh air", something smells here. Colin°^Talk 13:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Promotional images / adverts. --Colin°^Talk 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Entirely possible, but (assuming the film is eventually released) any possible promotion on behalf of the filmmaker is actually beneficial to the encyclopedia. Images, especially posters and whatnot which are the same no matter where they are published, are generally more NPOV than text. I wouldn't mind more people with high quality posters or other works donating them to the encyclopedia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand your "more NPOV than text"? The poster contains cheery-picked review comments, as all posters do. That's as POV as you can get. Colin°^Talk

• Those are text, not pure images. Note that I said "generally". Images like File:Poster - Gone With the Wind 01.jpg are fairly NPOV in my opinion. For a POV image, we can look at different poses of Barack Obama. A supporter might like his official portrait or one of him working, while a detractor will look for a picture of him scratching his behind. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I don't think that is all noise, I think some of that has to do with the background of the poster being textured. I think the poster looks very cool and different than your average everyday movie poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctrh180 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is a poor quality poster, apparently made by the film's director for heaven's sake, of an independent, barely feature length documentary of no particular note which will most likely not be shown across any cinema chain in the world, uploaded by a user (possibly the director seeing as how she likes to take a hands on approach to the promotion of her film) who created their/her account purely to write articles about the film in question and it's director/herself (which borders on the blatantly promotional side of resumé-like and also has an unhealthy number of external links), to link to these two articles from as many related articles as possible and to upload this image and one of the documentary's director/herself. Do we really want to indiscriminately promote any movie poster that gets uploaded to Wikipedia just because it is a movie poster and therefore somehow "notable"? God Emperor^Talk 19:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Cena

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 20:29:23 (UTC)

Reason

Nice capture of the ceremonial entrance made by competitors before professional wrestling matches. Would be first pro wrestling FP. Borderline on pixel threshold but still good resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

John Cena, professional wrestling, WWE Tribute to the Troops

FP category for this image

People/Entertainment

Creator

Alexander Vaughn, from Flickr

• Support as nominator --—Eustress ^talk 20:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - His face is not like John Cena. ●Mehran ^Debate● 09:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too generic to have much EV for wrestling topics (muscley guy in T-shirt, could be anybody anywhere - you have to already know something about the subject to be able to place it in a wrestling context). And as Mehran said, the face is too distorted to allow recognition. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this image is below the Wikipedia:Featured Picture Criteria recommended minimum of 1000 pixels on at least one side of the image, and the face is distorted. Pine^talk 08:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, no excuse for having a pic of a pro wrestler and not showing his hands. Daniel Case (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what he's doing with his hands, just look at his shirt for a hint —Eustress ^talk 02:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's even more of a shame that we can't see them then! J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Too small and chopped off, per above essentially. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Cutting off the arms (ignoring the facial expression) is too much, particularly for a guy like Cena who is so famous for having nearly horse-like arms. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Griffith Observatory

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 19:19:46 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, great shot

Articles in which this image appears

Griffith Observatory, Griffith Park, John C. Austin, List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in Hollywood, List of museums in Los Angeles, California

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Mfield

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Caption should probably be more succinct, per WIAFP:7a (see also CAP#Succinctness). —Eustress ^talk 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've shortened it. Tomer T (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Caption issued resolved, excellent photo —Eustress ^talk 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose Didn't realize it until reading JJ's comment below... he's right, the camera is focused on the houses in the background and not on the observatory. Still an impressive picture, but FP criterion 1 says the main subject must be in focus. —Eustress ^talk 18:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That is stunning! At full zoom, it's a bit soft, but still passable. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah ok, the focus plane is out. I kind of noticed this the first time, but didn't put 2 and 2 together. Reluctant oppose. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment tree to the right of the door (as it appear in the pic) appears strangly blured. Stitching error?©Geni 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I agree with Aaadddaaammm about softness. Pine^talk 08:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good quality. Clegs (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm pretty sure that this has been cropped from a larger image, and the camera has focused on the houses behind, rather than the observatory. The image quality is very average compared to most of our landscape shots. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I wasn't particularly drawn to this when it was nominated but I didn't want to be the first to oppose. I guess the the reason the Observatory isn't sharp is because of what JJ said? It's a shame it's off-center too. The Astronomers Monument should have been dead center in the middle of the door. Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the monument was centered in front of the door, we might not be able to see the door as well as we do here. I like the angle. Pine^talk 08:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment from the photographer Interestingly I just happened upon FP today for the first time in ages and saw this so I thought I'd address a couple of points that have been raised incorrectly. I would say I never figured this would be an FP or I would probably have nominated it back when I was a regular here, I uploaded it for its enc value. JJ says ' I'm pretty sure that this has been cropped from a larger image, and the camera has focused on the houses behind, rather than the observatory." Well, per the image caption, this is not cropped from a larger image at all, quite the contrary, it is a stitch of four quarters in landscape format. Secondly, the camera did not focus on the houses behind, it focused on the observatory, however as this was shot with a 20D and a then new 300 F4L, this predated Live View, and hence critical manual focus, and the lens/body combination back focused as I discovered shortly after. The 20D was retired soon after and I never worried about it again. Like I said anyway, I uploaded it for its enc rather than its photographic merit, but it has amazingly stood the test of time in the article and numerous templates and infobox mosaics. Mfield (Oi!) 03:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Fish poster

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2012 at 13:54:40 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, interesting image, good EV, underrepresented area (Sri Lankan film)

