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

Budgerigar diagram

Reason

Good SVG, which we rarely have for nominations, so I thought this budgerigar diagram would be a good nom.

Articles this image appears in

Budgerigar

Creator

ZooFari

• Support as nominator --ZooFari 02:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The text is pretty small in the thumbnail version present in the article. Can you increase the size a bit? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. Still not good enough for display here, but good enough for the article. That's as big as I can make it to prevent crowdness. ZooFari 03:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Support. Illustrates the subject in a way that provides oodles of encyclopedic value.Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Neutral, pending clarification. I'm no longer convinced that this has been labeled properly. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See description page for references. ZooFari 00:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Spelling should be "cheek" with a double e. Generally a bit low on useful information, e.g. sexual parts not labelled (cloaca). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling fixed. I've added it as "Vent" based on other sources, but it's the same thing as a cloaca. ZooFari 00:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Unless there is a separate size given for captive individuals then I think the scale is off. The article says: "Budgerigars in their natural-habitats of Australia average 18 cm (7 in) long". This is 8.5in vertically implying 9.5in or so along the body. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used relative size both inches and centimeters. ZooFari 00:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Quite low on encyclopedic value IMO. Nothing is labeled that I wouldn't be able to figure out for myself easily enough. I also don't see the need for a labeled illustration, a labeled photograph would be more informative (not that I'm saying we need a labeled anything). Finally, the illustration is merely decent and lack "wow" power to be featured.--Remurmur (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The label line for the ear coverlets seems to be thicker than the other lines. Also, we probably shouldn't be using inches on an anatomy diagram. Otherwise looks great. Kaldari (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. ZooFari 00:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, given the large number of unresolved concerns above. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Struck because immediate problems have been addressed, more EV added. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note more labels added. ZooFari 00:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Erm Wing pigments? That's not an anatomical feature. I can only guess that maybe you abbreviated too much? A pigment is colored chemical. I'm not even sure that the wing pigments would be any different from pigments anywhere else on the body - it implies that the color would also be different. If that's what you meant to say, I'd like to see a reference, as my experience says that the colors of the wing are the same as the back of the head and neck. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I thought it was redundant anyways. I used "Secondary flight feathers" in place. ZooFari 02:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, not loving this at all. Don't like the diagram itself, and I'm not seeing much value in the annotations. Compared to another anatomy diagram or another parrot, this is severely lacking. J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bird anatomy diagram. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ Milburn: A snail tends to have more exotic features especially since your example includes the interior as well. I don't understand your point in the second example of the lorikeet, but I suppose this diagram could have more. @ Papa Lima Whiskey: Thanks for sharing the diagram. It's unsourced though but I would definitely include some of those labels. Some are redundant though (like the belly) so that's why my image seems to lack more features than the bird anatomy one. ZooFari 22:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would prefer "abdomen" over "belly", although I agree it's not an absolutely necessary label - neither so is "flank", probably, but I think there's some artistic freedom in those kinds of things. What I do wonder, though, is whether "visible" is redundant. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well there's "hidden" feathers beneath the second layer. ZooFari 15:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micrantheum serpentinum

Reason

Quite a rare plant. Only found in a few places on the West Coast of Tasmania (and the botanical gardens). Not many images of this genus or family.

Articles this image appears in

Micrantheum serpentinum, Micrantheum, Caletieae

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A scale would help. Thanks (also for the comment on my talk page). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Illustrates the subject well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite nice work! Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 09:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not much wow perhaps, but good enough. --jjron (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Micrantheum serpentinum.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Westertoren, Amsterdam

Reason

The quality is there. I'm not certain, if you'll agree with me on the EV. The picture doesn't fully depicts the tower, as the base is missing. This somewhat limits the EV. The reason for not depicting the whole tower is, because otherwise the base would be obscured by trees and other sorts of objects. This would only reduce the esthetics of the image, without adding valuable information to it. I personally also think, that the tower look better isolated against the sky. To compensate this loss, I've made a close-up with a whole lot of detail. As for you who think: "Why didn't he just made a shot of the tower and the church?" It is impossible to get them both in one picture and a FP of the church itself is impossible (no good viewing point available). The tower is tilted and this image accurately depicts this tilt. I was somewhat surprised to find, that this tower doesn't has its own article. Over here the tower is often seen as an entity of its own, because it's among others made famous through songs, paintings, etc..

Articles this image appears in

Amsterdam and Westerkerk

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Any reason you chose not to center the tower in the frame? Kaldari (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it improves the composition. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks kinda awkward. --Muhammad(talk) 02:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. I think it would look much better centered. Kaldari (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a different crop. The tower is now centered in the frame. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose until the tilt is removed (or is that tower leaning IRL?),and the awkward (I second Muhammad here) composition is changed. Some subjects just work better centered (like symmetric ones for example). --Dschwen 21:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a new version with the tower centered ten minutes ago.... As for the tilt..as I said in the above text, it is accurate. How do I know this: 1. I've made this picture with a tripod containing a water bubble from a flat surface. 2. After making the picture, I compared the image on my DSLR with the real tower. 3. After processing it through Photoshop, I compared it with images of the tower available on Google. I know it's an awkward tilt, but it's as it is. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. Beautiful colors, acceptable resolution (a bit too much downsampling though). A bubble hardly has a precision of more than one degree (has it?). But you are right, on second look it is pretty straight. The perspective (slight side view) threw me off. --Dschwen 21:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on third look, it is crooked. And what's worse it seems to be bent (the top is leaning further than the bottom part). Stitching goof? --Dschwen 21:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you're right, it is bent. And this is not a stitching error. I also noticed it when photographing the tower (forgot to mention it in the above section). Seriously, the only explanation I can think of is, that every part of the tower is tilted in its own manner (which I have encountered before in other towers, see Dom Tower of Utrecht) Use the word 'Westertoren' with Google and take a look at the images. The second one is of a decent resolution and also shows this bend. Another way of inspecting the tower is by inserting 'Westertoren' in YouTube and click on the second link. This is a movie from 1934, which also shows the bend (only from a different viewing point). An even better movie is 'Brian & Graham, Amsterdam 2009 (Westertoren)' a few clicks down. Anyhow, I think you get my point ;). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Avala (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Behind the crown appears to be a large line sticking out-is this part of the tower or(as I believe it to be)a handily placed plane trail? Lemon martini (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a flagpole. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. An interesting and well presented view of the tower, bends and leans and all. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:WestertorenAmsterdam.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barn Owl in flight Tyto alba.

Reason

rare moment and encyclopedic value

Articles this image appears in

Barn Owl

Creator

Luc Viatour (talk)

• Support as nominator --Luc Viatour (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While the image is of a reasonable size, the owl only makes up a small part of it, and since the EV for this image is based on its illustration of the Barn Owl, that's a reasonable requirement. Even with a generous crop it would push size boundaries, and the owl is rather blurry. I do appreciate the difficulties in capturing a bird in motion, and it's a good photo, but unfortunately not FP worthy in my opinion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esplanade Avenue in New Orleans, 1900

Reason

It is an excellent image depicting one of the most famous avenues in New Orleans during the very early 20th century. There are many interesting things about this photo. First, the trees are painted white for reasons that are greatly debated amongst historians. The two prevailing arguments are either that they were painted white for better vision during night, or that it is actually some sort of insect repellent to keep the bottoms of trees from becoming rotted. Secondly, a streetcar is seen coming in the distance, with the four people in the foreground obviously waiting for it. This encompasses and epitomizes all that is New Orleans, even 110 years ago. Third, the buildings in the photo still stand today (http://maps.google.com/maps?cbp=12,304.77,,0,-5.2&cbll=29.965140,-90.062643&ll=29.965140,-90.062643&layer=c) and the image serves as an excellent comparison to how the city looked then and now.

Articles this image appears in

New Orleans

Creator

Detroit Publishing Company photo via Library of Congress website

• Support as nominator --Gonk (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now, the image is used to illustrate a section of the article titled Twentieth century but apparently was taken in and depicts the 19th century (the last day of which was December 31^st 1900). Wouldn't the image have greater value if some of the above information were included in an article or at least the at the image description page? Guest9999 (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't the last day of the century Dec 31st 1899? I'm sure I celebrated the first day of the 21st Century on Jan 1st 2000, and thus Jan 1st 1900 would be the start of the 20th Century?! Or was I celebrating a year too early?! Gazhiley (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I agree with you that the definitive turn of the century didn't come until January 1st 1901, I feel that the common belief (especially amongst people who don't know the exact science behind) is that most consider the beginning of the 20th century to be January 1st, 1900. It is this reason why I don't believe having the photo in the 20th century section is wholly inappropriate or unreasonable. I think there are definitely more people who'd be confused having the 1900 photo in the 19th century section as opposed to the 20th century. Gonk (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an encyclopedia, we strive for accuracy. So I find it inappropriate to follow a misconception, even if it is a popular one. On the contrary, Wikipedia should help debunking this myth. This is a small mistake, easily corrected, but you could justify many bad ideas by saying "people often think this is right". I wouldn't want Wikpedia to go down that slope. Ksempac (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless, images within Wiki articles don't always have to coincide with the section they are placed in. I could post a plethora of articles as examples. As long as the image is in an article to which it's related, I don't see this as an issue. Gonk (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per criteria, the copyright notices have to be removed. This should have been done (or arranged for, if you will) before nominating. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of featured pictures have copyright notices though? Removing would compromise the picture, in my opinion. Gonk (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for compositional reasons. Yet the assertion about copyright notices is a misreading of FP criteria. Wikipedia has historic featured pictures whose copyright notices appear, and it would be somewhat strange and dogmatic to insist upon their removal. All that we require is that an image not actually be in full copyright, which is necessary for legal reasons. Durova³²⁰ 19:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain the compositional issues? No one is really addressing why the image itself isn't up to par enough to be a featured image. The only two real issues here that have been talked about are the placement within the New Orleans article (which I feel is debatable), and the copyright on the image, which plenty of other featured images have and should not be held as reason for opposition against the image. Please, judge the image on its merits as a photo, please. Gonk (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trafalgar Square 360 Panorama Cropped Sky, London - Jun 2009.jpg

Reason

It's about as complete a view of the square as possible, short of a nice angled aerial shot from a passing helicopter. ;-) The resolution is good, there are no (major) stitching errors AFAIK which was surprisingly difficult to achieve with so many people moving around, and although the lighting is a little dull due to the cloudy sky, it does keep the lighting consistent across the 360 degree view - something that would not possible in sunny conditions.

