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

Paris from the Arc de Triomphe

View of the city of Paris taken from the top of Arc de Triomphe. We can see the Champs-Elysées, the dark Montparnasse tower near the center and the Eiffel tower.

• Nominate and support. - Jplavoie 23:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support: Very nice image, showing some views that so many want to see, but don't have the opportunity. --Emustonen 21:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I find these stitched, panaramic photos to be disorienting when applied to citiscapes, especially in the way the streets line up like 'W's'. The photo has great detail and a lot to recommend (though the sky could be prettier), but I can't support because of the warped perspective. SteveHopson 23:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Some minor quality issues at maximum resolution, and it's of dubious value located in its two current articles (since it illustrates neither the Eiffel Tower nor the Arc de Triomphe particularly well). Otherwise, it's quite detailed and as interesting as many other panoramas. I agree with SteveHopson that panoramic photos are disorienting, but I don't think this shot is especially so. bcasterline t 00:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: 1)There is an important optical distortion along the second street from the left, as if there was a massive source of heat. 2)The picture does not illustrate the Arc de Triomphe at all, since it is taken from it. The Eiffel Tower is only a few pixels out of a whole panorama. IMHO, this picture should be removed from the two articles and inserted in Paris. After all that's what it is supposed to illustrate isn't it? Glaurung 06:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that this picture was added to the Paris article, but removed by editors thinking the article had enough pictures already -Glaurung 06:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that the optical distortion you see is a stitching fault. Panorama stitching software can sometimes do this, either by not aligning the images correctly, or simply because the frame itself was out of focus or motion blurred due to camera shake. Its hard to tell what has happened in this case. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak opposefor the following (fixable) reasons: The horizon is dipping slightly in the middle. Colors are somewhat murky. Also, something needs to be done about the caption - a statement about this being a 360° (?) panorama would help - otherwise someone may believe all the radial roads in Paris are parallell... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment This is not a 360° panorama, it is just roughtly 180°. So, for instance, the high rises of La Defense and the Grande Arche cannot be seen - as well as 6 more streets. Mikeo 06:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support If anything, this should go in the Paris article..? I saw a few stitching flaws (actually just one where two cars overlap) but I'm very impressed anyway. drumguy8800 - speak 02:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I like it, but I don't think it is good enough to be representative of anything. It lacks focus. As mentioned previously, it isn't in the Paris article, but I don't think it validly depicts either the Arc de Triomphe or Eiffel Tower. It lacks relevency to the articles. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think that the way the streets line up, make it a bit less encyclopedic. Someone who was unfamilar with panoramics might think the actaully look like that. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 20:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, its really boring BWF89 04:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image. I really like the way the streets look - really interesting angle. Also nice to see the Eiffel Tower in a less cliched idylic setting. --Fir0002 www 10:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's just a bunch of buildings. It doesn't show the layout of Paris because the layout is destroyed by the perspective, and the view isn't particularly spectacular. I see the two towers poking out in the distance, but the rest is just generic and doesn't tell me anything. Night Gyr 08:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inside the Panthéon of Paris

Panoramic inside view of the Panthéon, Paris. By the way, I tried to include here the link to the Pantheon article without success. If you can help...

• Nominate and support. - Jplavoie 23:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you "Jean-Pierre Lavoie" and, if so, what license are you releasing this picture under? Currently the picture has no copyright information. We can only feature pictures that are under an open license (see WP:WIAFP). In fact, the picture will eventually be deleted if a license is not provided. Here is the link to the pantheon article: Panthéon, Paris. BrokenSegue 00:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• You're right, I solved the copyright matter. Thank you. - Jplavoie 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, so close to symmetry, but not. Maybe if it were symmetrical, maybe. DVD+ R/W 01:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Weak support- much improvement in centered/ cropped edition. DVD+ R/W 04:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support centered. The windows glare, which is somewhat distracting -- but I don't think that's reason enough to oppose, and otherwise it's a good shot. Definite encyclopedic value. bcasterline t 01:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 

  

   Weak Oppose
    nothing in the image, save the columns, is really crisp. also the glare from the windows is distracting... drumguy8800 - speak 02:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If blown out highlights were ok in POV-ray they are definitly ok here. -Ravedave 04:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Per Bcasterline. Black and White^USER_TALK^CONTRIBS 04:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'd like to see some improvements before voting: The outer columns are tilting inwards, and they appear to be slightly curved. Also, how would a rectilinear stitch look? I'm bothered by the curved walkways on both sides. The windows are OK, you can't do anything about that (unless you happened to bracket all your exposures, and combine shots before stitching...) --Janke | Talk 05:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can tell you that if the panorama has a greater angle of view than about 120 degrees, it is impossible to make a realistic looking rectilinear panorama due to the preservation of straight lines. The edges would be extremely warped. In fact, looking at the image again, it looks to be approximately 180 degrees or more, in which case a rectilinear projection would be logically impossible. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, it's more than 180 degrees. It is shot from just in front of the "fence", seen at the pillar bases both left & right. (Just curious, trying to learn: How wide was the Grand Central panorama? With some unorthodox fixing, we got that into a reasonable rectilinear image. Here, that technique might work by leaving out the outermost pillars, i.e. cropping this to 120 degrees or so?) BTW, there are tarpaulins or screens hanging under the ceiling left & right - is that something temporarily there? It is a bit distracting... --Janke | Talk 09:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, it could be done with this image if it were re-stitched in rectilinear. I can't remember exactly what the angle of view was on the Grand Central pano, but I would guess that it would be around 100-120 degrees. Maybe I'll have a go at this panorama next time I'm in Paris. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Its a nice try, but the image appears reasonably soft. Seems like result of motion blur as it wasn't taken with a tripod, presumably. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support centered version. I don't know if we're looking at different images or what... I think this looks fantastic, with only the windowlight in the upper windows being a tiny bit distracting. If that were to be tastefully fixed, great, otherwise I think the centered version is FP quality. Staxringold 14:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support centered version I like it. Mikeo 14:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like how the areas with only stone (such as the columns) almost see as if it's in black and white, while the paintings have a nice warm glow. It really makes them stand out. I don't really mind the picture being as soft as it is. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 20:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, BWF89 04:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks pretty good to me --Fir0002 www 10:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like it too. --Nrainer 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like Edit1 it is very well detailed and has good resolution. Eric B ( T • C • W ) 10:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like it and I fixed the link to Panthéon, Paris if that is ok.--John Lakonias 18:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit - fantastic colours, interesting view. Warofdreams talk 04:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - The picture itself is good, but the edited version brings it over the top. Amazing how just centering a picture can make it better.--Jonthecheet 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great perspectives! Bertilvidet 19:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Pantheon_wider_centered.jpg Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arleigh Burke-class destroyer

An detailed picture of USS Ross, a US Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer. Photo is used on the page USS Ross (DDG-71).

• Nominate and support - TomStar81 01:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I uploaded a cropped and edited version. But, still both images seem "incomplete". Black and White^USER_TALK^CONTRIBS 04:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on Both Images There's nothing special about it, but it does depict the topic very well. Black and White^USER_TALK^CONTRIBS 21:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edited version. The water is clearer and the ship's hull is truer colored. Staxringold 11:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No doubt about it's encylopedic value, which is (perhaps most) important, but I don't find it at all striking. bcasterline t 16:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support In addition to being rather encyclopedic, I like the angle. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 20:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's a ship. A good sharp picture of a ship, but still an uninteresting picture of a ship... -- P199 01:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can provide some kind of reason for opposing (like bad lighting, blury angles, etc) I would ask that this vote be counted only as neutral. TomStar81 02:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My reason is that it is an uninteresting picture. Not worthy to be a FP. -- P199 02:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It would be cool to have a Navy ship as the featured picture -- BWF89 04:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we do have a handful of nay ships that have reached featured status, among them two navy battleships and (if memory serves) one guided missile cruiser, but we have yet to feature any destroyers. I thought this one would be the best one to attempt an FP run because it gives a lot of detail to the ship. TomStar81 08:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Preference for the edit --Fir0002 www 10:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Nrainer 14:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree with P199: I just find it a bit dull. Stephen Turner (Talk) 06:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - it's a nice pic of the ship, but it's pretty boring. I'm curious what BWF89 means by "it would be cool to have a Navy ship as the featured picture" - why would that be cool? Also, this wasn't taken by a Wikipedian, so I don't see much redeeming interest. Preference for the cropped version, fwiw. Stevage 10:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The small Statue of Liberty on the river Seine in Paris, June 2002.jpg

I think this is a good image with a very good angle. It's a replica of the Statue of Libery in Paris, France. It appears in the Statue of Liberty article.

• Nominate and support. - M2K e 21:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose much too small to start with. I don't think it would be particularly exceptional even if it was larger. chowells 21:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose It's way to small: 500 × 694 pixels. Black and White^USER_TALK^CONTRIBS 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unremarkable and as others have said, too small. Doesn't contribute significantly to any article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Please see the criteria. bcasterline t 12:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Too small and not detailed enough -- BWF89 04:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose reasons have already been named --Nrainer 14:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of the TfD notice is above Nrainer's vote, because the template ((contra)) is being proposed for deletion. Also, contra can be taken as an oppose. Black and White^USER_TALK^CONTRIBS 17:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and I took the picture! Grainy and small, I wish the uploader had not chosen this one, it's not FP material - Adrian Pingstone 17:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small - Ravedave 21:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Same as above stated reasons. Eric B ( T • C • W ) 10:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. The framing is pretty nice, but the image is way too small. --Pharaoh Hound 14:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 11:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plum crater

Photo showing the Rover on the far side of Plum Crater.

• Nominate and support- I think its a greatly significant and important photo, however i can see that the quality is poor and would like to try and edit it and maybe find a higher resolution one. Kingstonjr 18:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I belive an image from the moon landings is appropriate for this. It was one of the greatests achievments in human history. -- Jason Palpatine 07:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Unfortunately, it doesn't have a source from where it came from, the top-left hand corner has a few colour "blurbs", and the top has two white blobs. Sorry, Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 20:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The glare is killer. The picture is also fairly small. bcasterline t 21:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)][reply]
• Comment The best (as determined by NASA) Apollo pictures are here: [1] this particualar picture is #4 on this page [2]. There are no other moon landiing featured pics other than Image:Apollo_15_Space_Suit_David_Scott.jpg -Ravedave 00:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not an especially striking picture (there are much better ones) and the quality leaves much to be desired even considering the circumstances of the image. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The good old days when the NASA still went to the moon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BWF89 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 29 April 2006.
• Oppose it isn't very good. --Nrainer 14:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, there are better moonwalk pictures out there Night Gyr 08:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the subject of the photo is that tiny little squiggly thing in the background, hmm. Stevage 10:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 11:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrestrial planet size comparisons

Yet another NASA image, I'm afraid, but this is elegant, beautiful, and does exactly what it says on the tin. Used in Venus, Mars and Mercury (planet).