Articles in which this image appears

Flying Fish (film)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment

Creator

Sanjeewa Pushpakumara

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice scan job too. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think this is a scan. This looks like the original artwork received direct from the film producers. So what are we judging here? The photograph? -- that's been extensively manipulated? A movie poster? -- it looks pretty average and standard. Yes, technically the image is very high quality, as one would expect of an original. Any advice? Colin°^Talk 20:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just like File:Poster - Island of Lost Men 01.jpg and File:Plan 9 Alternative poster.jpg, we're judging the quality of the reproduction. Like works of fine art, such as the Mona Lisa or The Starry Night, we should not judge movie posters based on the design of the poster itself. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The difference is that the pieces of fine art you've cited are notable by themselves. This movie poster is not. Only the movie is. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That wasn't an issue with the above-linked posters. The only thing with higher EV would be the film itself, and technical limitations prohibit us from hosting high quality films (hard to fit it in 100mb) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't a "reproduction". This is the original. So I'm not judging how well someone has scanned the image and retouched it to remove creases and coffee stains. Or how well someone has photographed a work of art in a gallery. We're judging a non-notable movie poster. Since it is an original, output from the computer of the poster designer, of course it is going to have flawless crisp writing and a high technical quality. Assuming this is a still from the film, then it illustrates the film to some degree - though the writing and the vignetting detract from that purpose, failing the "avoids inappropriate digital manipulation" if film-illustration is the EV. If displaying the movie poster is the EV then I guess it is as good as you could get. If we're judging the poster as a work of art/design then this is very unoriginal. So unoriginal, in fact, that the Film poster article could use it to illustrate the standard features of a modern movie poster. Colin°^Talk 09:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I have decided to oppose. This has lower EV than a still from the film. A film poster is an advertisement and this is a recent/current film. Rather than being a gift we should welcome, I'm concerned that such images are being donated to WP for promotional purposes. I don't think the FPC should promote a current advert as that is just a backdoor way of getting free advertising on WP. I'm going to create a discussion on the FPC talk page about this. Colin°^Talk 13:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Promotional images / adverts. --Colin°^Talk 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Supportgood quality as to nice scan. Alborzagros (talk) 07:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support the softness and brightness of the people in the image is done in a way that doesn't impress me, but this has good EV and the rest of the image is sharp. Pine^talk 08:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't understand the comparison to File:Poster - Island of Lost Men 01.jpg and File:Plan 9 Alternative poster.jpg. Those weren't promoted just because they're good scans; they're also good examples of movie posters. This is a mediocre example of a movie poster. There's nothing interesting in its design or in the underlying photograph. I don't understand Crisco's argument that we shouldn't judge the design. Why not? We judge a photograph in two ways: its encyclopedic utility in representing the subject and its aesthetic quality. So the same applies here. Chick Bowen 19:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For me, EV outweighs poor posing and whatnot (assuming the poster is not completely ruined by being too dark etc.) I think that 30s to 50s era posters were more aesthetically pleasing, but times change. If you think that aesthetics is more important than EV, I cannot force you to change your mind. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree that standards have dropped that much, particularly for independent films; for example, I think Errol Morris's posters (like this one and this one) are often very effectively and innovatively designed. I salute you for finding movie posters under free licenses and you should definitely keep trying, but so far, these are not good posters, even by today's standards. Chick Bowen 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tide pool

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2012 at 23:09:40 (UTC)

Reason

Illustrative value, high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Tide pool, Biocoenosis, Ecosystem, Body of water, Intertidal ecology, Marine biology

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not a vote yet. Am I seeing things, or does the focus look just a bit goofy? Clegs (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Focus appears to be a little bit off and photo is not a clear illustration of a tide pool to me -- looks like any underwater shot, could be anywhere. File:Porto Covo February 2009-2.jpg seems more instructive as an example of a tide pool. —Eustress ^talk 15:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per not quite in focus. Clegs (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree File:Porto Covo February 2009-2.jpg can be a FP illustrating well a tide pool, but I only added it to the article two days ago, so I'll wait with it... Tomer T (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Heron

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2012 at 00:48:46 (UTC)

Reason

The first nomination for this image closed a while back with 6 supports (including nominator's), 4 opposes, a weak oppose and a neutral. Numerous alternate versions were uploaded (rather late in the voting period) which fixed several of the perceived problems (unnatural background colouring and beak too close to edge of frame). Crucially, all of the opposing votes were added before the first alternate image was added, and once the first alternate image was added the only votes cast were in favour. I was wondering if the result might have been different had the problems been fixed sooner and thought the best way to find out was to renominate.

Articles in which this image appears

Grey Heron

FP category for this image

Birds

Creator

God Emperor

• Support alt 2 as nominator --God Emperor^Talk 00:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I like the photo, but I still think my edit from the previous nom (Alt-1) is better. There are some serious noise and gradient issues in the background of your new version. However, the level of detail in the bird itself is much higher thanks to the higher resolution. There is definitely potential in this picture. O.J. (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The added EV seems to be in retraction of the neck; however, a before-and-after composite would be better to illustrate this. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The image can easily be placed next to an one with a Grey Heron with neck extended for that purpose (as it is in the article). Making the image a composite would just restrict it's use. God Emperor^Talk 17:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we've had noms like this before where the images were promoted as a set. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why did the background change colour so much in the first place? Was it a saturation adjustment? JJ Harrison (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my edit the hue and saturation of the background are adjusted. O.J. (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you not change the lightness as well? - I did in my edit in trying to get the same colour as you. I will redo the edit to sort out the noise when I have time. God Emperor^Talk 13:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original and edit 2, neutral to edit 1. The original (and now, edit 2) gets the realistic color that I was looking for. Clegs (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Added Alt 2. I resolved the noise issues and didn't resize at all this time. If people think it is too soft at full resolution I could downsize this to 2/3 like the original. God Emperor^Talk 22:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2012 at 16:09:33 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, good EV. The stamp is more than 150 years old, which is quite interesting.

Articles in which this image appears

Postal currency

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle

Creator

United States Post Office.

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I might ask why there seems to be an arbitrary jump from the original background to (255,255,255) white though. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I intentionally removed the background around the postal note. A few years ago, my Confederate 100 Dollar banknote was a Featured Picture Candidate on the Commons. [4] I was asked to remove the background and closely crop the image on the Confederate banknote. This 5 cent note is currently a Featured Picture Candidate on the Commons. [5] I would appreciate support there. I have scans of 3 cent and 25 cent Fractional Currency that I will upload soon. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good quality. Clegs (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The portrait of Jefferson looks a little washed out compared to the rest of the certificate. Is this as it was originally or is it due to wear or scanning? —Eustress ^talk 18:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did another scan with Photoshop Elements and lowered the min-tones. (Histogram adjustment, mid-tone from 1.2 to 1.0.) I uploaded a tiff of the front. File:US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 front 720b.tif This is closer to the actual note. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as uploader -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support given the age, this looks good. Pine^talk 08:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support InverseHypercube 08:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have uploaded the tiff files for the front and back of the note. File:US_Postal_Currency_5_cent_1862_front_720a.tif and File:US_Postal_Currency_5_cent_1862_back_720a.tif I also uploaded tiff files made with different scanner settings, the mid-tones were darkened. (Photoshop Elements, Histogram adjustment, mid-tone from 1.2 to 1.0.) File:US_Postal_Currency_5_cent_1862_front_720b.tif and File:US_Postal_Currency_5_cent_1862_back_720b.tif -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baking of bread set

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2012 at 08:42:47 (UTC)

Reason

Really high educational value in the article Bread, a great set for an encyclopedia