Articles this image appears in

Trafalgar Square

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks a bit over-sharpened at full res, but I can't find anything else to complain about. The lighting is nice and even, the resolution is impressive, and there are no stitching errors, halos, etc. Kaldari (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Pretty well stitched image. I see some issues around Nelson's Column: the whole thing looks to have a halo, there is a minor stitching flaw at the left side of the columns base, and there is a ghost of a girl at the left side of the columbs pedestal. Was any HDR used on this (I ask because of the haloing and noise in the darker areas of the image such as the entrance to the National Gallery) Cowtowner 23:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I was wondering that myself, although I assumed it was from oversharpening with a large radius. Kaldari (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's oversharpening, although it's probably essentially the same thing - local contrast enhancement via the 'clarity' slider in Lightroom. I'm at work at the moment (as per below comments!) so I can't check the settings used or how much juice it was given, but it wouldn't surprise me if the (slight, surely!) halo around the column is due to this. Jeez, it must be 'pick on Diliff for niggly processing issues' week. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey at least I supported on this one ;) Kaldari (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nicely done panorama. I was also wondering, why that girls left of Nelson' Column is fading into the background. A little bit too much shadow reduction for my taste, but that's something minor and a personal taste. Btw, I like the fact that it's an overcast sky (since this isn't always ugly as shown here). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic image... Though me thinks Diliff should spend a little more time working, and a little less time out of his office taking photgraphs myself...  ;-) hehe Gazhiley (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Kaldari. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Trafalgar Square 360 Panorama Cropped Sky, London - Jun 2009.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram of the New York City Subway

Reason

illustrates the New York City Subway concisely and in orderly fashion. A previous version of this map was featured on French Wikipedia.

Articles this image appears in

New York City Subway, Transit map, List of New York City Subway stations

Creator

countZ

• Support as nominator --CountZ (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very nice. I'm a big fan of metro and transit maps, and this is very neat. My only quibble is that some of the numbered streets (149 St, 67 Av) say "St" and "Av", but others do not, and many people unfamiliar with NYC might not understand these are actually street names. Also, "Ave", rather than "Av" is the correct abbreviation of "Avenue". If this can be addressed, I'll support. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Av" is correct in New York. New York street sign; see also the official subway map. I can explain the naming rationale in depth-- but the gist of it is that it's common practice to omit "street" in New York subway maps. See, for instance, this 1939 example, where all "st" markers are omitted, except for those required for clarity's sake. CountZ (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I'm sold on the "Av"/"Ave" thing, but not regarding the omission of "St" "Av". We're (Wikipedia) not trying to replicate, duplicate or repeat stuff from the MTA's terrible map, and I would say that includes their naming quirks. Ours is here to serve as an additional piece of information for the reader of the articles it appears in. These readers may be from anywhere in the world who may never ride the subway or even visit New York. The numbers alone mean nothing to them, especially as "65" is not the street name, "65 St" is.
      With regard to the font discussed below with ZooFari, I read web safe font to try to get an idea of what you are discussing, but it's badly written and I couldn't make much of it. Anyway, for me in FF and IE7, Edit 1 looks like a black smudge both at thumbnail and on the file page, where as the Original looks neat. Also, the type in Edit 1 overlaps with the lines and sometimes itself, making it difficult to read. In this respect, the Original is much better than Edit 1.
      Regarding the actual design of the map, I can clearly see the influences from Vignelli's topological map, as well as Goldstein's earlier map for station connections and X markers for stops, although I think it is an improvement on both. I also prefer it for usability over the Kick map and Brennan's version, and especially over MTA's official geographical design. Your use of keeping the general geographical locations intact also works well for the majority, but it has resulted in a few odd angles such as by Coney Island, where routes D, M and R are at 30-degrees, but N, F, S and Q are at 45-degrees -- couldn't they all be 45? Similar regards for route G between Greenpoint and Willoughby, where I count 5 deviations from what could be a straight line, and route L between Lorimer and Jefferson. For your website and a true passenger alternative, they are better as they are shown now, but for Wikipedia purposes, I think these lines could be straightened out. Also, for Wikipedia purposes only, I feel it might be better to lose the "Late Night Service" box and the many different types of station markers for peak, weekday, nights, weekends, etc, leaving just complete white circles and the grey boxes for connections, because the articles do not go into this much detail.
      As I said, as an alternative to the official map, I would use this map as it is, but with regards to Wikipedia, the more I think about it the more I think there are a couple of improvements that could be made. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      PS, just for clarity, I currently oppose Edit 1 unless someone can explain what improvements the blurry text has made, and my above comments are levelled towards only the Original. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Edit 2 is up. Re: angles. I've tried to stick to 90 and 45 degree angles where possible, but sometimes the geography is such that it's not possible to use 90 and 45 without losing useful detail. New Utrecht (D M) and 4th Avenue (R) run parallel to each other, but not to the rest of the street grid in that part of Brooklyn. The same goes for the L train between Montrose and Jefferson and the entirety of the G train, where it's useful to know the avenue it runs under. Compare with the Kick, Vignelli and MTA maps.
      • Re: station markers. The subway is a complex bird. While the main NYC subway article doesn't have a separate section on service patterns, the individual line articles, like the article on the 2 Train, do.
      • Re: station labels. Edit 2 has the street names fully written out. CountZ (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've just noticed something about the licensing, too. On your website (I'm assuming it's yours and you haven't just uploaded it from there), the same image is licensed cc-by-nc-3.0, but here it is cc-by-sa-3.0. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • License is cc-by-sa 3.0. The map on my website is old. CountZ (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great stuff. Support Edit 2 Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would normally oppose because no text is websafe and the map is unsourced, but since FPC hasn't established good SVG critiques, my vote is going to be neutral. ZooFari 22:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source information has been updated. A version using Arial instead of Helvetica has been uploaded, though I think it's inappropriate to use the edited version, for two reasons. First, browsers don't handle SVG text particularly well. The diagram breaks when the fonts are displayed incorrectly, since the map is so complicated and at times crowded. My copy of Opera shows all of the text from Edit 1 in oversized Times Roman, while Safari renders everything just fine. Second, Helvetica is strongly associated with the subway in New Yorkers' minds, much as Johnston (typeface) is for the Tube. CountZ (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, path seems to be better all the time. Web-safe is still preferred but SVGs have their pros and cons. ZooFari 16:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Informative and eyecatching. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 Fantastic. The street names give it much greater EV, IMO. -- mcshadypl ^TC 17:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 Perfect subject for a transit FP; I was wondering whether this was PD. Durova³²⁰ 19:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 Very nice. The font looks much better now. Extremely related to the topic. --Tangerine!(also known as ashpotter) (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 - excellent map - info looks correct - the NY subway system is extremely complex, yet this map makes it looks simple and clear—Chris!_c/t 00:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose while there are still in-image credits (bottom right). Sorry, I appreciate how much work has gone in to this, but when the photographers can't have in-photo credits, I don't think it's fair that the cartographers can. J Milburn (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, there are some symbols not explained on the key- not certain if it's a major issue, as they are clearly labelled, but the pathways, ferryway, airport, greenspace, water, non-station labels, airport bus, grey areas (it's not immediately obvious what they represent) and the little lines crossing the lines (see brown line around Hewes St, for instance) are not explained on the key. Also, the numbers and letters on the line are meaningless to me- what do they mean? J Milburn (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We may have a precedent set by the Madrid Metro Map, it too has a credit on it. 68.147.59.209 (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York subway services are categorized by color and letter. The color denotes the Manhattan main line: thus, 6th Av is orange, Nassau St brown, etc. Each subway service has its own letter which represents a specific service pattern. Services are referred to by letter, never by color, because of the system's complexity and the wide variety of destinations. So: "Take the N-Q-R-W," never "take the yellow line." When lines share a main line and service pattern, they share a line on the map. So, for the Broadway line in Manhattan, there are three changes. From south to north: Below Canal the R W run local through Lower Manhattan while the N Q go straight to Brooklyn. between Canal and 42nd the line splits into three service patterns: Q (express all times) N (express weekdays, local other times) and R W (local). Above 42nd, the N merges with the R W, as all three lines go to Queens and make the same stops while the Q ends at 57th. This is intended to be a middle ground between Vignelli's "ignore the geography and show every service as its own line" approach and the modern MTA map's geography at all costs approach that ignores how the trains themselves operate. CountZ (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you feel an explanation of that kind of thing is not needed in the image, I will trust your judgement, but I am still strongly opposed to the inclusion of the in-image credit. Surely, it would be better without it, and as it can easily be removed, we should not be promoting it at this time. J Milburn (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed watermark from Edit 2. It doesn't make any difference, I guess, since you're the admin. But watermark removal should apply everywhere-- including to the other featured subway maps of Madrid and Munich. CountZ (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Completely agree- I will tag them as needing watermark removal. J Milburn (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, and support edit 2. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 Out of curiosity, what is the procedure for altering an existing FA like this if, say, the Subway lines change? Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:NYC_subway-4D.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tulip Stamen Tip

Reason

Quite a valuable image in my view. You can see the individual grains of pollen.

