Promoted Image:Zipper animated.gif --Fir0002 10:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camouflaged flounder[edit]

This is a double nomination: (1) nomination of Image:Flounder Camo md.jpg for Featured Picture status and (2) nomination of Image:Camouflage.jpg, a current Featured Picture, for delisting. Both are of the essentially the same topic (a sea creature camouflaged among rocks), but the upper one is of far better quality (photo by User:Moondigger). The lower one has a center composition, a distracting reflection above the cuttlefish, and some shadow in the lower left corner.

• Nominate and support flounder pic. Delist cuttlefish pic. howcheng {chat} 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace the current FP by the edit made by Arad. Support I wanted to nominate the same image by Moondigger as soon as I could and now I see Howard beat me to it. does it make a difference anyway? Good photo. Arad 21:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I hadn't spent any time working on this image before today -- I uploaded it because it seemed encyclopedic and useful to a couple of articles, but didn't pay much attention to sharpness, contrast, etc. When I discovered it had been nominated, I fixed it up a bit. Apparently while I was working on it, Fir0002 submitted an improved edit as well, addressing some of the same problems that I fixed. If Fir's doesn't look much different than mine now, that's only because we've both made edits. They're both improvements over the original version. -- Moondigger 02:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either version, with a preference for mine. Suggest nominating the cuttlefish image for delisting separately in the regular Delist section. If not, I'm neutral on the delisting. -- Moondigger 02:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support my version - the purpose of the picture is to illustrate camoflauge, and the cuttlefish is clearly better camoflauged into the sand. Raul654 02:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - your image is already a featured picture. It's being nominated for delisting (i.e., to lose featured status), so a "Keep" vote is more appropriate than a "Support." People are being asked to decide on two separate questions here: 1. Do you support or oppose promotion of the flounder image to featured status? And 2. Do you want to delist or keep the cuttlefish image in featured status? Personally I'm neutral on the idea of delisting yours, and think it unlikely a consensus to delist it will be reached, whatever the outcome of my nomination is. -- Moondigger 04:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• After having gone through the lengthy "discussion" on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Muybridgehorse, I suggest that the delisting of the cuttlefish picture be seperate from the nomination of the flounder picture. Therefore, I oppose the delisting on this nomination page. That should be left for individual consideration on a delisting page. However, I think the flounder image is FP material, so I will support Moondigger's edit (the original nomination) on its sharpness, saturation, and encyclopedic value. --Tewy 04:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this was kind of a test case. Since we decided not to ban replacement nominations, I thought I'd test it with a similiar-themed replacement. Guess this was stretching the boundary a bit. howcheng {chat} 17:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Moondigger's edit. Sharp, large, nice colors, and depicts camouflage very well. Abstain from the discussion on the delisting of the older FP picture. --theSpectator _talk 04:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Moondigger's version, move delisting to its proper place - note that FPCs are independent of each other, and should be judged so, unless basically the same image - which these aren't. --Janke | Talk 06:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support New Image, Abstain On Delisting. I support either edit of the new image. The delisting of the old one should be seperated and moved down. NauticaShades^(talk) 10:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Flounder camo md.jpg --Fir0002 10:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Lightning[edit]

A beautiful image of lightning striking downtown Denver, Colorado. The image is used in the Denver article.

• Nominate and support. - Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 14:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support What is your subject? Denver or lightning? I cannot vote unless I know this. The image only appears in the Denver article, so if Denver is the subject I must oppose as Denver is not well depicted. However if this image was used on the lightning article, I would probably support it as lightning is very well depicted. HighInBC 16:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this were used in the Climate section of the Denver article, I think that then it would be fine.--DaveOinSF 17:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking Denver, so I updated my introduction. Either one would be appropriate. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 13:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Moved to the "Climate" section of Denver per above (good idea!) and added to Thunderstorm. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I was very pleased to have discovered this image at the commons. I think that it is well depicted and really just a cool photo in general. Editor19841 (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not a bad representation of a lightning strike, but is it the best Wikipedia has to offer? I'm sure there are better lightning images out there. --Tewy 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. When viewed at large, the dark buildings contrast the bright and striking lightning bolt.--theSpectator _talk 04:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support even though there are blown highlights ;-) Debivort 04:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. This is realively good quality and encyclopedic. However, I am sure that better lightning images exist. NauticaShades^(talk) 10:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I like the image, but it neither illustrates Denver or Thunderstorm well. The best thing it illustrates is Lightning but it's not in that article, and there are better lightning pictures there anyway. howcheng {chat} 21:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good timing. sikander 18:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Denver Lightning.jpg --Fir0002 10:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moraine Lake[edit]

This stunning image by Commons User:Gorgo is not only of good quality, but adds a lot to the articles it is in (Moraine Lake, Valley of the Ten Peaks, Banff National Park, Rocky Mountains, and Mountains of Alberta). The clear reflection of the mountains on the lake is quite beatutiful. I've also added a panorama of Moraine Lake for you consideration