• Nominate and support. - Henry^Flower 21:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support It's a nice image but it's a bit plain, that's NASA for you though. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Could be bigger, but otherwise the image is both useful and attractive. bcasterline t 22:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I like space but this really isn't featured picture material. If it was a picture of a landform on a particular planet or a picture of a planet than I'd support it. -- BWF89 04:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Relatively low res. Captions would be usefull for those not astronomically inclined. --Fir0002 www 09:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It isn't realistic. --Nrainer 14:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean? The planets' sizes seem to be in the right proportion -- and I don't think NASA would get it wrong. bcasterline t 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I prefer [3], which shows all the commonly accepted planets. It seems to me that the most important point to be made about planet sizes is just how small the rocky planets are relative to the gas giants (let alone the sun). Redquark 21:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support What I understood was that this picture focuses mainly on the terrestrial planets, not the gas giants. In that context, I believe this picture works very well and has a strong encyclopedia value.--Jonthecheet 22:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree, the rocky planets are quite hard to distinguish on the full solar-system comparison, so this picture definitely has value. It might be nice if Pluto was included as well, but it's not terribly important. vasi 19:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nicely shows the "rocky" planets. Could be larger, of course... --Janke | Talk 17:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. JQF 18:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not striking, doesn't really convey as much information as I'd hope for a featured picture. Night Gyr 03:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What information is lacking? Perhaps the caption needs expansion, as Fir suggested, in which case this is a fixable problem. bcasterline t 16:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just feels really pedestrian. I've seen so many diagrams to convey this same size comparison in books about the solar system that it doesn't feel special. As far as information, a featured picture is supposed to convey a thousand words, but this one could be translated into four numbers. Night Gyr 22:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I hate to be a killjoy, but I agree that this image just doesn't convey very much information. I don't see how this adds significantly to any articles. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 7/4/1 no concensus ~ Veledan • Talk 11:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graz City Hall

I actually made this image by stitching together many shots using a panorama package, to obtain such a wide-angle view. Coupled with the upward lean of the perspective, this creates quite an imposing effect, which I believe to be very fitting for such an architectural work.

I've added it to the article on Graz in the English Wikipedia.

It was stitched from about 25 overlapping shots taken by a Minolta Dimage Xt using a table-top tripod, somewhere near the tele end of the zoom. Stitching was done in Hugin, using autopano and enblend. If anyone would like to know more, I'll try to dig out the original files and post exact figures.

Update: Thanks for your responses so far. Given the general consensus, I thought I'd submit a new version with the perspective 'corrected', and also a little downsampled and sharpened. I've also tried to bring the clock face out as far as possible. I still think I prefer the original perspective, though. Any further comments would still be appreciated. Tam 09:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's postively uncanny! - I'd just click the "edit" button to add my own perspective edit :-) --Fir0002 www 09:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added two more edits, with the perspective only _partly_ corrected this time (to varying degrees). To me, the perspective in the original was perhaps a bit extreme, while the totally corrected versions (Edits 1 and 2) look unnatural to me -- 'it's just not how we perceive things', as P199 said. Edit 4 is straighter, Edit 3 has more perspective, and I think I now prefer Edit 4 the most. Any comments from anyone would still be very welcome, even at this stage. I would be interested to know what you think. Tam 18:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Tam 21:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral leaning towards oppose... It has a few minor issues. The main one is the fact that the sides of the building have a distinct inwards lean, particularly the right side. The perspective isn't great. Also, considering the fact that it is a mosaic, it doesn't seem to be very detailed and could probably benefit from a bit of noise reduction in the sky and downsampling for sharpness. Can you provide a bit more info on how you took it and stitched it? Eg, what camera/focal length, how many segments, what software you used to stitch it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for your comments. I've added some extra info on how the pic was made. As this is my first submission, I'm not quite sure what you mean in some of your suggestions. First, what do you mean by an 'inwards lean'? Do you mean that the sides of the building are not upright, or that they are somehow curved? I have experimented with correcting the former, but the result looks rather artificial at this wide focal length (rather like a purely 'architectural' photo), and I believe that the slanting edges of the building actually provide impact (although you are welcome to disagree with me ;-) Secondly, I don't understand your point about resolution/detail. This picture makes a sharp 16" x 9" print, and is rather more detailed that most of the other pictures I see here. Downsampling would not add any detail that's not there. Or are you suggesting that, when submitting to Wikipedia, I downsample the files so that they look sharp when viewed at 100% pixel-for-pixel zoom? Please let me know...
    • When I say the sides have an inward lean, I do mean they're not upright. I understand what you mean about it looking artificial when corrected for perspective, but I think it would look a little better than it currently does. And yes, I am suggesting that you downsample the image so that it looks sharp(er) when viewed at 100% zoom, but only to the point where it doesn't lose detail. I think you could safely downsample it significantly without losing detail, because it is currently quite soft. Also, when you comment, can you sign your comments with a four tildes (~~~~)? It helps to ensure that we know who is typing what exactly! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the detailed answer. As a newbie, this information is invaluable to me. Tam 09:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not a problem. Thanks for being open to suggestion. The FPC is often a collaborative process! I personally feel that edit is a big improvement, but evidently it all comes down to a matter of opinion. I do think that if you're putting a submitting of a building on an encyclopedia then architectural accuracy is important! Another welcome improvement is the downlight in the foreground on the left hand side has been perspective corrected out of the frame. :) This is a good attempt and I'm considering supporting it now, but you do realise that a Minolta Xt isn't the ideal camera for high resolution/quality architectural works, right!? ;) Great for travel photography though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes of course ;-) Unfortunately, it was all that was available to me at the time. Tam 08:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, All of the lights are overexposed. Most notable is the clock, which can barely be made out as such. The sky is also very noisy. —Cuivi énen , Friday, 28 April 2006 @ 04:11 UTC (Still opposing as the lights are still too bright —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 @ 15:13 UTC).
• Oppose due to perspective distortion, and softness left & right. Will reconsider if a straight, sharper version is provided. --Janke | Talk 06:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think the quality of light and color is good though, but I oppose due to the unnecessary perspecival distortion. DVD+ R/W 20:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Support edit 1 or edit 2. DVD+ R/W 14:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Perspective is good, makes it seem more imposing. Removing the perspective distortion will make it unreal. -- P199 01:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Nice to see that someone agrees with me here ;-) I wonder, however if this is anything to do with encyclopaedic vs. artistic value. Tam 09:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Edit 1 proves my point: it is too straight, without any perspective, just not the way we perceive things. I oppose the edited versions. -- P199 19:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, it would be a cool building to see in real life but I really wouldnt' want to see it as the featured picture if I had the choice of a more interesting building -- BWF89 04:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for Edit 1 or Edit 2. Either is an mprovement over the original. I don't completely agree with previous comment. Just as not all articles are interesting to everyone, not all FPs will be of overwhelmingly interesting and significant subjects but I think some people will be intrigued enough by this photo to learn more, and thats the purpose of a FP in my opinion. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely image. Really can't see the problems everyone else seems to be having with it. I've added an edit with sharpening/perspective but it appears that Tam beat me by a matter of minutes. Have uploaded my eidt for comparison anyway. My support goes for either the original (I kinda like the perspective) or my edit. --Fir0002 www 09:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro it was good, but edit2 would be better --Nrainer 14:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not bad at all, but the over exposure is annoying. As is the lack of sharpness in areas. chowells 21:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Tam's edit. (Fir's is squashed - the clock is oval!) Still a bit soft left & right. --Janke | Talk 12:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. It is the best of the pics. JQF 18:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Edit 1. - Hahnchen 21:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - Edit 1. A good photograph. Great colours and contrast, but the composition is boring. Why on earth do people feel the need to plonk their tripod down dead centre in front of a symmetrical building? Plant it a bit to one side and give the eye something to chew on. --Surgeonsmate 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit 1 is also a bit 'boring' to me. I prefer the original, as I believe that the perspective adds interest, and draws viewers into the picture. Any thoughts on Edits 3 and 4? Tam 18:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:GrazerRathaus-edit.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 12:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lantana_invasion

I took the photo for article Invasive species, that had no illustration or image. Imho it clearly demonstrates the concept of plant invasion.

• Nominate and support. - RickP 12:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Does illustrate invasion, but seems to have some focus problems and does not strike me as 'feature picture quality.' SteveHopson 13:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I like the idea. But the quality is fairly poor at full resolution, and the picture doesn't really stand out. bcasterline t 16:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As above, good idea but poor implementation. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Image quality is not good in full size. The idea is good, so maybe you could try once more (maybe stitching a panorama, thus having a higher resolution to start with, and then downsample from that.) --Janke | Talk 17:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Doesn't show that the field is being invaded by the Lantana plant very well and it isn't striking -- BWF89 22:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Boring. --Surgeonsmate 08:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It doesn't illustrate the concept of invasive species very well, and it's just not very striking. --Pharaoh Hound 14:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do a better one - panorama or else. How do I remove this candidate? RickP 08:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pearson's Green Tree Frog

I believe this image lives up to the 'Feature Picture Candidates' standards, and I am nominating it because of the lack of frog pictures that are featured pictures. This photo appears in the Pearson's Green Tree Frog article and was photographed by User:Froggydarb.

• Nominate and support. - Froggydarb 06:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support, it's a beautiful specimen of a frog, technically well shot. It doesn't excite me a lot, but i'd still lend my support. —Pengo 06:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose due to the fact that the background makes it very hard to see which makes it not fp worthy in my book. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 08:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - everything the two above said. I suspect it's the profile shot which makes it a bit dull. If the frog was facing slightly towards us, it might be more interesting. But it's still a good photo. Stevage 09:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not trying to say any of you are wrong, but it isn't that dull on my monitor. On the above grayscale I can see all the circles (the 1st circle only just). Maybe your screens are not as bright as mien.

"Dull" as in boring, not as in "not bright enough" :) Stevage 10:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, i seeFroggydarb 10:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Withdrawn by nominator. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Gafilo

Satellite image of Cyclone Gafilo. Amongst the feature pictures, we don't have any good, straight-from-above pic of a tropical cyclone. Catarina pic is good, but we should also have a high-res feature photo from powerful cyclone showing the structure more clearly. Wikimedia Commons has similar feature pic about Hurricane Dennis, but this one is clearly better, showing great eye detail and more symmetrical spiral bands. Plus, it's a pretty pic and kinda ominous with huge cyclone next to hapless Madagascar.

• Nominate and support. --Mikoyan21 21:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very big and very clear. I wish NASA wouldn't always draw in the lines around landforms, but can't do much about that, and they seem (unusually) subtle on this image anyway. bcasterline t 00:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice and clear Leidiot 12:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - Great! I love it - very clear, illustrative, big resolution, good colours. I don't mind the outline of Madagascar - it's non-intusive, doesn't show up in the thumbnail and shows clearly the size and position of the cyclone. You have my full support. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 17:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very detailed. Uncanny, that eye... --Janke | Talk 17:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
•  ! Strong Support. extremely detailed.. that's a good camera. a very good camera. drumguy8800 - speak 04:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support, I love the high resolution. -- BWF89 22:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Amazing resolution! Excelent detail. A perfect image.--Pharaoh Hound 12:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Super NASA Support – Images like this are simply out of reach of amateur photographers (obviously!). You gotta spend billions of dollars to get the absolute best. --Cyde Weys 23:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While the image shows the structure of the cyclone pretty clearly, I think it fails to illustrate the article, because the Philipines are nowhere to be seen. I think it looks too much like other cyclone FPs. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is very clear reason why Philippines are nowhere to be seen in the picture...besides, Wikipedia has only two FP's on tropical cyclones, both of which are rather different, so I respectfully disagree.--Mikoyan21 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Philippines are on the other side of the Indian Ocean, and this particular cyclone did not approach them. bcasterline t 23:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. NASA Rox. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cyclone_Gafilo.jpeg

Orson Welles

Image:Orson.jpg

A picture of director Orson Welles on the set of his most famous film, Citizen Kane. The picture illustrates both articles beautifully, and is striking both in thumbnail and full-resolution form. There is some grain in the large picture; someone with better Photoshop skills than me might want to clean it up a little.