Articles this image appears in

Pollen, Pollination, Flower, Tulip

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose This existing FP is a more detailed resource about pollen. As for the stamen, this image doesn't tell me anything about the structure of the stamen, or how pollen grains develop. It just shows what a big mess it is at the end of the day, which is not a whole lot of EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per PLW's reasons, nifty macro shot, but it isn't really giving any EV on the structure of the flower, because it's so macro. The FW picture PLW linked too is great to illustrate the structure of pollen, and this image doesn't illustrate that way, nor can it illustrate the structure of the stamen. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, File:Misc pollen.jpg is not even marginally similar to this in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Questions At what magnification was this taken at? Compared to your other flower pics, why isn't the whole thing in focus? --Muhammad(talk) 10:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5x. Didn't think it was needed. It is already a moderate stack. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I Doubt will get anything better --Muhammad(talk) 02:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Support This is an astounding image. I have never seen a better llustration of pollen in its natural state, as opposed to removed from the stamen and put under an electon microscope, losing all colour detail. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 209 FCs served} 10:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fantastic image per Shoemaker's Holiday. mgiganteus1 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per shallow DoF. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 05:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What difference does it make in the articles? It is already a 17 image stack. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it has a good encyclopedic value, but quality issues must be challenged here too. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 19:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality issues? Noodle snacks (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Pollen can take any color. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lactarius indigo gills

Reason

There simply isn't a better picture of the gills of this unique species to be found on the internet. Not the "traditional" mushroom pose, but it would be difficult to see the gills otherwise. Meets size requirements, nice composition, "wow" factor, and as a bonus one can see "milk" (latex) exuding from the broken stem. Also visible is the hollowness of the stem (mentioned in the species article), further adding to EV.

Articles this image appears in

Lactarius indigo, List of Lactarius species, blue

Creator

Dan Molter at Mushroom Observer

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Atypical pose, slight purple fringing on edges. Otherwise a very striking image and good illustration. Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I thought it was a satellite dish at first. Heh. How big is this thing? My main concern from the pic is that the scale is really hard to judge. It looks huge, from the article, the cap is only 5-15cm across. Also given the poor lighting, like the overexposed edges, and distracting highlights in background, would probably oppose. Very nice, interesting pic though. Stevage 21:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what the size is, but I would have thought the leaves and moss would help give a good perspective. Of course, I'm rather used to looking at leaves and moss, so maybe it's just me... Sasata (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - agonised over this a bit, but to me it has too many defects, the worst of which is probably the huge shadow. And I really just can't get the sense of scale no matter how many times I stare at the neighbouring leaves. Also the out-of-focus broken stem is a pity. Stevage 06:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if this is not the natural pose then is it appropriate to use the natural environment? Guest9999 (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Avala (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, love this image, I feel it is very striking and informative. Lactarius species are known as "milkcaps", so being able to see the gills and milk is extremely useful- especially on such a weird species. It's also currently my desktop wallpaper. J Milburn (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportMaxis ftw (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The over-exposed bits (leaves?) are a shame. —Darxus (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only assume the picture was taken in woodland, probably in dappled light. The high exposure would be needed to stop the subject becoming dark. If I'm honest, I'd never noticed them, and this is my desktop wallpaper :) I don't think they detract from the image, and, if anything, give it a little character. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellent resolution and originality. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 05:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it just me or does this have fairly serious jpeg artifacting? Makeemlighter (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any obvious compression artifacts? I think you may be seeing what I would consider a less then professional quality CCD in the camera visible if you zoom in, but at this high of resolution a reduction in size of the image will make all that vanish and I don't think it's enough of an issue to prevent it from being a FP. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I just thought I'd check before I closed it. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great eye popping example of a rare color for mushrooms. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lactarius indigo 48568.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image with scale

Reason

This image provides scale, which is the most important criteria for any Featured Picture ;P

Articles this image appears in

yard

Creator

Bggoldie

• Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Obvious technical flaws; useless in terms of scale given the perspective and the fact that the image compares various measurements against each other, something that could be accomplished in a diagram with greater accuracy than rusting metal provides. 68.147.59.209 (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not the IP, but I'll take its place because IP's are not allowed to vote. Oppose per above. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am the IP and at the time didn't realize I was not logged in, my apologies for this so to clarify Oppose. Cowtowner 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - No metric equivalents given. 166.77.6.4 (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bad crop and composition. And I agree with the 68.147.59.209 that this could be better illustrated by a diagram. --Muhammad(talk) 00:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because of the angle it was taken from.--Otterathome (talk)
• Oppose Scale not in metric units. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Would be improved by adding scale bar though. Flying Freddy (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per all above. The composition just isn't there, and the lighting is poor. J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kostas Martakis

Reason

Sorry if people are getting sick of these nominations, but I love images submitted by representatives of the subject. After this (viewable only by OTRS volunteers) rather exciting email, we may now be getting a large number of high quality images from Universal Music Greece, which is great news. See also this great image, also of Martakis. The nominated image is a professional quality headshot, very typical of a publicity shot in terms of composition, that shows the subject in a very compelling way. Note that it is also the basis of an album cover. Technically sound, and certainly makes the viewer want to know more!

Articles this image appears in

Kostas Martakis, Head_shot#Entertainment_industry

Creator

Universal Music Greece

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Excessive digital manipulation. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that at first, but after some Googling, it seems his eyes are actually that colour. J Milburn (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • His eye color is completely different in the other image, and I think I can see traces of cloning, but the artificial eyes are enough for me to oppose. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They aren't fake. I think the eye colour is also perfectly natural, going on [1]. It is just a question of lighting. Look closely at the reflections in his eyes. There is one softbox top and slightly right (top square) and another smaller one below and a bit right too. The net effect is a fairly shadowless image, it reminds me of a ring light. I can't speak for cloning, but the light source is very soft, and he probably has makeup on. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really can't say with certainty, but if I had to make a call, I would say it is extremely soft and warm (yellow spectrum) lighting being used which creates enhanced bluishness. Just look at his ears, which are not made up, and there is no reason to digitally manipulate. But I can't rule it out, and I am no expert on these matters. On the basis of the other photos in the article, his eyes are a slightly greener shade than this. I looked at other images on the internet and they seem to bear this out (although most were not such close ups, excepting thisWhat makes his eyes look more fake is that his entire face is heavily made up. Take a close look at the image, and you'll see tonnes of foundation. It hides a nice character scar under his eye, unfortunately.For a pop entertainer like Martakis, makeup is not really a problem as far as I'm concerned. But deliberate manipulation to create an unrealistic effect is. I have too many concerns to support this image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Neutral I love celeb shots as much as the next guy, but I'm pretty sure those eyes are fake. Google-ing him all the advertisements with him and such have him with those eyes, but more casual shots like this show something more normal. I would guess he gets them made up to make better man-candy for ads/promotions. And yes, I would say that's the first time anyone has ever written "man-candy" in an FPC vote. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to neutral because I respect Durova's opinion. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Staxringold. And I know 14 year old boys that can grow a better beard. Cacophony (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The amount of digital manipulation is appropriate for the genre. Quite a good example of its type. If we ever manage to get a George Hurrell in the public domain I'd promote it in a heartbeat; Hurrell's portraits were heavily and masterfully retouched. Let's exercise appropriate discretion per the subject matter in our application of FP criteria. Durova³²⁰ 05:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added the portrait to Head_shot#Entertainment_industry, which (amazingly) was an article that had no illustration at all. One would expect that aspiring entertainers would be elbowing each other for space on that page. Kudos to Mr. Martakis for understanding free culture. Durova³²⁰ 22:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Noodle snacks about the lighting and Durova --Muhammad(talk) 07:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I have to agree with Durova. This is his image, this is what he sells. This is what is plastered on the front of thousands of his albums. In that context, this is the encyclopaedic image, not a candid shot of him showing his eyes are much darker or greener. For the genre and for his Greek music star persona, it's an excellent example. Maedin\^talk 08:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Durova and Maedin have convinced me of the encyclopedic value of this image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Durova and Maedin. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All that the supporters here have said is frankly rubbish as long as the manipulation of the photograph is not acknowledged in image captions, which it currently isn't. Newspapers voluntarily adopted a standard to not let image manipulation go uncommented, and the more serious ones do, in fact, largely exclude it from their reporting. I really feel we'd be falling well short of widely adopted standards of honesty in featuring an image without giving the reader the opportunity to understand that what he or she is looking at is an illusion created by a designer - it's on the same level as the recent debate about how using photoshopped (usually female) models in advertising encourages eating disorders and may yet come to be outlawed in some countries. Relevant recent and not-so-recent news coverage: [2] [3] [4] Our own criteria here at FPC explicitly include the phrase "not deceptive". The criteria allow for "color correction" but not augmentation. For me, there's never been a clearer case that an image should be rejected. And if you're worried that the Universal Music Greece stream of images will come to a halt if this doesn't get promoted, you should never have nominated it. In my opinion, such political motives should never affect the rationality of our decisions: Have we become so un-free as to start pandering to commercial interests? Are we so quick to abandon the free content mission? Wake-up call, over and out. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the Hell are you talking about? You do speak some crap. First of all, we aren't unanimous about whether this has been modified, and, secondly, no one is allowing "political motives ... affect the rationality of our decisions". I'm not even sure if the uploader or the person who contacted me from Universal Music Greece are aware of this discussion- I didn't tell them. I nominated this because I think it is a high quality image, of a type underrepresented on Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that if this is accepted, and if this has been modified, the caption needs to say so. —Darxus (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only political motives that appear to be visible here are those of the individual who makes accusations of "pandering to commercial interests". If the business community perceives advantages to free licenses, why shouldn't their submissions merit an equal footing with everything else? When US Government public domain material gets nominated we don't "pander" to a federal bureaucracy; we review content. Durova³²⁰ 22:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have criteria (link), which remain as clear as before on the matter of color-manipulated images. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Mainly for its use in Head shot. Not a fan of heavily photoshopped images for biography articles. Kaldari (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:MARTAKIS1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extermination of Evil Tenkeisei

Reason

This is a high resolution image of a National Treasure of Japan.

Articles this image appears in

List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)

Creator

unknown (uploaded by Bamse)

• Support as nominator --bamse (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. I've expanded the caption to enhance EV. Brand[t] 17:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very striking artwork. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 22:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Extermination_of_Evil_Tenkeisei.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bengalia sp. in Bangalore

Reason

Good quality, EV, lighting.

Articles this image appears in

Bengalia. Could also be used in Calliphorinae since it shows a living specie.

