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

CLOSED AS UNUSEABLE AS AN FPC DUE TO LICENSING RESTRICTIONS

Reason

Very good 3D quality; shows the connection of all the languages spoken around the world. Plus, represents the world`s largest online encyclopedia.

Articles this image appears in

Too many, see the list at the images page.

Creator

Nohat

• Support as nominator — ♠Tom@sBat 19:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural nitpicking - can this really be called "free"? #4 of WP:WIAFP - "It is available in the public domain or under a free license." This image is not GFDL, and is in fact "all rights reserved". Mak (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is present in many user-pages and tons of articles. Also, this is wikipedia, so I assume we can use it here. ♠Tom@sBat 19:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it shouldn't be on those userpages…but that's not our job to police that. (By the way, that sig is annoying!)--HereToHelp 21:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, isn´t this Wikipedia? I mean like, it´s copyrighted, but, this is wikipedia; so why can´t we use it? ♠Tom@sBat 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps ironically, it's against the spirit of Wikipedia to promote Wikipedia's own logo, as it's not a free image. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and promotes public domain and freely licensed ("open content") images. The logo is, however, a trademark which Wikipedia protects so as to keep its identity, so doesn't qualify, and would be against the spirit of Wikipedia if it were. Similarly, we reject images which are licensed only for Wikipedia's own use. —Pengo 22:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then, can it be used in articles and userpages? ♠Tom@sBat 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be. That's because I think the Wikimedia Foundation has granted permission for the logo to be used freely only on Wikimedia projects, so long as a licensing notice accompanies any derivative images as well. I may recall incorrectly, however. Gracenotes^T § 23:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on the previous comment, it can be used on Wikipedia because it brands the site, but is not part of the content, so it can be removed without loss of substantial content. To have it as a featured picture would make it content in and of itself. —Pengo 13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I think the most appropriate word to describe self-promotion like this is vanispamcruftisement. Violates WP:ASR. And the copyright issue - ((CopyrightByWikimedia)) is an unfree license. MER-C 03:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No free license, plus, once you get into full view, the rendering is not FP quality. ~ trialsanderrors 04:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for all the above reasons. Besides, it's already on the front page... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no need to be featured, it's already visible enough. --Phoenix (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As it's copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation, it's not a free image and since it's already on the main page, we don't gain anything from featuring it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it appears as if it is missing some pieces... ;). ~ Arjun 23:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• heheh excellent. Debivort 05:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose it is in violation of WP:ASR and it is a copyvio - Booksworm Talk to me! 16:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose All of the above, and I just don't like it *gasp*. It isn't pleasing to the eye. Wikipediarules2221 06:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is an image of the jewelery item Bangles, taken by Flickr user Surajram, its flickr page can be seen here. It is licensed under a free creative commons's license, and it appears on the article Bangle. This photos has some beautiful colours, and its one of the best composed pictures I have seen of bangles ever! I also think its one of most visually pleasing photos I've seen on Wikepedia, I have nominated it so that I can know if there are others who agree with me on the great quality of this image.

Articles this image appears in

Bangle, Jewelery

Creator

Flikr User: Surajram at [1], uploaded by Zainub

• Support as nominator — Zainub 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose depth of field is too small to really see their shape, and the stacking makes this worse. Debivort 21:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Pretty - yes. Descriptive - no. This doesn't actually show what a bangle is - therefore unencyclopaedic. Try listing at Commons FP perhaps? Witty Lama 21:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Witty Lama. Too much is out of focus. --Phoenix (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a. Jewelry should be worn; b. Illegal license ($). ~ trialsanderrors 16:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has a creative commons license, how could that be illegal? --Zainub 17:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noncommercial is not acceptable, see [2]. ~ trialsanderrors 18:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That link is broken unless one has a Commons account, so care to explain what you're getting at here? --Phoenix (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A free license requires that the image can be used for commercial purposes. This one is a non-commercial license only (the crossed-out $ sign). Hence it is not eligible for Featured Picture here. ~ trialsanderrors 03:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • See also WP:CSD: Improper license. Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission" that were uploaded on or after May 19, 2005, and for which no assertion of fair use is provided. [1] This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License".[2] Such images uploaded before May 19, 2005 may also be speedily deleted if they are not used in any articles. ~ trialsanderrors 04:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I stand corrected trialsanderrors, you can de-list this nomination if you want. --Zainub 07:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You can of course ask the original photographer if s/he wants to make it available under a commercial license. ~ trialsanderrors 17:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (non-commercial). Taken to WP:PUI. MER-C 09:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Encyclopedic picture in high quality

Articles this image appears in

Ségolène Royal

Creator

User:Jastrow

• Support as nominator — Tomer T 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Guy on the left is a little out of focus, and the event and people are not overly important. Clh288 13:14, 24 April 2007
• weak oppose there seem to be some (for lack of a better word) jiggery issues - if you along many of the lines, they are kind of ragged, like there is some scaling or interlacing artifact. Does anyone else see that? Other than that I rather like it, it is an interesting portrait of politicians. Clh: What are you talking about "not overly important?" Which FPC criterion are you referencing, and how is one of two front runners for the presidency of France not an important person?Debivort 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know she is not very favored to win, I know a 5% difference doesn't sound like much, but in France were the vote is spread out among so many people it is a killer.Chris H 03:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which FP criterion says that the subject of an FP must have a high chance of winning? :-) Debivort 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This must be a joke. It doesn't characterize that event and the topic is pointless/unimportant anyway.--Svetovid 20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which FP criterion says that the topic/subject must be important? Debivort 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's nonsense! The topic is very important, it includes notable French politicians and one of them even can become France's leader. Tomer T 11:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It fails the 3rd, 5th and 7th criterion.--Svetovid 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which FP criterion says that the topic/subject must be important? Debivort 00:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, technically, it's not a very good shot. I can see why it was nominated because it is a closeup of three important figures in French politics. I would say it better represents the party (and I added it to that page) than it does Royal. But, I still don't think it's FP material just because it's hard for us without press passes to get photos of the famousies. gren グレン 16:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I think we need more pictures of current politicians in general, and this is a good, but not great, picture. Beautiful coloring. There are technical issues, and the focus is soft, but I still vote for it. --Asiir 12:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Primarily because of the blown skin tone, and that the picture is not very sharp even though it's been down-sampled quite a lot. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What does blown skin tone mean?Debivort 16:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Either it's blown red channel in the skin tone or it's posterisation. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although I like this shot I really wasn't going to actively support it. Despite good lighting, composition, and enc value, it does fail other FP quality criteria (softness, posterisation, compression defects, strange post-processing anomolies) but Asiir's conditional support (and gren's oppose) made me realise it really is among the best Wikipedia has to offer in the way of current affairs shots. In the face of considerable opposition I'd like to encourage people to think again, because until press agency photographers are persuaded to release their work under a CC license (ie a *long* time!) it will remain among the best we have, I think. mikaul^talk 18:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Aesthetically I find it striking and pleasing; the colours are fantastic. It is a high quality scan/photograph of the painting, 2500 × 1571, showing the opening of the Parliament of Australia in 1901. I'm pretty sure it fulfils all the criteria. Hope you enjoy it.

Articles this image appears in

History of Australia

Creator

I can't infer the uploader from the image's page.

• Support as nominator — Rothery 08:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it was painted by Tom Roberts. Pstuart84 Talk 09:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yeah, it says that in the caption. I meant I didn't know who uploaded the image to Wikipedia- it is actually from Wikipedia Commons btw. Cheers. Rothery 10:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that Fir0002 was the original uploader. Pstuart84 Talk 11:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is a vey important painting in australian history - the most famous representation of Australia's political independence. However, is it possible to get a better scan?? The quality here is quite bad... Witty lama 21:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In what way? I didn't think it looked bad. Rothery 04:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Nah I kinda agree with Witty, its pretty ordinary quality, and you can see the stitch mark along the middle. It was scanned from a really thick book over a double page spread on a pretty cheap scanner. Ive got a better scanner now and could probably rescan at a higher res (although the print quality of course will limit how much I can get out of it) if people really want it. --Fir0002 06:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I thought that was just part of the actual painting or something. If you wouldn't mind then that would be fantastic. I'm currently using it as my desktop background, hehe. Rothery 07:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I'd support a higher quality scan. --Asiir 12:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Striking picture of a low flying goose (the included shadow underlines the low altitude), high contrast between bird and surrounding environment (ice/snow).

Articles this image appears in

Canada Goose, also on es:Barnacla, zh:加拿大雁 and on 3 wikibooks pages

Creator

Cszmurlo

• Support as nominator — Qyd 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While definitely an interesting shot considering the low flight, I think for this common of a bird, the focus and minimization of artifacts could be improved. --Tewy 03:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice capture, but technical details are underwhelming. Compare the sharpness to the existing Canada Goose FP: howcheng {chat} 05:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, but encouragement. I actually much prefer the composition of this image to our current FPC (although it's a bit closely cropped for me), but sadly there's way too much noise on the feathers, etc. Mak (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Visible pixelation at both high-res and in thumb version. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Both images would do well in an article about bird flight. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well, I think this has far more merit in most respects than the current featured picture of a Canada Goose above. Yes, this has some quality issues, but the curve of the wings as it swoops so low to the icy ground is infinitely more interesting. --Vaelta 21:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Technically only adequate, but compositionally compelling. You can almost feel the rush of air from the wing flap. The not-too-dark shadow connected at the wing tip touching the ground nicely signals, but doesn't overly stress, how close to the ground the bird is. The white, icy background offers no visual distraction, but coupled with the wings in a downstroke, augments this beautiful illustration of the power exerted in flight. --Bagginz 05:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is, perhaps, a rare nomination, but anything goes. This is a absolute wonderful picture of the Albanian flag and with excellent display resolution.

Articles this image appears in

Flag of Albania

Creator

unknown

Nominator

Albanau

• Comment. As far as I know, Wikipedia has exact representations of all national flags and they have generally been considered ineligible for featured picture status. However, one option might be to have a single featured picture set of all flags of sovereign states. Thoughts? --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a great idea, although I am wary of possible arguments over which flags should or shouldn't be featured in the set (Quebec? Palestine? England+Scotland+Wales+N.I.? etc.) Spebudmak 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I didn't find any national flag in the FP gallery and agree that is the most reasonable thing to do (with the exception of this one, of course!... :-) Alvesgaspar 22:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Either we promote all flags or none since they are effectively the same for our purposes. I would not be against promoting all flags per se. Witty Lama 04:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Itsa Flag!.. And its SVG.. but.. almost all flags are SVG.. and i mean.. that flag isnt uber beautiful eitherYzmo ^talk 17:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, err nominator? Explain to me your reasoning for classifying this as a "wonderful picture". --Phoenix (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Uninteresting ^8thstar 18:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Its just a flag! -Zainub 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's a neat flag and all, but it's still a flag. I like the FP flag set idea, though. Amphy 17:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The idea of promoting to FP a set of national flags sounds good at first thought. However, and because all national flag representations obey to some oficial standard, we will be evaluating the flags themselves instead of the pictures. This is not, I believe, the purpose of WP:FPC and might contribute to start some kind of nationalism contest. Alvesgaspar 19:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Beautiful Picture of an Albanian Orthodox Church in the City of Korçë, Albania.

Articles this image appears in

Korçë

Creator

Commons:User:Tubetends

Nominator

Albanau

• oppose - too small, and jpeg artifacts. 17:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Debivort 02:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - All this nomination needs is a larger image (If the creator is a user of Wikipedia, then he might be able to give us the original resolution without any compression.) I would definitely support when that is done. --Arad 18:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Agree, tilt should also be corrected - Alvesgaspar 19:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - disadvantageous shadows. If nothing else works, a compound picture might be better. I'm referring to the shadow that stretches to the front steps. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small. Witty Lama 04:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The Photo itself is good, but too low resolution...Yzmo ^talk 07:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small. ^8thstar 15:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, resolution too low. --Phoenix (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above; it's just too small.--HereToHelp 01:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The Image looks good, has a good resolution, and shows a typical tree. I just love that picture.

Articles this image appears in

Tree

Creator

User:Yzmo(self nom)

• Support as Nominator Yzmo ^talk 16:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose A bit blurry at full res, but mostly the subject can barely be distinguished from the background. Debivort 16:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Tree completely out of focus, species not identified. Alvesgaspar 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppoose It's a tree...I have tons in my backyard. Besides that, the background blends with the subject. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just a tree... ^8thstar 15:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: What's so special about a tree? ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No FP criterion demands that the subject be "special." We must evaluate the merits of the photo, not the subject. Debivort 19:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe criteria #5 sort of covers that. If the subject is commonplace, then it doesn't really add much value to the article. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• When the article illustrated covers a common subject: tree - a image of a common tree (not that we know the species of this particular tree) would seem to illustrate the article perfectly. Debivort 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Would that only be a stereotype of what a tree is? If it's a generic tree, then it's not entirely useful. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 04:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're saying a picture of a common tree doesn't illustrate tree in an encyclopedic way? ... ok... Debivort 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What the heck defines a "common tree"? The common tree in my mind does not look like that. ;) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose uninteresting to me is not enough to justify an oppose but...this also falls technically short. Out of focus, bad DOF also you are getting dust spots; sensor cleaning time ;). ~ Arjun 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote (Why be gratuitous with an oppose?) The sky is nice, the colors are nice, the smudge can be Photoshopped out, but, as mentioned, there's little background contrast. I can't see the tree for the forest. --Bagginz 05:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This picture looks nice with the sunset at the back, and has certainly got a strong emotional impact due to what it´s meaning is.

