current Rainier picture does not meet community standards
Proposed caption
Mt. Rainier from the crater rim of Mt. St. Helens (Aug. 24, 2007)
Articles this image appears in
Creator
Jeff Webb
Support as nominator Boowebb 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose — not used in any articles, and it is of not-so-good quality (no offense). Also, this really should be at the Wikimedia Commons, not here. --Agüeybaná 21:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Noisy and a bit washed-out. CillaИ ♦ XC 23:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose as per comments by Agüeybaná and Cillan. There doesn't appear to be sufficient focus on the mountain itself. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 02:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yamaha Motorbike display at the Phillip Island Grand Prix Circuit, 2007
Motion blur is frequently employed in sports photography (particularly motor sports) to show a sense of speed. To achieve the effect it is necessary to use a slow shutter speed and pan the lens of the camera in time with the motion of the object. This is quite tricky, but I feel this image captures the sense of motion very well. So yes there are some blurred parts of the bike but it is intentional!! The important part of the face is sharply in focus (you can even see the expression on the guys face.
Weak support The crispness is well done for a moving target. However, there are bright white glares on the helmet and placard, and ideally I'd like to see more of where the rider is riding to. While it's a difficult shot, and there are incredible qualities to it, I think a better shot can be taken. Support nonetheless :) Puddyglum 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per nom. --LucaG 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Support; size is fine, focus is excellent, details are great, no problems at all. A picture that is fit to be promoted, in my opinion. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 02:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OriginalEdit1 by jjron. Cropped, curves, sharpened, noise reduction.Edit 2 by Fir0002Edit 3 by Fir0002 - clone job from Edit 2
Reason
An interesting behavior picture of a wild lizard, which shows one actually doing something and not just laying still. The image adds value to the articles it appears in.
Support as nominatorMbz1 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Great!, though personally, I would crop the right a little bit. Debivort 18:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit 3 Very interesting photograph. It's beautiful, but it's also encyclopedic of the gecko and the flower. Puddyglum 20:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. If this is to be encyclopaedic, it definitely needs more info. The gecko is partly obscured, and the flower isn't in frame. So what's encyclopaedic here? This could be an WP on Commons, but probably not here. Separa 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe part of the gecko's body is not seen, yet a viewer could see his tongue and his belly , which are not seen at any other pictures in the article. Should we oppose the picture of the whales down below because only their heads are seen or maybe you believe we should not have promoted this great image because only the head of a male lion is seen? Would you like some more samples? The main subject of the image is a gecko, not the flower, and the gecko is in frame. Yet the image gives important information about the flower too by showing that it produces nectar, on which geckos feed. Besides, as I said in the image's introduction, it was a behavior shot, which in my opinion is very much encyclopedic and does add a value to the articles. If you believe the image is not encyclopedic, do you suggest removing it from the articles? I also wonder why is your signature seen in red color?Thanks.--Mbz1 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1Reply[reply]
The red signature shows up as he's never created a userpage. --jjron 04:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other images illustrate unique or characteristic behaviours. I'm asking you to tell us more about the encyclopaedic value of this picture. Is the behaviour unique or defining of geckos, or this particular gecko? Could you make a case for including it in an article about the behaviour? As always, references to reliable sources would be useful to strengthen your case. Separa 18:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, Separa. If you believe Wikipedia is a reliable source, please read, for exampleGold dust day gecko article diet section, which describes in particular what and how Gold dust day geckos eat. I believe that the nominated image illustrates this section of the article with great details, adds value to the article and because of this is highly encyclopedic. I hope this answers your question. Please feel free to ask me, if you have more questions.--Mbz1 03:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1Reply[reply]
I was also concerned that the "licking nectar" bit was unsourced. However, there are two sources at the bottom of the Gold dust day gecko, and the fact was in the article before Mbz1 added the image, that location on the bird of paradise is apparently where it has nectar, so I'm somewhat convinced that these geckos drink nectar. However, it is quite possible that the gecko is drinking water or doing something else, and a source would be nice. Enuja(talk) 23:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the thing is that whatever source one takes, all of them say that Gold dust day geckos lick nectar. Besides I believe my own observations is a reliable source. As you could imagine after I found the flower with a gecko on it I watched it for a while. I saw quite a few geckos at the flower licking necrar in a different positions at a different time: ;. Of course I realize that you cannot trust me that I saw few geckos (and not just the same one). That's why one more image to share: . The thing is these geckos were more afraid of each other than of my arm with my camera. That's why they did not came to the flower together, but they were all over the plant. Here's one more image, which shows more or less complete flower: . I do have many more images. Should I upload all of them to Wikipedia? Btw, if somebody is going to Kona and is interested in seeing this behavior I could give exact directions how to find the flower, it is assuming it still in bloom. If it is not, no worries, there's always something in bloom in Hawaii and one could see geckos around flowers like for example this one . One more picture of a gecko and an orchid . Of course in this situation a gecko probably was not there for a nectar, I believe orchids have none, but rather to hunt for insects. --Mbz1 15:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1Reply[reply]
Question. I wonder if it would be possible for you to add some location information to this picture. It would be great if you took it in Madagascar, but I'm guessing you took it in Hawaii when you were doing the other ones? Also was it wild (like really wild), or in a zoo or wildlife park? (Not that any of this necessarily alters it's FPC status, it's just interesting to know.) --jjron 04:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a valid question, Jiiron. I should have explained, where the image was taken. It was taken in Kona,Hawaii (island). The image was taken in the wild. The plant was growing up not even in a garden, but at somebody's private driveway at Ali Drive. Wat is interesting that I've been to Madagascar few years ago and I did see geckos here and there, but not nearly as many as I saw them in Hawaii.lol--Mbz1 14:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1Reply[reply]
Thanks. It might be good to add this location info to the image summary itself (so that it stays with the image). Yes, interesting about Madagascar, the article says they're an introduced species in Hawaii, so they may be running rampant as often happens with introduced species. --jjron 07:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the location information to the all versions of the image. Please, do not take my word about geckos at Madagascar as a reliable source. The thing is that I saw few geckos, two chameleons (male and female), many lemurs, but I spent most time there snorkeling.--Mbz1 15:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1Reply[reply]
Support I really like the this image shoes the gecko from an interesting angle while it is engaged in activity. To me, it is much more important for the viewer to get an idea of the whole creature and how it moves than to have every square millimeter of the back or side showing. Seeing a gecko climbing on a flower, with the tip of the gecko's snout and the tip of its tail visible, tells the viewer what a gecko really looks like. It's not going to stop me from supporting, but what's the red dot near the center bottom of the image, and can it be edited out? Enuja(talk) 04:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Specifically, support edit 1; fir, what have you done to the colors in edit 2? I don't see an explanation of your first edit anywhere, although the colors look unrealistically super-saturated to me. Also, I oppose edit 3 as the dried stamen (?) is a part of the real scene, especially as the bird of paradise flower is specified in several captions. Enuja(talk) 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say the red dot could be some part of the plant. The plant is underxposed in order to show the gecko better and I believe that's why some part of the plant are lost, while the others are seen. In any case it could be edited out, but I'm not very good with photo shops.--Mbz1 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1Reply[reply]
Could someone point out exactly where this red dot is? I still can't see it, and I've even done edits on the picture (so it can't be anything too bad!). --jjron 07:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that Enuja means a brown red something just below the blue part of the flower, but I could be wrong.--Mbz1 15:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1Reply[reply]
The red dot has been cropped out in all but the original image (so it's really irrelevant now). That gives a good location, though; it's slightly to the left of the edit, just at the right edge of the very dim leaf in the background. Specifically, it's at around pixel 2246, 2240. Enuja(talk) 23:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see it now. It looks like a hotspot on the sensor, but it's faint. --jjron 07:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit1 uploaded. --jjron 05:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit1 (or Original if no one else likes the edit). I think the edit greatly improves composition, especially in thumbnail. Also makes some minor quality improvements. --jjron 05:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit1 Wow, a little cropping can go a long way. – sgeurekat•c 05:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit1 by jjron; that is one cute lizard. The edit made it even cuter because there is more focus on the gecko, and like what Mbz1 stated in his reason, it is actually doing something. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 09:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit1 Very good crop, picture is wonderful. --Sharkface217 01:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose is a much better picture. pschemp | talk 23:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, pschemp, for looking over all of the images I added to my comments. I doubt anybody else did.lol--Mbz1 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1Reply[reply]
I did in fact look at the pictures, and initially refrained from pointing out to you that the last picture you presented in support of your claim (which nobody actually disputed, we merely asked for references) shows not a gecko, but an anole. So much for reliable evidence. Best regards, Separa 12:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much ,Separa, for letting me know who it was at the last picture. I just believed that it was a different kind of gecko.--Mbz1 13:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1Reply[reply]
Support edit one: Great stuff, with the picture and the cropping. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 21:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Gold dust day gecko at flower-edit1.jpgMER-C 01:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OriginalEdit1 by jjron. Removed dirt from scanned image, sharpened, downsized, and noise reduction.
Reason
Striking image. It needs a little cleanup (there are hairs and debris on the scanned image), but I think the image is pretty spectactular.
Proposed caption
Plumes of steam, gas, and ash often occur at Mount St. Helens. On clear days they can be seen from Portland, Oregon, 50 miles (81 kilometers) to the south. The plume photographed here rose nearly 3000 feet (1000 meters) above the volcano's rim. The view is from Harrys Ridge, five miles (8 kilometers) north of the mountain. (May 19, 1982, by Lyn Topinka, USGS)
Strong support Edit 1 per nom.--Mbz1 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1Reply[reply]
Oppose There's a piece of lint on it, it's blurry, and the colors seem faded. This was taken in 1984, four years after the eruption, and it doesn't look much different then to now. If this had been "pre-eruption", it might have more interest. A better picture can be taken! Puddyglum 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Puddy. Actually, the lava cone is much higher now, about halfway to the rim I believe, so it neither illustrates the mountain now, or in the past. Debivort 18:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. It's a nice shot, but there are plenty of photographs that are equal if not better on Flickr (maybe could ask one of the owners of a 2.0 license to change to 2.5); this shows that it's fairly easy to get a good photo of the mountain, even releasing a plume (though I haven't found one quite as dramatic). I would make an exception for a shot of the 1984 eruption, but not an "anytime" photo. --Dhartung | Talk 02:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose; this picture is heavily fragmented and I can see some black spots surrounding the smoke column, and as per Puddy's comment, since this is a post-eruption image and not a pre-eruption one, somebody could just go down to Mount St. Helens right now, take a higher-quality, higher-detail picture of it and upload it onto Commons or here. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 09:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the other hand, it is no longer possible to take a picture of what the mountain looked like _in 1982_. Spikebrennan 16:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I oppose from an opinion that pictures of St Helens from 1982 don't hold much interest. 1980: Puddyglum 19:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit1 uploaded. --jjron 07:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support Edit1. I really like this picture, but am struggling to get it high enough quality even with the edit. Nonetheless, I think the edit is a significant improvement on the original. --jjron 07:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. The original is fuzzy, the edit suffers jpg artefacts. - Mgm|(talk) 10:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, what appeared to be significant jpeg artifacts in the original (though it could have come about through the scanning process instead) have in fact been greatly improved in the edit. --jjron 07:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit 1 by jjron. Debivort, of course this photograph shows what it looked like at some time in the past; this is what it looked like in 1982! I wish it hadn't been downsampled (or not as much), but with the dust and all removed, I love this shot. I think it's compositionally excellent, getting a steam plume with a beautiful blue sky background. Enuja(talk) 20:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support as nominatorMbz1 18:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
weak oppose - subject is comparatively small, and details are lost in the shadow, a different time of day would probably fix this. Debivort 23:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks no matter what time of the day I take the pictures there are always some shadows. I just like to mention that, when we talk about surfing the wave is as much as a subject as a surfer is. I could have used much bigger zoom to bring a surfer closer, but I did not do it in purpose. I wanted to show the wave. Thank you for your vote and comment, Debivort.--Mbz1 04:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1Reply[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting. I also agree with Debivort re:not close enough. Waves are all well and good but to illustrate surfing I'd want to see something a bit closer or a different angle. I'm not saying it necessarily should be nominated by I think this (free) image would make a better candidate. And no it's not what you're thinking! It is a better candidate thanks to the much better lighting and composition. This one is also a better option --Fir0002 05:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I have recaptioned the pictures as Original 1 - 4; they were captioned as Edits, which they're not as they're all different pictures. --jjron 08:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose all. Sorry, have to agree with above re poor lighting - the sun's just in the wrong position. I'm not overly taken with either of Fir0002's linked images either, but I see what he means, I don't think surfing photos are that hard to get and I reckon a Wikipedian can get one. Even the first image in the surfing article is clearer, though obviously not up to FPC quality standards. --jjron 09:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still prefer my images to the ones that were mentioned by Fir0002 and Jjron (not because what you think lol). In my opinion to show surfing (please notice surfing not a surfer) is important to show the power of the wave and, if possible to show a movemet of a surfer like in the last nominated image. I agree that images of surfers are common and I share the concern about lighting. Thank you all for taking your time to write the comments and to vote.Jjron, thank you for recapturing the images. --Mbz1 13:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1Reply[reply]
Weak oppose Per Devibort. I think the lighting isn't as big of a deal as the detail that is missing. Just a little too blurry. When you open up full-size and view the surfer, there really isn't that much detail there. Better than all other surfer photos in WP, though.
Thank you,Puddyglum. It is why I nominated the images because in my opinion they are better than any other one on WP so far.--Mbz1 18:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1Reply[reply]
Comment - 110mm focal length on a Digital Rebel XTi? (Assuming the EXIF data is correct...) I'd be really careful getting that close with a body (and possibly a lens) that isn't weather-sealed to resist moisture, sand, salt, etc. I believe most surfing photos are taken at around 400mm, which is a more comfortable distance (and more expensive lens!). Just a tip. --Peter 20:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not promoted -- Chris B • talk 14:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though detail is lost due to underexposure on the right side of the whale, the image still serves as a significant example of this incredible behavior.
Proposed caption
A Humpback Whale breaching in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. The purpose of breaching is not well-understood. It may be a form of communication, a method of stunning fish prey, or a way to remove parasites from the skin. Humpback Whales throw their immense bodies nearly 90% out of the water during these magnificent stunts.
You could downsample that by at least 30% without any loss in quality. (Which is my way of saying the sharpness doesn't do justice to the resolution.) 129.215.191.74 21:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Maybe it thinks that if it stays out of the water long enough, it'll grow legs. Silly whale, that's not how evolution works :O --frotht 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: just a bit too much motion blur, softness and lack of shadow detail. Any one of the three might be ok, but with all three, the image has really suffered. Maybe a talented photoshopper could rescue it? Stevage 03:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment My photo shop skill is subpar, but I challenge anyone to see if they can fix this shot adequatly. Wwelles14 03:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Support edit 1 although a full size (not downsampled) version without the blurr from the cloned out ship (this edit needs to be mentioned on the image page) would be even better. Comment This image is not currently in any articles, which makes it ineligible to be a featured picture. I do like this image a lot, and I'll probably support it, but it's got to contribute to an article first. I would just add it, but Humpback Whale already has an image of a whale breaching. It's a good, high resolution image which shows a whale farther out of the water, so it convinces the reader more that the whale can get nearly 90% out of the water. However, there is lots of water in the way in the currently used image, so you can see the whale much better in this new nominated image. I think we can find a way to have both images contribute hugely to the encylopedia, but the regular whale editors are probably needed to figure out the best way to use both images. On the technical side, what's the blur on the horizon just to the right of whale? Enuja(talk) 03:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This photo does appear in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary page, and is absent from any whale pages for the reason mentioned above. I am working on the shot with photoshop right now, but as I said previously I am fairly new to photoshop, so it is a time-consuming "trial and error" process. The blur on the right side is a boat on the horizon that I attempted (obviously unsuccessfully) to clone out. Though I am obviously biased, because I took the picture, but I feel that this is a valuable image, and welcome anyone to try and fix it. Thanks. Wwelles14 03:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support original, Support Edit1 This is a great picture. Of course some motion blur is present, but just imagine you are somewhere at a shaky boat and you've no idea where and when a whale is going to breach. This shot is very hard to get. Trust me, I know. Please look also at the resolution of the image!--Mbz1 04:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1Reply[reply]
Support Edit1 It's an amazing photograph, and the detail is fine for me, considering the difficulty in getting the shot. Puddyglum 17:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Don't see anything at all badly wrong with it; Edit 1 is better however. IPchangesthe box 23:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. I wonder if Pacific Life Insurance Company needs a new model for their logo. I couldn't help noticing that this image isn't in the Humpback whale article, but this similar one is. Spikebrennan 17:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Humpback stellwagen edit.jpg -- Chris B • talk 14:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Mbz1 12:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1Reply[reply]
Support. But lose the scare quote's in the description. The holocaust was an atrocity on an unforgivable scale, but the experiment's were scientific in nature (also please read Apostrophe#Greengrocers.27_apostrophes -_-)--frotht 17:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what scientific experiment you're talking about? What kind of science this is, when so called "scientist" experiment with human beings? Is putting peole in a gas chamber a science? Is forcing kids to work without even giving them food a science? --Mbz1 18:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1Reply[reply]
Testing the lethality of different chemicals on humans is in fact science. Truly horrible, but science none the less. It is not our job to judge people, Nazi's, saints, murderers. We report verifiable facts and that the Nazi's used victims of the Holocaust for scientific experiments is a verifiable fact. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's the big deal? Just because it's horribly wrong and disgusting and perverted doesn't mean it's not scientific. It is. They did plenty of experiments- we even have an article on it --frotht 02:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are you guys even talking about whether the Holocaust was scientific or not?!? Why was it even brought up? Am I missing something? Jumpingcheese 04:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
apparently. It was over the scare quotes around "scientific" --frotht 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quote should be changed to '...reputedly used for scientific experiments on the prisoners.' Agree? Puddyglum 18:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say: '...reputedly used for "scientific" experiments on the prisoners.' --Mbz1 18:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1Reply[reply]
Although the camp itself was used for medical experimentation, there is no evidence to indicate that these prisoners were experimented on. Of course it may have been an experiment as to how long the human spirit can endure before giving into despair :-(. But these prisoners illustrate that the human spirit can endure, and triumph --Hadseys 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Moving and historical, reasonable quality and good resoloution - Childzy ¤ Talk 12:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: Great quality and immense historical value. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 21:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Important historical image. Supaluminal 04:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It was extremely difficult to bring myself to look at the pic. Very horrific, and yes, very encyclopedic. And I know I said this like twenty times before in other nominations, but I've seen this pic in lots of history textbooks. Very high quality and historic. Jumpingcheese 04:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Agree with above, but I think the caption should mention the date the camp was liberated and/or when the photo was taken, a fact that should be clearly documented somewhere in army records. Might be nice to have a little more backstory of this particular concentration camp, if possible, some extra bit to make it more than just another holocaust photo. Jeff Dahl 16:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Badly tilted, sky blown out, I can't see a lot to recommend this other than the exotic location (well exotic from my point of view). I assume the banner is an anti-government message, but we're not even told what it says, and my Burmese is a little scratchy ;-). --jjron 09:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Besides the things already mentioned, I don't think the composition conveys the scale of the protest. It is hard to see how many people are protesting. - Mgm|(talk) 10:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Per other and because this really isnt FP quality also im sure many more photos of the crisis will crop up, it would be shortsighted to nominate any pics of this soon soon --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: I really want to support an image like this, but this one just isn't good enough. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 21:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This picture is simple, yet informative, of a good enough resolution that finer details can be made out, and I feel that this picture could be useful for future articles.
Proposed caption
The Senegal Wattled Plover (Vanellus senegallus) is an unmistakable wader, native to the sub-Sahara African lowlands.
Weak support. There may be some shadow/sharpness concerns, but Photoshop can probably handle those if necessary. I like the detail in the feathers, and the composition. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-26 16:36Z
Oppose edit 1, Support edit 2. Edit 1 is overkill, and there are strange effects around the edges between foreground and background (notice around the chest and stomach). Edit 2 is an improvement over the original. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-27 15:50Z
Comment Yah I'm not very good with photoshop. Sole advantage of Edit 1 over Edit 2 is the exposure on the birds chest, but I agree its over edited. The lack of noise, etc. on Edit 2 makes it a much more valuable image. Wwelles14 17:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I went back and tried to correct the overbrightness of edit 2; hopefully edit 3 is an improvement. :) CillaИ ♦ XC 18:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note. That means you've now 'voted' twice - you need to retract your support for the Original or support both in one vote. As it is, if users don't look carefully it looks like two separate people have supported. --jjron 06:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC). Problem fixed. --jjron 09:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Decent detail, lots of editing to make it look better, but the composition takes away from it all: it makes me want to know what the bird looks like from other angles than just the side. Puddyglum 23:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit3. Nicely framed, encyclopedic, and attractive shot. -- Chris B • talk 23:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 3: The subject is the bird, and it's shown well enough for me. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Wattled Plover Mara edit3.jpgMER-C 03:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original. Time length: 1:41Edit 1 by brian0918. Time length: 0:35
Reason
Ran across this at WP:RD/C. I was impressed- not necessarily by the algorithm but how necessary the image was to the article for it to make any sense at all. This is the very definition of encyclopedic for me.. so that's why it's nom'd. Preemptively answering an objection (this puzzled me too), it only starts looking for multiples of the prime at that prime squared and stops counting multiples once you've found all primes from 1 to the square root of your upper bound. Also the animation isn't as slow as it seems, let it load.
Support as nominatorfrotht 22:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Make that a Support edit 1 --frotht 18:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose because (a) it makes sense to place the first few numbers slowly, and then the rest more quickly for series of multiples of each prime, and (b) it's inconsistent - sometimes previously labelled multiples are coloured in, and sometimes they aren't. The inconsistency is a real deal-breaker. Please fix it and upload again. Thank you. Separa 22:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think, if you look at it, this is because of what Froth already identified - "it only starts looking for multiples of the prime at that prime squared". After this, I think, it always relabels previously-labelled multiples. TSP 22:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments: Good principle. A few issues with it:
(a) it takes an awfully long time to fill in the multiples of 2 - I almost got too bored to finish watching it. Could be speeded up? It only needs to take a second or two doing this, I think, followed by perhaps a second pause before starting the next number.
(b) I'd like it to be clearer when it is marking a prime, and when it is marking excluded numbers - I got confused when it started colouring in lots of numbers in purple. Perhaps it could circle primes, or cross out known non-primes, and keep colouring in the box for the other purpose. TSP 22:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Needs to be much faster after the first couple of multiples. Also, the fact that it starts at the multiple squared is confusing and not self-explanatory...yet. Stevage 02:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment (abstain): I agree with the above. The inconsistency must be fixed, and it must be sped up. Indicate 2, then indicate 2x in one fell swoop. Give us a moment to see what you did, then move on. This has great potential, but is unacceptable in its current form.--HereToHelp 23:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you sure about the inconsistency? Is it not just that, as the nominator (and the relevant WP page) says, "it only starts looking for multiples of the prime at that prime squared"? TSP 23:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Better, but I still think it's confusing to have 3 start at 9 (rather than 6) and 5 at 25 (rather than 10). I also think that it would be better to show them all at once, rather than show each multiple of 2 (60 of them!) individually.--HereToHelp 23:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Used this method before, but never really understood it until now. Great nom. Debivort 02:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, image is huge, 2MB for something that shouldn't need nearly that much. It wouldn't be slow to load if it was properly optimized. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Upon doublechecking, the thumbnailing algorithm has multiplied the filesize 10x. The animation still seems a bit slower than it ought to be. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The tiny thumbnail is massive, but check out the article's thumbnail. I think it's fullsize- and the file size is tiny as expected. We just have to make sure that it's never thumbnailed too small --frotht 18:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose; you'll need to speed up that animation by a lot if you don't want laymen (like myself) to fall asleep before the animation finishes or play Minesweeper waiting for the image to load. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 09:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 1. I've modified the timing to speed up the unimportant frames while giving the important frames more attention. It's down from about 1:41 to 0:35 in length. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-25 14:20Z
I think this is a sufficiently big improvement to go immediately onto the page, as most people here seem to have found the speed a problem. I'd still, if being fussy, like (a) a pause between filling in the multiples of one prime, and filling in the next (at the moment, your eye is drawn to the bottom by the multiples, then you almost miss the next prime going in); and (b) a clearer distinction between how primes and non-primes are marked (but that would probably require a complete remake of the image). TSP 14:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was going to make the same two comments. Perhaps the primes could be marked with a circle around the number or something instead of just yet another colour. Also, perhaps all the filled in squares could be faded out at that point. Come to think of it, it would be even much clearer if all the multiples were marked by an X over the number, indicating clearly that these numbers were rejected. Stevage 03:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Took it out of the thumb so people dont have to download a 2M image to see it :) --frotht 18:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like edit 1. To the haters, there's no inconsistency at all.. check out the article on the sieve and it gives a description of the algorithm. It's unnecessary to check for multiples of the prime before the prime squared because they're always already colored in. Also it only needs to run through the square root of the upper bound (100). In this case it stops at 7 since 8, 9, and 10 are already shaded. And where are you getting your 2M figure? It's only about 150-200k. Very tiny compared to a lot of FPs --frotht 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh you were talking about the thumbnail. See my reply to night gyr's comment above --frotht 18:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit 1. A good Wikipedian-created image that does what it says on the tin. I still think that a few improvements could be made, per my comments above, but that's really quibbling - this is still a good image. TSP 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It's a good animation and I like it (no support because I'm not familiar with the guidelines here). The faster version is better. Regarding the "inconsistency" that when crossing off multiples of three it does not cross of six: I do think it's rather confusing. I also think it's not essential to the algorithm to start crossing off at the square of the prime number. It does speed up the algorithm a bit, but only a little bit. So I think that for educational reasons it would be better to scrap that rule and cross off multiples of every prime starting from the prime number itself. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My vote has been changed to Support Edit 1 by brian0918; the common layman won't fall asleep now! Cheers, and may this nomination be promoted. -- AltirisHeliosExeunt 02:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit. Very helpful and well-implemented.--ragesoss 03:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Better now, speeded up, but it still lacks something. As said, X-ing out would be much better than the almost same colors as the primes. --Janke | Talk 06:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit 1. A nice implementation made much friendlier by the edit--Saxobob 09:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. The time length isn't the deciding factor for me. The coloring is inconsistent. All multiples of 5 are colored blue, even the ones that were previously colored red, apart from 15 and 20. Why? They should all be treated the same. - Mgm|(talk) 10:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
-_- this has been answered several times. It's part of the algorithm that you start from the prime SQUARED- since 15 and 20 are less than 25 they're skipped over. You're guaranteed that every multiple of the prime from the prime to it squared will have already been crossed off- that's why you just start at the square --frotht 10:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your oppose reason is not valid. Please supply another oppose rationale or change your vote. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-27 19:12Z
Comment: Since you stop testing at the square root of the largest number to test, why not organize your numbers in a square to represent that fact? 10x10 -> largest number 100 or 11x11 -> largest number 121.Wwcsig 13:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Why use so many different colors at all? It's confusing. Why not use a single color (say, a shade of red) for the first "2", then a different color (say, a shade of blue) for multiples of 2. Then use the same shade of red for the first "3" (they're both primes, so they get the same color), and the same shade of blue for multiples of 3. This eliminates the confusion that's caused by composites being colored one color, then another. Once the seive is completed, use a different shade of red to show the primes that the sieve finds. Spikebrennan 18:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose – To a non-mathematician the algorithm is non-obvious and the colouring is utterly confusing. Just use three colours, one for the number used is the current step of the sieve, one for non-primes and then one for primes. And highlight clearly you start fron n2 when using n in the sieve by making the number flash or something. Centy – reply• contribs – 22:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per centy. But if those issues are adressed, I'll change my !vote immediately. The image in itself is very encyclopedic, but the image can still be improved. – sgeurekat•c 23:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: It's neither eye catching nor does it add that much to the article to warrant FP status. Simply looking at it a hundred times you probably won't get what's going on (I wouldn't have anyway), without reading the article, in turn for which you don't really need the picture. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 14:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit 1 To translate, after 2,3,5 and 7 every number that isn't divisible by 2,3,5 or 7 is a prime. Hooray for math! Calibas 01:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Calibas, you know that is not true.Cuddlyable3 09:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Animation Sieve of Eratosth-2.gifMER-C 03:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Post-promotion discussion
There is one side where this image could be improved: it could give an explanation on the "inconsistencies" (a text on the side explaining that it starts crossing at prime squared) and why it stops "prematurely" (a text on the side explaining that since the current prime is greater than the root of 120 it'd stop now). I'd have done this myself, if I weren't in a tight deadline for school work.
