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

Water pollution

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2012 at 18:15:01 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV and quality

Articles in which this image appears

Water pollution, Lake Maracaibo

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other

Creator

Wilfredor

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Support alt. Tomer T (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original The image quality is there, but I dislike the composition. I would expect an image featuring water pollution to give slightly more context to the debris. Jujutacular (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added an alternative. Is that what you mean by more context? Tomer T (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is better, although it still doesn't seem quite there for me. I can't really put my finger on what would make it better though, so I abstain on the alt. Jujutacular (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High quality and much EV.Alborzagros (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose agree with Jujutacular that more context would add to the EV. Pine^✉ 05:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Jkadavoor (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt: it could provide more context that that, but that would be a fundamentally different picture: the two could co-exist. This one tells us quite a lot about the nature and volume of water pollution on Lake Maracaibo, which, given what it shows must be a central part of an article on the lake.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Alt better context, though more would be even better. Focus is slightly off. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The view feels too arbitrary in both. Would be improved with a wider angle of view or a larger panorama, catching more of the shoreline, a longer length of debris, and the bank, so that it's a composition instead of a snapshot. Julia\^talk 19:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SEATO

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2012 at 13:44:48 (UTC)

Reason

Has a free license, good quality image, has an encyclopedic value.

Articles in which this image appears

Ferdinand Marcos, Harold Holt, History of the Philippines, Keith Holyoake, Liberal Party of Australia, Old Congress Building, Manila, Park Chung-hee, Southeast Asia Treaty Organization

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

White House Photo Office/Frank Wolfe (Uploader: Shika ryouse shomei)

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^talk 13:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Oppose Bad framing, A few unnecessary people at blow-right of photo, unseemly background and resolution is disapproving. Alborzagros (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose good EV, but seems noisy in a way that suggests a low-quality digitization of the original photo. Pine^✉ 05:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed: this looks to me like it was scanned from a print, not from the negative. Chick Bowen 15:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support: I agree with some of the above, but I would factor in a lot more significantly the fact that this is historical photograph (given the people there, I think it might be the only meeting with this ensemble); historical images scanned from prints are far more acceptable than modern versions of the same. The setting is reasonable – OK, so there are people to the right - but I don't think they distract and it's still nice to have a photograph that sets the leaders in the context with the flags. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Mahal

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2012 at 04:30:56 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, EV, resolution of a well known structure. Image has been stable in the article for a few months now

Articles in which this image appears

Taj Mahal, Agra, Tourism in India ...

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 04:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We already have a FP of the Taj Mahal, File:Taj Mahal in March 2004.jpg. Maybe a delist and replace would be better. Spongie555 (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's go on with nomination. If this passes, we can delist the older one --Muhammad(talk) 13:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If only it worked like that. J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As one of the most photographed buildings in the world, this isn't as remarkable as it needs to be IMO. It looks nice and crisp at 100%, but it should do given how heavily downsampled this 9MP appears to be. The alignment and symmetry is very good, though I'd crop a little off the left to remove that bit of tree and balance it. The outer towers appear slightly distorted (e.g., the brickwork horizontals aren't horizontal) which may be a result of the wide-angle of view or perhaps they really are a little bit wonky. That's a minor point. However, the sky is boring and pale, the midday lighting far from flattering, and the water feature is horrible brown. Compare the best images online, which are taken in dusk or dawn light (quieter too), perhaps with atmospheric mist or with clouds adding interest to the sky, or at least a rich blue sky, and, most spectacularly, with a gloriously symmetrical reflection of the building in the still clean water. Colin°^Talk 19:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blieusong (below) suggests comparing what is on wiki rather than just elsewhere. Looking at Category:South side of the Taj Mahal:

• File:Agra0596b.jpg has lovely dusk lighting and reflection.
• File:Morning view of the Taj Mahal, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India.jpg has lovely morning light and reflection.
• File:Agra01.jpg has golden light and reflection.
• File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0009.JPG captures the 3-d convex and concave.
• File:Monsoon in india.jpg has a dramatic sky and lighting.
• File:Taj Mahal 2002.JPG has excellent symmetry reflected in the still water.
• File:Taj Mahal Front.JPG has a good but not perfect reflection.
• File:Taj Mahal of Shah Jahan.jpg has lovely lighting and reflection.
• File:Taj Mahal, Agra, India-23Feb2007.jpg captures it from another side, with reflection in the river.
• File:Taj Mahal reflection on Yamuna river, Agra.jpg shows the scope for artistic opportunities.

Many of those are much more atmospheric pictures with more interesting composition and take advantage of the water feature (rather than it looking like a health hazard). But they often don't stand close scrutiny at 100%. They aren't stitched downsized images from a professional DSLR. They show what any tourist can do with a compact camera. They have other flaws too, though many look great at screen size. So compare File:Taj Mahal N-UP-A28-a.jpg for a photograph of just the building. That 37MP image is over 2x larger, is just as sharp, and shows much more detail (one can see the mesh of the door "windows", the people's faces, etc). The lighting much better too. There's no distortion of the towers. I think that is a far finer picture of the building itself. The above also shows the gardens but really doesn't do them justice, with the brown water. Colin°^Talk 12:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Every picture has its benefit over others (though some are questionable to me) but overall the current candidate is still what wiki has best in stock to me (as far as I have looked). I'm also not fan of the stitching + downsampling combo in the spirit, but who cares? The result is good, and that's what we review (we review more results than what hardware + process was used right, do we?). Last picture is nice, though without context, and less properly centered. Feel free to nominate... You are a bit overrating the distortion issue, which comes with every wide enough view, but frankly, it's not that big a deal!! A picture of the London metro station of yours has much more distortions... (But I like it a lot!) - Blieusong (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposing the stitching + downsampling where there's no real loss of detail -- it does produce very nice results. I said the distortion was a minor issue: sometimes it is worth pointing these things out in case it can be fixed. The other picture managed to achieve a distortion-free result, but I've seen others too with the same problem. My main issue is that this is what many people regard as one of the wonders of the world, taken at what most scenic photographers regard as the worst time of the day, and rather than the water feature adding wonderfully to the scene, it repulses. I linked pictures above not simply to compare one image against another, but to show that a passing tourist with a compact camera can take a more beautiful picture. This isn't the sort of scene where you need to hike up a mountain and camp out in the snow to achieve. It isn't an obscure beetle but the subject of tens of millions of photographs (Google Image). For the article lead, I'd say File:Taj Mahal 2002.JPG, a picture taken 10 years ago and missing the outer towers, is a far more beautiful image, though it doesn't reward examination. We all have our own tastes. So let's see where others vote. Colin°^Talk 18:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Colin Mediran ^talk 02:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support First it appears downsampled. But resolution is big enough for most uses I can think of. The numerous tourists are not so welcome to me either, but I guess this is how a very famous iconic touristy place will look most of the time. I believe to have spotted a tiny stitch error on the left bottom part of the building. But overall, it's detailed, nicely exposed, centered and (presumably) stitched. Since Colin compares this work with what can be found elsewhere, this may not be best material on the subject, but it seems to be among the best we can find on wiki. And to me, it's very attractive. Better that than a not so attractive depiction of a subject, even though it's best material we can found on it (cf. bug nom below). - Blieusong (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for talking sense unlike some reviewers here --Muhammad(talk) 17:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose People are strolling in FP! Alborzagros (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hope you have other reasons for ur oppose ;-) - Blieusong (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Former picture is better. The lighning is not so great and the angle not so centric.--Kürbis (✔) 14:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The sky looks off with parts blue and others like they have smoke. Not happy about the minaret distortions either. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose due to the minaret distortions mentioned by Saffron Blaze. It's a pity because I appreciate the level of detail in this pic. Pine^✉ 05:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose though I claim File:Taj Mahal, Agra, India edit2.jpg is the best we have available. (Full disclosure: I helped make some edits, mainly to the color.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Jkadavoor (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patton Oswalt

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2012 at 02:00:02 (UTC)

Reason

Has a free license, good image of Patton Oswalt.