Articles this image appears in

Half-staff

Creator

fr:User:A3 nm

• Support as nominator — ♠Tom@sBat 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, awful quality, pointless.--Svetovid 23:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please comment with a civil tone. This clearly has a point and might very well illustrate hald-staff. Debivort 00:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Far too dark. Witty Lama 23:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Way too dark. And a flag flying at half-staff isn't all that unique. Sorry. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 00:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose per above. Debivort 00:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is quite atmospheric and evocative, although the picture quality could be improved. But ideally a picture explaining "half-staff" should put it in context, e.g. a funeral procession. This one does not adequately explain the symbolism. With a little bit of Photshopping this might succeed on Commons. ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Way too dark. —dima/talk/ 15:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too dark. ^8thstar 18:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sigh. Strong emotions created is certainly not the only thing required to take a picture "to tha next level". --Phoenix (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's pretty, but far too dark. Amphy 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The asian pear is a beautiful fruit in its own right, but I believe Fir0002 has captured an even more memorable scene with a radiant rainbow and a scene of vivid color with the pyrus pyrifolia in full bloom.

Articles this image appears in

Pyrus pyrifolia

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator — --Valley2city^₪‽ 06:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Gives encyclopedic info on the tree, has stunning composition. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Background is distracting, not very high resolution, not very sharp. The image is highly reproducable and could be composed much better. Cacophony 09:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Agree with Cacophony, but there's nothing wrong with it, just isn't great…except the composition, which probably is hard to duplicate.--HereToHelp 10:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a small crop from a bigger picture. The quality is a bit disappointing for the given size. And although I like the rainbow it does not help illustrating the flowers. More flower detail and concentration to the main subject would be appropriate for an encyclopedic illustration. --Dschwen 11:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Beautiful picture, but does not illustrate its subject as well as it could. While the inclusion of the rainbow and surrounding scene is nice artistically, it distracts from the pear tree. Calliopejen1 11:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unbalanced composition: tree cut off, rainbow obscured by flowers. --Janke | Talk 13:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Calliopejen. Witty Lama 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The Image looks nice.. but the resolution is a bit low.Yzmo ^talk 15:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Janke; subject is unclear. --Phoenix (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Simply ugly and uninteresting, no defined subject and a DOF that doesn't know whether it is coming or going. --Vaelta 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (with regrets). The appeal isn't there somehow. The rainbow makes me feel like it wants to be a condolence card. --Bagginz 06:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Out of interest, why "with regrets"? The photo is awful: cropped to a weird looking (condolence card) square shape, muddy dark sky, dull DOF that doesn't highlight any one aspect of the photo, the supposed "subject" climbing its way in and out of the picture without much context, not horizontal (not always a bad thing in my opinion, but here, yes), rainbow... well, I'm not going to go on. Why was this even proposed? It's ugly.--Vaelta 08:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "With regrets" because I think Fir0002 is one of the best, most productive shutterbugs around here. (Yes, I know he didn't nominate this, but I'd love to hear what he thinks of this picture.) I don't think it's ugly, but the composition feels unfocused. The rainbow, skimming the edge of the blossom, competes with it rather than compliments it, so it's not obvious what the picture is about. --Bagginz 15:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The first time I saw this picture I wasn't sure if it was supposed to illustrate the pear blossoms or the rainbow. That's a problem. Amphy 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I created this diagram a few days ago to illustrate the Munsell color system article. I think it turned out especially well.

Articles this image appears in

Munsell color system, Color theory

Creator

jacobolus

• Support as nominator — jacobolus (t) 12:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't show enough to enable someone not familiar with this to understand the entire system. You would need a complete slice of one color muted from black to white, not just the middle color sector muted to gray. Hard to do in 2-D! --Janke | Talk 19:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm. Well, it maybe can't be understood independently from the text of the article. But I'm not sure how achievable that is. Note that there is a complete slice of one color shown a bit further down the wiki page. --jacobolus (t) 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You could put the numbers on the side and expand the slice vertically...but you would block the puple-ish hues behind it on the ring.--HereToHelp 23:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess I just think there's value in two separate diagrams. One that shows the whole shape of the color solid, and another that shows what its dimensions are, as this diagram does (and maybe even a third diagram that just shows particular slices through the solid horizontally and vertically). I'm not sure there's much benefit to be gained by combining the two, and I can't see a particularly good way to do that. --jacobolus (t) 04:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess my question then is can every diagram enable someone with no familiarity to understand the entire thing being shown? I thought the point of a diagram was to illustrate an article, not to replace it. Not that your criticism isn't legitimate; maybe there's some way to accomplish all of the above. --jacobolus (t) 04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The chroma, hue, and value are plotted to make a cylinder, a 3D figure. It is therefore very difficult to represent it in 2D. Perhaps an animation could be made? (Not to devalue a 2D but vector image, however).--HereToHelp 01:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think an animation could be made, but it would serve a different purpose from this image. That is, it would show the overall shape of the thing, rather than labeling the parts. I think this diagram still has value independent of that (and is still pretty good, IMO). --jacobolus (t) 02:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking of color systems, I've found no mention of the Ostwald system in WP - only a short note in Wilhelm Ostwald... Anybody? --Janke | Talk 15:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems that almost all color systems go unmentioned in WP, and in general the articles about color theory are underdeveloped, with a misguided emphasis on the RGB and CYMK models. Wikiproject Color has an absurd focus on making stub articles about large numbers of (arbitrarily) named colors, instead of explaining color theory. It would be good to have a summary of color models in their historical context at Color models or similar, but that is a rather large project to undertake. --jacobolus (t) 00:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment well maybe I should just withdraw the nomination, as only one person is actually willing to offer an opinion. Maybe FPC is just not meant for diagrams? --jacobolus (t) 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think this is a very high quality diagram that quite intuitively shows this color system. While I cannot judge how accurate it is, since I'm not familiar with the system, I can say that this 3d representation does a far and away better job of explanation than the other flat 2d images from the article. That said, I'm willing to be corrected if the image does not accurately describe the color model. But I don't think it should be demoted because it does not represent every aspect of the system. --Asiir 12:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. It's definitely of good quality, and it's a great illustration in general. However, I know that if I had no background in colour theory I'd be confused looking at it, and there is the problem Janke mentioned with the varying value levels. Maybe putting one near values 2 & 3 for yellow-red (is there a reason this isn't called orange?) or yellow would help. As it stands, this is almost as good as it gets for a diagram. Amphy 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, it's called yellow-red (or actually YR) because the purpose of the system is to get away from color names, and instead specify things numerically. So the 5 hues aren't supposed to be the colors a person would associate with those names, but are just instead supposed to provide evenly spaced reference points in the hue circle. --jacobolus (t) 02:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A good quality svg map that contains a lot of information in a clean, well presented way. Couldn't be done better, IMO.

Articles this image appears in

Falkland Islands / List of Falkland Islands placenames

Creator

Eric Gaba (commons:User:Sting)

• Support as nominator — Jack · talk · 12:52, Saturday, 31 March 2007
• Comment It's a shame that the population data is so old - 1982 puts the data probably before the Falklands War, before the change from wool to fishing and tourism as the primary industries, and before very substantial population changes including a 40% decline in population outside Stanley[3]. Could more recent data be obtained? TSP 16:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The legend at left should read Elevation and depth, not elevation (note that the reference level is not necessarily the same for both). In the legend at right, should read date instead of data. - Alvesgaspar 17:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded the map with the corrections requested. Yes, it's a pity that the population data is so old (they're taken from the CIA map), unfortunately I haven't got other ones (if you have a link…). By the way, I'm preparing for the next days a new map more precise based on NASA data, with real UTM projection and maybe also with shaded relief. Sting-fr 20:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks like a great map. I await the NASA data and perhaps newer population info; I will support a version that incorporates this data over the current one.--HereToHelp 23:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If additional/ newer data is added, I'll support the newer version.Enuja 02:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For data, cartographers could try this series of links, or email the government directly at registry.fig@horizon.co.fk to obtain the local census. I'd love to do it myself, but something tells me they won't respond to a hotmail address — Jack · talk · 02:13, Wednesday, 4 April 2007

Here is the new map created with digital elevation models, more detailed and with shaded relief. I hope you like it. Sting-fr 05:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. : The census is still of 1982. I will write them in the next days, with the hope they will reply.

• Support new version - High quality map. Alvesgaspar 10:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Out of date. Pstuart84 Talk 22:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but I'd keep it from the front page until newer census data is found. Did you try to contact any Wikiprojects? ~ trialsanderrors 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Argentina & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America — Jack · talk · 02:41, Monday, 9 April 2007
• Comment Very nice, but most maps show both British names and Argentinian names, at least for the islands themselves. Perhaps this could be added for the name of the islands (Malvinas) and for any settlements that have other names, I think most maps have one set in italics following or underneath the other. Otherwise there is quite a significant British bias. |→ Spaully°τ 14:10, 9 April 2007 (GMT)

Humm ! Well… I didn't find so many maps with the two names. I don't think putting only the British names gives this map a British bias : this version is in English and displays the names used in that language. For a map with the Spanish names, it sounds logical to me to look for a Spanish translated version. In the same way, for the map in French I used the names in French when they exist, the only concession I made is about the name of the archipelago which is pretty different from the French but also well known in France. But it's also true that the Falklands are a specific case… I'll wait other opinions before doing something on the map. Sting-fr 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that editors who want to create a local version can get in touch with Eric at Commons. ~ trialsanderrors 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I would support if I knew this was right--even time bounded. If the map properly represents the Falkland islands in 1971 that's fine by me but we just need to label them as such so we don't fool people into thinking it represents the present day if it doesn't. Can anyone give clearer information about this? gren グレン 08:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I compared them to a couple of other maps, notably this one and this one, and the nominated one seems accurate, or even more detailed. I'm not sure if "administered by" is proper wording though, maybe this should be changed to "Overseas territory of". ~ trialsanderrors 17:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map is as accurate as the USGov allow us to do (the topography and the shorelines come from the NASA). It could be a little more precise using a width of about 6,000 pixels (the maximum the software allows) or 3,900 for a ratio 1:1, but this would mean a heavy file weight due to the size and all the small details I've bypassed because almost invisible. All this for finally no more real information.

About « Administered by », I used the expression of the CIA WFB map. Sting-fr 22:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. : The mail address registry.fig@… doesn't seem to exist anymore, so I wrote to the Gov and still wait the reply. What I propose, if there's no reply, is to delete this kind of information from the map.

I'd support a version with no population data to take away from the geography over outdated population data. New pop data is still preferable if it can be obtained; have you tried googling it?--HereToHelp 00:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and the only results concern Stanley and the islands E/W. The other information give sometimes approximations for some settlements, but nothing on official sites. Sting-fr 15:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - is there any news on the census figures from the FI government? We should use the latest figures available; if they are rather outdated, there is little we can do about it other than make the age of the statistics clear. Will support if no newer data is available. Warofdreams talk 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've received no answer from the FI Gov, so I uploaded a modified version without the demographic data. Sting-fr 15:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I will support. The map's clarity is excellent, and the main area of concern has now been addressed. Warofdreams talk 13:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Falkland Islands topographic map-en.svg

Reason

This picture is very pleasing to the eye, improves all of the articles in which it appears, is of high resolution, and is pleasing to the eye.

Articles this image appears in

Frankfurt, Commerzbank Tower, Maintower

Creator

Patrik Kalinowski

• Support as nominator ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 18:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm adding an alternative shot that was recently featured on Commons. ~ trialsanderrors 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It may be just me, but isn't the reflection of the buildings in the water in slightly distracting? Nice shot otherwise. --Zainub 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I seem to recall another FP that had some stretched lighting over water, but I can't remember what the image was :P ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 21:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both - the first is tilted and the composition is a bit odd (lamp post seems to dominate, feels like I should be able to see more of what lies to the left - the bit of the foreground bridge that's in view seems arbitrary); the second is overexposed, with really poor control of the highlights, and looks as though it's been heavily noise-reduced in places. --YFB ¿ 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both, the reflections in the water actually add to the shots in my opinion. However, as per above, the second image is overexposed. The first seems out of focus to me, as well. --Phoenix (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, very weak oppose Alternate, added edit. The original is too small. I really like the alternate a lot, especially the reflections on the water. I added an edit of the alternate if anyone cares to consider it.--Uberlemur 04:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Beautiful macro shot of this pine's cone.