Articles in which this image appears

Bread

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink

Creator

Chmee2

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wouldn't a video be simpler? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Crisco makes a good point. I would add that if we're going to go with photographs, we should take care to eliminate some of the redundancy in this set, e.g. 9 and 10, and also how we keep looking back at those shelves with only minor changes. I think shelf shots should only be used to indicate waiting time, and they should be taken from the same angle to allow focusing on essential differences. To give another specific example, seeing the flour being applied is better than seeing the floury loaves on the shelf, and makes that second shot redundant. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• omment Each of these needs a detailed caption in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Each image alone is pretty average, and together it just amplifies the averageness, sorry. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Focus issues throughout (especially the picture taking bread out of the oven--focus is behind the oven). Like the idea of a video. Any chance you could get back in there with a decent video camera? Clegs (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator is User:Chmee2. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Hi. First of all, thanks for this nomination, I am happy and proud of it! However, I agree with "opponents" that these images are not technically the best one and they do not fit standards for FP (on Commons, I am not sure, what are standards here). On the other hand, it was really hard place for taking good images and when I checked my private gallery on Commons I took only one Quality image there. I would like to answer several questions. Firstly, I believed that photos are more educative than video, because they highlight the main points of this procedure. For this reason I took mirror camera with me, not video camera. Unfortunately, I am not able go there one more time in the near feature and if yes, there will be again the same problem. This was not baking museum but real bakery, where everything has to be done quick. There is no place for tripod or some long preparation for photographing :/ And just for fan, there are images from more procedures, see Bread roll, Kifli, or cs:Veka. And of course! I will be really happy when you find some articles on en.wiki, where to add images from Czech bakery :) Best regards --Chmee2 (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firefighters during Yellowstone fires of 1988

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2012 at 08:21:56 (UTC)

Reason

Good illustrative value for the article Yellowstone fires of 1988, good quality for a 1988 photo

Articles in which this image appears

Yellowstone fires of 1988

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Jim Peaco

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It's really foggy, I know it's not possible to take a clear shot in such place, but this is too obscure (esp. it's not easy to understand what's there in the background?!). We can find more clear images from the fired places. ●Mehran ^Debate● 12:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foggy? Isn't it smoke? Wouldn't you expect that from smouldering things after a fire? JJ Harrison (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologize, I meant "Smoke"! As I said above it's very obscure, please compare this image with some other similar ones. ●Mehran ^Debate● 10:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Doesn't show the fires themselves, although the best composition would include both fires and firefighting efforts. Brandmeister t 00:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A better caption about what the firefighters are doing would help with this image's EV. Pine^talk 08:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Tomer T (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Doing mop up" isn't very explanatory. Can you be more specific? Pine^(talk) 22:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tom Chapin portrait

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2012 at 03:55:22 (UTC)

Reason

Meets WP:WIAFP criteria to be a featured picture.

Articles in which this image appears

Tom Chapin, Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album for Children

FP category for this image

/People/Entertainment

Creator

Dschwen

• Support as nominator --Albacore (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Something weird is going on with the colours on the face. It reminds me of trying to correct for the colour balance of a sodium vapour lamp, but I am only guessing. The lighting is quite hard too, and the image isn't super sharp. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Light on face is too harsh. —Eustress ^talk 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Girl with styrofoam swimming board

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2012 at 02:34:31 (UTC)

Reason

Beautiful pic with varied EV

Articles in which this image appears

Swimming float, swimming lessons, human swimming, organic chemistry

FP category for this image

Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle

Creator

Tommy Wong, from Flickr

• Support as nominator --—Eustress ^talk 02:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support -- Love it! Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose. Highlights and CA make the focus point difficult to pick out. Also not sure how this has EV for swimming lessons or swimming, as its pretty obvious she's doing neither. Clegs (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Great for the family album or a stock photo agency, good for Commons, but lacks EV for WP. Per Clegs she's clearly neither swimming nor having a swimming lesson (and lets forget the EV for organic chemistry). Re the first listed article I'm highly dubious on the swimming float usage too; the very shallow DOF used makes it hard to say for sure, but she looks to be laying in very shallow water, thus not actually floating, or more to the point not using the kickboard as a flotation aid; her body posture and way the swim suit is laying would support this. And as a final kicker for EV, that's not how you're meant to use a kickboard. --jjron (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose pretty but EV is not compelling. Pine^talk 08:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose'. Sorry, nice picture but Jjron makes good points, and the girl appears to be falling asleep - just not feeling the EV. God Emperor^Talk 11:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mummy (1932 film)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2012 at 13:27:02 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV. Attractive aesthetically as well.

Articles in which this image appears

The Mummy (1932 film)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment

Creator

Employee(s) of Universal Pictures, attributed to Karoly Grosz

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great quality scan! —Eustress ^talk 15:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great colors and detail. High EV. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There are a couple of green stripes: one through the writing and her dress and a shorter one to the left of the bottom of her dress. Are these on the original or did the scanner create them. If the latter, could this be fixed. Colin°^Talk 10:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take a look at them. If I decide that they are scanning artefacts, hopefully I can remove them. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda sick of looking at film posters in GIMP today though... this morning was dedicated to To Be or Not to Be and I'm not entirely pleased with the results. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Scanning artifact removed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Classic. -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks great --Guerillero | My Talk 13:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The poster is attributed to Karoly Grosz (the artist not the politician) and for a while held the record for the most expensive movie poster ever sold. The colours look a bit off in this version. Yomangani^talk 00:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Christies' restoration image for comparison (though they can't keep the colours the same between the two images). Yomangani^talk 00:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To me, the pre-restored version is near the colours we have here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't both of the others appear to have much deeper greens? Compare his hands for example. Also the Christies' images have more purple in her dress and in the "curtain" behind "It comes to life!". Since there are only two complete copies known to exist we don't have much of a comparison set and it could be that this image has the right colour balance and the other reproductions are off, but I wanted to check you didn't alter the colours and that they they look similar to your original source. Yomangani^talk 18:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, haven't touched the colours. The only modifying I did was removing a slight green scanning artifact after this was nominated. The original upload is the same as the file on the LA library's site. (only two copies? Oh my) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Beautiful -- Scewing (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The Mummy 1932 film poster.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keypunch

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2012 at 03:07:34 (UTC)

Reason

Historic image of the way computations used to be done

Articles in which this image appears

Keypunch, United States Census, Herman Hollerith

FP category for this image

History/USA History

Creator

Unknown or not provided (image from National Archives and Records Administration)

