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

DNA Structure

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2011 at 13:02:37 (UTC)

Reason

Clear representation of the structure of the DNA double helix including several key features relevant for biology; elemental content, base pairing scheme and position of the minor and major grooves.

Articles in which this image appears

DNA

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

Zephyris

• Support as nominator --- Zephyris _Talk 13:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support :P Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

awww For reference, see previous nomination [1]. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support as I promised last time. Chick Bowen 20:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I support either. I wonder if there's an in-between: a line with some transparency. But we've already demanded enough work from Zephyris. Chick Bowen 03:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Iamthedeus (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I think given the level of realism this is trying to go for, the orange spirals are slightly misleading. Support anyways. Nergaal (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support I think the orange helices are important for getting the eye to work out what the 3D structure is - I would struggle without it anyway. Time3000 (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Neutral. I really want to support, but I agree with Nergaal. I feel that if we're showing the molecular stuff, the orange spirals should be removed. Spencer^T♦C 17:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have actually already made a version of this without the orange backbone, although it is currently on a computer in a different city! I was planning on uploading it at some point... - Zephyris _Talk 16:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'd be willing to support that. I mean, this version isn't bad enough for me to oppose, it's just that I find that if we're looking to be as realistic as possible, the nominated version has this one flaw. Spencer^T♦C 20:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This is the no backbone alt. - Zephyris _Talk 23:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support alt. Spencer^T♦C 22:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support alt only The orange line is pointless and misleading. Razum2010 (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support either, I don't think the orange line is especially misleading, at least no more so than portraying elements as coloured circles is. I'm happy with either though. Cowtowner (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Apologies for not noticing that voting had ended. Consider the above a comment. Cowtowner (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Another post-voting comment. I haven't looked at this closely enough to vote anyway, but if it's going to be promoted I definitely prefer the version without the orange line. --jjron (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:DNA Structure+Key+Labelled.pn NoBB.png --Jujutacular ^talk 00:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

V-22 Osprey

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2011 at 13:30:41 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality (in line with other FPs of this category) image showing the aircraft in flight. Dramatic backdrop and good propellor blur. We already have a |FP of the Osprey, landed and in the helicopter position. This complements that nicely and has distinct EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, Powered lift,

FP category for this image

Vehicles>Air

Creator

US Airforce

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Awesome and nice background. Brandmeister t 19:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support This will compliment the other you mentioned in my growing rotation of backgrounds! I love the other one, but in many ways this one is much cooler! Nicely done... gazhiley.co.uk 22:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per nomination. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Sanko (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose the background is very distracting and in full resultion as sharp as resp. more sharp than the aircraft. The crop at the left and right is too tight. The image is heavily oversharpened and small for a 10 MP camera. --kaʁstn 10:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A question of principle: if taken with a worse quality camera, would you think that the image quality was acceptable? Cowtowner (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose for the same reasons as Carschten. Also, the article is about the aircraft; the background should not be competing for our attention. This picture comes nowhere near the standard of the picture of the landed craft. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support' - I do think that the background is a tiny bit distracting, yet the background seems to compliment it in some ways too. Nice job. --Another Type of Zombie ^talk 14:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment There's something strange going on to the left of the propellers. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's distortion from the heat coming out of the engines. Cowtowner (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks. That's what I figured. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong support fantastic! --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:CV-22 Osprey in flight.jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 14:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Victorian Arts Centre Spire, Melbourne

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 09:39:17 (UTC)

Reason

High res, high quality, detailed and sharp. Amazing what turns up on your hard drive at times, I'd forgotten I'd even taken this. Am also surprised (given the number of 'Melburnian' photographers through here) that we didn't already have a decent shot of this building, or in fact an FP of it. (Just to pre-empt, in case anyone mentions it: the trees very slightly in the way at left are pretty much unavoidable, unless the Council gets their act together and cuts them back - this was the clearest view available. Otherwise, to avoid them completely, you'd have to get closer at ground level, and then be shooting up, and therefore losing a lot of detail and get perspective problems. As it is, taken at this time of year, the trees don't really impact the view of the building. And FWIW this shot is no longer possible, as the building it was taken from is currently undergoing major renovations.)

Articles in which this image appears

The Arts Centre (Melbourne)
Culture of Australia

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support However the buildings and flagpoles at bottom right have got a little bit too much lean on for my liking - however they are such a small part of the picture it won't affect my vote... Otherwise excellent picture... gazhiley.co.uk 15:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You're totally right - the pano creation caused more distortion than I noticed. Edit1 uploaded; I believe it fixes this issue. --jjron (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Nicely done... Support Edit1 gazhiley.co.uk 16:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Edit1 per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose (both) stitching error(s), noisy, poor light (the white parts are heavily blown out, an image without sunshine would be better) --kaʁstn 09:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please advise where the stiching errors are? gazhiley.co.uk 10:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I found one, but it could be that are some more. I annotated it on Commons. --kaʁstn 11:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Thanks for identifying the minor stitching error. I had missed that one. Have uploaded a new version of Edit1 that corrects that. As for your other points, well, they're your opinion, though I feel "an image without sunshine" would be rather drab and tend to lack details. --jjron (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Why should "an image without sunshine" tend to lack details? Currently there are hardly details on the tower beacuse it's blown out. And maybe then it's drab. But it's better to have a well exposed image with overall details as a picture which has just at some parts much details and is blown out. Regards --kaʁstn 17:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • What details are you expecting on something that's completely white? This is not off-white to reduce reflections, as are the tiles on the Sydney Opera House for example. And if you can't see the necessary details on the tower other than the parts are just white anyway, well frankly you may want your eyes checked. --jjron (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose. A well-executed photo, nicely lit, with a laid-back human scene at the bottom to give it some scale. However, the trees at the left, and the sculptures at the right, do interfere a bit. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support --Muhammad(talk) 13:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 17:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• <5 support. Jujutacular ^talk 17:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leaf tissue structure

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 May 2011 at 00:35:03 (UTC)

Reason

A high quality representation of a simple but extremely important piece of biology.

Articles in which this image appears

Leaf, Epidermis (botany), Palisade cell, Plant cuticle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others, Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams

Creator

Zephyris

• Support as nominator --- Zephyris _Talk 00:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support: A good example of what is possible with SVG. Brings back memories of high school biology. This is actually an inset of File:Leaf Structure.svg and I'd like to propose they be voted on as a set.--RDBury (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: The upper epidermal cells seem strangely large. See 1, 2, 3. Spencer^T♦C 23:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the diagram is only supposed to represent a typical angiosperm. The details will vary from species to species so it's possible that large epidermal cells and small ones are both correct.--RDBury (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This diagram is loosely based on Arabidopsis thaliana which I believe does have large upper epithelial cells. As RDBury says, however, this is just a representative diagram; there are a great many variations to this structure which can, and do, occur, including size of upper epithelial cells. - Zephyris _Talk 10:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Spencer^T♦C 20:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. A wonderful diagram, assuming the content is accurate. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support but you really should drop the number of required votes to 4. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Leaf Tissue Structure.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Peacemakers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 May 2011 at 20:19:30 (UTC)

Reason

High Ev as lead image in main article. Featured on Commons. Was nominated before, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Peacemakers, but didnt pass as it had one support and no Opposes.

