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

Aerogel with Peter Tsou

Reason

This is a little undersize for a normal FP, I know, however, Aerogels are not available in any quantities outside of NASA, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and related agencies, so the image is essentially irreplaceable. This is one of my favourite science images, and I think well-deserving of an FP. Vanished user ^talk 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed caption

Peter Tsou of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory holding a sample of aerogel - an extremely lightweight substance created by replacing all the liquid in a gel - usually silica gel - with gas, by means of supercritical drying, a process similar to freeze-drying. This creates a nanofoam, a foam with most of its bubbles under 100 nanometres in size, giving the aerogel its unusual properties: Silica aerogel is the lowest-density solid yet created, actually lighter than air when in a vacuum (outside of a vacuum, air fills the pores, upping its density to slightly greater than air). It is also the best insulator known. Due to its unusual appearance and light weight, it has gained the nickname "frozen smoke".

Articles this image appears in

Peter Tsou, Aerogel

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator Vanished user ^talk 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose resolution is too low to see if the Guy has some hair inside his ears. Ericd 19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...That is a truly unique oppose. Vanished user ^talk 19:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...My pleasure is to watch hirez pictures a full-rez. No matter of the topic ;-). Ericd 19:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I stop joking, in fact I think the other one is better. Ericd 08:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - This other aerogel FP shows the transparency just as well, but also demonstrates its amazing strength. This non-FP also shows its transparency but also its amazing thermal insulation properties. I'm just not sure what this nom demonstrates that those others don't. The only reason I might consider it is because it is rather a famous image of the stuff. --Sean 19:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know - the matches picture is confusing, as it has the glass disk atop the aerogel, and the thing holding it up is hard to spot. And the Brick one doesn't really show much of the Aerogel, just a glimpse of it under the brick. I suppose the one with crayons might work, but.... Vanished user ^talk 21:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not as good as the other aerogel FP and I'm not sure why you think it's irreplaceable when we already have an existing FP and other pictures besides. This picture shows none of aerogel's interesting features (strength, insulation, etc); it might as well be a cube of jello. Matt Deres 01:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's a nice picture, but the other two Sean linked are both far more encyclopedic. Since this one is too small, it doesn't really seem up to the FP level. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose What with there being another FP of the subject material that showcases its characteristics a little bit more. SingCal 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sun and VY Canis Majoris

Reason

"If our sun were replaced with such a star, its surface could extend to the orbit of Saturn." That pretty much sums it up. Fascinating! Especially after an appreciation of just how massive the sun is, and the staggering volume within saturn's orbit.

Articles this image appears in

VY Canis Majoris

Creator

User:WindAzure (png)
User:Mysid (svg)

• Support as nominator froth^t 01:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wow, I didn't imagine there could exist stars that large: the stats are truly staggering. But I dont see how the image contributes to the article: it adds nothing that isn't already summed up verbally in the second sentence "the radius of VY CMa is between 1800 and 2100 solar radii". I don't see that the image itself adds anything to the article at all. ~ Veledan • T 03:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many people can't translate words into images in their heads; poor imagination if you will.--Svetovid 10:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• support--Mbz1 13:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
• Support SVG Wow, that's a big star.--HereToHelp 13:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support SVG I don't understand the size at all - think you can stick a person in for scale? :) thegreen J Are you green? 14:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He'll be a pixel if the image was blown up to be the size of a billboard. The earth might be a pixel if the image was the size of a large poster.--HereToHelp 23:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want a quark for scale. ;) Jumping cheese 23:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If all I had nominated was the SVG, would you still be awed by the star's size? I think the effect is greatly reduced if the sun and the big star aren't compared side-by-side.. it's difficult to visualize the difference (which is the whole appeal of the image) with that "magnifying glass" trick that IMO gives you very little perspective. Go png! --froth^t 16:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose SVG - undecided on the PNG, for now - the SVG renders differently for me in the thumb and the full size. For instance, in the thumb, the font is something like Arial, but at the full size, it is a typewriter font, moreover, all the gradients disappear at the full rez. SVG is just too flaky in this case. FWIW, I'm running updated firefox on Mac OS X 10.3.9. Debivort 19:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose - it doesn't make me want to know any more about the article, it doesn't even make want to click on the image, because there's nothing you can't see from the thumbnail Mcrawford620 22:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both Not very interesting. I though I was looking at some random orange circle at first. Even after I clicked the image, I wasn't that impressed. It'll be much better if VY Canis Majoris actually looked like a star (with pretty solar flares larger than the sun and stuff), instead of a perfect circle. The SVG version is a bit better...since there's some color variation, but not by much. Sorry. Jumping cheese 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a circle and a dot? It may be technically accurate and informative, and a great addition to some articles. But there's just not much information being conveyed here. —Pengo 07:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose though it does aid with the articles its appears in the quality of the image is not featured --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Childzy. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 15:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose PNG - it's a long way short on the aesthetics side of things. Also, I just don't think it's practical to attempt to use a single pixel to illustrate something. The SVG version is more informative. Stevage 01:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support SVG - Several reasons, but probably the strongest is its combination of simplicity and clarity. It just illustrates the point without frills. The inset is nicely done so that it's not showy, but clearly represents and expanded view. Nicely done. -Harmil 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilkes Booth wanted poster

Reason

Historic 19th century wanted poster.

Proposed caption

Broadside advertising reward for capture of John Wilkes Booth (the assassin of United States president Abraham Lincoln) and his co-conspirators John H. Surratt and David E. Herold.

Articles this image appears in

John Wilkes Booth

Creator

unknown. Source: Library of Congress Rare Book and Special Collections Division. Uploaded by User:Davepape

• Support as nominator Spikebrennan 17:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC). Also Support alternative 1. Spikebrennan 17:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. No reason it should be this blurry, but great historical value. I wonder how they possibly found anyone with such generic pictures on the wanted posters? --froth^t 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just having photographs was an enormous advance. Also, Booth was roughly the Brad Pitt of his day. --Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: There must be a better version.--Svetovid 20:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Support alternative 1 - and the caption should note that two names are spelled incorrectly - Surrat instead of Surratt and Harold instead of Herold.--Svetovid 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very interesting, but size / quality not good enough for FP in my opinion whether or not there is a better version in existence. ~ Veledan • T 20:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• support--Mbz1 13:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
• Support if replaced with this --NauticaShades 00:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I concur.--Svetovid 03:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I concur as well. Jellocube27 02:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would anybody mind if the image on answers.com was just uploaded over the current picture? Thats what the upload new version is there for afterall, i'd do it now but i dont want to suffer a backlash for being bold.. --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answers.com version is not just the same poster, it's the same physical document. (The wrinkles and tears are in the same places). I would support the answers.com version being uploaded over the existing one (even though it's in BW and not a sepia-tint). Spikebrennan 15:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC). I just also noticed that the poster spells the name of "John Surrat/Surratt" two different ways. John Surratt is presumably the correct spelling.[reply]

• Oppose, somewhat dramatic, somewhat historic, but poor quality negates its value. BTW, the Answers.com image is a cleaned-up version of this presumed digital original, and is probably much closer to the appearance of the physical original (unlike the parchment-paper ones you can get at museum shops, such as the one I worked in as a kid). --

Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alternative I uploaded the other one instead, decided not to upload over the original so that people can see the contrast --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rant Does noone bother to check the sources? The answers.com one is from the Library of Congress. Which also have a much better version of the colour one, where the Surrat image is much more visible than in the b&w. [1] Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alternate 2 Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not as large and it isnt straight --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative I like the sharpness on this one. Alternative 2 is a bit blurry. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 18:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt#1 fascinating. Debivort 19:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative 1 The text and images are easier viewed on the black and white version. --Puddyglum 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt. 1 - best is viewed on the black and white version and the sharpness is much better than on the other two. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 11:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. By the way, can someone fix the tilt on the B&W version? NauticaShades 12:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose All The two alternates are good, but Alt 1 has been converted to B&W from the original sepia while Alt 2 is not straight and is smaller resolution. Normally, I'd support either one of these images, but the fact that they both exist (plus the original) means that a full colour version of Alt 1's resolution is not asking too much and in fact is probably out there somewhere (eg. whoever scanned in Alt 1). Why not wait until it turns up? Matt Deres 22:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:John Wilkes Booth wantekd poster new.jpg MER-C 03:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blind-Man's Buff

Reason

A different subject matter for a 19th century newspaper engraving

Proposed caption

Cartoon criticising the police for their inability to find the Whitechapel murderer. From Punch, 22nd September 1888, page 134. Artwork by John Tenniel.