• Support as nominator --—Eustress ^talk 03:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The image page caption needs work. I don't think punching the cards turned the data into statistics - it just allowed a computer to do so. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I've updated the image page caption accordingly. —Eustress ^talk 14:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support High quality for such an old picture. Support only if caption edit is used. Clegs (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Agree that it's high quality, nicely composed and has historical value. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Clegs and Mathew. I thought it's 1940s or 1950s. Brandmeister t 00:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support per Chick Bowen. The date span in the source is indeed large. Brandmeister t 19:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Great image! Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --jjron (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good black and white photo with EV Pine^talk 09:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High quality and encyclopedic value. - Darwinek (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is no information about when the photo was taken. National Archives website says 1890-1950. For this to have any EV we need at least the year. O.J. (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's using the Hollerith keypunch, which was only used to tabulate the 1890 census; but the caption says "c. 1890" because we don't know the exact date. I think that's reasonable and still very informative. —Eustress ^talk 15:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although she's using the pantograph keypunch from the 1890 census I'd guess that it is staged for the photograph and was taken much later. The cards she is using aren't the 1890 cards and her clothes and hairstyle aren't from 1890s either. Maybe some fashion expert will appear to date it more closely. Yomangani^talk 15:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't vouch for hairstyles, but the cards look correct to period. There's a smaller reading board at the top of the machine and the actual punch card under the operator's hand -- both indicative of the 1890 census (see Columbia University article). (Note: The Early Office Museum discusses this photo, not indicating a date but saying it is the machine used to tabulate the 1890 census.) If you're concerned this photo may have been staged later, perhaps we can modify the caption accordingly (e.g., "The Hollerith keypunch was used to tabulate the 1890 United States Census—the first time a census was tabulated by machine."). However, I doubt this is staged, since it appears to be an authentic work environment: paper punch outs lie on the desk and a coworker appears at a desk in the background. —Eustress ^talk 16:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you compare the reading card template in this picture to the 1890 template photo in the Columbia University article you can see they are are different; this one has several short lines of punch holes while in the 1890 one they are all the same length, so she's almost certainly not tabulating the 1890 census. I don't think staging precludes some dressing of the set, and it may even be an authentic photo of somebody working on a punch card using a Hollerith keypunch, but I'd be very surprised if this photo was taken any time close to 1890. To be on the safe side I'd adjust the caption as you suggested (if you are sure that no other census had been tabulated using a machine). Yomangani^talk 17:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Caption updated —Eustress ^talk 17:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support e^xtra999 (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High EV, great quality picture for its age. Dusty777 (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose without some kind of solid indication of date. I've spent a lot of time looking at a lot of photographs from 1850 to 1950. I've never seen an indoor photograph this sharp from before about 1920. Not to mention, as noted above, her hair and clothes--but also, look at the furniture, look at the half-frosted-glass, half-wood cubicle partition in front of her. Look at the lighting, too--the sun is shining in from the back windows, hence the shadow on our side of the desk in the background. What is shining on the subject's face is a high-quality electric photographer's light, not an Edison bulb. This is not a 19th-century photograph. My guess would be 1930s. If it's featurable anyway, fine. But those above supporting because of "high quality for such an old picture" might want to reexamine this. For me, if we could get some information about what exactly we're looking at, I'd support, but without it, I don't feel able to. Chick Bowen 03:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The census form she has on the roll is not the official 1940 census form [6], but it is so close that it is either a prototype or a variation, so the date must be well after 1930 (late 30s or after). Unfortunately the title is blurred under the shadow of the bottom of the wrapped around form so I can't read it, but if anybody has one of those zoom/enhance programs from CSI or Blade Runner we should be in business. Yomangani^talk 01:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The machine is from the 1890 census, but the photo is not. Women did not dress like this in 1890; as noted previously, the hair and dress are wrong. The earlier guess of 1940s or 1950s seems reasonable to me. There is another photo of the same woman in the same dress (here). There, a second woman is next to her, with a machine from a different census. That web page suggests this was a demonstration of old machines, which seems reasonable to me. --Beth63 (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice sleuthing. Whether or not is was staged later, I think the photo still conveys significant EV for the articles listed in the nomination, and the alternate caption helps ensure the photo is viewed in an accurate and informative context. Cheers —Eustress ^talk 00:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Card puncher - NARA - 513295.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the date as a showstopper. It would be a slightly staged situation whether taken in 1890 or 1950, and one can debate over whether they really would have used citizens' filled in census forms for the photo-shoot. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: date estimate has been changed to "circa 1940" per discussion at Commons:File_talk:Card_puncher_-_NARA_-_513295.jpg; further discussion there is welcome -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common Bronzewing

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 10:24:49 (UTC)

Reason

This image captures the wing feather iridescence well.

Articles in which this image appears

Common Bronzewing

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. The bird is excellent, but I find that hugely OOF area taking up the bottom sixth of the picture more than a little offputting. I wish we could crop it out, but it goes too close to the bird's feet to remove it all; I wonder if it's worth trying to crop in closer all round however to remove some of it, but keep the picture balanced? --jjron (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Added Alt 1. I find the original too bright, and the contrast between the breast of the bird and the background is not great as a result. God Emperor^Talk 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear, I just saw the conversation over the Leaden Flycatcher. You're not going to be happy about this are you JJ? God Emperor^Talk 19:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. :P. A symmetric histogram isn't indicative of correct exposure - one would never have to use exposure compensation on the camera if it was. To be frank, this particular edit looks terrible, it has way too much contrast. I think maybe the original could do with a tad more contrast in this case. So I will have a go at a crop/levels. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Alt 1, Weak Support Original and Alt 2. Alt 1 way to contrasty. the original and alt 2 are better, but the breast of the bird seems to be slightly overexposed. Clegs (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all the bright green background is blinding me. Pine^(talk) 22:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2. Edit 2 looks best to me. O.J. (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all due to issues with brightness (original, edit 2) and saturation (edit 1 especially). Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's another Australia picture. Too many Australia pictures on the front page. Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not one of the criteria. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JFK with Caroline on the Honey Fitz

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 12:08:43 (UTC)

Reason

This is one of the only pictures of him with his closest living relative, it's a nice historical image.