Articles this image appears in

Cryptomeria

Creator

User:Pengo (self nom)

• Support as nominator — Pengo 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I hate to be the first to comment about the shallow DOF, but someone is always first... --Janke | Talk 21:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm witholding support for lighting and composotion reasons, but I have to say there's not a DOF problem here. It seems to have been focussed as well as could be expected for a non-bracketed macro and was shot at f29! mikaul^talk 00:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was shot at f29 and it is focussed well, does not make is as sharp as I would like to see... Check it in full size, only the front of the cone is sharp, and there are some ugly "hairs" on it, to boot. These defects don't show in 800 px size. --Janke | Talk 07:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did! It's probably not as sharp as it could be because it was shot at f29 (v few lenses do their best stuff stopped right down) but the DOF really couldn't get any better without focus bracketing I just looked again and I think it may have been autofocussed, which would mean the optimum DOF maybe wasn't achieved, although it's still not "shallow"" by any means. While I don't think the hairs are necessarily a defect and the OOF bits of the main subject are resolved well enough maybe your objection has more weight than I first thought. mikaul^talk 13:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auto focusing has no effect whatsoever on the DOF, only the focal point. --Fir0002 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what he meant. Autofocus will set the center of the DOF at the front of the subject. Manual focusing enables you to use the DOF creatively, maximizing the subject area that lies within the DOF. Agree? --Janke | Talk 07:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Max DOF means you choosing the focal point, not the camera. There is no AF system which can figure the hyperfocal distance so MF is crucial in macro shots like this one. Even if it was focussed 5mm further (than the nearest subject detail, as you say) there would be considerably fewer OOF elements in the main subject. mikaul^talk 13:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is beginning to grow on me as an image. I might be tempted to support a suitably cropped version, although the original problem I had with the composition was the way a more mature cone is just a tiny bit too far out of frame to add that extra encyclopedic value. mikaul^talk 13:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - was this lit by flash, by any chance? mikaul^talk 13:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Ring/dual flash. —Pengo 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What model? --Fir0002 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Composition is not optimal and image is diffraction-limited, but otherwise it's good. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a nice and clear macro image, illustrates the subject well, and it just looks good, nice resolution aswell.Yzmo ^talk 15:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternate shot added Don't know if it addresses many of the issues above, but I've added an alternate shot (shows a bit more of the more mature cone, but DOF is similar I think). Also if anyone wants to have a go at cropping/editing either one, please feel free. —Pengo 02:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose both, sorry. Mick is spot-on about the DOF and I find the lighting just a little harsh - maybe a half-stop or so less flash would have helped. It's an OK image but I suspect you can do better with that equipment. Compositionally, I prefer the first. --YFB ¿ 23:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support original, Oppose alternative I do not like the composition of the alternative, the cone is crammed into the frame, and the background isn't well balanced (the brown in the lower right erks me). Also, the flash is a little bit too harsh in the alt. As for the original, the concerns about DOF are valid, but a bit nitpicky. It seems like to marginally improve the image would require a more than marginal improvement in equipment (I don't think a simple reshoot would improve the DoF enough, but maybe a $2,000 lens would), so acknowledging the flaws, I'm going to throw a weak support behind the original because the image is well framed, and the subject is clear, and the composition is good, and the exposure is decent.-Andrew c 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Best hubble image I have seen.

Articles this image appears in

Eta Carinae Nebula

Creator

HST/NASA/ESA

• Support as nominator — Chris H 13:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Excellent quality, adds greatly to the article. Amphy 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Support This is a fantastic picture. There is a truely remarkable depth of detail. It is both aesthetically pleasing and scientifically fascinating. The Bok globules, the lobes of Eta Carinae, the visceral impression of the violence associated with the birth and the death of stars. (Particularly very large O-type stars.) This is one of the best astronomical images of all time. (Although that is a large list.) Calen716 18:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC) — Calen716 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Support - wow. ...adam... ( 131.111.244.234 20:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
• Support. If it's good enough for Reuters, it's good enough for me. JHMM13 00:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support *Drools*--HereToHelp 01:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pollockesque. ~ trialsanderrors 08:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning and encyclopedic.Pedro |  Chat  10:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's utterly gorgeous. I can't find a flaw with this. --Paul 20:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with Paul ^^^ Flubeca 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• An absolutely astonishing picture and I happily Support. But, this is a bit embarrassing, where is the star in the picture? Kinggimble 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some content to the page that sould help.Chris H 01:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as if my vote is really needed...per above. --Tewy 01:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm speechless. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hubble rocks. --Bridgecross 18:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ooooo...pretty colors. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 00:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This just looks amazing :O.. good res aswell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yzmo (talk • contribs).
• Support ... --Arad 21:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ohhhh... ^8thstar 15:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Nicest photo I've ever seen...amazing subject material, highly encyclpedic, beautiful resolution. Theonlyedge 00:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I love these space images... --Valley2city^₪‽ 16:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yep, no way anybody could not find this enchanting and mystifying... who would have thought that space could be so beautiful? Although, having said that I find the stars beautiful in themselves... but yes, this is something altogether different. --Vaelta 08:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I am...at...a loss...for...words.... Breathtaking. J Are you green? 01:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I also recommend including a link to the zoomable version wherever this is placed. It shows the true power of astronomical cameras. Also, it's worth noting that this is Hubble AND CTIO. The people responsible for the image (Nathan Smith, John Bally, and others) should probably be credited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keflavich (talk • contribs).
• Support-until-there-can-be-no-more-support If this doesn't get an FP status, I'll change my name to George W. Bush. BeefRendang 14:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sorry, last time I checked, this wouldn't qualify for Featured picture. National Geographic is 3 blocks down. · AndonicO ^Talk 18:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support To my mind, this is as pleasing aesthetically and as valuable encyclopedically as Image:Polarlicht 2.jpg (which illustrates a wholly different subject, to be sure, but a similarity to which one must perceive), which earned Commons POY in 2006. Joe 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy support I think it's fair to say there is a consensus here. Noclip 17:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Ngc3372.jpg MER-C 02:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC) – changed to commons:Image:Eta Carinae Nebula 1.jpg --Ü 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I'm nominating this picture because it is a well done historical Panorama of Edo from 1865 or 1866 done using Five albumen silver prints to form a panorama.

Articles this image appears in

Edo, Felice Beato

Creator

Felice Beato

• Support as nominator — Cat-five - talk 04:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both Impressive, given the I guess circonstances. Blieusong 09:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with trialsanderrors on the scan errors, but also with Mikaul on the fact it doesn't spoil the picture enough. Blieusong 07:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Could this be restiched with better quality? -Fcb981 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support if we can get a better stitched version. If absolutely impossible then "support". Witty lama 21:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I understand (and hope I'm not wrong) that the "process which created the pano" itself was from the photograph, and is here part of the picture (as visible technical flaws). So I think this isn't to be "restitched". I'd even say, this is what makes this panorama so valuable. Blieusong 22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As an extrememly early example of panoramic photography, and not least as a historical document, this is outstanding, even if it isn't exactly classically beautiful. The yellowing, stains and slight mis-matching are relevant details and should be left as is, as evidence of the technique employed. mikaul^talk 23:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In response to those of you above who asked about restitching it can't really because the stitching is really part of the historical work and in terms of quality of the stitching etc you have to remember that this was done using plates some 150+ years ago... not to mention falling under the exemption from many requirements due to it's historical status which I doubt anyone will contest considering it's age and importance. Cat-five - talk 02:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to note that I have also nominated this for a featured picture up on Commons. Cat-five - talk 02:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Granted, this isn't the best stitch job. However, considering this panorama was done so long ago, it's actually quite well done. Amphy 16:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now Can anyone identify which ones are stitching errors and which ones are scanning errors? I get the impression the most obvious ones are scanning errors, which should lead to rejection. It's also a very small scan for a 1.32m pano. ~ trialsanderrors 19:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean. These old panoramas weren't stiched as such, AFAIK they were glued together onto a backing sheet. Without modern digital blending methods, this particular example is a fairly remarkable, techinically-speaking, given that there's very little vertical mismatching. See these examples for comparison. I suppose the scan isn't totally brilliant but it's quite detailed; most of the imperfections I can see are probably due to the age of the prints. Finally, 1.03Mb is about right for a 3000x450 jpeg, although I agree it could maybe have been bigger. mikaul^talk 22:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad teminology, sorry. "Stitching errors" = discontinuities in the original pano. "Scanning errors" = discontinuities from scanning the pano. I can accept the stitching errors if that was how panos were assembled in the mid 19th century. But if the discontinuitites are in fact from the scan as it appears, it should be done better. On what we can do with panos in terms of size, check the "Along the River" nomination below. ~ trialsanderrors 22:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's an awesome image in many respect, and one hell of a scan to boot. The scan here has certainly had less TLC applied. Now that I've gone looking for them I can see a couple of minor stiching errors in the scan; I see what you mean now, but I'm not sure they detract from the value of the image so much. mikaul^talk 23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, scan is too small... gren グレン 16:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont' see how it could be any larger considering the aspect ratio, for example to make the height over 1k (which is the normal standard for FPC's) you'd have to make the width about 6000 pixels which is both unwieldy and unecessary for use on Wikipedia. Cat-five - talk 08:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhh... ~ trialsanderrors 21:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hehe.. I still don't think this is a good oppose rationale in this case. 450px is probably less than borderline "too small" for a regular pano shot (I've been hassling for consensus on concrete guidelines for this, 6-800 high would seem a sensible minimum pano height) but this one delivers much more than just technical exactitude. mikaul^talk 00:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • An exact number will only be a crutch for people who know nothing about photography. A picture file is big enough if it shows an adequate level of detail. I might even argue that the almost 1000px height of the QingMing pano is at the lower end given the astounding detail in the original. Of course 30,000px width is the limit for Photoshop, so that's what we have to make do with in that case. In this case here, it's clear that the original provides much more detail than the scan. ~ trialsanderrors 01:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wouldn't argue with you there. Pano shots are (generally) one of those which demand exceptional levels of discernable detail. The issue here is whether the detail you can't make out detracts substantially from the value of the image. There's huge historcial, photographic and encyclopedic value here which, along with it's uniqueness, greatly diminishes the file size / scan quality issue, in my opinion. I'm guessing that the chances of re-scanning what must be a very delicate print are slim to none. mikaul^talk 12:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm still waiting for evidence of this historical value. It's interesting to see a cityscape that doesn't exist anymore, but there are thousands of those images. The panorama exhibit at the Library of Congress goes back to 1851 [4], so age can't be the deciding factor either. I'm also pretty sure that this was scanned larger and downsampled to the current size. Compared to the stuff we can get at the LoC I'm not impressed. ~ trialsanderrors 00:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1. Interesting and historically valuable. Cacophony 05:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support interesting shot with much better resolution than the similarly dated Image:Panoramic from Lookout Mountain Tenn., 1864.jpg currently used in panoramic photography. Warofdreams talk 17:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Panorama of Edo bw.jpg MER-C 02:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Extremely beautiful image and very educational.

Articles this image appears in

NGC 2244

Creator

NASA/JPL

• Support as nominator — Chris H 03:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support- Sushant gupta 12:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Are the halo things edited in? I noticed they weren't on the original in the file history. ^8thstar 18:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the exact same thing. The resolution when compared to everything else suggested to me when I first looked at the image that they were added to highlight those 4 stars. I imagine that they are there to show the stars in the clustor (because there is a brighter star which is in proximity to the others in the image, but I imagine is actually closer and not in the cluster). This needs to be cleared up. However, the use of translucent halos, while stylized and reminiscent of nebula gas, actually works to confuse the viewer into thinking it may be part of the image. If we do need to highlight those four stars, we should use something more plain, geometric, and graphical for the highlight (like a white circle), so it is clear that the highlight is not part of the image (a nice caption could also clear up this issue without the use of editing the original image).-Andrew c 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's a link to the original image: [5] I oppose the version with "highlighted danger zones". Mgiganteus1 23:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because of the circly things. Debivort 00:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Looks good.--HereToHelp 15:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only. Mgiganteus1 23:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original - Halos detract from the image, the original obviously doesn't suffer from this. Supaluminal 07:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. The cluster highlights are too distracting for the edited image to be an FP. Amphy 16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose halos, neutral, original. gren グレン 18:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Anyone else notice the grain? The distinct lack of sharpness? Astronomical pictures are capable of being much much better than this. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only. While many astronomical pictures are much sharper than this one, you have to remember to consider the source. The Spitzer Space Telescope sees in infrared, not visible, wavelengths. And the reduction in sharpness compared to pictures made with visible light, is from the increased wavelength of the infrared light. Also, the fact that some think this could've been Photoshopped, I feel actually counts towards the support of the (original) image. It's so good and weird looking, it fools some into thinking it's a fake.Calen716 18:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC) — Calen716 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Oppose Too small, grainy, does not stand out among pictures of nebulae, esp. compared to NGC 3372. ~ trialsanderrors 08:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both especially the photoshopped edit. The stars in the former are a little grainy (but what can you expect from pictures taken in deep space?). This is really neat! --Valley2city^₪‽ 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only All good astronomical images should be promoted IMHO. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:NGC 2244.jpg The Sunshine Man 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:NGC 2244c.jpg, many more people voted for the original.Chris H 18:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It is beautiful, and none of the other photos show a colourful moss.