Articles in which this image appears

The Peacemakers, David Dixon Porter, River Queen (steamboat), George Peter Alexander Healy, American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, Alfred Van Santvoord, Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

George Peter Alexander Healy

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose. This is a massive painting; the reproduction could, (should?) be much larger. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I haven't really been impressed with these White House Historical Association reproductions. This one is better than the Lincoln one we recently considered, but like it, it is simply too dark. We often refer to digitizations of paintings as scans, but that is not actually accurate: they are photographs, ideally made with a large-sensor camera, often using a series of separate exposures stitched together. Like any photograph, they need to be lit properly. The WHHA seems not to be doing that. Chick Bowen 20:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. It's not a great painting and/or not a great photo. There are a lot of flaws, cracking etc., in it, especially noticeable at bottom-right. The arrangement of the buttons on the right-hand man's jacket is strange; the left-hand man's right shoe is unnatural; etc. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Very good US Civil War image with high EV as shown by its usage. IMO 'flaws' in images like this (that are historic in their own right) should not be repaired unless they're in the reproduction, as opposed to in the original painting (e.g., cracked paint) as they're part of the history of the painting. Chick's concerns notwithstanding, I'm not sure this is a poor enough reproduction to oppose. --jjron (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QR Code Structure

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 May 2011 at 02:06:32 (UTC)

Reason

The image adds to the QR code article significantly

Articles in which this image appears

QR code

FP category for this image

Engineering and technology

Creator

Zephyris

• Support as nominator --—James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:06pm • 02:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment The original version of the image has errors in it, I have made and uploaded a new version which fixes these issues. - Zephyris _Talk 08:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support alt This is very imformative to someone technical desiring knowledge on the subject. I was curious if we could have the decoded version and format information displayed somehow to improve the usefulness. --Chrismiceli (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support alt JJ Harrison (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support either. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak support Alt. An excellent illustration, assuming the content is accurate. However, item no. 4 in the legend is accompanied by a little 4x4 chequered pattern, which kind of suggests that the pattern is a required pattern, which does not seem to be the case. And the green border should be toned down a bit; it's a bit strong. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Alt as above, but I agree about the green border. For a quiet zone, that's a pretty loud colour. Cowtowner (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. Why does the font look so terrible in the new version? The kerning is horrible. Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• In the original image the text had been converted to paths, in the new one it is actually a text object. Blame Wikipedia's .svg rendering if you don't like the kerning :) it does, however, keep it very readable even at small sizes. - Zephyris _Talk 12:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:QR Code Structure Example 2.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is fucking genius!:!

Bufonaria perelegans shell

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 May 2011 at 09:27:15 (UTC)

Reason

Featured on Commons, good quality, good EV, used in other national Wiki.

Articles in which this image appears

Bufonaria perelegans

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others

Creator

George Chernilevsky

• Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per nom. I note with appreciation and approval that the image page includes a size reference. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak support because it's only part of a 4-sentence stub. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak support. The shells have a wonderful well-lit high-rez texture, but the background is too stark; a bit of context would be nicer. Also, there are some white pixels in the black background, which could be easily fixed. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

•  Done White spots removed -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support As per nom. SMasters (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Bufonaria perelegans 2010 G1.jpg --Jujutacular ^talk 16:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul Simonon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 May 2011 at 13:48:11 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image with interesting perspective and good use of DOF.

Articles in which this image appears

Paul Simonon

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Rama

• Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^talk 13:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I prefer the edit, thanks karstn. Just to note, in my opinion the microphone that is slightly in front of his face increases EV. Jujutacular ^talk 17:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Maybe, but as Alt1 shows the photographer was able to get a very good shot at the same event without it. --jjron (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The Alternative is not bad, too. But the quality isn't as good as on the Original, there's a dust spot and I don't really like the smog... --kaʁstn 08:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Yeah, I think the nommed version is better quality, having said which the Alt is featured on Commons. --jjron (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support (weak). Not someone I'm familiar with, but very good image. I personally think there's too much headroom though, and suspect the photographer locked on the centre focus point and didn't reframe (thus the cutoff arm at the bottom and excess headroom at top). Would probably change to full support with a bit of a crop (just trying it, I'd probably take it off just above that light on image right). The microphone obscuring part of his face is a slight issue too perhaps. --jjron (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Crop some of the top off and then we can talk :P Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose: A good picture but the mike in front of the face is a deal breaker for me. It seems to me that the EV requirement implies that we should expect to see the person's entire face.--RDBury (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Edit Still could have a little more taken off. In terms of the microphone, the man sings for a living, it's not really surprising that he's got a mic in front of him. You could make the case that it increases the EV. Cowtowner (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. First thing that struck me on seeing this picture was the line of lights sticking out of his head; very distracting. The depth of field is very poor; the guitar and mike should be in focus. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I beg to differ. I think the depth of field is actually very well managed. The whole subject is in focus and given the low lighting (requiring shallower focus) at many concerts this is impressive. Also, I think having the guitar and mic in focus could be rather distracting as they'd draw our attention away from Simonon. Finally, a wider depth of field would have made the background lights sharper and likely more distracting. Cowtowner (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "depth of field is very poor; the guitar [...] should be in focus" lol, that's funny. --kaʁstn 10:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Edit 1 --kaʁstn 08:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Edit 1 or Alt 1 Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support edit 1. I've been thinking about this one for a while. As a portrait I think it's successful. I'm not really sure about the alt: it seems kind of over-dramatic, unless that's what this guy is actually like (I'd never heard of him before this nomination, so I don't know). Chick Bowen 15:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support edit 1: Very good portrait. Don't like the Alt, wrong expression. Maedin\^talk 06:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Paul Simonon mg 6692 crop.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Single Red Arrow

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 May 2011 at 18:16:16 (UTC)

Reason

An excellent addition to the Red Arrows article. High resolution and captures the aircraft in flight while not losing focus.

Articles in which this image appears

Red Arrows

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

Arpingstone

• Support as nominator --Harrison49 (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Excellent resolution, nice clear background. However, the framing seems very confining; there should be more space in front of the plane, and the full exhaust trail should have been captured. A more panorama-like format would be better, to give a greater sense of direction and speed. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose I would prefer a bit higher resolution for more detail in this image, and the framing lacks lead room. Jujutacular ^talk 16:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Probably not that well done, but I've had a go at extending the sky at the front-space of the plane. Bob talk 13:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looks very good to me, thanks for the edit. Still lacks detail of course, in my opinion, but I have replaced it in the article. Jujutacular ^talk 03:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eurofighter Typhoon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 17:15:21 (UTC)

Reason

Excellent resolution. This photograph has captured the aircraft in flight but gives the impression it isn't really moving at all.