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 15:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. In spite of depth of focus issues I love the color and composition. Good enough for identification purposes. Durova³²⁰ 15:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The focus issue isn't very big, the parts that would logically be out of focus are and the important parts are in focus. It wasn't focus stacked (or at least not much?) but at least the proper part of the fly was in focus. Not really an issue I don't think. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, its not stacked. I have been drinking too much tea and coffee lately, can't manage to hold the camera still. --Muhammad(talk) 17:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as above. Not your best, but still a great picture. J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Why not add a scale bar to the image? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless the lens is set to 1:1 it is hard to do so without dubious accuracy. My guess is this one is bigger than that. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what's your take, Muhammad? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, an accurate scale is possible for this one but I am just not sure about this scale stuff now. Sometimes I get opposed for inserting a scale and sometimes opposed for not inserting a scale. Let's figure this out first. --Muhammad(talk) 17:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Durova. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellent detail and set of colors. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 05:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bengalia sp.jpg--Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 23:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Mack

Reason

Connie Mack managed the Philadelphia Athletics baseball team for 50 seasons and was the only Major League Baseball manager to win consecutive World Series championships on separate occasions (1910-1911 and 1929-1930). This happens to have been taken between the 1910 and 1911 championships. Restored version of File:Connie Mack.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Connie Mack (baseball), History_of_the_Oakland_Athletics#The_First_Dynasty_and_aftermath, Oakland Athletics managers and ownership

Creator

Paul Thompson

• Support as nominator --Durova³²⁰ 05:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Has a focus issue with his face, half of his face (Front half) is out of focus. Likewise the very weak contrast in his eyes makes this picture creep me out to a very high degree. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's a man with pale blue eyes and a bright sky reflecting on the iris. Bright sunlight produces about the same effect on my own eyes. I'll see about tweaking the focus a little more. Durova³²⁰ 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand why it's low contrast for his eyes, just had to point out when I look at it it creeps me out. :P — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I also immediately noticed that the center of his face is out-of-focus. -- mcshadypl ^TC 17:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Though the center of the face is slightly out of focus, I like the look of him not just staring into the camera, and instead looking past it (presumably to the field). The restoration is quite good, and the EV is certainly very high. NW (Talk) 21:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Despite his face being out of focus, the restoration is good, when not viewed at full resolution the focus is excusable. Considering that we are unlikely to find a superior image of the subject I would be willing to overlook the flaws. Cowtowner 21:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support, per Cowtowner. Non reproducible, still of high quality (in everywhere except the nose), very high EV, and draws the reader in to the page. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. (unrelated to nom: Mack has the most untouchable record in all of sport. A manager would have to lose 100 games a year for 40 years to pass his loss total) Cacophony (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Cowtowner. Nice to see you took this one up, Durova! Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, added to Oakland Athletics managers and ownership.

Promoted File:Connie Mack3.jpg--Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 00:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Rushmore

Reason

EV is high for both articles, image has been improved since its previous nomination. Original image is here, previously nominated image is here.

Articles this image appears in

Mount Rushmore

Creator

Dean Franklin

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner 00:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support Awesome image. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Good enough until a better one comes by. Also a nice touch to feature the lead image in a featured article (not that that affects my !vote). upstateNYer 03:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm really not sure about this one. Noise in the sky and blurry foreground; we have an existing FP of the subject, and probably several in the past. In terms of TFP, I'm sure this has been featured before, promoting this image may offer little value to the encyclopedia as a whole. Given that it's not really amazing, as UpstateNYer has also acknowledged, I see no strong reason to feature this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC) (in fact, just check Talk:Mount Rushmore to confirm that it's had oodles of exposure on the front page)[reply]
  • Taking it from the top; admittedly, the foreground is not as sharp as the rest of the image, it is also not of the same importance. Noise in the sky, again, same deal for me. Though I'm not sure what TFP is, the fact that it has been perhaps shown on the front page and previous versions have appeared prominitely in project before doesn't strike me as a reason not to feature it. On the topic of the other featured picture, I think it's quite safe to say that the two are distinct images (the currently featured image seems to have it's EV primarily vested in Air Force One). This is especially true in light of the multitude of featured bird and insect pictures which have truly striking similarities 68.147.59.209 (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • As a clarification, I am the IP who posted the above, my apologies. Cowtowner 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support - nice and sharp, great lighting - but would prefer a tighter crop. The rocky outcrop on the very right is particularly distracting because it looks like another face (or am I the only one). I'd take a bit off all four sides Stevage 06:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The saturation of the sky in the nominated version is 176 - an increase of 25% over the original's 140 - without good reason, since the original saturation looks quite good at the same exposure bump - see uploaded alt. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original: Based on PLW's comments. The oversaturation of the sky is unreasonable, unnecessary, and looks very poor. Maedin\^talk 12:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support edit, oppose original I definitely prefer this edit. The first picture had a strong overall contrast that made the monument appear dark, namely throughout Lincoln's face. The edit corrects this nicely. -- mcshadypl ^TC 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• More comments on the edit, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd take the alt over the original. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dean_Franklin_-_06.04.03_Mount_Rushmore_Monument_(by-sa)-3_new.jpg--Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 23:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-country mountain bike race

Reason

A good close-up of the future of men's cross-country mountain biking, focusing on the riders rather than just the bikes. EV is enhanced by the fact the numbers on the bikes reflect the riders' world ranking at the start of the race (#1 wasn't competing for some reason), and the eventual winner (#2) appears to be the main subject. I have also identified all riders on the front row, several of which would probably pass notability requirements. The dominance of Switzerland in this event is clear. Aesthetically, I like the nice bright colours - the blue background complements some of the white uniforms and helmets well. On the downside, the shadows are quite heavy, and perhaps I shouldn't have left half a rider on the right hand side. (I can upload an uncropped version if needed.) And an open (rather than U23) event would have had higher EV - but I wasn't there on the right day for that.

Articles this image appears in

Cross-country mountain biking, UCI Mountain Bike & Trials World Championships

Creator

Stevage

• Support as nominator --Stevage 01:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - this image had potential, but unfortunately the lighting didn't work out. On a different day or a different time of day it might have turned out great, but having the sun at their back and their faces shaded reduces it to below FP quality IMO. Cacophony (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree about the lighting. The framing isn't great either, unfortunately. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood values (change to the combined)

Reason

The image File:Reference ranges for blood tests - by mass.png (thumb below), showing reference ranges for blood tests sorted by mass has been a FP for almost a year now.

However, since then I've also made a combined image of mass and molar concentration (the molar one was considered too similar to, in itself, also be featured). Still, in my point of view, they should be viewed together, not only to get the whole picture, but also because mass values can more easily be translated to molar ones and vice versa by knowing their molar mass. Therefore, I suggest that the combined image should be FP instead of just the mass one.

Articles this image appears in

Potentially any article where en:File:Reference ranges for blood tests - by mass.png currently is on display.

Creator

Mikael Häggström

• Support as nominator --Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not quite as fun as your CT scans, but still encyclopedic and wonderful. Thank you for your dedication to the project. Durova³²⁰ 15:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High encyclopedic value, "eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article". For sections of articles about blood molar values, that's an achievement. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wildly complicated image, but loaded with info. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I believe I supported both (I can't find the molarity nom, though,?). Very clear, accurate based on several sources I own, and detailed. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An impressively informative illustration. Sam Barsoom 04:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Blood values sorted by mass and molar concentration.png --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that this nomination only results in a promotion of the mass/molar concentration picture. If you think that this picture makes the other one unnecessary, please nominate it to be delisted. Thanks :) Makeemlighter (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll nominate the mass-only picture for delisting.Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messier 5 globular star cluster captured by Hubble space telescope

Reason

Wikipedia already features the Hubble's ultra deep field with 10,000 galaxies. How about a star cluster with 100,000 stars?

Articles this image appears in

Messier 5, List of Messier objects

Creator

NASA, STScI, WikiSky

• Support as nominator --friendlystar (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It would be facetious to oppose for 'lens artifacts and blown highlights' I suppose, but it doesn't have the great colour and variety that the Hubble ultra deep field has. Also, there seems to be a blue streak near the bottom. Any idea what that is? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess would be something closer in our solar system moving across the camera's field of vision during the exposure, hubble does use long exposures. I also don't think it is up to par with what we're accustomed to seeing with hubble. It does provide EV for a star cluster, but beyond that it isn't going to win votes for being hubble's best work. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering how incredibly small the field of view likely is in this shot I would guess it is not something closer passing in front of the camera. I don't know what it is though. There is also an orange streak near the top. Sam Barsoom 01:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I have seen higher quality images from this very telescope/camera, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to hold such shots too. Beyond the rays and overexposure you would expect from almost any astronomical shot of this distance scale there is also a graininess that is not seen in other shots of this type. Sam Barsoom 01:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 00:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara

.

Reason

Currently a valued picture. Meets featured article criteria as historically and culturally significant. Described as the "most famous photograph in the world"

Articles this image appears in

Che Guevara, Che Guevara (photo), Che Guevara in popular culture

Creator

Alberto Korda

• Support as nominator --Jakeb (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This has been nominated recently, although unsuccessfully. This version looks a little small, and it would definitely be preferable to remove the outside remnants of the film since it is distracting. -- mcshadypl ^TC 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per mcshady. Far too small (despite the historical value), and I don't really understand the need for the film edges. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose far to small of an image when there is larger versions that exist that can be obtained and the film border needs cropped does not add to the EV. A good high quality scan of this image MAY pass FP standards, but not this version. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Needs crop, size issues. Also not convinced that licensing/ownership is completely sorted (although this is not an oppose reason for me). Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Let me start saying that I also Oppose. I wish someone finds a larger version. It is quite true that the licensing issues of this picture are quite controversial. But since all over the world people use this image I think wikipedia can make an exception with this. Now, about the crop. I do think that leaving this image as it is in this sense adds a high EV to it. The thing is that what it is widely reproduced everywhere is the latter crop showing only Che' without completely showing the shoulders and the rest of the elements. Even the part of the film gives some historical information. For a long time I thought that the picture was just what is everywhere printed. Seen the picture and then the crop enhances the felling that Korda got really lucky that day. Franklin.vp  16:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Che_Guevara_(photo)#Current_legal_status. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Maoshu Appreciating Lotuses

Reason

This is a high resolution image of an important work of art.