• Nominate and support. - NauticaShades^(talk) 15:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both. Purple fringes on left mountaintop, not very sharp in full size. Panorama suffers from "3x255-syndrome" at right, i.e. overexposed, blown highlights. --Janke | Talk 15:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both per Janke. Also, blown highlights are prominent in both images, not just the pano. -- Moondigger 15:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both per above; mottled pixelation in sky, blown highlights on treetrunks. They are nice big pictures, but not so sharp. --Bridgecross 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both. Per above; blown highlights are too big of a problem. Stitching is apparent in the sky of the second image. --Tewy 21:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support, especially for the panorama -- there's more to a picture than pixelation, guys. This picture is exceptional. Robert 06:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC) *[reply]
  • Except that the first two criteria for FP are specifically that; 1:high quality and 2:high resolution. Item 1 immediately mentions JPG artifacts and graininess in the first sentence. Agree that this composition is very nice, and in a higher quality would be an FP. --Bridgecross 14:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The panorama Image:Moraine Lake by Lake Louise Alberta Canada.jpg was featured and photo of the day on commons on June 19, 2005, in spite of the stiching artifacts in the upper left. --Qyd 17:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support first one, very good picture, even though some users believe there are some artifacts in the HighRes. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I like the first one (the one on the top) better. Could have been better, but we are worse off not nominating it. | AndonicO 12:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Both Very good picture. I like it a lot and specially since it's from Canada, it's even better. It's true a higher quality would have gain a full support. But the nominator forgot to mention that this also appears on the back of the old 1979 20$ bills of Canada. ;-) Arad 12:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Do you have a picture? NauticaShades^(talk) 06:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Canada has pictures of bills featuring the Valley of the Ten Peaks: link --Qyd 15:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, exactly, 1978. I like the old bills better than the new ones. Arad 17:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Purple fringes? There is a shadow there in the top image, and with the way ice and glaciers can reflect light, sometimes glaciers appear bluish and shadows can appear purplish. Does this image value to an article? This scene, as mentioned above, was once pictured on the Canadian $20 bill. It's an iconic scene, likely one that Banff National Park is best known for and adds a great deal to the article. The top image is high quality, with lighting that captures the reflections in the water. --Aude (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "purple fringes" are an artifact of the camera lens & CCD. Rahter common in highligts on low-end digital cameras (and some better ones, too). --Janke | Talk 12:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it turned out, the picture appeared on WP main page after all (on October 15, 2006, to illustrate the featured article Banff National Park). --Qyd 20:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phenotypic variation[edit]

I feel this is an aesthetic image that shows the diversity of form capable within a single species, a concept that is critical for evolution by natural selection. Plus, shells are pretty. The image appears in the Donax and phenotype articles. Shells collected, imaged and uploaded by me user:debivort.

• Nominate and support. - Debivort 02:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I really like the idea and it has great encyclopedic value, but there's too much noise in the picture for me to support. I may change my vote as input from other users comes in. --Tewy 04:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah this is kind of interesting. I assume you are referring to the background. What looks like noise is actually texture on the surface I photographed them on (anodized aluminum). I'll make an alternative version in which the appearance of noise is reduced. Debivort 04:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. I'd still like to see a little more noise reduction in the background. NauticaShades^(talk) 07:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Good illustration of phenotypes. Yes, the original background "grain" is very distracting. The edit is better in that respect, but still suffers from there being too many shells, many look almost identical (especially in thumb size). I think a better image would contain only a few, say, four to six, very different shells, seen in much greater detail. I'd like to compare the striations and ruffled edges really close up! So, since you could do better, I give a No Go on this one... --Janke | Talk 08:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would you think if there were the same number, but the image was much larger, i.e. 3x larger on each axis? or does your concern about too many shells also arise in the thumbnail? Debivort 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Not bad, could be better per Janke. I'd say about ten shells would be good, six are too few (IMHO). | AndonicO 13:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All 20 types are pretty different. One possibility is treating a new version as a panorama - taking hardcore macro images and then stitching them together. Matching the backgrounds would become a problem though, and one might have to just set it to white, and make the thing more of an illustration. Debivort 18:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I like the topic but for some reason the picture is meh. Is it just me or does it seem like its taken at a slight angle? Also can the lighting used be improved? there are reflectiosn on some of the shells. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doubt much can be done about the reflections. The shells are shiny, and I only have point sources. Doesn't seem like it's worth sinking much effort into a re-shoot. Does anyone think otherwise? Debivort
    • What are you using for lighting? Simple things like a bedsheet can be used to change lighting. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 15:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Subject is very nice and has good encyclopedic value, but the photo has problems. White background distracts from the subject. Something dark and diffuse would be better. Lighting is messed up by highlights: a diffuse source would probably help. Also, since there are no actual paired shells, don't present them arranged in pairs. If you could do a less slanted, more uniform grid that would be good. I encourage you to try again. Dgies 21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are paired - inside and outside of same individual Debivort 22:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I couldn't see that the left ones were concave. Dgies 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I think it would be worth trying to recreate this with imrpovements, mabye try something more like this (one half of the shell/black background?).--Peta 01:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F18 launching[edit]

A beautiful picture of a F18 launching off a carrier.I took this picture my self.

• Nominate and support. - Blind14 23:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, pending its addition to an article. howcheng {chat} 00:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blind14 00:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain on principle. I can't support it given the attempt at stealing the photo credit. If you are in fact, Photographer’s Mate Airman Apprentice Ricardo J. Reyes, then I apologize. howcheng {chat} 22:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize then please =) Blind14 22:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize and your image now has my support. If this nomination fails here, I would definitely consider nominating it for Featured Picture status on Wikimedia Commons, as the encyclopedic value of the photo is not as important there. howcheng {chat} 16:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your forgiven.Just remember to vote for me on the commons page (It's nominated now)Blind14 20:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose. While a beautiful picture, it does not strike me as very encyclopaedic. Still a great photo though. say1988 00:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • thank you,but may I ask what you mean by "encyclopedic" Blind14 00:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Encyclopedic" roughly equates to pedagogical (educational) value. This seems to be a more artistic or impressionistic image. Something that is high on encyclopedic value but low on artistic value would be a well-drawn map, for example. Or a photo of a machine that clearly shows the working components -- boring, maybe, but highly educational. That said, many featured pictures have both. Personally, I'm still undecided on this one. -- Moondigger 03:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Great picture all in all. Okay to all of the hardline "encyclopedic" image people... look the current picture of the day and tell me that it is not a lil artistic? Open your standards a bit. There are many awesome pictures out there that add to the value of wikipedia. Who cares if they are completly encyclopedic or not. As long as they are great pictures and add to the overall articles value. --Tobyw87 14:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not." From What is a featured picture