• Nominate and support. - Zambaretzu 00:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. Improper copyright information. The site this is from does not have the legal authority to release copyright to such images as far as I can tell—"We've scanned 8 x 10 glossy movie stills and publicity photos, and the resulting full-size pictures are presented for your viewing and downloading pleasure—all free." This implies that the images are all still copyrighted, and the fact that they have been scanned by someone onto the internet does not constitute a release of rights. The image could qualify under fair use, but it would not then be eligible as a featured picture. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Thursday, 11 May 2006 @ 02:27 UTC
• Strong Oppose per copyright concerns. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist as per copyright concerns —Pengo 06:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Inelligible. Copyright. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominationed removed ed g2s • talk 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mt Hotham Summer Scenery

I might have to take up Dschwen on his suggestion for a round the world trip. I know this is poor timing but Hotham is such a beautiful place and I like this photo.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 www 06:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support yet another great picture by fir, even though it's a busy scene (which is normally a negative) and the red pole is distracting the fact that it's a wide shot compensates for that by giving you a wider range of view. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I hate to rain on the party but this pic, although technically good, is just plain boring. Also the red pole spoils the pic completely. Please excuse my forthrightness! - Adrian Pingstone 08:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the red pole is an integral part as to my mind they typify an alpine road. You know you're on a road where it snows when you get those red poles. But that's just my perception of it... --Fir0002 www 09:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have known that was a snow pole (not needed in England!) but my opinion on the pic doesn't change - Adrian Pingstone 17:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there are lots of snow poles on the high routes over the Pennines. Halsteadk 22:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I live in Bristol where we rarely see snow nowadays - Adrian Pingstone 22:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Due to low encyclopedic value. - and it is a really boring shot. A nice sky doesn't make it a featured picture. Mikeo 10:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great detail and vivid colours. Eric B ( T • C • W ) 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I recommend that world trip Fir. :) Its not a bad photo but I'm opposing it for two reasons. One is that you can't keep nominating very similar photos that don't contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to an article, and two, it looks like you've overcooked it with processing. There are haloes around parts of the image, particularly the building on the right side of the frame, and it appears to be posterised in the sky. It looks as though you've used a polariser but then, due to the extremely wide angle of the panorama, you've not had an even amount of polarisation between frames so you've painted the sky in photoshop. Apologies in advance if I'm wrong, but I don't see how you could have ended up with such a deep sky and fluffy white clouds without a polariser, and you couldn't have been able to polarise the sky evenly across an almost 180 degree view. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the same reasons as Diliff. I don't think the photo captures the beauty of the area particularly. chowells 12:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Diliff. Just not intriguing in the same way many of your other photos are (and FPs should be). bcasterline t 12:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Looks tilted to me. --Janke | Talk 12:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Loving that blue sky, awesome! However, I dont really understand the point of the photo and what it's purpose is in an encyclopedia, sorry. - Aled D 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Fir, you've set too high of a standard :p -Ravedave 20:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Great scenery -- BWF89 01:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with the above, and you are stretching Mt. Hotham as a subject... ..at least for FP --Dschwen 07:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Tilted, but more importantly, doesn't appear to add significantly to any articles. It might work at FPC on Commons though. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The depth is breathtaking. Bertilvidet 19:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Composition. asnatu 21:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Boring, generic, unencyclopaedic oicture. say1988 22:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The red pole is very distracting! The image doen't seem to have a lot of value in its article.--Pharaoh Hound 12:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Phonetic Alphabet chart

This chart shows information on every symbol recognized by the IPA as a distinct human speech sound. This is extremely useful, well-arranged and pleasing to the eye, of high quality, and of extraordinary importance in the world of linguistics. Appears prominently in International Phonetic Alphabet. Created by User:Kwamikagami.

• Nominate and support. - Dylan 19:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's very informative and uses a nice font, but I can't bring myself to support a boring black-and-white chart for FP. Sorry. Actually in some sense this is not even a "picture" since it looks like it was generated straight from a PDF or similar format. I might support this if it was spiced up with color and the layout was rearranged to take advantage of the fact that pictures don't have to be shaped like A4 pages. Redquark 22:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppozzzzzzzz - oops, nooded off there...--Deglr6328 00:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. LOL at previous comment. Its all been said. Informative sheet, but not a featured picture. It doesn't visually represent the article, its merely a useful reference for the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, It's just a black and white paper -- BWF89 01:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose That is just the kind of information that we do not want to be hidden in pictures - that is what the text in the articles is for. Mikeo 07:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Seems a bit dull to be a FP --Scot^t 11:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. It's very informative, and organizes the information in a way that explanatory text could not. However, as per Diliff, it's a useful reference for the article but is not useful on its own. bcasterline t 12:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose If it could be made into something an english teacher would want to laminate hang on thier wall I would support. I would say it needs to be colored up nicely and put into a wide rather than tall format. More like Image:Leaf_morphology_no_title.png. -Ravedave 17:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Fierce, full blooded, ravenously oppose This is supposed to be a featured PICTURE Ben Payton
  • Diagrams and maps have been made FPs before. bcasterline t 18:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this is neither. It's a table/chart. We'd be better off turning this into a table and several smaller images for the IPA article, possibly with this linked as a quickref sheet. Night Gyr 08:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is a chart.--K.C. Tang 07:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is a chart, not a picture Leidiot 12:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support just to make it clear that charts and tables (such as this one) can be nominated and promoted here (we promote images here, not just pictures). BrokenSegue 21:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree charts could become featured, but I don't see this as an interesting picture. If it had historical value at least it might work.say1988 03:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - heh, I'm actually intimately familiar with this chart. Every phonetics student ends up basically memorising it. It's actually extremely well presented and contains a lot of useful information. But as a picture, it's as boring as a newspaper. Stevage 12:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I highly suggest you all revisit the page and look at its contribution to the page. From my understanding, it is the basis for the page itself! There are whole sections that are used to break down each individual section within the image which shows its complexity. Even if you vote against this, I hope you will not simply say no because its just a chart; boring or otherwise.--Jonthecheet 08:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, it puts some IPA characters in italics, a practice best avoided. I'm also not convinced of its copyright status: while it is not identical to the official chart of the International Phonetic Association, it is awfully close to it. Perhaps close enough to it that User:Kwamikagami does not actually have the right to release it under the GFDL, I don't know. Angr (talk • contribs) 22:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I have no problems with the image, however its not a 'picture' and will not brighten up the front page.

Not promoted

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow rose

Nice close up of a yellow, rose with green fringes, beautiful core pf the flower visible, it's a spike-less yelow rose.

• Support and Nominate $£$£$£ 20:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Definitely not the best and most representative photo in the Rose article. Sorry. Rather underexposed and unimpressive rose. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Dim and poorly framed. bcasterline t 21:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We already have a featured picture [4] of the exact same subject. Redquark 21:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Don't like the angle -- BWF89 01:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with Diliff Mikeo 07:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Underexposed and not particularly special. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Poor lighting. The angle isn't too bad, but the light ruins what would be a OK image otherwise. --Pharaoh Hound 12:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose underexposed and the rose behind it and to the left is distracting from the subject. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 13:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose maybe I'm traditional, but I like roses in the garden - this one looks like it was taken in the kitchen, in a vase? :) Stevage 12:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted howcheng {chat} 18:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandoe.JPG

I was quite struck by this image when I first saw it on Bertilvidet's user page.

Abandoned shoe, Kåre Sand, Wadden Sea, Denmark. Photo by User:Bertilvidet

• Nominate and support. - Moby 12:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. WP:WIAFP. What is the encyclopedic value of this image? The low viewpoint does not help picturing the Wadden Sea and abandoned shoes are certainly not a typical feature there. --Dschwen 12:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with Dschwen. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Interesting picture, but it has no encyclopedic value. Try Commons, maybe. bcasterline t 15:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with the above.--Mikoyan21 17:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with all above. --Janke | Talk 17:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per above, but perhaps nominate at Commons. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Hope that my vote is accepted despite being the photographer. At low tide you can basically have a walk at the sea bottom in the Wadden Sea (thereby the name). And - maybe surprisingly - it is filled with left overs from humans such as shoes and pieces of clothing. So this view is in it self not uncommon - even though I noticed Dschwen just deleted the photo from the article.Bertilvidet 18:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I replaced it. As the only photo in the wadden see article it is definitely not encyclopedic enough. --Dschwen 21:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not a great photo (lack of focus, highly grainy) and doesn't add much encylcopaedic info to the article. chowells 00:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose its sort of interesting, but it has very little encyclopedic value. if anything, it should be in an article about sediment or weathering. drumguy8800 - speak 04:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A fascinating piece of observation but not FP material - Adrian Pingstone 12:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My lord, that shoe looks huge from this angle. --Xtreambar 21:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support, It may not by very encyclopedic but it could be added to the article abandonment. -- BWF89 21:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not used in any articles, therefore, not adding any encyclopedic information. Night Gyr 00:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, great image, but, as per above, not encyclopedic. Perhaps one for commons featured pictures —Pengo 01:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. it's art. --Moby 02:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and it's a very cool picture. But this isn't a collection of cool pictures, this is an encyclopedia and we want pictures that can illustrate things for our readers. That's a different set of criteria than what makes art. Night Gyr 06:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Very "artsy", however I can't see much value in it for wiki.--Pharaoh Hound 14:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Has little value for Wikipedia See WP:WIAFP. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• While the image could easily illustrate an article on the shoe, I have to oppose. The shoe is cut off to the left, the image is grainy and the shadow makes it even harder to see properly. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I admire whoever stuck their chin down in the sand to get this shot, but it's just weird. Also blurry on the left. Mooveeguy 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Totally unencyclopedic. Unless there is an article for Abandoned shoes on Danish beaches, then I'm willing to change my vote posthaste. Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 17:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted howcheng {chat} 18:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalmar Castle

• Nominate and support. - I feel this is a beautiful picture of Kalmar Castle, Sweden, in early August sunshine taken in 2005. The colours in the picture are bright and pleasing to the eye and the tree in the foreground frames the picture well. Also has quite high definition picture quality. It appears in the English Wikipedia page for Kalmar. Electricmoose- Electrifying ^talk 17:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The tree really dominates the image; kalmar is relegated to a small part of the frame, leaving no detail in the thumbnail. It's a pretty picture, but it could be better illustrative of the castle if it took up more of the frame. Also, the castle itself is blurry, tilted, and obscured by a branch. Night Gyr 18:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Thanks for comments, I have cropped and straightened original picture, I could also straighten the original too if anyone felt it necessary as well. Thanks again. Electricmoose- Electrifying ^talk 18:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The tree in the foreground does not frame the picture very well. It is just a distracting, unneeded object - especially for an illustration in an encyclopedia. Mikeo 19:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Interesting shot. But, as above, it does not illustrate the castle particularly well. bcasterline t 19:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Artistic, but not encyclopedic. ~MDD4696 21:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, It's not very upclose and whats with the tree? -- BWF89 02:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per MDD4696. --Janke | Talk 07:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It is, quite simply, a (not very attractive) "artsy" shot. However, wiki is not an art exhibition, it's an encyclopedia, and this picture does not "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work" (to quote "Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?"). --Pharaoh Hound 12:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose very poor image quality at 100% zoom. chowells 14:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the castle itself is totally obscured, in shadow, and small. And yeah, the tree dominates far too much for an image which is meant to illustrate the castle. Stevage 19:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too much tree and not enough castle - Adrian Pingstone 20:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too much space taken by the tree. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Needs more cow bell. Mooveeguy 17:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted howcheng {chat} 18:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanaksarski monastery

I think that this is a beautiful picture. It appears in the article "Monastery". My colleague created this image during our visit to this monastery.