Articles this image appears in

Jack the Ripper

Creator

John Tenniel

* Support as nominator Spikebrennan 15:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sorry but I really don't think this one is of sufficient quality or size or encyclopedic value. On a wider issue, we've had many 19-century newspaper engravings nominated recently and I'm wondering whether a few (including ones I've supported myself) have benefited unduly from the relaxation of quality rules for historic, irreproducible images. After all, pretty much every 19th century newspaper is available on microfiche and perhaps we should be demanding the same standards we do of contemporary photographs. Just a thought. ~ Veledan • T 22:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it should really be remembered that there aren't usually a large number of engravings of any one subject. I'm all for raising the bar a bit, but we should be reasonable, and consider how many illustrations of a certain subject there are likely to be. That said, I think this scan is a little small - I think it's reasonable to expect to be able to pick out all lines in an engraving. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small, scan quality subpar, and I just don't think it's an interesting or important cartoon. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn and move for speedy close. After reconsideration, I agree with the oppose votes. No reason to have this one clogging up the queue. Spikebrennan 16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scene from "The Princess"

Reason

I think it's a nice engraving, the play is relatively important given what it later developed into, (and after 6 bloody hours fixing all the printing errors, I want everyone to see it.)

Proposed caption

In 1870, W. S. Gilbert's musical farce The Princess premièred, a parody of Tennyson's epic poem The Princess: A Medley. Tennyson's tale of a prince cross-dressing in order to get access to a princess who shuns the world of men proved fertile ground for satire, and the cross-dressing prince and his companions, portrayed by women pretending to be men pretending to be women, added another layer of silliness to Gilbert's play. Though some elements of the farce have not aged well - Tennyson's poem is now forgotten, and Gilbert's satire of women's education is no longer politically correct - the play lives on in a later comic opera revision: Princess Ida, the eighth Gilbert and Sullivan opera.

Articles this image appears in

The Princess (play); Princess Ida.

Creator

D.H. Friston, with rather extensive retouching by me to fix a rather abominable printing (Alas! The only printing! One does wish that newspapers could make sure the six blocks that make up their woodcut image were positioned properly so that researchers a century and a quarter later wouldn't bewail their fate.)

• Support as nominator Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Ssilvers 15:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think you went too far in your editing. Those white lines delineate the separate, but probably glued-together pieces of wood that build up the woodcut. Removing them alters the historical original, and that is unacceptable, IMHO. If the lines were there in 1870, they should still be there! --Janke | Talk 18:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's always hard to judge these things, and it'd be reasonable to go either way. Hence why I provided both versions. But for simple illustration of the play, the lines are distracting. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support despite my string of opposes today on 19th-C engravings: this one is of good quality and compelling composition. When I started typing this I couldn't quite support, per Janke, but on reflection I think that neither the articles it illustrates nor the subject would benefit from reproducing the printing errors, and the fact that the image page clearly describes the amendments made is sufficient in my opinion. If it were nominated for its contribution to an article on printing, I'd think differently. Compliments on the excellent caption by the way. ~ Veledan • T 23:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye: It seemed more useful, given where it's being used, to go with a version that removed obvious flaws, even if they're interesting from a typographic point of view. But I did provide an unedited version as well, since it has historical significance. I just don't think it's as useful for illustrating the plays. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - good, clear, high-resolution engraving of a very interesting subject. I also agree with Veledan, nice composition. -- Chris.B 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:The Princess - W. S. Gilbert.png MER-C 03:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of George Washington.jpeg

Reason

Striking, near-photographic portrait of Washington, much better in these 2 regards than the existing portraits of him in uniform currently in use on Wikipedia or on Commons, which are full-body; resolution is 972 x 1184, so it still fits within the size guidelines.

Proposed caption

Porthole portrait George Washington in military uniform, by Rembrandt Peale

Articles this image appears in

George Washington, Man, Revolution, 18th century, 1789, Continental Army, Rembrandt Peale, among many others; this portrait is used in Template:US-poli-bio-stub, so it appears in more articles not directly relevant to Washington, albeit drastically reduced in size and at the bottom of said articles

Creator

Rembrandt Peale

* Support as nominator BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 07:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - has it been cropped, or is it the painting? As it is now, the crop is rather tight I think. -- Chris.B 10:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it is from the source, but that version is a crop; the original is wider and taller. This is a 1200 x 1200 version, but isn't as rich in color and seems to lack the vitality of the nom; it may be possible to get the full version from here, but I can't figure out how to seperate the image URL from the Flash/Java coding, if that's possible. Otherwise, other copies I've found of this portrait are lower res and not as good. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, here is an alternative. It has taken me about an hour to do, but I think it's ready now. I have stitched, piece by piece, the whole portrait from the last source you provided. The colours are amazing and it's far better now. And unbelievably all I have used is print screens and good old Microsoft Paint. -- Chris.B 17:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I support alternative support alternative2 -- Chris.B 17:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I know it's the same painting, but is it just me or does it look like Washington's expression is softened and not as severe/dour looking in the alt? Still, Peale's intent was the porthole effect, which the original doesn't convey adequately because of the crop. Therefore, unless a better 2nd alternative/version can be provided I'm going to switch my support to the alt for now. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose both for now - the color ballance in the second is far too yellow for me, but its cropping is good. Debivort 01:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC) This color is better, but I would still prefer a less saturated version. That said there is a greater problem I didn't notice earlier - jpeg artifacting in all versions, particularly in the lower parts of the oval, one can see checkers and stripes. Debivort 19:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose both the colour looks wrong on the second and the frames being cut in such a way look distracting --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've tweaked the yellow/green colour. -- Chris.B 11:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all The first has problems as above, and in the others the skin looks rather jaundiced. I find ther colouring of the original version more believable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basically a non-cropped version of the original showing the porthole surroundings. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....and no jaundice or anti-wrinkle cream either. :) -- Chris.B 20:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, you do lose all the wrinkles on the alternatives. That's bad. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Idea Would it be possible to blend the original nom into the better porthole of the other scans? Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the original's porthole colors have to be replicated as well? BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it'd be easier to get the porthole colours right than something tricky like skin tones. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NASA Shuttle Transport

Reason

Clearly shows the operational use of an intriguing aircraft

Proposed caption

Space Shuttle Discovery leaves Edwards AFB on the back of a Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (Boeing 747) on its cross-country trek to its home at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Articles this image appears in

Shuttle Carrier Aircraft

Creator

U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Jet Fabara

• Support as nominator Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - low technical quality - out of focus and grainy.--Svetovid 11:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, a much better picture could be taken --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Doesn't look grainy or out of focus to me!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs)
• Oppose. Free image, but is hardly the best one available of the SCA. Compare airliners.net results (not free), or all the other NASA images you can Google up. Scrape around for a better one and nominate that instead. --Dhartung | Talk 09:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interior of the Neue Wache in Berlin

Reason

The picture is of sufficient technical quality and depicts the interior of the Neue Wache like no other picture in the article before. I chose not to concentrate on the sculpture alone but to use a view from the back of the room back toward the entrance to incorporate the spectators into the image, which I feel helps to put context to the minimalistic stlye of the memorial. The skylight is open and exposes the sculpture to the elements. It's high exposure is inadvertant due to the low light conditions in the interior, but it helps to emphasize the brightness contrast to the outside world. The picture is part of a series linked on the image page (in case you are interested in a close-up of the sculpture).

Proposed caption

Interior of the Neue Wache (new watchhouse), the central memorial of the Federal Republic of Germany for victims of wars and tyranny.