What does this picture add to the article? Sure it makes it look nice, but it has absolutely nothing to do with anything around its location in the article (it does nothing to show the speed required for takeoff or gliders). The picture of the 737 demonstrates the basic process of taking off better, so it doesnt pas this criteria. If fact I would say this image detracts from the article by distracting the reader from the subject at hand. This image was just stuck somewhere so it was elligable for FPC. say1988 00:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very impressive picture SOADLuver 01:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose per Say1988. In addition, the plane and the deck are both too dark to make out any details, which I feel kinda detracts from the photo. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, doesn't actually impart any information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually it does, it shows an airplane taking off of an aircraft carrier. Blind14 19:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know about a carrier launch after seeing that picture that you didn't know before you saw it?Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many things-

1.planes have wings 2.planes have an engine. So really you do get something out of this picture.So really this objection is incorrect. Blind14 21:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have doubts about the sourcing information on this image. Blind14 has claimed images that he obviously didn't take as his own work before. See Image:Loken03.jpg. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes I forgot to nominate that for deletion.I couldn't find the copyright info and accidently put that tag on there, but I can promise you I did take this picture. Blind14 21:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The darkness adds intrest and makes it unique in my mind.I also believe it's very "encyclopedic" (open your minds guys think outside the box maybe this isn't the best picture for description when it comes to a plane taking off of an aircraft carrier.It could show many things.C'mon this is an encyclopedia.)

P.S.If this user wanted to steal an image off a website just so he could nominate it here why would he pick this one?Trashking 21:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!Thanks!! Blind14 21:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you did steal it.. from here. Given you have no respectable history, I can't say I believe you are the original photographer of this image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did take this picture, but since it is on that website I will change the copyright information.Blind14 22:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have been caught in the act my friend lol Trashking 22:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Cool image, but I agree with the above on it being non-encyclopedic, and let me explain why. If the subject is the plane, the picture is both far too dark and not currently used in a plane article. If the subject is the takeoff, you see almost nothing of the actual launching gear and the plane isn't even off the carrier. It either doesn't display the plane at all properly, or doesn't display the take-off. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I can't tell if he did take this nice picture or not, but it's still worthy of FP status. | AndonicO 13:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is more like a still from Top Gun than an encyclopedic image. It has plenty of emotional power, but doesn't serve our purposes exceptionally well.--ragesoss 16:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This would do much better on Commons, try it there. On another note, I have nominated a more encyclopedic takeoff picture. NauticaShades^(talk) 17:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think this is encyclopaedic material since it depicts the following(do correct me if I'm wrong) - Afterburners, Take-off (assuming that the afterburners are pushing away), a carrier deck, the open ocean in front and an unmistakable F-18 silhouette. Plus, no harm looking like a Top Gun still - this is poster material, and I think the grain actually works in favour. - doniv 14:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The F/A-18 is at such an angle that it doesn't really show what it looks like. Thetiny fraction of the flight deck visible is black and shows no detail. You can hardly tell the Ocean from the sky so you don't get a look at it. I don't think a still can really show a plane taking off very well. Maybe this picture shows afterburners working, but that would be much better shown from a greater angle. And when it comes to showing those things, it doesn't matter, as it is not in those articles. As for it being poster material: definately, but it isnt encyclopaedia material. BTW the earlier edit was by me, forgot to sign it. say1988 19:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support PPGMD 14:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 00:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loligo vulgaris[edit]

High quality image of an unusual subject. Appears in Loligo vulgaris and Loliginidae. Created by User:Lycaon.

• Nominate and support. - Mgiganteus1 16:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Outstanding. -- Moondigger 17:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very encyclopedic. However, you might want to add to the caption a little bit. Much better. NauticaShades^(talk) 17:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. (What would you think of adding a scale to the image? I ask because the subject is foreign to most, the pic has a suitable background, and it would be "encyclopedic".) –Outriggr § 05:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, leaning towards weak support. Am I seeing blown highlights? ;-) Seriously, half a stop less exposure would have fixed that. --Janke | Talk 06:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Preliminary Neutral - would support a version with a scale bar (and expanded caption). Debivort 22:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice pic. A scale bar would be ugly but a text description of the subject's size would be nice. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very nice. - doniv 16:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent anatomical image. HighInBC 22:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Loligo vulgaris.jpg --Fir0002 23:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gull portrait ca usa[edit]

A stunning photograph, both technically and visually, taken by Dschwen. It greatly illustrates the features of a gull's head. Do not oppose this photograph; you could potentially offend the birds.