Articles in which this image appears

List of Phi Kappa Tau members, List of SpongeBob SquarePants guest stars, Patton Oswalt

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Gage (Gage Skidmore)

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^talk 02:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't like that much of his mouth is covered by the mic, and there is much chromatic noise. Tomer T (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose non-technical lighting. Alborzagros (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A good free image of a living person, but then ...? Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Image only adds measurable EV to the subject's bio. Poor composition with the mic. Very noisy. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pyracantha angustifolia

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2012 at 09:14:17 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, nice framing and angle in terms of composition and EV, adding much value to the article. Fair quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Pyracantha angustifolia

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits

Creator

JLPC

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A branch of fruit at top-right is blur and unclear. Alborzagros (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose focus problems throughout the image. I'm sure that someone can get a better picture of this subject. Pine^✉ 04:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose poor image quality. High ISO wouldn't have been necessary at wider aperture. Focus is way off. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endeavour silhouette

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2012 at 20:15:06 (UTC)

Reason

Striking photo of a space shuttle straddling the stratosphere and mesosphere

Articles in which this image appears

Stratosphere, Mesosphere, Troposphere, Atmosphere of Earth, Space Shuttle Endeavour, STS-130

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Getting there

Creator

NASA/Crew of Expedition 22

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 20:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Don't see any major technical defects. EV is good. Dusty777 01:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mediran ^talk 02:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Although that's got much EV, I don't see enough quality in that. Alborzagros (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support And add to my collection of rotating wallpapers on my desktop - Beautiful image, and can never be taken again... gazhiley 10:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For the sake of clarity and scientific accuracy, care should be taken in captions to avoid the impression that the Shuttle is actually located at the boundary of the stratosphere and mesosphere when the picture was taken, rather than simply being between the camera and the boundary when the photo was taken. (Endeavour would have been about 200 km above the stratosphere-mesosphere boundary, at approximately the same altitude as the ISS.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted the caption. Pine^✉ 21:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support image has tremendous EV. Two technical drawbacks that I notice are the bit of noise and the fact that the shuttle is blurred at full res. Now, this being a shot that will never be able to be taken again, that the noise is not that big of a problem, and that they are going thousands of miles an hour (a little motion blur is expected), I say it is good enough. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Endeavour silhouette STS-130.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catopsilia pomona

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2012 at 11:36:30 (UTC)

Reason

including Quality image lable, Technicla framing and EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Catopsilia pomona

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Jkadavoor

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I prefer the angle of File:Catopsilia_pomona.jpg because that shows more of this insect's front anatomy. Also, I think that this nomination should specify that the subject is a male since the female has some differences in appearance. Pine^✉ 04:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The picture you mentioned has got 108 KB however It is well-angled. We can type sex of butterfly to keep it from risk of not promoting of Photo. in the other hand sex is not important and technical criticism. Alborzagros (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case I wasn't clear before, let me say that I am not suggesting that the other photo would be FP quality. I'm just saying that I like the angle better. Regarding the caption, yes that can easily be fixed. Pine^✉ 07:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as creator Yes; a straight AOV is better than an inclined one. The only reason for this AOV is the situation that didn't permit me to lower the camera any further. Specifying of sex is valuable too. I personally prefer the female picture which more in my taste of capture. BTW, this butterfly has an interesting behavior to perch inclined to expose one side at a time to the sunlight. Later it turn around to expose the other side. There are some other butterflies who bask with closed wings but I didn't see any other butterfly perch inclined (other than dead leaf butterflies but that is not for basking). -- Jkadavoor (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I'm with Pine here, the other angle shows the butterfly much better. This is a good picture, but I don't think it quite up to FP standards, Even then, I won't oppose it. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese pole

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2012 at 11:55:49 (UTC)

Reason

Including High Quality image lable, Featured picture in commons, Technical framing, suitable background.

Articles in which this image appears

Chinese pole

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport

Creator

Ludo29

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose While this photo has good technical quality, it would have more EV if we could see the top and bottom of the pole to give more context. Pine^✉ 04:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To focus two cubans art acrobatic performance, we need to get the camera closer. end and top of Chinese pole is not enough important. If User:Pine'S subjugation was significant the picture would be out of artists conduct. Alborzagros (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by Pine's subjugation? And what is artists conduct? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not bash anyone's English when a little thinking should make it obvious. :) He means if Pine's opinion were implemented the image would be less focused on the artists and what they are doing. More pole (which can be up to nine metres high) equals fewer pixels on the actual subject. Julia\^talk 19:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julia, I'm the last person that would bash someone for how they speak a foreign language. Way to assume bad faith. Having learned several languages myself, I have often wished someone asked me for clarification on a statement of mine instead of guessing what I meant, as oftentimes they will guess incorrectly. Simply treating others as I wish to be treated.

If your interpretation of his comment is correct, then I have to agree that there will be less pixels to admire their huge muscles, but there will be better context as to how high up the ground these guys are performing. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice the :)? I wasn't assuming bad faith, I just think if you wanted clarification it could have been done relatively privately on his talk page instead of bringing it to everyone's attention here, which seemed to give it unnecessary weight and negativity. Julia\^talk 17:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had interpreted the smiley to be referring to the obvious. Oh well. Not that it is easy to convey emotion over text. I considered asking in his talk page, but then again, someone else here might have wanted the answers to the same questions and would have benefited from reading them. In any case, it was not my intention to give it negativity. As I said earlier, I wanted a clarification, and I asked in what was, to me, a civil manner. My apologies for having assumed bad faith on your comments. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Jkadavoor (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Slightly noisy, but not bad considering the environment I'm sure this was taken in. Jujutacular (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose for now. EV is OK, the article is not super long. Composition is sub par. I agree with Pine, more context would really help. Image is noisy, as Jkadavoor Jujutacular points out. If it was only one of those flaws I would likely support. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry Jkadavoor. Thank you for correcting that!--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: As Jujutacular says, the likely environment makes this actually a decent capture and would be hard to improve. I don't see the need for more context necessarily, as the focus is the stunts that are performed on the pole, not how high the pole is. Julia\^talk 19:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Leosvel et Diosmani - 4.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISS-32 American EVA b3 Aki Hoshide

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2012 at 19:15:04 (UTC)

Reason

Amazing and nearly irreplaceable composition, a self-portrait of an astronaut with the sun behind him, and the reflection of the ISS Space Station, the Earth and fellow astronaut Sunita Williams in the reflection in the visor of his helmet. It meets all criteria.

Articles in which this image appears

Akihiko Hoshide, io9, Huffington Post, Daily Mail, Business Insider, etc.