Articles this image appears in

Moss

Creator

Vaelta

• Support as nominator — Vaelta 12:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Attractive composition, but poor depth of field. Spikebrennan 18:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In the opinion of most photographers, the "correct" depth of field is the one which captures the subject in focus while ensuring that other elements of the photograph do not overpower the subject. This photo would be a good example of that: the moss stalks (and pretty little water droplets) are in focus; the rest of the photo is not. Imagine a photograph of a bird sitting in a twiggy tree: if all the twigs were also in focus, the bird would be almost invisible (in most cases). But anyway, uploading a few of my photographs to Wikipedia's featured pictures is just a personal experiment, and so far, so cliquey... this is still a fabulous pic. It goes with all of my fabulosity fact about moss! :D--Vaelta 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your tree example is correct, but in this particular photograph, a bit more in focus subject would probably benefit the picture. Artistically, the effect is gorgeous, but I feel that a larger depth of field would illustrate the subject better. J Are you green? 20:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Oppose original, weak support full size given conpyright info (The large version is highly detailed, but it still is more artsy than encyclopaedic.) J Are you green? 02:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC) I am not a huge fan of the DOF. The photograph also seems almost unreal, as if it had been overprocessed. I also really do not see much detail in the subject. Although I am struggling to find a quantitative fault, I cannot find enough to convince me to support. The image resolution does not cut it for me either; upsampled to the tiny size of one megapixel it is undeniably soft. J Are you green? 20:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for at least justifying your DOF comments. As I said, this is mainly just an experiment on my part, as I am amazed at the number of artistically poor photographs (nature in particular) that get featured picture status. However, I do understand this is an encyclopaedia, and artistic value is not necessarily the most valued aspect here. To your other points, the image is actually unprocessed apart from a VERY small border crop. I simply don't do processing, and don't even HAVE a copy of the supposedly vital Photoshop... And as for size, my screen resolution is not much more than this image. Is it necessary to have it any larger? --Vaelta 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it pretty hard to believe no editing has been done to that pic, if for no other reason than that the exif is stripped. --Fir0002 06:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The size is not necessary, but I certainly would appreciate the added detail, especially if you have an 8 MP version as with your other nomination. If your camera is digital, it seems to be doing you the favour of sharpening the picture a tad past my preferences. Personally, I enjoy the detail of a high resolution picure even if it does not fit on my screen. I might change my mind if you upload a higher resolution verison, though. As for our current FPs, if you feel that any truly do not meet quality guidelines there is a place for that. J Are you green? 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not that they do not meet any quality guidelines, just that I feel some are rather uninspired. Just personal opinion, nothing more. But anyway, I'll go and dig out a larger copy of this... just a mo'. --Vaelta 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my vote, but you should add the new picture's copyright information. J Are you green? 02:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, or next to no encyclopedic value without identification of the species.--Peta 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The DOF makes it impossible to see any detail on the gametophytes (the leafy part that is half of the moss's lifespan). Calliopejen1 20:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Image:RedMoss.jpg --The Sunshine Man 21:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful image of two baby goats about a week old. Despite their very different appearance but were born of the same pure white mother, and AFAIK, the same pure white father.

Appears in Domestic goat

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 00:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose lighting is very cold, right animal has poor contrast with background, white of the right animal's coat is a bit harsh (due to the lighting, more than a poor exposure) foreground grass a bit distracting. -Fcb981 04:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I also don't like the way the white goat blends in with the grass. I'm thinking that a bright green grass background would be great to get both goats, but, this being fall in the southern hemisphere, I guess the goats will be older and not as cute by the time you could get a bright contrast. Maybe they live in a red barn that could be used as a contrasting background? I love they way they are both posed, looking at the camera, but the background just kills it. Also, to be encyclopedic, this should illustrate an article about coat genetics. Enuja 05:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wholeheartedly wish it was a green background too - it hasn't rained well in months! No red barns, this is Australian not Kansas! However I take issue with saying it has to appear in an article on coat genetics to be enc, it's an interesting side fact but by no means detracts from the illustration of a kid --Fir0002 11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support It's not bad, and it's encyclopedic, but I think the goat on the top of the article page is of higher quality.-DMCer 06:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but needs to be cropped on the right. ~ trialsanderrors 07:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree, the composition is great the way it is. The goats heads capture the attention, and they are balanced within the frame. --Dschwen 10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bulk of the bodies is what needs to be balanced, also there is a stretch of darker grass on the right border. In any case, I added an edit that's both cropped and increases the contrast between white goat and the background. ~ trialsanderrors 06:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose Edit. For the compositon the elements that attract attention are important. Weak support original because of bg contrast problems. --Dschwen 15:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: another thing is bugging me about the edit. I find it rather presumptuous to state colors enhanced in the caption. Who is to say that it really is an enhancement? If anybody than it should be an eyewitness, i.e. Fir. --Dschwen 07:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Color enhancement is the summary term for increasing saturation, contrast, luminosity, etc., in order to create a better separation of objects from the background. This has nothing to do with the fidelity to the original, this common imaging lingo. ~ trialsanderrors 06:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- encyclopedic and good --Penubag 08:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)penubag[reply]
• Weak support - Lovely picture. It is a shame the background is not different to make a better contrast with the white goat. Alvesgaspar 09:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Surely tilted (or do goats stand like that?) - Adrian Pingstone 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They seem to be on sloped ground. There is something like a fence in the background, and the lines between the boards seem to be vertical, although it's hard to make out since it's quite blurry. But it's noticeable that their heads tilt the other way. ~ trialsanderrors 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the pic is probably not tilted. Nevertheless the apparent tilt spoils it for me - Adrian Pingstone 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Picture was taken on a hill. --Fir0002 11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The tilt barely distracts me from the subject, which is photographed wonderfully. Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 20:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like it. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Background distracts. --Janke | Talk 10:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It was a fine shot without the crop, just a bit over-exposed. Some selective tonal correction - or shooting with a polarizer, perhaps - would help the white kid stand out from the bg, but equally a -0.5 gamma shift would do the job. I'd support a darker version & will reserve my vote pending that. I'm not sure the 'slant' is a real, FP-obstructing problem, FWIW. mikaul^talk 14:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original -- I nominated it a bit late though. :-D --Arad 14:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, poor background. -- Avenue 12:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only. Edit washes out the blacks a bit. I don't have a problem with the background. Good quality image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original. Until the day comes when Fir can get a dozen healthy goats (two of each sex aged exactly 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1 fortnight, 1 month, and 1 year), lined up with equal distance between each other, standing a freshly mowed field of green grass, all facing the camera and smiling... this picture will do just fine. Chicago god 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That of course being two-dozen goats, ;) Pstuart84 Talk 21:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The goats are great, but the background almost eats them up. bobanny 02:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned over at the commons, why would the animals have a contrasting coloration to their background? It is in their best interests to blend in with their surroundings! Particularly at this early stage when they are very vulnerable, as their mothers often leave them by themselves for a period of time and graze. --Fir0002 07:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid point generally, but it's not a strong enough consideration in this case for me. What I see here is a portrait of the animals themselves, not camouflage. They're engaging with the photographer and us by extension, standing in what could be a studio pose contrived to illustrate what two wobbly kids with different markings look like. (Your praying mantis was probably trying to blend in with his surroundings when he was nabbed, but nonetheless turns out to be quite photogenic in the studio). If this was illustrating camouflage, that characteristic should make a more immediate impact on the viewer (like the "Lace Monitor" FPC above and some other FPs I've seen). The interesting juxtaposition here is between the 2 animals, not the animals and their environment, and that's what the background takes away from. I also think the one on the right's coat is too whited-out, making the photo look a little flat. bobanny 09:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that they are not in a studio pose - they are not at all familiar with humans at that age and won't allow people to get near them. Hence the use of the 200mm lens. As to the white of the baby - that's what it looks like! It's a fluffy bundle of pure white! --Fir0002 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to imply that it was a studio pose, just that if a photographer were to (somehow) get them to pose, this would be a good one (especially with the up and down ears). bobanny 22:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well, if Featured Pictures won't take them, I'm sure that Cute Overload will. :) --TotoBaggins 04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – background and white goat have too little contrast. It's a good photo, but not FP-worthy --jacobolus (t) 05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If the colour variation is supposed to be the theme of this image, "as far as I know" is not very good information as to the identity of the father. Goats are not at all monogamous. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK it was a pure white father as we only have white billies. Aside from that I can't see any validity in your vote as the image is not meant to illustrate colour variation - it's not even in an article on that! --Fir0002 06:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to be so defensive, but okay, if it's not about colour variation, why does it have two differently coloured kids in it? This is an encyclopaedia, I wouldn't want children thinking goats pop out in uneven pairs because that's what you chose to take a picture of. This is not your private photography contest, Fir. If you want credit for taking beautiful pics, for heaven's sake take it to Commons! Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find comments like that immensely irritating and not very productive. It seems because I have a number of FP's people think they can use the "it's not your private photo show etc etc etc" to oppose an image. Where exactly is it stipulated that "Thou shalt not address comments on thy photos"? You accuse me of being defensive, but seems to me you're clutch on straws to hang on to your oppose vote. Why shouldn't they be different colored? Do you think all goats are white? Because it's an encyclopaedia is all the more reason to have variation, giving a better representation of the species. Please confine yourself to judging a photo based on the guidelines here!! --Fir0002 06:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let him who cast the first stone - oh, no, the original is different... Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm sorry... not really sure what you mean by that! --Fir0002 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, we also don't want children thinking that all goats are the same color. And I think it is perfectly appropriate for the photographer to try to address the opposers' concerns. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if he manages to do so without being dismissive. It's just about possible that I made the comments for a reason, but if you don't want to know, fine! Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you are unwilling to provide appropriate reasons to oppose this image then I suggest you reconsider or strike out your vote... --Fir0002 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's tilted anyway, so what's the point in arguing? Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't possibly determine tilt without any valid reference points. The background cannot be used because it appears to be tilted through perspective and/or the slight incline of a hill. In any case, such an image does not rely on such precise horizontal accuracy. I suppose the point of arguing was to produce a valid reason for opposing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dark lines of the fence are quite clearly visible, and they're vertical. The rest is hogwash. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we all know that gravity is measured in fence units. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I still wouldn't put too much faith on the fence posts as absolute vertical since from my experience they can start to lean over time, they're clearly the most reliable source in this image. There is no horizon, perspective can greatly affect what would otherwise horizontal lines, and animals don't always stand straight, particularly on a hill. I would say the fence posts and the fact that both animals have their heads vertical in the photo suggests it is near enough untilted. This is not a defense of Fir0002's ego, this is just my opinion on the matter. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff, even if animals on a hill won't always stand straight, then in this case they are certainly leaning the wrong way. Please guys, let the laws of physics and common sense prevail here! Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that they are leaning the correct way. From the perspective, it appears that the hill gets higher towards the right side of the frame and the goats are leaning towards that hill. This is normal. Would you expect them to lean away from the hill? I agree, let common sense prevail. Its just that I think common sense is on my side in this example. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not normal. It requires that both goats have two short legs on the hill side. How likely is that? Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...you can't lean away from a hill. Well, you can for a second, but then you roll down it. The goats probably have their knees bent a little on the higher side. That's how I would stand on a hill. 67.86.86.217 21:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support If Terrence Malick made movies about goats, they'd probably look like this. --Bagginz 07:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The white goat's back is a bit overexposed, and it's tail is slightly blurry, but a lovely image overall. On my desktop already. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 18:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Fcb981 above. The constrast between the white goat and the background is a problem. David D. (Talk) 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• neutral - cold lighting, low background contrast. Debivort 05:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Image:Baby goats jan 2007.jpg --The Sunshine Man 10:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Its been a while since the last nomination as I've been both busy and lacking in inspiration of late, but I took this mosaic stitched image of the Royal College of Music recently, and although the lighting was a bit flat, I think the composition is pretty good and the detail available of the impressive architecture makes it worthy of a nomination. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Royal College of Music