Articles this image appears in

Neue Wache

Creator

User:Dschwen

• Support as nominator Dschwen 23:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The skylight is a bit blown out, but the image is sharp and informative. Personally, I like this version: [2], though it doesn't show as much of the room. vlad§inger ^tlk 01:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Well done. I also like #3 better in terms of aesthetics, but this one is more encyclopedic. Cacophony 01:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• questions - what is the geometry of the room like? It looks pyramidal because the "verticals" aren't vertical. Also, how about a bit of sponge tool to reduce the purple fringing on the skylight? Otherwise fantastic aesthetic. Debivort 02:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not a pyramid. I was kneeling in order not to look down on the sculpture, and I pointed the camera upwards for compositional purposes. It looks pretty natural to me, and I also tried perspective correction, but that looks wrong. The line of sight is almost the spacial diagonal of the room, vertical verticals should not be expected. --Dschwen 07:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - thanks for the fixes, I'm completely satisfied. Debivort 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either with slight preference of the angle of the editted version. Technical quality is good; I like the perspective; you captured the mood quite well. Makes you want to read the article. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• RequestCould you upload a version with a slight clockwise rotation? I think it's the non-horizontal eye-level which is screwing with people's perception of "natural" perspective. mikaul^talk 11:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. The corner in the wall should be the reference vertical in this photo. Maybe perspective correction is in order? --Janke | Talk 16:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I mentioned above, perspective correction creates a very unnatural look. Not the corner should be vertical, but the edge of the doorframe which is horizontally centered in the frame. That will take a minute CW rotation. I'll upload an edit later tonight. --Dschwen 16:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) I wouldn't worry about the convergence in this shot, it adds a bit of drama without losing any enc value. If it comes to what's vertical, a properly corrected horizontal will always give you a true vertical at the mid point of the frame, so that corner should probably have a tiny slant to the left. jeez, what a pedant... mikaul^talk 16:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Neat idea, well taken. I love the reverence of the visitors and the serenity of the room. mikaul^talk 22:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good, attractive shot IMO. -- Chris.B 15:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The skylight is distracting. I do not see any use for having that in the picture. I like the idea to capture the visitors as well. Mikeo 22:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The open skylight is a central element of the room, it exposes the sculpture to the weather outside. --Dschwen 23:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, with preference for original. Excellent shot. Schcambo 13:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:B_Neue_Wache_interior_1b.jpg MER-C 09:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rye

Creator

Ivan Shishkin (1832-98) was a leading Russian landscape painter associated with the realistic Peredvizhniki movement.

Proposed caption

The painting represents boundless rye fields in the forest steppe region of the Central Black Earth Region. Acquired from the painter by the merchant Pavel Tretyakov, the canvas still hangs in the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow.

Reasons

A high-resolution scan of the iconic Russian landscape.

Articles this image appears in

• Forest steppe
• Central Black Earth Region
• Ivan Shishkin
• Rye

Opinions

• Nominate and support. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This attractive image (in contrast to the also-recently-nominated "The Ninth Wave"), has much clearer encyclopedicity. Spikebrennan 15:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is meant by encyclopedicity? Do you mean the ability to reuse this painting in many different articles? Encyclopedias are collections of information useful for knowledge of a subject. These paintings have an intended artistic purpose, rather than to give people useful information. I'm struggling to understand what truly made this painting seem more encyclopedic than "The Ninth Wave".--Puddyglum 18:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral It's a quality scan of a painting, but if it were a larger scan it would be more feature-able. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puddyglum (talk • contribs) 17:56, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It should be quite larger, but this is quite sharp as it is. And it falls within reqs. vlad§inger ^tlk 01:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- An amazing composition, and a good reproduction.--ragesoss 23:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very sharp scan. And that's really, really realistic. Jumping cheese 04:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clear, crisp scan and very realistic subject indeed. (I thought it was a photograph!) -- Chris.B 15:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above, really good painting =] (and scan) --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Rozh.jpg MER-C 09:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninth Wave

Creator

Ivan Aivazovsky (1817-1900) was a Russian-Armenian painter who spent his entire life in the port town of Theodosia, in the Crimea. Along with the more innovative J. M. W. Turner, he is regarded as the great seascape painter of the Romanticism. His output is enormous and includes more than 6,000 artworks.

Proposed caption

One of the highlights of Aivazovsky's oeuvre is The Ninth Wave, a 1850 painting now in the Russian Museum, St. Petersburg. Described as "an ode to human daring in the face of the elements", the canvas depicts a handful of men clinging to the mast of a sunken ship amidst the boundless tumultuous ocean. The dramatic effect is heightened by the striking effects of light and shade.

Reasons

I believe the quality of the newly uploaded scan does homage to this painting.

Articles this image appears in

The image is used to illustrate the article Shipwreck and the section of the article Storm touching upon the 19th-century seascape.

• Nominate and support. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support--Mbz1 13:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
• Comment. Gorgeous painting, but is it encyclopedic? Compare this (non-nominated) shipwreck painting. Spikebrennan 14:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Vernet concentrates on the detailed and highly anecdotal action, while Aivazovsky concentrates on the essentials. The Vernet painting illustrates Shipwreck, while the Aivazovsky painting illustrates the heyday of the 19th-century seascape in Storm. They are both encyclopaedic in their own way. It's a shame that the scan of the former is of comparatively inferior quality and resolution. P.S. Talking about shipwrecks, you may like Image:Aivasovsky Ivan Constantinovich Moonlit Seascape With Shipwreck.jpg. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Mainly because it's on the small side for a painting reproduction. The artist's signature is also totally illegible (possible because of too much contrast enhancement), and it looks like some of the border may have been cropped out.--ragesoss 23:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. There is no better painting of this prolific master that illustrates better his renowned mastery of the seascapes. The quality of the scan is amazingly good. Unlike in commons' FPs, the WP' FP are based not entirely on the aesthetic beauty but also fitness and usefulness of the image to illustrate the text. This is just perfect. --Irpen 23:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose As an illustration of storm, the image is not accurate. Waves in storms do not look like that - the water roughens but this water remains glossy. They also don't stack up vertically unless the depth of the water is something like less than twice the height of the wave. Look at forces 9-11 in Beaufort scale. Maybe if it were used to illustrate the painter's article. Debivort 05:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, a very famous and beautyful painting. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it is on the small side but it doesnt detract at all from its value, the picture really caught my attention the first time i saw it --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Debivort - not illustrative for the articles that use it. thegreen J Are you green? 23:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose, not good for those two articles or the little thumbnail on the creator's page. gren グレン 00:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Debivort. Matt Deres 20:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diet Coke and Mentos Geyser

Reason

An absolutely beautiful, high resolution photograph of the Mentos and Diet Coke eruption.

Proposed caption

The eruption caused by the chemical reaction of mixing Diet Coke and Mentos.