FP category for this image

Space

Creator

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency astronaut Aki Hoshide

• Support as nominator --▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/oppose: I'm afraid for FP on Wikipedia a given image has to contribute to existing articles, this is a strict requirement. However you should consider Featured Picture on Commons, where this is not a requirement – however I'm not involved ibn that process so couldn't tell you if this picture would make it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, image added to Akihiko Hoshide, subject of this self-portrait. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well normally 7 days would be the suggested time but sibnce this is a fait accompli that can be worked around. However the way the image contributes to the article is non-standard so I'll sleep on it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, makes sense. I would also say that the photo itself is an unusual case, in that it has gained a small amount of notability on its own; or rather it has directly added to the mainstream English-language notability around Akihiko Hoshide. This photo has garnered similar attention for Sunita Williams, although she has already had significant English-language press coverage, so the photo is less significant to her overall notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose at this time. The EV seems minimal. An excellent candidate for Commons, not so useful here. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose When we say "articles in which this image appears" we mean English Wikipedia articles. This appears only in Akihiko Hoshide where the EV is pretty low. I agree that this would have a better chance on Commons. Pine^✉ 04:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to low EV. The image is only in the Akihiko Hoshide article. In no good sense could we have an FP of a person in which their face is not visible. This could be any other astronaut and it would look the same. If we ever have an article about spacesuit sun-visors or a section about them in the spacesuit article, this could make a good FP there. It will however, likely make a great Commons FP. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fetal spina bifida detected by ultrasound

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2012 at 20:07:42 (UTC)

Reason

Clear and didactic ultrasound representation of a fetus affected by the desease

Articles in which this image appears

Spina bifida

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

the creator of the image, where possible using the format Wolfgang Moroder

• Support as nominator --Moroderen (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm confused on a couple of levels here. Firstly the nominator self-identifies as the same individual as the creating account, whih was blocked as a sock of a disruptive sockmaster - however that sort of thing isn't something I could do, so it might be that it poses no problem on this gorund. Secondly I am intrigued as to how the creator/nominator has the copyright of the appropriate file. Is it a real scan (it won't play on my machine)? If so (or indeed not) could this be clarified? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Answer Thank you for your comment. You are right, I did a mistake using my universal account name on WP (moroder), which has been banned on the English WP as a sockpuppet, I have nothing to do with. Therefore my correct account I use on the English WP is Moroderen. I'm not sure I understand you correctly in regard of the second point. The videoclip was generated on my ultrasound machine (GE E8) where I scanned the patient and made the diagnosis of spina bifida (see also the scan of the fetal head). I exported the clip as a avi file and converted in the theora.ogv format by "Miro video converter". Does this answer your question? Best regards --Moroderen (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More or less, yes. But I'm still unclear, if you are an employee, over whether you actually own the copyright in this case. The work is presumably something you did as part of your job, which can be enough to make the copyright corporate. Has this ever been discussed before? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an employee, I am self employed and own 100% of the ultrasound machine. I do not believe the patient has some copyright on the image, which does not bear her name, but she gave me a verbal consent for publication --Moroderen (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright owner would depend on the jurisdiction this ultrasound was done. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as the article this video is in is about spina bifida and not about ways of detecting spina bifida. So EV is small if any. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does this mean that this is not a spina bifida? Or that fetal spina bifida does not count?--Moroderen (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you were asking me, so I corrected the indentation. I can't see the spina bifida in the utrasound, but then again, I don't know what to look for. In no way do I think fetal cases do not count. Regardless, I am changing my vote, as I see a different way to approach this now. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Change my vote to Weak Support, as there is a section in the article about detecting the condition while in the womb, to which this file adds a lot of EV. I would support fully if the untrained eye (me) could easily spot spina bifida in the ultrasound. As it is, I can't really tell the difference from any other ultrasound. But maybe that is just me. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't speak for untrained eyes, but it's plainly visible in the thumbnail. The lighter parts in the centre is the body of the fetus, which is facing the bottom of the picture. The line of white spots is the spine, and the anomaly is the lump in the back circled in red. --101.109.210.60 (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so that is it! OK, well, I see it now. Image definitely needs a good caption wherever it is to explain where is what. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

info I added some text on the capture and imagenotes to the still image shown with 'Other versions' --Moroderen (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Steinfeldt

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2012 at 06:01:03 (UTC)

Reason

High Ev as lead image, Good quality and detail

Articles in which this image appears

Harry Steinfeldt

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Paul Thompson

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support for now. Image is not high quality nor does it show great detail. It is noisy and blurred. But, it being a historical image, I lean to think it may be good enough. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw The picture isnt that good after looking it again. Also the attempt to fix it made it worse. Spongie555 (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sign painting

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2012 at 03:24:48 (UTC)

Reason

Okay, this is one of those slightly left-field noms that some may like and some may not. As the article notes, sign painting as a craft has almost disappeared, with most signs now being done via computer generated machinery. I thought I was lucky not just to catch a traditional hand-painted sign in the process of being created, showing how they build up the sign, painting on the undercoat, outline, background, etc, but to also actually capture the sign-painters at work, with their paint buckets and equipment, safety gear, and so on. Not only was this article unillustrated, I had to create a new category for this on Commons. Good technicals, nice colours, and high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Sign painting

FP category for this image

Not really sure; maybe it's one of those oddball Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other ones. Could be squeezed into Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others, though it's not really about the artwork.

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: File has been kept. I've taken liberty to reset the timer. --115.67.65.39 (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I did not last time because of the discussion above. But I really like this. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality, novel idea, nice execution. Jujutacular (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above. No complaints. Dusty777 16:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The call on the deletion nomination was the right one; if there are no practical grounds for a copyright claim, there's no need to invent a theoretical case for one. Chick Bowen 15:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you bring it up, I'll chime in. It seems to me that the closure was made because the discussion had gone stale, not because any legally sound consensus had been reached. The only promising suggestion (that de minimis and threshold of originality might work in concert) was never reviewed by counsel, and no attempt was made to contact any of the potential copyright holders to see if by granting permission for the reproduction, they might be willing to turn the whole thing into a non-issue (note that obtaining permission doesn't automatically imply that we needed it, simply that we were being courteous). At this stage, I don't think we've effectively clarified anything. Samsara (FA • FP) 19:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never known Fastily to close a discussion simply because it had "gone stale"; he has often closed discussions as delete when there was no call for deletion other than the nominator (as is often necessary at Commons, where there is little participation). Also, David Iliff contacted the sign painter months ago and got no response, probably because most sign painters would be unlikely to concern themselves with copyright and wouldn't have a clear idea of whether they own it and are extending a license to the client or the client owns it. Finally, I think the conclusion was clear: this is a partial, fragmentary rendering of the design, and thus it's impossible to imagine a serious copyright claim. Anyway, I think we've had quite enough of this question. You're right--I brought it up, and now regret doing so. Chick Bowen 01:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality photo with strong EV. In relation to the above, the default on Commons image deletion discussions where copyright is an issue seems to be to delete the image, so if it was kept it can be assumed to be judged to have been OK, especially given the experience of the closing admin. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Excellent EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 09:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sign Painting, LA, CA, jjron 22.03.2012.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chesme Church

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2012 at 08:31:41 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Chesme Church

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

A.Savin

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Support edit 1. Tomer T (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Kürbis (✔) 19:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 1 too. Jkadavoor (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Pine^✉ 07:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question is it just me, or was the perspective correction overdone and the top of the building is a tad bit wider than the bottom? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing no reply, and agreeing with King of Hearts, I Oppose this nom. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Spongie555 (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit - Spongie555 (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Looks oversaturated to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit1. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Looks oversaturated and also too dark in my opinion. Jujutacular (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per King of Hearts and Jujutacular. Too dark in the sky and in the clouds. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 12:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 1 Uploaded Seems a bit harsh to oppose when a simple edit can fix the problem --Muhammad(talk) 17:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is quite standard to do that at FPC, since in general an image, once nominated, is never reuploaded at the same filename. This way, a user can oppose the original and support the edit to show preference for the edit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 1 Thanks Muhammad. Jujutacular (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Muhammad, I like your version indeed - would it be OK when I overwrite the previous image by this version? In general, I don't like to have various edits of the same file as separate files, but I'm not familiar with the FPC procedure here. - A.Savin (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We usually have separate files for different edits as this makes it easier to track who supports what. At the end of the nomination, if you still want to overwrite it, discuss with the closer --Muhammad(talk) 14:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Spb 06-2012 Chesme Church.jpg --Julia\^talk 23:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I replaced the original file with Muhammad's edit, as per the creator's request. Julia\^talk 23:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crew of STS-107

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2012 at 08:10:13 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality official portrait of the crew of Space Shuttle Columbia mission STS-107. On February 1, 2003, Columbia disintegrated during atmospheric reentry and all of the crew died in the accident. While the photo isn't especially striking, it has high historic and encyclopedic value. The photo was previously nominated for Featured Picture in 2006.