Articles this image appears in

Kanō Masanobu, List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)

Creator

bamseKanō Masanobu

• Support as nominator --bamse (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Gorgeous image (are you/others working on a National Treasures of Japan topic, BTW? I remember seeing some other NToJ list over at FLC somewhat recently), but there are various problems including clear scratches (repairable, but there) in the sky, a generally dark tone (I'd be hesitant to 'fix' this too much for fear of changing the artist's intent), and a crop that includes the distracting edges of whatever this was scanned on. I'm always hesitant to do much editing to artwork for fear of altering the art, but the scratches and cropping are clear things that need fixing. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see here. The dark tone might be age as well so I would not want to fix it. The featured File:Shoki2.jpg is similar in tone btw. The stuff it was scanned on is the part to which the hanging scroll is attached. All hanging scrolls have such, it is their natural environment (see Kakemono). The scratches are natural for a paper scroll of such age. It might have been rolled up a couple of times for storage in the last 500 years. bamse (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a 15th century artwork, any retouching of it I think would lower it's EV. It's remarkably well perserved and striking for such an old peice of art. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Not every FP needs restoration. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 22:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and resolution. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Shoemaker's Holiday. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Zhou Maoshu Appreciating Lotuses.jpg --jjron (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Giralda, Seville, Spain - Sep 2009.jpg

Reason

Well, it makes a bit of a departure from the usual ultra high res, perspective-corrected architectural photos that I tend to take, but I found that it was not possible to find any other pleasing position to take this photo from. This is a deceptively tall tower (almost 100m tall, and the tallest in the world at the time it was built), and the small square surrounding it simply wasn't big enough to allow you to step back far enough. This image shows the sort of distortion you'd get if you tried, and the tower would only look worse (more distorted) when viewed in detail. So although it is a somewhat awkward angle, the image has grown on me and I think it is probably one the most aesthetic views of the tower possible given geographical constraints. Other images seem to suggest that this is the case too.

Articles this image appears in

Giralda

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Medium quality (perhaps due the lighting). - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 05:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I want to support this one, I really do, but the colours from the lighting give it an un-natural look - would be better in day light IMO. And although there's not a lot that can be done about it, I really find the angle that everything else in the picture seems to be leaning at off-putting... I know its perspective, not acutal tilt, but it annoys me... Sorry... Gazhiley (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Lighting is pretty good IMO but I find the perspective distracting. Probably one of those subjects of which FPs are almost impossible to create. --Muhammad(talk) 15:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral for now. Weak Support A picture of the tower alone is justified since it is an entity of its own. The quality is not as good as your other pictures, but is sufficient compared with other FP's. The sky is really beautiful. Whether the tower is illuminated or not doesn't affect the EV imo. I don't really like the perspective however and wonder if it is necessary. You're right about the fact that it's impossible to take a decent photograph from the tower up close. But couldn't you have climbed a rooftop of a restaurant for example in a 500 meter radius around the tower (since you have a zoomlens)? Also this view reduces the EV a little since the detail from the top segment of the tower is a little obscured because the tower gets smaller towards the top. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, a rooftop view might have been better, but I didn't have access to a rooftop - I was only there for one night and didn't ask around which had the best view of the tower, or ask whether I could set up my tripod in their restaurant. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I always use Google Earth and Maps to determine in advance from which spot I'm going to take the picture. The fact that you were in Seville for only one day, shouldn't count in assessing your picture ;-). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I definitely agree, but having access to a private building in order to get the best possible view shouldn't necessarily be required for a FP either! Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I changed my vote. This picture does grow on you and the 'WoW' is undeniable. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I looked at this and thought to myself "That's the kind of wow/brilliance within a photo that I enjoy seeing on the Main Page". upstateNYer 17:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: If perspective is well-judged and well-captured to make an aesthetic photograph, it can also sometimes hold a lot of EV. Here is a perfect, and pleasing example, of the perspective of the building, that shows just how tall the tower is, in the position from which most people would be viewing it. Quality and colours seem okay to me. Maedin\^talk 18:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:La Giralda, Seville, Spain - Sep 2009.jpg --jjron (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dusky Leaf Monkey

Reason

Pulled from PPR while archiving. See Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Dusky Leaf Monkey. I think it's worth a nomination here. Not sure what's up with the creator, but I've left him a note.

Articles this image appears in

Dusky Leaf Monkey, Lutung

Creator

Robertpollai

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Cut off - would be better with full shot of animal... It's damned cute though... Gazhiley (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Expecting a full length shot of animals can be too much sometimes since it can lead to an awkward picture and poor composition. That said, the photos is a bit soft, but I still like it and it works well in the articles. upstateNYer 02:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I like it but unfortunately it's full of artifacts and motion blur. ZooFari 02:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Would I prefer a full shot? Yes, but this image is still loaded with EV. I don't see any of the motion blur ZooFari mentions, and the artefacting is minimal IMO. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High Enc Value. The cutoff is unfortunate, but this still illustrates enough of the animal to be highly useful. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F-22 Raptor

Reason

Apt photo of air superiority fighter with nice vapor trails

Articles this image appears in

F-22 Raptor, United States Air Force, Fearswoop, Negative index metamaterials

Creator

Rob Shenk

• Support as nominator --Brand[t] 17:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - It has a very strong EV, fine resolution and very atractive. Does it has a little image noise, or is it just my imagination? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 19:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I did not notice, may be just slight softness but it's fixable. Brand[t] 21:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is something unnatural about it, either it's been oversmoothed or something. Specifically if you look at the edge of the wings to the sky there is something not right going on there. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I suspect the smoothness of the aircraft is the actual smoothness of the aircraft. The background does have some noise, but short of using smoothing tools which would damage the detail in the subject that is to be expected in blue sky. The encyclopedic value seems high and much detail of the aircraft can be seen. I think it adds much to the article. Sam Barsoom 01:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon closer inspection there does seem to be some over-masking at the top and some under-masking at the bottom. See the thin blue edge on the bottom that is not on the top? That is likely what the sky looked like before being adjusted. The over masking at the top looks to have blurred the edge between jet and sky. Just a theory I could be wrong, I am no expert. I still support it. Sam Barsoom 01:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Looks oversharpened, although not in the typical way. Any insights into the post-processing? Kaldari (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masked Lapwing

Reason

Commonly known as a "Plover". Many people don't realise that this bird belongs to a genus of waders. The water and clear look at the long legs is important imo.

Articles this image appears in

Vanellus miles, Vanellus, Charadriidae

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• support suffers from being a little offcentre but otherwise very clear pic.©Geni 12:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great picture. --Carioca (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Easy. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom upstateNYer 17:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is there no easy and definitive way of determining the gender of this bird? Having it as 'possibly female' isn't too helpful-it has to be one or the other :) Lemon martini (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops. The possibly female was intended for the lizard floating about. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Vanellus miles novaehollandiae.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Fort Mason and Downtown San Francisco

Reason

High quality and good EV

Articles this image appears in

Fort Mason

Creator

mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sorry to be late to the party, but it has a fairly substantial tilt. Hopefully you can fix it. Love the person front left righting the boat. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I've just re-checked the image with the grid, and all verticla look very much vertical. Maybe it's looking being tilted is an illusion?--Mbz1 (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks straight to me. The waterline in front of the fort creates a slight illusion of a tilt. Mila, how far does the fort go? Is that smaller building at far right part of the fort still? If not it's possibly unnecessarily wide at both sides? --jjron (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, John. I do not think the building at the far right is a part of Fort Mason. I did the image the way I did to show the surroundings of the Fort. I'll make another panorama from a different set of the images and add it is as an alternative.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either. I'd actually probably go a bit in these between in terms of the crop, but either way it's probably about as good a shot of this as you'd get. --jjron (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Context is good, and that stunning wave on the far right really makes the image. The alt is nice too, but not as nice. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 10:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original as it has a more extended view than the alternative. ZooFari 01:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lower Fort Mason abd Downtown San Francisco.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Bell 212 with Bambi bucket

Reason

Good quality and EV

Articles this image appears in

Bell 212; Helitack

Creator

mbz1

• Support both as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, prefer original. Why does the caption say "...could be carrying a helicopter bucket, a specialised bucket suspended..." and not is carrying? --Muhammad(talk) 13:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question (it is much easier than explaining about 2+2=4 :) ). I'm never sure how to write a caption in English, but because the image was nominated as an image of a helicopter that might or might not carry the bucket I've decided to write it like this. Please feel free to correct it as you belive is right.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Muhammad - I've updated the caption. --jjron (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support alt. Angle and context are far better in alt for mine. However focus looks to be on the bucket and seems to leave the front of the helicopter slightly OOF, which is a little off-putting. Also a shame it wasn't a little higher up to have sky behind the chopper with the rest of the image context, as at thumbnail the chopper gets a little lost in the trees, although it's OK once you go to image page size. --jjron (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, Weak oppose original. --jjron (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt Better EV as it shows the type of situation this would be used in, especially with the smoke rising from the trees behind... And where there's smoke there must be fire, and thus this image suits it better... Otherwise it's just a random helicopter with a bucket... Gazhiley (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both - the original has a better view of the helicopter, the alt is useful for Helitack. We could easily feature both. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 10:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:A fire helicopter with helicopter bucket.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VERTREP Composite Pano.jpg

Reason

A pretty striking composite picture of a vertical replenishment.