• Nominate and support. - ♠ SG →Talk 05:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I've removed the caption; the red dot isn't the main purpose of the image, but rather the entire head. I've noticed that many people just nominate photos without captions at all. I try to have decent captions, but the one it had was the best I could come up with. I've also added the image to the Gull article. ♠ SG →Talk 17:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support: great shot, though hardly unique, but certainly eye-catching. Robert 05:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. It is a very good image, but AFAIK it isn't used on any articles. If placed on an appropriate article I'll reconsider my vote. -- Moondigger 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support for high detail and iconic image. -- Weak Oppose per Howcheng and Moondigger. The caption refers specifically to the red spot, an important feature on Herring Gulls Western Gulls for feeding their young. --Bridgecross 16:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unfortunately the most important part of the picture, the spot, happens to be in the shadow. howcheng {chat} 15:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This image is much better, in my opinion. NauticaShades^(talk) 17:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I added it. NauticaShades^(talk) 15:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The fact that this is a detailed,large,and nicely taken picture overshadows it's criticisms in my mind. SOADLuver 20:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternate only. It is much more encyclopedic and generally more interesting. NauticaShades^(talk) 19:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well.. ..if I may. If I wouldn't find both of them supportworthy I wouldn't have uploaded them in the first place. Too bad that somehow the discussion evolved around the red dot so much. Certainly not protocol to cram a second pic into the nomination either. And both pics appear in articles now, so what about that oppose from Moondigger? --Dschwen 09:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's largely my fault, as I made the caption. I've since removed the caption, as it was really useless and just distracting people from the photo. However, the above people who voted against because of the red dot caption haven't changed their votes, so I don't know. Anyhow, the other picture needs to be moved into its own FP nomination. ♠ SG →Talk 18:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Obviously I'm probably biased, but I prefer the existing seagull FP to either of them. --Fir0002 23:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted I renominated the second version seperately. --Fir0002 23:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muybridge galloping horse[edit]

Earlier this year, I made an older version of this animation (184x135px). The picture is used in Horse gait and High speed photography. It is Wikimedia Commons featured picture.

The old version was nominated here (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Muybridgehorse). In the meantime I could get better copies, so I made a new version of the animation (300x200px) which I want to nominate. It can be used in the above mentioned articles instead of the old version. Here you can see the full size of both versions at the same time.

Muybridge's photos where taken between 1878 and 1887. The animation is made of 15 frames (nr. 2-16). Muybridge wrote that the exposure time he used for horses at full speed was between one six-hundredth and one eight-hundredth of a second each. The interval of time between successive exposures was 31 thousands of a second. As one sequence of 15 pictures takes about 1.5 seconds, the animation shows about 1/3 of normal speed.

• Nominate and support. --wau > 20:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Immensely important historical photo series, well done gif animation, encyclopedic. You can't get a much better scan than this. (I assume this is from the printed plates in one of the books, and not the original photos.) --Janke | Talk 06:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's nice to see this image nominated on it's own. It also much better quality than the smaller one, so this one gets my vote. NauticaShades^(talk) 06:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Of high quality, historically significant, and encyclopedic. --Tewy 20:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Tewy HighInBC 19:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 02:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I am suprized this pic only got this many votes considering the raging debates we have had in the past over related images. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Muybridge_race_horse_animated.gif

B-1 Lancer[edit]

I discovered this while checking out the U.S. fleet of bombing aircraft, I thought it looked promising, so here it is. This appears in the article B-1 Lancer.

• Nominate and Support TomStar81 (Talk) 20:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. A tiny bit grainy, but the quality is otherwise pretty good, as is the encyclopedic value and pleasingness to the eye. You might want to expand the caption a bit however. NauticaShades^(talk) 20:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose graininess, but mostly because I like the F16 take off picture below more, and it looks like it will reach FPC consensus. Why have there been so many military pictures recently? Debivort 22:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all its an F-18, not an F-16. Secondly, our supply of military FPs sucks (to the extent that an FP can suck), and I for one am getting tired of having the same images rotate through the War Portal in a never ending cycle. In oder to get into the FP roation in the War Portal the image has to be featured, which means running it through here first and having the nomination(s) systamically torn apart by the viewing public. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sir yes sir! An F18 Sir! A more direct approach to this problem might be to relax the standards of the War Portal image rotation. Just a thought? I guess it is easy to find military pics in the public domain as well... Debivort 00:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why have there been so many flower bird pictures lately as well? There have been lots of nominations... Each should be judged on its own. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since beginning of September, there have been 3 nominations with flowers (one of which was primarily a picture of a bee), 5 military craft nominations, and about a dozen bird nominations. I think my question was legitimate. Debivort 02:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support I love a picture with good coloration. Also, the altitude at which this was taken is astounding (or perhaps I should fly more often):-). | AndonicO 23:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent pic, I love it - Adrian Pingstone 23:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• neutral, excellent technically, but I'd support an angle that shows a bit more of a side view/profile and shows the engines. The shape of the plane isn't quite clear from this angle. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think the plane's shape is very visible here; maybe you meant the silhouette? From this angle, you can even see that the wings are expandable. | AndonicO 09:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellent photograph, and very encyclopaedic as well. Would have strongly supported if the nose was lined up in the center. - doniv 15:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support mmmm aircrafty. Also nicly photographed. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 15:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Per Nauticashades. --Tewy 20:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice --Fir0002 08:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support PPGMD 14:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:B-1B over the pacific ocean.jpg

Washington Monument[edit]

A picture of a famous monument, against a beautiful sky. I do not know who the photogragher is, as he only says it is "myself". It was taken by Diliff. Apears in Washington Monument.