Articles in which this image appears

Eurofighter Typhoon, Austrian Air Force, Austria

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

poter.simon on Flickr

• Support as nominator --Harrison49 (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak support. Excellent picture, but it just barely scrapes through the size requirement of 1000 pixels. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose nice postcard; size restricted EV. Boring centered composition. Nice motive though --kaʁstn 17:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boeing RC-135

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 21:17:11 (UTC)

Reason

Excellent resolution, and a view of this aircraft that not many people would get to see normally.

Articles in which this image appears

Boeing RC-135, Royal Air Force, List of active United States military aircraft, Signals intelligence operational platforms by nation

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

Master Sgt. Lance Cheung of the US Air Force

• Support as nominator --Harrison49 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support There's excellent resolution in the picture, and the angle is (IMO) eye catching. There's also good EV, as well as the fact that airplane images of this quality are hard to come by.--Nanoman657 (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Cowtowner (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support < 5 Makeemlighter (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Korean War Refugees

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 09:10:08 (UTC)

Reason

An interesting image of war refugees during the Korean War. I think its FP material, but then I have little if any luck with this venue so I'll leave it to the more qualified among you to determine its worth in technical terms.

Articles in which this image appears

Korean War

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military

Creator

Maj. R.V. Spencer, UAF. (Navy)

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 09:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Conditional support Eye-catching, inimitable. Quite grainy however, any chance of denoising? Brandmeister t 21:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not sure, to be honest. I just nominate images I think can be FPs, but for the resolution of technical issues I'm totally dependent on others for opinions, assistance, etc. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not crazy about denoising film grain (I think it's fine to digitally eliminate noise which was digitally created in the first place). The thin, horizontal white lines, on the other hand, look to me like creases on the negative (dark creases, of course, render as white) and would absolutely be fair game to edit out. I don't have time tonight but will do this in day or so if someone else doesn't get to it first. Chick Bowen 04:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose (currently). If this were cleaned up, per Chick Bowen, I would consider supporting. Still, I don't know how crazy I am about this level of quality from Korean War era. Jujutacular ^talk 03:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Henry II of France and Catherine de' Medici

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 21:32:01 (UTC)

Reason

High encyclopedic value, presents its topic in an interesting way

Articles in which this image appears

Henry II of France, Basilica of St Denis

FP category for this image

Sculpture

Creator

Roi Boshi

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: Although it is a wonderful photograph of a topic which clearly does have some note, I worry that, as used currently, it is lacking in encyclopedic value. It's just another tomb picture in the basilica article (though the most eyecatching picture in the list) and while the tomb is mentioned in the article on Henry himself, the article is somewhat crowded with illustrations and the tomb picture gets the impression of being stuck on the bottom. I want to support this, I really do, I just don't think I can with good conscience right now. J Milburn (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for your helpful comment. What do you think should be done to fix this? Tomer T (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Actually, thanks to your comment, I've made some styling editing in the article Henry II of France, and I think that now the pictures in the article are displayed in a more elaborating way to the readers (and I also believe the discussed picture doesn't seem "stuck" anymore). --Tomer T (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I am not generally a fan of galleries in articles, but it does now look much cleaner- no doubt it will eventually be expanded, and some of those pictures can find their way back into the main article. In any case, I am happy to support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Milburn (talk • contribs) 15:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose. While the composition is artistically excellent, showing the tombs head-on would have more EV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How do you mean head on? I think the "profile view," for want of a better term, is probably the most reasonable angle we can expect. From the feet or behind the heads wouldn't show much of anything and from above likely isn't possible in the setting. Cowtowner (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• SupportAaadddaaammm (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support --Avenue (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looking at this image again, it's actually not bad. Changing to weak support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 23:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 4.5<5 supports. Jujutacular ^talk 23:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tjarda van Starkenborgh Stachouwer and B.C. de Jonge

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 22:33:41 (UTC)

Reason

historically significant as it shows two last Governor-generals of Dutch East Indies, representing the last period and peak of Dutch colonization in Maritime Southeast Asia

Articles in which this image appears

Dutch East Indies

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People

Creator

Tropenmuseum

• Support as nominator --Awewe (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I moved this from the bottom to the top of the FPC page (note instructions). This is rather smaller than our stated minimum (see Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria), and the highlights are a little overexposed. Unless its encyclopedic value is really extraordinary, those shortcomings will be tough to overcome; it probably doesn't have a great chance here. Chick Bowen 00:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, but far below our technical requirements, and IMO not a particularly good picture regardless. Given that it is not even used in the two individuals' own articles I can't see that it has such enormous EV to overcome the obvious shortcomings. --jjron (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, sorry, I have to agree. It would really have to be something special to pass FPC when it is that small. J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with the others. It's too small to qualify. – SMasters (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 23:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Illustration for the term Ecchi

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 11:48:25 (UTC)

Reason

The image is considered one of the best images at German, Spanish and Turkish Wikipedia and was Finalist of Picture of the Year 2008 at Wikimedia Commons. It is used to illustrate the term ecchi. It was nominated once in the past with no clear result.

Articles in which this image appears

ecchi, global usage, global usage of exported png version

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Niabot

• Support as nominator --Niabot (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Why has this been nominated separately when it is already under discussion? J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Because the voting below does not differentiate between both versions. All mixed up and unusable. --Niabot (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy close on procedural grounds. We are perfectly capable of considering two closely related alternative images at the same time. We do it every day. Chick Bowen 19:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy close as per Chick. J Milburn (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy close per above. I think this is a misunderstanding case and not in bad faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 23:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedily closed - image already under discussion. Jujutacular ^talk 23:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vegetable Lamb of Tartary

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2011 at 23:05:57 (UTC)

Reason

A good picture of the Vegetable Lamb of Tartary. It is high quality and provides much historical context.