Articles in which this image appears

Caroline Kennedy

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Cecil W. Stoughton

• Support as nominator --777 — 12:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not convinced by the EV. I can see other photos of her with her father, eg [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support All other aforementioned images are black-and-white. This one has a good composition in particular, but perhaps would benefit from denoisement. Brandmeister t 13:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Has something been done to her like photoshopping? She looks like an Auton. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Other things too. Her head is obviously lopsided, so not the best angle to see her; half her face is covered by the white frilly thing; the blanket's covering her body so we can't even imagine how big or old she is; The quality of the image isn't good enough for my liking either. There's a green tint across her face and it's just too grainy. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Cute snapshot, snapshot with some historical value, but still just a snapshot. Clegs (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wedge-tailed Eagle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 10:31:21 (UTC)

Reason

As I was leaving for a day's photography, I spotted a Diamond Firetail drinking from a puddle on the other side of my hire car. I managed to get my camera out without flushing it, but just as I had the camera pointing at it around the car. I waited in the car for quite a while before setting off. I was a little annoyed that I'd wasted valuable haze-free morning, but the delay turned out to be lucky - this eagle was waiting just outside the driveway, in a tree, where I was staying.

Articles in which this image appears

Wedge-tailed Eagle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Support. Good shot. Clegs (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Neutral. The beak didn't bug me at first, but is bugging me more and more. Clegs (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The beak is one solid blown highlight. Dusty777 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, not that it made an appreciable difference. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support -- I like the bird but that beak is bothering me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's another Australia picture. Too many Australia pictures on the front page. Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not one of the criteria. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose That upshoot of the tree branch on the left-hand side spoils the photo for me -- crowds and draws my eye away from the subject. —Eustress ^talk 07:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wandering Albatross in flight

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 10:22:21 (UTC)

Reason

This isn't the best angle to show the wing plumage - File:Diomedea exulans in flight 2 - SE Tasmania.jpg is better for that. However, I think this picture really communicates the wingspan of this species and albatrosses in general.

Articles in which this image appears

Wandering Albatross, Albatross

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• FWIW this image of a Wandering Albatross is already featured. I guess we could say this one complements it (they're quite different poses/angles). --jjron (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Almost need to use the wide template for that wingspan:) Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yet another excellent shot. Clegs (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support EV is so-so when we already have Diomedea_exulans_-_SE_Tasmania.jpg as a featured picture, but this is a good shot. Pine^(talk) 22:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Nice action shot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even more impressive when magnified! —Eustress ^talk 05:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's another Australia picture. Too many Australia pictures on the front page. Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not one of the criteria. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• At any rate, this species has a circumpolar distribution, it isn't really an Australian subject specifically. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Diomedea exulans in flight - SE Tasmania.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Majas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 10:53:43 (UTC)

Reason

I was looking for a break from film posters (my morning was all posters) and I discovered these little gems. The two have an interesting back story: after outcry over his nude (La maja desnuda), the painter Francisco Goya went ahead and painted another one with clothes entitled La maja vestida, rather than overpainting his earlier work. La maja desnuda is said to have the first clear depiction of female pubic hair in Western art.

Articles in which this image appears

La maja desnuda, La maja vestida, Francisco Goya, and more

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Francisco Goya

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a kind of stamp on the right cheek of Maja desnuda. Brandmeister t 13:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That same stamp appears a couple of times in the upper left of the second painting as well. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. Yes, it says MUSEO NACIONAL DEL PRADO, I believe. The stamp isn't on the image on the website of the museum, where the description page indicates this image came from. This image is also brighter than the image on the website - are you sure the source is stated correctly? God Emperor^Talk 14:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears the uploader neglected to mark his source when uploading. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure how that follows. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I.e. I could not find exact replicas online, so his/her source may be down. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • But the image was uploaded in 2010. Since it's held at the MNdP, the source link points there, the watermark points there, don't you think it's likely that it came from there? They may have simply changed their watermarking policy in the 16 months or so since it was uploaded. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps. Do you have a link to a script that allows one to download such images? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Scratch that. Apparently doing the same thing over again can bring a different result. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose until the stamps are removed. Clegs (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'll work on it tomorrow my time (UTC+7) Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now. Brandmeister t 16:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are still (at my count) 5 stamps in the desnuda and 4 in the vestida. Also, if I'm nitpicky, you can see a bit of white left over from the stamp on the cheek of the desnuda on the line between face and hair, though I wouldn't notice anything wrong if I wasn't looking for it. God Emperor^Talk 22:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make that 7 on the desnuda. The stamps seem to go regularly in horizontal lines and I think there are places where stamps have been removed badly previously. To be honest I don't think this will ever be satisfactorarily cleaned up so I'm going to
    Oppose. God Emperor^Talk 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I got them all. Don't forget to purge your cache before looking. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still one on the corner of the pillow along the right hand side of the vestida. God Emperor^Talk 01:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And also on her dress above her left breast and below her right breast. God Emperor^Talk 01:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I got those and the image is currently uploading (my connection sucks, so it may take up to 10 minutes. I have to go deal with applying for my masters, but if I missed any I'll pick this up when I come back. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Good work. Leaning towards support now, but just one more thing - what are the dark lines along the right side of both images. Are they in the original painting or a product of the reproduction? God Emperor^Talk 13:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean are they shadows or regions that had previously been covered up by a frame and so less damaged by light? God Emperor^Talk 13:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's on the original image here. Looking at this I would suggest the area is generally covered by a frame. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This also implies that a frame may be there (although this isn't the same image, you can see that a frame was removed to make the scan of this image. I'm assuming the museum has an SOP). Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pretty neat as a pair, plus individual EV —Eustress ^talk 06:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support God Emperor^Talk 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support famous paintings. Beautiful. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per Eustress, they are ineed a nice pair. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Goya Maja naga2.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Promoted File:Goya Maja ubrana2.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cricketer bowled

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 15:57:28 (UTC)

Reason

A picture showing a cricketer who has just been bowled, good EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Bowled, Dismissal (cricket)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport

Creator

Lemonlolly

• Support as nominator --Harrias ^talk 15:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think this is too bad, but I would have preferred to have had the bowler included too so we know where the ball comes from and how. I'll reserve judgement for now. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose per above. If I didn't watch cricket (yes, I'm weird, I'm an American who watches cricket), I would have no clue what was happening. Needs the bowler in picture. Clegs (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's the best picture of a cricketer I've seen so far, but I still don't get what being "bowled" is (since I don't know much about cricket). I can't tell what's happening in the photo. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I can appreciate that without a baseline knowledge of cricket, this isn't as valuable as I thought. As a cricket fan (and someone playing in this match) I obviously knew what was happening, and it didn't even cross my mind it wasn't as obvious to other people. Does it have any value merely as a dismissal? I'm guessing not, but worth checking! Harrias ^talk 21:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments I'm not too familiar with your guidelines and criteria, but I'll point out that this photo could usefully illustrate a number of articles about cricket kit, including Whites (cricket), Batting gloves, Batting helmet and Stumps. It also shows the difference between the pitch (the light coloured short-mown grass he's standing on) and the outfield, which people can find difficult to distinguish from text and presumably have articles I'm too lazy to look for. The very dark strip is probably a practice strip, possibly with an artificial surface. We probably have an article on batting stance or technique, but I wouldn't use this image, except perhaps as an example of how not to bat. Incidentally, the photo is an excellent cricket picture - because the bowler isn't in it. By which I mean that because the chap 22 yards away can't be seen, there's some great detail visible, including the batsman's despairing look, the ball sharply in focus and even both of the bails (one on top of the left hand stump, the other is in the top left hand corner, flying dramatically out of shot). --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (basically support) This discussion is going in the favour that there should have been a bowler in shot. However, I agree with Dweller fully, a bowler in shot, which could have meant 22 yards in picture, could have lessened the EV. The focus is as what the nominator says, it displays the every detail of a batsman being bold, the stumps is in focus, the batsman and the equipments. e^xtra999 (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - No wow factor, not particularly revealing to me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Highway 401 at Night