• Nominate and Support. | AndonicO 14:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. Absolutely stunning quality, and very encyclopedic. By the way, it's taken by Diliff. NauticaShades^(talk) 15:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ah, yes, the master of photograghy; I suspected it was he. | AndonicO 15:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, blurry at full res. It's very nice, but we can do better. The lines of the blocks that make up the monument are very blurred when I look at it full size. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice photo, but kind of boring to me. Unlike the Capitol or Big Ben architectural images, the detail visible at high res isn't all that interesting to me. Debivort 19:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the sky seems way to dark at the top - is that a polarization effect? Debivort 19:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about the polarization, but I think that this is the best possible picture of the Washington Monument. In other words, it would be hard to find a more encyclopedic photograph of it. NauticaShades^(talk) 20:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hypothetica alternatives for the monument that I would consider more interesting could be a photo of it during construction showing building techniques of the time, or a diagram showing its interior design. Or a DC panorama taken from its observation deck. That said, of its exterior, this photo is about as good as I could imagine. Debivort 22:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a polarization effect, just the twilight ambience. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The motion of the flags is the only part that appears blurry to me and that's not enough for me to oppose. The light-colored rock of the monument looks just amazing against the dark blue sky. If only my computer monitor were vertical, this would be my wallpaper in an instant. --Nebular110 20:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Answer Debivort. It's true that under construction it would be more encyclopedic, but this (IMHO) is more impressive. A panorama would also be nice. | AndonicO 22:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great architectural photograph. Good lighting too - doniv 15:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think the overall sharpness makes up for the slight blur mentioned by Night Gyr (though I am on the verge of weak supporting because of that). --Tewy 21:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Answer Nebular110. I believe I know what you mean about the vertical monitor, but, in Windows XP anyways, there is a way around it. You have to right click the image, and select "set as wallpaper", which would leave to your problem. To fix this, you have to go to your Desktop, and right click there. Select "Properties", and clik the tab that says "Desktop". You should see a box that says either "center", "tile", or "stretch". Select center, and click OK. This should fix your problem, unless I am confused and you meant something else. | AndonicO 00:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought they meant if only the actual monitor were shaped in a portrait format rather than a landscape format (otherwise you get that ugly solid color to the sides). --Tewy 01:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't look so bad in black. I already have it on. | AndonicO 10:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I realize that I could just center the image but then I get that somewhat annoying solid color background. Andonic is right though, this one still looks pretty good with a dark blue or black background --Nebular110 14:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with above. Also the sky seems to suffer from either posterization or jpeg compression. -Fir0002 08:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The colorful contrast between the monument and the sky more than makes up for the blurry flags at the base. I don't notice any compression artifacts. --S0uj1r0 10:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great composition and timing. --Dschwen 09:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support dull building, good photo HighInBC 22:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Washington Monument Dusk Jan 2006.jpg --Fir0002 00:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F/A-18 Hornet Taking Off[edit]

Since the previous Hornet (also taking off) is failing, I thought I would try this one. This one may not look eye-catching as the other one, but it is much more detailed and encyclopedic. This was taken Navy Photographer's Mate 3^rd Class Jonathan Chandler. On a side note, the uploader was French, so I had a fun time trying to translating words like "featured" and "promote".

• Nominate and support. NauticaShades^(talk) 10:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I support either the orginal or edit, with slight preference for the original, because the edit is a bit oversharpened. NauticaShades^(talk) 10:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — This image really isn't sharp enough, especially considering the resolution. ♠ SG →Talk 13:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? I would say it was pretty sharp myself. Anyway, I woulnd't consider that ruling it out completely. NauticaShades^(talk) 15:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't agree with the sharpness, how about the JPEG artifacts? I like the shot itself, but from a technical point of view, I can't support the image. ♠ SG →Talk 22:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Oppose edit 1 — Sharpening it proves my point: too many JPEG artifacts. ♠ SG →Talk 11:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support One word: WOW! | AndonicO 14:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is the sort of image that supports the takeoff article! Clear, sharp (relatively), and pretty good composition/framing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. A nice, and uncommon view of and F/A-18. Shows the landing gear and side of the plane quite well. This image is teh in F/A-18 article and should be judged on its place there, and it is good. say1988 19:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Yes I like this image a lot more than the one I took. Blind14 19:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support From an encyclopedic view point I would prefer to see more of the catapult launch area, so that poeple could better judge the short distance the plane has to go from zero to airborne, and this photo cuts that part out; however, it is nicely detailed and does show a take off rather well. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support anyone have a guess how close its rear wheels are to the deck? Debivort 22:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd say about a yard. | AndonicO 22:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EXCELLENT find. This is everything I was looking for (and opposed the other for missing). Gonna' put in take-off as well. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Illustrates take-off, and sharp enough IMO - doniv 14:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - Very unique photo that you don't see every day, excellent positioning and timingUser:Nicholas.tan 18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. It's a little blurry, though I do suppose that the subject is moving at a *fairly* high rate of travel. --Tewy 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent timing. sikander 18:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the above comments. RFerreira 06:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either with preference for Edit 1. As above --Fir0002 08:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, no sense of motion (it looks like it's just floating there) Strong oppose edit 1, the brightening has left the shadows looking extremely unnatural. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support PPGMD 14:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:050817-N-3488C-028.jpg --Fir0002 00:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supermarine Spitfire XVI[edit]

I think this is a pretty nice illustration of a Spitfire -- you can even see the pilot's helment and mask. I took the photo at an air show at Duxford last month.

Note: Edit 1 also exists. It has been removed for the sake of clarity (and that it has not recieved much support). If you think it should be reinstated, feel free to put it back.