I agree that just 3 colours would work best here: one for numbers not crossed out (e.g. blue), one for numbers crossed out in previous phases (e.g. grey), one for numbers crossed out in the current phase (e.g. red). At the end of each phase the red would change to grey. The dimensions of the rectangle don't matter too much — but I personally think it would be handy to have it be 12 squares wide, so that the pattern for the introductory small multiples is more obvious. As for starting at 2p versus p2, I think as long as we're showing things being crossed out multiple times, it makes more sense to start at 2p (this variation doesn't affect the asymptotic performance of the algorithm anyway). Dcoetzee 20:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I uploaded a non-overlapping version over this image before looking here, I didn't think there was a reason for the inconsistencies on the image. (I had only read File talk:Animation Sieve of Eratosth-2.gif, where nearly everyone seemed to agree that it needed a change).
If it's an important feature of the old version, feel free to revert the revision. -- 6Sixx (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
reverted. The changed version spawned more than one dispute at Talk:Sieve of Eratosthenes and more generally a FP should not be radically changed without previous discussion. And this really is the wrong place to discuss this: any further discussion should take place at the above article talk page or some other appropriate venue.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are several reasons why I think this photo of mine from December 2006 should be a featured picture:
It's of high quality and high resolution
It illustrates the subject of the article in a good way, leaving no ambiguity about what the subject looks like
It was taken at a good time period, for two reasons: one, that it shows the towers in a construction stage which includes all stages - the concrete, the outer tiles, and the glass, in different locations, which lets the user see exactly how the towers were built without making it too ugly. Two, this was one of the latest times in which such a picture could be taken from ground level. Currently, new towers are being built all around YOO, and it is not possible to take a picture of this kind unless you are looking from the air or another high tower.
It was on peer review and received positive feedback and no major criticism, although the user there said that he wasn't sure it would pass FPC. Even so, I am trying.
I will accept any criticism and try to fix any problems.
Proposed caption
YOO Towers in Tel Aviv, Israel, in late construction stages.
Oppose Image crooked, somewhat blurry, poor lighting, not best subject. TheOtherSiguy 20:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concerned It appears that the right building is dramatically tilted, while the left is not. It's Friday. Puddyglum 22:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment You know, I haven't noticed that until now. Interesting. In any case, if it's at all relevant to this discussion, I will add that the image has not been edited except cropping and minor color adjustments, therefore I didn't till the building or anything like that... -- Ynhockey(Talk) 23:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's true, but the image is still tilted. A slight clockwise rotation (approx 0.5 degrees) would fix this. MER-C 03:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I have slightly tilted the image as you suggested, as well as sharpened it a bit, plus color correction. Thanks for your comments. -- Ynhockey(Talk) 09:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per TheOtherSiguy 8thstar 03:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Both. Second seems even more tilted to me. I think this is unsalvageable for FP. Debivort 20:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Never say never! I have uploaded a 2nd edit with lens correction. I was hoping to avoid this filter, but it seems that the tilt was bothering everyone, so now all 4 lines are straight as an arrow. -- Ynhockey(Talk) 20:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Most of the blur has gone but now it seems strange, also for this type of picture it should be larger so you can see detail otherwise its not that special --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not promoted -- Chris B • talk 13:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very effectively illustrates the comparative sizes and shapes of the objects (that is, assuming that the images are in fact reasonably close to scale based on astronomy's best estimates).
I should point out that I think the image works like an image map: you should be able to click on one of the depicted minor planets and link directly to the relevant article for that minor planet.
Comment I agree with the nomination, this is a very well-done diagram. However, there is some aliasing around Earth's perimeter, and some artifacts on some of the planets. I don't know how to correct those easily in GIMP, but maybe somebody else has done it before and can correct the diagram. Puddyglum 16:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, at least for right now; as per Puddyglum there are artifacts and aliasing, and (IMHO) that's a pretty unattractive font. CillaИ ♦ XC 20:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Note that we have an FP that covers some of the same territory, but with photographs of the objects. Image:Moons of solar system v7.jpg --Sean 21:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: The other image has only two of these objects. Rmhermen 01:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Should be actual pictures. 66.28.178.68 22:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: The first spacecraft won't reach one of these objects until 2015. For now we have pictures as detailed as this: Not much to make a featured picture out of. Rmhermen 01:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP votes don't count, anyway. MER-C 03:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Why is the top blue? Cacophony 03:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was probably added to help the title stand-out, since it's a diagram. Puddyglum 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I like the subject because i like astronomy and don't know much about theses TNO. However i would like a size comparison with the Moon rather than the Earth : The Earth is too big to put in the picture so you can't actually understand how big theses TNO are. The Moon is almost as well known as the Earth, and it would fit better in the picture. Ksempac 20:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not promoted -- Chris B • talk 13:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ultra-enc high quality diagrams, unanimous support on COM:FPC for both. I suggest we give both the bronze star. Previous nomination here, but I closed it as not promoted without prejudice due to 14 images being nominated at once.
Support as nominatorMER-C 08:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support high quality diagrams, very encyclopaedic --Luc Viatour 09:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This is a no-brainer. You read "LadyofHats", you support. Standards are high. BTW, someone needs to clean up those articles. We have a lot of skeleton pictures all over the place, but not a lot of organisation, check out human anatomy, for instance. Separa 11:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support - Ultra-enc indeed. --Sean 15:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - LadyOfHats always does very nice, professional and enc diagrams, and this is no exeption.. Yzmotalk 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - very good image --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comments This image is being nominated on commons as well and one user pointed this out and I though it important that everybody here know.
Have any reviewers trained in the human anatomy double-checked the terms used in the figure? I am asking because I showed this figure to a medical doctor I know and trust to get an opinion, and the reaction was confusion and comments about inconsistent or truncated notation. Some terms are in roman, like Radius whereas others are in English, like Ribs. Another comment I got is that, e.g., Coccyx is a truncated name (I did not get what the full name is). Apparently such mixed terms and truncated names are not normally what is presented in textbooks or encyclopedias. I just checked my own Danish encyclopedia for figures of the skeleton and all the terms were (consistently) in Danish. I guess there must be English terms for all constituent bones as well? Therefore, would it not be more consistent to present either only English terms or only Latin terms? Perhaps one version for each language? -- Slaunger 21:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm not proclaiming to be an expert, but I've got a bit of knowledge. I'd already had a quick look at it, and wasn't aghast at anything, and still aren't. For example the radius is only ever called the radius in English, unless you want to call it the "thick bone in the forearm" or something. Coccyx again is the general term used in English (the latin is os coccygis). It gels pretty much with a skeleton diagram in one of my old first year Uni Biology textbooks, just with more detail on this one. I'm happy to leave it to others to research further, but it generally looks OK to me. For those that are interested, here's the links to the discussions on Commons: front and back. --jjron 17:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I've taken courses in both anatomy and osteology and I don't think anyone outside of the driest textbook would refer to the coccyx as os coccygis. The rest of the terms are all what I'd expect them to be if I were glancing through my old textbooks. I'm holding off voting for the moment, but I'm a little unimpressed by some of the labels lacking (no cranial or pelvic bones specified; carpal bones not identified, etc.)Matt Deres 10:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question. Incidentally though, does anyone know why it's specifically labelled as a female skeleton? Has she done say the shape of the pelvis as a female, or what? --jjron 17:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pelvis, mainly, a few other minor features. It makes enough of a difference as to need labelled. Vanished user talk 21:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I just grabbed some anatomy books and checked over these images very quickly. Sure, this isn't an exact level of detail or choice of terminology I can find anywhere else, but that shouldn't matter. I can find lots of tiny part-of-skeleton diagrams that label everything with the longest name possible and lots of simple diagrams that leave tons of stuff out. This appears to be a good compromise. I honestly don't understand the criticism about English vs. Latin; it all looks like English to me, as jjron mentions above. Enuja(talk) 07:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportThough an additional image to show the bones of the head or pelvis might be an appropriate expansion, per above, I don't think it's strictly necessary. Vanished user talk 21:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, we do have additional, more detailed images for everything except the pelvis. Let's nominate those next =) Vanished user talk 22:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support per above, the only problem I have with the image is that some of the labels appear to brush up against their respective pointer lines, and that the distances between the label and pointer line are not consistent, for example compare 'sternum' with 'femur.' Otherwise good work! Jeff Dahl 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note to the closer (not me): there are two images to be featured as a result of this nom, not one. MER-C 11:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Human skeleton front.svg -- Chris B • talk 14:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply] Promoted Image:Human skeleton back.svg -- Chris B • talk 14:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The picture is superficially unremarkable, yet the use of a narrow depth of field and the subtle contrast of light and shadow make it a tremendously expressive photograph. Coupled with its technical virtuosity, the haggard look of the subject—embroiled in a controversy of his own making, which could potentially ruin his career as well as his life—make the photograph even more expressive: Irving turning towards the darkness, away from the light.
Proposed caption
Clifford Irving at the time his Howard Hughes autobiography hoax was uncovered.
Somewhat high res. decent sharpness, on a side note, does anyone else have trouble getting the commons servers images to match the ones that you see on your computers before they go online? I have uploaded four versions of this and the contrast on colors have been wrong in all of them, very frustrating. And could you also vote on my church steeple nom, Oppose or support or whatever but some kind of response would be great.
Oppose, it's nicely informative and clear, but the head-on composition lacks special interest, and the low height from which it was taken leaves the vertical perspective too drastic. It might be a touch overexposed too; the building looks somewhat washed out in the harsh sunlight. It also looks like the top of someone's head was right under your camera in the bottom right corner of the photograph. Postdlf 01:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment You have a fairly bad stiching error above the right-most domed window. thegreen J Are you green? 22:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stumbled across this picture and was stunned, just stunned by it. It's a Featured Picture on Commons, and it really ought to be featured here, too. It's nice, big, full color photo from 1942, illustrating a pivotal component (and a cultural icon) of America's war effort in World War II, Rosie the Riveter, the women of America's work force. We already have Image:Rosie the Riveter.jpg (the famous "We Can Do It" propaganda) as a featured picture, and this compliments it, wonderfully showing the people the ad was illustrating. Again, just a stunning photograph.
Howard R. Hollem, as an official work of the U.S. Government
Support as nominator Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wow...incredible quality for a photo from 1942. CillaИ ♦ XC 04:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I had intended to nonminate this image when the size for it was high enough to do so, however I see you have beaten me to it :) I took a stab a righting a few lines for the caption, some else may want to improve on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support with slight reservations. The background (well, all the machinery) is pretty dark; I tried a gamma correction + a touch more contrast, but then the color seemed less lifelike. Maybe someone else can do better. I like the drama of her spiking out like that, especially her muscular & grimy arm, but it seems to me we should be able to see what she's doing better. The other is the awkward timing that caught her with her eyes shut, probably flash-related. I don't think you can operate a lathe safely with your eyes closed! --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Her eyes are open, as her pupil can be seen. This picture is from 1940, so I'm not sure if somebody should attempt to do better. Of the qualities of this picture, the most prominent are its historicity and its detail. Puddyglum 21:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Good from the time, historical valaue too --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Mbz1 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think that enough of the lathe is visible to provide context, and that any more would distract from the woman. She is the subject, not the machine.--HereToHelp 16:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. In response to the comment, I note that the lathe article doesn't appear to currently have any photos of a worker using a lathe, and this image might be suitable to illustrate that article. Spikebrennan 21:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very nice and powerful pic. And of course, encyclopedic. Jumping cheese 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, high quality, historical image. Well composed, good moment captured to suggest action, and her figure stands out because it's well contrasted against the darker machines, which are visible enough to indicate what they are. Great detail due to high resolution. Postdlf 02:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a camel. It's in really good condition, for example the shape of the hump, etc. It's taken in outback Australia (not a zoo or wildlife park or anything like that). It's pretty much a perfect pose for an encyclopaedic image. Lighting, colours and image quality are good. What else can you ask for?
Support as nominatorjjron 15:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. The angle of the head isn't ideal as it makes it slightly difficult to see the shape or the features - profile would have been better, but the image is still good enough for FPC. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 17:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support Not perfect, but good enough IMO, too. A little larger, a little sharper would always be better. --Janke | Talk 18:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Simple, good composition, subjected framed very centrally on fitting background, useful --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Mbz1 15:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: Right side of the head is obscured by a shadow and the composition isn't the best, but since we don't have any better camel pictures, good enough. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 14:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the vote Snowolfd4. I wonder if you could just clarify for me what you meant about the composition - are you just talking about the shadows on the head, or would you prefer full profile as per Diliff, or was it something else? --jjron 09:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:07. Camel Profile, near Silverton, NSW, 07.07.2007.jpgMER-C 03:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possibly the most well-known portrait of Douglass. His expression just personifies dignity and passion.
Proposed caption
Frederick Douglass (1818-1895, pictured here in about 1879) was born a slave in Maryland but became a prominent 19th century abolitionist, author and public speaker.
Support Although the scratch in his hair and beard, and the white spot on his tie, could do with being removed. I'm happy with the focus being only on a narrow pane on his face, although others might have a problem with that, I hope the historicity of the image, and how pretty it looks, will convince those who might be skeptical. Enuja(talk) 04:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OriginalEdit 1 - rotated slightly to straighten horizon
Reason
A beautiful picture from a very remote region.
Proposed caption
Icebergs around Cape York,Greenland. The icebergs are beautiful and display many interesting shapes. You could see the iceberg with a hole at the image. The hole was caused by weathering effects - erosion by waves, wind and melting.
Support as nominatorMbz1 13:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conditional supportif the horizon is straight. I really can't tell-- the coastline is irregularedit1 (). It's a very nice image. Spikebrennan 14:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit1 Wow! Hard to come by, isn't it? Puddyglum 20:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 1 Very impressive. I also noticed two brown things--presumably walruses-- clinging to the disintegrating ice in the bottom right. A closer zoom on a scene like that would also make a great FP.--HereToHelp 23:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 1 nice job Mbz1, CillanXC. I love the composition and light. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 1 - Excellent size and everything, great image --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit1 - Beautiful picture. I wonder if that green is real or just the result of the whites being unbalanced - Alvesgaspar 22:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 1 - The line of ice in the background is full of blown highlights, but with this kind of shot, there's nothing anyone can do about that. The sharpness, composition, and global warming cry for help all make this a great shot. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 05:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 1. Great shot. The green is natural, a result of refraction or possibly the presence of algae on an overturned berg. --Dhartung | Talk 08:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two-lined gum treehopper, Eurymeloides bicincta on a eucalypt branchAlternative 1 - being harvested by a meat eater ant - a cloned version also existsAlternative 2 - more face on
I guess I should stick to photography... :) Found a young tree with these tiny critters crawling over it so took a few snaps. High quality and high enc value. It was a shame I cropped off the ant's antennae but they were moving very fast (both the ant and the antennae) so it was quite fortunate I got it in frame at all.
Support Alternative 1--Mbz1 13:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose all - Bad flash lighting, insufficient DOF, tight crops. It would be nice to make the Exif info available - Alvesgaspar 13:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question - Where is the Proposed caption and the Reason for nominating? - Alvesgaspar 14:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposed caption is "Two-lined gum treehopper, Eurymeloides bicincta on a eucalypt branch", reason is that it is a high quality image with high enc value. Why do you say that the crops are too tight? --Fir0002 03:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer more space around the critters but I supposed this style of cropping is kind of a trademark of yours. Alvesgaspar 12:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Alternative 1 Always amazing detail. The ant sort of detracts the subject, but it helps give us an idea on just how large the treehopper is. Puddyglum 20:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support original I'd like some Exif data too, why do you strip it from your pictures? anyway, nice shot. and uh, 10mm in length... could we just simplify things and call it a centimeter? ;-) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
lol, yeah well I think generally when you talk about insects and stuff you do it in mm. Exif is stripped when saving for web in photoshop (which I do to reduce file size as you can see below...) --Fir0002 03:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Original - Nice close up, i find the others distracting slightly --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose all Alt 1 is decidedly the best for my taste but the framing on the ant with the distracting leaf is unfortunate. I would like to see the EXIF data to get an better idea of the picture's situation. --Central Powers 15:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any reason for your oppose? --Fir0002 23:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, on the original version i found the DOF unfortunatly and the insect in the background distracting. Alt 2 has better DOF but the flashlight especially on the branch is too harsh for my taste. --Central Powers 23:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume you mean by "DOF unfortunately" that it is too shallow? In which case this is somewhat unusual since it has identical aperture and if anything better angle to Alt 2 in terms of getting more in focus. It is perhaps unfortunate that the other tree hopper is there, but that is how they cluster along the branch; and surely if you didn't find the other terns in Image:Crested tern444 edit.jpg distracting the very much OOF secondary hopper shouldn't make too much of a difference...? --Fir0002 00:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunate DOF or shallow DOF that's one way of putting it ;) --Central Powers 01:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support Alt 2. The cleanest composition for mine, the other hoppers in the background in the others are a bit distracting, especially in thumbnail. Weak as the flash reflection is a little bright. (Now this nom is going to be confusing to close.) --jjron 12:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support alt 1 or 2 prefer alt 1, as ant interaction is very enc. Debivort 19:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Two-lined gum treehopper03.jpgMER-C 03:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fascinating bit of Americana. Reasonably good scan.
Proposed caption
From 1908 to 1940, Sears Roebuck and Company sold ready-to-assemble houses through mail order under the Sears Catalog Homes brand. Model No. 115, pictured here in a catalog advertisement, was sold during the period from 1908 to 1914 at a price of $725.00.
Support This is ephemera, some minor printing errors and so on are acceptable and typical. Adam Cuerdentalk 02:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are visible jpeg artifacts, especially around the text. Is there a better scan and/or can we have the original in png format? MER-C 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - For something like this it must be perfect --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support: I'm willing to ignore the artifact issues due to the unique nature of the picture. A better scan would be great though. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 14:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abstain. One of my earliest uploads. Very encyclopedic, although not the best quality. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-02 14:13Z
Could you get a better scan of this by any chance? --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 14:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't scan it. It's from an online government source - I think NARA. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-03 00:27Z
Oppose. What childzy said. This is not at all unique, as Sears sold thousands and thousands of their building kit books, and modern reproductions of the books have been sold. It would be difficult but not impossible to get a better scan. As a secondary issue, this is just about the least attractive Catalog Home ever sold (compare). I'd really like to see a more interesting/representative image like one of the Craftsman designs. --Dhartung | Talk 08:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very nice picture. Govigov 15:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)govigovReply[reply]
Though it cannot be considered as a formal proof of the Pythagorean theorem, the animation is elegant and simple to understand, being aimed at people’s geometrical reasoning rather then the analytical one. For that reason it is highly didactic and encyclopedic.
Proposed caption
The animation illustrates a geometric proof by rearrangement of the Pythagorean theorem, which states that, in any right triangle, the square on the hypotenuse (c, in the picture) is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides (a and b): c2 = a2 + b2. In the animation, it is shown that the large square (whose area is equal to c2) can be decomposed into two smaller squares with areas a2 and b2.
Support I needed to watch five cycles of it to understand every detail, but it was fun. Highly encyclopedic. Nothing distracting about it, plain and simple. – sgeurekat•c 22:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support I would, however, like a little more time to look at the last image and understand everything. Also, perhaps we could use a white background? This will make the Main Page version, on a purple background of similar saturation/brightness/whatever, look much better. Yellow on white might not show up too well, so maybe change that color, too.--HereToHelp 23:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about a neutral grey on white background, with black outlines for the shapes? Jeff Dahl 18:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - It does take a couple plays to work out but then i got it. Very useful --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose. It could be clearer. The final frame should last longer. The motion should be smoother to make it clear where things are going. The initial "a/b/c" labels should remain on the triangle. Some sort of thicker border, or flicker of color to the relevant area may be useful in drawing attention to that area. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-02 14:17Z
Weak oppose. Brian said it all. --Janke | Talk 15:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Per Brian. I would like to support it if it was clearer, though. --Sean 17:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think it's pretty clear already plus you can always watch it over and over again until you get it. Calibas 01:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Pretty cool but it's far too difficult to understand- it took me 3 or 4 replays before I got what was going on --frotht 20:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Bravo, that is much better than the majority (I believe), including myself! Maybe you want to make some suggestions to make it more obvious (and quicker) to less talented people - Alvesgaspar 21:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak supportNeutral Like Brian, I'd like the final frame to last much, much longer. If an alternative is uploaded with a long enough final frame so that I can figure out what's going on, I'll support. Enuja(talk) 02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Why does the triangle start big and centered and then move to the corner to be small and uncentered? I think the animation would look much more smooth (and have less time-wasting up front that doesn't help illustrating the concept) if the triangle just started in the corner. Enuja(talk) 17:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info - New version, with smoother animation and longer final - Alvesgaspar 08:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment If so many people are needing to watch it multiple times to understand what's going on, maybe there needs to be a better caption. As is, the proposed caption offers a sort of convoluted explanation of what the image attempts to illustrate; if we made it clearer and elaborated there'd likely be a lot less question of what exactly is going on. Before I vote to support this image, I'd like to see its caption used to fill in whatever gaps in understanding the image leaves the viewer. SingCal 17:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info - Fair enough. I have improved the caption - Alvesgaspar 17:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reply to both of you. I think the new "improved" caption makes the image more confusing instead of better. Let's just admit that the average human is bad at math and doesn't even know what a hypotenuse is. And, as the nom said, it's a geometrical proof instead of an analytical one, so why go into math formulas then? I think the reason that most people (including me) need more than one cycle to understand what is shown stems from most people having never seen a geometrical proof of Pythagorean theorem. And I don't see how you can/should expect someone to get this non-trivial topic the first (few) time(s). – sgeurekat•c 18:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't expect the animation to be understood in just a few passes, that is why I made the sarcastic comment above. Mathematics is not easy specially for people who doesn't deal with it in a regular way (I wouldn't say though that average people are bad at math). But geometry can make difficult things a lot easier and I believe that this "proof" is within the reach of people with a just basic knowledge of math. BTW, you are right about the formulae, I made the caption a lot simpler. - Alvesgaspar 19:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose after much consideration, and with due thought given to the time spent making it. I just can't reconcile the time required to understand what's going on, and as far as geometrical 'proofs' go, I don't think this is the simplest way to illustrate the theorem. --jjron 15:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you know of a simpler geometric proof that can be put effectively in a animation, please tell us. Alvesgaspar 18:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chart showing the jpg file size in varying quality settings in both standard jpg saving and "save for web" jpg
Decided to expand my horizons a bit here and try something new - a chart! I've had this idea on my mind for a while and it's finally done - actually took a surprisingly long time.