Articles in which this image appears

STS-107, Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, and others

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 08:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, unless someone can make a case against the technicals. From where I'm sitting the only possible opposition is, as in 2006, that it doesn't have "impact". But it doesn't need to. The EV is huge. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'll be honest, I'd like this to be an FP, but I don't think it qualifies. The above mentioned nominations set a precedent, though it is not for the reasons established in those noms that I oppose this one. Let me explain: I think it is safe to say this image adds little to the accident page, as it is not about the accident. Therefore, I think this image should be held to the same standards as all other crew photos when it comes crew photos in articles about the missions. In the few other shuttle mission articles I checked, the crew photos are not featured pictures. Now, if there was an article about the crew of STS-107, this would be a no-brainier support, as the image would illustrate the scope of the article and would not be able to be retaken as they are all dead. But the article is about the mission, not the crew. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 15:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think that the crew, all personally involved, of an accident contributes to an article about the accident? I heartily disagree. If there was a photograph of the Busby Babes then that would contribute to the article on the crash by showing those who died and survived, just like this one. I also question whether FPC really applies a question of precedent at all. We have plenty of renominations that pass the second time, we shouldn't feel bound per se. You might agree with the original objection, you might not. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. If the crew were to blame for the accident, then that would be one thing. But they were not. So how much does the image of the crew add to the article of the accident? Some, yes. It is important to know the people that died in the accident. But does it illustrate the accident? That is what I meant, that it adds little in the FP realm. If the image was that of a dead crewmember after the accident, then it would have a enough EV for FP. But this image would be the same one had there been no accident. Hence, my comment that this image should be treated the same as all other spaceship crew photos.

I just checked, neither the Apollo 13 crew picture nor the Apollo 1 crew picture are featured. We already mentioned the Challenger crew photo not being FP. No, I don't think a precedent is binding. Regardless, my comments indicated that I didn't oppose this nom due to the previous noms.

Hopefully that explains where I'm coming from a little better. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with you here. There is an article on STS-107 and the composition of the crew is relevant to a shuttle flight. Each crew trains for the specific missions that happened during a specific flight. A photo of good quality for each mission's crew would have its place among FPs if we can get a photo that has sufficient size and technical quality, and I believe that this photo passes those tests for STS-107. Also, wouldn't you say that the identities of the deceased individuals are relevant for showing the consequences of the accident? Pine^✉ 21:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most NASA missions will have a good crew shot. Can they all be FPs? Sure. You are correct in that the crew is specific to each mission. The crew is only part of the mission, just as the orbiter is only part of it. The mission itself are all the experiments and work that was done while in orbit by the crew in the shuttle. That is what I think would wholly illustrate the mission and if it is a good image should be FP. I oppose this nom on the basis that it adds to the article because the mission failed. If we decide it is OK for all crew shots (if good) to be FPs, I will support it in that regard. Now, I do not disagree with you that identifying the deceased is important. Their mere picture doesn't fully illustrate the consequences of the accident however. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 02:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because Apollo 13 nor Apollo 1 have their crew picture as featured, doesn't mean they can't be. I checked also, and neither pictures were ever nominated, so no one knows if they would be promoted or not. That is a poor reason for an Oppose (not to disregard your other reasons.) Dusty777 02:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't at all a reason for my oppose. Notice how I wrote that after my main explanation of my vote. My point was that this image should be treated as any other crew photo. If we decide to start nominating crew photos (of which there are a lot), I'm OK with that. I just don't think this one deserves to be FP solely on the basis that the crew died. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 02:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Just so you understand where I'm coming from in terms of how well an image adds EV, I think the following files significantly add EV to the accident article: File:Space mirror sts107.jpg, File:STS-107 Columbia entry imaged from ground.jpg, File:STS-107-Debris KSC Hangar.jpg, and File:Impact-test.jpg. That is not to say they would meet the quality criteria for FP. In terms of EV: the first are the names of the astronauts in the NASA mirror, the second shows how the shuttle started to disintegrate, the third shows the aftermath of the accident, and the fourth shows how big a hole was in the orbiter. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 02:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Historically significant, not an ordinary STS crew photo and perhaps the best among other STS 107 photos. This is good also (shows their boots in particular, which are out on the nominated photo), but is unfortunately smaller. Brandmeister^talk 21:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I see no problems here. The EV is excellent in STS-107 (after all, the crew was STS-107.) Dusty777 02:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The crew is not the most featured part of the mission. They are the most important part of the disaster; but the file File:STS-107-Debris KSC Hangar.jpg has more "emotional EV" there than just a group snap. Further it shows the enormous people involved in that mission and their feelings. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Has very high EV in the STS-107 article. But what separates it from other crew photos is its EV (albeit smaller) in the disaster article. Added up, I feel the EV is sufficient. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and Dusty777. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Crew of STS-107, official photo.jpg --Julia\^talk 23:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bullock cart

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2012 at 16:54:40 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality image of a traditional bullock-cart (notice the disk wheels). The different parts of the yoke are clearly visible.

Articles in which this image appears

Bullock cart, Yoke

Land vehicles

Creator

Yann

• Support as nominator --Yann (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not enough EV. The main subject of the image are the oxen, not the cart, as you hardly see any of it. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope is Bullock cart, not cart, that's why it shows a pair of bulls. Yann (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Wingtipvortex. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Wingtipvortex Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 12:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 23:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bean Mini

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2012 at 08:51:48 (UTC)

Reason

I found it interesting because it is a bit funny and I think readers might also be interested with the image. Also, a good shot of the scene.

Articles in which this image appears

Mr. Bean

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment

Creator

Nathan Wong

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 08:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose low EV, background is blurry, his face almost shadowy. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Funny scene yes, but a picture of the ACTUAL filming would have better EV, and as Kürbis said, background is blurred. Great snapshot, worth being in the article, but not what I would consider to be good enough for a Featured Picture. gazhiley 10:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw I would like to withdraw my nomination. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 10:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young Galaxy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2012 at 11:57:46 (UTC)

Reason

Has a free license, has EV, has high resolution. Good representation image of a young galaxy.

Articles in which this image appears

Galaxy

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

ESO/L. Calçada

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 11:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose EV seems weak. Pine^✉ 19:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Pine. Also, why have an artist's impression when we have plenty of pictures? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Center

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2012 at 11:50:39 (UTC)

Reason

Has a free license, has high resolution, has EV, also a good image of the Galactic Center.

Articles in which this image appears

Galactic Center

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

2MASS/G. Kopan, R. Hurt

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 11:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question we already have Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Milky Way galaxy which seems to have better focus on the galactic core. How is the image that you're nominating contributing to the article in a way that the current FP doesn't? Pine^✉ 19:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, my nomination contributed well because it has more EV than the current FP. Because the image I am nominating is the lead image on the article Galactic Center where both of the image appeared in while the current FP is just used in the Gallery section. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 23:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's true that this is the lead image and the other FP is in the gallery, but it seems to me that you could just swap the current FP to be the lead. I don't see how this particular photo contributes a huge amount of EV. Pine^✉ 21:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flame angelfish

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2012 at 23:25:21 (UTC)

Reason

Sharp image, showcasing the details of this nice species

Articles in which this image appears

Flame angelfish

FP category for this image

Animals/Fish

Creator

Andreas März

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 23:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the fish looks unbelievably bright in this photo but looking at other Internet pics it looks like this is realistic. Pine^✉ 19:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good image, good EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Red channel is completely blown on large areas of the fish. Julia\^talk 15:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Julia. The red is rather prominent. Dusty777 16:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, I've looked at other pictures of this fish on the internet and they all show this fish to be an amazingly bright orange. I don't think this photograph is unrealistic. Pine^✉ 21:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what Dusty meant, but my oppose is based on a technical shortcoming of the photograph. I agree that the colour is probably realistic, but the execution here is poor because the red channel is blown. The result is a severe loss of detail, such that the scales, which should be crisply visible, are smudged and fuzzy or in some areas even absent. There are several ways you can check for this technical aspect yourself in an image editing program, but the histogram is the easiest starting point. Julia\^talk 22:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that the image could show the scales in more detail like the photo at http://showyourfishes.com/flame_angelfish/ but I'm not sure the problems are bad enough here that I'd want to oppose. Pine^✉ 23:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Julia Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 09:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Naval Academy Graduation Ceremony

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2012 at 07:28:11 (UTC)

Reason

The work has good EV - as the primary image of the page for Officer (armed forces) it depicts a milestone ceremony for officers capturing the symbolic 'hat toss'. The aesthetic appeal is evident. The photo is well sourced. While the resolution of the height scrapes under the 1500 pixel minimum guideline, an exception could be made based on the technicality of its framing and uniqueness.