Articles this image appears in

VERTREP

Creator

U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 2nd Class John L. Beeman

• Support as nominator --— raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Impressive and dynamic, but apart from just 958 px of height, the ship has an unnatural bend and the three helicopters are cut off. Could be submitted to valued pictures instead. Brand[t] 18:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport Oh, go canvass for your pet ghetto program from the archives. Leave the active candidacies alone. Durova³²⁰ 19:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Huge amounts of Wow and EV. Why canvass for VP when the nomination hasn't even run a day? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 19:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. "illustrating article content particularly well... eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article". Plus, it's over 4000px across; the quality is there. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm under the impression that this is getting support just because it got canvassed for VPC. Anyway, this is as wonky as it gets panorama wise and the helicopter is cut off for most of the stitched frames. Frankly I think that something like File:Verticalreplen 20061120.jpg has more enc, if less wow. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That other image isn't nearly as high EV, it doesn't show both ships, a VERTREP is ship-to-ship, this proposed image clearly shows the processes in a single image. Having a couple of the shots cutting off the helicopter at it's apex isn't that big of a deal imho since the helicopter is still clearly visible throughout the others. And how is the panaorma "wonky". — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps it would be better to request clarification rather than leaping to conclusions. I am a former US Navy Photographer's Mate, after all. The operation being documented here is an underway replenishment--which is one of the most dangerous evolutions two ships can perform. Getting a good shot of a helicopter during vertrep is not easy (I've tried it); but to get as much of the operation as this within a single pano is incredible. Obviously there's distortion; there has to be. I've never seen a composite like this attempted before. Highly encyclopedic, and within the physical constraints of the setting it's quite a photographic accomplishment. Durova³²¹ 18:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully intend to renominate this in a month if it doesn't pass now. This is an astounding image, and, if I mentioned VPC, it's because Brandt acted in a completely inappropriate manner by attempting to shut down an imaghe with a high chance of passing, rather effectively since it led to you opposing over a false controversy. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 05:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to oppose before his comment. I've seen plenty composites of this type, but for birds in flight. I gather it isn't difficult at all provided you have a fairly steady pan, and a camera capable of a high frame rate. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And FWIW Brand did not attempt to 'shut it down', nor did he create the 'controversy'. He could have omitted his second attempted helpful sentence re VP completely, and had a perfectly valid Oppose vote rather than a Comment if he had wanted to. I find the comments directed at him here by both users quite offensive. --jjron (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this debate outside of the vote, this isn't the place for this. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, indeed there is no canvassing or 'shutting down', I just offered another venue if the image does not receive enough support. In terms of support/oppose I still abstain here. Brand[t] 20:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Noodle. --Muhammad(talk) 13:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral per Durova's arguments --Muhammad(talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Noodle. upstateNYer 17:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose Franklin.vp  19:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mostlyharmless hit the nail on the head for me - the minute i saw this i immediately started reading the article... Great picture, and the flaws mentioned are massively outweighed by the difficulty in capturing this process effectively as per Durova. Gazhiley (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the wow factor is incredible on this one for me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let L-410 Turbolet

Reason

Clearly and attractively shows the subject in flight. Good quality. As a bonus, we have very few featured civilian aircraft photographs.

Articles this image appears in

Let L-410 Turbolet, Let Kunovice

Creators

Łukasz Golowanow and Maciej Hypś

• Support as nominator: —Maedin\^talk 20:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment hmm, the cockpit window has a similarity to a certain movie Stevage 12:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm, so maybe it's true what they say about mile-high clubs? Maedin\^talk 12:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On the captain's side of the cockpit no less. Its like road-head, but probably closer to 'sky-head'. ;) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose Support edit Support Edit2 Nice picture, clear and interesting ,if a little dark. Weak oppose though is due to the hand... Once you see it it is very distracting... Can this be edited out in any way? as hand has now been removed, changed to support... Colours much better too, so definate support... Edit 2 much better as must admit didn't notice halo - now you mention it though very obvious! Doh!Gazhiley (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The lighting doesn't do it for me. upstateNYer 17:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 1 Uploaded. --Muhammad(talk) 17:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support prefer edit --Muhammad(talk) 17:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit - it looks good, and is of something we don't have enough FPs of. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose edit 1 Strong halos in the edit, presumably from large-radius unsharp masking. Can you undo whatever step created them? Curves or levels would be a better way to approach this one, IMO. Thegreenj 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support edit 2 Much better, although I'd prefer frontal lighting to the plane being in shadow. Thegreenj 20:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 2 uploaded Can we give this a couple days? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 02:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes, Support Edit 2. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 02:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is getting messy, :-) For what it's worth, I support edit 2 as a definite improvement on the original. I don't mind whether the hand is there or not there, which edit 1 removed, but the halos were too strong for me to support. Maedin\^talk 06:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry! My fault! Gazhiley (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all! It's ok, :-) Maedin\^talk 10:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Do we really want to edit out the hand? It seems misleading. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 17:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another edit added. Please specify preference. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• @Shoemaker: I didn't mean to advocate the removal of the hand. It just looked like a neat challenge. @Makeemlighter/Shoemaker/other closer: As far as I'm concerned, you can just promote edit 2, which seems promotable based on the current !votes. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Let L410UVP-E16 Góraszka 2008 edit2.JPG --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandals for men

Reason

Good quality and EV. We have too few FP of human lifestyle and culture.

Articles this image appears in

Sandal, Bata Shoes

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support why not? ZooFari 17:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Are there any copyright issues we need to look out for? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served}
  • IIRC shoe designs don't have much in the way of copyright protection. The logo could be a different matter. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the logo would fall under de minis or something. --Muhammad(talk) 00:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right. Sorry, but we do need to think these through. Unless someone comes up with a counterpoint, I'm happy to support, but the issue needs raised. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 00:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copyright on clothing is kinda messy. In so far as the sandals are useful articles they are not protected by copyright. Highly ornate sandles might be but these ones probably not since their more decorative features cannont be said to exist independently from what makes them a useful article.©Geni 00:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • They're a brand name, not sure commercial use of this image would be legal. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This image was featured under similar circumstances --Muhammad(talk) 08:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Brand name isn't significant. The test is 1)are they a useful article (yes) and 2)Do they have decorative features that exist independent of what makes them a useful article? (very probably not). Thus not a copyvio.©Geni 09:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, size ten under which scale? Noodle snacks (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indian scale? I bought them in India--Muhammad(talk) 08:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • My guess is that they use the UK scale. Most of the shoes here have four different sizes written on the label. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I measured the sandal's length with a ruler, came up to app 11.5 inches. According to this, that comes to a size 13.5 UK, 14 US and 13.5 Australia. --Muhammad(talk) 18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'd agree with NS. The shoes I'm currently wearing, if I remember correctly are 9.5 and I just measured them at 30cm. The lengths on that site may be incorrect, but I'd say more likely they're using 'internal' lengths or basically the length of the foot they're designed for, not the length of the shoe itself (although if we believe that site there's no such thing as men's size 9 or 9.5 in Aust or UK, which is news to me...). --jjron (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'd be inclined to trust this site more than the other one - it works for my shoes anyway and gives size 10.5 or 11 (UK) for a foot as long as those sandals - so probably about size 10 UK for a foot that fits in comfortably. Time3000 (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment should probably be renamed to something less generic.©Geni 00:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Should possibly run it through a deletion to be on the safe side though. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are no copyright issues with this- see this Commons policy page. J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support then. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 00:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice picture. I think we have very few pictures in this category --Natrajdr (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - nothing special and the image has low EV.--Avala (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A good quality studio shot with decent lighting of a subject that (judging by the article) doesn't have many good photos. I'd say that was special and had good EV. Time3000 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Men's size 10 Sandals.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satchmo

Reason

Jazz trumpeter Louis Armstrong in 1953. Restored version of File:Louis Armstrong.jpg. WP already has one FP of Armstrong File:Louis Armstrong restored.jpg, but we have been known to feature more than one image of an individual when the poses are sufficiently different (File:Queen Wilhelmina & Juliana.jpg and File:Queen Wilhelmina2.jpg, File:Elizabeth I Steven Van Der Meulen.jpg and File:Darnley stage 3.jpg). So this backstage view Armstrong has a substantially different character from the mid-performance shot.

Articles this image appears in

Louis_Armstrong#The_All_Stars, Jazz#Dixieland_revival

Creator

Herman Hiller

• Support as nominator --Durova³²⁰ 16:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A nice restoration, but I don't see the EV in this, especially at Jazz#Dixieland_revival. The current FP was also taken in 1953 and is much more representative of Satchmo than this image, and IMO should replace this image there. Adding to that, the composition of this image is odd given the facial expression and him wiping his face (actually at quick glance it looks like he's slapping himself, an odd image to see in an article IMO). This doesn't really represent him, in the same way a photo of someone giving a speech with their mouth wide open and eyes almost closed due to blinking doesn't represent well. upstateNYer 17:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support I find the reasons above do add EV. That diaper was his trade mark. The expression, although not the one people want to have in a picture for their living room, is very eloquent. Eloquent of the hardship of playing among other things that can also be inferred. Also it is the only picture in the article that shows the lacerations on his lips due to playing.  Franklin.vp  18:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that it also shows the David star that he used to wear!! How much can we ask for encyclopedic value? Franklin.vp  19:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, wow! is that the masonic ring? Can an expert say? If it is, can I double vote for s-u-p-p-o-r-t? I haven't seen so many things said about a person in a single photography! Franklin.vp  19:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No you can't, sorry. Use 'strong support' if you want to add emphasis. Please strike the duplicate vote though. --jjron (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that there is a ring prominently displayed in the current FP also. upstateNYer 21:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I had to go watch a few 1950s Satchmo videos on Youtube to be sure, but this candid shot captures what is a fairly characteristic expression from Armstrong, and the diaper (to wipe away the screeds of sweat he produced) is indeed a trademark of his. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As per above Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 05:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I was going to go with weak support, I wasn't sure that it added enough EV to make it a second FP on the target, but I also agree with the previous comments above that the hidden details in this photo give it enough extra credit that it's worthy of FP status. SirFozzie (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Louis Armstrong2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Spinebill

Reason

I like this photo so thought i'd give it a go. The grevillea it was feeding on in the foreground adds enc. Unfortunately I only had a few hours at the national botanic gardens.

Articles this image appears in

Eastern Spinebill, Spinebill

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not enough res on subject, detail missing. Also, I would have tried to make the eye stand out more in the thumbnail - at the moment the bird could easily be blind. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not crisp enough; also agree with Papa Lima Whiskey. ZooFari 22:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per ZooFari. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855)

Reason

An unusually large infobox nudges this image down several paragraphs below the relevant text. Specifically this illustration corresponds to "Toward the end of November, the weather broke and winter brought a storm which ruined the Allies' camps and supply lines. Men and horses became sick and starved in the poor conditions." Lithograph of wartime conditions published early 1855 shows soldiers transporting construction supplies on their own backs, with a dead horse partially buried in snow by the roadside. Restored version of File:Dead horse.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855)

Creator

William Simpson (artist)

• Support as nominator --Durova³²⁰ 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Placement might need a rethink. It looks like http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/9383/86467894.jpg for me. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, that's much worse than on my browser. Realigned right. Does that solve it for you? Durova³²¹ 02:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does, but someone has since set it to the gallery. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Highly encyclopedic. Now works in my browser (FF3.5). Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Can it be left-aligned and actually included in the article text, or is that what was causing all the trouble above? Currently it looks like a spammed image that is not in the gallery only because it's being nom'ed for FP (i.e. for formatting reasons, it would work better in the gallery). upstateNYer 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a problem caused by the oversized infobox. Durova³²¹ 02:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support In the long run, the article will increase in length and fix the formatting issues. This is a fine illustration. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 17:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Generally pretty and exceptionally encyclopedic, almost makes me want to know what this war was all about. -Ben pcc (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As long as the issue was with the infobox and not the photo. SirFozzie (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dead horse 2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blotched Blue-tongued Lizard.