I didn't use one of the "standard" images as I felt this one was much better. It has both a nicely graduated sky (an area which typically suffers most from compression) and high detail areas such as the grass, sand and planks.
And yes I know it has a spelling mistake but does it warrant the 11mb upload time? Anyway I think its a good enc image with plenty of value. Perhaps a animation might be good too, but I'll see what you think...
Comment I see some jpeg artifacts. 8thstar 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This is a great diagram, with the spelling fixed. From nom, "..but does it warrant the 11mb upload time?" -- But yet you would consider making this into an animation, which is exponentially larger? ;) Puddyglum 17:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Interesting and informative. I fixed the filename. --Sean 17:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose In order to view this comparison properly, the entire image would have to be downloaded. As it appears on this page (and would appear on the front page), it just looks like a small graph with a bunch of tiny thumbnails... not 'featured picture' material, in my opinion. The fact that the entire image itself has been saved as a jpeg doesn't truly give a good comparison either. And you don't really explain what 'saved for web jpg' and 'saved as jpg' mean, and why there is a difference, and you don't state what program you used to generate the thumbnails. This is also Original Research. Rawr 17:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why does it not give a good comparison? I saved it as a 12 quality jpg (hence the 11mb file size). I could have saved as a PNG but that would have been ridiculous. As the chart shows there is very minimal quality loss at jpg 12. Ok well if you were confused by it I apologise. "Saved for jpg" means that the image has been saved directly as a jpg with a standard compression on a quality scale of 0-12. "Saved for web" means it has gone through an optimization feature found in many image editing programs - in this case it was done in Photoshop. "Save for web" optimization is made to reduce file size compared to a normal "save as jpg". As can be seen by the graph this is generally the case, although mid way this is not true. Furthermore the images in the chart allow you to compare the resulting quality from the two compression techniques. I'm sorry you haven't found it informative because personally I found it so. --Fir0002 23:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose not all that aesthetically appealing, Original Research, and lots of elements are awkward, like the stetched fonts, the Excel-default colors in the graph, the empty space in the bottom row, etc. Debivort 18:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are "stetched fonts"? It is unfortunate that 13 isn't divisible by two - but then it is a prime so there wasn't much else I could do... --Fir0002 23:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The labels on all the bottom two rows look vertically stretched. Debivort 04:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, mostly as Rawr - I think that 'Save' and 'Save for web' are simply two different methods that Photoshop offers to select image quality. I'm not aware that there's an encyclopedically-interesting difference between them; so half the information on the image is redundant, unless you can explain one. Otherwise, I don't particularly see the advantage of arranging the data in one 11mb image, as opposed to a series of individual images, per JPEG#Photographs. TSP 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well the main information, the exponential file size growth of the compression, is still there, you just get the added element of being able to see whether it is worth optimizing for web. I fail to see how that could detract from the value of the chart. --Fir0002 23:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose First the subject is dubious even more for a FP (bad quality jpeg as a FP ?). Second it tooks me too long to download the image. I think most of the shots could go away because a step by step increase of quality doesn t indicate much more than a selection of 3 or 4 shots. I don't want to download a 11 Mo file for that kind of result. Ksempac 19:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry but opposing based on it being an 11mb file is not valid. Please read the evaluation criteria for a FPC. Furthermore to complain about the quality of the jpg's is ridiculous - that's the whole point! --Fir0002 23:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Too much information. The graph shouldn't be in there, and there should be fewer images overall. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-01 20:07Z
Possibly their are too many images, but I think the graph is the key element. Without it the pictures would be meaningless. As explained the chart shows both the exponential growth of a jpg file as quality improves, and shows where a "saved for web" optimization procedure is better than a standard compression in terms of file size. The rest of the images allow people to judge whether the file size difference is worth the quality differences. --Fir0002 23:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Fairly interesting information but unappealling presentation. Is the SFW optimization algorithm common across photo editors or is it unique to photoshop? It is a useful contribution to the articles it is in, but in my opinion is not a FP. Probably your only submission I haven't loved. :) Meniscus 04:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Simply too much info crammed into a space that won't fit on any screen. The graph is the main thing - skip all the small images. Instead, enlarge a small portion of each of the six big images to clearly show the artifacts. Also, mention the uncompressed file size somewhere. Then, I might consider supporting. --Janke | Talk 08:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Per above and all oppose --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I have a few concerns with the image:
The concept of "save for web" is not encyclopaedic. Presumably this is a photoshop-specific concept, and so isn't really useful as a comparison. Is the same true for the compression numbers of 1, 2, 3 etc? Are they comparable with other software? If so, I would much rather a version without the "save to web".
The graph doesn't really belong. As soon as you add a graph like that into the image, it becomes less useful, as you're forcing a certain layout. It would be better having a graph in a separate image, then articles can lay them out as they want.
Too many images: Without zooming in, I'm not sure I can even see a difference between quality 12 and 100. It would be better, imho, to have just 4 or maybe 5 images, to the make the different quality more apparent.
And speaking of zooming in, it would actually be better to show part of each image magnified, so you can really see the artefacting. You could blow up part of the spinifex, where it's most likely to be visible. Stevage 05:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose — This image is useful only in Adobe-related articles, as the "save for web" feature used here is only available in their products. It's a program-specific function, thus it means nothing in the general definition of JPEG compression. A reader would have absolutely no idea what the difference is between save for web and standard JPEG compression by looking at this picture. They aren't told that it goes through a special filtering algorithm to optimize the image before being stored as JPEG, what options were used (other than compression percentage), nor what the technical difference is (ie. save for web removes EXIF data). I also find it highly amusing that a lossy format was used to display an image about lossy compression (regardless of how minor the loss is by using maximum quality JPEG). ♠ SG→Talk 20:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeOnly useful for Adobe, to big, taken the above statements into account. Neozoon 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support self-nom Mbz1 04:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Seems to be a lot out of focus --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment. Please notice in Edit2 the up and down sides of the halfs of the pine cone were changed. Now you could see the place, where a pipe cone was attached to a tree brunch.--Mbz1 18:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Aren't they Alternatives, not Edits? --jjron 16:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I really like these, but as is, they are really soft at full size. I've done a quick downsample and sharpen and they come up a lot better, but unfortunately at this stage of the nom I doubt anything would come of uploading the Edits. There's some funny stuff in the backgrounds where the black doesn't stay properly black - that needs to be fixed as well. Would you bother with a renom if I uploaded an edit, or do you think there's not going to be enough interest? And if so, which one do you prefer? --jjron 16:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Jiron. It is what I cannot understand - the luck of interest. In my opinion it is a very interesting and a rare fossil. I'd understand, if the voters opposed it because of focus or something else, but no votes at all... I renamed them. I prefer Original 2. I hope we still could save the day. If you and me support your edit, at least somebody else would have to support or oppose it too.--Mbz1 00:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Mbz1 03:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Foreground trees out of focus/blurred are distracting also showing the whole thing would be of more value, on the plus side nice big image --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You cant really avoid the trees, so I decided to settle for compositional framing with the main subject (the steeple) the church has no article of its own so the entire thing not being included doesn't detract for me. you cant really get a full view anyway, without getting cirrcus mirror distortion and bad perspective. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 11:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks, you are right, I wrote it down wrong when I was out shooting. Care to place a vote?? -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not my area of expertise, sorry--I mostly comment on historical images. Can you explain, though, why a panorama is more useful than a single photograph in showing the steeple? If the focus is the architecture of the steeple itself, then the base and surrounding trees seem somewhat of a distraction. Chick Bowen 01:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stitching, usually, is to increase the resolution. Pixel size and sharpness impress people here for the most part and I must admit I like to stare at minute details as well. The fact that it is a panorama doesn't change that it would still be tough to get a shot without trees, etc. from this distance (getting much closer would screw up perspective). Maybe this isn't the best subject to illistrate steeple but I think it does a darn good job and the lighting is really good and at least I am happy with the sharpness. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 02:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support The trees are distracting but the detail and sharpness of the steeple itself are quite good. CillaИ ♦ XC 15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support the trees are not that distracting but something that I can't quite put my finger on looks wrong--Phoenix 15 22:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be that the image is tilted. MER-C 03:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I really dont get a height perspective of the picture. how tall is this church? Govigov 15:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC) govigovReply[reply]
Support both as nominatorBenjamint 09:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Nice clear image, infocus, good colours, good composition, nice background --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Mbz1 15:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per above, although the caption will need to be expanded.--HereToHelp 15:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support I think the artefacts in the background and the other bird on the far left are distracting, but the overall capture of the subject is amazing --Andrew Hadland 2007 13:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportEdit 1 Lovely scene in terms of colours - interesting subject and technically pretty good. The only slight criticism is with the composition - the beak of the OOF tern in the background makes the main tern's beak look fuzzy as if it had been blurred around the edges. Fixed noise issues in my edit. --Fir0002 00:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit1 I think it's a great picture. Only the one side of the bird is seen, and leaves me interested for more views of it, but the composition makes up for that. It's beautiful and encyclopedic, and the noise issue was cleared out in Edit1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puddyglum (talk • contribs) 07:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Oppose Clearly a very detailed image from a perfectly low angle with lovely colors but the cluttered (with other birds) background and the lack of any highlight in the eye doesn't make it and outstanding bird photo. Wwcsig 12:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Oppose Sorry, very good picture, good focus, sharp, but the birds behind just makes it to cluttered for me. --Stefantalk 03:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Crested tern444 edit.jpgMER-C 03:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Historical Significance, this stone helped decipher ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics
Proposed caption
The Rosetta Stone is an Ancient Egyptian artifact which was instrumental in advancing modern understanding of hieroglyphic writing. The stone is a Ptolemaic era stele with carved text. The text is made up of 3 translations of a single passage, written in two Egyptian language scripts (hieroglyphic and demotic), and in classical Greek. It was created in 196 BC, discovered by the French in 1799 at Rosetta, a harbor on the Mediterranean coast in Egypt, and contributed greatly to the decipherment of the principles of hieroglyphic writing in 1822 by Frenchman Jean-François Champollion. Comparative translation of the stone assisted in understanding many previously undecipherable examples of hieroglyphic writing. The text of the Rosetta Stone is a decree from Ptolemy V, describing the repealing of various taxes and instructions to erect statues in temples.
Oppose. Oh, I want to, but the image is barely large enough to show the individual letters and then not clearly. There has to be a better image out there somewhere. (The caption is too long by half, but that is fixable.) --Dhartung | Talk 08:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. The Gutenberg link doesn't work, and in my opinion the nommed image is more legible, and therefore more useful, than the ESA photograph (which may be a more faithful photograph, but the inscription is less clear.) Therefore, Support.Spikebrennan 21:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are we this desperate for featured images? I don't think so. Either the photograph should show the Stone in its museum setting with full color, or it should show an encyclopedic event relating to it (I don't know, some philologist going over it with a glass), or it should show the writing. This doesn't do any of that. This is an available artifact of which better photographs certainly exist or may be in future obtained. --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support. I think it's rather good. Yes the other versions are higher res but in this version the characters stand out in such sharp relief that they're easier to read. But there are some weird compression effects between the lines --frotht 04:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose - This important object deserves better. --Sean 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Does the British Museum allow photography? Perhaps someone could just go and take one. Chick Bowen 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's behind glass and, if memory serves, the lighting in that gallery is bad. See here.Spikebrennan 18:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I support this image because it has a great encyclopedic value and it is a very good image. SRauz 19:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Better quality is needed for something like this. All the characters should be readable, at least. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-01 20:10Z
Weak Oppose I agree this image could be better. Some history though: what they did when the stone was found in 1799 was it was inked first, then printed, but the ink was left on the stone for many years, until it was cleaned off (I don't remember when). This image was a photograph of the stone, must have been late 19th century before the cleaning, which is why the stone is so black. Modern photos of the cleaned stone do not show the writing clearly at all, no matter how good the photo, because the contrast between the dark ink and relief (which must have been whitened) is gone! However, if we can find an old print of the stone of 19th or early 20th century date, and scan it, I think that would provide a much clearer image. Jeff Dahl 05:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, the lower left corner of the ESA photo shows the condition of the stone before cleaning. Jeff Dahl 05:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose No matter whether it's the best we've found so far the fact that it shows an artifact which still exists and prints taken from the artifact may exist then IMHO we shouldn't settle for anything which doesn't show all characters clearly which sadly this doesn't Nil Einne 02:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A stunning photochrom of a very famous German landmark. Not only a clear and beautiful example of a photochrom image from the turn of the century, but also a valuable record of how this castle looked shortly after completion. In addition, this is currently the only image on Wikimedia that gives a head-on view of the castle.
Proposed caption
A photochrom print of the front of Neuschwanstein Castle, Bavaria, Germany, taken as few as ten years after the completion of the castle's construction.
Original creator unknown -- image modified a few times by various users, including myself.
Support as nominatorSarfa 20:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. THat's an attractive image. Any idea when the picture was taken? Spikebrennan 21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, Library of Congress classifies it as an 1890-1900 image, but the notes say "Detroit Photographic Company, 1905", so my guess would be that the base photo was probably taken in the 1890s, but that the color wasn't added to the negative until the early 1900s.-Sarfa 22:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest adding the date estimate to the caption. Spikebrennan 14:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Both beautiful and a great representation of the castle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLauren (talk • contribs) 21:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Because it is an historical photo with a superb composition. But I wonder if the scanning is to blame for some of the flaws - Alvesgaspar 20:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The scan looks good to me. These were printed multiple times, so there are always flaws that creep in--that many more opportunities for a little fleck of something on a plate. Chick Bowen 03:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Stunning picture of a beautiful subject. TheOtherSiguy 22:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - eye candy, M.K. 13:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. The fact that this was taken so close to the time of the castle's completion does little to impress me as regards FPC status - from any recent pictures I can find there is very little difference with the castle now. Certainly there are more attractive current pictures (such as this, but I do not know of their status re free use, etc, or how hard it is to get a photo from this best vantage point). My point is that going on the information provided here I can see only pretty weak arguments for any historical justifications for excusing possible flaws with this image, similar to a recent failed historic Eiffel Tower candidate. More information may convince me otherwise. I wouldn't bring this up, but I personally find the washed out looking colours and unappealing distant mountains and sky really detract from what I usually find a stunning place. --jjron 13:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Neuschwanstein Castle LOC print rotated.jpgMER-C 03:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It sharp, well composed, no distractions, is encyclopedic and illustrates itself well
Proposed caption
A gavel is a small ceremonial mallet commonly made of hardwood. It is typically fashioned with a handle and often struck against a sound block to enhance its sound qualities. It is used by presiding officers; notably American Judges, chairmen and auctioneers to call for attention or to punctuate rulings or proclamations
Question could we get a real photo of this, rather than a render? Debivort 17:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'd prefer more of a side view than a top-down view-- this top-down perspective makes it look like the thing that the gavel bangs on is part of the gavel itself. Spikebrennan 17:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Debivort's point, and also because it's a rather boring picture of a common object. Maybe if it was composed well in a courtroom or something. Puddyglum 17:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A good picture of a common object--Phoenix 15 22:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Extremely boring picture of an uninteresting object at a weird angle. Not Featured Picture material. TheOtherSiguy 00:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. We've had a few images like this recently--computer-generated images of objects that could just as easily be photographed. I think what would sway people to support would be a subject that either shows off the rendering process particularly well, or, for whatever reason, is actually better shown in a rendered rather than photographed image, such as this one, or one that could not be photographed, like this one. But there's not likely to be support for images that are merely skillfully rendered. Chick Bowen 03:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Unintresting Govigov 15:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC) govigovReply[reply]
Comment - Shouldn't someone create a feature video section. I know we don't have one right now so this is probably the best place for it to be nominated, but it seems likes someone should set something like that up. Remember 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons has a featured media section, which is where this should go. Puddyglum 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, this is the right place. FPs include movies, per previous discussions. Debivort 00:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question how acurate is it? It says "over the line" but then shows both in-plane shots, and ground shots of the planes/bombs going off. It seems unlikely that they would have simultaneous ground and air footage if he were behind enemy lines. Maybe it should illustrate something else - cinematography of WWI or propaganda? Debivort 00:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, it seems like war propaganda. Nothing wrong with that; I'd support were it billed as such.. --frotht 07:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no clue whatsoever about the accuracy of the claims made in the text panels of the film. I just happened to stumble upon the clip in the World War I article and decided to nominate it. (In response to Froth's question below, I also don't know anything about the technical specifications of the film. Spikebrennan 12:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would a better caption be something like "Film produced by the U.S. military during World War I that purports to show ace pilot Eddie Rickenbacker bombing a German position." (assuming that's accurate, which I haven't researched.) Spikebrennan 12:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Why does this have a theora stream? It's sizey- 111kbps over more than a minute. Yet there's no audio. --frotht 07:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support with the alternative caption. Debivort 21:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: This is more a video then a picture. Animated gifs or something simillar I can see fitting into this category, but this really belongs in a separate world. --Hetar 03:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Movie == motion picture, so this is the correct place. Please supply a valid oppose rationale. MER-C 04:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - OOOOH wikipedia getting all posh with moving images eh? --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Support — Dude. WWI airplanes. I didn't know a video like this even existed. I love it. And yes, it's certainly propaganda-ish, but that fact showing up in a caption may contribute further to already outstanding encyclopedic value. — Ben pcc 21:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Bombers of WW1.ogvMER-C 03:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I don't see anything wrong with it. Unless somebody finds a stitching error, it looks like a pretty good shot.--HereToHelp 23:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It is pretty noisy and not super sharp for a panorama. The light is a bit dull and it is a touch under-exposed. On an unimportant note, there is a very small and really not noticeable stitching error on the water line to the left of the bridge. (here to help asked) ;-). -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - The composition is excellent but there are technical problems with it as mentioned above --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen thousands, yes, thousands of all kinds of photographs from World War II. This one is in my opinion a true masterpiece; I was stunned when I examined it. Artistically it's in my opinion almost perfectly composed, except for the small crop of the carrier to the right. The resolution could be higher, but it is a historical photograph.
Proposed caption
The aircraft carrier USS Franklin is afire and listing by 13° after being hit by a Japanese air attack on March 19, 1945, during World War II. The crew is clearly seen on the flaming deck, watched by the crew of the light cruiser USS Santa Fe, which was alongside assisting with firefighting and rescue work. The casualties totaled 724 killed and 265 wounded.
Weak oppose I really want to support but the quality is very poor. There are heavy artifacts, the crop is distracting, and it's pretty small. Is there any way a higher resolution version could be obtained? CillaИ ♦ XC 17:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Support higher-res version, although the contrast is now a bit too stark. CillaИ ♦ XC 04:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Remarkable image, powerful and very encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krazykenny (talk • contribs) 02:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Support--Mbz1 16:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Cutoff part of ship spoils composition, image quality is pretty poor (e.g., a significant part of the image is completely blown out sky, pretty unsharp, plus other faults), and we already have better FPs of similar incidents. Going on how many photos of 'WWII warships being hit by planes' or 'after enemy attacks' we get through here, they can't be that rare. Sure, this may be the best photo of this particular incident, and some may argue that we should have a featured picture of them all regardless of quality, but I don't buy it. --jjron 12:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Attack on carrier USS Franklin 19 March 1945.jpgMER-C 03:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Diffraction pattern in karun.JPGOriginalOrigina2Cropped of original #2
Reason
Diffraction pattern could be seen in many situations, like, for example, on a surface of CD discs, yet the nominated image has much more to offer. Just think about it!This Diffraction pattern was done without men involvement just by a spider, his web and the Sun. It is still not completely understood how it works with spider webs. Diffraction pattern in spider web could be a fascinating learning material for kids. I've already was asked a permission to publish the image in a children science magazine.
Support as nominatorMbz1 16:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Please notice the subjest is not a spider web, but Diffraction pattern in a spider web. here is the explanation why it is better to take such images out of focus. I've done more than this. The image shows different parts of a spider web with different ammount of out of focus volume in order to represent the subject better. In my opinion it is a very nice educational image.--Mbz1 16:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Diffraction, sure, but diffraction pattern? The pattern on a CD that you refer to is regular, rainbow-like. Here, however, I see no pattern, just randomly colored spots from the myriad of drops of "sticky stuff" on the web. --Janke | Talk 17:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - That was also my doubt. This seems more like a random pattern caused by refraction in the web drops - Alvesgaspar 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your questions,Janke and Alvesgaspar. In my opinion every diffraction that involves drops of fluid has a pattern. Of course you cannot excepct to see a pattern as regular as on CD. A spider web is not regular itself. Yet, in my opinion the light waves traveling through a sticky web have no other choice as generate a pattern. Look, for example, at the right-hand side of the image. In my opinion it shows a definite pattern. Of course I'm not a scientist. That's why I added the link, which explains how diffraction works with a spider web and why it is a pattern.--Mbz1 19:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason is Babinet's principle, if the threads of the spider web are small enough to cause significant diffraction - in this case about 5μm, but unfortunately the article on spider web doesn't tell me how thick they are. MER-C 06:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose — Actually, it is known why this occurs (you even linked to a page which explains the phenomena). Regardless, this effect can easily be seen even with a shot that is in focus. This photo is just far too unfocused and noisy for me. ♠ SG→Talk 03:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the noise could be dealt with, but focus... As you mentioned yorself I provided the link, which explains why the phenomena looks better at unfocused images. Would not it be fair, if you provide a link to an image, which shows the same intensity of colors at a focused image, just to support your statement? Maybe you could take one yourself? After all spider webs are everywhere. --Mbz1 12:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose In the right context, this image is valuable. However, unless the viewer has an understanding of diffraction patters, this image doesn't seem anything more than a spider web. That being said, it took me a few minutes to really understand this image, and once understood I think the image actually shows the diffraction pattern in a unique way. The pattern is simply the light coming off of the web, and I think this phenomena surely helps one understand not only diffraction pattern, but also helps us understand how a spider-web works -- by using its diffraction pattern to lure flying objects to it. I oppose because a better picture can be taken to illustrate this better. Puddyglum 20:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the vote, trying to understand the picture and the comment,Puddyglum. Of course I agree. A better picture could be taken of anything. Spider webs are very common. Maybe somebody would post a better picture today or in the next few days. Maybe you've seen a better image on the net somewhere? I'll be the first one to support a better image. Yet now we have this one nominated image, so could you, please, tell me what in your opinion would be a better picture? Thanks.--Mbz1 20:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The parts that I oppose are primarily that the pattern has flaws, and the pattern also doesn't stand-out as being the subject of the image. If I'm taking a picture of a glass of water to show refraction, then the refraction be the focus, not the glass. To get the proper focus of the subject, you might try making a tighter crop of the pattern itself (since that's the subject). No offense intended, but I think the point of FP nomination isn't "find me a better picture," the point is, "Wow! This picture is amazing!". I love your pictures, but this one simply isn't feature-able imo. Puddyglum 00:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was just asking for a better picture because I've never seen one. I'm very much interested in atmospheric optics and I like to see good and interesting pictures on the subject no matter who took them. So, no offence at all. Thanks.I withdraw the nomination--Mbz1 01:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not promoted -- Chris B • talk 14:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion concretions are very interesting rocks. Their shapes are amazing and sometimes not well understood. The Earth is not the only place in our Solar System, where concretions are found. At least one other planet - Mars has them too Martian spherules. In my opinion the image has a good caption, which describes not only the image itself, but also the place, which I call an open air museum.
Proposed caption
SandstoneConcretion in the wall at the beach of Año Nuevo State Reserve. This concretion was too high in the wall to place a ruler, but I estimate it to be about 400 mm long. Please take a look at additional two images, which help you to see the settings of the image better: The first image shows the beach wall with two concretions and the second image is the wide angle image of the wall This same wall has lots of Fossils inclusions: . The Concretions often get weathered out from the wall. At the next image you could see few spheres Concretions, which were found in a close proximity.
Support as nominatorMbz1 19:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a useful picture for the article, but it does not stand out (only by the size of the thumbnail). What are your reasons for nominating, what makes this picture one of wikipedias best? --Dschwen 20:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the comment, Dschwen. I've stated my reasons already. Here are few more: In my opinion the image is not only useful for the article, but also very useful for education because it shows an interesting concretion in its natural setting. In my opinion each and every image, which adds a value to an article could be nominated for FP. I 'm not sure that an image should "stand out" to be nominated for FP. At least I have not found anything about this in Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. As a matter of fact, when Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria is talking about best pictures, it states: "It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer." I believe the nominated image is the best example of the given subject .In my opinion it meets this and other criterias as well. I hope I answered your question. Please feel free to ask me more. --Mbz1 23:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Mbz1 03:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not promoted -- Chris B • talk 14:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hints at the scope of the level of disruption caused by World War II internment, and at the large number of people affected, but without being maudlin.
Proposed caption
Luggage of interned Japanese-Americans who were evacuated from the west coast of the United States during World War II, in accordance with U.S. Army orders. This photograph from May 1942 depicts luggage at a reception center for internees near Los Angeles, California.
Oppose. This needs strong context and explanation to have any meaning as the image itself is quite nondescript, but it doesn't however inspire me to read the articles to find out more. Therefore it's not passing as an FPC for me. In thumbnail it's hard to even tell what is in the picture at all. Only just scrapes into size requirements. --jjron 16:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No decision made by closer. Can we assume Not promoted? --jjron 07:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am assuming that that is the result. Spikebrennan 14:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very high resolution and high encyclopedic value. I did what I can to adjust the levels from the LOC version, but maybe someone else wants to take a shot at it. It also need to be de-scratched and otherwise tidied up, but I think others are probably better at that than me. The LOC has one other really high-res portrait of Keaton, but this one I think does a better job of capturing his big-eyed comic look he was known for.