Articles in which this image appears

Officer (armed forces)

FP category for this image

I'm tentatively suggesting Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA_History, although there may be a better one.

Creator

Mate 1st Class Kevin H. Tierney

• Support as nominator --Noozman (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I feel very uneasy about EV to "Officer (armed forces)", which documents officers in all sorts of military service, around the world, " symbolic 'hat toss'" is not symbolic in most of these places. Are there not more specific pages? Is this image inferior to those already used there, or merely unused? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think this adds a huge amount of EV to this article in its current context. The photo surely is not of a typical military officer who is performing typical duties or posing for an official portrait. The photo might do better in the article graduation if you'd like to expand it to include military graduations. You might also find a spot for it somewhere in the United States Naval Academy article. Pine^✉ 09:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Pine. As two side notes, A) it should not be the lead image in Officer (armed forces) per both Pine and Grandiose, and B) That file needs a shorter name... --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Pine Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 12:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Vulture (Gyps indicus)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2012 at 17:28:00 (UTC)

Reason

Exceptional picture of Indian vulture in the nest. Very difficult to take: this bird nests at the top of high buildings, far out of reach from humans. The species is highly endangered following use of deadly chemical by veterinary doctors.

Articles in which this image appears

Indian Vulture, Madhya Pradesh

FP category for this image

Birds

Creator

Yann

• Support as nominator --Yann (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A nice picture. There would definitely be EV if it was the lead image. It needs to be in the article for 7 days. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only replaced the existing image, taken at the same place and the same moment, but which was not as good as this one. This is discribed as OK in the guidelines. Yann (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to be Neutral on the alt while I'll continue to Oppose the original nom. The alt is a decent image, which could be sharper, though the colors are much better than the original. I agree with others that EV is a bit low unless there is a section about nesting. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This would potentially have excellent EV to show nesting habits in a longer article. I do find the building in the background a little distracting, though. J Milburn (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Nice image but I agree with J Milburn that this would have a stronger claim to EV if there was a section in the article about nesting. Pine^✉ 21:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm adding an edit as it seemed better contrast was possible in this image. Samsara (FA • FP) 08:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Samsara (FA • FP) 08:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose after some thought. The image is not well used, and the background is a little distracting. The former point is the more important one. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article says "The species breeds mainly on cliffs, but is known to use trees to nest in Rajasthan"; but here it is on the sunshade of an ancient temple. So I think editing the text of the article and the image caption will improve the EV. It will be nice if Samsara or somebody else remove the white building on the background in Edit 1. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LH 95

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2012 at 09:41:09 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality large image, lead image in an article, used in multiple pages

Articles in which this image appears

LH 95, Star formation, Large Magellanic Cloud, List of nearest galaxies. An alternate version was used on Astronomy, Intergalactic travel, and Space colonization which I replaced with this larger version. (As of October 6, I am discussing which version to use for Star on the article's talk page). I also used this image to replace a smaller image that was in Template:Star formation.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

"NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)-ESA/Hubble Collaboration"

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 09:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not super high quality at full res, but that is fairly common in star photos. EV is decent. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I just replaced an alternate version of this image with this version in four articles and replaced a different smaller image with this version on a template. I have linked the new articles and the template in the above list. Pine^✉ 22:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit EV is very good now. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 12:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it is very majestic depiction of creation. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 08:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thine Antique Pen (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:LH 95.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peder Severin Krøyer

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2012 at 08:47:56 (UTC)

Reason

A self portrait of the notable Norwegian-Danish painter Peder Severin Krøyer. High quality, great resolution and details.

Articles in which this image appears

Peder Severin Krøyer

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Peder Severin Krøyer

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It appears there are some doubts as to the authenticity of this painting (in Danish). Its provenance is a little muddy and it is very close to the 1888 Uffizi self-portrait which has long been thought to be the only self-portrait by Krøyer from that year. The director of the Skagens museum was apparently unable to confirm its veracity between its listing in the Dorotheum catalogue and its sale in October 2011. If it is a forgery, it is a good one, but while there is doubt there are alternative self portraits to use. Yomangani^talk 12:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Normally whether a painting is a fake officially comes down to its inclusion (or not) in a catalogue raisonné, and given the emphasis on verifiability and not truth if it's in its in and if its out its out and it would therefore be very important to know. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not. It was unknown until it materialised from a private collection in 2011. (Thankfully we've dispensed with the terrible "verifiability not truth" now anyway) Yomangani^talk 11:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 7[reply]

• So we have a choice whether to accept a lower standard of proof than the experts. However, we must still be sufficient sure about its licencing - if we doubt the authorship more than negligibly, that means that it may still be in copyright. Speaking of which the file doesn't have a valid US copyright tag, e.g. PD-100.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Copyright and authenticity are very closely related questions. If it is a forgery, the forger obviously owns the copyright, but will probably be unable to make any claims on it without risking legal trouble himself, making it a de facto free image. If it is an authentic Krøyer, it only has a valid US copyright tag (don't let the template text fool you, the US term is life + 70 years since it was first published in 2011), but is not free enough for commons since it is protected by the 25 years publication rights in the European Union. The only completely safe thing to do licensing-wise is to revert to the grayscale version, which is taken from a 1912 book and completely in the clear, and then revision-delete the colour version. They are different paintings anyway, even though they look almost identical, so maybe they should be uploaded as different files even if this version is kept around. 90.184.205.91 (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cucurbita moschata Butternut

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2012 at 06:28:06 (UTC)

Reason

Awarded on Commons, has good EV, used in some Wiki

Articles in which this image appears

Butternut squash, Cucurbita moschata, Winter squash, List of gourds and squashes

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits

Creator

George Chernilevsky

• Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is currently under discussion at below at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cucurbita moschata so I suggest a speedy close of this duplicate nom. Pine^✉ 07:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Speedy Close before this wastes anyone's time. gazhiley 07:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Speedy Close -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Speedy Close --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Already nominated. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Water well bucket

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2012 at 04:56:56 (UTC)

Reason

Quality image, has EV, has a free license, is of high resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

Water well

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other

Creator

commons:User:Neogeolegend

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 04:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a leather bucket. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As what said in the filename and the description of the image from the creator, the bucket was wooden, that's all I know. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 10:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please view the image at 1:1; you can see the folds and stitches. Why do you edit the page Water well without contacting the creator of the file? It seems the picture was taken at UAE where people use leather bags as water containers on their horses and camels too. From [1]: "The camel had once provided most of life's necessities for desert nomads: It was a form of transportation, of course, a source of meat and milk, and provided hair to be woven into cloth for tents and storage bags. Its leather was made into sandals, buckets and watering-troughs and its sinews into bowstrings." Jkadavoor (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose First off, as stated above, it is a leather bucket. Not that it matters for FP purposes. The EV is low, as the image is only in the article Water well, and I don't think a water bucket illustrates a well fairly well. Lastly, either the focus is off or there is some motion blur, but the bucket is not sharp. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So corrected it in the article and file description. Jkadavoor (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Low ev. The image barely shows just one part of the top of the well (not even the entire aboveground portion). Spencer^T♦C 04:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Humble Oil Building

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2012 at 21:08:05 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, newly created article meets EV requirements