Articles this image appears in

Diet Coke, Mentos, Diet Coke and Mentos eruption, Steve Spangler

Creator

Michael Murphy

• Support as nominator Prezboy1 02:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lol. Debivort 04:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not encyclopaedic, not Wikipedia's best.--Svetovid 08:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm sorry but i was skeptical but upon viewing full size i saw a picture with great technical quality. Add to say it is not encyclopedic is not a fair rationale as it is used in this encyclopedic article Diet Coke and Mentos eruption. --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to understand what 'encyclopaedic' means in this case. Inclusion in an article(s) is not the sole criterion.--Svetovid 14:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then what does an encyclopaedic picture of this subject look like? Saying something's not good is not a very constructive criticism. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a single picture can describe something like this in the first place. You need a video for that.--Svetovid 11:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. I like it, but a couple of things if someone could clarify. (i) Is there any copyright or similar issue with using the clearly labelled Coke bottle in such a prominent situation? I guess it would be regarded as irrelevant anyway. (ii) I would prefer if there were some Mentos included in the picture beside the bottle to help with encyclopaedic value. --jjron 09:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Coca-Cola' logo is trademarked, but the copyright expired (published 1885) also it's just a common typeface so it can't be copyrighted Bleh999 12:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it's trademarked? We're not starting a competing cola product called Coca-Cola, we're taking a picture of a bottle! What does trademark have anything to do with it? This is backward legal nonsense- instead of thinking "well the law is probably crazy enough to forbid us from doing this", think "We're uploading a picture of their product, a picture that could have been taken on any store shelf across the world, to the internet. How can that possibly be legally ambiguous?" --froth^t 20:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I was just posing the question. I don't have that legal knowledge, which is why I asked. I assume you do to be answering. --jjron 08:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well not really :/ Just ranting! --froth^t 13:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Are those blown highlights that I see? What is the dark streak to the right of the bottle-- a big blob of flying liquid? It seems to me that better lighting and a background that doesn't obscure the details would improve this reproducible photo. Spikebrennan 15:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose. I'd actually considered nominating the image myself back in June, but decided against it for the technical reasons Spikebrennan gives above (well, aside from the background - I quite like it). The image is very good, but given that anyone with a few pounds/dollars/etc could reproduce the effect, the image really needs to be flawless. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  A few dollars worth of groceries and a few thousand's worth of camera equipment, yes…--HereToHelp 19:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support High quality, does a good job of illustrating the subject matter. Jellocube27 01:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Slightly noisy, with some blown highlights here and there, but overall a good quality image that illustrates the subject well. NauticaShades 02:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The tech/aesthetic sides are borderline; it's a good shot, but there's no reason it can't be perfect (some presumably motion blur, some DOF lack of clarity, nothing too bad). Frankly, what turns me off is the use of a globally recognized trademark when there's no reason at all to use it. The effect occurs with any kind of cola - a similar picture could be taken with the label removed or with the cola in a generic container. As is, does this picture meet criteria 4 (free license)? I bet the good folks at Coca-cola wouldn't think so, but IANAL. Even ignoring that issue the, well, blatant use of the Coke logo is actually distracting to me. Matt Deres 02:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, "Diet Coke" is in the article title, so the photo adheres pretty strictly to that. Debivort 03:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't tested this myself so am happy to be corrected, but I have been told by others that while this works with other colas to some extent, there's something with Diet Coke that makes it react so much more vigorously. Having said which, I'm a bit iffy on the label too. --jjron 09:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I have struck-through my opposition to the picture; according to the comments above and below, the use of a registered trademark does not affect the picture's qualifications for FP status. I only have it as weak due to some minor tech issues and because I find the brand use distracting. Matt Deres 17:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It would be better if the logo is wrapped around with some black paper or something, but it's good enough right now. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Just becuase they do that in TV shows and things to avoid giving a brand free advertising? There's no reason we should have to do that- in fact I think it's a mark of quality that we use "the real thing" in our images to be as encyclopedic as possible rather than a generic version for petty reasons that have nothing to do with the encyclopedia, like economics or even copyright. The image is for the DIET COKE and mentos phenomenon's article, it should feature diet coke. --froth^t 20:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's certainly doable with some generic diet cola instead of diet coke, but this is more of an issue on the name of the article than the picture. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Svetovid. -- Chris.B 08:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's a diet COKE and MENTOS fad, there's no taking coca cola out of the equation any more than it would make sense to use a generic mentos. Also even if we have to technically claim this as fair use, this is exactly the purpose of fair use.. there's no reason we should have a rule that we can't assert our right to use the image. --froth^t 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you asserting that the photo is in fact free license as per the GFDL the photographer released it under? I freely plead ignorance on the whole trademark thing, but surely there's a bit of difference between a photo that happens to have a Coke can in it or something and one with literally nothing in it except an exploding Coke bottle. The use of Mentos or some kind of equivalent is irrelevant since you can't see the candy anyway. You may also want to read WP:FP? where it specifically states that FPs cannot be fair use. Matt Deres 22:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fair use, it can be freely licensed, a trademark is different than a copyright, the copyright has expired for the coca cola logo, also it is a generic typeface and cannot be copyrighted, it was designed by Frank Mason Robinson 1845 - 1923 Bleh999 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the rules and I'm just taking the opportunity to call that one out as irrelevant. We have just as much legal right to assert fair use as to assert a free license (as long as it really is fair use) so there's no reason we shouldn't. Seems like something someone years ago thought was a nifty idea, and we're all just following it like sheep because it's a rule. well we make the rules, and it's a stupid rule. --froth^t 13:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It's cool, its sharp and it makes me want to know more about it, heck, it even makes me want to try it, so, i guess that enough for an FP, Also, i even think its good to see the "Coke" label in the picture, as this clarifies the COKE and mentos eruption, and, really, the Coke logo is so widespread, u cant say i has to be fair use. Yzmo ^talk 08:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't see how widely use a logo is affects its copyright status - it is either fair use or free. And, is the "Coke" logo (as opposed to the Coca-cola logo) no longer copyrighted, as Bleh999 said? thegreen J Are you green? 01:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Awesome, well taken. Inklein 00:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I actually quite like this shot - and the quality is good even at 100% --Fir0002 05:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per Svetovid. Looks a little tilted too. Schcambo 13:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I seriously do not understand what people mean by "not encyclopedic." We have an encyclopedia article on Diet Coke and Mentos eruption, and the picture clearly helps to illustrate what the article is about. Are you saying that the whole article should be deleted because it is not something that should be in the encyclopedia? Because I do not think that you can argue that the picture does not help readers to understand the article. Mcrawford620 22:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Not encyclopedic but the eruption and composure are incredible. -Henry W. Schmitt 15:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support A YouTube phenomenon last summer, well captured. Weak s. because there are no mentos positioned in front :-/ ~ Veledan • T 22:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 09:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Kasa de la Muntanya", Barcelona

Reason

Heeding calls for more noms by Wikipedians... for me, this photograph evokes the scale of the housing crisis gripping not just Barcelona but most Spanish cities. For Squatting, it illustrates a topical reaction to the crisis and depicts Barcelona's most famous squat in the context of the City's sprawling metropolis.

Proposed caption

Squatting in Spain is a highly politicized activity as much as a way of living, with political slogans and symbols often visible on occupied buildings, which range from small houses to abandoned factories. Influenced by the British Levellers, the okupa movement began during a housing crisis in the early 1980s and grew during the 1990s, due to the urban regeneration surrounding the 1992 Summer Olympics. Property speculation, gentrification and house price inflation continue to catalyze okupa activism.

Articles this image appears in

Squatting

Creator

Mick Stephenson

• Support as nominator mikaul^talk 01:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment it doesn't really illustrate Squatting they way I would expect, such as an image like this one does. That house looks pretty well kept. Debivort 04:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support >meh< it illustrates very nicely an aspect of squatting I didn't appreciate. Debivort 05:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - not illustrative. And the caption is an original research/POV rant.--Svetovid 08:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not illustrative of Squatting in general, which is why it appears at the Spain section of the article. It illustrates squatting in a uniquely Spanish context. There is, at least, one English-language secondary source to back up the section (which is the basis for the caption) and the rest is derived from es: and Spanish news sources. I guess these should ideally be sourced in English, but there's no OR in the caption at all, that I can see. mikaul^talk 10:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with Svetovid, nothing jumps out and says im the part illustrating squatting --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think this is an example of Wikipedia's finest. Also, the caption needs to at least explain the image, as it currently just gives information about Okupa activism. After looking at the picture I honestly was left with the impression that Squatting was either setting up a shooting range on top of a building, or else using a building to display activist messages.--Puddyglum 17:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I should amend the caption, but it's already very long. As I stressed above, the image depicts Spanish squatting, which is a highly politicized activity as much as a way of living. A distinctive part of that involves daubing political slogans all over occupied buildings, which can be the size of entire factories. Other examples of this appear in a gallery in the article section. So the impression you were left with was exactly the one I was hoping for. The shooting thing is typical okupa humour, contra-culture, contra-tourism, contra-you-name-it.. mikaul^talk 09:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "[This] image depicts Spanish squatting, which is a highly politicized activity as much as a way of living. A distinctive part of that involves daubing political slogans all over occupied buildings, which can be the size of factories." That seems like a start for a better caption, IMO.--Puddyglum 18:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I've found a reasonable source for that, added it to the article and amended the (shortened) caption. mikaul^talk 00:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. This is the best illustrative image of squatting I have ever seen. We see the Squat itself, and then the sprawling urban mass of Barcelona behind it, essentially cause and effect in one image. The large Spanish cities are very crowded, and squatting is a byproduct of this. The quality is fine, although the caption rather long. I don't see any POV in it at all, though. NauticaShades 02:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. Though, "can be the size of factories" is kind of midleading, as the reason for the size, is that they ARE (former) factories. Murderbike 00:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted: caption tweaked. mikaul^talk 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EllenS 12:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would just comment that this image is very easy to replicate. Whenever you visit Parc Guell, you walk past a little lookout which is the exact viewpoint shown in this image. Looks to me like someone just took a panoramic view of Barcelona then afterwards decided it illustrated squatting well. Otherwise I don't really see the need for so much background and relatively little emphasis on the building itself. Stevage 07:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I value your opinion on the enc value of the image and its background, I'm not sure your second-guessing my inspiration or motive behind the shot has quite so much value. Nor do I think replacability is a major criterion for this kind of shot – or at least it's never been an issue in the past – unless the tech quality is poor. Incidentally, the shot I have from nearer street level doesn't provide anything like the relevance and context of this more elevated viewpoint. mikaul^talk 19:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't take so much offence. Replaceability is an issue whenever the photo is of a major landmark, like the current Whitehouse nomination. Anyway, it's interesting comparing your image to an almost identical one I have from when I was there:
      • They've repainted the roof: in my one there is no red outline around the letters Okupa Y Resiste, and the white is more faded
      • They've painted over a mural: in mine, there is a mural on the wall behind the word Okupa showing what looks like a tree with some teeth like a mouth over it. In yours it's been whitewashed over.
      • The "tourist season" sign is new.
      • The wall behind the tourist sign, with the green shadecloth has been painted. In mine it is grey cement with some graffiti, including an A in a circle and what looks like the words "funf air far..."?
      • You've used a bit more telephoto, which is good.
      • The actual image quality is better on yours, which you'd expect from the D70s vs my compact.
    • Overall I'm still not that convinced about the composition of this image illustrating "squatting" as well as it illustrating "Barcelona". Stevage 06:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha - they keep themselves busy alright! No offence taken, just surprised at your reaction. The painting and stuff is fairly unique to the okupa squatters (and hence practically all Spanish squatting) as they're primarily anarchists with a point to make about property and ownership. The roof is where most of the slogans are. That was the real motivation behind the shot; the okupa HQ overlooking the urban sprawl, forcing some realism on the otherwise rosy view of the city. That and the witty "tourist" banner, truth be told. I've found several similar shots while I was researching the article, not surprising given the location; really more surprising that such an illustrative scene wasn't already in the encyclopedia. mikaul^talk 08:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Perhaps there should be an article on the squat itself? It must be pretty famous. Incidentally, do you know what the phrase means exactly? Is it an imperative (with deliberate misspelling), as in "Occupy and resist!"? For that matter, is it Spanish or Catalan? Stevage 14:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It is definitely an imperative, and the misspelling is intentional as well. Anarchists in Spain often use "K" for any spellings that would otherwise require a "C" in solidarity with the Basque language and its intentional use of "K" to separate itself from Castillian. And the word "Okupa" goes for Castillian and Catalan, but the phrase itself is in Castillian. The Catalan would be "Okupa i resisteix" (with the misspelling). Murderbike 17:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 09:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flammarion Woodcut