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 21:14:19 (UTC)

Reason

This picture was nominated for a featured picture before, but I feel it deserves a second chance due to it's usefulness in the articles in which it is displayed.

Articles in which this image appears

Ontario Highway 401, Toronto, street light, long-exposure photography, lighting, controlled-access highway

FP category for this image

Engineering and technology

Creator

Kenny Louie (kennymatic on Flickr)

• Support as nominator --Haljackey (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Due to limited EV for the articles listed. Were it not for the articles mentioned here I wouldn't know that this were Toronto or Highway 401. I wouldn't know that it's controlled-access either, except I saw the other (now withdrawn) nomination. In lighting it's being used to highlight the high-mast street lamps (which happen to be the smallest-sized lighted parts in the photo), rather than the more obvious lights from the vehicles or buildings. Nor it doesn't really show how well they light the road in street light because of all the other light from the cars and buildings, although I suppose there's not really a time when this road is quiet enough for that. EV for Long-exposure photography is good, but it's not exceptional and there are others that are equally as good or better at Commons:Category:Automobile light trails. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral the only place where this looks like it has good value is Long-exposure photography. Pine^(talk) 22:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australia women's national water polo team set

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2012 at 12:49:50 (UTC)

• 
  Alicia McCormack Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Ashleigh Southern Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Bronwen Knox Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Dalibor Maslan assistant coach of the Australian women's national water polo.
• 
  Gemma Beadsworth Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Glencora Ralph Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Gregory McFadden coach of the Australian women's national water polo.
• 
  Hannah Buckling Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Holly Lincoln-Smith Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Isobel Bishop Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Jane Moran Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Kate Gynther Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Kelsey Wakefield Australian women's national water polo player
• 
  Melissa Rippon Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Nicola Zagame Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Rowena Webster Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Ryan Moar assistant coach of the Australian women's national water polo.
• 
  Sophie Smith Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Victoria Brown Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Zoe Arancini Australian women's national water polo player.

Reason

The pictures are high quality (all 1000px or above) and as a set help to give an idea as to who plays for the Australia women's national water polo team. With the exception of all the two assistant coaches, all the images are used to illustrate who a player (or coach) is on their individual article. Work best as a set as opposed to individually.

Articles in which this image appears

Bronwen Knox, Kate Gynther, Glencora Ralph,Ashleigh Southern, Nicola Zagame,Jane Moran, Holly Lincoln-Smith, Rowena Webster, Gemma Beadsworth, Melissa Rippon, Sophie Smith, Isobel Bishop, Zoe Arancini, Hannah Buckling, Alicia McCormack, Victoria Brown,Kelsey Wakefield,Greg McFadden