Proposed caption
Along with Charlie Chaplin and Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton was one of the most important comic actors of the silent era. He appeared in dozens of films, and his The General was voted the fifteenth-best film of all time by Sight and Sound readers. Entertainment Weekly also named him the seventh-greatest film director in history.
Articles this image appears in
Buster Keaton, and probably could be put in other articles as well (about 500 articles link to the article Buster Keaton).
Support. This is just the kind of image you scroll down and expect to see the FP tag in the description- but for God's sake downsample the beast, it's way too high-res for the amount of actual image data --frotht 00:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suppost. Top enc. Downsampling and maybe some dust & scratch removal might be in order. --Janke | Talk 05:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conditional Support - Needs to be made a bit smaller, being so large doesnt really add anything else than if it was half the size --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't that why we can scale it? I think you should have a compelling reason to resize it... grenグレン 03:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I saw this on peer review and it just didn't take me there either. I like a good portrait to capture something of the person - to me this all just looks too posed and artificial. I also don't like the background (it almost looks like it was added in later when the portrait was probably airbrushed in the lab, which would also account for the lack of texture in much of his skin). Scratches, etc should probably be fixed up. --jjron 13:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, nice pictures of a celebrity grenグレン 03:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Busterkeaton.jpgMER-C 05:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Geno's Steaks, founded in 1966, is a cheesesteak restaurant in Philadelphia. Joe Vento, the restaurant's proprietor, claims that he was the first to add cheese as an ingredient to the sandwich. A rival cheesesteak purveyor, Pat's King of Steaks, is located directly across the street. Many Philadelphians identify themselves as supporters of a particular cheesesteak shop, as distinguished from its rivals.
Oppose Nice neon lamps but the quality (noise, sharpness) is not the best --Central Powers 15:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I like the composition, colors and subject matter, but the quality is not up to snuff. Lots of noise, out of focus. --Bridgecross 18:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose/Comment I agree with the other comments. The camera was set to an ISO speed rating of 320, which introduced noise and grain. Try lowering the ISO to it's lowest and shoot off a tripod. This will take care of motion blur and grain. Otherwise it's a decent image. --Cody Pope 19:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems to be a very nice, clean shot of a major tourist attraction of Dhaka. I think it deserves to be a featured picture.
Proposed caption
Ahsan Manzil, the official residential palace and seat of the Dhaka Nawab Family, situated on the banks of the Buriganga River in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The palace has enjoyed a varied history, starting from being Rang Mahal (of Sheikh Enayetullah, a Zamindar of Jamalpur pargana (Barisal) during the time of the Mughals) to a Frenchtrading centre. Nawab Khwaja Alimullah bought it from the French in 1830 and converted it into his residence, effecting necessary reconstruction and renovations. The final reconstruction was done by Martin & Company, a European construction and engineering firm, at the behest of Nawab Khwaja Abdul Ghani, who converted this house into the official Nawabi residence. The palace has now been turned into a museum.
Oppose due to lack of detail, resolution. Puddyglum 16:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too small, subject cut off on left and right, plus something (spool of cable?) in the foreground. --Bridgecross 18:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh no no Nahid, "too small" refers to the full-size image. No use to enlarge the thumb here... --Janke | Talk 18:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haha... I understood the matter. What I wanted to do is, just make it bit wide in this page.--NAHID 23:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support as nominator User:Tos 9:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - interesting topic but the technical quality is too low, including focus and colours. Also, composition is not very good. A large part of the picture is just grass and a tree.--Svetovid 12:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - It has quite a nice composition but as mentioned above there are far too many techincal problems --Childzy ¤ Talk 14:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Due to blur and composition quality. Puddyglum 16:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It looks great! 80.255.63.28 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You must first be registered for your vote to be included, thanks --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This unique, important document demonstrates the sophistication of ancient Egyptian medicine. Image is large, and it is very easy to study the hieratic characters (a type of cursive hieroglyphs) and the scribe's handwriting, which is of good quality. The document is not usually on public display.
Proposed caption
The Edwin Smith papyrus is the world's oldest surviving surgical document.[1] Written in hieratic script in ancient Egypt around 1600 B.C., the text describes anatomical observations and the examination, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of 48 types of medical problems in exquisite detail. Among the treatments described are closing wounds with sutures, preventing and curing infection with honey and moldy bread, stopping bleeding with raw meat, and immobilization of head and spinal cord injuries. Translated in 1930, the document reveals the sophistication and practicality of ancient Egyptian medicine. Plate 6 and 7 of the papyrus, pictured here, discuss facial trauma.
Support edit 1 Good image, interesting subject. What are ghost document edges and unexplained lines at the very bottom of the image, below the papyrus itself? Are they artifacts of some kind that should be removed? Enuja(talk) 02:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Well, I'm happy to see the artifacts gone, although I still wish I knew what they where! Enuja(talk) 03:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support either Very interesting and historic image. -- Grandpafootsoldier 08:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, great scan. I would recommend fixing the caption to point out that this image depicts plates 6 and 7 of a longer document. (Any particular reason to select these plates, as opposed to others?) Spikebrennan 14:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added a bit at the end of the caption, hope this is satisfactory. This section is one that is in the best condition; often the very beginning and end of a papyrus scroll suffer the most damage due to wear and tear. Interestingly, for some of the most traumatic injuries when death will be certain, the document instructs the physician not to even treat the patient, possibly to protect the physician's reputation! Reading the translation produced in 1930 is amazing, though a more modern translation is available from University of Chicago's Oriental Institute (1991). Jeff Dahl 17:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's good shot of an Eastern newt. There are a few reflective spots to be fixed by someone better at these things.
Proposed caption
A terrestrial subadult Eastern newt or red eft, Notophthalmus viridescens. Salamanders of the family Salamandridae with aquatic adult stages are called newts. Some newts, including the Eastern newt, have a juvenile terrestrial stage called the eft. The red eft has aposematic coloring to warn predators of its highly toxic skin.
Wow. I hadn't noticed the oversaturation. Radical.--Cynops3 13:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 1 I think its beauty and the very good representation of the eft are more important than the out of focus tail and the strangely blurred background sticks. Enuja(talk) 01:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
eeek, I can't believe I missed the color balance problem on peer review. I thought "it's a red eft", so I wasn't surprised that it looked red; I should have noticed that the background was more red that most bark and twigs. There have been generally more reviewers over at picture peer review, but this highlights the fact that having even more would be a very good thing. So my support is now switched to edit one. I didn't nominate this image here because it is small, but it is within the current requirements, and the eft itself (except for the tail) is very sharp and in focus, so I do support it. Enuja(talk) 23:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Not face on enough, out of focus tail and there's a strange sorta look about it --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
seems to suffer from poor WB --Fir0002 10:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well done on the fix, looks a lot better, i so have no technical knowledge lol... --Childzy ¤ Talk 20:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - I'd support it (the fixed up version) if we had it at higher res. --Sean 13:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose original and edit 1 The edit looks much better (good work!) but i dont like the composition --Central Powers 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment on edit 1. WOW. NICE job fir! --frotht 04:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks froth and others :) --Fir0002 10:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit 1. I liked this on peer review, but it needed work to bring it up to scratch. Great job on the Edit, that does it for me. I do like the composition and the newt itself. The size is tight, but within guidelines (unless I start counting the pixels ;-)). --jjron 13:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit 1 A little on the small side but it still meets requirements. I can't see anything else wrong with it now that the color is fixed. And come on, it's a newt. :) CillaИ ♦ XC 01:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit 1 Per above (and a very nice newt at that). IPchangesthe box 19:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Notophthalmus viridescens edit.jpgMER-C 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from photographer
I'm honored by your kind comments and the nomination/election as a featured picture, but wanted to comment on the white balance issue. I feel the "corrected" version has gone a bit far towards the blue. The newt was quite ruddy, rather a light tan/orange, and now it looks more yellow. Part of the problem with the impression of color balance is that the "sticks" in the background are dried needles of the the Loblolly Pine, Pinus taeda, which really are rather rusty-red when dried. The critter is resting on a pine log, which also has rather reddish bark. Both are now not rusty enough, and the log has bluish highlights which are not true to the original. The pine needles are now yellow with little hint of red--not true to life. Nonetheless, the original was perhaps a bit too red. I'll probably go back to the original file and upload an update to Commons that goes about half-way in the correction at some point. These days that is my usual correction for photos shot with strobe flash, as this one was--correct towards neutral with Photoshop "auto color balance", and then fade it about 50 percent--that gives, to me, a fairly faithful representation of the original colors.
Again, thanks for the kind comments and constructive criticisms. I think the photo is a good illustration for the article, whatever the precise color balance issues. --Cotinis 15:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a lovely, informative Victorian map that sets out the details of the 1863 bombardment of Kagoshima simply and clearly. A complex series of events are made wonderfully clear and comprehensible.
Proposed caption
In 1862, in what became known as the Namamugi Incident, one Britishman was killed and two wounded for refusing, after being so ordered, to show respect as Shimazu Hisamitsu, a powerful Japanese nobleman, rode by. The Japanese authorities of Satsuma Province refused to apologise, pay the requested fine, or turn over the samurai responsible since execution was the accepted punishment for failure to show respect to a daimyo, and anti-foreigner sentiment in Japan made submission to British demands politcally dangerous.
The British responded by sending a fleet of seven warships to extract vengeance. When the Japanese continued to refuse their demands, the warships bombarded Kagoshima, burning and pillaging ships and fortresses as they went, but were eventually chased off by the Japanese guns. Five Japanese were killed, and eleven British, including, as shown on the map, Captain Josling and Commander Wilmot with one cannonball.
While many buildings were destroyed, politically, the incident was a success for Satsuma Province, and was even declared a victory. However, further negotiations led to the payment of a fine, in exchange for an agreement by Britain to supply steam warships to Satsuma. The incident was, ironically, the start of a close relationship between the two powers, and by the time of the Boshin War of 1868, Satsuma Province and Great Britain were allies.
Support as nominator Vanished user talk 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This surely has been set to black & white. I thought it was just a usual map until I read that it's from 1863. Why was the background edited out? I believe it could should be downsampled, as the hand-drawn lines have aliasing throughout. Puddyglum 07:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's from a newspaper. This is a scan of a photocopy, as the original may not leave the library. The newspaper has preserved well, so at worst a very slight greyness has been lost. It has not been downsampled, but tilt correction was applied. Vanished user talk 14:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There is what looks like a stitching error on the top border, and I'm thinking it wasn't just poor 1863 printing because, below the border break is a label "OUNDARY & FACTORY" which I assume originally read "FOUNDARY & FACTORY" Enuja(talk) 02:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like that in the original, I fear. This was scanned in one go. The printing method involved breaking up the image into several blocks - I presume that's where one was slightly misaligned. Vanished user talk 16:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No consensus. MER-C 05:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Large map of population density within specific intra-national regions of the world in 1994. Not hugely attractive, but interesting and very encyclopaedic.
Support as nominator — Jack · talk · 17:25, Saturday, 6 October 2007
Strong oppose - Without a legend with the definition of the categories, the map is not very useful. Also, the choice of the categories' limits doesn't seem to be the best. Finally, cylindrical map projections are not adequate to represent the whole world (too much distortion)- Alvesgaspar 17:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've uploaded a separate key from the original source. It should be in the map, but I can't work transparencies. — Jack · talk · 18:22, Saturday, 6 October 2007
Support - so much detail in there. I don't mind 1994 that much, though, as the densities are probably quite close to proportional. Debivort 19:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support — It's a shame the data is from 1994, but it is a good map. The suggested caption is a bit odd to me, I'd prefer "This map shows world population density according to 1994 data, when the world population was an estimated 5.6 billion humans. The current population is 6.6 billion over Earth's 150 million square kilometres of land mass, making the overall population density 43 humans per square kilometre." I've also uploaded a version with a legend embedded. Looking at it now, I think it's a little out of place (I should have moved it lower, next to Chile), but I need to run out right now. If someone else decides to move it, just make sure you don't cover up any of those islands! It might also need to be made even larger, now that I'm looking at the thumbnail. ♠ SG→Talk 23:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - This should be SVG Yzmotalk 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose a linear scale makes the earth look uninhabited except for small patches. A log scale would convey much more information IMO. --Dschwen 20:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hehe - interesting you would say this. The linear scale really shows that there are places that are very highly populated, and most other areas are comparatively sparse - which is true. A log scale might convey the sense that things are more uniform. Debivort 20:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Agree with Dschwen, this is only useful for showing the most populated places. Also, this type of continuous scale does not show the actual categorization which, obviously, uses a finite number of classes. How many and with what limits? Altering my vote to "strong oppose", there are too many flaws - Alvesgaspar 22:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Only shows the extremes. A city in Russia looks the same as the desert in Africa. NyyDave 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oppose - sorry, but I don't like the colors. A bit hard to see --Vircabutar 06:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oppose Its a bit boring, and quite a bit out of date... Kennedygr 09:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not promoted -- Chris B • talk 08:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A bit blurry, but an extraordinary depiction of a variety of naval vessels (including, among other things, aircraft carriers of four different classes from three different navies)
Oppose - I have seen this picture many times and it is very cool and striking. Futhermore, I have also thought about nominating this many times but each time i have thought better of it. Obviously it is a big event and a bit rare but nevertheless it is not FP material. I think if this was passed then we are merely giving something FP status for the sake of it, whether or not it is an FP the image is still good and useful so why pass it. It goes against a few requirements and it is technically poor, inexcusably so in my opinion. So what you need to ask yourselves when voting is, why? Why does should this be considered one of our best photos? And i hope like me you realise a picture does not have to Featured to prove its worth because this picture undoubtedly has that worth but it isn't our best work and it would be wrong to promote this --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand the technical objections; in my view they are offset by the usefulness of the image. This image superbly illustrates the relative sizes of the different classes of warships-- for example; would you have guessed without seeing this image that the French Charles de Gaulle carrier is nearly the size of a U.S. Navy Nimitz-class carrier, while the RN's Ocean is dwarfed in comparison? Sure, a table of figures would also present that information, but this image does so in such a dramatic and intuitive way. Spikebrennan 02:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Of course, the Ocean is a helicopter air assault craft; the HMS Ark Royal (R07) is a more direct comparison. Smaller yes, but not as small.) --Dhartung | Talk 11:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the picture is very noisy & unsharp at full res, but I guess it looks fine at the small resolution Atomsgive 00:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I was going to support this till I opened it at full size. Quality is pretty terrible, and it could do with downsampling because there's very little detail in the ships anyway (not that that would bring it up to standard), and there's something really weird going on with that sea. --jjron 16:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose lack of detail is unfortunate. Relative scale of the ships could be shown with a diagram. Debivort 19:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I like it, but it's not unique enough to overcome quality issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs)
Not promoted -- Chris B • talk 08:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Long tongue tachinid fly, Senostoma sp, feeding from a flowerEdit 1 by Fir0002, less cropping
High quality image with good enc value. I quite like the composition on this one - the whole rule of thirds thing happening! Also, and tastes may differ on this point, I quite like the angle the fly is on. And just the clarify, this image was taken at a near horizontal angle - the flower head and (obviously) the fly were at an angle.
Oppose - Unfortunate framing, no species ID, no caption, no reason for nominating picture. I really think that the nomination template should be used by everyone. Alvesgaspar 10:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is in the family Tachinidae, subfamily Dexiinae species Senostoma - hope this alleviates your concern? Is there anything specific about the framing that detracts from enc or aesthetic values? Sorry, but opposing based on me not using the nomination template is invalid. --Fir0002 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the species id. Refusing pictures which do not use the nomination template should be an automatic procedure, the guidelines above are pretty clear on that. But that was not the only or must important reason for my oppose vote. I really think that the framing is unfortunate, but maybe you couldn't do otherwise. Alvesgaspar 10:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem, although it was always there... Why? Please refer to this discussion when the template was introduced - it was be no means universally accepted and certainly not mandatory. And it really isn't appropriate for you to decided it is w/o discussion on the FPC talk page. --Fir0002 09:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment No vote on the image, but I agree with Alvegaspar about the necessity of using the template-- it tells us who contributed the image (not just who nominated it, even though one can usually infer the photographer when Fir is the nominator), and the caption. Spikebrennan 14:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not at all, as per lengthy discussions POTD caption is not the responsibility of the nominator - it's an entirely separate project. The template is very much optional and only there to help the less experienced in how to do this. I think "self nom" probably tells you who created the image don't you think? --Fir0002 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice colors but the insect looks oversharpened/harsh on the other hand there is no detail on the eyes and the tight framing on the top and bottom devaluates the composition for my taste. How about some EXIF data ? --Central Powers 14:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you please point out areas which are oversharpened? Because I can't see any. Furthermore, at the res it is at they eyes are as detailed as you could expect. Framing is I guess a thing of taste - I've uploaded a less cropped version for your consideration. Why do you want EXIF? I can assure you the image is fully kosher! :) --Fir0002 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Composition could be better but I think the detail is amazing. CillaИ ♦ XC 15:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Template and EXIF data are both things you can add to this. It has amazing detail, not over-sharpened IMO. I think the composition is gorgeous, and 'no species ID'? I would have called it a fly. He called it a "Long tongue tachinid fly", which is good enough for me! Puddyglum 16:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Good enough for you but perhaps not good enough for some serious projects. There are over 100,000 species of Diptera ("flies") and maybe some thousand species of Tachinidae - Alvesgaspar 17:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per all the reasons given by Alvesgaspar. Debivort 19:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um: "Unfortunate framing, no species ID, no caption, no reason for nominating picture. I really think that the nomination template should be used by everyone." Debivort 04:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK well I've provided a species ID, there is a caption, there is a reason, template is not mandatory and is not a valid reason to oppose. What exactly do you dislike about the framing? --Fir0002 04:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only see a genus ID. I see no caption, unless you mean the 10 words in the image thumb, which aren't sufficient. The framing is unfortunate because while it follows the rule of thirds, the subject is facing away from the center of the image, rendering the left side largely irrelevant as the eye does not go there. Moreover the top and bottom cropping are uncomfortably tight. Debivort 19:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are they insufficient? I hope you are aware of this discussion (which incidentally seems to have been deleted w/o archiving...). A FPC candidate does not have to have POTD caption!! But I suppose framing is a personal issue, and though I personally do not find a problem with this composition I'll respect your opinion. However I disagree with your evaluation that it fails the rule of thirds - perhaps if you look at it in that conventional way it does, but the way I look at the scene is the way it frames the edge of the flower - with the strong petal presence in the LHS fading away on the RHS and the fly curving around the fill the scene. Just my perspective anyway. And also I guess it reflects at bit the way it was behaving whilst photographing - it was circling around in a clockwise direction so it was as far right as it went (soon after this photo it started moving left) --Fir0002 09:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are insufficient because they don't include photo-specific information that the photographer would uniquely know, such as where the image was captured. No PoTD editor can come up with that useful info, so it has to come from you, presumably here. I think there was a misunderstanding. I believe this image does follow rule of thirds, at least on the x-axis. If the scene were shifted over to the left so the fly was on the left third, facing right, that would solve my x-axis framing issues. Debivort 19:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That info is in the image description page, I don't think it is necessary to add to a caption on FPC. I treat a caption on FPC as I would a caption in an article - it doesn't need to have any more info than that IMO. OK fair enough - but as I mentioned for me it works like this. Anyway thanks for your vote/discussion --Fir0002 06:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And by an interesting coincidence this just came up on my watch list... [1] --Fir0002 06:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guess what came up on my watchlist by an amusing coincidence: [2]. SCNR. --Dschwen 13:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah but that is a separate issue - it is a result of poor detail on the image description page (the image is a little time biased too) --Fir0002 22:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose — Alright, this is seriously pushing the size requirements, the subject takes up some 1000x1000 pixels. Sharpening and downsampling an image so far really kills a lot of the quality there. Additionally, JPEG artifacts, while slight, cause even more trouble at such a low resolution (look at the body). ♠ SG→Talk 04:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's absurd! If you are going to base this off a pixel count on just the main subject, any number of FP's would fail [3][4][5][6]!! Context is essential! 1600px is well over the 1000px guidelines. JPG "artefacts" are night invisible. Honestly you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel to oppose this pic... --Fir0002 04:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right; I've gone ahead and nominated that squirrel picture to be delisted. As for the other three, the lion photo is exceptionally well-composed as well as difficult to take; I'd nominate that warbler picture for delisting, but it was promoted so recently that I think it'd be futile; and I really like the focus on that plover photo. ♠ SG→Talk 04:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominating an image for delisting does not justify your vote. Please read Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria particularly criteria no. 2. You shouldn't be looking to delist the warbler picture, it is a fine image and has been judged as an FP - an example with which to compare FPC's. With regards to the plover, what you're saying is that a blurred background is a worthy excuse for low res? I must keep that in mind... Without detracting from the lion image I would like to point out that since the lions make a habit of doing this given a camera and a long lens it's probably not the difficult to reproduce if you are in the area. And conversely, I'm guessing you assume the flower sprouted in my bedroom whilst the tachinid fly crawled under the door and perched on the flower motionless whilst the sun deviated from it's path to provide correct light and it just so happened that my camera was beside my bed with the correct settings all waiting for me to take the photo? --Fir0002 04:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate the patronization, but you don't need to get so defensive. I've supported plenty of your pictures in the past. This one, however, just does not do it for me, for all of the reasons I have stated above, whether you agree with them or not. ♠ SG→Talk 20:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK your welcome to your vote and I thank you for your previous supports but an issue like this goes beyond just this nomination and we have to be careful of setting precedents which is why I am/was so defensive. --Fir0002 09:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. I do also think that the nomination template is a helpful thing, particular so we know what articles it contributes to (although it isn't too difficult to see when previewing the image on the image page. It does also bug me that Fir0002 always strips the EXIF data from the images - I often like to see exactly how he's captured the images (shutter, aperture, iso, flash used? etc) and it seems pointless to remove that sort of useful information. But that said, none of these quibbles are actually about the quality and relevence of the image itself. I do think that we're probably getting close to having more than enough fly pics, but this one is pretty top notch. I know from experience how hard it is to capture a fly image with as much depth of field as this (hence being interested in the EXIF). Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 15:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dunno about the EXIF - I mean my template provides the most interesting (at least to me) information - the lens and camera. If you are interested in this pic it was ISO 400, f/11, 1/250s, diffused flash (which is pretty much the same settings I use for all my macro work). Saving for web is just the easiest thing for me for a few reasons (which may not sound like much by themselves but they add up). First SFW saves the last position you saved in, whereas straight jpg remembers the source folder. I save all my "to be uploaded" wiki work into a separate folder several folders "deep" (possibly bad filing but anyway) into my Wiki area. It is annoying to have to re navigate from a separate drive from a chronologically ordered download folder list where my originals are (you're probably familiar with the Canon download software?) The other reason is that I'm conscious of file size and the fact that the files need to be in SRGB (a different profile to that which I have my workspace set in - Adobe RGB). --Fir0002 09:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support the picture is wonderful. The framing, I think, is ok as it is showing both the flower and the fly. I dont know why some people require the template, but if its so important, why dont you include it now Fir? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 19:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well primarily because I do not feel it is important - AFAIK it was created only to help newbies etc out and (supposedly) simplifying the process of nominating an image. --Fir0002 09:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit 1. What kind of bizarre reasoning would lead somebody to think the lack of the nomination template is reasonable grounds to oppose? This picture exceeds all FP criteria. Nice work. -- Moondigger 13:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit 1 An all-around great picture. --Malachirality 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some types of mini blind have no strips of cloth to shade their lift holes. Are they for the north side of a building where the sun never shines directly on the windows, or is the design simply an historical mistake?
Some types of mini blind have no strips of cloth to shade their lift holes. Are they for the north side of a building where the sun never shines directly on the windows, or is the design simply an historical mistake?
New Cropped VersionCropped Version 3 Will this more evenly balanced crop satisfy everyone?
Reason
We currently don't have a lot of portraits featured and this one is up to the quality. Not sure about the enc. So go on and comment. It can also represent baldness.
Proposed caption
A portrait of David Suchet, an English actor best known for his television portrayal of Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot in the television series Agatha Christie's Poirot.