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator — Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent shot, shows its subject well. You need to teach me how to stitch so well, it always looks terrible when I try. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Living in a time when a mere sketch or the intention of a good work is enough to satisfy many, we have to applaud the care and attention to the details. Good work Dilif, but please take away that white plastic glass at left... Alvesgaspar 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I was wondering when I could at last support a diliff picture :). For information, there are tiny stitching errors on the right tower (edge with the sky) (and no I won't oppose for them). If you have some time, maybe you could fix ? I'm also wondering how you achieve such huge quantity of details, because I'm trying hard to do something similar but certainly with less success... Blieusong 22:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has a lot to do with a great camera and top-flight optics. I've only ever seen comparable detail from 5x4 transparencies. Support, of course, despite some (barely noticeable) lighting anomolies. Great enc image. mikaul^talk 22:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Really great image, though I too would like the plastic cup removed and any other small cleanups necessary.--HereToHelp 23:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks great, even with the cup. Amphy 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, because complaining about the cup, people's head, and woman through the railings is being too picky. Yet, I will mention them to feel better ~_~ --gren グレン 06:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the woman you see through the railings is a statue/fountain. Mak (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Stunning detail and quality in a picture of a very pretty building. --Paul 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image. Good detail and quality.
• Support. The women's heads can be removed from the image if need be, but the cup isn't distracting at all. I didn't even know it was there until I read the comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ♠Tom@sBat 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Automatic Support, although is it just me or is there posterisation in the sky? --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's there - but very weak, couldn't see it on my calibrated CRT until I upped contrast/lowered brightness - it may be more visible on some flat screens, as well as the largish, blurry dark dots in the sky (no, I won't tell where, you'll have to find them yourself... ;-). No reason not to support, those flaws are minor. --Janke | Talk 09:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. Considering the lengths that were gone to make this image, I feel a little extra effort to take the images on a day with better lighting would have been worthwhile. --Vaelta 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very good picture, Very clear and crisp, centered and takes up most of the picture. Keep up the good work!! Chris H 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even though the trees are slightly blurred, there's litter near the bottom-left corner, and I can barely read where it says "Royal College of Music" without wearing my glasses. ;) · AndonicO ^Talk 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Royal Colege of Music.jpg The Sunshine Man 17:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A high resolution mosaic of a popular recreation spot in Bielefeld. Much of the city was destroyed during WWII and few historic sites remain, the Sparrenburg being one of them.

Articles this image appears in

Sparrenburg Castle

Creator

Dschwen

• Support as nominator — Dschwen 07:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the rather ugly lamp post, one of the people at the bottom walking, and the overall composition don't really seem to help this make the grade. Nice enough shot but not FP quality IMHO. Pedro |  Chat  10:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the lamppost exists, editing it out would make the image inaccurate. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. I don't think the lamp post really distracts from the scene. I suspect there may be an exposure issue though. The grass is much darker on the left quarter of the frame. Not sure if it was an issue with the length of exposure on that segment or whether a cloud obscured the sun while photographing the scene (the bane of multi segment photography!). That said, it isn't that obvious unless you're looking for it. Otherwise a good shot. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support When it's not from diliff, it's from dschwen. ack Diliff on the dark grass, but I don't think either that's such a big issue. I like composition and technical quality. Some people may be surprised to see themselves on a FP :) Blieusong 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rather impresive shot, my first reaction to the full size was that the sky was very fake but actualy it's not too bad. Anyway, the DOF is huge and there is no grain from using high a high ISO setting, also there is no real motion blur on the people is the shutter was long. it looks like a bright day but still you (or your camera) did a great job with the exposure. -Fcb981 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't even notice the dark grass until i read diliff's vote, interesting- Fcb981 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Blurry in some points. Flubeca 20:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, you gotta be a little more specific than that. Where is the blur that vindicated an oppose??! --Dschwen 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Catches the eye. beutifull. there are lamp posts in many historic places. i don't thin kthe lamp post really affects the photo. -Nelro 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. All the people in the shot are distracting to me. Perhaps there's another angle? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I highly doubt it, and it would completely misrepresent the subject. I know, folks from certain contries go nuts about every hut thats older than 200 years, build a fence around it, put actors in costumes inside, and have a friendly park ranger explain the history to school classes. But this castle is no sacred historical preserve. Despite being over 750 years old it is a gathering spot where tons of people hang out, enjoy the view and the weather. --Dschwen 10:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Very nice colors, contrast and illustrates the subject quite well; only problem is that ugly lamp post, it seems to ruine the image; well, auctually it doesn´t really ruine the entire image reputation, but it certainly ruines it´s attempt for being a featred picture in my opinion... But, I will remia neutral due to the other feautures, which ar excellent. ♠Tom@sBat 22:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sorry, the people spoil it for me. Witty Lama 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Blieusong. If a noteworthy topic normally is surrounded by people, why shouldn't the people be in the picture showing the topic? I also don't think the lamp post - probably used to illuminate the castle by night, and at least to me helps illustrate how the area looks today - should disqualify the picture. highlunder 01:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose uninteresting camera angle/composition. Nothing artistically or technically interesting about this photo. High resolution is not enough for FP. --jacobolus (t) 05:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Support per Fcb981, although a dawn shot with no-one around would be better =p. FP does NOT have to be interesting. I don't find a picture of a spider with various parts blurred or a clichéd postcard Tower Bridge picture very interesting, but that's no reason to oppose it. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would have supported the nomination if it werent people in the picture. --Albanau 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - Agree it would be better without people. Also, the geometry looks a little weird after the geometric correction. But the composition is nice and the quality of the pano very good. Alvesgaspar 22:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose E7T9A5 QP, not FP. ~ trialsanderrors 07:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support - I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned this, but it seems to have some sort of perspective distortion. The tower (and the flag pole at the top) seem to lean out to the left towards the top of the image, while at the bottom right the cars look "squashed" and the same can be said some of the people on the far left. Otherwise, I really like this photo - Dschwen is right to say that the people are part of the enc and I like the way the castle is a surprisingly congruous part of a modern scene. I'll support if someone can do something about the perspective. --YFB ¿ 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost forgot to respond to this one. Check Image:Bi_Sparrenburg_western_lawn.jpg, a separate shot of the tower. You'll see that the flag pole is not parallel to the center axis of the tower. It seems to be slightly tilted. This is not an artifact of the stitching or perspective correction. --Dschwen 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, the flag pole tilt isn't due to perspective but I still find the image distorted-looking. Diliff might be able to explain better what I'm on about (he's on holiday 'til Wednesday) but basically I think the perspective isn't fully corrected-for. Still a great image, I'll hold off supporting until I at least get the opinion of a projection-expert :-) --YFB ¿ 23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I wasn't aware my services were required! ;-) I'm hardly a projection expert but I think I do see the same phenomenon that YFB does. The image is quite a complicated one to compare though, since there are so many angles and shapes to consider the effects of projection on. Comparing the single image with the panoramic one, you can see that they were taken from different points, so it is hard to compare apples with apples. The tower appears oval shaped in the panorama but circular in the single image, but this could be because you are looking straight at the sharpest side of the oval whereas the panorama is looking at the transition from sharp to soft curve, resulting in a strange looking tower shape. Google Maps doesn't give you quite enough detail to determine this. There is also a another issue that I think YFB was refering to, which is a slight curve in the vertical walls of the tower in the panorama that doesn't exist in the single image - at least, there are slight curves but these seem mainly inwards due to the perspective, rather than by projection distortion, whereas the dominant curve on the left wall of the tower in the panorama is slightly to the right, then vertical then a strong shift to the left towards the top. It seems as though the initial inwards lean is simply minor perspective distortion but then as you look further up, a curve towards the left occurs. All of this could be simply the result of a slightly warped tower wall, but even though the view is from a different angle, it doesn't have this problem in the single image so I'm not sure what to make of it. The jury is out here too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is simply an effect of the rectilinear projection, similar to the Smithsonian nomination a few weeks ago. The distortion is not visible in the sigle frame, as the towertop is at a lower angular distance from the image center. The single frame is taken at a slightly different angle (maybe 10-20°), but the tilt of the flagpole is more or less tha same. So it is like comparing boskop with granny smith :-). --Dschwen 09:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, I see what you are saying, but if the tower was circular and not oval/oblong shaped, with rectilinear projection surely the ring around the top of the tower would have horizontally opposed vanishing points on either side of the tower and therefore would have a horizontal 'line' between them? The only reason I can think of for the two points on either side to not be horizontal is if the tower is not circular. You're the one with a Physics PhD, but I don't see the logic of it with my less advanced geometry knowledge... ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I don't find the lens warping of the tower distracting: I think it helps give some sense of scale. I would PREFER it without the people, but they don't detract too much from this one. --Vaelta 08:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the people add to the photo because they give it more life, and also their modern dress contrasts well with the old building. Since this is a photo of how this castle looks today, I think the lamppost and the parked cars are OK to have in the photo. Spebudmak 18:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow, that guy sure has a lot of armpit hair... erm... I mean the details are fantastic. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 18:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high resolution, good detail, and overall a nice shot. Lorax 01:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Image:Bi_Sparrenburg_pano.jpg The Sunshine Man 21:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please recount, I count 6 opposes, 12 supports, and 1 conditional support --Dschwen 19:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. Yes, it's high resolution...but that's about it. Not especially creative, beautiful or original. Theonlyedge 03:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorry this is just unfair. The voting period is over (it is in the category Ended featured picture nominations) and this nomination should have been closed properly. Had it been, the pic would be FP by now and no more voting would be allowed. --Dschwen 07:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed --Fir0002 10:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bi_Sparrenburg_pano.jpg --trialsanderrors 20:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Informative and impressive photo of a war-struck country, where the dead are all kinsmen.

Articles this image appears in

American Civil War, Battle of Chancellorsville, Pattern 1853 Enfield

Creator

Capt. Andrew J. Russell

• Support as nominator — Communist47 00:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Historical, but really very bad quality. Hard to call this not knowing the rareity of the shot. -Fcb981 19:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One must remember, this picture was taken 145 years ago, this is pretty good quality for a photo from then 1860's.Communist47 23:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the photographic quality avaliable at the time was much better, but this is a very historic photograph, and it is hard to ask for more when this picture illustrates its subject so well even if it is of low quality. J Are you green? 23:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original See my above comment. J Are you green? 23:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per Thegreenj. I love the cracked and broken plate at the top; very fortunate that images like this have survived in any form. mikaul^talk 23:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support original Agree with Fcb981 that I, not an expert in historical photography, find it hard to judge the historicity of the photo. Quality is not too bad, all considered. In any case, I feel the original is better, not only because of the cracked plates but also because the figure in lower left gets cut off in the crop. --Asiir 11:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The original pic is currently not used in any pages. The alternative pic is the one that appears in all the pages listed. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 07:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose alt / weak oppose original. Alt has weird levels - looks posterized. Original is also poor quality, and I can't even make out all that many corpses in it. An image like this one, while also not of FP quality, at least is clear in its portrayal of the slaughter. Debivort 00:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - very poor quality; while it is of significant historical value, we have technically better shots of similar subjects from the Crimean War of ten years earlier, and much better shots of the Paris Commune dead from a couple of years later. Warofdreams talk
• Support Even though there are probably better quality Civil War images, this one is very interesting. · AndonicO ^Talk 18:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only. Interesting historical photograph. Mgiganteus1 06:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Conf dead chancellorsville.jpg The Sunshine Man 21:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It's beautiful.

Articles this image appears in

Coccinellidae

Creator

Vaelta

• Support as nominator — Vaelta 11:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. White shine on insect. Also, if the insect has "unusual markings" then it doesn't really illustrate the subject in a general sense. Would you illustrate the "Dog" article with a photograph of a three-legged dog? Spikebrennan 18:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it adds to the article, why not? I just illustrated a bird article with a one-legged bird. --Bagginz 07:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Great picture of a pinecone, but low enc for the bug itself. Also, for a picture that just barely meets size requirements, I would like to see more real estate dedicated to the lady bug itself.--Uberlemur 19:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The original image is 8 megapixels and several megabytes. Do you want me to upload that instead of a nicely resized version? And as for composition, unlike some Wikipedia photographers I could mention, I think it is actually more "encyclopaedic" to show things in their natural habitat. Oh, and the "white shine" is sunlight, a naturally occurring phenomenon. --Vaelta 19:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if you do not mind, the 8 megapixel version would be much better; I would not worry about artifacts in an 8 megapixel photograph compressed to 1.5 megabytes or so. As is, the subject of the photograph is less than 130 by 105 pixels - really small. There is not much you could do about the shine except to keep shooting until it is photographed without the shine. J Are you green? 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Subject is far too small, annoying shine. J Are you green? 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) natural habitat 2) simple aesthetics --Vaelta 20:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot quite see what your reply means in response to my comments. Could you please clarify? J Are you green? 21:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just mean that if I were to crop it to the ladybird it would then become an incredibly dull photograph, lacking in both context and artistic merit. --Vaelta 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In comparison to the full picture, the subject is so small that there is almost no detail. Unfortunately, the 8 megapixel version is so soft (it seems to have focused ahead of the ladybird by a few millimetres) that a crop does not add much detail from the downsampled verion. Perhaps a closer photograph in another contex would be better, but there is not much to be done about this one. J Are you green? 21:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

There were no other photos of lambs, and I have dozens and dozens of them. This one shows a lamb at its playful best. I would like to point out that the lamb is perfectly in focus (motion blur on the legs aside), and the little dark spot near its head is a fly.