• Nominate and support. - Olegivvit 18:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice subject, but lacking in sharpness and blown-out highlights (with blooming, killing lots of details). --Dschwen 11:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too blurred for FP - Adrian Pingstone
• Oppose for reasons already stated by Dschwen. SteveHopson 13:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Same as all the other reasons. Overall, poor image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - too blurred, poor focus, blown highlights, bad detail, not very good lighting or colour. And it appears that the user created their account for the sole purpose of submitting this for FP. The account was created, this was uploaded, and it was immediately nominated. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 18:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I know - the author/nominator originally tried to submit it (albeit incorrectly) so I removed the mangled code from the page and left a message on their talk page advising them to read the instructions properly, but to reconsider nomination in the first place. Ah well. I tried. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is not FP quality. See comments of Adrian and Dschwen. Mikeo 18:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If your collegue created the image, you cannot legally submit it under any license and if the image isn't used in any article, it's not eligble either. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose, I like how the monestary is contrasted to the barren and featureless landscape around it. But the photo cuts off the left part of the monistary and just shows a field of tall grass in the right. -- BWF89 03:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted howcheng {chat} 18:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CRT

Excellent illustration. Even includes well-commented POV-ray source.

• Nominate and support. - ed g2s • talk 13:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's a useful illustration, but has a variety of aesthetic problems. The choice of colors and textures is ugly, the composition is a little cluttered, the font used for the numbers is inappropriate and some of the edges (for example in the circle marked '5') lack antialiasing. Redquark 18:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 1. Okay, most of my concerns were addressed. Redquark 22:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Another POV-Ray!!! I would support a higher-res version. Who wants to bust out POV-Ray and do some crazy rendering? I think the colors are fine, from what I remember of seeing inside of a CRT they are fairly accurate. -Ravedave 20:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very informative. I don't see any problem with the colors, although I share Ravedave's concern about the resolution. If someone who has POV-Ray installed would like to give it a try... -Glaurung 05:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Oppose In addition to the (slight) aesthetic problems, there is an error in the illustration: The phosphor dots. They are actually not hexagonal, but round (made photomechanically by exposing photoresist through the mask), and also, there is a black area separating the dots from each other. As shown, even the slightest error in focus or alignment of the electron beams would cause huge color/purity errors - the black area between the dots prevents that. This needs to be fixed before proceeding. --Janke | Talk 06:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose My eyes! My eyes! It's a good informative illustration, but not a great one. --Surgeonsmate 08:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC) (Later: I've withdrawn my opposition after seeing the edits, but I still don't think it's striking enough for FP. --Surgeonsmate 07:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Support very tedious work was required for this, and the result could be slightly better with better choice of colors. That red in cross-section of tube bothers eyes, but it can be featured as is IMHO... -- Mtodorov 69 12:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... as long as that error is fixed, i.e. add some black around round phosphor dots. That shouldn't be too much trouble, and we'd have a technically accurate image. --Janke | Talk 16:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a larger render and applied the requested changes in Photoshop (sorry, I'm not much of a POV-Ray guru - it's my first try). Of course it could be larger still, but these two renders already took the better part of a night on my lowly machine... -- grm_wnr Esc 19:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I don't mind the colors too much and it is informative. BrokenSegue 20:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for edit 1. Good enough for me, although a higher resolution render is always useful. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The cutaway color needs to be changed. The red in the zoom makes it hard to tell that there is a cut-away in the zoom as well. Also the cutaways near the end are still bright red, when the rest are dull red. What does everyone think the cutaway color should be? I am thinking dull orange.-Ravedave 21:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There should probably be a label on the big thing at the top which is the grounding cable I believe? I think they're usually a little smaller as well (or at least, could be for the purpose of this illustration). At the moment it looks like (3) is labelling it. ed g2s • talk 22:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am preparing a new render, with the cuts actually changed to the dull orange / light brown Ravedave suggests in the POV-Ray stage (it's necessary because the coils reflect them). I also added a label to the anode connection (per ed g2s), and another two additional ones to the two coils. It should be finished tomorrow. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • POV-Ray died on me just now, and I can't keep it running over night. I've uploaded a version with all the Photoshop fixes and an approximation of the new cut color, so you can comment on them while I'm sleeping ;). I'll incorporate any suggestions into a new version when I have the new render (should be tomorrow at this time at the latest) -- grm_wnr Esc 01:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice, the brown looks much better. You missed some of the red cut-out color on the middle top, by #3. Should the holes in the apature grill not be reflective? Maybe black? Grey? Also can you provide the names for the new labels? -Ravedave 02:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course. It's just a preview, you know ;) -- grm_wnr Esc 08:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you make the anode a little smaller? ed g2s • talk 11:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, final version is uploaded. Nearly all comments have been incorporated. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, however beam coming out of the electron gun is off. Also be sure to provide the updated POVRay source, the Edit is still pointing to the original source. -Ravedave 17:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. This is getting better all the time. But you have my support already, since the errors are fixed. A great illustration whatever the final version will be. (PS: I don't think the "beam is off" - it's a delta configuration, not in-line.) - yes, it was off, but fixed now, I see... --Janke | Talk 17:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Another small point: the blue beam doesn't seem to line up with the hole in the electron gun. ed g2s • talk 18:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the current brown color of the cutaway is too close to that of the copper deflection coils. Maybe we should find a different color. (perhaps a pale blue or gray?) Ghostofgauss 21:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, fixed the beam source, and nudged the cutaway color a bit towards yellow to seperate it from the copper(grey or blue don't look good, I tried). Source is available now. Again, a cache purge is in order. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Could you also upload a label-less version? ed g2s • talk 12:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, Image:CRT color enhanced unlabeled.png. -- grm_wnr Esc 01:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support -- me again, excellent improvements, just one thing: the coil that is around the tube has a brown cross-section instead of copper one. That was red in original, too. Is that too hard to be fixed? -- Mtodorov 69 08:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I think it looks better that way too. Purge cache etc. -- grm_wnr Esc 09:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Edited version. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1.7, I like a good diagram and this is a good diagram. -- BWF89 03:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1.7, great improvements. Just a little sad that they couldn't be worked into the povray source though. --Dschwen 11:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of them are by now, actually. The only really important missing one is the hexagon to round phosphor dot change, and that one would be quite difficult to do for a few reasons. Remember, the labelling / closeup compositing wasn't in the source to begin with. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it a hexagon texture? Could be replaced my a macro placing the disks. --Dschwen 23:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:CRT color enhanced.png Another great example of image improvement through the FPC process. A round of applause for User:Grm wnr please:-) ~ Veledan • Talk 19:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonia, Yap sunset

I saw this image quite awhile ago, and when I clicked on it, I was surprised that it wasn't a featured picture. I've now decided to nominate it, as I believe it meets all the standards. The image is currently in the Caroline Islands article and was taken by User:Marshman.

• Nominate and support. —Khoikhoi 02:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator. One of the most beautiful sunsets I've ever seen. Surely deserves to be a Featured picture.--Hectorian 03:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This could be shot anywhere - thus, not encyclopedic. Also, the totally black partial silhouette of the boat and the cables at left mar the composition. --Janke | Talk 06:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Center composition and it's too small anyway. Besides, there are better sunset pictures at Wikimedia Commons. howcheng {chat} 07:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sunsets are triggering a knee-jerk oppose with me, and this one is too small, too arbitrary (could be anywhere, little encyclopedic value). --Dschwen 07:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice enough lighting, however it's too small, and it doesn't seem to be in any articles. --Pharaoh Hound 11:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as sunsets go, this one is lacking a lot. The sky is not even red or orange. The clouds are actually fairly unattractive shapes, too. But worst, there is the possibility of an interesting foreground on the left (looks like the prow of a sailing ship?), but it's so dark, and there's so little of it, the effect is totally lost. Instead, we see a tiny motorboat, much less charming :) Also, not very encyclopaedic. Stevage 19:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do sunsets have to confirm to *your* idea of sunsets in order to qualify as an FP? :-P asnatu 17:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A different kind of sunset. asnatu 17:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose - The wrong kind. Doesn't illustrate anything, exposure is poor, image is noisy and too small. There are literally hundreds of sunsets on Commons and a lot of them are of considerably greater photographic merit than this one. --Yummifruitbat 02:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Would look great in a photo album but not as a featured picture -- BWF89 02:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The sunset isn't terribly well-framed (the sailboat ropes are very "noisy"). Like the sunset, and it's pretty, but it's not WikiFP material. Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 17:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 08:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pigeon's Rock, Beirut

I came accross this image on Wiki Commons, and I really, really liked it. It is currently in the Beirut article, and the photo was taken by User:Bertilvidet.

• Nominate and support. —Khoikhoi 02:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Horizon not level and altogether too dark. Dr Zak 02:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Tilted, way too dark, buildings at left somewhat unsharp. --Janke | Talk 07:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The nominative subject of the picture, the rock, is way too dark. howcheng {chat} 07:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the reasons above. And please I came accross this image on Wiki Commons, and I really, really liked it? It should be I came accross this image on the Beirut page and it immediately grabbed my attention and made me read the article. Without this image I would have had a hard time understanding what Beirut actually is. But.. ..no. --Dschwen 07:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It shows the geography of the place well, but I think a shot in the day-time might have more value. Also, on my monitor, even version two doesn't have much shadow detail (though I think my monitor isn't calibrated correctly). --Pharaoh Hound12:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Even the third edit doesn't have enough shadow detail! And I stick to my statment that a picture in the day-time has more value. Also, I just noticed that it's blurry. --Pharaoh Hound 21:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Horizon is clearly tilted - Adrian Pingstone 20:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thank you for the input. Agree that the photo was tilted and too dark. I believe these issues are solved with the last version. Bertilvidet 13:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Still too dark, shadow areas lack detail (and yes my monitor is correctly calibrated) and focus not perfect. The haze in the distance obscures most of the land in a photo which seems to be primarily of the sea and sky. Not really illustrative of Beirut at all. --Yummifruitbat 15:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Photographic issues aside, this doesn't add to Beirut in a way that qualifies it for FP status. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, It's too dark and just plain boring -- BWF89 03:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Fine for a personal photo album, I guess, but just too murky for an FP. Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 17:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 08:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramic view of the Seine in Paris

Panoramic view of the Seine in Paris with St-Michel bridge on the left and Notre-Dame cathedral to the right. I believe it shows well the Seine and it's surrounding area from a pedestrian point of view.