Articles in which this image appears

Vegetable Lamb of Tartary, Cotton

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others

Creator

Mgiganteus1

• Support as nominator --InverseHypercube 23:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support I love the image, any chance of a higher quality scan, though? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support High EV and decent scan. Higher resolution would be nice indeed. I'm thinking April Fools next year? Jujutacular ^talk 18:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Thank you for the support! I didn't upload the image, so I can't get a higher-resolution scan, nor can I see how it would benefit the image much. Out of curiosity: what does EV mean? Expected value? Thanks. InverseHypercube 06:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Encyclopedic V. Nergaal (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak oppose At 902 pixels small indeed. Brandmeister t 12:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Ok now. Brandmeister t 09:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak support this is soooo eyecatching... but the quality is much lower than ideal. Nergaal (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Original uploader here. I can get a better scan tomorrow, although I'm not sure there's much detail to be gained. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awesome! More resolution is always better. Looking forward to supporting it! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Higher res scan uploaded. mgiganteus1 (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak oppose. This is a 19th-century copy of a Renaissance original. The original book survives in a number of rare books libraries around the world. Since I think the original would have greater value than the copy, I can't support this one, even though the visual concept is such an arresting one. Chick Bowen 16:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note on authorship: can we assume that this was originally drawn by Johann Zahn, the author of the 1696 work? Or is authorship unknown? Jujutacular ^talk 20:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My source (Tree Ferns by M.F. Large J.E. Braggins) only has this to say: "Figure 6. The barometz or vegetable lamb, from Lee (1887), redrawn from Johann Zahn's Specula Physico-Mathematico-Historica Notabilium ac Mirabilium Sciendorum, in Qua Mundi Mirabilis Oeconomia,...Norimbergae, 1696." mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support It's a simple drawing, I don't really see much improvement on the image's clarity with the new scan. Though the higher quality scan makes it more in line with the rules.--Nanoman657 (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification of authorship before closing, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Mgiganteus1 left a note above, it seems we have no way of being sure of authorship. Jujutacular ^talk 03:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Vegetable lamb (Lee, 1887).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Royal Arms of the United Kingdom

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 01:18:57 (UTC)

Reason

visually stunning representation of a very widely used image on wikipedia

Articles in which this image appears

See Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (1952-2022).svg here

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Sodacan

• Support as nominator --Thanks, Hadseys 01:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: I am not happy with the copyright information here. It would need to be demonstrated that the design was public domain, and then, as far as Commons is concerned, the file would be public domain, as per the usual. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Well this version was a picture of the day on wikipedia at one point so I don't think that the coat of arms are copyrighted else they would surely never have been allowed on the main page, would they? --Thanks, Hadseys 22:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Follow up. This document provides more information on Crown Copyright regarding the use of the Royal Arms. It would appear that we need the consent of the Lord Chamberlain's office. --Thanks, Hadseys 23:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Nomination of a prior version of this Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom in 2008 - seems the same discussion was had then. --jjron (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No problem on copyright, I don't think. Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems was written by Lupo, who has a very long history of being extremely thorough about this sort of thing (and also being upheld as right), and I think that essay pretty well describes the situation here: it's not under copyright, and any use that is clearly illustration would not fall under the usage restrictions. I note also that, though we have previously considered a similar image, this one certainly seems sufficiently different to be considered. So with that said, I think we can begin the discussion about featuring it, on which I have no opinion. Chick Bowen 04:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unless you are going to hold that the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom belongs to Sodacan and has been released under the GFDL and various CC licenses, then you must surely accept that the copyright information on the file page is incorrect. Pointing at other pictures with questionable copyright statuses and essays (and, as an aside, I really don't see the purpose or relevance of that essay- while a few issues may crop up in the copyright status of emblems, each is going to have to be considered alone, as with any type of image) is all well and good, but while this image has such clearly incorrect and incomplete licensing, it is very clearly not eligible for featured picture status. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The license information on the file description page is accurate: Sodacan holds the copyright to his interpretation of the CoA definition. Trademark is separate from copyright: the image is subject to trademark restrictions, but the original definition of the CoA is in the public domain, as it is very old. Jujutacular ^talk 19:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Let me reiterate, J Milburn: I see no problem with the copyright status of this image. Since it is not a contentless copy, the author can indeed copyright a vector trace of it. He does not, of course, possess the underlying rights to the image, but it doesn't matter: as an image, it is in the public domain. As an emblem, rights are restricted, but that is not relevant under US law as long as we remain within the purposes of illustration. So, no, I don't think the licensing is "clearly incorrect." Chick Bowen 20:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The documentation should provide evidence that "as an image, it is in the public domain". If the image is in the public domain, then, surely, any reproduction of it is, too, as per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. What am I missing here? J Milburn (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Bridgeman v Corel "ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States". This is not an exact copy of a public domain image. It is an original artistic interpretation of a public domain CoA definition. Jujutacular ^talk 01:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Ok, fair enough, but so far as I understand, Wikimedia policy on the matter that "A mere mechanical reproduction of some other image, such as an unmodified photocopy or scan of a drawing, cannot attract additional copyright protection over and above that of the original, as it lacks originality: it is a bare copy, no more." "Sweat of the brow" does not confer copyright in the US- would you not consider this a "mere mechanical reproduction of some other image"? J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • See also this. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • No, I don't see it as a "mere mechanical reproduction". Artistic choices were involved. Jujutacular ^talk 17:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • In that case, I would not feel comfortable supporting it, as we should use the same version as is used by the royal family, not a version created by a Wikipedian. And, to reiterate, evidence that the underlying design is public domain is still needed on the image page. J Milburn (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support like I did in the Commons POTY.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose White on white is a bad choice --Niabot (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black Rhinoceros

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 03:52:46 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, well composed image giving a pretty complete view of the species. Used in a prominent capacity (taxo box). While some may want the feet to be shown, it's important to remember that no one mows the Savannah.

Articles in which this image appears

Black rhinoceros, Rhinoceros, Ngorongoro Crater

FP category for this image

Animals>Mammals

Creator

Ikiwaner

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Good quality, EV and Well isolated from background. --Muhammad(talk) 05:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong support Love it! Perfect (but still interesting) composition, love the shallow focus, great res, etc etc etc... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Neutral A really good shot of a subject living in the outdoors, but I don't think it's perfect. I agree the composition is nice, and the quality is good. But I don't like the hard shadows and the hooves are missing, so I don't think the EV is humongous. The image seems also a bit ccw tilted. --kaʁstn 11:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Compared to the other photos in the article (except the zoo one), it compares very well in the "how much of the animal is visible" stakes. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Take a peek at our FP gallery of large African mammals and you'll see that a number of them have their feet obscured. It's the reality of the environment. You'll probably see the same thing with hard sunlight. Cowtowner (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Edit1 added - tilt corrected version (note: I also tried a minor sharpening and think it would benefit from that, but the only edits I've done here is the tilt correction and then cropping back to rectangular). --jjron (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I am not sure about use of this image in Ngorongoro Crater. My image, much worse quality (scanned film image)shows the crater's walls. This one does not. So, yes, it is a good image of a rhino, but I am not sure it is a valued image of rhinos in the crater.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd say any of the animal images in that article are pretty peripheral and exchangeable, unless there happens to be a species that is endemic to the crater, and I don't think that's the case (not for any of the large animals shown). If that was the only article it was in then it would certainly lack EV. --jjron (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    It is what I meant, EV of the this image used in Ngorongoro Crater is less than EV of the other image. Otherwise it is a good image with a good EV, and I Support it, but I believe it should be replaced in Ngorongoro Crater with an old one that was used to be there before.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Agreed that there's weak EV there, I wasn't aware of a previous image (this one had been in the article when I came across it). Cowtowner (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    It was replaced here, but I guess I will replace it back, when the nomination is over.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There's no reason not to replace it there now. The EV for this is clearly in the Rhinoceros articles, so it wouldn't impact the nom. Discussion about which one is better in that article then really belongs on the article talk page. --jjron (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Agree 100% with jjron. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Nice quality, good composition. Jujutacular ^talk 19:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Edit1 per nom, though as I said above, it could be sharpened. Unfortunately the horn itself, such a key characteristic, is particularly lacking in sharpness (and, no, that's not just a pun). --jjron (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Checks out on my criteria sheet. SMasters (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support like I did in the first round of POTY on Commons.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everybody okay with the edit? Makeemlighter (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't care; prefer both.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I prefer the edit. Looks to be correct orientation. Jujutacular ^talk 23:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Ngorongoro Spitzmaulnashorn edit1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jack Layton