Articles this image appears in

Domestic sheep, Swaledale (sheep)

Creator

Vaelta

• Support as nominator — Vaelta 11:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose - nice colour and composition, but the subject (i.e. Lamb) isn't looking in the camera/lens, and that's off-setting, IMO at least. --Zainub 18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support The positioning of his eyes make this seem more encyclopedic, the only thing is the motion blur. You should have used a faster shutter speed... ~ Arjun 23:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The motion blur on the legs and the grass works for the photo; it makes little lamb look more playful without taking away from anything major. The DOF and focus are right on the money, and the composition isn't kitsch. The shadow falling across BaaBaa's side is a bit of a distraction. --Bagginz 06:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh well thank you. Although strange that the weakest of the three pictures I submitted gets most support... Actually, I shot four shots of this lamb jumping; perhaps I should put them together as a .gif and upload that! --Vaelta 08:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't care for the motion blur, but my biggest objection is encyclopedic value -- I know not all lambs are white, but this one's coloring makes it very hard to make out the lamb's face. Calliopejen1 04:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful image of two baby goats about a week old. Despite their very different appearance but were born of the same pure white mother, and AFAIK, the same pure white father.

Appears in Domestic goat

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 00:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose lighting is very cold, right animal has poor contrast with background, white of the right animal's coat is a bit harsh (due to the lighting, more than a poor exposure) foreground grass a bit distracting. -Fcb981 04:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I also don't like the way the white goat blends in with the grass. I'm thinking that a bright green grass background would be great to get both goats, but, this being fall in the southern hemisphere, I guess the goats will be older and not as cute by the time you could get a bright contrast. Maybe they live in a red barn that could be used as a contrasting background? I love they way they are both posed, looking at the camera, but the background just kills it. Also, to be encyclopedic, this should illustrate an article about coat genetics. Enuja 05:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wholeheartedly wish it was a green background too - it hasn't rained well in months! No red barns, this is Australian not Kansas! However I take issue with saying it has to appear in an article on coat genetics to be enc, it's an interesting side fact but by no means detracts from the illustration of a kid --Fir0002 11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support It's not bad, and it's encyclopedic, but I think the goat on the top of the article page is of higher quality.-DMCer 06:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but needs to be cropped on the right. ~ trialsanderrors 07:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree, the composition is great the way it is. The goats heads capture the attention, and they are balanced within the frame. --Dschwen 10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bulk of the bodies is what needs to be balanced, also there is a stretch of darker grass on the right border. In any case, I added an edit that's both cropped and increases the contrast between white goat and the background. ~ trialsanderrors 06:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose Edit. For the compositon the elements that attract attention are important. Weak support original because of bg contrast problems. --Dschwen 15:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: another thing is bugging me about the edit. I find it rather presumptuous to state colors enhanced in the caption. Who is to say that it really is an enhancement? If anybody than it should be an eyewitness, i.e. Fir. --Dschwen 07:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Color enhancement is the summary term for increasing saturation, contrast, luminosity, etc., in order to create a better separation of objects from the background. This has nothing to do with the fidelity to the original, this common imaging lingo. ~ trialsanderrors 06:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- encyclopedic and good --Penubag 08:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)penubag[reply]
• Weak support - Lovely picture. It is a shame the background is not different to make a better contrast with the white goat. Alvesgaspar 09:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Surely tilted (or do goats stand like that?) - Adrian Pingstone 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They seem to be on sloped ground. There is something like a fence in the background, and the lines between the boards seem to be vertical, although it's hard to make out since it's quite blurry. But it's noticeable that their heads tilt the other way. ~ trialsanderrors 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the pic is probably not tilted. Nevertheless the apparent tilt spoils it for me - Adrian Pingstone 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Picture was taken on a hill. --Fir0002 11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The tilt barely distracts me from the subject, which is photographed wonderfully. Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 20:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like it. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Background distracts. --Janke | Talk 10:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It was a fine shot without the crop, just a bit over-exposed. Some selective tonal correction - or shooting with a polarizer, perhaps - would help the white kid stand out from the bg, but equally a -0.5 gamma shift would do the job. I'd support a darker version & will reserve my vote pending that. I'm not sure the 'slant' is a real, FP-obstructing problem, FWIW. mikaul^talk 14:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original -- I nominated it a bit late though. :-D --Arad 14:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, poor background. -- Avenue 12:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only. Edit washes out the blacks a bit. I don't have a problem with the background. Good quality image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original. Until the day comes when Fir can get a dozen healthy goats (two of each sex aged exactly 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1 fortnight, 1 month, and 1 year), lined up with equal distance between each other, standing a freshly mowed field of green grass, all facing the camera and smiling... this picture will do just fine. Chicago god 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That of course being two-dozen goats, ;) Pstuart84 Talk 21:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The goats are great, but the background almost eats them up. bobanny 02:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned over at the commons, why would the animals have a contrasting coloration to their background? It is in their best interests to blend in with their surroundings! Particularly at this early stage when they are very vulnerable, as their mothers often leave them by themselves for a period of time and graze. --Fir0002 07:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid point generally, but it's not a strong enough consideration in this case for me. What I see here is a portrait of the animals themselves, not camouflage. They're engaging with the photographer and us by extension, standing in what could be a studio pose contrived to illustrate what two wobbly kids with different markings look like. (Your praying mantis was probably trying to blend in with his surroundings when he was nabbed, but nonetheless turns out to be quite photogenic in the studio). If this was illustrating camouflage, that characteristic should make a more immediate impact on the viewer (like the "Lace Monitor" FPC above and some other FPs I've seen). The interesting juxtaposition here is between the 2 animals, not the animals and their environment, and that's what the background takes away from. I also think the one on the right's coat is too whited-out, making the photo look a little flat. bobanny 09:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that they are not in a studio pose - they are not at all familiar with humans at that age and won't allow people to get near them. Hence the use of the 200mm lens. As to the white of the baby - that's what it looks like! It's a fluffy bundle of pure white! --Fir0002 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to imply that it was a studio pose, just that if a photographer were to (somehow) get them to pose, this would be a good one (especially with the up and down ears). bobanny 22:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well, if Featured Pictures won't take them, I'm sure that Cute Overload will. :) --TotoBaggins 04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – background and white goat have too little contrast. It's a good photo, but not FP-worthy --jacobolus (t) 05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If the colour variation is supposed to be the theme of this image, "as far as I know" is not very good information as to the identity of the father. Goats are not at all monogamous. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK it was a pure white father as we only have white billies. Aside from that I can't see any validity in your vote as the image is not meant to illustrate colour variation - it's not even in an article on that! --Fir0002 06:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to be so defensive, but okay, if it's not about colour variation, why does it have two differently coloured kids in it? This is an encyclopaedia, I wouldn't want children thinking goats pop out in uneven pairs because that's what you chose to take a picture of. This is not your private photography contest, Fir. If you want credit for taking beautiful pics, for heaven's sake take it to Commons! Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find comments like that immensely irritating and not very productive. It seems because I have a number of FP's people think they can use the "it's not your private photo show etc etc etc" to oppose an image. Where exactly is it stipulated that "Thou shalt not address comments on thy photos"? You accuse me of being defensive, but seems to me you're clutch on straws to hang on to your oppose vote. Why shouldn't they be different colored? Do you think all goats are white? Because it's an encyclopaedia is all the more reason to have variation, giving a better representation of the species. Please confine yourself to judging a photo based on the guidelines here!! --Fir0002 06:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let him who cast the first stone - oh, no, the original is different... Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm sorry... not really sure what you mean by that! --Fir0002 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, we also don't want children thinking that all goats are the same color. And I think it is perfectly appropriate for the photographer to try to address the opposers' concerns. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if he manages to do so without being dismissive. It's just about possible that I made the comments for a reason, but if you don't want to know, fine! Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you are unwilling to provide appropriate reasons to oppose this image then I suggest you reconsider or strike out your vote... --Fir0002 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's tilted anyway, so what's the point in arguing? Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't possibly determine tilt without any valid reference points. The background cannot be used because it appears to be tilted through perspective and/or the slight incline of a hill. In any case, such an image does not rely on such precise horizontal accuracy. I suppose the point of arguing was to produce a valid reason for opposing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dark lines of the fence are quite clearly visible, and they're vertical. The rest is hogwash. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we all know that gravity is measured in fence units. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I still wouldn't put too much faith on the fence posts as absolute vertical since from my experience they can start to lean over time, they're clearly the most reliable source in this image. There is no horizon, perspective can greatly affect what would otherwise horizontal lines, and animals don't always stand straight, particularly on a hill. I would say the fence posts and the fact that both animals have their heads vertical in the photo suggests it is near enough untilted. This is not a defense of Fir0002's ego, this is just my opinion on the matter. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff, even if animals on a hill won't always stand straight, then in this case they are certainly leaning the wrong way. Please guys, let the laws of physics and common sense prevail here! Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that they are leaning the correct way. From the perspective, it appears that the hill gets higher towards the right side of the frame and the goats are leaning towards that hill. This is normal. Would you expect them to lean away from the hill? I agree, let common sense prevail. Its just that I think common sense is on my side in this example. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not normal. It requires that both goats have two short legs on the hill side. How likely is that? Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...you can't lean away from a hill. Well, you can for a second, but then you roll down it. The goats probably have their knees bent a little on the higher side. That's how I would stand on a hill. 67.86.86.217 21:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support If Terrence Malick made movies about goats, they'd probably look like this. --Bagginz 07:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The white goat's back is a bit overexposed, and it's tail is slightly blurry, but a lovely image overall. On my desktop already. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 18:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Fcb981 above. The constrast between the white goat and the background is a problem. David D. (Talk) 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• neutral - cold lighting, low background contrast. Debivort 05:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Image:Baby goats jan 2007.jpg --The Sunshine Man 10:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[:Image:Tianasquare.jpg|thumb|300px|"Tank Man" stops the advance of a column of tanks on 5 June 1989 in Beijing.
Photo by Jeff Widener (Associated Press)]]

Reason

World recognised and iconic moment in history. Won a World Press Award and recognised by LIFE magazine as "100 Photos that Changed the World". The resolution is not too good but surpassed by its importance in World history.

Articles this image appears in

• Photograph
• 1989
• Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
• History of the People's Republic of China (1976–1989)
• Type 59
• Tank Man
• Jeff Widener
• Foreign relations of the European Union

Creator

Jeff Widener

• Support as nominator — Matt. P 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Does the limited copyright license for this image make it eligible for FP status?
• Oppose Too small, copyrighted. J Are you green? 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ineligible not free. Mak (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy oppose Perhaps, in my opinion, the greatest photo ever taken. However, it's copywritten, and that's that. -- Kicking222 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, didn't notice that.Matt. P 21:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (fair use). MER-C 01:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beautifully ripe tomatoes purchased believe it or not from Safeway. Excellent enc value