• • I think the river is totally straight at that point - certainly the near bank appears to be straight, so I doubt the far side would be bent. Stevage 14:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I really like the quality of light and color in this picture, much like Cafe Terrace at Night. I am not sure about the encyclopedic and informative value though. DVD+ R/W 03:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Neutral It shows the Seine at night, very well. DVD+ R/W 03:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• New edited version: restitched to straighten Notre-Dame and eliminate part of wall - Jplavoie 10:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominate and support. - Jplavoie 01:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I'm sure it'd look great on a wall in an upmarket coffee shop or bar but it's not really very illustrative of anything in particular, except possibly perspective --Yummifruitbat 23:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Too many colored lights! -- BWF89 02:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's disorienting to have such a wide panorama for content so close-up; all sense of the actual proportions of the scene is lost. (e.g., how much does the river curve vs. how much does it appear to curve?)--ragesoss 21:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Close up of panaroma distorts the proportions and may give skewed idea to viewer. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't like the distorting caused by the panorama effect, and it doesn't seem necessary to have the cathedral in it. ---Pharaoh Hound 12:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not bad, nice colours but as janke said, vertical lines are not vertical and its just not an interesting enough scene to warrant FPC for me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Its a great panorama which really represents the city of Paris Flymeoutofhere 16:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-- Jason Palpatine 07:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like this picture Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 17:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Xtreambar 05:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - I'm not a big fan of 360 degree panoramas, I admit. Such wide images aren't very helpful for Wikipedia, and obviously the composition suffers as you have little control over the elements in the scene. Why not crop it to remove the quai, which is not that interesting? Then you have the bridge on the left, and Notre Dame on the right, and the only regret is the boring trees and riverbank in the middle :) But really, a panorama staring at a wall just gives me the heebie jeebies...it's very claustrophobic. Stevage 19:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - the Notre Dame is tilted! Needs to be re-stitched with attention to vertical lines. --Janke | Talk 07:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I don't see the point of having so much that concrete structure on the right. Would support a crop of just the river. howcheng {chat} 07:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support lovely colours, great sharpness, but it's just lacking something IMO. chowells 14:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The perspective and angles are just too much, IMO. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 08:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortified city of Carcassonne and the Pont Vieux

This panoramic view shows the restored fortified city of Carcassonne and the Pont Vieux crossing the Aude River in southern France.

• Nominate and support. - Jplavoie 11:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. Beautiful! The resolution is spectacular, the composition is excelent! This is what a featured picture should be!--Pharaoh Hound 11:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great job Jplavoie! --Fir0002 www 12:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Spectacular. I wonder how the picture taken by the guy on the bridge turned out. bcasterline t 12:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A nice shot! --Janke | Talk 14:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice. chowells 14:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though artistically I don't like the compositio that much - is it a picture of the bridge or the fortified city? I find it hard to know where I'm looking exactly. Stevage 18:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Although I do wonder what this would come out like as a thumbnail on the front page... it's stunning (and enormous) at full size but I think it's going to be very difficult to see what's in the image at first glance - the fortifications are very indistinct in the thumb. --Yummifruitbat 22:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Oh wow, so that's what Carcassonne looks like. --Cyde Weys 23:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Beautiful. I like the composition, which adds a lot of interest for the eye. It needs to be shown in the article in as big a format as possible, possibly stretching right across the page. With this amount of detail, it has got to be the result of a stitch of several tripod-mounted time exposures. Can we have some technical details, please? --Surgeonsmate 04:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Technical details. Yes your right Surgeonsmate, the picture is actually made of 15 tripod mounted portrait shots stitched together using a Digital Rebel XT (8Mpixels). The resulting file is massive! Of course, I used a fixed aperture for constant depth of field, fixed focus and a common white balance and exposure between each frame. The scene was a real beauty and being new to the location, I didn't expect the old bridge to be there and that was a nice surprise! In fact my goal changed at that point to show the medial city at night and the bridge with the help of the panoramic format. - Jplavoie 10:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a beautiful image.Flymeoutofhere 16:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is stunning, makes me want to read the corresponding article! - Pogoman 17:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support beautiful picture, interesting details Mikeo 17:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support sensational. Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 17:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Stunning color, great detail.--Dakota ~ 05:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Fortified support. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Excellent. howcheng {chat} 16:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ahah, fortified support. this is a very striking image.. i like it, and those are some cool trees. who knew those grew in France? drumguy8800 - speak 03:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fab. U. Lous.--BradPatrick 04:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Does no one else see the awful artifacts in the sky? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, on different LCD monitors it does look different, but the artifacts are still there. I'll try to upload a "boosted" image to illustrate my concern. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alright, I see the artifacts, but the rest of the image is stunning enough to cancel them out. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 21:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I usually don't care for panoramas but this one is an exception. -- BWF89 03:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question is the bridge actually called "Pont vieux" or "Vieux pont"? The file name is the latter, but the descriptions etc are the former. Normally in French it would be "vieux pont", but perhaps it's so old it retains an older word order? Stevage 08:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bridge is indeed called "Pont vieux" which is not usual in french. I don't know the explanation for this yet. For your info also, the bridge from where the picture was taken is called "Pont neuf" which means new bridge and is the normal word order in this case. - Jplavoie 00:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Tobyk777 05:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Spectacular composition, beautiful night shot. Artifacting is so minor of an issue as to be inconsequential. Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 17:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow. I've never seen a photo of Carcassonne before--it's really incredible. michaelb ^{Talk to this user} 23:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looking on Wikipedia for places I'll be visiting on my holidays when I came across this. Stunning photo, well done. Bastun 23:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Definantly worth 1,000 words. TomStar81 01:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Carcassonne vieux pont.jpg Mikeo 08:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chambord

I took this panoramic photo (4 photos stitched together), and Yummifruitbat touched it up on Picture peer review. A very similar version is used at Château de Chambord.

Strengths of this photo:

• Detail is good (but not fantastic)
• Subject is interesting
• No clones :)
• Dead straight (thanks Yummifruitbat)

Weaknesses:

• Lighting pretty dull - was pretty much midday :(
• Little people in centre of photo are possibly distracting.
• There are already heaps of photos of Chambord at Commons. Not sure if that's a problem.

All your comments are very welcome. I suspect this photo isn't quite up to standard, but I look forward to learning how to make the next one better.

• Nominate and support. - Stevage 22:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: - Excellent illustration of the Château, and for the record, much better than any of the others at Commons [5] IMHO. Yummifruitbat 22:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yummifruitbat's downsampled version, neutral on the other modifications. The quality at maximum resolution still leaves room for improvement, but otherwise I think it's a great shot. bcasterline t 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - When I did the editing, I considered downsampling so that the image was still 100% crisp at maximum resolution, but decided against it because it would mean losing detail (which would be needed if the photo was to be reproduced in print). Bear in mind the dimensions of this photo (6054x2155px) make it at least twice as large as it needs to be to meet FP standards. -Yummifruitbat 03:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally if it isn't sharp, you can safely downsample a bit without losing any detail, because softness usually means that there are (simply speaking) 2 pixels used to describe an object that could just as easily be described by 1. While it is certainly possible to lose detail if you downsample at an inappropriate ratio and don't check the image, I'm pretty sure there is room to do it in this image. Try downsampling to 4000 pixels wide and see if you can see any meaningful loss of detail. I tried and couldn't see any. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I like the picture, but I'm going to hold off because the image isn't in any articles yet. The key factor that distinguished between a pretty image and a featured picture is whether it's illustrative, and while I'm sure this picture could be, I can't vote in good faith for an image that no one's seen fit to include in an article yet. Night Gyr 07:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very similar version was used in Château de Chambord. I've now updated that article so the FPC is used (towards the bottom of the page). Stevage 07:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: OK, I've downsampled to 75% of the original size, and you're right, Diliff, there doesn't seem to be any noticeable loss of detail. --Yummifruitbat 16:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice :) Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 17:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Cropped, edited version. I would however like to see this picture redone. This shot is OK, but the lighting is terrible - and such a lovely subject I think can be done better. I like the colors and composition of Image:France Loir-et-Cher Chambord Chateau 03.jpg better, but the quality is pretty poor. My ideal would be something like this. I've uploaded three edits for consideration.
  • The next time I'm in the area, I'll have another crack! (not likely to happen anytime soon) I regret not trying again later in the afternoon when there was really some nice afternoon sun. I agree with everything you say basically. Stevage 14:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose retouched versions. Why the hell would anyone clone out the people? They do not obstruct the building but rather give the image a sense of scale. Again another totally unnecessary photo manipulation. --Dschwen 12:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just on personal taste, I found a couple of the people distracting (right in centre, two people taking a photo, another woman walking towards camera). I suppose I like people sitting down, or wandering around, but when they're being unaesthetic, like taking photos, I'm not sad to see them go. That said, I have no strong preference either way, I can see the arguments for or against cloning them out. Stevage 14:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the original(not the edited version) I agree with Dschwen, the people give a sense of scale and don't distract from the subject in any way. Besides that, a very good image! --Pharaoh Hound 12:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that the retouching is unnecessary.. I don't think I can offer my support due to the bland lighting as it just doesn't do it for me. If anything, as far as a crop goes, I would prefer a little taken away from the foreground lawn and a little from the left and right edge of the frame, but keeping the proportions the same. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet another edit - Not a big fan of Fir0002's edits I'm afraid, the sky looks artificial and I agree with Dschwen about unnecessarily removing the people when they're not obstructing the subject. If the activities of the people in the shot are 'unaesthetic' then presumably we should say the same about the photographer on the bridge in Carcassonne? I think Diliff's suggestion about the crop has merit and have tried a version with the same proportions. --Yummifruitbat 19:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess it's a matter of personal taste, but to my mind a sky without completely burnt out details is less realistic to one which has them partially recovered. Also I find that the original has a blue caste which has also been correct in my edit. But obviously the edits were just there to give people choice, and you are free to make yours (choice that is) --Fir0002 www 11:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Yummifruitbat's cropped version. howcheng {chat} 16:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment since people are enjoying photoshopping it, just pointing out the original untouched image is available here. Fwiw, I think I do prefer the version with the people cloned out, and will probably print it for my wall. :) Stevage 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yummifruitbat's cropped version. --Dschwen 20:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I kind of like the people in the shot.. but the one without it is fine too. That is an absolutely gorgeous structure. drumguy8800 - speak 03:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Any, I'm impartial when it comes to cloning. Just look at the arcitecture on the roof though! --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 21:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose any version with the people cloned out. Support original. Mooveeguy 17:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose any version with people. TestPilot 07:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yummifruitbat's cropped version. I like it the best. TomStar81 01:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:PanoChambord2 yfb edit3 downsampled.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 08:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image has now been re-uploaded entitled Chambord_pano.jpg for snappiness :) --Yummifruitbat 09:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MennekensF105KR

I have nominated this picture, made by myself (Nicki Mennekens), because I have noticed that there are not many motorsport related featured images. The image up for vote appears in the article Belgian Grand Prix.