Support as nominator (The Original *New Crop*) (I edited the image, just so you know) Arad 04:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conditional Support of Version 3 - IF the other cropped version gains the majority vote, I will support it as well. --Arad 21:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have an article about the actor, therefore it has enc value. How else are we supposed to describe how the person looks like? MER-C 04:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that's what I thought... Just wanted to make sure. Well thanks. --Arad 04:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I don't know, the crop on the right is a bit too tight, but I like a lot of the other photos in the Flickr photo stream. I didn't go through all of them (slow connection), but are any of the others free? ---Cody Pope 05:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I had to contact the author through flickr specifically for this one, but well, I sent him a link to this page just before few minutes, so he can read it and maybe release some others, who knows --Have a nice day. Running 01:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support — Amazing quality. And while I do think David Suchet and Poirot rock, this is an unbiased supporting vote. The cropping is a bit odd, but it doesn't detract from the image very much at all. ♠ SG→Talk 09:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose crop 3 — The new crop (version 2) is fine. I don't understand the purpose of cropping away the rest of his suit, especially when it makes the picture even longer aspect ratio-wise. ♠ SG→Talk 00:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*Oppose based on the poor composition ... part of his left ear is missing !this picture from Flickr is much better - Peripitus(Talk) 10:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But it's non-free... MER-C 11:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That image has poor contrast for a b/w portrait. Atomsgive 14:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I chose that one, because it's a little bit Poirot, but also a little bit Suchet. The b/w is too much Poirot I think :) --Have a nice day. Running 01:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like it, even if the crop is unfortunately close Atomsgive 18:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update - The image was updated with a better crop. --Arad 03:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support now with the better crop. Large, clear, in focus and with a typically Poirot expression on his face - Peripitus(Talk) 03:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support the new crop. It's a shame that some of the others in the Flickr stream can't be made free though. --Cody Pope 04:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - nice free portrait, but his left arm is cut off so I am not sure how to vote.--Svetovid 15:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TBH I don't think David Suchet's left arm is of enough encyclopaedic significance to justify an oppose vote... Support. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about crop 3? If his left arm isn't encyclopedic, surely his right arm isn't either? :) Jeff Dahl 05:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support cropped version 3 I think this crop may be a better alternative, Resolution is really outstanding. Jeff Dahl 04:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. My preference is for the "New crop" rather than version 3. The latter is a bit too... aah... in your face... Spikebrennan 18:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Haha, I more or less randomly (I searched for David Suchet in CC photos) found this picture on flickr and then asked author for releasing it under free licence and suddenly, it's feature candidate! Kudos to Phil, the author. And of course, it is a great picture. (I hope I can vote, if I am not an author, only uploader) --Have a nice day. Running 01:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose cropped version 3, Support "new crop"' - the 3rd crop ruins the composition of the picture by unbalancing it, otherwise a very good photo -Halo 16:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support cropped version 3 His head should be centered, and version 3 does exactly this. – sgeurekat•c 14:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure where you got this idea from... But every source I checked says that a centred portrait is boring and the composition is much better when the subject is not straight in middle. Thank you for voting. --Arad 17:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OriginalAre these green spots scanner artifacts?Alternative
Reason
A crisp and clear scan of an attractive antique artefact. It's in nice shape for its age too.
Proposed caption
Dutch medallion commemorating the blockade of Gibraltar, 1783, and the loss of the HMS Royal George, 1782. • Obverse: View of the Rock of Gibraltar and ships engaged. Legend: T GEBLOQUEERDE GIBARALTAR. Exergue: 1783 (Gibraltar blockade). • Reverse: The Royal George sinking. Legend: ROYAAL GEORGE ADMIRAAL KEMPENFELT ('Royal George' Admiral Kempenfelt). Exergue: 1783. HMS Royal George (1756) sank in 1782 at Spithead, England, taking 800 lives. The incident remains the worst single peace time disaster in the history of the British Royal Navy.
Support as nominatorChris B • talk 17:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question There appears to be a highlighter-yellow blotch on both sides. Why is this so?--HereToHelp 23:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is something known as "toning" in numismatics; basically tarnish on the actual coin. -- Chris B • talk 06:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support With the "toning" explained, I see no further reason to oppose.--HereToHelp 23:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I can accept the toning. But there seems to be some small spots of neon green on the coin which I am now reasonably certain are scanner artifacts. Also the scanner cover and the platen seems to be dirty in many places if you really study the image. If you can clean the glass and cover and rescan, and find some way to get around the neon green spots, I would support an image of this fantastic medallion. One other minor thing, the caption has what I assume is the formal numismatic description. This is fine for the image page but makes for a nearly unreadable caption by a layman. Try converting the description into normal prose; dedicated numismatists can go to the image page or main article for the full description. Probably should mention the material, is it bronze? Jeff Dahl 04:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at it more closely, the only reason it meets the size requirements is because the two sides are put side-by-side, which is a little bit of cheating. By itself it looks like it would only be about 900 px wide. If you can rescan at higher res, It would be better. Jeff Dahl 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you are correct, the coin is bronze gilt. Thanks for your suggestions - a better scan is probably a good idea. -- Chris B • talk 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose basically for the same reasons as Jeff. I can see numerous dirt marks from the scanning. As for the green neon (see centre of the right hand coin), is this an artifact or actually on the coin ? - Peripitus(Talk) 12:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The green thing is on the coin itself; "toning" as I said. The dirt marks, however, are the result of scanning very small items! -- Chris B • talk 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With respect to the green spots, are we both looking at the same thing? I think these are things which should be fixable, if you have the ability to scan the coin again it would be worth it. Jeff Dahl 20:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I was looking at the wrong thing. In fact I had no idea those were even there, I thought you meant the tarnish/toning. I must re-scan - I'll see if I can fix it. -- Chris B • talk 20:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have a look at the alternative. It looks a bit better to me. -- Chris B • talk 15:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The background is cleaner, so no objection to that. And the resolution is better, which helps to reduce the artifacts somewhat. But I am still not satisfied by the scan because of the green neon spots. Studying the image I also am starting to have a concern about the large flat areas which were directly in contact with the glass during the scan, because they appear unnaturally lit. I suppose they could be photoshopped out, but I'm not sure that would be a satisfactory solution either. The FP criteria say that an image should be of high technical quality. This image is pretty good technical quality, but I think a photograph would be a better solution. Take a look at Image:American buffalo proof vertical edit.jpg which exemplifies a Featured Picture of a coin. Jeff Dahl 20:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice resolution, but seems like kind of a weird angle, I can't see the bird's tail. There's just something disconcerting about the pose. Jeff Dahl 04:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't see the bird's tail!?! Have you checked your monitors turned on? Benjamint 08:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Settle down, please; the tail is out of focus and captured at an odd angle, reducing clarity further. Head on views for songbirds tend to not be as encyclopedic as the more standard side views since body proportions aren't visible. Weak Oppose - lovely detail on the breast and head, though. Matt Deres 15:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support All around great picture. Wonderful details, great background and a nice perch. Can't get any better. Wwcsig 16:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I agree with Jeff Dahl, poor composition for a bird. Unless a picture is of an event that is impossible to replicate Featured Candidacy has always required a very high degree of technical excellency. This picture is nice, but not FP. Meniscus 23:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral The detail is great, but the composition, while fine for a regular image, falls slightly short of what we've come to expect.--HereToHelp 23:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added alternative 1 - same bird, same photographer. MER-C 03:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Does not illustrate the subject in a compelling way, IMO. A side angle would probably work better. Kaldari 21:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support alt 1 excellent shot.--Vircabutar 06:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose both Neither alternative shows the bird in an appealing pose, so the images lack the "wow" I expect from a FP. --Janke | Talk 20:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's pretty much the best visual aid forthe citric acid cycle article. It's color coded, comprehensive, and easy to follow. There's also a .svg version of this image on the Wikimedia Commons if anyone wants to nominate that as an alternative. The link to it is on the page of the image. I don't know how to port the .svg file into Wikipedia.
Proposed caption
The citric acid cycle is a series of enzymatic reactions carried out inside the inner membranes of the cell's mitochondria. The process begins when the two-carbon acetyl CoA enters the cycle and joins the four-carbon oxaloacetate to produce the six-carbon citrate. For each turn of the eight-step cycle, three molecules of NADH and one molecule each of FADH2 and GTP are produced, and two molecules of carbon dioxide are released as by-products. NADH and FADH2 are high energy electron carrier molecules that will later fuel the electron transport chain during oxidative phosphorylation, which produces ATP, the cell's primary source of energy. GTP may be converted to ATP in a separate process or used for other cell activities. The product in the final step of the cycle, oxaloacetate, is recycled and combined with a new molecule of acetyl CoA to produce citrate, restarting the cycle.
Comment, "see text" needs to be cut out and I think this could be bigger... grenグレン 03:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note to nominator: using a SVG image is exactly the same as using a raster (PNG, GIF, JPEG) image. I have done the replacement. MER-C 03:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose First, there seem to be some weird artifacts, like black and white boxes showing up over the diagram. I don't know what is going on with that. Another problem is with the label "a-cetoglutarate" which should be "α-ketoglutarate" (don't forget this occurs as an intermediate and as a name of the enzyme, fix in both places). There seems to be a few places where a caption is missing, such as the entry arrows near fumarase and aconitase, in two places. It is a good start, and a pretty nice drawing. I like the fact that we get skeleton structures by each of the intermediate names, but I don't like the way the legend looks, it looks way too "boxy" and dominant. I didn't have the chance to fact-check the whole diagram, but should be done. Good work so far but needs revision, and it is totally fixable.Jeff Dahl 04:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit 1 with proposed revised caption With the changes the image looks much better. Only one concern, what are the orange circles that show up behind some of the bonds in the structures? If they are important, probably should explain. I suggest a minor rewording of the caption so the terms are more accurate: Jeff Dahl 21:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposed revised captionThe citric acid cycle is a set of enzymatic reactions carried out inside the membranes of the cell's mitochondria. The two-carbon acetyl CoA enters the cycle and joins the four-carbon oxaloacetate to produce the six-carbon citrate. Three molecules of NADH and one molecule each of FADH2 and GTP are produced for each acetyl CoA entering the cycle. FADH2 and GTP are high energy electron carrier molecules that the body uses to make ATP, the cell's primary source of energy. The product in the final step, oxaloacetate, is recycled and combined with a new molecule of acetyl CoA, restarting the cycle.
Proposed revised caption 2 The citric acid cycle is a set of enzymatic reactions carried out inside the membranes of the cell's mitochondria. The two-carbon acetyl CoA enters the cycle and joins the four-carbon oxaloacetate to produce the six-carbon citrate. For each turn of the eight-step cycle, three molecules of NADH and one molecule each of FADH2 and GTP are produced. NADH and FADH2 are high energy electron carrier molecules that will late fuel the electron transport chain during oxidative phosphorylation, which produces ATP, the cell's primary source of energy. GTP is converted to ATP in a separate process. The product in the final step of the cycle, oxaloacetate, is recycled and combined with a new molecule of acetyl CoA to produce citrate, restarting the cycle.
Comment: GTP is not necessarily converted to ATP, it is used to provide energy for protein synthesis and is utilized by G proteins. That sentence should be removed. Sakkura 06:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
revised caption 2 looks good to me. I assume you mean "later" instead of "late"? :) Jeff Dahl 02:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Artifacts? I don't think those are artifacts . . . IvoShandor 07:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I see four black boxes randomly scattered over the diagram. As for the presentation of the image: I admit I have no knowledge what the diagram represents, but it looks very "clean" and encyclopedic. If the issues are fixed I'd support easily. – sgeurekat•c 11:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 1 since issues seem to got fixed. – sgeurekat•c 17:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I only see the black boxes on the SVG version; they weren't there on the PNG that was originally nommed. SVG files just don't show up properly for me (Windows XP, Firefox 2), which I why I find their use so irritating. It's been too long since grade 13 biology for me to comment on the accuracy, but I do like this setup. As with user Jeff Dahl's comment, I also find the legend a bit too boxy (thinner lines to outline, I think), but that's not a big deal. Easy support if the details are worked out by people more familiar with the process. Matt Deres 15:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support edit 1 - Super enc., and a lot of good work. I think the SVG is fine, but that the rsvg renderer that Firefox and Wikipedia use is buggy. I have made some fixes per above, and uploaded both the SVG and a PNG version. The PNG version points to the SVG and says "replace when the SVG version is better", which will presumably happen one day when SVG renderers stop sucking. It's super-important to maintain the SVG for editability. I made the following fixes:
Remove "see text"
De-emphasize legend's box
Fix speling to α-ketoglutarate
The other problems (missing captions, stray boxes) were rendering problems
Also, I support whatever improved caption the brainiacs above hash out. They look really solid. As for the orange blobs, I think they indicate where some action is going to happen in the next step. Compare the blue highlighting in this version. I dunno, though, as I don't think I'd heard the phrase "Krebs cycle" since 1989! --Sean 01:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support SVG edit 1 Looks great now. High enc (over my head).--HereToHelp 23:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. The SVG is hopelessly broken and the PNG looks really nasty- the colors leak out from their black borders and the text is blurry --frotht 01:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment were you looking at the edited version? That one doesn't have rendering issues.--AutoGyro 02:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment Huh? The PNG looks great. Could you clarify which text is blurry, and where color is leaking out from the black borders? If you google for citric acid cycle you'll see that this image is *vastly* better than anything else out there. It's extremely informative and makes a daunting and extremely encyclopedic topic very clear. --Sean 19:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. There is a non-trivial error in the diagram: citrate synthetase should be citrate synthase. More trivially, the i in Pi should be subscript (which it doesn't appear to be currently). --Sakkura 05:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A synthetase is a different type of enzyme than a synthase. Quoted from the ligase article: "Note that "synthetase" should not be confused with synthases, as synthases do not use adenosine triphosphate and belong to the lyase group, while synthetases do use adenosine triphosphate (ATP)." Sakkura 06:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. thanks for the explanation. Debivort 18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have changed citrate synthetase to citrate synthase in one place, and fixed Pi in two places (edit 2). --Sean 14:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 2. Everything seems to be in order now. Sakkura 17:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! Thanks for the informed criticism. --Sean 19:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Citricacidcycle ball2.pngMER-C 07:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Martin Dürrschnabel (Martin-D1 of German wikipedia)
* Support as nominatorSpikebrennan 01:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Nomination withdrawn (wobbly horizon = stitching problems) Spikebrennan 14:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Why does the panorama extend more than 360 degrees? --Cynops3 01:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Very good job of stitching. Kudos to Martin D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.238.209.226 (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose horizon is wobbly suggesting improper stitching. deBivort 03:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see what you mean about the wobbly horizon-- it's not as obvious in full-size, but it sure is obvious in the thumb. Spikebrennan 14:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Debivort. NyyDave 14:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Red Fox, Vulpes vulpes, is a mammal of the order Carnivora. It has the widest range of any terrestrial carnivore, inhabiting every continent except South America and Antarctica. The Red Fox is the traditional prey animal in the sometimes controversial sport of fox hunting.
Oppose Nice picture but too small and oversharpened.--Svetovid 12:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Maybe slightly oversharpened but I don't find it unattractive. The colors are gorgeous, and it does meet minimum size requirements (barely). CillaИ ♦ XC 16:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - It is over sharpened. There are blown spots. If a larger unedited version is available, I will be glad to edit it. And the size can be larger. --Arad 21:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll try to get a hold of the photographer over at the Wikimedia Commons. -- Grandpafootsoldier 00:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Seems small... and oversharpened. 8thstar 21:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not big enough and not clear enough. Thebestkiano 11:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Plenty big enough-it goes on the front page. I think it's perfect, and foxes are so cute. [[User:(Ilikerad 20:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC))]]Reply[reply]
Oppose Technical quality is low. This image has had so much processing it loses all credibility. Jeff Dahl 20:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Okay, I've gotten a hold of the photographer, but she says she is just leaving on vacation and won't be back for a few days. Would it be possible to suspend this process until she returns? -- Grandpafootsoldier 04:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably better to withdraw the nomination, and renominate if and when the new version becomes available, with a link back to this discussion. --jjron 09:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I uploaded an edit that hopefully helps with some of the noise, but it seems to me that parts of the bird are a bit out of focus. CillaИ ♦ XC 18:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it's not very sharp at full-size. Looks like camera shake to me. -- Coneslayer 18:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Poor focus. --Sean 23:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Just for the record, this is no longer in an article. It was removed from the Blue-and-yellow Macaw article about an hour-and-a-half after Ba'Gamnan put it in there. --jjron 04:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe so, but this image is significantly one than the one it tried to replace. Debivort 07:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's up to the people jousting over the images to work out; whether it's better or not doesn't alter the fact that it's currently not in an article, and therefore not eligible for FP candidacy until it is in one, and likely to stay in it. --jjron 08:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, that it's not eligible, I was just saying. Actually I asked at the article talk page, and they said it was removed because the wing looks like it was clipped and that italy is not the animals natural range, thus - not enc!. Debivort 04:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are we arguing over an image neither of us are actually supporting? :-) On one point though, I'd agree that if the wings are clipped (I wouldn't pick that myself) that does reduce enc, but the photo being taken in Italy doesn't concern me - we have plenty of FPs of species taken outside their natural range. And unless the author told you it was you Italy, you wouldn't know, so I don't see that that reduces enc. Natural range may be preferred, but it's not required. --jjron 06:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further to this, I just read the discussion on the talk page. The replaced main image was taken in Singapore (in a bird park), the second image in the article was taken in Canada, but they say part of the reason this image was removed was because it's not wild. These birds are native to South America - none of these are wild! --jjron 06:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose not enc, clipped wings, blurry. Sorry. Debivort 04:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OriginalAdjusted. Shadows and highlights adjusted, cropped. (Not for voting.)edit 1edit 2
Reason
This picture illustrates the feeding habits of vultures as these vultures are shown in the process of eating a dead wildebeest. I also like the omnious look of the vulture in the middle.
Proposed caption
Vultures are important scavengers found in most continents. A group of white-backed vultures eating a dead wildebeest
Comment It lacks sharpness at full resolution, not sure if this because of focus or camera shake. Atomsgive 23:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Great capture; I love the look of the stooping vulture. However, heavy noise reduction leaves the image unsharp and strangely textured. The bright grass at the top also cuts into the picture, distracting from the birds. thegreen J Are you green? 00:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. The lighting is pretty bad, too heavy shadows on the birds, too bright at the top. I've added a quick adjusted version, but just at 800px size to show how lighting could be improved - it's still not ideal, not sure that it can really be recovered perfectly. Also cropped it for better composition. --jjron 01:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I uploaded an edit (edit 1) the picture looks sharper now but there is still some technical flaws with the image, such as the slight fringing on the vulture in the top right Atomsgive 02:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
support edit 2 here's a version I edited and am happy enough with. Various adjusts: levels within the shadow specifically, saturation tweaks, downsampling. The "adjusted" version is far too small. Edit 1 is far too over sharpened. Forgive me for shrinking them a bit... Debivort 02:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kind of a faux HDR image now I guess. Debivort 02:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, OK. Perhaps I wasn't very clear in my original comment, the 'Adjusted' version was never meant for voting, which is why I didn't call it an 'Edit'; it was just a demo. I've modified the caption. --jjron 06:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nah Oppose all, the exposure was fixed for the background not the foreground. A blown background, I would support, but not a overly pushed foreground for vultures! Why this may not be easily reproducible in North America, Australia, or Europe, it is super reproducible in Africa. Sorry. --Cody Pope 04:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Absolutely perfect. NyyDave 13:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Are those blown highlights in the reflected spots? On the other hand, the fact that this is a side view seems to have made it possible to get almost the entire insect in focus, which is impressive. Spikebrennan 16:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is also made easier because the animal is a damselfly - they hold their wings vertically above their body - as opposed to a dragonfly that holds them horizontally. Debivort 18:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support What a great shot! Kudos to the photographer :) ( arky ) 21:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conditional support. It's good, but I don't regard an image whose sole use is as part of a Gallery in one article as really meeting Criterion 5, adding significant value to an article. If this can't find more fitting uses, then change vote to oppose (note: being used on Japanese Wikipedia does not count for an English Wikipedia FPC). --jjron 05:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OriginalEdit1 by jjronEdit2 by jjron; slightly less aggressive crop.
Reason
A detailed picture of the flower showing its parts . It is also of very good quality as assessed by the quality guidelines at commons and is considered a Quality image.
Proposed caption
Hymenocallis speciosa is a species of the genus Hymenocallis. Hymenocallis speciosa is a bulbousperennialherb. It ranges in height from 30-90cm (12-36 inches). It requires sunlight to partial shade for proper growth and blooms from late summer to late autumn with white flowers. It is poisonous if ingested.
Oppose Very harsh (flash?) lighting, blown parts of the flower, distracting background. thegreen J Are you green? 00:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support No part of the flower is blown. Did you check this histogram? --MichaelMaggs 20:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, should have done that, but the bright areas of the flower (on the bottom petal especially) are lacking in detail. thegreen J Are you green? 21:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oppose nice shot, but i wish that the background could be a bit cleaner & less cluttered --Vircabutar 06:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit1 uploaded. --jjron 06:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit1 or Edit2. It's an interesting flower and nice photo of it. Not easy to get photos of white flowers like this that aren't badly overexposed. --jjron 06:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC). The more I look at it the more I prefer Edit2. --jjron 16:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Can we have a little more back on the crop? Just a little more on the sides so it doesn't seem too tight and I would support. I was going to oppose the original, but I think a cropped version would be a lot better.Jeff Dahl 03:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit 2 There we go. It might not be as aesthetically pleasing as some others, and it doesn't have to be. It is encyclopedic, adds significantly to the article, and is technically sound. Jeff Dahl 15:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If others support this idea I could redo it, but I'd have to do the whole thing again as I cropped first; don't have time now though. Part of the reason I went this tight was that otherwise it was going to end up a square, but I don't spose that matters. --jjron 06:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Done. --jjron 16:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit2 uploaded. --jjron 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit2 - interesting picture, good quality, great contrast. — xDanielxT/C 23:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Flower with pollen-Edit2.jpgMER-C 05:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note The image had been misidentified as Hymenocallis speciosa. The correct id is Pancratium zeylanicum.
Support as nominator — Sxenko 02:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I randomly found this pic with a nomination page. Not sure why it was never posted. --Cody Pope 04:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I can't find anything to like about this picture. There isn't one single lemur that's fully visible, so you can't really tell what the animal looks like. It's just a jumble of indistinguishable fur in most parts. There's one face sticking out, but it's half in shadow. At thumbnail size it doesn't look like anything recognizable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose-- same reasons as above. Little encyclopedic value, picture lacks focus. --Malachirality 17:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scraped off of COM:FPC, where voting is at 6/0/0. Plus good enc value.
Proposed caption
A bouncing ball captured with a stroboscopic flash at 25 images per second. Note that the ball becomes significantly non-spherical after each bounce, especially after the first. That, along with spin and air-resistance, causes the curve swept out to deviate slightly from the expected perfect parabola. As the ball falls freely under the influence of gravity, it accelerates downward, its initial potential energy converting into kinetic energy. On impact with a hard surface the ball deforms, converting the kinetic energy into elastic potential energy. As the ball springs back, the energy converts back firstly to kinetic energy and then as the ball re-gains height into potential energy. Energy losses due to inelasticdeformation and air resistance cause each successive bounce to be lower than the last.
Support as nominatorMER-C 04:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support own picture. Thanks for the nom. --MichaelMaggs 09:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Now supporting Edit1, below. --MichaelMaggs 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good enough technically and great enc. The caption may need to be expanded slightly; but I tried to improve it a little myself.--HereToHelp 12:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added more information into the caption. --MichaelMaggs 17:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support original, edit 1 not too bad — Excellent caption. If only every other featured picture candidate had a description like that. ♠ SG→Talk 18:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This new version, while certainly much better-looking, drops the resolution (not a primary concern, it's still very good) and makes it more difficult to see the warping effect of the ball after each bounce, due to the ball looking like it's being gobbled up by the shadow. ♠ SG→Talk 18:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportSupport edit 1 - Enc and very well done - Alvesgaspar 19:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment, looks good, but I'd be interested in seeing more about your methods for doing this: how you captured it, equipment, software used, etc. since you don't have a reliable source (since you did it yourself) we need to know as much as possible. grenグレン 03:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ball, Canon camera (see EXIF for details), tripod, strobe flash set at 25Hz, black velvet for contrasting background, Photoshop CS2. To get a reproducible bounce the ball was released down a cardboard tube fixed above a solid table, and the camera triggered at the same time. The shutter speed was 1.6 seconds, but since the room was dark the ball can be seen only when the flash fires. This was repeated about 100 times to tweak the settings and get a pleasing-looking result. --MichaelMaggs 06:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments. Firstly, I assume this is a basketball, and if so that probably should be stated in the description rather than just 'ball'. Secondly I have a bit of an issue with the very first ball - to be honest it doesn't look right. It appears to be dropping almost vertically, in which case the ball wouldn't bounce off at that angle. I can guess at some possible reasons, one being that ball initially was thrown with a fair amount of topspin, another is that the ball was bouncing away from the camera (which is likely part of the explanation as the balls get smaller from left to right), or thirdly that the first ball was added in later and put in the wrong position. I wonder if you'd be able to explain? Thanks. --jjron 08:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a basketball but a child's ball about the size of a tennis-ball. The first image is in the correct place - none have been moved - and resulted from the ball being dropped down a tube secured at a fairly steep angle, to get consistency of bounce. As a result of the ball falling/rolling down the tube there would have been some spin imparted (and indeed you can see that by comparing consecutive images). The plane of the bounce was so far as possible perpendicular to the camera axis, but since the camera was only about 40cm from the first bounce, the ball would inevitably be moving away from the lens during the second bounce. The ball-sizes could have been corrected in Photoshop but I prefer to keep the sizes and positions exactly as they were captured by the flash. --MichaelMaggs 11:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, OK, with no scale and no identification there's no way of telling what this ball is (I think the type of ball does matter a bit, as you identify in various captions the ball deforms significantly, but this would vary of course with different balls). I'm happy enough with your explanation that the first image is as captured without any alterations. --jjron 07:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Size of ball has been added to description. Thanks for the suggestion. --MichaelMaggs 17:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support Consensus Version per above discussion. Weak as I would prefer the ball to not be moving away from the camera (the camera would need to be mounted more centre on to the whole thing). I would also prefer to see either the incoming first ball dropping from it's full height rather than 2/3rds of the way to the ground, or otherwise probably not be there at all, so that you'd just see two neat curves. Overall it's pretty well done though. --jjron 08:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC). The edit is sharper, etc, but the same concerns stated here still apply. --jjron 06:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding edited version as Edit 1 by Richard Bartz:
Edit 1
This extremely professional re-edit from my original RAW file has been done by Richard Bartz, and I'd urge everyone to vote for this instead of my own very imperfect Photoshop efforts. Thanks very much to Richard for the work he's put in. --MichaelMaggs 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please could this nom be left open long enough to see if we can build consensus around the Edit 1 version? --MichaelMaggs 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit 1--Mbz1 17:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)mbz1Reply[reply]
comparing the sizes of the basketball on the first bounce and the last bounce shows the dramatic distortion
Oppose Initially I wasn't sure what to think about this image. But after seeing it a few times I am convinced there are fundamental problems. The biggest problem is the distortion. To properly show projectile motion, which is a phenomenon that happens along a plane, the camera should capture it straight-on. The nominated image also has so much overlap at the peak of the bounce that it is hard to resolve the projectile's motion. I'm also not happy with the lines on the projectile, which do not provide any information but only distraction, and the exposure of the ball is very uneven. I have seen these types of images before, even making some of them myself in high school, and we always use a gridded background to provide a scale, something that is standard practice in motion capture photography (see Eadweard Muybridge, several examples). Jeff Dahl 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 1, the distortion isn't ideal but I don't think it really lessens its usefulness for any of the articles. grenグレン 02:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Query: Several people have suggested the image would look nicer without the first ball. I don't feel strongly either way, but getting rid of it would save the queries about whether it is in the right place (it is). On the otheer hand I really don't want to have to re-start the voting all over again. Would deleting it be a small enough edit to avoid having to ask everyone to re-vote? Perhaps that could go up as an Edit 2 option?-MichaelMaggs 20:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would support removing it, but then again I think it was my suggestion. It looks like this is going to be promoted anyway, and as you said you'd have to ask everyone to revote as this is getting close to closing time. I'd like to see the edit myself though. --jjron 06:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Crisp, clear, and illustrates the beginnings of the Jewish Diaspora. Illustrates the qualities of a featured picture in my opinion
Proposed caption
Expulsion of the Jews in the Reign of the Emperor Hadrian (135 CE): How Heraclius turned the Jews out of Jerusalem. (Facsimile of a Miniature in the Histoire des Empereurs, Manuscript of the 15th century, in the Library of the Arsenal, Paris.)