Articles in which this image appears

Humble Oil Building, National Register of Historic Places listings in downtown Houston, Texas

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

User:Jujutacular

• Support as nominator --Jujutacular (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well captured: good angle and lighting. --ELEKHH^T 13:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; looks strong, an excellent example of what pictures of this sort should be. J Milburn (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 04:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The ground gives me a headache - not sure if it's OOF, or from processing. 141.14.245.242 (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The focus was placed on the center of the building. The aperture probably could have been narrowed a bit (f/8 with 1/250 shutter speed), but I don't feel that it detracts greatly. Jujutacular (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I agree with the IP about lower part of the image. That could use improvement. Otherwise this is good. Pine^✉ 23:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I notice Jujutacular's comments on the focus placement. The ground being out of focus is not a big deal to me. I would like the entire building to be in focus, but it is not at neither the top nor the bottom. Jujutacular, or someone else, how difficult would it be to shoot it again, with a tripod, at say f/15+ for wider DOF? I would also like a shot where the sun is on the other side and we don't get the shadow cutting across the lower part of the building. If these are impossible requests, I will weakly support. Otherwise I feel we should wait for a picture without these concerns. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not impossible, but it may be some time before it happens. I need to line up: a clear day, Sunday (only day I can get to this spot), my schedule free, not get accosted by security. Even if this does pass, I see that there is some hesitancy on the part of the comments here, so I may go back and try to get a better image when possible. Thank you for the recommendations. Jujutacular (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not disturbed by that shadow at all, it naturally emphasises the geometry of the building. --ELEKHH^T 20:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I don't think the ground in the foreground is out of focus, at least not much. At f/8 and with such a distance, it should be in the same focal plane as the building, I would imagine. I suspect that the reason why it looks blurry is that it's been warped more significantly by the perspective correction, so all the detail is being stretched wider. As a result, you can see significantly more chromatic abberation in the bottom of the frame (good example is the white car), but it seems to be present throughout the image, and while stopping down can help minimise this, f/8 is probably appropriate for reasons of sharpness. Juju, if you have access to Adobe Lighroom or Photoshop, you can correct chromatic abberation there. Alternatively, use a superior lens if available. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Humble Tower.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R Coronae Australis region

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2012 at 23:24:44 (UTC)

Reason

This is the only photograph in the article Corona Australis and the EV is good. I have expanded the caption in the article.

Articles in which this image appears

Corona Australis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

European Southern Observatory

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 23:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom. Stunning. Dusty777 02:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 08:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:R Coronae Australis region.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvia pratensis

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2012 at 09:23:04 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Salvia pratensis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

H. Zell

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Needs exposure push/shadow lift - currently underexposed on the parts that we're interested in. Samsara (FA • FP) 11:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think the other image in the article provides more EV although it's too small to meet the current FP criteria. Pine^✉ 19:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chlorophyllum molybdites

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2012 at 05:04:10 (UTC)

Reason

High Quality, Well-framing, Much EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Chlorophyllum molybdites

FP category for this image

Creator

Ianaré Sévi

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Needs a size reference. A statement on the image page that says what the size of this specimen was would be sufficient. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some info referring to size. Alborzagros (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This appears only in a gallery, and would not be suitable to replace the lead image. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with J Milburn. Pine^✉ 20:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primavera

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2012 at 12:35:53 (UTC)

Reason

Has a free license, has EV, is of high resolution, good image of the painting of Sandro Botticelli, Primavera.

Articles in which this image appears

Aby Warburg, Italian Renaissance painting, Italian art, List of works by Sandro Botticelli, Primavera (painting), Sandro Botticelli

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Sandro Botticelli c. 1482 (Apokarteron)

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 12:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sadly. This photograph is far too dark; the background should be green, not black, and the knots and contours in the bark of the trees are quite visible, as are all the individual leaves (not just the ones against the sky as here). It should be possible to photograph the painting so that these details are visible. Also, when you say high resolution, are you fully taking into account that this painting is over 10 feet wide? Chick Bowen 15:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - the (forest green) background is too dark, but, if that could be rectified, it would be excellent. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 08:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Chick Bowen. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parthenon at night

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2012 at 15:16:05 (UTC)

Reason

Good lighting and angle, revealing some interior as well.

Articles in which this image appears

Parthenon

FP category for this image

Places/Architecture

Creator

Andrew Baldwin

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 15:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent clarity, and unusual for an FP to be at night (in my experience) so really stands out nicely... The darkness around it seems to enhance the quality of the stonework IMO... gazhiley 16:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per gazhiley. Excellent! Dusty777 02:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jkadavoor (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 08:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful Oppose Huh? Why? The scaffolding. I assume it was there on a temporary basis, and it not part of the building. It is a great photo, but should not be hard to retake it once the building is as it is supposed to be. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the building is probably not going to be ever again as it was "supposed to be". Scaffolding is normal part of its present appearance. Just check out the image galleries. --ELEKHH^T 23:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is not, I never said that. I said image should be how it is now. Is the scaffolding part of its present appearance? If it is, then I'll reconsider. But I need to see something more than pictures to tell me it is permanent. Scaffoldings serve no permanent purpose. If the building is falling down, then supports are added. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 04:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Wingtipvortex. This photo was taken in 2010. According to what I'm reading from news sources, the scaffolding should be long gone. --Pine^✉ 00:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as the scaffolding detracts from the EV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Wingtipvortex. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 10:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - EV may be restored if there is discussion of the renovations(?) in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be. Image is not in this section however. Even then, the scaffolding is not prominent in this image. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 04:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Kürbis (✔) 09:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful Oppose No way this is going to pass now. Dusty777 22:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It still has the scaffholding as of 3 days ago. I was there when I was 5 years old and it was covered in scaffolding, it still is today, and I'm sure it will be still when we're all old retirees. Benjamint 13:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear to still be there... I see no problem with the EV now. Dusty777 19:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing scaffolding in the photo that's in that article. Please link to the photo that shows the scaffolding. Thanks, --Pine^✉ 06:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most recent I found. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cucurbita moschata

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2012 at 13:08:34 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and good EV

Articles in which this image appears

Cucurbita moschata, Butternut squash, Winter squash, List of gourds and squashes

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits

Creator

George Chernilevsky

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jkadavoor (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support EV is good. Image is a tad bit soft for my taste, and the colors are a bit dull. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the grass and leaves the butternuts are laying in demonstrative of the environment they are commonly grown in? Also, is that flower part of the squash plant? None of the articles address flowering. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Pumpkin article address flowering. Need to add the picture there too? Jkadavoor (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you don't need to. There's already a picture of the flower attached to a vine. This flower doesn't look like it's attached to anything. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per me and Muhammad. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems like an odd setting to photograph the fruit in. --Muhammad(talk) 06:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Much of EV. Alborzagros (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. The setting is actually quite appropriate here because the grass provides a size reference. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But if it's not the natural environment of butternuts, then it's deceptive in other ways. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We can easily understand that these are harvested specimens; so I don't think it's deceptive in any ways. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You can understand but I'm sure some will think these just pop out of the ground given that the flower also seems to come out of the earth --Muhammad(talk) 14:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Including the "cut" specimen? So this grows/pops out from a studio floor? Some criticisms are beyond my limits. :) Jkadavoor (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I think the setting is deceptive. I wouldn't mind a neutral bg --Muhammad(talk) 14:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Muhammad - the setting of sitting on the ground is deceptive... gazhiley 16:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Muhammad Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 08:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I think the problems mentioned above could be addressed by different placement in the articles or different captioning. Pine^✉ 20:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Weak support --Pine^✉ 18:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: A butternut in it's natural environment would be better. It is tasty, though. :) Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hercules beetle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2012 at 04:56:26 (UTC)

Reason

High Quality, Good Framing, well-shade background and full of EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Hercules beetle

FP category for this image

Creator

Archaeodontosaurus

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but the sex should be specified. And I think the female also worth to feature. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the sex (male ♂) to text.Alborzagros (talk)

• Support per nom. Size reference makes spikebrennan happy. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The size of insect is written through caption. Alborzagros (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose. This parrot beetle appears to be dead. Kaldari (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be dead or not to be. this not question.Alborzagros (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a museum specimen. I don't think they can survive for centuries without being dead. :) Jkadavoor (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer that the photos used to illustrate our animal articles be photos of live animals if possible. Kaldari (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a good point. But focus stacked photos have more details and so more identification information than in a in vivo photo. Focus stacking for a restless subject is very difficult. Jkadavoor (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This photo is already featured in Commons. Alborzagros (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I confirm that despite his good looks he is dead. There is no concurecne between images of live insects and mounted specimen. The two are complementary. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great quality and EV. It doesn't matter if the beetle is dead. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Armbrust: this is a well executed photo with strong EV. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dynastes hercules ecuatorianus MHNT.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STS-1 on the launch pad

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2012 at 12:24:00 (UTC)

Reason

Has a free license, good image, a good shot of STS-1 on its launch pad in 1981.