• (Self) nominate and support. - Nick Mks 18:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as it's very blurry. Yeah I know he was probably moving quite fast :) To get crisp photos of race cars, you either need to speed up the shutter, or move the camera in the direction of the car as you take the photo. The latter can give a nice effect, causing the background to blur while the car remains quite crisp. Stevage 18:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not FP material (too blurred) - Adrian Pingstone 20:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with above --Yummifruitbat 22:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. It's also pretty small. You're right about the lack of motorsport FPs, though. bcasterline t 23:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose reluctantly due to size and blur issues. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 09:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I think that a motorsport or formula one picture would be great but I think that it needs a better one Flymeoutofhere 16:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think there could be more automotive FPs, but this isn't one of them. It's blurry, I would like more contrast, and it's too small. --Pharaoh Hound 12:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry. howcheng {chat} 16:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, it's certainly good, but too blured for FP --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Don't like the size or the angle. Also it's not very interesting. -- BWF89

Not promoted Mikeo 09:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salad

Nice, appetizing image.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 www 12:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Food seems to be opposed a lot, but this is a good image. Nice and crisp. --liquidGhoul 13:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa, I just noticed Image:Salad platter.jpg, which is heaps better. I Support it, although it needs some cropping from the top and bottom. --liquidGhoul 00:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Sorry. The foreground is empty, and the elements in the background (the mug and the bread) are distracting. Dr Zak 13:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Opp agree with Dr Zak. Will support if they are removed. chowells 14:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. The background has distracting elements. Good resolution, the subject is well prepared and contributes well to its article. --Pharaoh Hound 17:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support of both versions. Much improved. The "salad platter" looks fake (for some odd reason), however it probably is more encyclopedic. I like the close-up view of the cropped one, but it may be too close cut, and the distracting elements -though mush less visible- are still there. --Pharaoh Hound 13:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support - could someone crop some white space out of the front though, and maybe out of the back? Stevage 18:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose I found the burnt out foreground and the blurry background too irritating - Adrian Pingstone 20:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It is a nice appetizing image, I find the blank foreground jarring, and the cropped sides as well. I do like the bread and mug, though.--ragesoss 21:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've uploaded a cropped version. If you want to see other versions: Image:Salad platter.jpg, Image:Cold meat salad.jpg --Fir0002 www 23:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cropped version is difficult to put into perspective because it's so cut off. I'd say Image:Salad platter.jpg is the most encyclopedic. bcasterline t 23:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the totally uncropped version. Not sure why you were trying to keep the bread out of the original one :) Stevage 09:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh there're two different shots (obviously of the same thing). I just perfered to close up one. I don't know why but I'm really partial to that white "clean" look which I think the first one really has. To my mind it's a nearly perfect stock shot. But that's just me :-) --Fir0002 www 09:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the background is a bit too blurry and the white background is too artificial. Bonus Onus 22:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Salad platter.jpg

• Whoa, I just noticed Image:Salad platter.jpg, which is heaps better. I Support it, although it needs some cropping from the top and bottom. --liquidGhoul 00:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC) ( moved from original context higher in the page )[reply]
• Support Image:Salad platter.jpg. Mmmmh! Dr Zak 01:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support of both versions. Much improved. The "salad platter" looks fake (for some odd reason), however it probably is more encyclopedic. I like the close-up view of the cropped one, but it may be too close cut, and the distracting elements -though mush less visible- are still there. --Pharaoh Hound 13:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC) ( moved from original context higher in the page )[reply]
• Support the "salad platter" (full view of plate). Stevage 20:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Image:Salad platter.jpg. bcasterline t 01:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support for Image:Salad platter.jpg (those sun dried tomatoes look too nice), although I might suggest the description on the image page is expanded somewhat... —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 10:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Image:Salad platter.jpg. Redquark 18:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the cropped version. More food pics, please! Bertilvidet 15:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Image:Salad platter.jpg. I like seeing the whole context. howcheng {chat} 16:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The salad platter. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any of them, they're pretty good for food pictures. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 20:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Don't like the white backround, it doens't look appetising and I eat salad a few times a week -- BWF89 02:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Eat... I mean... Support Image:Salad platter.jpg. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 @ 03:00 UTC

Comment I've rearranged the nom like this. Hope nobody minds... --Fir0002 www 11:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Full-size, the photo looks rather unremarkable. I think it's the lighting. The angle of the plate is also offputting, but as I don't think it's FP-standard, I'm not experimenting. BigBlueFish 21:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The white background makes this photo look too artificial even though the plate itself looks good. I think that having a plate out of context is not very encyclopedic-- not a good explanation of the purpose of salad (i.e. to be eaten) Bonus Onus 22:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all versions. Uninteresting subject photographed as if for advertising purposes. It's nice enough, but this looks like something out of an upscale supermarket circular. Mooveeguy 17:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um why exacatly is it a problem that it looks like an "upscale supermarket circular". I would have thought that a good thing. Certainly I can't see it as a valid reason for opposing. --Fir0002 www 07:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This image isn't in any article.Froggydarb 09:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on the condition that the photo find an article. TomStar81 01:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have replaced original nomination in the page with Image:Salad platter.jpg --Fir0002 www 09:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: splitting up the vote like that halfway through really did not help me make the closing count! Some of the oppose votes left above the line, I judge as being equally applicable to the final version too (Adrian's, for example). With hindsight, I think it would have been better to start a new nom, or just to leave all versions in a single section — those of us who close these regularly are used to having to tot up support for differing versions. Anyway, gripe over with, the second vote passes 14/6 even if we still count Adrian's and chowells' opposes. I discounted ragesoss's oppose which obviously only applied to the original crop ~ Veledan • Talk 10:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Salad platter.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 10:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blank (locator) map of India

This is an unusal nomination. I'm not nominating it for looks but rather functionality. The colours are standardised as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps, so I can't change that. My reasons for nominating are for:

1. Highest resolution image available, (drawn to scale) on the internet: (1486x1734 px) + SVG
2. Most comprehensive NPOV map available on the internet. Shows the following disputed areas by way of shading and borders:
   • Kashmir: Pakistan-administered (Indian-claimed), Indian-administered (Pakistan claimed), Chinese-administered (Indian-claimed), area ceded to China by Pakistan (Indian claimed).
   • Arunachal Pradesh: Claimed by China, administered by India
   • Additional Western sector claims/administration by China in the states of Himachal Pradesh and Uttranchal. No India map on the internet has such a level of detail covered.

Note: I've compiled the map from 4 sources. I believe that the map will go a long way as a base for the long standing demand for NPOV India maps. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Would you mind putting a list of what the various colored areas mean on the image page? It will make it easier for future reference. Cheers! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Done! =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I completely agree with the nominator. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's very well done. Agree entirely on principle raised by nom -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the four colours are very similar, and it's particularly hard to see the difference between the first pair (India, disputed area 1) and to a lesser extent, the second pair (disputed areas 1 and 2). Consider changing them? Stevage 09:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm.... I've used transparencies rather than a different colour to depict the two disputed regions. I wanted the colours to blend from yellow to orange to show the differences. Since the gradient from yellow to orange is not much, it does not contrast too much. To mitigate this problem somewhat I'd used different border styles. Awaiting further suggestions. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I've tried to modify the colours. Please take a look. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Much better! Does the legend still need updating? Stevage 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope, I'd already updated the legend. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with new colours - great map, perfectly appropriate for featured image. Stevage 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Minor issue being that similar colour need to be fixed for clarity in first glance. Map featurable as highly functional and trend-setter in NPOV maps. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant neutral - I'd love to support this as I agree strongly about the importance of NPOV mapping on Wikipedia. At the moment, though, the colours of the disputed regions are far too similar - on this LCD panel (at uni) you can't distinguish between them at all. Also, you mention that the map is compiled from 4 sources - what is the copyright status of these sources and what effect does that have on the resulting status of a compilation map? I'll definitely support if these issues are addressed. --Yummifruitbat 11:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Colours: I'm not sure what to do about the colours. (See my reply to Steveage). I'm trying to think of something that is not to flashy and has a wider gradient. Do you have any suggestions?

  Image copyrights: Three of the four sources are PD, the fourth is copyrighted. According to international copyright laws, geographical and political boundaries cannot be copyrighted for obvious reasons. What is copyrighted are the style and creativity. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images and Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy (#1 Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources...) Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tried this, so just a suggestion, but could you simply make the orange colour a bit darker, and the yellow perhaps slightly lighter, so as to widen the gradient? At the moment the orange particularly seems fairly pale, although I agree about not making it too 'flashy' :) --Yummifruitbat 16:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tried to modify the colours. Please take a look. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support edited version - much clearer. Thanks for clearing up my concerns about copyright, too :) --Yummifruitbat 11:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No probs :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - although I do have a small comment :) I personally think the un-disputed international border would look better if it was a dark black line without dashes. Also there is gap in the border between Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll be fixing the gap and acceding to your suggestion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Gap fixed and international border made standard. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. -- thunderboltz^(TALK) 15:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I have a minor issue. In its highest resolution, I could see a black mark (shape of 'U') in the space between Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu. Can that be fixed? - Ganeshk (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Definitely an example of Wikipedia's best work. bcasterline t 15:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High res, NPOV (!). Nice pic.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. howcheng {chat} 16:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Entirely endorse points made by Nichalp. ImpuMozhi 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support not exactly striking... --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately yes, I agree with you. :( I would like to try enhance it while keeping it within the ambit of recommendations made by the Maps wikiproject. Please feel free to make any suggestions. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Sorry, but I don't see how this is FP material. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  From Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? it conforms to points #1-#6. I can't do anything about #7 since I've modelled it on recommendations made by Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. #8 does not really apply here. Hope this helps. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, let me be clear. I don't think it fulfills #5. I don't see how the blank map is useful for the article. Now, a filled-in one might be, but that's not what's being voted on at the moment. I'd have to see a filled-in one to decide if I'd support that one. At an absolute minimum, the legend needs to be on the map, not on the description page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for elaborating. :) We plan to use the map as a locator map for towns and cities in India. We'll be modelling the location based on the work done on Template talk:Infobox protected area. This map will be the base map for all Indian cities, and the location will be superimposed over it. The map will thus be used across a thousand articles. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. Eh, fair enough. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose, I'm sure you spent alot of time working on it and I commend you for that. But It's just a blank map. I like looking at a featured picture thats vivid or exciting. -- BWF89 03:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No problems. I agree with you. As I've said, I nominated it for its utility value, not looks as it's to be a locator map. I could have jazzed it up, but decided to keep it simple. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm with Nichalp. FPC is first and foremost meant to encourage people to spend time and effort making pictures for Wikipedia. Out of interest, how many hours did it take you to make? Stevage 08:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure on the exact figure. It took me six days (I do it on weekends and started on 16th April). Rough figure: ~10-12 hrs. I'm not a professional, and I taught myself to draw maps over the past few months. I'd also like to add that shading in SVG maps is kinda' difficult and had to use many layers to get the final output. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Entirely endorse points made by Nichalp. --Gurubrahma 11:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rama's Arrow 16:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's a fine map, but not particularly striking or visually interesting. There are many maps on Wikipedia that are just as good or better. Also, it could be more useful. There's no distinctions between the areas claimed by Pakistan and those claimed by China. In fact, there is no indication of where China, Pakistan, and the other neighboring countries are. If you plan on using it for Indian cities articles, readers would want to know if a city is near the border with Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, etc. What about labeling the major cities, or at least the capital? For this map to be useful in any article, it would require major additions. As such it fails criterion #5. --dm ^(talk) 22:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I could spice up the map as per your suggestions, but this is meant to be a locator map and having the detail you mentioned would be an overkill. As I said, this is the recommended format, else I could spice it up like my other featured map: image:Goamap.png. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Strongly agree with BWF89 --Fir0002 www 11:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose even though it may be a good map and somewhat useful. I think as an image it is too sparse (especially in the upper part) and not at all visually interesting. Bonus Onus 22:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you elaborate on what is sparse, and if I can take care of your objection? =Nichalp «Talk»=