A historian, presumably. However, its copyright has expired given that the engraving is over one hundred years old
Support as nominatorHadseys 23:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, sorry. Not a great print, and the original illustration, of which this is a copy, is at the Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal; it should theoretically be possible to get a scan of it. Chick Bowen 01:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. This image does not appear to have any particular historical importance. It was drawn about 13 centuries after the event it depicts.--Pharos 06:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very clear illustration of a case fan. It's 40 pixels away from meeting the size criterion but let's be sensible, all the necessary detail is already there.
Proposed caption
An 80mm case fan commonly found in desktop computers.
Support as nominatorNoclip 17:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. If we're after an encycolpedic picture of a case fan, let's have a photo of the real thing. Pstuart84Talk 17:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Not interesting enough to be featured picture. Plus, it is too small.
Oppose Where's the "wow" factor? Also, unappealing composition of four fans. --Janke | Talk 19:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original. Typical modern agricultural barbed wire.
Reason
About as attactive a photo of barbed wire as I can conceive of, focussed on the middle barb. Captured 'in the wild', this clearly shows construction of both the barbs and the wire strands in a natural setting. I particularly like how I captured the sun-glint off the barbs, but not off the wire. (And in case anyone's wondering, the background has not been modified at all, the bokeh is entirely as captured by the lens.)
Proposed caption
Barbed wire is a type of fencingwire constructed with sharp edges or points arranged at intervals along the strands. This image shows a high-tensilegalvanised barbed wire used for agricultural fencing in Victoria, Australia; length from tip-to-tip on the barbs is 2.5cm, barb spacing along the wire is 8.75cm between the centres.
Support as nominatorjjron 16:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose OK, it's sharp (pun intended), but no "wow factor" at all. This image wouldn't encourage me to read the article(s). In better context, for instance with out-of-focus animals fenced in the background, a barbed wire might be a FP, but not in a composition this simple. Sorry! --Janke | Talk 19:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Featured on German wikipedia. Interesting combination of satellite photography and mapping software. The image page has a more detailed caption in Afrikaans, which I can't read. (Astute readers of the last few noms may have noticed that I am mining the German wikipedia's version of FP-- this isn't cheating, is it?
Proposed caption
This perspective-view image of the South African city of Cape Town and its environs around the Cape of Good Hope, including Table Bay (at the lower left), and Table Mountain, a 1,086 meter (3,563-foot) tall sandstone and granite natural landmark. The image was generated by combining NASA satellite imagery with elevation data collected from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM).
"[T]his isn't cheating, is it?" Not really. Most of the stuff that gets featured on de or commons should be featured here as well. In fact, I'd like to see more mining of COM:FPC and COM:QIC (the latter to PPR), but I can't really afford to do that - who's going to close the nominations? MER-C 03:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As is frequently pointed out, commons has different FP standards. The foreign-language wikipedias theoretically don't. Also, is there any easy way of seeing, on commons, whether a particular image is used in wikipedia articles? On the commons image pages, the only links that I see are to other commons pages. Spikebrennan 21:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose strong aliasing at the skyline and other places. The colors seem to be under a white veil. (Not sure what the technical term is for this) Jeff Dahl 03:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Jeff Dahl, and the vertical axis is too exaggerated for my tastes. Debivort 04:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per [7]: This Landsat and SRTM perspective view uses a 2-times vertical exaggeration to enhance topographic expression. The back edges of the data sets form a false horizon and a false sky was added. Colors of the scene were enhanced by image processing but are the natural color band combination from the Landsat satellite. The caption can be fixed to indicate that there is 2x vertical exaggeration-- does this really spoil the image? Spikebrennan 20:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support both alternate Great images. Can someone elaborate on the captions maybe? Surely we can some interesting facts on this. Jeff Dahl 03:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that I've looked at it a few times, the first is a little weak, not sure if it would pass on its own. Jeff Dahl 05:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support alt only The main nom is just too washed out, but the second image is very dramatic. Debivort 04:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Alternate The alternate picture is much more striking and clear. Clegs 19:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support both, prefer Original. Unique, good quality, encyclopaedic.--Svetovid 10:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Alt Per Debivort and Clegs NyyDave 14:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support alternative unique look at eruption, I also agree that alternative pic. is more eye catching, M.K. 12:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Etna eruption seen from the International Space Station.jpgMER-C 09:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
support at first glance, it seemed that the image was tilted, but upon further inspection it seems that the standard is tilted and the pic is fine. Looks technically good and a nice shot to boot. Matt Deres 03:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support High technical quality; unsurpassable enyclopaedic value. --Aqwis 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Brandenburg Gate Quadriga at Night.jpgMER-C 09:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OriginalEdit 1 - downsample to reduce artifactsEdit 2 - coloring
Reason
A bit blurry but could probably benefit from being downsampled. Dramatically illustrates the heraldry concept of "quartering". Wouldn't this make a terrific choice for the April Fools Day main page?
Proposed caption
The Grenville Diptych was produced for Richard Temple-Grenville, Marquess of Chandos the son of the first Duke of Buckingham and Chandos between 1822 and 1839. The diptych shows 719 quarterings of the family which include, among others, ten variations of the English Royal arms, the arms of Spencer, De Clare, Valence, Mowbray, Mortimer, and De Grey, among others.
weak oppose, support edit 1, new proposed caption artifacts - a downsample might fix it though, as there are plenty of pixels, and I don't think info would be lost. Also, the 17th on the bottom row is close to my family crest. Debivort 23:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Very interesting, but quite meaningless at this page size (I think an image should have some meaning at thumbnail size, as that is all that many users view at). Inconsistent scan from left to right of image - the left side is darker than the right side. --jjron 04:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You really can't tell it's a set of heraldric crests in the thumb? I mean, I believe you, but it seems pretty clear to me. Debivort 07:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Here's my test. I look at the image before reading any headings, captions, etc. I expect to be able to understand what it is illustrating without opening it fullsize. If I can't, then to me the thumbnail lacks meaning. I looked at this for at least a minute or more before giving up and reading what it was. Once I knew what it was I could tell, but it had failed my 'image only' test. --jjron 08:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Point of clarification (not that this addresses your objection): strictly speaking, this is not a set of heraldic crests; it's _a_ heraldic crest-- that is, this complex mess is the crest of a single particular 19th century English aristocrat. Spikebrennan 13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe a better caption would help address Jjron's objection. Try this: "The Grenville Diptych is an extraordinarily complex coat of arms designed in the 19th century for Richard Plantagenet Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, a 19th-century British politician and aristocrat. This coat of arms includes 719 quarterings, or incorporations of the coats of arms of ancestors." Spikebrennan 13:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no dispute that this is a valuable and interesting image. I might be out on a bit of limb here, but to me the criterion concerning 'adding value to an article' includes adding value at thumbnail size, as that is all many users view at. A lot of time here at FPC is spent by users going over images at full res, while paying scant regard to the thumbnail. I feel a FP should cover both bases, and to me this type of image doesn't. That doesn't mean it's not a useful image. Also I think a rescan from the original would be required to address my concerns over the inconsistent colouring; this is still the same in the Edit - compare the gold on the left and the right (it's brighter on the right), and the image edges on the two sides (on the left it's almost got a pinkish hue, on the right it almost blends into the white of the page background at pageview size). My guess is this was scanned from a book and the page was bound on the lefthand side so didn't sit flat on the scanner, thus scanning a bit darker on the left. --jjron 06:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I uploaded a second edit that hopefully deals with some of the coloring issues (the pinkish tint is now gone). CillaИ ♦ XC 14:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit2 Incidentally I saw this last week. Amazing technique and exceedingly encylopedic. The last edit appears to have minimized the prominent artefacts present in the original, so I support. -- Chris B • talk 14:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 2 - Very interesting and encyclopedic image. -- Grandpafootsoldier 06:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 2 - encyclopedic, right size and just gets the point of quartering across.The Placebo Effect 17:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Grenville Diptych edit2.jpgMER-C 09:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is one of the highlights of the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the assassination attempt on his life a mere 69 days into his first term as president. This montage gives a look at the shooting immediately before and after it occured, and shows the rapid response from the body guards around Reagan which is beleived to be one of the main factors in his survival.
Proposed caption
The Reagan assassination attempt occurred on March 30, 1981, just 69 days into the presidency of Ronald Reagan. While leaving a speaking engagement at the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C., President Reagan and three others were shot and wounded by John Hinckley, Jr., who had previously stalked President Jimmy Carter and had a history of mental illness. Here, a collection of images show the events begin just before the shooting and ending just after it.
Comments Fascinating. Too bad about the jpeg artifacts. Is Hinckley visible in any of the images? To be really enc I'd also need to know where Reagan was in the later images. Ideally there'd be some sort of key along side the images saying who was whom. Debivort 07:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reagan was shoved toward the black limo visable at the right, therefore he would be near the back door of the limo in the subsequent three shots. Hinkley would be at the bottom of the doggy pile in the latter three images, the security detail pounced on him almost immediately.
Comment Per memory, Hinckley's gun was just visible in a news photograph from a different angle taken by chance moments before he fired, but because he was literally squeezing between cameramen to shoot (intentionally or not using them as cover) he isn't really visible in the first panel. There are also shots, probably not in this sequence, that show Reagan being manhandled into the limo. It's fairly easy, though, to identify McCarthy, Delahanty, and Brady as the other victims, and I think the secret service guy with the automatic weapon is also identifiable. But I don't like this version anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think this may be a combination of jpeg and upsampling. An 7.8MP image like this (not tons of fine texture) should compress to .5MB reasonably well, certainly without this many artifacts. Following the link, I cannot find images this high-res, unless you pay for a "300 dpi 8x10 JPG or TIFF," which this is substatially smaller than. thegreen J Are you green? 13:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oppose very poor quality.Chris H 00:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oppose for some reason the images were upsampled. Atomsgive 00:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
neutral I'm waffling between the low quality of the photos and the wonderful immediacy of the action. In the last frame you can see (what I suppose is) Hinkley's pistol on the ground, an agent reaching for it, and an open briefcase with a machine-gun-shaped foam insert. All fascinating details, but it would be better to have scans of the original photos. --Bridgecross 13:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Terrible quality. NyyDave 14:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Although the images are unique, this particular digital version of them is not. We can wait until a better one is found. --Dhartung | Talk 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Dhartung, M.K. 12:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I agree, the quality of the digital version of terrible. I'd like to see each image be somewhat bigger too. --Aqwis 19:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the most controversial documents of the 20th and 21st centuries, the Vinland map has been subject to intense scrutiny and study. If the map is genuine (which Yale University claims and carbon dating backs up) it would prove that the Vikings had reached the new world before Columbus in 1492. The quality is very high, and as Yale guards the map closely, you're not going to find a better picture out there. I put this up for FAC on commons a while ago, voting is still in progress. It may be controversial, but it's high quality and encyclopedic.
Proposed caption
The Vinland map is purportedly a 15th century Mappa Mundi, redrawn from a 13th century original and owned by Yale University. Drawn with black ink on animal skin, the map is the first known depiction of the North American coastline, created before Columbus' 1492 voyage. The upper left caption reads: “By God's will, after a long voyage from the island of Greenland to the south toward the most distant remaining parts of the western ocean sea, sailing southward amidst the ice, the companions Bjarni and Leif Eiriksson discovered a new land, extremely fertile and even having vines, ... which island they named Vinland.”
Support Nice scan. So what's the current thinking about this? Authentic? Debivort 06:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yale originally had it authenticated in the 50-60s. In the 70s, microscopy analysis suggested the ink was modern, so the tide turned against. In the 90s and 2000s, XRF analysis suggested the microscopy results were not valid. Then another analysis disputed the XRF analysis. It goes back and forth. Pretty much everyone who's done an analysis had one agenda or another going into the work, and many have claimed that his or her discovery is the "definitive" proof one way or the other. TV shows, news reports, and even scientific journals are not immune to the aggrandizing claims and POV pushing, the need to tell a story, etc. One thing that would put a lot of the controversy to rest is finding out the map's provenance; the original owner refused to say where it came from (because it was either a forgery, or smuggled out of a major European rare book library). So in other words, it's disputed. Jeff Dahl 17:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Exceptionally good scan and very nice. Cat-five - talk 06:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Just a technicality, but this map doesn't "prove" that the Vikings reached North America; that is handily taken care of by us finding their houses in Newfoundland. Matt Deres 14:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's authentic, it proves that news reached home, which in some ways is ultimately more significant. Chick Bowen 01:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Forgery or not, it is sufficiently interesting to be FP. The "wow" lies in the caption - the thumb as such is not so wewy wowwy. (You may notice I am a fan of animated cartoons... ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support although I think the caption is perhaps dull. Half of what makes this map fascinating is the nagging sense that it's a fake. (As Matt Deres points out, the map isn't by itself proof of anything one way or the other. L'Anse aux Meadows upstaged this map in more ways than one.) --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get what you mean. I've been thinking about a revised caption, here is a start, but I'll think it over some more. Jeff Dahl 17:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposed revised caption: "The Vinland map is purportedly a 15th century Mappa Mundi, redrawn from a 13th century original. Drawn with black ink on animal skin, the map is the first known depiction of the North American coastline, created before Columbus' 1492 voyage. Although the parchment has been radiocarbon dated to the mid 1400s, the map, now owned by Yale University, has no known provenance before the 20th century. Scientific study has yielded conflicting results, and the authenticity of the map is hotly debated.”
weak oppose It's obviously encyclopedic and the scan is of decent quality, but this just doesn't look like a featured picture to me. A crudely drawn map done in plain black of dirty white just doesn't have any visual appeal - and I actually love looking at old maps. Just too boring. Matt Deres 01:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree it isn't a Rembrandt, but allow me to quote from the FP criteria: "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all" this map's special quality is its historical importance and the controversy over its authenticity. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Historic value. And its nice to see the caption acknowledged the disputes related to the picture, rather than arguing over the accuracy of the image here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowolfd4 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Vinland Map HiRes.jpgMER-C 04:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It caught my eye and illistrates the concept of Crossing the T rather well
Proposed caption
Crossing the T was a tactic in naval warfare, in which a line of warships crosses in front of a line of enemy ships, allowing them to bring all their guns to bear while receiving fire from only the forward guns of the enemy. It became possible in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with the advent of steam-powered battleships with rotating gun turrets, but became obsolete when missiles and aircraft allowed long-range strikes..
Oppose Graphic not very impressive, and it looks like all the ones in line shoot anyway, wasting ammo... ;-) No, a featured animated gif needs to be more impressive than this. --Janke | Talk 07:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just an FYI: The guns on both lines of ships do fire, but note that the bottom row has no triangles eminating from the rear turrets, while the top line does. Thats the point being made (or trying to be made, anyway :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK got it. Actually, words are better than the gif, this time! --Janke | Talk 14:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. The color of the sea is too dark -- it tends to hide the ships. The splash of red on the ships is of no value, but it is distracting. The ships are too small to see well (yes, I realize that this drawing is probably to scale, but sometimes the drawings need to transcend (or ignore!) scale to be visually appealing. MapMaster 10:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed image from display on FPC main page using noinclude because it is too large. MER-C 02:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support (We can still vote, right?) Dramatic illustration of the attributes of a fractal. Spikebrennan 03:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
weak oppose beautiful, but I'd like to see it zoom in on a view that varies in its structure, rather than just remaining a spiral. Also, the caption needs expansion. Debivort 04:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Change the caption if you wish.--Mostargue 08:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's really up to the nominator to provide a caption about the image - details about its creation and so forth. Part of the feature picture criteria. Debivort 09:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice motion blur there, but it gets a little ridiculous at the end as you don't get a single clear frame for the last half of the clip. —Pengo 13:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I changed the noinclude tags to a text link, so we can at least tell which image we're referring to. Raven4x4x 12:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It it's too large here, won't it be too large for the main page? Lots of people with low bandwidth connection will be looking at the main page. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 22:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This panorama is a striking image of the most famous buildings of the Temple of Heaven; it captures the wide openness of the place and the backdrop of empty sky in a way that the cramped close-ups do not. This image, IMO, has great encyclopedic value, adds a lot to the article, and furthers reader interest. Moreover, it's a good stitch and is technically sound overall.
Proposed caption
Panorama of the The Hall of Prayer for Good Harvests, the Emperor's last stop on his yearly sojourn to the Temple of Heaven Complex. Here, on a wide expanse against open sky, China's sovereign prayed for good harvests in the coming year. Built in 1420 and rebuilt in 1889 following a fire, the Hall was last renovated in 2006 as a major icon of the upcoming 2008 Beijing Olympic Games.
Articles this image appears in
Temple of Heaven. It could also enhance the "Architecture" or "Tourism" sections of Beijing, as well as the temple article in general.
Comment Can I put up a larger version of this picture on the candidate page? After all, it's not shown on the article at thumbnail size. --Malachirality 05:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Oppose - It's a pity the sky is so boring. It just ruins it for me. The photo can be retaken when the weather is better. It's a quality image though. --Arad 21:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, air in Beijing is almost always like that. See Environment of China. Looks like you'll have to wait until the Olympics. MER-C 13:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed; I spent 3 weeks in Beijing and that original photo looks like a good day. The sky is usually yellow. --Bridgecross 13:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, because of all the tourists. (I didn't like this one either.) Spikebrennan 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose poor composition and cloudy sky Atomsgive 11:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: Seems to be technically suitable, and because now tourists are now a part of Beijing, because of China's growing appeal, I think the tourists add encyclopedic value to the picture --Hadseys 12:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: It is respectable. You can learn so much from just one picture. I don't think that it's possible to avoid the tourists (Unless you close the attraction down). Like Hadseys said, it does add to the encyclopedic value. The weather too. --Failure.exe 01:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support original If the sky wasn't very blue, it shouldn't be made blue after the fact. I love this image. Enuja(talk) 20:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose all The light is flat and uninspiring. It really ruins the atmosphere of the picture. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose, Quality isn't the best, and given it's a popular tourist attraction we could expect to get better pictures of the subject. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 22:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolution, value and unanimous support at COM:FPC.
Proposed caption
False-color mosaic shows the entire hemisphere of Iapetus (1,468 kilometers, or 912 miles across) visible from Cassini on the outbound leg of its encounter with the two-toned moon in Sept. 2007. The central longitude of the trailing hemisphere is 24 degrees to the left of the mosaic's center. It is hypothesised that the moon's two-toned nature is due to the sublimation of various ices evaporated from the other hemisphere, which faces the sun.
Support as nominatorMER-C 13:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Recommend that caption mention that Iapetus is a moon of Saturn. Spikebrennan 14:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Looks very good. Chris H 20:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Beautiful picture! Inklein 03:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Sharp separation of light and dark features at all scales of observation = positive feedback = badass! deBivort 04:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Can't argue detail like that. NyyDave 16:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - another great picture from space.--Svetovid 11:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Awesome picture, the detail is just stunning. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 22:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although it does not have an excellent quality (It's good nough), It does represent a geyser well.
Proposed caption
A geyser is a type of hot spring that erupts periodically, ejecting a column of hot water and steam into the air. The name geyser comes from Geysir, the name of an erupting spring at Haukadalur, Iceland; that name, in turn, comes from the Icelandic verb gjósa, “to gush”. Castle Geyser is a geyser in Yellowstone National Park. The geyser has a 10-12 hour eruption cycle. The geyser erupts hot water for about 20 minutes to a height of 90 feet (27 meters) before changing to a noisy steam phase for 30-40 minutes.
Support as nominatorArad 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - can someone sharpen it a little?--Svetovid 11:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I feel that the picture looks a bit sideways and there is not enough focus on the geyser itself. Too broad, in my opinion. NyyDave 14:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, too much foreground. I opposed this image in the Commons FP vote, the edit, which seems to consist of downscaling and sharpening it, hasn't improved it enough to change my opinion. --Aqwis 18:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw this review from July 2007 of this picture at the WP:PPR, where user:Enuja thought that if the image could be downsampled a little (to get rid of some of the graininess at full-resolution), it could be nominated for FPC. For some reason, the original nominator User:Vimalkalyan didn't pursue it further; moreover he has not been active on Wikipedia since mid-August 2007. So, I am taking the liberty of nominating it. I was wondering too, if someone here (more expert than I at downsampling) could downsample it to reduce the graininess? Thanks.
The picture was taken during the annual festival when the idols leave the main temple compound (where photography is prohibited) and paraded for the pilgrims and worshipers to view in daylight.
What are you? In junior high-school? You better withdraw those remarks and apologize, because a lot of people are going to be very upset at your pathetic attempt at humor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the interest of good fait i implore froth to withdraw his remarks as they may be perceived as insensitive by some users. I Support btw, good picture. --Hadseys 23:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The interwebs is serious business rite? *rolls eyes*. But since this account is associated with my real life (name and pic in my userpage) fine, removed. Apologies to those offended by things they read on the internet. --frotht 00:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose because of composition, glare on ornamentation of idols, the fact that background people are grainy even at 1000 pixels, and whatever is going on at the lower left hand corner. Yes, I did say it might pass as a featured picture, but I didn't say I would vote for it. It does contribute very much to the article, though! Enuja(talk) 02:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - weak composition and low technical quality.--Svetovid 11:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, sense of humour matters. You can't beat Professor to it. 59.91.253.102 15:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP users do not have suffrage. MER-C 09:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- despite being a hard to obtain photo, the elements in the photo are too noisy and distracting. =Nichalp«Talk»= 18:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- the image could definitely benefit from a lower viewpoint and better depth of field; the image has too many disturbing elements and most of it is unsharp. --Aqwis 18:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose colours are muddy. The picture needs to include some context so we can get a better understanding of what we're looking at. Matt Deres 16:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Razor sharp and encyclopedic. The cup is a little blurry but that just draws the eye to the tea, making it clear what the subject is. I love the over-soft lighting, it's very stylized and dreamy.. the giant glare on the surface of the tea contrasts beautifully with the blistering sharpness of the actual leaves --frotht 05:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support as nominatorfrotht 05:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The rim of the cup and the bottom right corner of the image are blown. MER-C 06:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, for that, and compositional reasons. --Janke | Talk 07:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Really just an ugly picture. NyyDave 16:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per MER-C and Janke. Also, it would help if the nominator would make a good-faith effort at a caption. Spikebrennan 02:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Poor composition and distracting elements in the background. --Aqwis 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Folio 27r of the Codex Runicus, a vellum manuscript from around the year 1300 containing one of the oldest and best-preserved texts of the Scanian Law. The codex is written in a variant of the younger futharkrunic alphabet. A portion of the text on this page, beginning with the first rubric, or red-lettered text on the third line from the top, reads as follows:
Særær man annær man mæþæn kunung ær innæn lændæs bøtæ fore sar sum loh æræ :ok kunungi firitiuhu mark ok hinum ær sar fik firitiuhu mark fore friþbrut."
(If a man wounds another man while the king is the province he shall pay a fine for the wound in accordance with the law, and 40 marks to the king and 40 marks for breach of the peace to the one who was wounded.)
Comment: A pity you don't see the edges of the document, as in the other scan on the article page. I'll abstain, waiting for a full scan, which I would support. --Janke | Talk 07:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose This is such a cool document, but the quality needs to be better. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not promoted (without prejudice). MER-C 09:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent diagram illustrating the parts of a fruit and of a stone fruit in particular.
Proposed
A peach is a typical stone fruit, having a single large seed in the center that contains the embryo. The innermost layer of the floralovary (the endocarp) fuses to the exterior of the seed, creating the hard "stone" in the center on such fruits. The outer layer of the ovary becomes the skin of the peach (exocarp).
Original caption: Diagram of the parts of the peach, a typical stone fruit.