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 05:19:55 (UTC)

Reason

Exceptional-quality image that I came across while browsing, used as the main image in the subject's article. The angle of the shot is great, and in my opinion frames the leader of one of the three primary parties in Canadian federal politics in a very recognizable pose. The angle is very stately, but again, just my personal opinion. I figured it didn't hurt to give it a shot.

Articles in which this image appears

Jack Layton

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People

Creator

Matt Jiggins

• Support as nominator --ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. I like it! Noise exists but is not distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - was surprised when I found that this was available, like others had said above, it has exceptional quality. Connormah (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Unsharp, noisy and over-compressed. Very bad quality --Muhammad(talk) 00:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'll give it the second. The background is noisy... but unsharp and overcompressed? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yah, it's definitely overcompressed - 6MP and only 577KB; you're unlikely to be able to do that unless there's big stretches of uniform colour. The 'noisy' background is actually more artefacting. I'd like to see a less compressed version of this, because, again as Muhammad says it is unsharp, but that may be partly a consequence of the over-compression, because it looks quite good at image page size. --jjron (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've left a message for Matt on the photos flickr page to see if he has a uncompressed or less compressed version. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 10:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I can message him if you'd like - that's how I got him to release the colour version - it had originally been uploaded as black and white. Connormah (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Got a response already. He has an uncompressed tiff version that I will convert to png and upload - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Correct me if I'm wrong (probably am here), but isn't .jpg best for storing photographic data? Connormah (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes and no, but for use on Wiki it's recommended to use JPG. Just apply a low compression setting (for example if using Save As... in Photoshop, use a quality setting of 11 (or 12 if you really want to)). --jjron (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

jpg does not handle high quality gradients when thumbnailed. Causes all sorts of whacky artifacts. As long as its under 12.5 million pixels, png is definitely the way to go, IMO. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly oppose storing photographs as PNG for several reasons: 1) Just because we can go up to 12.5 MP doesn't mean that extra filesize is warranted. The larger the filesize, the more difficult it is to load. 2) Important EXIF metadata is lost. 3) JPEG quality 100 is virtually indistinguishable from PNG except at boundaries with computer-generated sharpness. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re Floydian: WP image guidelines, as I said recommending JPG. Hmm, given that 90% of our FPs are JPGs, I'm not sure what you're suggesting, because I'd reckon most look OK. And what's the issue with 12.5MP? --jjron (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The php files that generate thumbnails are based on oldschool programing from the days when 2 megapixels was WHOAAA! If a png has over 12.5 Mpx, then no thumbnail shows up, just a written error message. I can show you the problem with jpgs using an image I've uploaded. See the talk page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I guess the fact that no one has done anything about that problem from years ago is a general indication of how PNG is regarded though. --jjron (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. Nice shot; we don't have many high-quality free content images of prominent politicans, so it's great to have one. Neutrality^talk 05:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose to me there is no encyclopaedic value in the neck skin details of a person. Any un-staged pose with a less unnatural facial expression or in a meaningful context has higher EV. --Elekhh (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose -- As above. There is a disturbing alien look in this face and the image quality is way below FP standards. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Staged portraits make up a large number of the FPs of people that we have. Also, I don't think the facial expression is unnatural. Cowtowner (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We don't have to be the slaves of the past though. Anyway they tend to make it to the main page via the news section, regardless of quality. --Elekhh (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Major wind rose of Cantino planisphere

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 15:05:05 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and good resolution replica of an old wind rose, showing clearly the details of the painted original. Colours were reproduced as faithfully as possible and minor drawing imperfections were corrected.

Articles in which this image appears

Cantino planisphere

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Is there any value to retaining the face from the original? And a small thing, I would prefer to see the image centred on the red square (not as it currently sits in the corner) Cowtowner (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I have decided not to include the face because it would look somehow fake, but I could still try. As for the framing, this is a svg image, meaning that the background is just an empty and transparent space. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For me, that would probably be a condition of my support. If you have the time to try, I'd like to see the results. Cowtowner (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Misleading; claims to be a specific reproduction, but lacks details that appear in the original. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose To simple to meet the original, nominate this instead --Niabot (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ruines of the Château de Coucy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 19:19:45 (UTC)

Reason

Illustrative & appealing; high enc value & high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Château de Coucy

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Roi Boshi

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose. There's nothing wrong with this image, but it doesn't have much "wow" factor, i.e. it does not "illustrate the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more." Quality images would be where this belongs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Question Are the bricks in the foreground the ruins? or the larger wall behind? If the latter then I would Oppose as subject cut off... Just viewed article (always a good idea to do that first!) and it is refering to larger structure as well, in which case I Oppose due to incomplete image... gazhiley.co.uk 14:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eiffel Tower reproduction in Bloemfontein

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 13:04:15 (UTC)

Reason

An impressive and appealing picture; a nice representative of photos depicting replicas of the Eiffel Tower.

Articles in which this image appears

List of Eiffel Tower replicas, Bloemfontein

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Leo za1

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose that's a very good example, that a super camera means not only super photos. Completely wrong focussing, the only thing what's sharp is the façade of house on the left. A wide open aperture engenders a very short DOF. Furthermore perspective distortions... --kaʁstn 15:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, sharpness is lacking. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose sorry, another oppose due to the poor focus. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose lacking sharpness – Wladyslaw (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

White House Situation room for Operation Geronimo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 15:34:45 (UTC)

Reason

Without doubt one of the most powerful and significant pictures that has emerged in recent times. This view has been expressed in many media outlets such as CNN [2] and the featured picture peer review had two response, with an unqualified support and an ambiguous response.