Reason

Managed to get the blue tongue in the frame, which was fairly difficult as it was only jabbed out for a split second at a time. About 40cm long. I moved it from the undergrowth to some sandstone in order to get the photograph. I often see them where it was placed so enc isn't compromised. Due to the length to width ratio depth of field is a tad thin, despite being stopped down. Nothing important is missing.

Articles this image appears in

Blotched Blue-tongued Lizard, Blue-tongued skink

Creator

User:Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upstateNYer 17:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose DOF compares unfavourably to this congener. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That "congener" does not have the head in focus, or the tongue visible and is unsharp (then oversharpened) across the frame, plus it isn't the same species. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The blue tongue is not enough of a redeeming feature for me, as it's exposed in over 1/3 of the images on Google, as well as congener File:Blue tongued skink NSW Australia.JPG, and the brilliant although not large enough File:BlueTonguedLizard 2005 SeanMcClean.jpg. I think it has to be more than a fleeting blurred flick, and, like I said, the other pictures have higher EV for the blue tongue. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those images are not comparable, that is obvious. There is not much point arguing though. As you seem to be incapable of objectivity. You have opposed 85% ± 5% of my nominations in the last few months. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Was going to weak support, then realised that capturing the tongue is in itself enough to prevent the tail being in focus, unless you focus stack and get really lucky. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 10:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry I know it must have been difficult but IMO DOF is way too shallow. I would prefer a sideview of the species to get better DOF --Muhammad(talk) 13:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt Much better, though no tongue :( --Muhammad(talk) 17:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The image seems to have been removed from the Eastern Blue-tongued Lizard article based on the premise that it was not the right species...? Looks like the right one to me, and based on your ID. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The person didn't remove it outright, rather moved the image to Blotched blue-tongued lizard and changed the caption in the Blue-tongued skink caption. I'll ask the person that moved it what the rationale for the ID change is. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See User_talk:Ozraptor4#File:Tiliqua scincoides scincoides.jpg, had the wrong ID, though I'm wondering about the other image in that article. [5] says that it is the only Tiliqua species here. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the fact that the tongue is shown in the original helps show the namesake of the lizard. Tails should not be as important (in this case). Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 00:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the alt, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose alt Has no composition. The best attribute of the original is its contribution. upstateNYer 03:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of Hurricane Charley

Reason

I believe this is one of the best available illustrations of the destruction resulting from tropical cyclones. Despite its relatively small size, it was recently promoted to FP over at Commons, where it received unanimous support.

Articles this image appears in

Effects of tropical cyclones, Hurricane Charley

Creator

FEMA, Andrea Booher

• Support as nominator --–Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets the criteria. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good image with both specific and general value. I dunno if I could see having one of these as FPCs for every storm, but at least one (with both EVs) is definitely FP quality. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportAlthough how general is it? looks very much like a photo of peak damage.©Geni 21:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I more meant general as it has EV in the overall storm damage article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - High EV, and very original. Not to mention the good quality. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 03:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, not your typical FP, but a good picture. J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great quality, and captures the impact of this storm. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 23:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not to be picky, but maybe the phone number on the one building should be removed? upstateNYer 03:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A good example of an all too typical scene. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Effects of Hurricane Charley from FEMA Photo Library 7.jpg --jjron (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical panorama of Beirut

Original - a panorama of Beirut circa 1867

Reason

This demonstrates an era where panoramic photography debuted, and emphasis on the history of the city.

Articles this image appears in

Beirut

Creator

Maison Bonfils

• Support as nominator --Banzoo (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral for now. This is a tough choice. Such a panoramic image taken during the 1860s is difficult to find, thus the picture's EV is very high. I think that technically the restoration is just not there yet as most parts appear more over-exposed than they should be. Also, perhaps using English titles may be preferable over Arabic to make it identifiable for most people. I'll think about this more. -- mcshadypl ^TC 07:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As I am not an expert on how to evaluate old photography, I used as a reference for comparison this featured picture (around the same age), yet the resolution is less comparable to this one, and with higher exposure problems (I think). I should note too that after further examination, one may notice the significant time interval between each shot (via shadows), which may explain the difference between exposures of each frame. As of Arabic filename, originally it was meant to be used for Arabic Wikipedia, and commons has no official single language. But after finding the other frames, I thought it would be interesting for other Wikipedias too, while the names remain unchanged, but this is of a minor importance, and not part of the evaluation criteria.--Banzoo (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very high encyclopedic value. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have to say that i prefer the not for voting version in this case. There is more visible and the rest of my preference is subjective. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact, I thought about the same thing 5 months ago (with the panorama composed of only 3 frames, if you revise the file history, before getting the hi-res version of the 4th). Anyway, I removed the not for voting label. --Banzoo (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support even with the original stain the picture is of great value Eli+ 19:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. GerardM (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Nice to have old images of important cities... it gives historic perspective[reply]

Promoted File:بيروت القرن 19 أسود أبيض.jpg --jjron (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The burning of Columbia, South Carolina, February 17, 1865

Reason

Currently a VP. Looks great to me and seems to meet the criteria.

Articles this image appears in

Columbia, South Carolina, William Tecumseh Sherman, Columbia, South Carolina, in the American Civil War

Creator

William Waud

• Support as nominator --Pmlineditor ∞ 09:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Changed creator. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The creator may have been Mr Waud, it is a good idea to cherish the people who do our restorations.. GerardM (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lots of spots missing ink, etc. Shoemaker's Holiday nom'ed this at VP for a reason, I presume. I might reconsider my vote if he comments here. upstateNYer 03:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand you right, those "spots missing ink" are the sparks from the fire, and temoving them would destroy the image's intent. Now, I'll admit this is a bit smaller than I prefer, which was the main reason I nominated it for VP. I have a large personal collection of engravings, and you may have noticed that my scans from there are all very large. A bit more would be possible if this were the super-high resolution of the scans I make myself, but, for the more-than-ample size this is, I think this is reasonable. Frankly, I do not have the access to American materials that I do for Britain, since a good amount of what I do is direct scans, by me, from originals. Hence, barring the Library of Congress partnering with Wikipedia, I don't think it's reasonable to expect all featured historic material from America to match what I can do with British stuff using my access to material from multiple British sources. Of course, in the unlikely event that someone finds a better scan, this should be demoted immediately in its favour, but unless that happens, I'm quite happy to Support this. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 08:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good. Support per Shoe. upstateNYer 17:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination. Regarding the oppose comment, Shoemaker's Holiday has an excellent knowledge of period printing techniques and part of his restoration esthetic is to preserve the appearance per the technology as it existed at the time: he corrects post-publication damage but preserves flaws that were inherent to the limitations of the printer's press. This is an intrinsically valid approach and is one of the ways in which our styles differ. Durova³²² 06:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Durova. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sounds like a reasonable argument for inclusion. And an important part of history to spotlight.. Outback the koala (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The burning of Columbia, South Carolina, February 17, 1865.jpg --jjron (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanita caesarea

Reason

Attractive picture, good resolution. Compare, if you like, to the valued picture version of the same species.

Articles this image appears in

Amanita caesarea, List of Amanita species

Creator

Dan Molter at Mushroom Observer

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV --Muhammad(talk) 12:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. If I'm honest, I prefer the one currently valued, but this is of a higher quality and is equally informative. J Milburn (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Avala (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - Unusual picture. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 15:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Amanita caesarea 54730.jpg --jjron (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cantharellus lateritius

Reason

Body shot of an edible chanterelle mushroom. Meets the criteria that I can see, and is high res.

Articles this image appears in

Cantharellus lateritius, Cantharellus

Creator

Dan Molter at Mushroom Observer

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support: Not a particularly interesting picture compared to some other fungal FPs, but the composition is great and the quality is high. J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High encyclopedic value. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no quorum. --jjron (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phallus ravenelii

Reason

Nice image of an unusual stinkhorn mushroom. Shows the important distinguishing characteristics, including the spongy stem, the volva at the base of the stem, and a clear view of the cap.

Articles this image appears in

Phallus ravenelii, Phallaceae

Creator

John Carl Jacobs at Mushroom Observer

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I'm a fan, but what is the E-W streak along the bottom of the tip? upstateNYer 02:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no idea. Sasata (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Sorry, it's an interesting mushroom, and I can certainly see where the family name comes from! But I'm not a big fan of the composition. It seems cropped a bit too tight and there is some strong chromatic abberation. My guess is that the 'streak' is a cobweb lit up by the light. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: I just don't think this one is up to the same standards as our other FPs. I don't like the crop or the composition, and the colour doesn't look perfect either. J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, per J Milburn. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not too bad, but nothing outstanding, not something that deserves to be a featured picture in my opinion. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 15:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Childe Harold's Pilgrimage

Reason

High-quality scan of an early edition of Lord Byron's first major work. This was nominated before, but failed to achieve quorum (for unclear reasons).

Articles this image appears in

Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron

Creator

I. H. Jones

Previous nomiation

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Childe Harold's Pilgrimage (Dugdale edition)

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 21:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High quality and good enc. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Neat. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - we barely owes Byron that much, after all... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Oh my, this is quite nice. I have yet to see a scan that good of something that old. Well done. Nezzadar 18:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Great scan. SirFozzie (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Spencer. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lord Byron - Childe_Harold's Pilgimage_-_Dugdale_edition.jpg --jjron (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Nippon Airways Boeing 747-400

Reason

Good quality and great photo.