Comment Can we get a more thorough caption? Tell us something interesting, and explain what the different parts are. The caption should bridge the gap between the image and the text of the article. Jeff Dahl 20:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've revised the proposed text. Is the result better? --EncycloPetey 21:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer the original caption. The idea is not for a summary of an article or anything like that, just to let know what the image is about, which the original did perfectly. thegreen J Are you green? 00:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The caption should give meaning to an image. The viewer can obviously see it is a peach. Check out Wikipedia:Captions and FP criteria 7. I think this new caption is perfect. Jeff Dahl 03:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support clear labeling of parts. Informative. deBivort 04:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I always like nice SVGs Yzmotalk 06:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. It's just a very simple diagram, without visually appealing textures or anything added, which serves it's purpose well enough. Informative yes, but eyecatching, etc, no. Plus the alignment of the text is out of whack. --jjron 09:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. To expand on jjron's comment, the "Seed" and "Pericarp" headings are aligned differently with respect to the colored bars beneath them, and it looks like the entries under "Pericarp" ("Endocarp", etc.) are closer to the colored bar than the entries under "Seed" are. -- Coneslayer 12:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per jjron. Nothing exceptional about this diagram. 128.135.224.192 20:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IPs do not have suffrage. MER-C 08:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose Don't see how this serves to add value to the article which cannot be done by the text. Fails FP criterion 5. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 22:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A high resolution image, good detail, highly encyclopedic (showing upright and fallen Moai), excellent composition of the three figures. An aesthetically pleasing image of a unique and striking subject.
Proposed caption
The iconic Moai of Easter Island are monolithic human figures with overly large heads, most likely representations of deified ancestors. Produced between 1250 and 1500 C. E., all but 53 of the 887 known Moai--including the three pictured--are carved from tuff (a compressed volcanic ash) from the Rano Raraku quarry. With some reaching heights of 10 meters (33 feet) and weighing 86 tons, the creation and transportation of the Maoi illustrate a remarkable feat of human ingenuity.
Support. Sharpest detail I've ever seen on an Easter Island monolith picture. [I had never realized how much the Moai could have benefited from Proactiv Solution. :-) ] Unschool 04:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Nicely composed, and well-executed.--ragesoss 04:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose reluctantly - there is significant chromatic aberration along the left figures. deBivort 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: It appears this is already featured: [8] on 26 June 2006, but the nom somehow didn't get the proper links (no WP FP star, only a commons star) --Janke | Talk 06:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Already an FP. Indeed it is already an FP because I remember doing edits for its original nomination, but the original was promoted. In fact I still have copies of both the original and my edited versions on my computer. There's definitely something weird going on though, as apart from lacking the FP tag and star, the file history says a high res (1944×2592) version was only uploaded on 14 July 2007, but the 'original' version I have saved from June 2006 is already at that size. Can we just fix up the tags and close this. --jjron 08:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, it's filed as an 'Other' in the FP content categories. --jjron 08:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not promoted
Already featured.MER-C 08:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image is one of the best on Wikipedia regarding Highway 401, and is certainly the best showing Express-Collector systems in detail, and over a long distance.
Oppose While it does show the highway well, the overall picture is grainy and too bright. NyyDave 04:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Washed out, blown sky, lack of detail is disappointing. I think this has been nominated before too. deBivort 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support as nominator Sxenko 4:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Like I mentioned before, this should have been reviewed on the peer review first. Probably the lowest quality I've seen anywhere near FP discussion. The background is a disaster and the colors are terrible. Not even run through a basic clean up effort on editing software from the looks of it. NyyDave 03:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the worst FP nom you have seen? deBivort 03:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haven't been around long enough to see the real thing eh? I'll buy that. I don't know what it is about it. Reminds me of the things I critiqued in High School. NyyDave 03:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, in light of your comments, I made a new edit, wherein I solved problem with that distracting background, and enhanced the colors so that they are no longer so bad. Also, I ran it through alot of cleanup software so it would look absolutely perfect. I hope you find this one of a higher quality that the first. Sxenko 06:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed the new edit, a poor attempt at humor. 68.166.155.242 05:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you do not like the edit, please vote here and state why it is/isn't deserving of being a featured picture; otherwise please refrain from removing them altogether. 68.219.17.226 05:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I like the composition (this is the standard view, and a better one is barely possible), but focus is not that great. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Focus issue. Please remove the joke, thanks. --Janke | Talk 07:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose due to soft image quality. The shot is from the "standard" location, and it's certainly possible to do better from there. It would be nice to get a shot without all the tourists, but that would probably require special arrangements. I also Oppose the incivility expressed above—while this isn't FP quality, it's a legitimate contribution to Wikipedia and there's no need for rudeness. -- Coneslayer 15:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose poor focus. The edit is funny, leave it. --ffroth 16:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Focus, and the edit is in need of a saturation boost. Really, though, it's not at all bad. thegreen J Are you green? 04:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LOL the edit is a joke --ffroth 06:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A high resolution image of the booming Toronto skyline, showing the extensive dense urban landscape of the city as well as major landmarks, both natural and man-made.
Proposed caption
A panoramic photo of downtown Toronto, Ontario, Canada, taken from Panorama Bar in the Manulife Centre, May 13, 2007. The image shows downtown Toronto in detail, as well as the CN Tower and the Skydome (Rogers Centre) in the centre of the image. To the bottom right is Queen's Park, where the Ontario Legislature takes place. To the left and bottom of the image is extensive condominium housing, which has had a huge boom in the city during recent years. At the top of the image lies Lake Ontario, fed by fresh water from the other Great Lakes via Niagara Falls.
Oppose huge image, but not sharp, perhaps from motion blur. Some lens distortion causes leaning buildings on both the left and right. Matt Deres 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think this is lens distortion. Panoramas will suffer some sort of distortion depending on their projection methods. thegreen J Are you green? 01:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Matt's comment on the blur. NyyDave 02:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose A good example of high pixel resolution being no substitute for sharp focus and decent composition. I'm fairly sure that is wide-angle lens distortion, btw. --mikaultalk 16:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe not, but lens (perspective) distortion all the same. If you tilt the camera down like this, there aren't many lenses which won't distort the image. It might look more "natural" rotated CW a tad, but the tallest of the buildings would then tilt to the right. --mikaultalk 08:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose not featured-picture technical quality and composition (the right side of the house on the left takes too much space).--Svetovid 01:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. This is a weird way to look at a street unless there's something interesting in the foreground. --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Well, I like the angle, the activity in the street and the view out to the sea, making it more enc than it might otherwise be. It's a bit overexposed and lacks a bit of sharpness, even at lower magnification; a polarizing filter and a lot less jpeg compression would have done it for me. --mikaultalk 16:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KNHawnominated this image on Picture Peer review and I'm seconding it. I just copied and pasted the excellent caption KNHaw put on the image page. It is fantastically beautiful, and is packs a huge amount of information about the composition of the moon's surface. KNHaw anti-aliased it after nominating at at WP:PPR. It's still got visible color-balance signs of the stitching job by NASA (see the upper tip of the moon for an obvious example), but I figure it shows the process of creating the image, NASA did it so it would be hard for anyone here to fix it, and if anyone is going to fix it it would be once they saw it here, not at picture peer review.
Proposed caption
This false-colormosaic was constructed from a series of 53 images taken through three spectral filters by Galileo's imaging system as the spacecraft flew over the northern regions of the Moon on December 7, 1992. The part of the Moon visible from Earth is on the left side in this view. The color mosaic shows compositional variations in parts of the Moon's northern hemisphere. Bright pinkish areas are highlands materials, such as those surrounding the oval lava-filled Crisium impact basin toward the bottom of the picture. Blue to orange shades indicate volcanic lava flows. To the left of Crisium, the dark blue Mare Tranquillitatis is richer in titanium than the green and orange maria above it. Thin mineral-rich soils associated with relatively recent impacts are represented by light blue colors; the youngest craters have prominent blue rays extending from them. The monochrome band on the right edge shows the unretouched surface of the moon. The Galileo project, whose primary mission is the exploration of the Jupiter system in 1995-97, is managed for NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Support lots of good info - pretty trippy too. deBivort 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per nom--Mbz1 23:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per nom. Amazing picture. NyyDave 02:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I just wanted to clarify a point Enuja made in the nomination and give credit where credit is due. Specifically, the caption was written by NASA, not me (see here). I only added a single sentence and the wikilinks. I have added the NASA catalog page link to the image page so people can see the original caption, etc. --KNHaw(talk) 06:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vividly displays colour change, very aesthetically pleasing, draws one into the article.
Proposed caption
The leaves of the Sugar Maple, Acer Saccharum in various seasons, displaying the phenomenon of Autumn Leaf Color. The top center leaf represents a leaf earliest in the year, with the greatest amount of chlorophyll. The amount of chlorophyll in the leaves decreases as one goes counterclockwise. Pantone color samples have been placed over the leaves to show their general coloration.
Support as nominator Mythi 20:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose strong lighting from the side casts distracting shadows and makes the color seem uneven. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, color balance looks off (background is pale pink). I'm not convinced that the Pantone chips add much, from either an aesthetic or encyclopedic standpoint. -- Coneslayer 12:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - white balance is off, needs to be cropped. Kaldari 19:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the pantone chips add nothing. I played with the image and it's relatively easy to correct the colour, but the chips just break it for me. Matt Deres 15:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regrettably Oppose Good subject, bad equipment. If you have the equipment get a white translucent plastic or frosted glass surface, have a flash/strobe under it and set to maybe -1 stop, another two on the side of the camera and play with the settings until you get a nice balance. --antilivedT | C | G 23:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very attractive, high quality image nicely demonstrating the features of a viola flower. Leaf shape is also visible without distracting from the flower as the main subject. Beautiful natural late afternoon lighting on flower creating strong contrast with dark background.
Proposed caption
Viola is a genus of flowering plants in the family Violaceae, with around 400-500 species distributed around the world. The flowers of most viola species are formed from five petals, four are upswept or fan-shaped petals with two per side, and there is one broad, lobed lower petal pointing downward. The flower size in this image is approximately 4cm across.
Support as nominatorjjron 12:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Out of focus (not just on the leaves in the background, but on the petals too, very shallow DOF). For a subject that is motionless, should be able to get crisper detail than this. --Bridgecross 13:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Bridgecross NyyDave 18:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Depth of field is narrow in this type of macro photography. Focus is on the centre of the flower. The top of petals are out of focus due to DOF as they fall away to the back. --jjron 23:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is narrow indeed but can be widened with a tight aperture. A lens at F/5 is wide open for macro photography standards and the complaints about a shallow DOF are justified.Wwcsig 01:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not when the oppose is based on the entire flower being out of focus, which is not the case. The voters do not seem to understand the soft texture on these flowers in real life. --jjron 08:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I "understand" the soft texture of the surface of the flower, and I do see that most of the flower is in focus, especially the center and lower petals, very nice. My problem is the edge of the petal along the top, when viewed at full size why does it blur into the dark background instead of having a nice sharp edge? I see pixellation with some funny colors there. --Bridgecross 13:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I doubt there's any pixellation unless you're looking at it beyond 100% (which is meaningless); the DOF explaining the top has already been discussed. I'm not sure what you mean by 'funny colours', but if you mean the whiter areas they were part of the flower, and are there in other photos from different angles too. Before nominating I consider reasons people may oppose - for this photo a couple of reasons were the DOF issue at the top, and a misinterpretation of the soft texture as unsharpness or poor focus. You have now distinguished between these, but your original vote didn't. Given that your original vote could be misinterpreted in this way I think we could say that your original reason was perhaps at best incomplete. That the other two 'oppose' votes here simply invoke your original incomplete reason is therefore a bit of a worry, and the lack of other votes either way could be interpreted as people not particularly wanting to oppose, but unsure about supporting due to possible misinterpretation or uncertainty about your original incomplete reasoning (of course I'm just surmising here). In other words by giving your original 'incomplete' reason, you've quite probably singlehandedly sunk this nomination (which I guess is the point of your oppose anyway). --jjron 10:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well this comment was a waste of time with the nom closed as I was typing it.--jjron 10:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice light, composition, acceptable detail. --Beyond silence 21:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it meets all the basic technical criteria, it's eye catching, relatively well-composed, and provides a rather witty (if I do say so myself) angle on the article.
Oppose — Did you just join Wikipedia to nominate this photo? I won't even bother going into details, you obviously didn't read the featured picture criteria. ♠ SG→Talk 05:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, obviously you are right, obviously you don't need to go into details.-NoMoreWorkPlease 06:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a hard time assuming good faith when users who have just joined on this very day, and whose only edits to article space has been adding images they uploaded, start nominating their own pictures for featured status. I was probably a little harsh, and for that I apologize, but my general remark stands. ♠ SG→Talk 06:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uploading a photograph is still a contribution is it not? Most people don't even bother adding anything, other than vandalism. We should encourage people to add more photographs, I think. Just my "two cents" --Hadseys 11:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right - Hey, at least it's not like 300px like most of them! It's a good picture, so I can see why they nom'ed it...and who knows - maybe the FPC process was enough to turn them from a lurker into a contributor. Of course it's got some problems, so it's not really enough for featured status, but let's hope that there's more to come from NoMoreWorkPlease. On a sidenote: someone needs to make sure this user knows about licenses - This image doesn't have one! tiZom(2¢) 14:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not complaining about uploading photos, I'm talking about how a new user's first action after uploading and adding their photo was to nominate it for featured status. I'd rather people become more familiarized with Wikipedia and its rules beforehand. The image has no licensing information: they didn't read the uploading instructions. The image must have a free license to even nominate it: the user didn't read the featured picture criteria. This image is of subpar quality: the user did not take the time to see what exactly we consider to be worthy of FP. Nominating pictures for featured status is not something someone who has just joined should be doing. They should be learning more about Wikipedia and its sister projects first. Heck, we usually even ignore votes from users who have not participated in the article namespace. But, hey, maybe I'm just a jerk. ♠ SG→Talk 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Unappealing composition, messy background, blurry in full size. --Janke | Talk 07:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose A bit grainy, jpg artifacts. However, I like the subject (widely reproduced piece of modern art) and the angle/composition. Please contribute more. I don't have a hard time assuming good faith. --Bridgecross 13:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
not the best techincal quality however, the writing is readable just about; and given that the subject is 95 years old, a better print may be harder to find. The image also has huge historical value
New York Times presumable. In the united states public domain
Support as nominatorHadseys 16:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I'm sure a higher resolution version of this page must be available somewhere. We're talking about a famous front page of The New York Times from less than 100 years ago. I imagine one could go down to their local library and request a high resolution scan of this page from microfilm if one isn't available on the internet. Thoughts? Kaldari 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, it looks like you can buy a reproduction of this page from The New York Times for $19. Anyone want to buy it and scan it at 300dpi? Kaldari 18:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I considered nomming a version of this, but beyond being blurry, the horizontal lines are just too wavy and bent. There's got to be a better version out there. Spikebrennan 18:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment bear in mind that newspaper printing in 1912 was a bit crappy --Hadseys 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose--Great idea, but as above, I'm not convinced that print quality is the problem here. The waviness of the horizontal lines suggests that the paper is not flat against the glass--I've never seen that on historical newsprint; I've certainly seen it on not-so-great scans. Given that over 100,000 copies of this page were printed, there have to be some that are better preserved. Chick Bowen 20:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, please add a source to the image description page; the image is clearly public domain in the US, but it would be useful to know where the scan originates from. Chick Bowen 21:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Public domain, high quality, very informative and extremely encyclopedic. I believe this picture is among of the best Wikipedia has to offer.
Proposed caption
Emperor Penguins first begin to breed at approximately five years of age. They travel about 90 km (56 mi) inland to reach the breeding site. The penguins start courtship in March or April, when the temperature can be as low as –40°C (–40°F). In May or June, the female penguin lays one 450 g (1 lb) egg, but at this point her nutritional reserves are exhausted and she must immediately return to the sea to feed. Very carefully, she transfers the egg to the male, who incubates the egg in his brood pouch for about 65 days. After about two months, the female returns and takes over caring for the chick, feeding it by regurgitating the food that she has stored in her stomach. The male then leaves to take his turn at sea. After another few weeks, the male returns and both parents tend to the chick by keeping it off the ice and feeding it regurgitated food. About two months after the egg hatches, as the weather becomes milder, the chicks huddle in a crèche for warmth and protection, still fed by their parents. Eventually, both the chick and parents return to the sea and spend the rest of the summer feeding there. At the end of the summer the whole inland trip is repeated for all those penguins of breeding age, while the younger ones stay at the sea edge.
Weak support — This image lacks a certain quality that some of our best images have, but it most certainly makes up for it in encyclopedic value. Just looking at this image thumbnail makes me want to read more about penguins. ♠ SG→Talk 06:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support - weak, because the middle cycle of feeding/returning is not very clearly integrated into the timing - should there be month names there too? --Janke | Talk 13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support As you said "very informative and extremely encyclopedic". NyyDave 14:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support. Image should use metric or a combination of the two. It might also be better to only have numbers in the image, so it's more flexible for use with other language encyclopedias. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-17 16:32Z
Weak support Excellent encylopaedic quality - however, it is a little small and it should include a conversion from miles to kilometer ("60-100 mile march to rookery"). --Aqwis 18:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This image has pretty much everything going for it. It is really well laid out, and easy to understand given the complexity. I'm willing to overlook the lack of kilometer conversion if it is given in the caption. I think the current caption is too long, so I propose a shorter one below. (137 vs 235 words) Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposed revised caption The Emporer penguin breeding season begins in April and May, when sexually mature adults must make a 60-100 mile (96-160 km) journey overland to mate. Females lay a single egg and then carefully transfer it to the male, who incubates it while the female returns to the sea to feed. Once the females have returned, the males take their turn to feed, and after the chicks hatch in August, they are fed by the parent's regurgitated food. The male and female take turns feeding a further six times, and eventually both the chick and parents return to the sea to spend the rest of the summer feeding there. At the end of the summer the whole inland trip is repeated for all those penguins of breeding age, while the younger ones stay at the sea edge.
I like that yours is simpler, but I prefer the original, due to time precision. From your caption, I don't know how old a "sexually mature adult" is, nor do I know how long the incubation period is. ♠ SG→Talk 05:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposed revised caption rewrite of Jeff Dahl's version Emperor Penguins first begin to breed at approximately five years of age. Breeding season begins in April and May, when sexually mature adults must make a 60-100 mile (96-160 km) journey overland to mate. Females lay a single egg and then carefully transfer it to the male, who incubates it for 65 days while the female returns to the sea to feed. Once the females have returned, the males take their turn to feed, and after the chicks hatch in August, they are fed by the parent's regurgitated food. The male and female take turns feeding a further six times, and eventually both the chick and parents return to the sea to spend the rest of the summer feeding there. At the end of the summer the whole inland trip is repeated for all those penguins of breeding age, while the younger ones stay at the sea edge.
Is "go feed" good American English? It sounds very slangy to me (but we Brits speak different of course!). --MichaelMaggs 19:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really, unless it's an imperative to livestock. deBivort 21:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:PENGUIN LIFECYCLE H.JPGMER-C 08:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A mission style tiled roof in old town of Dubrovnik, Croatia. Roofs are often covered in tiles to protect a structure from the elements. Roof tiles are 'hung' from the framework of a roof by fixing them with nails, and each row of tiles overlaps the one beneath it to exclude rain water and protect the tile's attachment point. Barrel shaped tiles such as these are made of baked clay and are a common decorative motif.
Support Great look, technical details are pretty good. I remember this image getting a lot of flak awhile back, either here or on commons, but I think here it is a great addition. A few minor things: Can we get a better caption. Tell us about how the structure of the tiles nest together to shed the water off, tell us the country of origin and a date maybe, (they are still used today I take it?) etc. Also, this image could be used in articles about roofing or terra cotta production, etc. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Low technical quality (sharpness, colours and light conditions), bad composition and not very informative/encyclopaedic.--Svetovid 18:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are kinding, minimal average, it's a QI.--Beyond silence 18:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per above. There is also a halo visible between roof and sky. Synthetic sky? --Janke | Talk 18:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Svetovid, though I think this angle is quite informative/encyclopedic since it clearly shows how the tiles fit together and allows for quite a bit of detail. Matt Deres 21:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I'm quite puzzled about the objections to this. It's one of several photos in the article, and as such it is extremely informative to someone whose notion of "tile" is the stuff on the bathroom floor and walls. Some of us live in parts of the world where this kind of tile is common (myself included), but I grew up in an area where it was unheard of. And technically, this picture is wonderful, showing the affects of weathering, for example, in sharp detail. I see nothing "between roof and sky" that looks in any way unnatural to me. Bottom line, it is a good picture that informs the reader. Unschool 04:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a very well done diagram. It is acurate, labeled,
Proposed caption
A diagram of a simple Prokaryote. Prokarya are one of the two domains of life, the other being Eukarya. They are characterized by having simple internal structures lacking cell nuclei. The domain Prokarya includes the kindomsBacteria and Archaea.
Support edit 1 - I also found the gray cells in the background distracting, so removed them in edit 1. Note that I accidentally overwrote the original file, so now the original is called "Image:Prokaryote cell diagram-orig.svg". --Sean
13:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Support edit 1 - Highly encylopaedic and informative, without any unnecessary elements (the gray stuff in the original). --Aqwis 14:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the difference between the yellow and the red on the outside of the cell? As far as I can tell, only the yellow is labelled (capsule). Enuja(talk) 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found this confusing as well, but don't know enough to change it. --Sean 22:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bacteria have a membrane inside their cell wall and outside the cell wall. The red is the membrane, the yellow is the cell wall. The "capsule" is usually the wall and membrane together. I'll take a look in Brock & Maddigan later tonight, if I get the chance, to see that I remember that correctly. --EncycloPetey 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've checked. The capsule is a polysaccharide layer external to the cell wall in some bacteria. It is also termed the "glycoalyx". It is not a specific structure. In the diagram here, it would be part of the outer surface of the outer membrane. Probably, it should not appear in the diagram for that reason. --EncycloPetey 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A cell's cell wall is its outermost structure, providing protection for the organelles inside. I don't think having a vulnerable membrane around a rigid structure is a good idea; it should be the other way round. --Bowlhover 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'll have to convince the bacteria of that, not me. (And you might check your own cells, which also are bounded by a wall-free membrane.) I have checked Brock & Maddigan's textbook Biology of Microorganisms, 7th ed. (the book is considered the standard for universities in the US). Page 63 describes the inner cytoplasmic membrane, bounded by the peptidoglycan cell wall, which in turn is surrounded by the outer membrane in Gram-negative bacteria. Gram-positive bacteria do not have an outer membrane.
Note also that the cell wall is not a rigid structure in either plants or bacteria. If cell walls were truly rigid, plants could not wilt (think about it). The cell wall is a woven flexible framework that is made rigid primarily by the osmotic pressure exerted from the inside by the cell inside its membrane. Further reinforcement is made in vascular plants by the addition of lignin to the walls once primary growth is complete. --EncycloPetey 04:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Edit 1 For removing unnecessary gray. NyyDave 04:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose all, as per recent drupe nom, as a diagram it's simple and informative enough, but I don't really see what makes it outstanding. Some other issues with the scientific accuracy of the diagram: scale seems arbitrary, e.g., the capsule appears to be too thick, the cell wall and membrane are about the same thickness, and the flagellum is also far too beefy; dual coloured capsule is very confusing; why are there no plasmids shown? (these are a common structure in prokaryotes); 'plasma membrane' should probably be 'cell membrane' as it's a more common term; why is the F on flagellum capital? (all other second words are lower case); the DNA/nucleoid appears to be hedging its bets on which of these it's trying to illustrate; inclusion of mesosomes may be debatable. OK. --jjron 07:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 1. Crisp, informative and interesting. Everything I look for in a good diagram. Mgm|(talk) 12:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I agree with jjrons comments; except the point about organelles - I expect that the intention of this diagram was to show the basic features of a prokaryotic cell - prokaryotes may have all sorts of stuff inside including organelles, plasmids, vacuoles, endospores, inclusion bodies etc - but they're not common to all prokaryotes (neither is the mesosome). I think illustrating a typical prokaryotic cell is kind of pointless even though all textbooks do it - a more encyclopedic option would be an illustration showing a typical non-photsynthetic gram positive and gram negative specimens. --Peta 14:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
information Hello everyone, first let me thank you for promoting supporting and otherwise making your comments on my image, will try to answer all your questions here:
the grey bateria i aded them becouse someone made me the coment that it would help the iage having "deepnes" and also see that bateria are in groups. if now you want to take them out then go ahead, just dont ask me to place them in again.
the yellow is only a cut in the red surface, true i could have made the cut more red or the bacteria more yellowish. i still can if you want. as seen in my sources the bacteria is formed by a thick capsule, below this capsule there is a cell wall and below this one there is a plasma membrane.
scale was taken out of my sources, i am not biologist. i am a illustrator and as such my images are as acurate and as good as my sources. None of my sources makes mention of any plasmids. so i did not do them. if you can show me a more acurate source then i will gladly improve my image adding all those terms. right now that what you see is the best i could do with what i had.
finally a small personal note: As illustrator, i do not pretend to do outstanding, but simply informative diagrams. what i seek is to explain things not to create art.-LadyofHats 15:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do not change the yellow and red. The yellow is the cell wall, it lies between the two red membranes. It is fine. Your sources describing "capsules" are out-of-date. The term "capsule" was used for the outer covering before microbiologists determined the actual structure of the surrounding envelope. The term "capsule" is now only used informally to describe that portion of the wall or outer membrane consisting of polysaccharides. It is not a specific structure. I suspect that your sources did not mention plasmids because they are a rather recent discovery, and if your sources mention a capsule, then they must have been at least 20 years out-of-date. --EncycloPetey 15:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plasmids were discovered over 50 years ago - I'm at a bit of a loss as to why plasmids aren't shown more commonly in these kind of diagrams - this is the only one I've seen. --Peta 05:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re LadyofHats: "As illustrator, i do not pretend to do outstanding, but simply informative diagrams. what i seek is to explain things not to create art" - I think you do an excellent job of this, but this is the very point I have tried to make in my recent oppose votes. I think a lot your diagrams that get nominated here are very useful and simple to understand, but not necessarily something that makes you think 'what an amazing diagram'; in other words, not necessarily something that should be an FP.