Reason

Widely known piece of art, high quality image

Proposed caption

The Flammarion Woodcut is an enigmatic woodcut by an unknown artist. The woodcut depicts a man peering through the Earth's atmosphere as if it were a curtain to look at the inner workings of the universe.

Articles this image appears in

Flammarion woodcut, Camille Flammarion, Flat Earth

Creator

cLeinad-Z

• Support as nominator -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 22:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support The caption needs a lot more work, since most of the interest of this image is in the history and usage: The image itself is actually rather confusing and odd. Vanished user ^talk 02:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support. Crop out the French-language caption (there is an alternate version so cropped on the image page), and improve the Wikipedia caption per Vanished user. Spikebrennan 15:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see any reason to remove the caption - it's not like it's a great deal of French, and it's important context, as it evidently is one of the things wrong with a 16th century attribution: It's a reference to Voltaire. Vanished user ^talk 15:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is the top edge tilted like that in the original? vlad§inger ^tlk 01:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be willing to believe it was: Parallell lines do not seem to be among very many engravers' strengths. That said, this is excessively unparallel. Presuming that's not a really hideous artefact of reproduction, it's yet another reason why the caption is so important: The image itself is actually only really about average quality or so, given the generally high level of engraving technique. Intentionally so, no doubt, as it's meant to impersonate an average engraving of a few centuries older, but even still... Vanished user ^talk 08:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (My) Translation: "A missionary from the Middle Ages claims he found the spot where the sky and the Earth met..." NauticaShades 02:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• By the way, I Support. NauticaShades 16:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support. The caption doesn't deal enough with the content of the image itself. The translated caption should also be in the Wikipedia caption. I agree with Vanished user that the original caption should not be cropped out.--ragesoss 20:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Flammarion.jpg. There's plenty of caption on the image page. MER-C 09:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Field Marshall Keitel signs the German Act of Unconditional Surrender

Reason

Important, hi-res historical image.

Proposed caption

On May 8, 1945, German Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel signed the German Act of Unconditional Surrender at the headquarters of the Russian army in the Karlshorst district of Berlin. Also attending the ceremony were Georgy Zhukov representing the Soviet Union, Arthur William Teder representing the United Kingdom, Jean de Lattre de Tassigny representing France, and Carl Spaatz representing the United States.

Articles this image appears in

Wilhelm Keitel, Victory Day (Eastern Europe), German Instrument of Surrender

Creator

Lt. Moore (US Army). See National Archives and Records Administration: http://www.archives.gov/research/ww2/photos/images/ww2-193.jpg (ARC Identifier: 531290)

• Support as nominator Spikebrennan 19:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Highly significant but I do wish there was a version that didn't chop everybody's heads off. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 20:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Mbz1 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
• Support I agree with CillaИ X&diams that the heads being chopped off are slightly distracting but still his point that it was a highly significant moment means I fully support--Childzy ¤ Talk 21:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Poorly framed, poorly executed snapshot of a highly significant occasion = oppose. --jjron 09:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, agree with jjron. It feels like a snapshot and the image itself is neither important nor a feature-worthy illustration of an important event. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Poor framing. Mikeo 22:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow-Bellied Marmot

Reason

I think it a good picture of a marmot, and well fits the criteria.

Proposed caption

A Yellow-Bellied Marmot. Yellow-Bellied Marmots live in the western United States and southwestern Canada, including the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada.

Articles this image appears in

Yellow-Bellied Marmot

Creator

inklein

• Support original as nominator Inklein 23:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Weak support original Edit is a bit too contrasty for me. It's a pity so much of it is overexposed, but it illustrates the animal and its habitat well. thegreen J Are you green? 01:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the pose of the marmot. hike395 03:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the angle adds quite a nice asethetic quality which compensates for the over exposure, besides, better over-exposed than under-exposed. The background is nice, makes a change to the usual close ups. All in all quite a cute photograph, would go nicely on the front page. It would be hard to get it back into that '!pose' again.WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 11:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. How could I oppose a marmot? Anyway, could someone sharpen it a little (on the edges).--Svetovid 18:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Autumn must be approaching, judging from the size of size of this marmot (Back to school, damn it). I must say, it is a shame about the road in the BG, I don't mind the exposure. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow, very striking shot. The marmot is nice and sharp and somehow the super-bright sun on the rocks doesn't kill the photo. (edit, I keep forgetting to sign) Mcrawford620 22:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. All around quality shot. What a pose, what a great angle. If this wasn't an encyclopedia, I'd want some kind of anthropomorphic first-person quote by the marmot to top it off. Unschool 01:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Looks very delicious encyclopedic. Debivort 03:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure sharpening was needed, but curve adjust is good. Debivort 19:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - nice image, but could someone adjust the levels? Looks like it could do with a bit more contrast or something. Stevage 05:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Attractive shot; good composition. The background is the finishing touch. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 07:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1 uploaded. Sharpened and curves adjustment. Have fixed up a lot of the overexposure problems mentioned and sharpened the detail on the beastie. This is about as far as I wanted to take things without starting to affect quality. --jjron 10:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit 1. An eyecatching picture with some technical concerns improved by the edit. --jjron 10:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. Great, high-quality picture, not to mention the hilarious yet natural pose captured by the photographer. --Prezboy1 17:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. The original is a great image, and the edit cleans it up to perfect quality. NauticaShades 22:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 although I must say, edit 2 is my favourite. Amphy 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 2 all the way Support Edit 1 Unique shot. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 03:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 1 Ksempac 20:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 although the sunglassas are a nice touch. Buphoff 20:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Lovely --Kryobot 18:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Marmot-edit1.jpg MER-C 08:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Façade of the White House

Reason

I think this is a aesthetically pleasing image of one of America's most iconic landmarks.

Proposed caption

The North façade of the White House, completed in 1824, located on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C.

Articles this image appears in

White House

Creator

Nishkid64

• Support as nominator Nishkid64 (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on technical grounds. How a propos: it slants to the right. Spikebrennan 00:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Boring, conventional. Sorry. Unschool 05:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose could be taken better --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ordinary picture, not stunning at all Mikeo 22:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While slant could possibly be corrected, and care has been taken in framing to minimize the imposition of that tree, the subject is in shade and the foreground fountain is cut off, creating an awkward appearance. For such a widely-known and (relatively) easily-obtained image we should insist on the best. This is better than adequate, but not by much. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The lack of symmetry does it for me I'm afraid. -- Chris B • Talk • Contribs 10:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given that the recent stabilized magic hour attempt at this shot (right) failed, I wouldn't put the odds in favor of this nom. Noclip 03:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinkakuji

Reason

Self-Nom. This is a good picture of a famous landmark of Kyoto, Japan.

Proposed caption

Kinkakuji, located in Kyoto, Japan. The temple was built in 1397. It was burned down by a monk in 1950 and was restored five years later.