Articles in which this image appears

Death of Osama bin Laden, Osama bin Laden

FP category for this image

American history

Creator

US Government

• Support as nominator --TheWilliamson (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak support I was thinking of nominating this myself earlier today. The quality may not be perfect but it is indeed a powerful image reminiscent of scenes from 24. May need a light denoise --Muhammad(talk) 16:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Head bottom left, blown pixels at the top, poor composition (lack of focal point, hugely unbalanced), ambiguous focus, and noise. Yeah it's a important moment in american politics, but I'm not feeling it's an outstanding photograph. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ambiguous response at peer review was pretty much an oppose, btw. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose On the basis we don't actually know the meaning of the image and there is no focal point in the image. Media outlets report they were watching the infiltration unfold in real-time,[3] whereas Leon Panetta refute that saying Obama didn't watch via a head-cam,[4] so what exactly they are watching/hearing on the Situation Room screen is unknown. Although an intriguing photo, without clarification of what exactly they are watching, it goes against the grain of photography and is too ambiguous to be a featured picture - in my view anyway. Stevo1000 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, the quality isn't perfect, but I would suggest that the historic significance of the photograph is enough to over-ride those concerns. The atmosphere in the room is almost palpable. Bob talk 22:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose. The historical value is undeniable, though as others have said, it's somewhat diminished by the fact that we're looking at people looking intently at something, but we don't know exactly what they're looking at. But I think what we're summarizing as "quality concerns" actually go deeper than that. The noise derives from working without flash in available light, and I sympathize with that. But it was an odd choice not to try to include the president within the depth of field; it kind of makes me wonder what Souza imagines this as a photograph of. And, though I understand why the document in front of Clinton had to be pixelated, it doesn't make for very compelling photography. I've just sifted through Commons:Category:Photographs by Pete Souza and was left feeling like, even given the situation, this is not his best work. Chick Bowen 00:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Compelling, encyclopedic. Neutrality^talk 05:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Hasn't been in the article for a week - per stevo we are still learning about it. Frankly though this is an easy support after that week - it's one of the more valuable images available on the topic and has been widely printed in the media with good reason (including my own local newspaper). JJ Harrison (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Very interesting image; when I saw it in the newspaper I was fascinated at those fascinated people. Tomer T (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support While this image is new, I think it is clear that it will have lasting EV. The role of the Obama administration will not diminish over time. There is little doubt that this is a critical scene from the operation. It effectively shows the tension in the room (despite the obvious flaws) and it is a situation which will not be repeated. Cowtowner (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose The noise is too great in this photo, as well as the pixelated document (which appears to be a photo of the compound) on top of the laptop detract from the overall subject. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose While this is a valuable and useful photo, it isn't of particularly high technical standards and the uncertainty over what the people in the room were looking at limits the EV. It might be worth nominating this as a valued picture. Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Oppose Seriously? The quality of this is terrible. -- mcshadypl ^TC 03:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Although I can't comment on the quality of this image, I do think it the picture represents an important moment in modern history.--Forward Unto Dawn 04:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose the pixelated documents detract from the composition. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What composition??? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Reply[reply]

ZING! --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 13:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Reply[reply]

• Support Noise is acceptable to me - Blieusong (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose fails WP:NOTCENSORED; see documents.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose fails in so many aspects. It's well known, but not good. --Niabot (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak Support. Historically important image, notwithstanding the technical shortcomings. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tanzanian Church

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 09:28:24 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, res, historic church in Bagamoyo

Articles in which this image appears

Christianity in Tanzania, Bagamoyo

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 09:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak Support Trees... While the shorter one nearest the church cannot be helped, a slight sidestep to the right should remove the overhanging trees from shot... Other than that, great picture... gazhiley.co.uk 15:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose a lot of dust spots, halo around the church, strong sharpening halos --kaʁstn 10:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose A fine photograph, but we've gotta stop going in the direction of valued images. This is probably the best image we have of this church, but FPs need to be truly extraordinary. To more specific, I'm not so keen on the perspective and composition. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose on EV grounds. If we had an article on the church, or even an article that discusses it at length... J Milburn (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Anti-Slavery Society Convention, 1840

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 11:21:10 (UTC)

Reason

This historic painting by Benjamin Robert Haydon is already a Featured Picture on Wiki Commons. Copying Dcoetzee's rationale from that nomination, "this is a high-quality, 10 megapixel image of a famous painting from the National Portrait Gallery, London which depicts in arduous detail the pivotal 1840 Anti-Slavery Society Convention with an elderly Thomas Clarkson speaking. It contains 136 identifiable persons, and details of it have been used to illustrate over 28 different articles, many of which have no other known portrait of the subject."

Since that nomination, it has been added to many more articles, and has an added bonus that on some articles (i.e. Anti-Slavery Society), a clickable grid has been created which allows a user to identify and read about the people at the conference by moving their cursor over the painting. So in summary, high quality, historic context and demonstrates the Wiki format to its best abilities. This is about as encyclopedic as it gets, really.

Articles in which this image appears

A huge number of articles link to this image, but the key ones are probably Thomas Clarkson, Anti-Slavery Society, Anti-Slavery International, Abolitionism, plus many of the individuals on the painting. It's probably better to look at the list on the image page, to be honest as it's rather long.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others

Creator

Dcoetzee

• Support as nominator --Rob (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. High-quality and encyclopedic, as it adds to dozens of biographies. Neutrality^talk 05:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support very interesting --Thanks, Hadseys 23:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support I get this feeling that it has been cropped tightly though. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If this engraving is accurate, it looks like a little sliver is chopped off at the left: you can see the end of the scroll in the engraving, but not in our reproduction of the painting. Chick Bowen 00:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Looking at a picture of the original in its frame here, it doesn't look like it's been cropped, unless it's by the edges of the frame? Rob (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Indeed, it may have been reframed some time after the engraving was made. Chick Bowen 15:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support I initially had some concerns about cropping, but as this does not appear to be the case, I have no reservations. High EV and quality. SMasters (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:The Anti-Slavery Society Convention, 1840 by Benjamin Robert Haydon.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evacuated Pichilemu fishing boats after Japanese earthquake

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 20:25:24 (UTC)

Reason

I think it meets all of the FPC criteria, it has good composition, is of great quality, is free, and has not been manipulated digitally (except to fix the contrast, otherwise I would've uploaded the original).