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Bidgee

• Support as nominator --LauraHale (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment FPs need to be used in at least one article to be promoted. Two of these images are unused. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support To have high quality photographs of an entire national squad is quite rare, and they do of course add immensely to the articles on the individuals. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would be okay with the two assistant coaches being removed from the set. I think I could create articles for them. I think they could probably withstand an AfD, but they would only qualify under WP:GNG and I'd rather not risk that. Thus, yes, easier to remove them from the nomination. --LauraHale (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can we adjust the exposures to make them consistent? For example the image of Ashleigh Southern is darker than the one of Rowena Webster. The coaches are all darker than the players. The wall could be used as a reference, but it is just as easy to look at the shutter speed, iso and aperture and work it out that way before saving from the RAWs. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coaches pictures are darker because they were taken later that evening, rather than being a variation of the camera exposure settings. Colin°^Talk 13:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I have the RAW files and will try to fix the exposure, though it may take a day or more since I'm busy in real life. Also, those were edited on my laptop which isn't the best to edit RAW photos from. Bidgee (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have more pressing issues to deal with ATM and isn't high on my list. Bidgee (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt the time has an impact - the coaches have white t-shirts, which throw the metering a bit. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: would like to support; however, I'm concerned that as soon as the roster changes, we're going to have to start delisting. What do you guys think? Clegs (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Call the set Australia women's national water polo team 2012? The individual images will have high enough EV individually to maybe keep the set alive even after the roster changes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The precedent is that if a subject is notable enough for an article, then it is notable enough for a FP. Most of these photos have corresponding individual articles, so I don't see a problem. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, yes, but I'm not sure we'd be supporting these individually. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The lighting is OK but doesn't flatter -- showing every pore and spot. The subjects are standing too close to the background, so the texture is visible as is their shadow. The 35mm-equivalent focal length of around 40mm is an odd choice for a portrait: the wide angle and being less than a metre from the subject isn't a flattering combination, especially for the nose. All the images have been cropped or downsampled to have 2k at the longest edge leaving a <4MP image from the original 18MP out of the camera. The set would be more useful if they had been cropped square rather than being almost square but varying in width and height. That all the ladies' pictures were taken within three minutes of each other tells you all you need to know about the care that went into each portrait. Alicia, Gemma and Sophie aren't in focus. Ashleigh isn't looking at the camera. Holly is sloping to one side. Kelsey's smile is unfortunate. Rowena doesn't look happy at all. Gregory might have bothered to shave. Dalibor is too tall for the background.... --Colin°^Talk 13:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a quick photo shoot before the match, so time was limited. If I had my own way, I would have used a studio with the correct lighting but in this case it wasn't possible. Yes, the lens was a poor selection however a number of factors made me pick it. Sorry I'm fine with the criticism/critiquing but "tells you all you need to know about the care that went into each portrait", I take that as an insult and very much why I hate FP on en Wiki and Commons. I take care with all my photographs but when you're pressed for time and you don't have the gear that would have made the difference (I'm not made of money nor do I have a money tree). If you have a problem with my downsizing, that it your problem not mine. I have my reasons to downsize and no I don't do commercial photography. Fact is your insult has me questioning whether I want to contribute any further photographs to the project. Bidgee (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm really sorry you have taken it this way. It wasn't meant as an insult. I'm sure you took as much care as 10-second-per-person allowed you to take. But the fact remains we are judging a featured picture here. Can I put it another way for you: Considering the photographer only had three minutes to take all these pictures, they're pretty good and make a valuable contributions to our articles on the subject. They're just not FP standard and I note that you didn't nominate them. Colin°^Talk 14:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Your comment had nothing to do with FP, it was a indirect attack at myself, by saying I do not care about anything I do. Look what happens when you have the right lighting condtions and at least I leave in the EXIF data. I noted your other constructive criticism for the future photography I do. Even with your comment striked, I still feel totally upset and humiliated to the point that I feel that there is no point in me to contribute anymore. Bidgee (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Geez Bidgee, don't leave... Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As the quality of the pictures in terms of lens selection is an issue, some of the back story regarding the images. I asked the team media manager for permission to take pictures on Tuesday night. She arranged it so pictures could be taken two days later, at 5:10pm before the start of an international test match at 6:30pm against Great Britain, informed the players they would have their pictures taken and why they were desired. I was told the venue. There was very little flexibility available for Bidgee to play with. He had less than 48 hours notice to book a bus, arrange accommodation and chose the right camera materials for a type of picture he had very little experience taking. The venue/backdrop was chosen based on the team. The time of day was set because of the match time. It was taken inside a pool. There was an expectation by me and the media I talked to that Bidgee would take pictures of players in action during the game. At the same time, Bidgee had very, very little time to take these pictures. The time crunch was such that he took pictures of 17 women in about 5 minutes. (I had a list of their names, and recorded the picture order. Bidgee showed each player the picture after he took it.) There wasn't time enough to do much more than that. The blue back drop was a team suggestion. I think these are some of the best profile pictures taken of female athletes in any sport, and are superior to the pictures appearing on Australian Water Polo's website. Compare Bidgee's picture of Zoe Arancini to Australian Water Polo. Are they individually the best pictures ever? No, and a few could be fixed... but nothing us hugely problematic and as a set, they are in my opinion, really, really fantastic (especially given the conditions) and better than any others of their kind on Wikipedia. --LauraHale (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the comment Bidgee took personally and apologised on his talk page. These pictures are valuable to WP and I appreciate the time you guys spent arranging this, taking the pictures and uploading them for free to WP. I agree that Zoe's picture is very good. I'm not aware that we have any "featured set" criteria that lowers the standard for individual pics but if someone wants to point me at it then I could revise my review. Colin°^Talk 09:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Featured sets have always been a bit contentious. Nothing is written down and everybody has different feelings about them. Some feel that a set can be greater than the sum of it's parts. Others feel that each image should meet the FPC criteria individually, and often dislike the idea of sets because they feel each image isn't judged properly. Sometimes I attempt to avoid them, and just nominate small numbers of related images separately, but then I get comments like "these should be in a set". One can't win really. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem with a featured set concept where not every pic needs to be individually FP quality (perhaps at least something like Commons' QI standards). I agree there is added value to the set over and above individual photographs. But no alternative criteria exists and this is a review of feature picture (singular) candidates, so I've judged the images against our criteria. I see now from this discussion that Laura was encouraged to nominate these by folk who haven't followed through with their support here. I feel she should have been better advised. This (Jeremy Doyle) featured pic is better than any of these, yet got quite a tough review at FPC. I wasn't nearly as picky as any of those comments. Colin°^Talk 14:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another example of the many problems with sets and why they're a bad idea. Individually and overall these images are good and valuable for WP (great job by both Bidgee and LauraHale, and anyone else involved), but I doubt anyone would argue they would all pass FPC individually. As noted above, there are no separate criteria to say that images in sets should have different standards applied to them. I'd suggest that the few best should be selected and nominated individually to get a more considered evaluation here. --jjron (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not repeat the mistake made earlier, which only led to disappointment when someone's bubble was burst. Are you confident there are a handful of images here that could make it through FP without further pain, and would you support them? We've got FPs that aren't as good technically as the best here, but they are of a really famous person, or have a more natural pose or lighting. Individually, these women are barely notable and it is obvious they were asked to stand against a wall and smile. Colin°^Talk 16:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I've only looked at about one of them closely (yet another issue with sets; how many people actually scrutinise them all before !voting as they would for a normal FPC?), which helps explain why I haven't !voted. But really it's not up to whether or not I would support them; it's whether any of them may stand a chance out on their own when opened up to the FP community. I'm not the community. And am I "confident there are a handful of images here that could make it through FP without further pain" - absolutely not; there's not many images that do that, and I'd never say I'm confident that anything will do so beforehand. In fact what happens in various noms I often find mind-boggling. My point really is, say pick the best one, nominate it, see how it goes. If it passes there may be few that could get through, if not, it's probably not worth pursuing. But at least the nominator/contributor will get an idea of whether any of these are regarded by the community as meeting the FPC criteria without the confusion brought about by nomming the set. On the other hand, many contributors avoid nomming at FPC for good reasons. But FP star or not, they're still great for the 'pedia. --jjron (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're being honest but IMO the problem is that I don't think any of those who advised Laura to nominate looked at them closely. Elsewhere, someone recommended Gemma as a single nom. Now she's a pretty girl, and it looks ok at preview size, but when you open it then you see it clearly isn't in focus (very obvious when compared to many of the others which are sharp) so would be a clear fail. A screenful of pretty girls and the boy's are going "What's not to like, nom the set". Is that what happened? You and I might have thick enough skin to "nominate it, see how it goes" but others apparently don't. Colin°^Talk 07:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons if there's no policy for something, we often start referring to en-wiki policy... so maybe en-wiki might like to take a look at commons ideas on sets (commons:Commons:Featured_picture_candidates... I'm biased, I wrote them):

If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set.

• All images should be processed and presented in a similar manner to ensure consistency amongst the set.
• All images should be linked to all others in the "Other Versions" section of the image summary.
• If the set of subjects has a limited number of elements, then there should be a complete set of images. This may result in images in this kind of set with no "wow" factor, and perhaps little value on their own. Their value is closely bound to the value of having a complete set of these subjects. The decision to feature should be based on this overall value.
• If the set of subjects is unlimited, the images should be chosen judiciously. Each image should be sufficiently different to the others to add a great deal of value to the overall set. The majority of images should be able to qualify for FP on their own.
• All images should be of high technical quality.