• Nominate and support edit 3. Strong oppose edit 4 and 5 due to loss of detail, over compression, and over saturation. - chowells 10:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support edit 2. Support original or edit 3. Weak Support edit 1. As Diliff mentioned, edit 4 has a halo effect, and I believe edit 5 didn't help much in removing it Therefore, I Oppose both. As for the picture, it has great quality, good encylcopedic value, and it's pleasing to the eye; it's got it all. NauticaShades^(talk) 12:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 or edit 3. Excellent shot, and everything Nauticashades has said before me. Ideal lead image for the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's a very nice picture, and a great angle too, but, is it just my monitor settings, or is this photo dark? Strong Support edit 4 With those edits, this picture is 100% marvelous! I support Fir's edit; it is clearly the best. | AndonicO 22:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is slightly dark on the forground side twards the tail. Where is Fir0002 when you need him? :) -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 15:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno where Fir is, but I can do an edit to make it brighter. Just give me a few minutes to work on it and I should have it up soon. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There, done. As you can see from the caption, I brightened it, adjusted the contrast somewhat, and removed some noise. I would recommend looking at the edit at full res, there are some details missing in the original that are visible in my edit, but only at full res. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are rather a lot of JPEG artifacts in your edit. chowells 18:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I can't see any. At any rate, I saved it under the maximum quality setting in photoshop elements. Either they were there before, or something else happened (can't imagine what). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well judging by the difference in file size, it can't be the maximum quality - or if it is, then Elements doesn't have a particularly conservative compression slider. In reducing noise, you will also have reduced the information required in the JPEG, but I reduced noise a little further in my edit(s) and the filesize was still ~2500kb. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I mis-typed. What I should've said was that I saved it on "one of the highest quality settings," not the maximum. Now that I look a bit closer I do see the artifacts. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit 4 Fantastic! doniv 14:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support change to Strong Support edit 4. Never, was so much, owed so many, by Fir0002. Excellent photo of one of the most important aircraft ever flown. --Bridgecross 15:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly does that comment mean regarding Fir0002? Theres a few too many commas in there - I'm confused. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - edit 4 Excellent (and detailed!) photo especially since it was taken by a wikipedian. (and Fir's edit is makes an excellent picture awsome)-Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 15:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild support - a brilliant photo that should definitely be featured, but it would definitely benefit from Fir0002 or someone else with his level of skill sorting out the colour balance and brightening the whole thing up a bit. Otherwise, cracking stuff. Strongly support, edit 4 in particular - the third edit loses a small sense of movement and grace which edit four captures perfectly, and with vivid colour to boot. A truly fantastic photo. - CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 16:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I especially like the propellor. Debivort 18:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, what are we waiting for!? -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 20:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice shot. (edit 2 looks best to me!) InvictaHOG 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful picture, great depiction of one of the most important aircraft in history. Akubra 23:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Diliff; I actually like your edit 2 a little better. By cropping the plane closer to the prop and tail, it seems to lose something, perhaps a sense of forward motion. It might just be me, but that's my preference. --Bridgecross 00:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any version. "To the heavens" -- TomStar81 (Talk) 01:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 4 or original. Sorry for the delay ;-) --Fir0002 02:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like all the versions, I've really no preference. Beautifully taken picture. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2. Terrific shot, but the way there's more sky on the top than on the bottom just bugs me. I think it's because the subject is "facing" the edge of the photograph, and not the center (like in portraits, if the subject is off-center, they should be looking across the photograph, not at the edge they're closest to). --Tewy 21:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2. Very nice. High res, fairly sharp, encyclopedic. I don't like the cropping in edit 3, and Fir's (edit 4) is way too saturated in the sky, and looks artificially sharpened in excess. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this doesn't mean much, but just for interest I actually did not touch the saturation at all in terms of using the Hue/Saturation tool in Photoshop. I achieved that effect through a few rather unconventional techniques which worked well on this image because of the blue sky (enabled me to get an almost perfect cut out through the blue channel). Obviously I can't tell what the pic looks like on your monitor or what color of the sky you think is "normal", but personally I think it's just the prefect hue for that kind of sky (high above the horizon). Anyway that's just for interest; as obviously saturation is a percieved strength of the colors, not just adjustment through the hue/saturation tool, but through any means of boosting the colors. --Fir0002 12:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do sometimes disagree with the sentiment and results of some of your edits, I have to admit that you do yourself no favours by uploading an edit without any explanation of what you have done (except in circumstances like this when you feel the need to explain it). Sometimes it is obvious, but other times, subtle adjustments that you have made can be missed because we aren't aware we should be looking for them. In this case though, I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say you did to the image, but it almost looks to me like you painted the sky - There is a distinct lack of contrast around the aerial (it 'fades' into the sky compared to the original and other edits) above the R and around the canopy, and a strange halo around the blurred propellor blades. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well see this is why I don't usually explain what I do in my edits because it is usually a complex process. In this particular image, I extracted the blue channel as a seperate layer. I then applied levels until I had the sky a pure white and the plane a dark black. I painted over the blue markings on the plane in black. I then inverted that layer. Then I used levels to reduce the white point to a gray (about 1/3 down the slider by memory). Then I put that layer into softlight ontop of the original, and bang! It looks good. --Fir0002 22:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well fair enough but bang! It has also introduced haloes around the propellers and removed detail from the areas I mentioned above. I don't think it is as good as you think it is - too many side-effects. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about the aerial (minor detail), but I really can't see where you get your haloes from. Several images you've mentioned haloes where I can't seen any. Oh well I guess it's impossible to determine what the average person would see on an average monitor. You're free to think it's not very good, but I hope I'm also extended the right to think it is good. The only side effect I'm getting is the less prominent aerial - something I personally am quite willing to sacrifice in the face of the huge improvements elsewhere. --Fir0002 08:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I urge you to compare the propellers in your image and the others. There are definitely artifacts, particularly on the far left side. The problem I see is that you didn't need to sacrifice anything if only you had masked the plane better when you were working your black magic. And as for average people seeing things on average monitors, I can't imagine how anyone could miss it on any monitor if only they lookd closely, as it isn't at the light or dark end of the spectrum here - as long as you can see mid-range detail, you should be able to see the faults I mentioned. If you still can't see it, I will go ahead and create an image with the faults magnified side-by-side later, but I can't at the moment as I'm at work. And yes, I extend you the right to think whatever you like, but I'll try to point out the flaws in your logic if they're presented in FPC ;-). This is about creating the best final image, when it comes to it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added some elargements to highlight the haloes and strange effects that your edit has had, as well as strong noise visible. I feel that the canopy above the pilots head lacks definition in Edit 4. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, one question (maybe dumb, certainly impertinent): Why are you so "hot" on making (often unrequested) edits, many of them rather pointless (example: Zanzibar)? Sure, you've both done a lot of good edit work, but I think edits should be held to a minimum number, since too many make the closing of a nom really hard - remember all the previous talk, and the re-voting requests by closers. Of course, when an edit is requested, then it's time to act, but do we really need four edits, thus five versions to vote on, for a simple picture like this? BTW, Fir, I must agree with Diliff, especially after seeing the enlarged example - the cockpit cover has a "cookie-cutter" edge in edit 4, and there are indeed artifacts around the prop. --Janke | Talk 07:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion to talk page, as this has definetly left the realm of this nomination. --Fir0002 07:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 4 consensus edit for nice crop and color (would like to see the noise reduction added again!). –Outriggr § 03:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with a personal preference for the fourth version. RFerreira 06:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 3. There's considerably too much uninteresting blue sky in the other versions, no matter how saturated it's supposed to be. --S0uj1r0 10:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain, too many versions to choose from. See talk page. --Janke | Talk 07:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2, unless consensus favors edit 3. Oppose 4 and 5 due to edit artifacts. More on talk page. --Janke | Talk 07:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2. - Mailer Diablo 10:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any and all of these. Nice lighting, good angle, and good detail. Composition is more documentary than artistic (you can choose whether that is good or bad). The original is rather fine, most of the edits are marginally better. -- Solipsist 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 4. I think it is the clearest.Akubra 00:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 3. This is a great, encyclopedic photo; but I think that Fir's edits, while they do make some of the detail clearer, deviate too far from the original photo in this case. TSP 13:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Supermarine_Spitfire_Mk_XVI_NR.jpg. I have promoted the second edit. There was quite a bit of support for edits 2, 3 and 4; however, there was also quite a bit of opposition to edit 4 and 5. So, that brought it down to 2 vs 3; a straight vote count gave edit 2 the lead. ♠ SG →Talk 03:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed edit promotion as per discussion here. Final tally: Original - 2 Edit 1 - 0 Edit 2 - 6 Edit 3 - 3 Edit 2/3 - 1 Edit 4 - 8 Edit 5 - 0 Any edit - 3 --Fir0002 10:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit promotion changed back to original closer's decision, per discussion here. -- Moondigger 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pulaski Skyway[edit]