Appears (surprise surprise!) in Tomato

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I won't vote on this (it would get lost in a sea of "supports" whatever I did), but I just want to point out that these photographs may be highly informative about certain aspects of a tomato (it's red with a squishy interior), but I find them incredibly anaemic. Additionally, I think the encyclopaedic value of it is compromised entirely by the lack of scale information and total lack of context. How do they grow? Do they pop up from a white table plump and ripe? Basically, technically competent, otherwise bereft. --Vaelta 08:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original To the comment above, this is the "finished product" shot. How they grow can be covered in another image.--HereToHelp 10:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But you don't give any justification why this photograph is one of the "finest images on the..." --Vaelta 10:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Having looked at the tomato article I have to oppose this photo. While it IS the most appropriate image to use as the title image, being simple and clean, nothing about this image deserves to be "featured", and it is considerable less "encyclopaedic" than many others on the same page. Just below, for instance, is a small group of tomatoes on a plate: it's not flashy but it does the job of showing scale and variety. Secondly, another of the photos further below (perhaps far too small to be a featured picture) is of tomato slices with light shining through, taken, surprisingly, by a US government agency (it seems). I found this picture to be more interesting than this featured picture candidate. --Vaelta 10:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry Vaelta, but that image you brought from the article is simply awful. Unsharp, blown reds, terrible specimens the list goes on and on.... --Fir0002 22:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm completely with Vaelta- is this "Among Wikipedia's best work"? I'd argue that it's not. The image is fine, but there's nothing "featured-worthy" about it. -- Kicking222 13:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote according to the criteria, in what respect is this image not fulfilling the criteria? --Fir0002 06:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

users first vote on FPC --Fir0002 06:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is in no way my first vote on FPC. Second, I already voted according to the criteria- it fails #3, "Is among Wikipedia's best work", which I explicitly mentioned above. Third, I'm now changing my !vote to Strong Oppose based on the nominator's above comments. -- Kicking222 07:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is your first vote on FPC. Second, in what way is it not of Wikipedia's best work? Third, you can do that but it doesn't make any difference. In fact, childish actions like that are more than likely to result in your vote being unconsidered in the final decision. --Fir0002 08:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fir, no offence but you're beginning to dig a hole for yourself here. Kicking222 has made nearly 6400 edits to the project, including quite a few here not to mention a very large number at Featured Article Candidates. The user's first FPC edit tag isn't intended for users with significant contribution histories who clearly have a good understanding of the project's workings and policies. Seriously, you should consider not responding to comments you feel are off the mark - if you're right, other people will be able to judge that for themselves. I don't think Kicking222's vote is out of line. --YFB ¿ 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, YFB. I was about to make pretty much the exact same comment- I was even planning on doing the one-word-per-link thing- and not just did you beat me to the punch, but you probably did so far more eloquently than I would have. The nominator was also somewhat rude to Makemi below, and that user is an administrator. I'm not saying that my opinions are more or less important because I've been here for a long time; this is not the case. However, I do think my objection is completely valid. Also, even if you (the universal "you") don't agree with the "Among WP's best work" criterion, gren brings up a spectacular point below, which is that this image also fails criterion #8, as the photo has the barest of captions. -- Kicking222 16:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, let it be known that, while I have not participated in many FPC discussions, I have certainly participated in more than zero. The fact that I've also participated in (literally) thousands of XFD, FAC, RFA, etc. discussions should show that I've got at least a fair grasp of policy. (Though, as I've become far more interested over the past few months in the WP: space than the article space, I'd argue that I have an excellent grasp of policy. And even if I didn't, I could read- and have read many times- the Featured Picture criteria.) -- Kicking222 16:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops sorry! I guess I should have click on the "older 50" button :-) I didn't mean any offence by the 1 edit thing, but it's pretty customary to mark new users how may not understand how FPC works --Fir0002 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, you're welcome. Although I'd prefer not to think of it as a "punch", but rather a gentle invitation to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Some of the opposes here have used dubious reasoning; Kicking222's isn't one of them (although the caption issue has been debated ad nauseum and Fir0002 is one of those who sees it as optional - this isn't the place to restart that discussion) and vitriolic and/or snarky posts from Vaelta, Fir, Arad and anyone else who cares to join in are not helpful. Let's get back to commenting on content, rather than contributors, please. --YFB ¿ 16:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because although the tomato may be red, it is not properly ripe. A good tomato should not have such grainy and pale flesh. It's a good photo of an unappetizing tomato. Mak (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on myself - I just want to mention that I strongly support high quality encyclopedic images of every day objects. It's just that I have this thing about not-really ripe tomatos :( Mak (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please check your monitor calibration, on mine it comes across as a vivid and full ripe red. --Fir0002 22:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The outside is bright red, I'm talking about the inner flesh. It's also the wrong texture. Maybe it's just because I'm from NJ where we have real tomatos :) Mak (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I've never even in home grown "real" tomatoes seen the inner texture be anything other in appearance than what is pictured here. What about other people? At any rate just because it doesn't look the same as the species you're used to, it is fully representative of the species in Australia, and hence I can't see any reason for you to object to the image. I mean saying it's not like the tomatoes you have is like opposing an Australian ant photo because it's not like the ants you have in NJ. Please reconsider --Fir0002 06:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The original is technically great (the alternative is crap in comparison), and it sure is a valuable contribution to show the tomato fruit. But I'd say this is rather a QI than an FP. That stream of opposes comes across pretty hard though. The pic deservers a little more appreciation. This scan is pretty good too by the way. --Dschwen 15:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I like that scan: on the vine with flowers. May I ask what "QI" is? Quality Image? If so, I would agree that this candidate is most certainly a "quality" image, just nothing especially noteworthy. It's not something I would have as my desktop certainly, and how I first came to know about Wikipedia's featured pictures is because I found myself downloading them to use as desktop wallpapers... --Vaelta 15:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is just so bizarre, suddenly FPC has become "pretty pictures". I can't comprehend the double standards that are currently being used on FPC, from this near identical candidate: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Red capsicum and cross section.jpg to what is happening here. Does enc not matter any more? Is it all "would I use this as my wallpaper?". We are an encyclopedia for crying out loud!!! It really makes you wonder why we went to so much trouble developing the criteria when new voters such as Vaelta either haven't bothered to read them or vote in flagrant disregard to the standards set forth there. --Fir0002 22:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, it is a bit troublesome that enc seems to be on the retreat. I guess the nomination closers should pay attention to the votes and weigh the arguments with respect to the criteria. --Dschwen 22:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, in that case you have me: I personally would have expected "featured pictures" to have a bit of wow factor about them. I know all the ones that made me keep coming back to Wikipedia did, and frankly, there is nothing wow about a couple of tomatoes (or bell peppers either for that matter...). However, if I really am voting in the wrong fashion then I accept I am wrong and Wikipedia is obviously not for me, as I do think that if you are to "feature" a picture it should have something special about it. I think my favourite in the current list of candidates is the flying Canadian goose below: technically it's a bit of a train wreck, but I can look at with an interest that two tomatoes fail to generate. --87.127.126.177 edit: Sorry, forgot to logon, Vaelta. 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vaelta, I think perhaps you're unclear about the purpose of Featured Pictures. A featured picture is intended to be an example of Wikipedia's best images; since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, rather than a coffee-top photography book, the strongest emphasis we place is on encyclopaedic value - what does the image add the articles in which it appears, which helps the reader to better understand/appreciate the subject? If you want images which make great wallpaper, there are literally hundreds of sites dedicated specifically to that purpose, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. That's not to say that some of our photos don't make great desktops, but that's not why they're featured pictures. Now, I'm going to vote Weak Oppose to this picture (and I would have done the same for the bell pepper and for the walnut, if I'd been about - not that it would have made any difference...) because it doesn't actually tell me all that much about tomatoes - the vine photo does a better job, with the flowers and vine adding a great deal to the enc. I wouldn't support that one either, though, because the technical quality (composition, particularly) is only average, the tomato blends in too much with the background, and it's covered in a scary amount of dust (do people not look at these things before they scan them!?). My point is, though, that to be a featured picture an image doesn't have to make me go "wow, awesome, must have that as my wallpaper", it has to inform me about the subject, be technically excellent (except where there are mitigating circumstances) and, as a bonus, grab my attention. "Artistic" compositions and shooting techniques like those you're advocating are great if the aim is to produce art, but here the aim is to illustrate a reference work and the criteria that determine excellence are necessarily different. --YFB ¿ 00:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - per above comment. --YFB ¿ 00:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fir, don't forget about WP:BITE. Call this a wolf vote, but I still think these setups are technically great shots (most certainly Quality Images) that also have a great deal of enc. They show both the full view and the cross section, and at an extremely crisp resolution. There's only so much you can show in an image, and I don't think these images should be denied featured status because there is another way they could be taken. To me, it comes across as a generic photograph of an elephant being denied featured status because the animal isn't interacting with its environment. I think either way, a person unfamiliar with the subject can tell what it was by simply glancing at the photograph. --Tewy 02:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is a "sheep" vote better than a "wolf" vote then? And don't worry about biting me, because I am more than happy to bite back if provoked correctly. And I'd be happy to admit that I am glad some other people agree with my opinion that these "product" shots are nothing special: camera, two tomatoes, a knife, white surface, five minutes, hey presto! If a picture tells a thousand words, this picture has writer's block. --Vaelta 08:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Try 45 minutes, a month of searching for perfect specimens and the eloquent perfection in expression which makes a thousand words look so small. As with all brilliant literature, it isn't surrounded by superfluous adjectives and sentences which require opera singers to be able to say in a single breath. It is the very essence of the tomato. The outside and the inside. Presented on a completely neutral background. Every anatomical feature of a tomato is present. The carefully chosen specimen exhibiting a fresh stalk, excellent interior balance between flesh and seed mucus. The surface of the tomato is almost without blemish. You could write an oddessy and still be unable to convey to someone who had never seen a tomato what this picture does. Writers block! My foot! A remark which is both a cheap shot and completely lacking in merit. ok back to my english homework :-) --Fir0002 10:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's much smoother if you make all those witty comments in one edit ;-) --Dschwen 09:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Touche! lol --Fir0002 10:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The internet lacks the immediacy of other mediums. Nothing wrong with adding your thoughts as you go... But I wouldn't call them witty anyway. Just observations... and I am a journalist, so it's habit to use metaphors and similes. --Vaelta 09:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My sympathies that it took you a whole month to find such a tomato. Where do you live that good tomatoes are so rare? But anyway, now that you think it's amusing to spend your time looking through edit histories (my apologies if I'm straining their capacity, but as we are always told, "bandwidth is now cheap!"), I think I'm going to get back to packing my gear; I am spending the next week or so in the Ural mountains on assignment... Dasvi daniya! --Vaelta 10:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• support - please indicate in your nomination which article is illustrated by the image. Debivort 04:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I saw it for the first time in the article today, and it looks especially nice in that context, in the taxobox. Debivort 18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It is a fine photo that demonstrates about as much as can be demonstrated by a single image. Yes, you could take a photo of a tomato hanging from a vine, and you could photograph it far more aesthetically, but doing so would likely result in an image with far less encyclopaedic value as there would be more distracting elements. 'Product' shots obviously have a harder time running the FP gauntlet but they certainly have a valid place in an encylopaedia, and I think others are being unnecessarily unappreciative of this one. Lighting is very good and the perspective is just right (in the original, not so much in the alternative). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There isn't another picture on the tomato page that I could see being an FP, including the one Vaelta posted here. The first image is extremely encyclopaedic, and it deserves to be an FP. To me it meets all the criteria and more importantly, it makes me want to eat a tomato. Amphy 17:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Final Comment This is on a PDA so excuse any input errors. Although I know comments should be about the photo and not photographer, I need to point out how to me as a new user, Fir0002's behaviour has seemed very petulant and off-putting. I also want to say to you Fir0002 (having looked through some of your images) that I believe you are one of the most artistically stunted photographers I have seen, although I do of course see you have plenty of technical skill. Why do I think this? Because of your comments on the other photo from the tomato page: purely technical, nothing about the image itself. You seem to see photography purely in terms of dots per inch and errant artifacts. Perhaps this is mainly due to the nature of Wikipedia as a reference tool rather than art gallery, and if so, fine. I won't speculate anymore, and I don't feel a community that supports your behaviour with such nepotism is a particularly welcoming one. edit: Except for Dschwen: thanks for the welcome even after I managed to insult you. Perhaps the difference is in being able to take things a little more light-heartedly... --Vaelta 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't exactly been a ray of sunshine either Vaelta. The most "artistically stunted" photographer you've ever seen? Ouch, that could really hurt, but fortunately I've visited your own website. You know it might be a good idea to build up your own portfolio before criticizing someone elses. Currently the term "the kettle calling the pot black" hardly does justice to the situation. --Fir0002 08:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Uhm, thanks. But all the light-heartedness aside, and although I've also had my share of disagreements with Fir, I have to respond with two three quick points. You are right, this page should be used to comment on the photos, for further issues there is Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. The most artistically stunted is indeed pretty harsh. Wikipedia is a reference tool, and over the course of many months the goals of Featured Pictures have been refined and discussed over and over again. The consensus that was reached has a pretty big emphasis on encyclopedic value. Check out commons:COM:FPC they seem to correspond more to your ideas of FPs (or the german FPC with their blatant disregard for the technical side). Nontheless, in my opinion Fir has always (mostly) succeeded to combine encyclopedic illustration with clarity and a very aesthetic look. Art should be open to interpretation, encyclopedic illustrations should do the explaining. So I hope you can get into a bit of the technical and encyclopedic side of photography and bring us back some great images from the Ural. --Dschwen 20:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, sorry. Every page has a talk page... gotcha. As harsh as I was, I hope Fir0002 doesn't take it too personally. His landscapes have beauty, particularly the current featured one on his userpage. And I hope he does have an artistic eye, even if Wikipedia doesn't get to see it. As for myself, I might look at the Commons when I get back, but I don't think my photos would ever be accepted here! I guess we all just use cameras in different ways: I don't think they are just simple recording devices, and I like photographs that capture not what my eyes see, but my mind, and its own interpretation of reality. Having an outlook like that makes it difficult for me to simply document; I always have to reinterpret. Hence, why I think the photograph of tomato slices is of value, blown red highlights or no. Okay, enough! --Vaelta 20:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blown highlights aside, the photo is still as artistically devoid as you claim mine is. --Fir0002 08:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • While I too have had my share of disagreements with Fir0002 and he can be quick to snap, he did have a fair point that you (and others) were applying your own personal criteria to the photos instead of using the community-agreed criteria. I suppose it could be by design a closed and unwelcoming 'system' but the fact is, we tend to get a lot of fly-by-nighters waltz in and start spraying their own opinions around without first getting a feel for what FPC is and what it aims for. It isn't a beauty contest (although obviously beautiful subjects are easier to present photographically) and it isn't about artistic expression. You're right, photography is different things to different people but it has been agreed that for the most part, photography for use here should be primarily encyclopaedic. That means succinct, high quality/resolution, accurate images, even if it results in what you consider soulless photography. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Emphatically seconded. --YFB ¿ 22:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is trying to define enyclopedicity - I still have a reluctance when it comes to the brilliant white background, especially for animals, but even here a tomato on the vine would tell you more about a tomato. I'm not convinced that enyclopedicity is best served by a sterile background replacing the natural context. Pstuart84 Talk 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • • As explained last time you brought that up, white backgrounds are almost universally used in the scientific community to display specimens etc. They're extremely enc --Fir0002 08:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Vaelta, don't take harsh comments made on FPC seriosuly. Fir gets angry real fast, so we're used to it. Perhaps you'll enjoy Commons more since it's more about Quality and Beauty not Enc. And about this photo: it is nearly perfect on technical side but there is something that I don't like. Maybe because it has too much white. So I prefer not voting. --Arad 00:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Yeah thanks, Arad for your as always valued opinion. But the very fact you are (erroneously IMO) implying that I am some kind of hot headed volcano condemns your own nature. It's also interesting to note your double standard, vigorously, and dare I say angrily, asserting that a photo is worth featuring if wikipedia hasn't a better example on at least two occaisions. [6] [7] --Fir0002 08:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I do agree that i'm harsh sometimes. And I do make my comments look angrily sometimes. But I don't take it serious. And yes, I do make a lot of mistakes. But I don't get the point you're making here? I'm just saying that we should all take this FPC thing easy and do it for fun. After all we're not paid. You and me, we're probably the youngest contributers to this page (I think) so on my behalf, I do make mistakes, probably because I'm not that experienced. --Arad 22:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I think I hold the honor of being the youngest contributor here... J Are you green? 23:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]
• Support I'd be a little freaked out if I saw a tomato sliced that neatly growing on a vine. The purpose of a cross section is not to show a tomato growing in the wild; it's to illustrate the parts of a tomato, and the white background does a fine job of that. ShadowHalo 23:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. You need a caption too... but, my weak oppose is because of blown highlights on the slice... they are speckly and really detract from the image. gren グレン 04:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The very model of modern featured picture. :) It's in focus, nice size, great colour, simple, and informative. The is an encyclopaedia, not the Louvre. Iorek85 09:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Devoid of context and the texture looks odd. It's an ok picture, but doesn't make me say "wow" in any way. The highlights are blown out, and the pure white specks of highlights in the slice look really bad. pschemp | talk 16:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It meets all of the criteria, great color, shape and texture. It isn't absolutely perfect, but nothing is. Cacophony 16:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Don't like the alternate version, because it's overexposed. By the way, are you sure it's ripe? · AndonicO ^Talk 18:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could everybody just cool down for a moment and remember: this is for discussing the image, not the voters or the photographer? If you really want to do that (and I would say that if you do, you are asking for an argument), a talk page would be a better place. How about if the strands involving bickering between Vaelta and Fir and those calling Fir "hotheaded" remain unedited for, say, 24 hours, so that we can keep this somewhat civil? Just a suggestion... J Are you green? 20:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm cool. And most people here are civil. Maybe you shouldn't edit for 24 hours ;-) --Arad 22:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a bad idea, actually :). Maybe then I can concentrate on schoolwork... Anyhow, I just wanted to note that to an uninvolved passerby, everyone involved in that discussion doesn't really quite seem "cool." Thanks for the suggestion, though. See you 23:18, 4 May 2007! J Are you green? 23:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:FPC is my anti-study. Amphy 03:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Just happened to be looking at the tomato article and clicked on what I thought was an amazing picture. Great enc, or whatever you guys call an excellent illustrative picture. I would love to see beautiful, encyclopedic images like this one on all flora/fauna articles! Alsandair 03:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great picture, nice colours and post processing. Sometimes, very simple images turn out to be excellent. The edited version is rather overexposed and the quality of the picture is not there anymore. Terence 15:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose, horribly plain and dull, pathetic caption, camera flare visible on right hand tomato. Conor Campbell 16:57, 4 May 2007 (GMT)