Articles this image appears in

Kinkaku-ji

Creator

User:Jerrypp772000

• Support as nominator Jerry 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Blown sky. Iorek85 00:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Trees immediately in front of the edifice are way too blurry. Unschool 05:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose poor quality, and per above --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above, blown sky, bad quality Mikeo 22:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very nice subject - but blown sky and bad composition unfortunately. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 08:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If this composition is FP material, then my shot[3] should be on the cover of National Geographic! --Bridgecross 13:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yosemite El Capitan

Reason

Pretty spectacular image I though. Buc 20:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed caption

Southwest face of El Capitan from Yosemite Valley

Articles this image appears in

El Capitan

Creator

MikeMurphy

• Support as nominator Buc 20:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The integrity of the focus on the rockface itself—which is what we are drawn to—is flawless, which this layman found impressive. And the whole image I found spectacular. Unschool 05:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't find it at all too spectacular. There are other spots from which better pictures of El Capitan can be taken (i.e. Tunnel View, Valley View). Those would show El Capitan together with a little more of Yosemite Valley than just a couple of trees. The picture here is just showing a lot of rock without anything around. It is just one of the millions of tourist snapshots taken in Yosemite Valley, nothing outstanding. Mikeo 22:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mikeo. Cacophony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cacophony (talk • contribs) 00:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose technically, looks quite good to me, but there are a few problems. We have nothing to gauge the distance between the foreground trees and the rock; the tiny trees at the top and the large ones at the bottom give us a weird forced perspective, as if the face was extremely tall, when it's more likely just some distance away. While some people would object to there being a climber in the shot, some kind of scale would also be good. Nice detail, though. Matt Deres 17:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I respectfully disagree, Matt. I think that the trees at the top do a sufficient job of providing scale, not significantly different than would be gained by having a climber in the picture (though a climber on the face would make this, methinks, a more spectactular shot). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unschool (talk • contribs)

Perhaps I should have been more clear. The trees at the top do provide some sense of scale compared to the trees at the bottom, but the angle makes it impossible to say how much of that scale is due to the camera's distance from the rock face and how much is due to the height of the rock. A climber would give us a separate scale for the rock itself. And, yeah, look pretty cool too. Wonder if William Shatner is up to it... Matt Deres 23:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burj Al Arab

Reason

Beautiful PD shot of a famous landmark by a Wikipedian

Proposed caption

The Burj Al Arab, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, completed in 1999, is the world's tallest hotel. The hotel claims in its advertising to be the world's only 7-star hotel.

Articles this image appears in

Dubai, Burj Al Arab, Landmark

Creator

User:Aymx

• Support as nominator Spikebrennan 19:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: It's gorgeous! --Procrastinatrix 19:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It could be bigger, but there aren't any glaring errors.--HereToHelp 21:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Seems 'washed out' (low contrast), and the size is too small for my liking. Iorek85 00:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I concur with both points raised by Iorek85. Indeed, I wondered if this had been taken under conditions of fog, though that would seem unlikely, given the venue. Unschool 05:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with above, there is something not quite right about it, plus quality is pretty low --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with above. Picture really seems to be washed out. Maybe also not the ideal weather to take such a photo. Mikeo 22:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The "washed out" look is due to clouds/mist. If you look at a google image search for this structure, you'll see that better weather conditions certainly exist, and this image, while nice, is far from the highest quality we could acquire for this structure. -Harmil 17:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The mist gives it a nice ethereal quality. Not every image has to be clinically crisp. DrVerlucci 14:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Michaux_State_Forest.JPG

Reason

Image looks good on my computer, I don't see any artifacts. I believe the image shows the lake clearly, it also shows the waves in the water. The image also shows the area surrounding the lake.

Proposed caption

the extended caption of the image, providing adequate context, with prose suitable for display on the Main Page

Articles this image appears in

Michaux State Forest

Creator

Wikihermit

• Support as nominator ~ Wikihermit 00:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While I am a big fan of the composition artistically, I'm afraid it doesn't give me very much information about the state forest whose article page it is on. What is the name of this lake? Also, even if this lake is notable enough to be described in the state forest article, I'm afraid the image isn't very distinctive. Beautiful, but not very specific. Most of the image is taken up with beautiful, but nondescript, water and sky. Technically, the blurry distance (sky, trees and far lake shore) and the color distortion at the edge between the sky and forest are both problems. Enuja (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Uninteresting snapshot of a very typical looking lake. Cacophony 08:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Lacking enc., and technically uninspiring. --Sean 15:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. The rule of thirds would have helped too. -- Chris.B 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for poor technical quality. Puddyglum 16:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on technical grounds. I do love the zen self-referential caption, though. Spikebrennan 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yeah, I'd like to see this in person, as I crawl out of my tent in the morning. But as an FP, it's just not sufficiently spectacular. Unschool 05:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Just boring. Mikeo 22:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaftesbury Avenue, London. Kodachrome by Chalmers Butterfield

Reason

Good

Proposed caption

Piccadilly Circus, London, c. 1949. The Circus, a famous traffic intersection and public space of London's West End in the City of Westminster was built in 1819 to connect Regent Street with the major shopping street of Piccadilly. Its status as a major traffic intersection has made Piccadilly Circus a busy meeting point and a tourist attraction in its own right.

Articles this image appears in

• West End of London
• Piccadilly Circus
• Shaftesbury Avenue

Creator

Chalmers Butterfield

• Support as nominator Ajuk 23:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I've always liked this image, though it is a bit out of focus. It's especially cool having it side by side with this one taken last year. Really shows the passage of time. -- Grandpafootsoldier 04:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, It shows a rich history of London. Shaizakopf 05:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, super interesting picture Mcrawford620 06:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, focus is an issue at higher resolution (perhaps it's oversampled? what does a downsized version look like?) and you haven't written a caption . I added the article in which it appears for you. --Dhartung | Talk 09:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very high in WP:ENC value and attractive to boot. The kind of thing that should appear on the main page. Pedro |  Chat  11:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Golbez 11:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Charming, but needs a caption, and probably downsampling, and perhaps a crop or something to take care of those ugly missing corners. Spikebrennan 14:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Exquisite shot. It's caught the archetypical hustle and busle of London perfectly. -- Chris.B 15:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment where is caption? Also, can someone sharpen it?--Svetovid 17:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added a caption - that should have been the nominator's job though, tut-tut. -- Chris.B 17:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very encyclopedic and nice old picture. Mikeo 22:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support You can even see the old tram lines in the road! Encyclopedic value compensates for slightly blurry shot. One thing we have to be clear on though is has this been false coloured? it looks like original colour to me but just to be sure. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 11:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's Kodachrome, famous for "nice bright colors" and "greens of summers". It is (almost always?) a slide film format. I have no reason to suspect alteration. --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Kodachrome is ALWAYS slide film and ALWAYS has been colour, this image is slightly improved if you do auto levels in PS.Ajuk 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The uploader and his father (the photographer) have some other pics that may be worth a nomination. I don't want to nominate too much, as it will most likely be me who has to close them. MER-C 09:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably a bit late, but I've added edit1 which is hopefully not too savage a treatment. As requested, it's been sharpened a bit but the main thing it needed was a rotation to bring the verticals upright, which has lost some of the original info at the edges, although nothing (IMO) that would be missed. I've removed a fair bit of dust, hair and scratches but haven't touched the colour or tonal balance as it seems fairly true to 60-year old Kodachrome to me. I have downsampled from the original 50Mb (!) though. mikaul^talk 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? Your edit is twice the size of the 5MB original. thegreen J Are you green? 00:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1 or whatever. mikaul^talk 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 looks good, though I don't know that sharpening was warrented - it mostly seems to have brought out grain. thegreen J Are you green? 00:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. The usual aim of edge enhancement that you go for with digital shots would be no use with this scan. I made a point of sharpening the original file before downsampling so that the grain (which is usually really fine: this would probably have been 10ASA film) could be expressed as "pixels per particle", which I think is always the best way of scanning film if you have the resolution. This article goes into a bit more. The grain is actually the dye particles of the film (although there is also some scanner noise) which contains all of the detail in the image. The sharpening has brought out two issues: first, there is a fair bit of camera shake (10ASA..) which you can't really see in the soft original, and second, the scan has left some banding and chroma in the shadows which is a little unfortunate but which is correctable and would probably not be so visible in print. I've taken it to the point where you can just see some halos around the non-spectral highlights (ie where there is no grain) which means we can now see only original detail and no more. I still love it, as I love that fabulous random Kodachrome texture.. mikaul^talk 08:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Why not?--Kryobot 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:London , Kodachrome by Chalmers Butterfield edit.jpg MER-C 08:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wawadit'la(Mungo Martin House) a Kwakwaka'wakw big house

Reason

This is a very high detail image of a historic building. At 10000x7000 pixels this is a 70 mega-pixel image. Visible are the tools marks in the hand made totem and wall and the nail holes in the doors hinges. In the background other totems can be seen in great detail. I think this meets all the requirements of a featured picture. Single Photograph Account 17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed caption

Wawadit'la, also known as Mungo Martin House, a Kwakwaka'wakw "big house", with heraldic pole. Built by Chief Mungo Martin in 1953. Located at Thunderbird Park in Victoria, British Columbia.