Articles this image appears in

Pokémon, All Nippon Airways, Cuteness in Japanese culture, Pikachu, Boeing 747-400

Creator

Denniss

• Support as nominator --Secret Saturdays (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unfortunately 750 × 518 pixels, file size: 62 KB is far below minimum FP requirements. Durova³²⁵ 23:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? for information about what Wikipedia's community considers to be a featured picture. 04:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per size requirements and possible copyright issues. J Milburn (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. Obviously fails criteria. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabonese Chancery building

Reason

It may be small, but t;s beautifully detailed and flawless.

Articles this image appears in

Gabon, Libreville, List of diplomatic missions of the United States , 1964 Gabon coup d'état, 1964 United States Embassy in Libreville bombings, Libreville Hospital, Template:Gabon-struct-stub.

Creator

Maksim

• Support as nominator --Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unfortunately 385 × 288 pixels, file size: 27 KB, is even further below the minimum size requirements. See Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? for information about what Wikipedia's community considers to be a featured picture. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per size issues. J Milburn (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per low technical quality. The image is flooded with light, making it seem blurry and of a generally poor quality. As per Mostlyharmless, I encourage you to read up on FPs. Nezzadar (speak) 19:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. Obviously fails criteria. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willis Towers

Reason

A picture that left me in awe, with great hues and angle also it was chosen as a featured picture by WikiProject:Architecture in 2007.

Articles this image appears in

Willis Tower, Skyscraper, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Tower, Chicago school (architecture), List of tallest buildings in the United States, List of tallest buildings in Chicago, List of tallest buildings by U.S. state, America's Favorite Architecture, Tube (structure), Western culture.

Creator

Soakologist

• Support as nominator --Secret Saturdays (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unfortunately, 500 × 643 pixels, file size: 80 KB, is far below the minimum size requirements. See Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? for information about what Wikipedia's community considers to be a featured picture. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: A fairly nice picture, certainly, but, as above, much too small. J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Small, a bit crooked, and a bit blurry. Other than the small part, a lot like Chicago... Nezzadar (speak) 18:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. Obviously fails criteria. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Generation consoles

Reason

It's a great prensentation of the Sixth Generation video games history

Articles this image appears in

History of video game consoles (sixth generation) and Template:Sixth generation game consoles

Creator

Sega3dmm

• Support as nominator --Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and suggest speedy close I'm sorry but this picture is much too blurry to have any chance at FPC. I kindly suggest you review our FP criteria, and maybe come up with a better picture. Ksempac (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - far too blurry and cluttered background. Your old jeans is not an appropriate image to include in an encyclopaedia article on games consoles. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 01:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per Vanderdecken's reasoning. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 04:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As much as I'd like to support gamming image similar to this, the current one doesn't meet the criteria. Sorry --ZeWrestler ^Talk 04:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. Obviously fails criteria. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura and Moss Pink

Reason

Extremely striking image of Phlox subulata around a Sakura tree in flower. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Cherry blossom, Phlox subulata

Creator

TANAKA Juuyoh

• Support as nominator --— raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very beautiful. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 03:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Pretty, but tree is cut off. Dubious EV. I don't like the lighting, particularly on the ground in front of the tree (the shadow is distracting). Spikebrennan (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As with previous, image is cut off. I am not as opposed to the lighting, but I will note that the Japanese Cherry Tree is common enough that other pictures of it could easily be taken. Sorry. Nezzadar 01:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. A beautiful photo, but I am really not seeing the EV. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Nezzadar (speak) 20:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Clear consensus after 7 days for oppose.[reply]

The Holocaust Memorial at the California Palace of the Legion of Honor, San Francisco

Reason

High resolutin, high EV, great symbolism.

Articles this image appears in

Holocaust Memorial at California Palace of the Legion of Honor;California Palace of the Legion of Honor;George Segal (artist);List of Holocaust memorials and museums

Creator

mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sadly due to Freedom of panorama issues - this statue was dedicated/unveiled post 1978 in the US and therefore it is not covered by freedom of panorama, even if installed in a public place. As such this image must be considered a derivative work. Surprised it wasn't picked up on during its commons FP nomination. Mfield (Oi!) 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Please also see here--Mbz1 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bold claim to say I am wrong so definitely. That discussion is about a different image, and concerns the text on a plaque not this image of the statues themselves. Someone else in that discussion also mentions FOP on the statues themselves. I do not believe I am wrong at all, I regularly tag a lot of US statues on commons and have a good understanding of FOP in the US. Please read Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States which covers artwork. Please point me to a discussion about the image we are actually discussing if there has been one. Mfield (Oi!) 16:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here As you could see this particular Memorial was not found in the registry.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1, have we an equivilent of ((PD-US-1978-89)) on the English Wikipedia? I've done a lot of image work here and a considerable amount on Commons, and I believe I have never come across that... J Milburn (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid, I am not the right person to respond your question. The nominated image was the first one I've ever taken of any statue at all. I had no idea that it could be copyrighed, before the other image from the same Memorial was nominated to get deleted. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that discussion is about the other image of the plaque of text. Text is not copyrightable in the US. This image we are discussing is of the statues themselves. That is a completely different issue. Mfield (Oi!) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the link I provided? Have you seen that statement :

":::I checked the registry. There are 17 titles "Holocaust Memorial", but this one in California was not one of them, so this should be free. Probably even the sculpture that Bastique had linked to. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)" ?[reply]
(highlighted by me)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However that doesn't rule out the posibility that the thing was published with a copyright notice. If it was then it's still under copyright even if not registered.©Geni 20:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More than a months ago I contacted San Francisco art commission (the owner of the Memorial) to find out, if the Memorial is copyrighted, and who is the copyright holder. Up to know they were not able to figure that out. I'm 100% sure that, if the artist were alive, he would have not minded the image kept, and I am 100 % sure that whoever( if anybody) holds the copyrights for that memorial will not mind it either.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Not even getting into the mess above, I support the nomination on it's technical merits, although I caution about the sunburst, as it is not professional and would not fit in most situations. Here though, it works well. Nezzadar (speak) 19:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because of the suburst, regardless of copyright. It doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic, even if it is aesthetically pleasing. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a sunburst. It calls crepuscular rays and those rays are very much encyclopedic on their own. There is also solar coronae that is slightly overexposed. It is not reflection from my lens. It is all natural phenomenon. IMO in that particular image the rays and coronae add greatly to the symbolism of the place. The only standing man is in the light, the bodies are in the shadow. The standing man still has some hope. The rays gently touching the bodies picking up the souls of innocent victims. I could have taken a "normal" good quality image of the Memorial, but IMO the place is so special that the image should be somehow special too. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. FOP issues aside, I don't think this is a good picture at all. The subject is not well framed. The lighting is uneven. The crepuscular rays distract heavily from the subject. Mbz1's interpretation that they give hope reminds me of this recent nomination. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never said the rays are giving hope, and I do not think your edit summary was polite. IMO it would have been much better to simply say "oppose". Thanks--Mbz1 (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose too much sun. In the picture the sun is the main character. The memorial just seems to be there incidentally. also it is hard to know if relevant parts of the memorial are being cut off the photo. What is at the right of it? I mean, I am not asking, it is the picture the one that should say.  Franklin.vp  14:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really belive I would have cut off the relevant parts of the Memorial? There's nothing to the right.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wihdraw my nomination--Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pentatoma rufipes

Reason

a high resolution photo, good DOF and a good composition without focus stacking from a living bug.

Articles this image appears in

Pentatoma_rufipes, de:Pentatoma_rufipes, ...

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Picture is whitewashed by the bright light. Also, only one page, so low EV (pages in other languages don't count because this is FP for English WP. Nezzadar (speak) 20:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arilus cristatus

Reason

High res, good DOF, good EV, decent lighting and composition. This is a hand-masked focus stack of two images. The alternate is a non focus-stacked image (I had to sacrifice composition to get it all in the focus plane though).

Articles this image appears in

Wheel bug

Creator

Kaldari

• Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Harsh lighting on both. Taking ISO upto 800 is usually good if you dont have a complex flash setup. --Muhammad(talk) 12:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first picture is only natural light. Probably should have used a flash to offset the direct sunlight, but I have a harder time stacking images with flash (the lighting never seems to be exactly the same). The second image used a flash which helped some with the lighting, but the ivy leaves were just too glossy I'm afraid. Kaldari (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's never a good idea to shoot in direct sunlight without flash. You can manually adjust the lighting in PS. Done it numerous times. --Muhammad(talk) 19:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally I'd shade it, then do what I wanted with the lighting. Some insects dislike that though. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Alt1 I agree with the light. Alt1 is terrible in that respect. Neutral on original. Nezzadar 18:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support original, Weak support for Alt (if needed). Our standards for insect pictures are going ever upwards, and that's a good thing. Nevertheless, I think that the original here is a featured picture, in both encyclopedic value and in quality. The lighting is a little harsh, but nevertheless the insect is still extremely clear. The encyclopedic value is undeniable. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Fog

Reason

High quality, good EV

Articles this image appears in

San Francisco fog; San Francisco; Fog

Creator

mbz1

• Comment I will appreciate, if somebody corrects my English in the caption. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- good EV and quality. ZooFari 23:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd prefer the panorama though - more clue that it is San Francisco. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per ZooFari. --DsMurat^talk 20:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great example of fog. And the GG Bridge is a hint at it's San-Fran-ocity. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellent angle and lighting. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 15:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:San francisco in fog with rays.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tazawako

Reason

Gorgeous image showing nature and a traditional style of Japanese housing.

Note: Creator is recently deceased so will not be able to respond to questions or requests.

Articles this image appears in

Lake Tazawa, Akita Prefecture

Creator

Fg2

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 18:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Could the image description be updated? I believe the picture shows the Kansaku Shrine, but I am not sure. bamse (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Kaldari (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, to me the focus of the image is on the shrine rather than the lake and the shrine isn't discussed - or even mentioned as far as I can tell - in any of the articles the image is in. Guest9999 (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Image has poor focus on full zoom, contrast issues (too bright), main focus is crooked (although that may be the alignment in reality.) There are many better pictures of Japan. Nezzadar 01:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poor sharpness for such a low res print. Not loving the composition either... Might have been nice to see more on either side of the house. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Meh sharpness. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - A little blurry. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 15:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]