Re EncycloPetey: "The yellow is the cell wall" - no it's not, the yellow is clearly labeled as the capsule, the cell wall is labeled as the light green layer below the thick yellow capsule layer (this is the second time you've repeated this mistake). So it's not fine; either your claims are wrong or the diagram is mislabeled, and either way there's a problem.
Overall I don't have a particular problem with this diagram being in articles (as has been the case with some other images), though as Peta said "illustrating a typical prokaryotic cell is kind of pointless". This is OK for what it's trying to do, but there's so many compromises needed to make a 'typical' prokaryote that even if was done perfectly and presented as a lovely artistic diagram there could still be debates about it, and that would still make me question it's value as an FP. --jjron 08:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RE:Jjron. I have no idea what green layer you're talking about. Even in the full size illustration I cannot see a green layer. In any case, I have not repeated a mistake; I have repeated a correction. There is an important difference between a mistake and a correction. Perhaps you will understand the third time I say it: In this diagram, the yellow is the cell wall and the label "capsule" should be removed. I don't know how I can make that correction any clearer. --EncycloPetey 12:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said "either your claims are wrong or the diagram is mislabeled, and either way there's a problem"; so yes you are now making it clear that you believe the diagram is wrong (or at the least incorrectly labeled). Given how you appeared to be defending the diagram I was assuming you thought it was correct. However you may need to check your monitor or something if you can't see the pale green layer that is labeled as the cell wall (can you really not see that the 'cell wall' label is pointing to a different place than the 'capsule' label? This layer is about the same thickness as the red 'plasma membrane'. I'm not being facetious, but can you see two shades of green in the cytoplasm demarcating the 'cut' through the cell? The pale green cell wall is about the same colour as the paler green part of the cytoplasm). And that makes things a bit more complex, because according to what you're saying the capsule should be relabeled as the cell wall, but then there is an unlabeled green layer between that and the cell membrane (and that then compounds the other issues that have been raised above). --jjron 08:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now you are switching from saying "repeated mistake" to "appeared to defend". It is not my monitor that is the problem. I have looked at the diagram on two different monitors connected through two different networks, using two different platforms, and two dofferent browsers. It is not a monitor problem. --EncycloPetey 12:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And so the problems of interpreting people's full meaning from what they write... OK, if you're claiming the yellow is labeled as the cell wall then it's a "repeated mistake"; I was trying to 'assume good faith' by accepting that this wasn't the case and you were actually saying the diagram was mislabeled. If you don't want to accept that, it doesn't worry me. And fine, you've looked at it on different systems - so can you still not see the labels point to different places, and can you see the different greens? --jjron 14:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't claim anything about the labelling. Where did you see me say "this is labeled" or "that is labeled"? I said the yellow is the cell wall, and I don't care what the labels may or may not say. You seem to be more concerned about the art that the biology, which is fine, but I'm talking about the biology of bacteria. Assuming good faith does not mean assuming the other person is wrong; it does mean listening to what the other person is saying. Go back and re-read all the postings I've made above. Nowhere did I ever talk about how the yellow and red are labelled; I spoke about what they represent in terms of bacterial biology. I am starting from pulbished sources about bacterial structure and bringin that to this discussion. I am not starting from the diagram. Does that make everything clear yet? And , yes, I can see two different greens inside the bacterial cell, I just can't see any kind of green in the place you're describing. I've trying looking on both CRT and LCD monitors. --EncycloPetey 15:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
wikipedia is a cheat i used to get all my homework stuff off here and its all lies and crap and visually it's more informative than stunning. I'm not sure that you appreciate that a 'correct' image with incorrect labels is incorrect (and I'm talking biology here, not art). I apologise that I have made the assumption that you were in fact talking about this entire image, as is usual here, when you have now made it clear that you were not. But by your comments it seems you don't appreciate that that is the nature of discussions on FPC, to focus discussion on the image that is nominated, and to get images both correct and appealing. To put it simply, what is the point of promoting an image to FP if it's incorrectly labeled? --jjron 08:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll point out that not everyone will post comments to fit such narrow expectations of what they should post. Next time do not limit your expectations so much. I apologize for assuming that you were talking about information, when you have made it clear that your purpose was to simply be pedantic and chiding about the nature of the discussion instead of having the actual discussion. --EncycloPetey 12:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 1 the removal of the grey looks great. --ZeWrestlerTalk 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Prokaryote_cell_diagram.svgMER-C 08:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rather disappointing when the image is not exactly scientifically accurate. --jjron 09:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surfing is a very popular activity and I do not believe we have any FP for this kind of sport.
Proposed caption
A California surfer. The surfer is performing a gash, or very sharp turn. Santa Cruz and the surrounding Northern California coastline is a popular surfing destination; however, the year-round low temperature of the ocean in that region (averaging 57ºF/14ºC) necessitates the use of wetsuits.
Support either as nominatorMbz1 17:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I've tried and failed to get FP status for few other images of surfers. I hope you like these ones better. Thanks.--Mbz1 17:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support either Great clarity, no major technical problems that I can see. Good job. CillaИ ♦ XC 18:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support either No reason not to. – sgeurekat•c 19:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Orig 2 - better composition, less of a blown wave, and closer view of the surfer. and somehow the guys hair isn't wet in the first image - which seems crazy and un-enc to me. Too bad the second surfer's tongue isn't out though. deBivort 21:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose until a better caption is written. I had overlooked this earlier. Tell us about the image please. deBivort 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the caption - please include information such as the season, location, and more details about the surf maneuver. Info like "the surfer is wearing a wet suit because the pacific ocean averages blah blah degrees" is much better than tourist pamphlet boilerplate like "here one could ski and surf in the same day". deBivort 23:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support original 2 on composition and blown reasons and the nice 3-D effect you get with the surfboard. Original 1 needs a crop, I think, and it's fine, but I like 2 better. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support original 2 - there's even enough "wow" in the thumbnail. --Janke | Talk 07:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support orig The first is better due to the lighting and movement is best. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 12:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. The water looks cool but the detail on the surfer's face is bad, and this is totally nonencyclopedic.. you can't see what he's doing at all --ffroth 16:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support original 2 Better than the first version in almost every respect. Good depiction of the sport, typical stance and trajectory, making it good & encyclopedic. A shame you had to spam the Surfing page in order to make this nom; can I respectfully suggest you remove some of very similar images from the page? --mikaul
Done. I've removed 2 other images, which were posted by myself.--Mbz1 17:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support both I like the images, but honestly the caption is a huge missed opportunity. I don't know surfing, but it seems like something the surfers are doing in the image could be used as a basis to write a better caption than "a California surfer." The article has a list of terms a mile long; doesn't one of those describe what's going on in the picture? Please, something - anything - more extensive than the three-word caption it's got now. SingCal 02:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given plenty of time there has been no change to the caption. Oppose until something happens. SingCal 15:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was out for few days, but haven't you noticed I've changed the caption before you posted your last comment? If you believe the caption is still not good, I would be grateful for any help I could get. Thank you.--Mbz1 16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the caption as it now stands... Support Original 2. SingCal 06:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose both - no "wow"-effect, poor light, too much contrast. There is some encylopaedic value but even the value would've been better if the photo had been taken closer to the surfer and from a lower angle. --Aqwis 14:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose both - as per Aqwis. It's not remarkable. It may be a simple informative shot of a popular activity, but it really isn't that pretty.--Talionis(Shout me · Stalk me) 08:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose both we can do better than this. The pose in the alternate is uninspiring, and the first pic has problems with the waves. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose both. good but not great. The lighting and pose/waves are not ideal, and we can do better. Calliopejen1 22:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'd like to thank everybody for the comments and votes. No matter, if an image is to pass or not to pass, I'm glad many people have expressed their thoughts about the images. My special thanks to SingCal and Debivort for helping me with the caption. I also agree with the ones, who said that we could do better (there's no limit for the better).--Mbz1 22:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:Surfer in california 2.JPGMER-C 08:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral It has definite potential but the caption is wholly inadequate. It needs to explain what some of these terms mean, at the very least (such as "transfer"), or what is going on in the diagram. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-19 14:24Z
Oppose With so many abbreviations, in order to understand the diagram the user must decode each one; a tedious process. Instead of thinking about the economics, the viewer is struggling to remember what Trc means. Better to label it with real words rather than forcing people to memorize an arbitrary set of abbreviations, and there looks to be plenty of room on the chart. With a little creativity you could make it work. Check out the book The Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Edward Tufte (ISBN0961392142) and his other books for some excellent tips on making charts and data displays. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Should be more clear to those of us who don't know much about economics. Doesn't make me want to learn more at all. NyyDave 02:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support. It would be much better if the whole bird is shown, but the amount of detail and clarity is great enough for a weak support from me. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-19 15:49Z
Oppose The article about the Brown Falcon says that it is particularly known for its long legs and broad wingspan. The picture shows neither of these things, and it would have to in order to be of value to an article with so little other content. It's a nice shot, but for me it pretty clearly fails FPC5. SingCal 17:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value. Well it does add value to the article, and help readers to understand the article, being the only photo just makes it all the more valuable. Benjamint 05:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamint444 (talk • contribs) Reply[reply]
Comment It's a nice enough shot, suffering from an unusual crop. Not sure how much post processing you did, but the whiter feathers are a bit blown and I'd suggest a less-tight crop, centering more on the beak and eye and allowing more space to the right. Enc-wise, I'd say it would be more appropriate for the article at Beak than anywhere else. --mikaultalk 17:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This clear image of a majestic F-14 Tomcat, at supersonic speeds, streaking across the clear blue sky stopped my heart. I was amazed at the beauty of this picture, and was in awe.
Proposed caption
An F-14 Tomcat flies over at near supersonic speeds.
Oppose — not very encyclopedic; the article has much better images than this. BTW, the caption you're proposing is incorrect. The article says that, in that image, the craft is flying at "near-supersonic" speeds, not supersonic speeds, as you claim in the caption. --Agüeybaná 15:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Compare with some of our other warbird Featured Pictures. As I've said before, military photos are best when crisp and detailed, or when showing a significant military event. --Bridgecross 15:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This was closed without going to the Nominations older then seven days - decision time! bit and is still in the FPC Candidates place, shouldn't something be done about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.46.116 (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its pretty abstract in many ways, but I've sold a 16x20" print of it for someones apartment so I guess it's pretty artistic. What I think is special about is that while being abstract and kind of stunning is that it is a wonderful representation of webbed feet. Other than that it is sharp and big and the light is, in my opinion, beautiful.
Proposed caption
A close-up of the feet of a Herring gull, showing webbed toes. The Herring gull, like many other shore birds and other animals, has skin between its toes to aid in swimming and movement on water.
Oppose Uneven lighting, it looks like the sun was setting. Both the lighting and the background are distracting. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you prefer sterile studio lighting?? Sunset light is directional and has a beautiful color content. It adds depth and interest. I think this picture would be significantly worse with more even lighting. As it is now it is both informative and abstract. The background is granite rock, the gull's environment. why do you think uneven lighting is worse? -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral The lighting doesn't bother me, but it just seems...odd...to see only the gull's feet. I think I would prefer to see the whole bird. CillaИ ♦ XC 15:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. It's a perfect picture for the article it's in. We need more detailed biological illustrations like this one. Separa 13:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It's an encyclopedic shot no doubt, but I just don't think there is anything in it to tell me that it falls among Wikipedia's best work. The lighting is a little substandard and there isn't much distinction between the ground itself and the feet. In any case, the lack of the whole bird is worryingly awkward. -- Chris B • talk 14:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
High Resolution World Map Of Large-Format Print Quality
Proposed caption
This is a composite of the Physical and the Political World Maps from the CIA World Factbook website surrounded by images of constellations and a stary background from NASA.
Support as nominatorEye 03:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Oppose reluctantly - it looks like the classic map, but there are a lot of unnecessary border elements, and mostly the smallest text is not legible at full rez. de Bivort 22:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I corrected the formatting, as you suggested, which cleared up the legibility issue of the minute 6pt text of original source files. I even went so far as to print this out on a 54" Roland SolJet III Wide-Format Printer (45" x 27") to test print legibility. IMHEO the jpg's text is most legible, in print and even on my monitor with my poor eyesight. I fully appreciate it that every one can have their helpful opinions. (c.f. World Map of 1689 from Amsterdam. Too much ornamentation there, too, eh?) :-) Eye —Preceding comment was added at 03:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry - I forgot to recheck the image after the type conversion. Yes - it is more legible. There are jpeg artifacts now, which make me hesitant to support, so I'll hold off on voting for a little while. deBivort 06:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Fat ugly border lines that make it impossible to tell where anything is in Europe. Plus a giant border around the thing filled with useless/unclear info --ffroth 06:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good question. We should probably take this image out of every article until that is fixed. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-22 12:54Z
Actually, it looks like in the past, Cancer was also referred to as a lobster or a crayfish. Although for its purpose here, it's probably best to use the currently-most-popular representation. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-22 12:59Z
Oppose - incorrect crustacean, and the borders (around the map and between countries) are overkill. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-22 12:54Z
Oppose - Some text is illegible, such as the text below where it says "Death Valley" in the US. Huge borders. --Aqwis 14:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. What are the criteria for including, or not including, a city on this map? Spikebrennan 20:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - excessive ornamentation (national borders, backdrop to map, etc.), arbitrary inclusion of cities, no legend regarding elevations, "Cancer the lobster", etc. Matt Deres 00:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cappadocia is an amazing, but not well known natural wonder. I hope that the image as a FP would "make the viewer want to know more" about Cappadocia.
Proposed caption
Cappadocia, a region in central Turkey, is known for its Göreme National Park, which was added to the UNESCOWorld Heritage List in 1985.The first period of settlement within the region reaches to Roman period of Christianity era. The area is also famous for its "fairy chimneys" rock formations, some of which reach 40 meters (130 feet) in height. Over millions of years, wind and rain eroded layers of consolidated volcanic ash, or tuff, to form the sweeping landscape. From the 4th to 13th century AD, occupants of the area dug tunnels into the exposed rock face to build residences, stores, and churches which are home to irreplaceable Byzantine art. More than 500,000 tourists visit the region each year.
To tell you the truth not even close. Of course some rocks could resemble other rocks and they really do, but Cappadocia is so much bigger, than anything else of a kind. I hope these aditional images could help you to see more: ;;;. --Mbz1 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All I meant is that the tent-shaped mounds were likely created in exactly the same way in both places (volcanic deposits) — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-24 19:01Z
Sure, the process of creating the rocks was the same.--Mbz1 21:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment and Support. Is the horizon tilted? Hard to tell with the mountains in the background. (The geologic layers in the rocks seem to be tited, but they might be tilted in real life.) Beautiful photo.
Thank you, Spikebrennan. It is a beautiful place. I do not think the image is tilted.--Mbz1 01:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Magnificent! Does just what an FP should do—drew me in to read an article that I would never have otherwise read. This is both beautiful and fascinating. Wholehearted support. Unschool 01:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, but it's really a shame it's not bigger. A full resolution version might also give us a better indication of whether the verticals are straight; it definitely makes me tilt my head a little as it is now.--ragesoss 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is the highest resolution I have. The image was taken 1.5 years ago, long before I started posting images to Wikipedia. I do not sell my images and for myself the resolution was just fine at that time. I did not have cd burner and my hard drive was over filled with the images.--Mbz1 05:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - from first hand experience there, the horizon is tilted, also the caption is not enc. deBivort 05:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you, please, give me a hint what should be added to the caption. Thank you.--Mbz1 05:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As in the surfer image, specific details, what town is shown? How long has it been occupied? What type of stone is carved to make the homes? etc. No flowery statements like "wondrous landscape" "natural wonders" etc.. deBivort 07:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you find the caption and the image any better? Thank you.--Mbz1 01:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose There is dust in the sky, the horizon appears tilted, the image appears undersaturated(?). I will most likely support the image if you address these concerns. --Aqwis 14:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 2, but please remove the peacock terms from the caption. --Aqwis 12:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What does "peacock" means? I'm not very strong in English. Thank you.--Mbz1 13:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, MER-C. I tried to delete at least some of them.--Mbz1 01:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. The picture illustrates the landscape, but not the reason why it is a UNESCO World Heritage site. I would much prefer a composition that has one of the previously or currently (?) human-inhabited tent rocks in the foreground, with windows and doors clearly visible. I have such a picture on my wall (not my copyright, sry), so it's definitely possible to get. So my reject reason would be "not sufficiently encyclopaedic - does not illustrate crucial aspect of subject". Separa 13:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No people live in Göreme. It is an open air museum. I could add the link to this as well as few other links to the images, which were taken inside Göreme to the caption. Would it do it for you?--Mbz1 13:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm talking about the mounds. At least some of them have been inhabited. Separa 14:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll add few other links to the nominated image. Please come back later and take a look. Thank you.--Mbz1 14:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked over my pictures once again. There's no mounds in Göreme. Maybe you're talking about something like this? It is not Göreme. --Mbz1 16:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image is not currently included in the Goereme article, and the proposed inclusion is for Cappadocia. Please stick to what you propose in your nomination. Thank you. 129.215.191.74 18:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you,129.215.191.74.--Mbz1 21:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 2, technical quality is totally sufficient and this is a great view. I will suggest a revised caption: Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposed revised caption: Known for its Göreme, or "Fairy chimney" rock formations, the landscape of Cappadocia in central Turkey is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Over millions of years, wind and rain eroded layers of consolidated volcanic ash, or tuff, to form the sweeping landscape. From the 4th to 13th century AD, occupants of the area dug tunnels into the exposed rock face to build residences, stores, and churches which are home to irreplaceable Byzantine art. More than 500,000 tourists visit the region each year.
I like the caption and I have a question. You said: "Known for its Göreme, or "Fairy chimney" rock formations". Shuld not be it "and" instead of "or"? Thank you.--Mbz1 03:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought the word Göreme was the same thing as "Fairy chimney" rock formations; if this is so then the sentence is technically correct, though I can improve:
"Known for its rock formations called Göreme (or "Fairy chimneys"), the landscape of Cappadocia...
Jeff, Göreme is a town and "Fairy chimney" are rock formations. It is all my fault. I cannot explain the things properly with my English. Sorry about this. What do you think about this: Cappadocia, a region in central Turkey, is known for its Göreme National Park, which was added to the UNESCOWorld Heritage List in 1985. The area is famous for its "fairy chimneys" rock formations, some of which reach 40 meters (130 feet) in height. Over millions of years, wind and rain eroded layers of consolidated volcanic ash, or tuff, to form the sweeping landscape. From the 4th to 13th century AD, occupants of the area dug tunnels into the exposed rock face to build residences, stores, and churches which are home to irreplaceable Byzantine art. More than 500,000 tourists visit the region each year. Thank you.--Mbz1 17:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, got it. I went to Göreme, saw the pictures, and thought that this was the Turkish word for the formations. Anyway I edited the caption a little more, I think it should be OK. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I used the proposed caption. Just added one sentence. I hope it is ok now. Thank you for helping me out.--Mbz1 03:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted Image:View of Cappadocia edit.jpgMER-C 06:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is is a striking composition of two Delft blue otherworldly sea creatures, expertly photogaphed. The work appears to have been photoshopped to highten the background contrast; otherwise, based on other photos available on the Web, the colours appear to be true. Featuring this image will draw attention to the marvellous variety of sea life.
Proposed caption
Glaucus atlanticus. This is a nudibranch, or sea slug, of the family Glaucidae, the only member of the genus Glaucus. It typically grows to 4 cm in length. The slug is distributed throughout the world's oceans in temperate and tropical waters. G. atlanticus preys on the Portuguese Man o' War and other surface-dwelling sea animals. Occasionally Glaucus will feed on others of its kind.
By coincidence, this morning I noticed a very similar looking image of Glaucus atlanticus in the latest issue of National Geographic; it was photographed in Hawaii.Verne Equinox 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very striking. Nice find, VE. SingCal 13:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support a high quality image. very encyclopedic. --Malachirality 16:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Very clean, illustrates the subject well. -- Coneslayer 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per above.I tried to add some links to the caption.--HereToHelp 02:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support especially if the shadows are authentic, not synthetic. They look that way to me, but it'd be nice to have that confirmed. deBivort 02:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Whoa! Extraordinary animal photograph. What a weird critter. Spikebrennan 13:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wow. High value, high quality. --Aqwis 14:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Protea is interesting and big family of beautiful and exotic flowers. Native to South Africa they grow well in San Francisco, where the image was taken. In my opinion the image has encyclopedic value because it showing the bud in process of transition to become a flower.
Comment Nice clear shot, but it really needs a latin name and a better "home" than bud or flower, IMO. It doesn't appear on the Protea page, where it might have some solid enc value. As a FP it would "make the viewer want to know more" but ultimately fail to provide that information.
Thank you very much for comments and clarification. I could explain to you how I've got the name. The name of the flower was written next to it like they usually do in botanical gardens. I've done some recearch at the NET and I believe now the flower is Leucospermum `Scarlet Ribbon` Here is a whole family tree. In my opinion the image adds value to the article flower and bud because it is showing a bud in a clearly visible transition. Should the image be added to cultivar or/and Leucospermum? Thank you.--Mbz1 16:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely add it to Leucospermum but consider removing it from Flower and even Bud, as it's typical of neither, impressive though it is. If you're now sure of its identity, don't forget to amend your caption & add the Latin name. --mikaultalk 17:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I guess I'm not sure in anything any more yet it is very interesting to learn something new even about my own images. I've changed my mind once again and believe that the flower is Leucospermum 'Veldfire'. What is interesting that tha family tree of this flower does not indicates that it is a cultivar. I added it to Leucospermum and removed it from flower and bud. Thank you.--Mbz1 17:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, simply because the up close version of this gave me the willies. Not often that a FP candidate unintentionally creeps me out. Sharp detail. Unschool 04:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'm sure in ID now.--Mbz1 02:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice detail, and I like the contrast between the few filaments who have shed their sheath and the rest who haven't. caption will need to be expanded, however.--HereToHelp 23:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose' Composition is too centered, BG is badly exposed, ie. darker or lighter but not as is.
Comment. Is this vote from the above anon to be taken seriously? Unschool 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your comment,Unschool. To answer your question, I'm not sure that non-register user have right to vote, but, if he/she has, I believe it should be taken in account like all other votes are. Everybody entitled to have their own opinion.--Mbz1 01:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IP's only contributions are to this debate. IPs generally don't have suffrage (but I'm willing to make exceptions for 84.90.46.116). MER-C 01:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thats really quite weird, The only contrib by a IP is FPC? He/She raises actually some good points. in fact: Neutral good sharpness, neutral is per comments by Ip: 24.00... ; ) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice picture of a curious subject, technical details are more than adequate. I've never seen one of these before! Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
because only the head of a male lion is seen? Would you like some more samples? The main subject of the image is a gecko, not the flower, and the gecko is in frame. Yet the image gives important information about the flower too by showing that it produces nectar, on which geckos feed. Besides, as I said in the image's introduction, it was a behavior shot, which in my opinion is very much encyclopedic and does add a value to the articles. If you believe the image is not encyclopedic, do you suggest removing it from the articles? I also wonder why is your signature seen in red color?Thanks.--Mbz1 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
;
. Of course I realize that you cannot trust me that I saw few geckos (and not just the same one). That's why one more image to share: 
. The thing is these geckos were more afraid of each other than of my arm with my camera. That's why they did not came to the flower together, but they were all over the plant. Here's one more image, which shows more or less complete flower: 
. I do have many more images. Should I upload all of them to Wikipedia? Btw, if somebody is going to Kona and is interested in seeing this behavior I could give exact directions how to find the flower, it is assuming it still in bloom. If it is not, no worries, there's always something in bloom in Hawaii and one could see geckos around flowers like for example this one 
. One more picture of a gecko and an orchid 
. Of course in this situation a gecko probably was not there for a nectar, I believe orchids have none, but rather to hunt for insects. --Mbz1 15:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Puddyglum 19:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Poor lighting. I also agree with Debivort re:not close enough. Waves are all well and good but to illustrate surfing I'd want to see something a bit closer or a different angle. I'm not saying it necessarily should be nominated by I think this (free) image would make a better candidate. And no it's not what you're thinking! It is a better candidate thanks to the much better lighting and composition. This one is also a better option --Fir0002 05:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Support edit3. Nicely framed, encyclopedic, and attractive shot. -- Chris B • talk 23:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose – To a non-mathematician the algorithm is non-obvious and the colouring is utterly confusing. Just use three colours, one for the number used is the current step of the sieve, one for non-primes and then one for primes. And highlight clearly you start fron n2 when using n in the sieve by making the number flash or something. Centy – – 22:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Neutral: adjusted caption, added links. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)
Support Edit 1 Lovely scene in terms of colours - interesting subject and technically pretty good. The only slight criticism is with the composition - the beak of the OOF tern in the background makes the main tern's beak look fuzzy as if it had been blurred around the edges. Fixed noise issues in my edit. --Fir0002 00:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
.
Support. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
;
;
;
. --Mbz1 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
![[3]](/en/Image:Golden-Mantled_Ground_Squirrel%2C_Mount_Rainier%2C_July_2006.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](/en/Image:Tree_lion_2.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](/en/Image:Dendroica-petechia-001.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](/en/Image:Wattled_Plover_Mara_edit3.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