Articles this image appears in

Potlatch, Mungo Martin, Kwakwaka'wakw, Victoria, British Columbia, Culture_by_region, Canada

Creator

Commons:User:HighInBC

• Support as nominator Single Photograph Account 17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The colors don't look natural and the shadows are distracting and probably avoidable. To me it looks like a poorly tone mapped HDR image (and the conditions don't really justify HDR). And just because you can upload a 20MB photo doesn't mean that you should. I think the photo would be much better without all the digital trickery. Cacophony 18:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The tree casting that shadow would be more useful for this picture if it were carved into a totem pole. Until then, oppose.--Puddyglum 18:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Colors look unnatural. FlakHack 21:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Rez breaks, but does not make, an image.--HereToHelp 20:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tree Climbing Lioness

Reason

Self-nom. A high-quality image of a hard to spot tree climbing lion in its native habitat. The sky is blown, however given the time of day and the technically difficulty of photographing in mixed light conditions (shadows from the tree etc.), I feel this doesn't distract from the FP attributes of the image. Also, there is a lot of discussion right now about original content on the talk page, so I decided to add some more original content. I've just now added the image to wiki, and so the articles it appears in may be updated, I'll make a note if this happens.

Proposed caption

A female lioness in Ishasha Southern sector of Queen Elizabeth National Park (Southwestern Uganda). Ishasha lions are famed for tree climbing, a trait only shared with lions in the Lake Manyara region. They often spend the hottest parts of the day in the large fig trees found throughout the area. It is still unclear why so few lions exhibit this behavior.

Articles this image appears in

Lion, Queen Elizabeth National Park

Creator

Cody Pope

• Support, self nom Cody.Pope 16:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and high quality. Really a beautiful animal which shows it's full physical form. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 18:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Puddyglum 21:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While this may be a great shot given the conditions it was taken in, that much blown sky is tough to overlook. The compositions and main subject don't stand out enough to make up for the serious flaw.--ragesoss 23:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• support--Mbz1 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
• Support though its obvious there are blown highlights i do not believe that thaey in anyway detract from the image --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is certainly a very nice image, but I am concerned about its encyclopedic value and about its technical quality. What are the sources for the fact that "Ishasha lions are famed for tree climbing?" If this unusual lion behavior is what makes this image encyclopedic, where is that information in the text of this encyclopedia? This image is currently used as a second image in the lion taxobox, and I'm not convinced that it is useful to have two images in a taxobox. It is also used in the park stub, which has three excellent pictures (and they should all be kept in the article!) but almost no text. The technical issue I'm most concerned about is the appearance of the lower, unfocused branches of the tree. What caused that strange mottled effect? Note: the two current lion FPs are Image:Male_Lion_and_Cub_Chitwa_South_Africa_Luca_Galuzzi_2004.JPG and Image:Lion_waiting_in_Nambia.jpg. Enuja (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that the mottled effect is just a result of Bokeh. The image was shot at f3.2 with a Nikkor (80-200, f2.8) telephoto at 200mm. There is no way to modify how the Bokeh effect presents itself with this lens. In any case, the mottling is not a result of any post-processing, and is in the RAW image. Also, as I've said, I wasn't sure where to place the image on Wikipedia, so your concerns about it's placement in the taxobox may be valid. However, given the sexual dimorphism of lions, it may be warranted (I think this is one of the reasons two images can go in a taxobox in the first place, and is quite common in field guides/standard encyclopedias, etc.). Finally, I've found some preliminary sources about tree-climbing, but am still looking for an academic source (most of what I've found is from travel websites; the Uganda Wildlife Authority was the original source of my comments, but I know there is at least one field researcher studying these prides, so I'm looking for an academic article as a better source). --Cody.Pope 09:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - no one is looking at the sky in this picture anyways. I honestly would not even have noticed that it was white until you pointed it out. Very nice shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcrawford620 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to blown sky. This is not a unique enough image to overlook such a flaw. --Dhartung | Talk 09:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added Option 2, with no sky. There is simply no data in Option 1 to be recovered. Depending on if either is promoted, I'll move the proper one into the pages listed above. I'm personally fonder of the composition of Option 1, however. --Cody.Pope 10:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either - Great pictures of a very unusual behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EllenS (talk • contribs) 12:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either - Technical quality is adequate for an unusual picture. I didn't know any lions climbed trees, so this makes me want to read about it. --Sean 15:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either per above. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 16:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The image page points out that the behavior depicted in this image (tree-climbing) is rare, and is apparently only practiced by a few groups of female lions (including one of the groups at the park where the image was taken). This leads me to question the picture's encyclopedic-ness for Lion, although it's perhaps appropriate for the article about the park. Spikebrennan 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original per above. Good, encyclopedic shot. -- Chris.B 17:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either Searching for tree lion on google images demonstrates that this is not an area in which many high-quality pictures appear. There are problems here, but none that seem to overcome the substantial encyclopedic value. Detail is well documented. Composition is excellent. -Harmil 17:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose [Fake article] All juvenile lions can and will climb trees, until they become too heavy to climb trees — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.78.56.10 (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tree_lion_2.jpg MER-C 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roesel's bush-cricket

Reason

Scraped off COM:FPC, where support for this image is unanimous.

Proposed caption

Roesel's bush-cricket Metrioptera roeseli is a European bush-cricket, named after August Johann Rösel von Rosenhof, a German entomologist. Its song is very similar to that of Savi's Warbler. As shown a male.

Articles this image appears in

Roesel's bush-cricket

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator MER-C 03:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. No, it's not perfect; a tad of focus loss near the extreme parts of the subject, but on the whole, I think it's quite good. Unschool 05:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As good as one could expect from a live subject in its natural habitat.--HereToHelp 17:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good shot --Fir0002 05:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very good quality, considering the speed at which they move. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 09:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good, sharp, encyclopedic shot. -- Chris B • Talk • Contribs 10:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Debivort 03:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nothing to oppose here.--Svetovid 18:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great shot. Good focus.Ghelelio 14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - muy bueno -Henry W. Schmitt 15:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the details --Kryobot 18:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very nice image --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Metrioptera roeseli male Richard Bartz.jpg -- Chris B • talk • contribs 19:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mealtime

Reason

Sole image displaying a cat at feeding time, adequately used on an appropriate article.

Proposed caption

A domestic cat, eating some meat provided by its owner.

Articles this image appears in

Cat

Creator

user:Cyclonenim

• Support as nominator Cyclonenim 12:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, not large enough. Please, read over the guidelines. --Cody.Pope 13:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC), can you upload a bigger one? --Cody.Pope 14:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose fails many criteria - small, wrong composition, ...--Svetovid 14:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's impressive and unusual that you got the cat to feed on a vertical surface, but, well, the size at only a third of the minimum is just the first issue. Speedy close? --jjron 14:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah. Speedy close. Debivort 23:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed: also, that's no vertical surface, I looks very much like a wacky camera angle.. mikaul^talk 23:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ;-) --jjron 08:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per above. The camera angle makes my eyes hurt. :) *Cremepuff222* 01:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penedès vines

Reason

Quality image of high enc value to three articles, I think I like it most for the 19th century art nouveau bodega in the background.

Proposed caption

The vigorous young growth of the Tempranillo grape vine vitis vinifera in a typical vineyard in the CatalanPenedès region. One of the most ancient wine regions in Europe, el Penedès is home to some of the most innovative of the so-called Old World growers.

Articles this image appears in

Penedès
Vineyard
Tempranillo

Creator

Mick Stephenson

• Support as nominator mikaul^talk 22:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Support there are a couple of technical faults people may pick up on but i love it it. The composition is excellent, just enough of everything is shown and the colours are great --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ah, the eagle eyes of FPC..! I see the sensor dust specks top center, I'll upload a retouched version. Am I missing anything else? mikaul^talk 23:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral It is a nice picture, I just would like a bit less foreground and more headroom for the trees. The light leaves a little to be desired as well. Maybe someone can convince me to rethink it. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 01:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1 Thanks for letting me know about the edit mikaul, For me, the new crop does it. Great composition. Way to be brave and stop down to f/22. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 15:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Weak because of the blur on some of the leaves in the foreground (it was probably windy that day).--HereToHelp 01:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support edit 1 Marginally better.--HereToHelp 00:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's nice, but I don't suppose you'd have a version with a little more space at the top, in particular a bit more space above the tower, and the cut-off tree not being cut-off? --jjron 08:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do.. I cropped it from 3:2 from the top, to balance the shot and draw the eye to the vines; I suppose it could afford a fraction more. I'll post up a different version later. mikaul^talk 09:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added Edit 1, with a bit more contrast, sensor dust removed and the top of the tree left in. mikaul^talk 18:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Support Edit 1. It's still a little tighter at the top than I'd like, and that slight motion blur mentioned, presumably due to a slight breeze with the shutter speed at only 1/40s. Still nice, and seems to work well in its articles. --jjron 06:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Edit 1 per HereToHelp. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 19:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 I like the composition and quality.--Svetovid 23:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Far better than the first. Attractive shot. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:ClosLaPlanaEdit.jpg MER-C 02:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Hornet holding a Bee torso.