Articles in which this image appears

STS-1, Space Shuttle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Getting there

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 12:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Tricky one this... My gut feeling is it's a little close... The whole of the launch pad isn't in view - it's cut off at the bottom corner, and the top of the tower is cut off too... But given the fact that we can never take this picture again, coupled with features showing that we don't normally see from side-on angle (the exhaust gas escape channel thing for one - centre right - as well as the various vehicles present such as the fire engine etc) I am happy enough to Support this image... gazhiley 08:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per gazhiley. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I think this image should be used in a way that produces more EV. Pine

^✉ 00:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per gazhiley. Dusty777 22:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment to clean up all the scratches and dust or to leave them? Benjamint 13:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Simply because there are some exceptional STS-1 launchpad photos already FP and this isn't of that same quality. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuremberg Church

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2012 at 08:55:38 (UTC)

Reason

Excellent details.

Articles in which this image appears

Nuremberg Frauenkirche

FP category for this image

Places/Architecture

Creator

Kolossos

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 08:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose odd sky and blurry pinnacle. Angle not central. As a Nuremberger I unfortunately don't possess a good camera :|. Regards. --Kürbis (✔) 10:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurred above bell section, and the golden orb and final spire over exposed and oddly curved. I higher elevation of viewpoint should remove that issue - given that there are obv other buildings around this church I would like to hope that there is one behind the position that this was taken that would give a better angle for full focus. gazhiley 10:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - the ball at the top is a little out-of-focus, but I wouldn't have realized it without it having been pointed out to me; the picture and subject are great, IMO, but the focus issue distracts from it being "Wikipedia's best work", so it's a weak support only. If there is an analogous process to Good Article/Featured Article (that is, if a picture can be submitted to be peer-reviewed as a "Good picture" as well as a "featured picture"), I'd list it there instead, where it would pass in a heartbeat. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 08:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kürbis and gazhiley. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banaue Rice Terraces

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2012 at 10:47:06 (UTC)

Reason

Large, good image, a stunning image of the natural landscape

Articles in which this image appears

Banaue Rice Terraces, Paddy field, Philippines

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Ori~

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 10:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: At upper right, there is a white triangle as if this is a panorama and there is no image data there. Also, the vine is a bit distracting. And the image seems tilted on the right half. The image is impressive though. Chris857 (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: There is also an obvious stitching error 1/3 from the left. With some fixes this would be a valuable high quality image, but it needs some work... - Zephyris _Talk 20:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose per above, and there is a discolored spot that's near the center of the image horizontally and near the bottom vertically. Pine^✉ 19:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. I too think it needs some work. Improvements needed before I support:

• Horizon correction. The steps/levels on the left are pointing up. The ones on the right are opposite. Some perspective correction too. White triangle on top right. This is due to improper tripod set-up or no tripod.
• Greater depth of field. Could be sharper.
• Remove the vine. Very distracting.
• Shorter focal length/wider angle. Would be good to not have the mountain cut off.

Those things aside, it is a good picture with potential and a beautiful landscape.--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per above issues. gazhiley 07:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space Needle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2012 at 09:25:01 (UTC)

Reason

Good image, has free license, has EV

Articles in which this image appears

April 1962, Space Needle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Jordon Kalilich

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 09:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Image quality is lacking a bit. Noisy and unsharp. Jujutacular (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Fixed your "Articles in which..." bit as it was only linking to the April 1962 page... gazhiley 07:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jujutacular - the bottom of the tower is so out of focus it looks like this was taken during an earthquake... gazhiley 07:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not an earthquake, but very out of focus. Solution: tripod, camera in aperture priority, f/20+. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be clear I wasn't suggesting it WAS an earthquake - just that it looked like it was due to focus issues... gazhiley 07:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Mine was a poor attempt at continuing your humor. Should have put more effort into it. Sorry. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gargoyles of Notre Damne

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2012 at 08:33:03 (UTC)

Reason

This image is frackin' awesome; it illustrates gargoyles, rain gutters, Notre Dame, and Gothic architecture all extremely well; it seems to defy the very laws of physics. I've never nominated anything on here before, but according to my knowledge of the non-technical criteria, it is excellent. I do not have the knowledge to evaluate compliance with §1; it is high-resolution (§2); it is singularly excellent (§3); it is licensed under the GFDL (§4); in my personal opinion - this criteria is subjective - it adds significantly to the encyclopedic value of the articles, and those related, mentioned in the first sentence of the nomination; it is "awesome" in the traditional sense, i.e. evoking awe in the viewer (§5); it passes §6; it has a passable description; "Gargoyles of Notre Dame in Paris"; I can't imagine how one would get much more detailed than that, without describing where they are on the building (§7); and, again, I do not have the expertise necessary to evaluate compliance with §8.

Articles in which this image appears

Gargoyles is the one I found it in; it would work in many others (see nom).

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture (although it also is Artwork/Sculpture, Engineering, History, in order of descending importance slash relevance).

Creator

User:Albertus_teolog using the signature "Krzysztof Mizera".

• Support as nominator --St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 08:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as it is a bit low in the technical criteria. Poor DOF, odd angle/composition, and strong chromatic aberrations. EV is OK, but I feel this image can be easily retaken. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Sphinx of Giza

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2012 at 05:11:27 (UTC)

Reason

Good image, has EV, large

Articles in which this image appears

Giovanni Battista Caviglia, Great Sphinx of Giza, Khufu, ist of statues by height, List of the oldest buildings in the world, Paul Solomon, Sphinx, Statue

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Barcex

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 05:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: To be honest, I'm not thrilled with the vantage point. The pyramid in the background prevents the viewer from getting a good look at the profile of the face. In addition, I would have preferred an angle that was a tad more front-on so you can see the face better. Something closer to the angle of this image. Spencer^T♦C 06:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I Sphinx I have to agree with Spencer on this one - the angle could be better, there's no deNileing it... gazhiley 08:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose does not meet all criteria:

1. Is of a high technical standard? N Composition with pyramid in background is distracting. Image is soft.
2. Is of high resolution? Y
3. Is among Wikipedia's best work? Not sure
4. Has a free license? Y
5. Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article? Y
6. Is verifiable? Y
7. Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description? N Could be expanded.
8. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation? Y

I think there is room for improvement before this image reaches FP status. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Observatory

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2012 at 19:40:53 (UTC)

Reason

This image meets several points of the FPC criteria. The image is high resolution, has a public domain license, verifiable, has a complete description, and I believe is among Wikipedia's best works. I believe the photo quality has good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral color balance with no artifacts from compression. The is of a building on the National Historic Places list and can be found in 3 Wikipedia articles.