• Conditional support The lack of attractiveness concerns me a little. IMO, even images used for informative purposes still need to catch the eye. There a few scientific tables which have good colour combinations and look good. The thing is that when (if) it will we on the main page, it will seem strange. However, I'm confident Nichalp can improve the colours. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  I really don't intend or even expect to have it featured on the main page. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Per nom/above. After thinking about it, I realised that it still is beautiful for what the image represents, a blank map! Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Per nom.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, gotta give props to well-made maps. --Golbez 15:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I believe this FPC nomination has been unduly influenced by Wikipedia:Survey notification and I urge the closer to take this into account. I count nine support votes from usernames I don't recognize as having voted on FPCs before, and I see that notification of this FPC was given at Portal talk:Pakistan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps, Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics, Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:China-related topics notice board, Wikipedia talk:China-related topics notice board, and Portal talk:People's Republic of China. I'm not suggesting that the notification was intended to have any improper effect, and of course new voters are always welcome but I believe that the fact that it has been posted to so many interested talk pages has (unintentionally) caused vote stacking, and that the vote count should be disregarded in closing ~ Veledan • Talk 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I admit being guilty of the aforesaid charge. I wanted it to be reviewed by all concerned parties concerned, not just WP:FPC. However I would like to honestly add that I did not clamour for support votes, people could have also opposed the candidature. I didn't want a scenario to occur later saying "how could this POV map be featured!?" =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It'll be every bit as useful as you say and I applaud you for the excellent job you've done, but I just don't think a blank locator map is the best way to represent any country's topology for FP. To fulfil criterion #7 an FP should be a good representation of the subject in itself — a featured country map ought to show features of interest such as places, or perhaps interesting geographic details. This will be a good locator map, but promoting what is basically a blank template seems a bit bizarre to me ~ Veledan • Talk 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The legend is confusing, as are parts of the border regions. The legend lists two different dash-dot lines (of different thickness), and I can't tell which parts are one and which are the other. And the solid line around most of the country does not appear in the legend; what does it mean?--ragesoss 20:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I've fixed the border in the legend. I've replied to your comments here. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I've changed the name of this nomination to Blank locator map of India to reflect its intended usage. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and fixes. Saravask 05:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice work. Yet, a FP needs to be something special, either by being very descriptive or by being an eye-catching illustration. This one is neither. In addition to that, I also agree with the comment made by Veledan. Mikeo 12:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Would the fact that this is the *only* NPOV map available on the internet also qualify for this special status? Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  What about the islands of New Moore/South Talpatty/Purbasha? - IMHO there is a dispute with Bangladesh about them. I see no indication in the map about it. (see List_of_territorial_disputes) Mikeo 14:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi! Thanks for your feedback. From [6], Talpatty island is a riverine island. These islands would be too tiny to depict on this map. The same applies to Sir Creek and the Indian and Bangladeshi exclaves. For example, the islands of Lakshadweep (a union territory) is almost invisible at lower resolutions because of small area of the islands. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. – ugen64 02:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent work. Perhaps a sentence should be added to the associated details stating something along the lines of "Boundaries correct as of 2006"? CheekyMonkey 17:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! I've added it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - agree with Veledan. --P199 22:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg (+23 / -8) While I did factor in the vote (74% in favor), due to Veledan's concerns of (unintentional) vote stacking I also considered the arguments of those in favor of promotion and against. "It's just a map" is not really a legitimate objection, nor one which can be addressed; another "oppose" vote was too vague to be addressed; and the concerns of two other "oppose" votes were addressed. Others opposed cited WP:WIAFP criteria #5 and #7. I find its usefulness (#5) as a locator map difficult to dispute. And since the subject of this image is India's profile and regional divisions, not India itself, I don't see that it fails #7.

Ultimately, I'm not convinced that this image falls far short of any of the criteria, if it falls short at all. So, with a significant majority of voters in favor, I'm promoting it. -- bcasterline • talk 17:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tulip

A tough subject to get through FPC, but I think this pic has got it.

• Nominate and Support --Fir0002 www 07:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. You're right, that is a tough subject to get through. Anything subject that simple has to really stand out to get the votes here. I do like it and I'm not entirely sure how it could be improved.. Perhaps better framing, with no tulips in the background cut out of the frame. Perhaps a more vertical crop. I'm not sure. :) I'll keep an open mind. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's all of the shot I've got to work with. This pic wasn't taken by me but a friend, and that was all he took. --Fir0002 www 10:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support. Beautiful. Good resolution, nice lighting. The composition is fairly attractive. Maybe I'm baised because I love gardening, but I think this image is FP material. --Pharaoh Hound 12:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support. Has a bit of simplicity I think since the flower's interior side or something like that is not shown. --Brand спойт 13:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support agree, the flower is not doing anything terribly exciting, but that's more of an artistic consideration. It would illustrate Tulip very well indeed. Stevage 14:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC) I was too harsh. Support. Stevage 08:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful and encyclopedical. Bertilvidet 15:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Plain but encyclopedic. bcasterline t 15:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. howcheng {chat} 16:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amalas =^_^= 18:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It's absolutely flippin' gorgeous! Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very good picture. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support You're right, Fir, it probably is quite a tough subject to get through FPC.. flowers and sunsets and insects oh my!!! drumguy8800 - speak 03:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's nice, but I don't see what qualifies it as an FP. It's neither striking nor adds significantly to the article, IMO. There are many other shots in the article just as good. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Little encyclopaedic value. asnatu 17:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give a better example of something to illustrate Tulip with? Stevage 08:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dante Alighieri.--K.C. Tang 00:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support The picture is amazing and it goes with the main article Tulip very well. -- BWF89 02:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose See Dante Alighieri. Also the top of the flower is not clearly seen on the background of other tulips.Olegivvit 09:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has only 12 edits, half of which are on FPC --Fir0002 www 11:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Dante. Would have more value it it showed an entire plant and the inside of the flower pod. Plus I do find the pic neither striking nor does it make me want to read the article. --Dschwen 11:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. BigBlueFish 21:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because of the beauty of it.(24.207.90.78 23:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Support Tobyk777 05:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lovely. Mooveeguy 17:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tip-toe through the tulips... TomStar81 01:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Colours and overall picture are beautiful here. One of the things I really liked about this picture, and that IMO makes it FP worthy rather than just a nice picture, is that the focus tulip is in classic tulip shape, but the near background includes various stages of tulips budding, as well as flowers now slightly beyond this stage and opening out, along with the leaves of the plant, thus illustrating various stages in the lifecycle of this plant in one photo. In response to members above that want to see the inside of the flower, please remember it's a tulip, you're not meant to see the inside (at least of this variety) unless you want it dissected or well past this ‘classic’ stage. Have to be upfront about possible bias - it's my photo, which Fir0002 uploaded and nominated for me. --jjron 13:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A lovely picture and good for tulip too, despite that fact the article's a bit of a gallery already. I disagree that a shot showing the inside would be more encyclopedic - yes have a pic of the innards in the article too, but this angle is more iconic for tulips ~ Veledan • Talk 20:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support An excellent picture. The colors are nice and vivid. Mr. Turcotte^talk 21:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tulipa suaveolens floriade to Canberra.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 18:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crop fields in Kansas

NASA ASTER image of circular crop fields in Haskell County, Kansas from June 2001. I like the geometric patterns and it's a unique perspective on how fields look. Used in Center pivot irrigation, Ogallala Aquifer, Agriculture, Crop rotation, and Agriculture in the United States.

• Nominate and support. - howcheng {chat} 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clear, sharp, lots of detail, and very encyclopedic. SteveHopson 17:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very abstract image, but gets your attention and makes you want to learn more about it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Superb. Very interesting perspective, excellent resolution. --Pharaoh Hound 18:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, preferably unstraightened original. Great addition. Has the color saturation been increased? bcasterline t 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not by me. It doesn't say anything on the source page, so my assumption is no (if any modifications have been made, it usually says so). The ASTER page doesn't have any information about it either. howcheng {chat} 20:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is that it has been modified, or at least, that is not a natural representation of the colour. A quick look at Google Earth will quickly show you that there is a vast variance in the quality of the imagery. Some satellite imagery isn't even visible colour but rather based on the amount of reflectivity. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter is more likely. Considering ASTER stands for "Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer" it's probably not a natural-color image. howcheng {chat} 21:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, our own article on ASTER states that it takes visible spectrum images too, and since NASA makes several references to the color without any mention of it being false color, this is probably actually the real colors, and we should not presume otherwise. Night Gyr 22:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • See below, it is false colour based on some visible spectrum and some infrared. Stevage 11:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment strangely, I would actually prefer a cropped version, especially to appear on the main page. You can't actually make any detail out in that thumbnail. Perhaps by cropping it you could at least see the circles and get an idea. Two questions not answered on the image page: What orientation does the image have (is there some reason not to "straighten it" from its current ~10° slant to the left)? Also, what is the road(?) running through the image? Stevage 20:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, that information is not available in the source page. howcheng {chat} 20:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that is going to help. There have been situations where I've wished that there was a way of allowing a cropped thumbnail to link directly to a full sized image but in this case, I think you just have to accept that it looks abstract and click on the thumbnail to see it at 100%. It wouldn't be any more recognisable when cropped anyhow. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - These are fascinating, particularly if you've ever used GoogleEarth to see how much of Kansas is covered by them. Really makes you think about the demand that feeding the Western world places on its environments. A quick GE of the coordinates shows that the road is Highway 56 which runs 640 miles from Springer, New Mexico to Kansas City, Missouri. --Yummifruitbat 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Also, there's no obvious reason for the orientation of the image as the grid of circles runs N-S/W-E with remarkable precision. --Yummifruitbat 21:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(getting horribly addicted to GoogleEarth!) - The two settlements alongside the Highway are the small towns of (lower left) Sublette and (upper right) Copeland.