• Be civil please. Debivort 18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The caption is surely no part of our judgement on the photo? I thought this was Featured Picture not Featured Caption - Adrian Pingstone 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Have a read of the featured picture criteria - number eight is "The picture is displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption." And I'm sorry but if you're expecting to get a picture featured, the least you could do is make a half decent caption. Also, number three states that the picture must be "among Wikipedia's best work." This, quite simply, isn't. It's technically excellent, but then I could go and take technically excellent pictures of a hundred thousand other random household foods, implements, etc etc, and expect them to be featured. And IMO, a really encyclopedic picture of a tomato would at least have some part of the plant it grows on in it. Conor Campbell 15:46, 5 May 2007 (GMT)

• Neutral, but comment: How come a shot like this spawns such a heated debate? The pic is pretty good, high in enc, low in "wow", but hey - we should discuss the picture of these ripe tomatoes, not throw them! --Janke | Talk 06:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, nothing special, sorry. And try searching for a tomato somewhere other than Safeway. We do have other varieties here in Australia if you're willing to look for them. Perhaps grow some yourself, then you could include the flowers and other anatomical bits that Safeway hides from you. —Pengo 09:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Support either artistic considerations are far more important for commons QI than for Wikipedia FPs. A big part of the criteria is how useful it is 'encyclopedically'. And this surely is. Simple, but you expect these kind of images from a quality encyclopedia. Borisblue 20:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original image. Encyclopedic value and technically sound. If we can have a similar FP on a Walnut, I don't see why tomatoes are out. If someone can make a picture that also includes the previously mentioned Australian tomato varieties, I'd support that. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original image. Note how the image on the left shows very clearly the texture of the tomato. --HappyCamper 00:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted Image:Bright red tomato and cross section02.jpg The Sunshine Man 15:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My take on this is that there are a total of (factoring weak opposes and weak supports as 0.5) 15 supports and 6.5 opposes, and of those opposes, my gut feeling is that the supports had better justification than the opposes. For example, if I were closing this nomination I would take into consideration that User:Makemi's justification for opposition was that it didn't look ripe and appetising like she is apparently used to seeing in New Jersey. While this is subjective, very few others shared this opinion and Fir0002's counter-argument was valid. My personal gut feeling is that it doesn't have the be the most succulent and juicy tomato, it just has to be well presented and representative photo of a typical tomato. Regardless, this nomination received more than a 2/3 majority. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree. Should this nom be moved to the additional input section? --Tewy 18:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it should just be promoted. It's run its time on the FP page already, there's a consensus to promote, and it's been improperly closed by someone who apparently doesn't fully understand how FP nominations work. There's nothing to stop someone overturning an improper closure; I'd do it myself but I don't have time at the moment... where's KFP when you need him? :-) --YFB ¿ 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bright red tomato and cross section02.jpg

Reason

This image shows an extremely rare phenomenon, that of a noble gas in a state other than gas. I am aware of no other images of liquid or solid noble gasses anywhere else on the web, let alone free images. This image is kind of a test, in that it has pretty bad qualities to it like purple fringing and overexposure. However, I think it may have a chance at passing because it is so unique. This image, the best of a lot that I took, was EXTREMELY difficult to capture, I had a total of no more than 5 seconds from the time the ice was removed from its cryogenic liquid nitrogen bath to get the shot before it completely melted and vaporized. I think this is probably nearly the best result one can hope for when imaging such an exotic phenomenon. If anyone wants to take a crack at fixing its faults in photoshop I'd be more than thankful. (I feel I should also note that while the ice may look a bit blurred, this is the maximum sharpness achievable due to the fact that the whole thing is (unavoidably) continuously cloaked in the haze of condensing droplets of air and water vapor.) --Deglr6328 05:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

phase transition, argon

Creator

User:Deglr6328

• Support as nominator — Deglr6328 05:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As you said, it has some pretty huge technical problems, and cannot be fixed as lost information cannot be recovered. Other than that, there are also other faults such as unable to show how does it look different from say a normal block of ice (IOR difference for example). Is the whole thing ice or is it contained in some sort of glass tube? Also a 5 second window is considered quite generous as you can prepare it before hand, setting the correct exposure etc. manually (so you won't get the awful over-exposure), many sports photographs have time windows of far less than that. It's a good picture illustrating it, but not FP material. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah but you only have to concentrate on taking the picture with that scenario. Here, you have to hold the ice as its disappearing, the airflow has to be positioned just right so the ice isn't occluded by mist and you have to be careful not to burn your fingertips on the super-cold tweezers! I never figured out how to avoid that last bit. :) Everything you see here is argon ice, it has been taken out of the glass cylinder. --Deglr6328 22:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you had gone through all the effort to produce something like this why not just ask a friend or someone and take the picture (or give them the cold burns, either way) and take a better picture instead of managing everything by yourself --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What's the purpose of keeping this in color? ~ trialsanderrors 06:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well, it is beautiful, no question: I love the harsh glare off the reflective surfaces. What kind of background is it though? It doesn't look like the inside of a lab or anything! --Vaelta 08:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! The background is just a piece of black felt.--Deglr6328 22:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can you go into more detail on how you created Argon ice? The current process is that the Argon was "frozen by allowing a slow stream of the gas to flow into a small graduated cylinder which was immersed into a cup of liquid nitrogen". That's a little vague. Not that I don't trust you or anything, but it'll help if you elaborated a bit more. =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did you avoid getting water condensation in the cylinder? Was the argon gas stream applied before immersing the cylinder into the liquid nitrogen? --Dschwen 09:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, you can find more images of the graduated cylinder on the wikimedia page for argon [8]. So, I took the small graduated cylinder and put a thin plastic tube which was connected to the tank of argon, just inside the lip of the cylinder. Then I turned the gas on to release a slow stream of argon into the graduated cylinder, I let it purge with argon like this for a minute or so. Then I lowered the closed end (bottom) of the cylinder into a cup of liquid nitrogen (taking care not to let either the liquid or the vaporizing nitrogen to rise above the open end of the cylinder with the argon gas tube still in it. Then I just let the argon condense to a liquid on the cold inner walls of the cylinder. After a while the collected liquid began to freeze at the wall and move inward (you can see the resulting hollow cup like shape of the ice chunk. There is no risk of condensing out nitrogen or oxygen (or water) from the atmosphere because the cylinder is being continuosly purged with argon throughout the process. When I was satisfied that I had collected a sufficient amount of argon ice in the cylinder I quickly pulled out the gas supply tube and capped the cylinder (LIGHTLY!) with a piece of plastic. After this point you have to really work quick to set up the camera, precool the tweezers in the liquid nitrogen and finally image the argon ice after you take it out of the cylinder. After you take the ice out of the cylinder it WILL start condensing water out of the air but the thing melts so incredibly rapidly that it doesn't have time to accumulate anywhere because the surface of the ice is continually sloughing off so fast. water only condensed on the ouside of the cylinder a little bit above the liquid nitrogen level it was immersed in and none condensed inside. Curiously, the argon ice was absolutely clear, there were no individual crystals that I could see at all and I wonder if it was indeed a single crystal. --Deglr6328 22:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm satisfied with the response, so ...Support. Not exactly the sharpest or clearest pic on Wikipedia, but the difficulty in capturing the image and the rarity of the pic makes-up for those technical lapses. Highly encyclopedic and unique. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - I think there's a policy somewhere in Wikipedia that states original research, i.e. things you did or researched yourself, cannot be submitted. I really hope it doesn't apply to images, as this is a gem (no pun intended)! BTW, what does it feel like to have a cold burn? Mrug² 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the original research clause applies, the melting and boiling points of the noble gasses are WELL established in the literature. The frostbite burns aren't much fun, it makes like a little blister that fades quickly. The pain goes away pretty fast actually. I think it was worth it to actually SEE a noble gas though! --Deglr6328 07:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The technical faults are simply too great for FP, no matter how rare the photo is. The object of the photo, the liquid stream and drops, are barely in tolerable focus. I understand the technical limitations pertaining to the speed needed to take the shot. If you are able to get your hands on another sample of argon to take another picture, try to pre-focus the camera. Better lighting (more flash) might help to increase depth of field as well. --Asiir 15:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The glare is really bad, and the liquid and gaseous forms are barely in focus. But I love the enc and difficulty you went through to get it (and the felt background was a nice touch). Maybe with a partner, a better pic can be taken.--HereToHelp 22:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not good quality, but extreme rarity. · AndonicO ^Talk 18:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's a worse example of purple fringing than any of the images currently at the purple fringing article.... if anything, it should be added to that article. --Interiot 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well...add it to the article then. ;) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 12:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]