Articles in which this image appears

Syracuse University, Syracuse University – Comstock Tract Buildings, List of Syracuse University buildings

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

ZeWrestler - self nomination

• Support as nominator --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Framing is too tight and sky is blown... Would prefer a better angle too but not sure if it's possible. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Diliff. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Diliff gazhiley 07:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Dull-looking subject, indifferently shot. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sayornis phoebe

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2012 at 08:27:18 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Eastern phoebe

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

John Benson

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Support alt. Tomer T (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom; but need a proper title here. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops. Fixed. Tomer T (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Jkadavoor (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The other image in the article by the same author is better in almost every respect. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Both are good works and look very different. The other image looks like an ordinary composition but this looks a rare and attractive frame. Jkadavoor (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the other one as alt. Tomer T (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 'good' isn't the criteria though - EV is - the alt shows much more plumage.

• Support alt I prefer the alt, it has much better EV.  ■ MMXX ^talk 18:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If anything then the original should be nominated for delisting (in the bottom of this page). Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist? Nothing is already featured here. Both are featured in Commons only. Jkadavoor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.63.221 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the original picture.--Kürbis (✔) 17:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt only. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 08:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt, Neutral on Original --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, support alt Better pose in the alt. --Pine^✉ 07:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sayornis phoebe -Owen Conservation Park, Madison, Wisconsin, USA-8.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bobcat kittens

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2012 at 00:51:10 (UTC)

Reason

Interesting photo with good EV as the only photo in the article showing bobcat kittens and demonstrating that their behavior includes climbing trees.

Articles in which this image appears

Bobcat

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Summer M. Tribble (daughter of David R. Tribble)

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 00:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Too cute! but Oppose :( - I'm not a photographer other than happy snaps, but from my time here I believe this may have a "blown sky"? :/ Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 02:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I don't think the sky is a distraction here, it's pretty obscured by the leaves and the kittens. I'd say that cuteness works in favor of this photo since the Featured Picture criteria includes "(The photo) illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more." --Pine^✉ 04:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, the out of focus blown areas are incidental to this image and are not a significant problem IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Matthewedwards and the distracting unfocused leaves around. Jkadavoor (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Kittens. With big paws. Up a tree. Kittens. Probably too dangerous for FP status: the Cheezburger people say pics like this cause something they call 'splort' (viewers' heads asplode from the cute). Plutonium27 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Butchart Gardens - Sunken Garden

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2012 at 09:43:49 (UTC)

Reason

Large encyclopedic image with nice bright colors

Articles in which this image appears

Butchart Gardens, Garden, Horticulture

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

NorwegianMarcus

• Support either as nominator --Pine^✉ 09:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Very much overexposed. J Milburn (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per J Milburn. Sky is blown. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I don't feel that the sky is a distraction from the beautiful garden in this case, but that's just my personal opinion. --Pine^✉ 04:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The path is also overexposed, and you can see underexposure in a lot of the foliage. There's lens flare (I think) streaking down the middle of the picture, and the detail is, in many places, lost in a blur of colour (which doesn't quite look as vibrant as it could- perhaps, again, due to the very harsh lighting). This is a beautiful subject, and by no means a bad photograph, but it's a long way from the professional quality we would want for FPC. J Milburn (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose beautiful, but there are a few chromatic aberrations. --Kürbis (✔) 09:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note added on Alt. May be a lens flare as suggested by J Milburn. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above. Personally, I find the blown out sky rather distracting... It kind of hurts my eyes. Dusty777 19:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, blown sky. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uffington White Horse drawing

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2012 at 23:04:04 (UTC)

Reason

Simple two-tone image with aesthetically beautiful curves of prehistoric hill drawing
(This is a vector version that replaces an earlier raw scan)

Articles in which this image appears

William Plenderleath, Uffington White Horse, Hill figure, Leucippotomy

FP category for this image

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

Creator

iantresman after William Plenderleath

• Support as nominator --Iantresman (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Could you say something about your thinking in converting this to an SVG? I don't mean to sound skeptical--it's just I usually associate SVGs with diagrams, logos, and the like: if you're ascribing the drawing to Plenderleath, I wouldn't expect you to make it a trace rather than a scan of his drawing (or a scan of a print of his drawing). Again, I don't mean to criticize it, I'd just like to hear something about what how you're conceiving of this. Chick Bowen 02:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Plenderleath had already decided to use a sketch, rather than a photo, in his book (see here). He doesn't say why, perhaps there was no good vantage point for a photo. But compared to some of the other drawings in his book, I felt that this had an aesthetically pleasing look. The question was then whether to use the original raw scan, or tidy up. I thought the original scan looked messy, and the text showing through the drawing was distracting. So I tried tidying up the scan, and of course the simplicity of the curves lent itself to being converted to .svg, and I felt that it has been significantly enhanced. Of course it may not not be representative, but to me, it still looked good. --Iantresman (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Horse is indeed difficult to view from the ground.©Geni 16:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose included in galleries in two of the articles listed, limited EV at Uffington White Horse as it doesn't show the reader how it is formed in the hillside or anything. William Plenderleath doesn't suggest that he is notable for his sketches, but for his writings about Cherhill White Horse. Why not find a beautiful photo of the landscape, or a scan of the actual sketch rather than a 21st century svg representation? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 02:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is indeed a powerful image in its stark lines and a similar rendering made a memorable cover for one of the greatest albums of the 1980s: XTC's English Settlement (I have a t-shirt of it, issued as a limited edition by the fan club in 1990). But IMHO its basically an aerial photo gone over with computer tracing paper and such a drawing just in and of itself doesn't convince as an FP: the White Horse has been beautifully photographed many times and its surroundings and location are essential to its historical/mythical representation and symbolism, and therefore its very existence and meaning. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Titanacris albipesv

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2012 at 16:21:30 (UTC)

Reason

Much EV, High quality

Articles in which this image appears

Titanacris albipes

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals

Creator

Archaeodontosaurus

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment file has not been in article for 7 days. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's only preferable for the image to have been present >=7 days. The Nominator clearly feels this is an obvious case, where EV is concerned, I don't disagree. Benjamint 20:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Concerning the placement of the picture in the article... Why is it just kind of thrown in their? It's not even placed correctly. Dusty777 22:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article gives me no more information than this image caption. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The lack of text in the article makes this image all the more important. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems a good point. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great Ocean Road

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2012 at 15:08:55 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Great Ocean Road

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Blown left, oddly compressed-looking centre, murky tones make it look fuzzy. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Plutonium27 and mildly distracting foreground. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There seems to be something odd going on with the centre of this photo Nick-D (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw Tomer T (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question what do you guys mean by something off in the centre? I can't see what you mean... gazhiley 08:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anything wrong either really, but unfortunately I agree that the weather was a bit murky for this to be featured. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah the weather is the only reason I haven't supported this tbh - can be retaken at a nice brighter time... I'm curious though about what the others above have spotted cause I can't see anything wrong... gazhiley 09:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • May be talking about the "disturbing" wave patters on the centre. Wind draws beautiful patters on water on both sides; but the centre is a bit disturbing to my eyes; and the transition is not smooth (again a poor climate issue only). Jkadavoor (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm amazed if that's the case - living near some of the most beautiful beaches in the world it looks like a perfectly normal wave pattern for a shallow estury inlet to me... Thank you for having a guess tho! gazhiley 10:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chickens in market

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2012 at 13:11:34 (UTC)

Reason

Great clarity and composition, good EV (for the article Chicken (food)) and quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Chicken (food), Tastes like chicken

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink

Creator

Tomascastelazo

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, it's cluttered. It could be improved by cropping the scale out, but I still find that loose plastic bag in the back almost as distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose while DOF usage is good, the background clutter is too much. Also, image is quite noisy for a 20D. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It doesn't have to be pretty to have EV. You get hung, you get weighed, you get sold in a plastic bag - composition makes perfect sense to me. Samsara (FA • FP) 02:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EV isn't the only criterion for FP ... it has to look good. The composition may tell the story, but at the expense of the aesthetics involved. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the criteria - they are very specific on that point. Samsara (FA • FP) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]