--99of9 (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the majority would pass FP on their own. Commons would not be too happy about the downsampling either. Wrt your criteria, how would the third rule interact with WP's requirement to have all images in an article. For example, if some of the women above didn't have articles? Or if you had individual photos of a pop group, but only the lead singer's photo appeared in any article? Would you drop that rule for sets? Colin°^Talk 16:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "majority FP" is for unlimited sets (e.g. a sequence of a wasp laying an egg), because there you have much more control over shot selection etc. But maybe en-wiki would prefer to make a majority rule on all sets (similar to featured topics)? I'm not sure what the best usage criteria would be, but I'm sure something is required. (Personally I'd ditch the assistant coaches.) --99of9 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as a set The portraits are technically sound, and a complete set of portraits of a national-level sports team has significant EV, so I think that the FP criteria are met. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as set: I believe that the EV for the entirety of the team offsets the technical limitations of the images. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support agree with Crisco 1492. Pine^(talk) 22:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: As I have been evacuated due to the threat of the Murrumbidgee River levee failing in Wagga Wagga[13], I will not be able to do any photograph work on the photos. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)j[reply]

• Suspend nom? --99of9 (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps. A lot of the FPC regulars are waiting for the images to be touched up before they vote, based on the conversation above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I too am waiting for the exposure adjustment. I suggest we suspend it. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination closure timer seems to have gone screwy on this, saying the voting period is already over (five days too early) so I've removed it. Please manually note closing time. --jjron (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my comments above. Great contribution to WP, but individually it seems clear many of these would not pass FPC on their own, and that should be a baseline (or else we really need to reconsider all our criteria and judgements). As a 'set' they lack some basics such as being cropped to consistent dimensions; easily fixed, perhaps, but not there now. Would reconsider individually nommed images. --jjron (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Mostly agree with jjron. These don't really have the EV necessary to pass separately (action shots would be far superior), and they're not being used as a set. Sets make sense when all the images are used in the same article, but that's not the case here. Lots of minor issues too (focus, composition, etc.). Makeemlighter (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at least the two assistant coaches, partly because they're tangential/non-notable, but partly because they both have composition problems (too tall?). I'm also waiting for the exposure adjustment. --99of9 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's another Australia picture. Too many Australia pictures on the front page. Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL. Maybe a better way to solve that would be by taking/finding better pictures of other countries? --99of9 (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe JJ or Bidgee could go birding in the Moluccas. There's an invisible bird there. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I opposed, but this one is straightforward on numbers and nobody has closed it in 2.5 days. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A classic kick a man while he is down. Like fucking hello, I stated that I couldn't do the work needed within the FPC time frame and what happens? The FPC is continued even though, at no fault of my own, I had no chance to make the corrections. I was evacuated and also hospitalised, so I've only just started coming back online and still getting everything back in order. Too bad if my place was flooded, since you continued as if nothing was going on and I was out of action (unable to do anything). I've put a lot of time into both projects but what is the point when the FP clan (reason why FPC needs to be independent from FP contributors) already has its mind set? I'm upset and pissed off, I've put in a lot of time and money into thing things I do and I get crap. Get over yourself over me downsizing my photographs, be happy that I've donated them and stop your bitching. Bidgee (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bidgee, we are happy you donated them and are grateful for the time and effort you've put into them. They are a valuable contribution to WP. The adjustments that I believed were pending (having the coaches match brightness with the players and making all the pics square) are still useful changes but wouldn't be enough to change my position. I hope you continue to make photos for WP because the important thing is the contributions to content, not the opinions of a random small set of people. I'm sorry to hear you've had problems IRL. We're judging the photographs. If you want a gold star for effort and uncritical praise, then go show them to your mum. Colin°^Talk 08:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If you want a gold star for effort and uncritical praise, then go show them to your mum." How fucking insulting and clearly proves the whole FPC is just set by those who think they know it all, well fuck you. Bidgee (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Colin, the final sentence of that comment, both the tone and the comment, was completely unnecessary. Please put a little more thought into your comments in the future and refrain from doing that again. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
        • I have to agree, that was beyond uncivil. Any technical changes necessary for FP status, if Bidgee is inclined to make them, can be done at his leisure; personal safety and well-being comes first. Bidgee, glad you're safe. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Very snippy comments. Bidgee wasn't the one who officially proposed the picture set, either. However, anyone proposing and/or authoring a featured-anything needs to put personal feelings aside and take careful note of fair criticism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • • There's fair criticism indeed, but how one conveys it is important. "Tuck in your shirt, you slob" versus "Your shirt's untucked" for an easy example. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • They were harsh comments, I agree. Not nice. But hardly "beyond uncivil" and considerably milder than the language they were responding to. Do you disagree that Laura and Bidgee were campaining for this FP on the basis of the effort put into it? Do you disagree that Bidgee hasn't handled criticism well (e.g., his response to the downsampling issue). As for pending technical changes? Focus. Subject looking at the camera. Choosing an appropriate lens/distance. Separation from the background. Making sure the background is tall enough. These things aren't "technical changes" that would make this an FP. Colin°^Talk 11:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • • You started out really well, until you closed with that patronising *******... Have you ever tried to arrange for an entire team to agree to let you photograph them, with the knowledge that those pictures would be free for everyone to use? Just the negotiations would be enough to wear me thin. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are falling into the same trap. Bidgee and Laura's contributions to the encyclopeadia is one thing, and nominating pictures for FP is another. If you want to reward the first (which is far more important) then give them a barnstar. If you want to read comments that are "beyond uncivil" then just read Bidgee's postings today. Our review comments are "crap" and so much "bitching". We're all one big FP cabal. And we can go **** ourselves. Colin°^Talk 12:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I can't say I blame him, although a wikibreak may be necessary. A little tact would be nice, especially when one knows the other person is under stress. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Regardless of the stress the person is under, they have to understand that FPC is a process that tries to be as objective and sanitised as possible in order to get to the essence of what makes a useful photo. I occasionally get snappy when I think that voters have little understanding of what they're voting on, but I don't think that it's necessarily the case here. It is irrelevant how much effort went into the photo (within reason) if the quality is not up to FP standards. Colin's final comment, while inflammatory, did make a valid point that Bidgee failed to take on board. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morphology of Caprella mutica (Japanese skeleton shrimp)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2012 at 00:40:46 (UTC)

Reason

large image, good EV for the articles because of the diagram

Articles in which this image appears

Caprella mutica and Caprellidae. I have just now added it to Morphology (biology) which previously had no images.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Crustaceans

Creator

Obsidian Soul