So then the only possible explanations I can come up with for the tilt are (1) that's how the satellite was oriented, or (2) it was an artistic choice by the NASA person who processed the image. howcheng {chat} 22:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's (1), see below. Stevage 11:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Edited version - I've uploaded a straightened and cropped edit as the rotated version is misleading IMO. One of the interesting features of this landscape is the meticulous geometric arrangement. --Yummifruitbat 23:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original, Oppose edited. Straightening the image just makes it look unnatural, I think. The grid is easy to see even angled, and it feels more like reality when things haven't been messed around with just for the sake of perfect alignment. I think the rotated version is more misleading, because it implies that the satellite lines its images up perfectly with the crop grid. Night Gyr 00:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnatural, and the perfect alignment is part of what makes it interesting. When the fields were originally created, they were laid out on a measured North-South, West-East, 0.5- and 1-mile grid. Presenting the image at an angle suggests that they were arbitrarily oriented - isn't that a bit like drawing a map of the Americas with Canada in the bottom right hand corner? --Yummifruitbat 00:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a picture, not a map, and I think we can trust our readers to know that. I've been on cross-country flights before, and seen the pattern, so I know how it runs, and it seems more natural to me for a picture of the pattern to not align perfectly, since even the satellite isn't seeing it straight on. This picture is not a map. The change is more comparable to taking a picture like the blue marble and spinning it to line up with a map--completely unnecessary, insulting to our readers' intelligence, and distorting the compositional appeal of the original. Night Gyr 03:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with putting "the original" on a pedestal in that way. The original rotation was totally arbitrary anyway. Why not rotate it to 45 degrees, 37 degrees, or 344? If you find the roughly 10 degrees to the left more appealing than ramrod-straight, then that's one thing. But considering 0 degrees (the apparently "true" alignment) to be "arbitrary" and the 10 degrees left to be more canonical is, well, very arbitrary indeed. Stevage 08:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do find the original more appealing, and I don't like the rotation because it takes away everything about the image that distingushes it from a generic satellite photo or map. There are plenty of places out there that can show you the precise north/south grid, but I feel like showing it at an angle makes it feel less like a map and reminds you that you're looking at a photograph rather than a drawing. Night Gyr 08:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google earth can show you the same location here Night Gyr 04:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a generic satellite photo, but it's the subject that distinguishes it, not the 10º rotation which adds nothing to the encyclopaedic nature of the image. You may have been lucky enough to fly over this scene but the vast majority of readers/viewers will not have, nor can one assume that they will have found the circles using GoogleEarth and happen to have had the Lat/Long overlay switched on at the time. Straightening the image increases its informational content - this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia after all. Should we refrain from straightening, say, a landscape nominated for FP with the horizon tilted 10º because the photographer's tripod was lopsided? --Yummifruitbat 11:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really add to the informational content. Why would a straightened image lead the viewer to assume that the fields themselves were straightened along a grid? Personally, I don't think I would ever make that assumption. It would need to be stated somewhere (the caption, for example), which would be equally necessary for both versions. Fitting to a grid is different than leveling a horizon. bcasterline t 12:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea to include that information in the caption. Perhaps my choice of phrasing was poor above - straightening it doesn't really increase its informational content, but IMO rotating it by an arbitrary 10º reduces the information conveyed because then the rotation becomes a feature of the image, even though it is of no real relevance to the content. Lots of images (eg. of buildings) are either opposed on FPC or edited, because walls aren't perfectly vertical or exhibit perspective distortion. It strikes me as a case of double standards, then, to say that rotating it to align a clear North-South grid with North is "insulting to our readers' intelligence". --Yummifruitbat 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is a double-standard (although I don't myself oppose the straightened version). But nature shots, except where there is a visible horizon, aren't always straightened with relation to anything in the picture -- see Image:Tulip - floriade canberra.jpg below, for example. The focus of this image is the crop fields, not the gridding of Kansas. And, as a matter of personal preference, I find them more interesting when not perfectly aligned in a square. bcasterline t 14:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, I can see your point. From a purely aesthetic point of view I quite like the angled shot, but I personally think the straightened one is more encyclopaedic. --Yummifruitbat 14:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support original, support edit, and I would strongly support an edited version that lined up the edges of the image and the edges of the outer crop circles. It just looks more striking when perfectly north-south and east-west. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 @ 01:29 UTC

I had a go a this but it didn't look all that great as the pattern doesn't line up perfectly all the way along. I think there's either some distortion in the corners (which I tried to correct but couldn't) or the guy with the measuring tape had been in the sun too long... --Yummifruitbat 11:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support so vivid... Gotta love Google Earth. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very sharp, very encyclopedic drumguy8800 - speak 03:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rotated version -Glaurung 06:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fascinating pic - Adrian Pingstone 10:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support Original. Un-rotated highlights difference between natural and man-made, controlled and random. The rotated version make it look too orderly and possibly fake. Witty lama 14:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. The edit is just overly boring. --BRIAN0918 14:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose its a meh picture for me, if I had to I would take the straigtened edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravedave (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 May 2006.
• Support Original, At first I was like "what is that, it can't be real" and then I click on it and zoom in and see that it's an actual photograph. -- BWF89 02:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually we're not sure of that. It's an image, but whether it's visible light ("an actual photograph") or a generated image by some other method, we're not sure. Stevage 09:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Cool shot, but nothing you can't see most anywhere in Google Earth, not all that exciting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.121.146 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Vote for your favourite angle

Since the rotation of the above image is totally arbitrary, I propose we vote on which way to rotate it for the final image. Consider that 0 degrees is the straightened version above, and -10° degrees is the version as originally nominated. If your preferred angle is not included, feel free to add it in the list where it fits. If you oppose the image, please say so above this section.

• 0° (straightened)
  • Comment: I support either versions,but I think it would be more encyclopedic to represent it in its conventional orientation with the North pointing upwards. The original picture has a totally arbitrary orientation, and even if it just looks nicer, Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedy and not an art gallery. Glaurung 06:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMHO, the best thing to do would be to present the angled version as the FPC, but probably use the straightened one in the actual article, but I suspect that would be against the spirit of FPC. There is obviously an inherent conflict between what is aesthetically pleasing ("striking", "best work") and what is encyclopaedically useful. A simple example is that often heavily cropped versions or even details of pictures are more useful for actual articles, whereas a full, uncropped image would be better as an artwork. Stevage 14:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• -10° (original)

• • Support. Original image. How is it arbitrary? Do you know for a fact that the source image isn't oriented to magnetic or global north or something? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Local magnetic north for that region would be 7.7 degrees from true north according to NGDC. What's 'global north'? --Yummifruitbat 03:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global north is apparently what I say when I forget the term "true north". ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 05:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Original SteveHopson 17:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • -10° It just looks nicer to me. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 20:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original. I think it's both encyclopedic and artistic. howcheng {chat} 20:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, support - not convinced that the -10 is meaningful, but in retrospect it's a more captivating image. Sorry for being a pain. I think the straightened one is probably more "encyclopaedic" but the original is more "striking", and at the end of the day, FPC *is* a beauty contest. Stevage 20:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original. I included this in my vote above, but I'm aadding it here too. Night Gyr 21:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either, the original is minutely more aethetically pleasing; the straightend one hints that north is up (minutely more informative). I can't decide which is better. If north isn't actually up on straightened version then I support the original. —Pengo 02:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North is up. --Yummifruitbat 02:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• -10° It looks better and has more interest. --Pharaoh Hound 11:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• -10° Support Witty lama 13:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've contacted the ASTER team at NASA/JPL via email. Hopefully they will be able to shed some light on our questions. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - it'll be interesting to see what other details about the image they can give us. Even if there's no reason for the rotation, I'll go with the consensus and support the original as this image deserves to be FP in one form or another. --Yummifruitbat 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No response as of yet. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from NASA. Details below. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Either. Preference for the edit though. --Fir0002 www 11:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• -10°. The straightened one loses detail from cropping, gains no aesthetic value or informative value as far as I'm concerned. People saying that the angle makes it look less diagrammatic have a point too... unless you zoom in you could easily think it wasn't photographic at all. The angle helps to this effect. BigBlueFish 21:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original This picture is a great example of central pivot irrigation, and is a well-structured picture at the original angle. Looks a little weird when viewed as a thumbnail, but good on the image page. The edited one looks too artificial. Bonus Onus 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Original It looks a bit more correct.(24.207.90.78 23:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Support original. --BillC 19:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 0º -68.118.32.126 17:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original --Mike1024 (t/c) 22:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suport -10°--Circle-Green 16:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NASA Response

I had sent an email querying the ASTER team as to some details about the image. They graciously responded and answered all the questions:

I can answer your questions:

1) the image is aligned with the satellite orbital track, which is in a 98

degree tilted orbit. North is not "up". Rotate the image about 10 degrees

clockwise to align the roads north-south.

2) The image is a false-color presentation made to simulate natural color.

The 3 bands that were used are in the green, red, and near infrared parts of

the spectrum. ASTER does not have a blue channel, so we have to create one

from the other bands.

Michael Abrams

ASTER Science Team Leader

NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Now that we know the reason for the tilt, people may be more comfortable deciding which tilt they prefer. Also, we should add the bit about false-color to the picture summary. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. howcheng {chat} 20:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Dante, interesting to hear about the false colour. --Yummifruitbat 23:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Interesting that my original hypothesis about the arbitrary angle is essentially true - it's basically akin to looking out of a plane, pointing straight down, and taking that angle as gospel. However, the fact that it's false colour really wrecks it for me. It's now little more than a computer generated image of some geographical data. Along with an arbitrary angle, we have arbitrary colours. Hmm. Stevage 11:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not precisely... I mean, the green and red channels are real data via visible light, presumably... given that they also have infrared data, and they probably have other data from the Terra satellite (or other satellites), they can probably do a lot more than "guess" at the blue channel. I'd say that rather than "false color", we might want to call the image "adjusted color" or something like that. The base image is still real visible data. As for taking the angle as "gospel", it's not so much that, it's just that that's what the satellite really "saw"... so why bother altering it? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 14:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when someone takes a wonky photo of a building, we straighten it. But yeah, we've talked about the issues of straightening this image for long enough, and most people prefer the unstraightened version. Stevage 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original. The "false" color are common in satellite images - scientifically, there's less use for a blue channel. But, it is entirely possible to create a "synthetic blue", as is (was) done with blue-screen special effects filmig, so I'd say the colors actually look pretty natural. --Janke | Talk 18:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Crops Kansas AST 20010624.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 19:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shtorm_Drakon

Recently found pic, illustrating the so-called Dragon Storm on Saturn. Slightly corrected by me in Microsoft Office Picture Manager.

• Nominate and support. - Brand спойт 21:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support couldn't it be cropped more? Also, slightly grainy. Beautiful otherwise. --Pharaoh Hound 23:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's on the limit (1006 pixels square) resolution-wise already. Agree that it *should* be cropped. Stevage 08:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Certainly a unique shot, but the false color looks strange. The original black and white might be better, but, looking briefly at the NASA source for this image, I didn't see any link to it. bcasterline t 00:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose barely scrapes in resolution wise, but it's simply not "striking" enough. Maybe I've seen too many astronomy pics. It's also not that great "encyclopaedically" - where exactly is the storm? Is it that white streak about half way up the image? Lastly, the colours are, um, unconventional - the fluorescent blue of the rings is slightly disturbing. Overall, it's not awful in any of the FPC categories, but it's not stunning in any of them either. For a NASA shot, we should be a bit more picky. Stevage 08:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with Stevage here. Colours seem a bit oversaturated and we have to be pretty picky with NASA shots. The article that it represents is rather lacking in information, too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. While I agree that it's not really on par (quality-wise) with other NASA shots, this is a unique shot of an event that we have no other way of illustrating. I don't know if that should outweigh the "issues" with the image, but it potentially could (look back at some of our other FPs that are "low-quality" but "important", like this one). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]