This beautiful picture is a very high quality and illustrates the Pulaski Skyway perfectly. I know it is in black and white, which slightly detracts for the image, butI think that the image has enough going for it that it could still be Featured.

• Nominate and support. - NauticaShades^(talk) 09:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - could be any of a thousand bridges. (OT: At least you could have shown the entrance in Kearny used in the opening of the Sopranos, just north of where Western Electric used to be, by the Terminal Diner.) BellCurve 12:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. There are some blown highlights and blur issues, but considering when this was taken it's not bad. --Tewy 21:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show me those "blown highlights" you're talking about. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I love skyways sikander 18:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Can't see any reason why this is in b/w, and personally I do think that detracts a lot from the image in this case. B/w when used well can make exceptional images (an example is the card shuffling), however in this case it does nothing for the image --Fir0002 08:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in b/w because it's an archival image created in 1978 for the Historic American Engineering Record. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per User:Fir0002. Insufficient contrast and busy subject matter for black and white. Also, the full size image appears to have some kind of blur or compression artifacts. --S0uj1r0 10:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show me. Look at the histogram and point me to a lack of contrast. Explain to me how you're going to take a large-format image that's perfectly crisp everywhere under short exposure times (the cars are frozen), bellows movement to achieve critical focus on the bridge itself, not to mention haze. Regarding the alleged "compression artifacts", there is no color subsampling in a b/w image and the JPEG quality was set to above 0.9. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long-Billed Dowitcher[edit]

Sharp, natural environment and I love the soft lighting.

• Nominate and Support --Fir0002 06:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. It's a very good picture, but the shallow depth of field, the other Dowitcher in the background, and the very white water are slightly take off from it. NauticaShades^(talk) 06:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak oppose, because of the messy background, it lessens encyclopedicity (esp. in thumb size). I know it's the natural habitat, but the dark bg behid the dark beak and the light water behind the light belly is just the wrong way around... --Janke | Talk 07:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose too. I agree with Janke, despite it being the natural habitat, the composition is a bit messy. At full size, it looks a bit better but it just doesn't stand out (both the bird and the image). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Yes, the background is unfortunate - Adrian Pingstone 12:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose echoing everyone else, it's a wonderful photo of the bird but with far too distracting a background. I'm not sure whether someone competent with Photoshop could clean it up at all but for now I definitely oppose. - CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 18:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. The subject itself is very clear, but as others have mentioned, the background hurts the image; I'm just not sure how much it hurts, so I don't know where to stand on this one. --Tewy 20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think the background looks fine, and the focus on the subject is solid. The composition is bound to be a bit messy with that kind of scenery, but it's a very good photo. --S0uj1r0 10:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't think the background is too distracting; the bird looks great though. I guess if anyone has any real problems with this background, he should imagine it's camouflage. ;-) AndonicO 16:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hey Fir002, what article is this picture in? I couldn't find a Long-billed Dowicher article. | AndonicO 17:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long-billed Dowitcher ;-) --Fir0002 21:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry; guess I missed the t. | AndonicO 19:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey City Skyline[edit]

I thought this was just a good overall shot of the skyline, so I thought I would give it a shot at FP. I like it because it's very sharp and detailed; it stands prominently in the Jersey City, New Jersey article, and Diliff created the image.