Articles in which this image appears

2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami

FP category for this image

History

Creator

Diego Grez

• Support as nominator --Diego Grez (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, sorry Diego. The article says, "The surge in Chile was large enough to damage more than 200 houses, with waves of up to 3 m (9.8 ft)." A more encyclopedic image would show that, rather than what looks to be five little boats dragged up the road just off the beach on a quiet Sunday afternoon in Anytown. There's nothing to tell us it's Pichilemu (the signpost is chopped off), it doesn't really look like the boats were left there due to the earthquake. One might wonder why the boats aren't moored in a dock somewhere, but I've seen boats left on the street in little fishing seaside towns before and that's what this looks like. While it may be a nice local history photograph, I don't see anything that makes it outstanding. I think it's a bit dull and underwhelming actually. So yeah, really sorry but this just doesn't do anything for me. :( Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• To clarify, I think this fails WP:FP? #5 (adds value) and #3b (compelling). PS, my wife thinks my above comment was mean, but I'm just trying to be as clear and explanatory as possible. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The caption of the image in the article explicitly says what is it about, however, the article does not contain much information on what happened in Chile. "Boats dragged up the road 'just off the beach' [they weren't that near to the beach anyways]" aren't common to see, and as it is described on the image caption, they were "evacuated" because of the quake and tsunami. Pichilemu isn't a "little fishing seaside town" so I don't get the comparation (if you read the city's article, you'll notice it is not even important in the area). Maybe 'local', but I did not really come here because of the "historicallyness" of the image, but its quality, composition, and quality (did I say quality already? :P). That's it. Diego Grez (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Diego, I know what the caption says, I just don't think the picture adds sufficient EV to the article because it doesn't show much. I can't look at it and say "Yes! This photo clearly shows that those boats were evacuated because of the earthquake". It just does look like some of the little fishing seaside communities I've been to where I've seen boats kept or left (I'm not sure which) on the oceanway roads. That's not me saying Pichilemu is a "little fishing seaside town", it just reminds me of experiences in those kinds of places; however, "dragged up the road just off the beach" does seem like an appropriate statement because if I'm not mistaken, there is sand in the background and those look like beach houses on a road leading down to the beach. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Composition and quality are a bit lacking in my opinion. Quality: quite noisy, with bits of chromatic abberation throughout. Composition: if the light poles and and signpost were not there, it would have nice composition. As it is, the power lines lead the eyes up to nothing. The cutoff signpost distracts. Overall decent work, but some limiting factors make me oppose. A favorite book of mine regarding composition that you may enjoy is The Photographer's Eye. Jujutacular ^talk 03:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, as above. A little lacking for FPC, I feel. J Milburn (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I've uploaded a different photo I took the same day to the same boats, it shows the signpost completely, and also the light poles. Diego Grez (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agnes Milowka, underwater cave explorer

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 01:15:49 (UTC)

Reason

Portrait of Agnes Milowka, internationally-renowned underwater cave technical diver [5], double stunt on Sanctum movie blockbuster [6], who recently died in similar circumstances. Watch that smile... Quality photographic work, where the essence of the person character has been well captured.

Articles in which this image appears

en:Agnes Milowka pl:Agnes Milowka

FP category for this image

People

Creator

James Axford, Melbourne

• Support as nominator --Cm224 (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, love it. J Milburn (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Excellent quality portrait with lots of EV Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Support per nom. Even her teeth are white!--Nanoman657 (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment EXIF data would be nice and very interesting --kaʁstn 15:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Excellent photo. Great use of DOF causes her face to stand out, even from her legs, as she leans forward! Gabeguss (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Great photo -- mcshadypl ^TC 03:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support A perfect portrait! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Excellent portrait. SMasters (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support A touch too much space at left for my taste, but a good portrait. --Avenue (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Left space - it was intentional, the dive fins on the table are part of the picture story. Cm224 00:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - My only complaint is the space above her head plus cutting off her feet. To me it makes it look like the camera was held too high, but I still like it. Anoldtreeok (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I assume this was to include the beach in the background, putting her in fantastic context. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Agnes Milowka by J Axford.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sea foam

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 May 2011 at 03:42:36 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, adds value to the article

Articles in which this image appears

Sea foam

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others

Creator

Mbz

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment – there are strange wedge-shapes extending from the top left and bottom corners, perhaps as an artifact of when you rotated the image. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for noticing.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm worried about the eyecatchingness. Two of the images you removed from the article ([7] and [8]) I find much prettier than this photo, although not as good EV. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of them shows sea foam. It was the only reason I removed them. I could take the same "prettier" pictures every single day. I saw such amount of sea foam only once. --Mbz1 (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK that may be true that this is a lot of foam, but I oppose due to poor composition (strange ratios; strong, irrelevant focal point), washed out (underexposed?) colours, little sense of scale on the foam, and the generally strange appearance of the foam. Maybe a candidate for VI, but absolutely not up to FP status. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: There's still something going on on the left edge towards the bottom. J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. I am sorry about this. Should have seen it myself. It came from the rotation of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support both. Very illustrative, nice quality now -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. It's a little dark, but I appreciate that if it was any lighter, it would probably be overexposed. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per JM. Jujutacular ^talk 03:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Update: I'd be okay with the alt, no real preference between the two. Jujutacular ^talk 17:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose for the same reasons as Adam*3. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support --Muhammad(talk) 13:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support either alt has better composition in terms of showing waves as well --Muhammad(talk) 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose As the person who did a lot to improve the quality of this article, I'm not terribly happy that this photo has been used to replace several other images. While I don't dispute that the image I contributed was "low quality" (it was after all only a 200dpi scan of the original 35mm print), at least it was more edgy - dynamic and somewhat ambiguous (the enjoyment of the dog as it loped along the water's edge, the half-hidden hazard of the driftwood in the foam) - in a way that echoed themes in the text.

And it's certainly not true of the other two images removed by mbz1 that "none of them shows sea foam". At least they help to illustrate the processes that lead to the formation of sea foams (which I intend to expand on once I get time to dig out the references).

While this image by mbz1 has a certain surreal quality to it, it also has a very static quality due to the separation from the surf zone where the foam was created. Eye-catching perhaps, but not as spectacular as some of the photos in the external links to the Queensland events where the foam was metres-thick.

In short, a welcome addition as part of a gallery of examples, but not to the exclusion of the other images.

I note that the other (close-up) photo currently remaining in this article is also by mbz1. Bahudhara (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The other image (close up) by me has been in the article for a very long time.