• Nominate and support - edit 1. - Tewy 00:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Tilted, dully lit with little contrast against the gray sky, and not really eye catching overall. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I have to admit, its not one of my better images. It was taken on the same Staten Island Ferry as this panorama but the lighting was a little better in that direction. As it stands, it isn't bad for the article but not FPC material for me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a reprocessed and restitched version of this panorama with a bit more TLC added to the mix. It still isn't visually mindblowing, but it is a little more polished than the previous version. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Tilted - Adrian Pingstone 14:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak(ish) Support Not tilted! Difference of a pixel... 30 Hudson Street Building is even at the angle it should be! Sean the Spook 18:35 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, you're wrong! First, the tilt is obvious to the eye (I checked with my two sons and they both agree). Secondly, bringing the largest version into Photoshop and adding a vertical rule shows a very obvious slope of about 7 pixels between the top and bottom of the tallest building. The slope of this building is visible even on the thumbnail - Adrian Pingstone 18:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked it myself, its not tilted, its an optical illusion with false perspective. The river front on the left is closer to the camera than the right. Sean the Spook 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't you see the leaning tower of Jersey in the original? Weak oppose, not too stunning, would also benefit from some contrast/brightness enhancement. --Janke | Talk 07:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tilt has nothing whatever to do with perspective. Tilt is where the camera was not held level, as in the first picture. If there was no tilt, how come the second picture has corrected it! - Adrian Pingstone 08:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • False perspective is an optical illusion where a part of the image seems closer than the other, making the distance look smaller to the foreground? The tilt is not 'obvious' as there is no tilt, any tilt comes from it been taken on a ferry, and despite this fact pointed out by the author, I have counted the exact same amount of pixels (13) on the thumnnail, along the river, at five different intervals, I have also gone onto 'paint' and sqaured up the buildings using black squares, the slight lean (1pixel) on the 30 Hudson Street Building, comes the photo been taken at an angle from the building, showing a 3D image of it. Not only is this image an interesting 'new skyline' photo (building completed 2004) for the New Jersey City Article, it would be extremely difficult to top it any other way? Still I give it weak support! Sean the Spook 13:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hey, you can't measure tilt by the shoreline! You must look at the verticals only. In the original, the largest building is clearly tilting to the right, both sides of it. If it were due to perspective only, the sides would converge towards the top, and the right edge of the building would tilt to the left. Look at the full-size image, make a square - or just scroll a wall to the display's edge, and you'll see what we're talking about... --Janke | Talk 13:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry Sean, but I have to agree with Janke. There was a slight tilt to the right across the whole image. You are also right that the shoreline appears to be tilted due to the perspective but this is a different phenomenon to what Janke And Apingstone have been referring to. Sean, have you been viewing the image at 100% resolution? There was more than 1 pixel of tilt on the building. It wasn't excessive by any means but it was there. The edit corrected this tilt and it is (virtually) straight now. As Janke suggested, zoom in (to 200-300% if you like - that accentuates the tilt allowing you to see it easier) and scroll it across so that the edge of the building almost touches (maybe 2-3 pixels away) the edge of the window. If there is any tilt, you will see it there. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I think the photo captures the look and feel of Jersey City, so is great for the article, but not eye-catching enough for an FP. --Bridgecross 15:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Good picture but not so very impressive. sikander 18:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Yeah not as good as the other pano. --Fir0002 08:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not impressive as a FP. - Mailer Diablo 10:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villarceau circles[edit]

This image was created by User:Kieff, and illustrates in a very succint way the concept of Villarceau circles. It is simple and elegant.

• Nominate and support! - HappyCamper 03:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old version[edit]

• The comments below were towards the old revision of this image.
  • Weak support, it's an excellent illustration of the concept, but the shading of the shadows in a few cases is very confusing and distracting from the actual shapes involved. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Despite watching the animation many times I still can't understand the creation of the circles so, for me, it's too confusing and doesn't add value to the article - Adrian Pingstone 14:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe so, but the average person would be viewing this alongside of the article, and would most likely understand it. NauticaShades^(talk) 15:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I AM an average person! - Adrian Pingstone 18:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Debivort 17:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Maybe it is the article going over my head, but I have the same problem as above. I took a long time see the circles. I would suggest highlighting the circles when the animation is frozen at the end. I would support then. say1988 19:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the per the reasons above. Part of the problem is that I have trouble following the movement of the torus. I think the object needs more texture to aid in this. As it is, as it slides around, I have trouble visualising the movement in three dimensions so when it finally stops, I'm a bit puzzed by the angle I'm viewing, and what its significance is. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It's good to hear opinions about the animation coming from people not familiar with this sort of thing, because that's exactly the kind of people the animation should be helping. You guys made good points, though. The animation needs better reference points and the lighting is creating confusing shadow patterns. I'm working on an improved version that should fix these issues :) Just give me a few mins. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Say1988. The red highlights show very poorly against the gray, it took me several times watching to even notice that they were there. I would suggest a shade of bright green like chartreuse against that particular shade of gray. Making each highlighted circle a different colour (aqua or bright yellow would be my suggestion for second colour) would be would make the circle pattern easier to notice. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]