The two images I replaced show no sea foam. They show the ocean as it looks every single day. it is not an accident that sea foam is also called beach foam. There's no beach foam in the images I removed from the article. This image of mine shows better the development of sea foam because it does show some sea foam and not only a normal surf, but I am still not sure it should be in a short article. About your image being more dynamic, well, maybe, but we're concern more about EV, aren't we? this image of mine is more dynamic because it even shows some sea foam in flight, but still I believe the nominated one has a better EV. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I prefer this user’s alternative picture as it shows the churning sea as well as the foam. This alternative gives the context of what’s happening. TehGrauniad (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Added. It might have a sense. After all this single image has everything that the two images I removed (because they show no sea foam) + sea foam.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, both are excellent, and in my opinion the original meets the 8 criteria, I think that Alt 1 would meet them too if it were used in the article. TehGrauniad (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: My support above for both versions --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I'm sorry, mbz1, but you simply cannot say that the images you removed "show no sea foam". The only difference is the quantity and persistence of the foams produced under varying conditions - and I think that it is important to illustrate the contrast, e.g. between normal, lower-energy conditions which produce only small quantities of short-lived foam, and those under which excessive, persistent foam is produced. In the latter case, the foam is potentially toxic to human health if it is derived from the breakdown of a harmful algal bloom, or if there is contamination from polluted urban stormwater runoff, floodwaters, or sewage directly discharged into the ocean. To concentrate purely on the aesthetics is to trivialise the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahudhara (talk • contribs) 02:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I removed those images not because they prevented me from adding mine. I removed them because IMO those image show a usual sea conditions like I see every single day. There are hundreds of images in category Pacific Ocean for example that show the ocean under different conditions, but there are only few images that show sea (beach) foam. I do not mind adding the images I removed back to the article, if you find corresponding sources to describe those, but as it is now, Sea foam is a small article, and I felt as adding one good image of sea foam to it.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note to the editor who is going to close the nomination All oppose votes were made before the alternative was added.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments on Alt1, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It looks like all editors who supported the image, supported both of them, but opposers did not comment on alternative probably because they like it not enough to support, but enough do not oppose :-)So, it looks like alt 1 should get promoted.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Maybe renom the alt so it can get discussed properly. I agree it's much better than the original, but I'm pretty much neutral on it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thanks for your comment,Aaadddaaammm, but what is the point of renominating it, most of all after you kindly specified that your vote for alt is neutral? IMO it is a proper thing to do to promote alt at this point.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I also prefer relisting since the Alt was only up for a few days and needed prompts to get people to vote on it. As far as I can see you only asked supporters to take another look. To be fair surely you should also ask the opposers? --99of9 (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Question: Why you are talking abut Muhammad Mahdi in plural "supporters"? I used to think about Muhammad as only about one user. Are there more than one :-) So, I asked only one supporter, to be exact. One of the opposers user:Bahudhara commented on the nomination after the alt was added, and apparently chosen not to vote on alternative, the other one user:Aaadddaaammm expressed their opinion. Even, if the third one user:Rwxrwxrwx is to oppose, the nomination still should be promoted. But please do as you wish.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'll strike the plural. I only checked the vote that came in after the official vote closing time. --99of9 (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Sea foam at Ocean Beach in San Francisco -1 on 3-25-11.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

San Sebastián

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2011 at 15:36:26 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV, already featured on Commons and 3 other 'pedias.

Articles in which this image appears

San Sebastián, Spain, Louis Emmanuel Rey

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Keta

• Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^talk 15:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Nice panorama, educational -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Nice picture. A bit soft, esp. given the size, but good composition, lighting, etc. --jjron (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Per jjron. The sky feels a little over-processed/too dark. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Gives a fantastic impression of the area. A great photograph. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak support -- I love it but the picture is oversaturated. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose -- Until the oversaturation is fixed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• (strong) Oppose poor detais, heavily oversaturated, a lot of overexposed parts, posterized. --kaʁstn 08:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose as is Really oversaturated/overprocessed and artificial-looking. (Dark sky, sand a color that does not occur in nature, etc.) This probably could be fixed with some easy editing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone care to edit this? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've messed around with the contrast/saturation, but it never seems to be an improvement. Jujutacular ^talk 02:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah, personally I think to 'fix' it (if you agree with the oppose reasons) you'd have to do so from the original/s. So, IMO, the closer needs to make the call based on the reasons given and the current version of the image. (Though I'm sure someone might prove me wrong ...). --jjron (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Added alt. Any better? I could make it more saturated or less saturated by request.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There's a bit of colour/contrast change about a quarter way across the image, possibly resulting from not locking in manual settings when it was taken leading to a change of exposure, or by different modifications being made to the images prior to stitching. I think that has been exacerbated by the edit. As it looks like (a) no one is going to actually close this as promoted based on the current votes, and (b) it's not going to be reprocessed off the originals (which as I said above is what would be needed to fix the various issues stated in a number of votes), in the interests of getting it closed I will shift to a Weak Oppose (if that's allowed these days; if not, change me back to support!). --jjron (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I prefer the alt, thanks Mbz1. I don't particularly see the color change mentioned by jjron. Jujutacular ^talk 15:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I see a sharp colour change in the sea (I presume due to cloud reflections), but not in the sky. --Avenue (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose but only due to the color change. It's really obvious to me and distracting from what would otherwise be a very good photograph. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TV tower, Sofia

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 20:47:03 (UTC)

Reason

Quality photo that presents the entire tower which is among the symbols of the city.

Articles in which this image appears

Borisova Gradina TV Tower, Tourist attractions in Sofia

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

MrPanyGoff

• Support as nominator --MrPanyGoff (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Why don't they just cover the whole thing in antennas? :P Nice quality and EV. Composition nicely shows the surroundings of the tower without distracting. Jujutacular ^talk 03:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Interesting subject. Biggest problem is the close distance and short focal length leads to unpleasing distortion. The fence and trees in the lower left are skewed. The sky is grainy. The antennas at the top are not clearly defined by poor contrast against the sky. Gabeguss (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Atlantic mackerel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 May 2011 at 22:11:26 (UTC)

Reason

A well illustrative photo of high quality (a quality image on commons)

Articles in which this image appears

Stockfish Smoked fish, Atlantic mackerel

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish

Creator

Lviatour

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Well done photo -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support if you clone out the shadow bottom right. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Very nice, good EV and makes me want to make lunch. SMasters (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Oppose Dead fish cadaver. Surely insulting to every vegetarian. --Niabot (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joke? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like the others, concerning the mainpage issue. --Niabot (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, good, just clarifying... :) Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Niabot is trying to make a point concerning Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ecchi 2. As a vegetarian, I can assure you that I am not offended... J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support (prefer edit) -- good EV, good technical quality. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support original or edit; a lovely dead fish. Chick Bowen 22:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support fishy. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment The fish is not just 'dried'. Fatty fish like mackerel is smoked to be preserved. This is how it gets its golden hue. There is some information missing in the description. Lycaon (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Done. It's actually in the file title: "Maquereau fumé." Chick Bowen 02:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Conditional support if a size reference is added (which could simply consist of the image page containing text that indicates the size of this specimen. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Maquereau fumé Luc Viatour edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lothar Späth

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 May 2011 at 15:39:50 (UTC)

Reason

A great portrait with high ev

Articles in which this image appears

Lothar Späth (if promoted)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Felix König

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Neutral too tight crop at top, a little bit cw tilted – otherwise a superb portrait --kaʁstn 15:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose The crop is too tight and very odd. Why is there so much more space on the left side remaining? -- mcshadypl ^TC 03:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is a rule of thirds composition. Also, with his head and body facing slightly to camera left, the image provides lead room for the eyes to follow his line of sight. It is a compositionally pleasing image imo. Jujutacular ^talk 14:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support A fantastic photo - with personality and I find the composition refreshing and dynamic. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I have added the image to the article. Generally speaking, it is preferable for the image to be in the article already for some time before nominating at FPC to give a chance to article editors to access its use. In this case however, the photo is of much higher quality and the article is not a very active one. Jujutacular ^talk 15:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh I didn't see it wasn't in an article. But whatever, we all know it's going to be stable in that article. Someone should add this image to the other article in other languages... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. I don't think the crop is to tight - it's a portrait photo. -- Felix König ✉ 18:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak Support Its a little dark. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Cowtowner (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support < 5 Makeemlighter (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]