Reason

This is rather unique picture, is rather good quality, especially considering the fact that it's a macro shot.

Proposed caption

A Vespa crabro germana, or European hornet, is actually a type of wasp. This one is holding the remnants of its prey, the upper torso of a honeybee. Adult worker hornets feed the masticated prey flesh to the larvae.

Articles this image appears in

Hornet

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator NauticaShades 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The caption could use expansion, but the image itself is perfectly alright.--HereToHelp 01:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I expanded the caption slightly; I hope it's enough. NauticaShades 22:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support edit1 - I'm not sure that I that I like the composition much; it's bang on centre and the perspective is somewhat awkward. But I'll support nonetheless, its other qualities probably outweigh this. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 08:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Brilliant. (and I don't care much for composition "rules"). —Pengo 14:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good picture, all in focus, composition doesn't matter --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm really not sure I could live with the centered composition, but maybe I'm just being fussy. I'd support edit1 although might be persuaded, should the consensus go with the original. mikaul^talk 14:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for Edit 1 It's a good image, excellent focus and stands out well from the background. Cyclonenim 13:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for Edit 1 Nifty content. DrVerlucci 14:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for Edit 1 Greatly done --Kryobot 18:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for Edit 1 It's a good Makro work. --LucaG 22:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Vespa crabro germana with prey Richard Bartz Crop.jpg MER-C 02:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close-up view of a Leopard Tortoise having its lunch.

Reason

Currently no pictures available of this specie in its habitat.

Proposed caption

A close-up view of a Leopard Tortoise in its natural habitat. This Eastern and Southern African tortoise, has the unique ability to swim and can live more than 100 years and grow up to 60 cm making it one of the largest terrestrial tortoise.

Articles this image appears in

Tortoise, Leopard Tortoise

Creator

ME

• Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Too similar to the other image you nominated-- pretty much all of the criticisms given to that one apply here as well. Inklein 01:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per the comments in the nomination below. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 01:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support It is interesting to note that the tortoise is staring straight at the camera. Picture's a bit noisy.Ghelelio 14:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This image would be more suitable as an edit of your previous submission rather than uploaded under a new entry. Noise should also be dealt with via another edit. Cyclonenim 13:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tortoise on Grass

Reason

I feel it meets the requirements

Proposed caption

One of the many of its kind, this young twenty year old tortoise, will probably witness the inauguration of the 100th President of the US

Articles this image appears in

Tortoise, Animal shell

Creator

Me

Extra Info: The tortoise is presumably a Leopard Tortoise. The photograph was taken in its natural habitat. The age of the animal can be obtained by counting the number of rings on its shell. It can live up to a life span of more than 100 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim 05:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The picture is not used in any articles. Please fix this before we consider this image. MER-C 06:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Concern fixed. MER-C 09:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, please familarise yourself with the Featured picture criteria, and once you do, feel free to upload and nominate your pictures. This looks a good contribution, and I don't think we've got many photographers based in Tanzania, so it can only be a good thing. --jjron 08:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Welcome to FPC Muhammad (I think you're new here). I like this photo - actually I think it belongs in a better spot in the tortoise article than just the gallery. However, one of the key criteria for an FP is the encyclopaedic value of an image. Your image description simply says this is "A picture of a tortoise crawling and eating in a grassy area.". I wonder do you have a bit more information to help with the encyclopaedic value. In particular a species identification would be good, given that there's so many different sorts of tortoises. If you took this in a zoo or some other wildlife park in order to find out that it was 20yo, then they should also have the species ID which would save you finding out yourself. Some other information on where the photo was taken may also be good, especially if it was in fact taken in the wild. Thanks. --jjron 12:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I've seen better, but there isn't really anything wrong with it. The caption and such will need to be fixed up, of course, but the image itself is acceptable.--HereToHelp 12:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Composition is fairly weak. The creature is not centered, and while the photographer can't really help the clump of grass in front, it's highly distracting from the subject matter. Fully 1/3 of the bottom of the picture is sand. Cropping and color-manipulating (reducing value, increasing saturation, for example) might help to bring out the subject, but I'm not sure it would elevate it to FP-quality. -Harmil 17:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The clump of grass was being eaten by the tortoise just before the picture was taken and the sand is part of the picture to show the tortoise's habitat. -Muhammad Mahdi Karim 17:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Composition and lighting. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 22:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• support - Very nice frontal shot. I strongly disagree that the grass and sand detract from the picture's value, although I do agree that the photo could be a bit better centered and perhaps otherwise color-manipulated to better effect. Mcrawford620 22:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose great shot form a camera phone! but i msut oppose per other users comments, it could msut definately be taken better --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Doesn't strike me as the best shot we could get of this creature. I mean, a flying insect shot you take when you can get it, but I think another shot of this subject, with more depth of field, perhaps a better angle, could have afforded itself to a patient photographer. It's a good picture, but I don't see it as a FP. Unschool 01:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total Lunar Eclipse Sequence

First the McNaught and now this - it's been a pretty good year in the southern skies! aside from the lack of rain... But anyway, I know that this was a well photographed event, but I think this shot is probably one of the best enc wise. Each image was taken at about 3 minute intervals except the last image in the sequence which shows what the moon looked like at about the middle of the eclipse. I've included time markers to give you an idea of when each shot was taken - but these obviously can be removed if people don't like them. One of the most surprising things (at least for me) was just how linear the ascent of the moon was. I was expecting a somewhat parabolic path. Clouds obscured the moon during the egress so I didn't bother shooting a sequence of that.
As an added bonus I've even been super generous with the pixel count :)

Appears in Lunar eclipse and 28 August 2007 lunar eclipse

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 05:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done. It might be worth considering adding more time labels, and it would also be nice to have one from about 6:50 for the sake of symmetry. Otherwise I'd say its outstanding. Cacophony 06:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah it would have been good - but unfortunately I wasn't quite prepared enough and the shots I took earlier were over exposed. I suppose I could photograph the moon tonight if the clouds clear up. --Fir0002 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Lovely work, those kind of things require a great deal of patience, and for rare event you only really have once chance to get it right. I agree that more time labels would be nice though to give it more context. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 11:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, although the pixel count is almost too large, given each moon is only about 100px each. (But there's at least 10 moons, so that's ≥100px of subject, right?) I would also support more annotation and a full moon at the bottom. The thing that strikes me the most is why the moons form a diagonal line. Did it move across the sky like that? I think it would be more useful in an article to a vertical line of moons, with the total eclipse on the bottom. That way it can be put on the right side of an article and sort of fall through the sections, like the Signpost banner. That's just one idea, though. Great image nonetheless.--HereToHelp 12:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's the path the moon took across the sky. I mean I could do as you suggest and just make a straight vertical - but I feel that the enc value of this image would be far better.

• conditional strong support - answer me these questions three: 1) What does the dashed line signify? A longer time gap? I'm not sure it's necessary. 2) If you want to keep the dashed line, it looks a little off center, like it doesn't point exactly to the center of the earlier moon. 3) Which image was used for the background? presumably the stars would make linear sequence also, except they appear only once. I'd consider removing them all or explaining which moon image contains them. I like the fadey pointer lines btw. Debivort 15:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, 1) yeah it just shows the longer time gap 2) i think it's probably worth keeping - I drew a straight line from the centre of both moons and aligned it to that so it should be good now 3)I made it as Fbc guessed below - with the camera on a tripod I shot photos until it went out of frame and then moved the position until I got all the photos. And then in Photoshop I got the first image of the sequence at the bottom and stacked the rest on top in "lighten" mode (only lighter pixels come through) and then I merged the four resulting sequences into a big long one with just a black background. Hope this helps! and yes I like the fadey pointer lines too :) --Fir0002 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Great! Too bad it can't be on the main page 6 days ago. Debivort 00:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So, this looks like, what, 4 sky segments stitched together to form the path of the moon? The differences in ambient light, average exposure, etc. make these different segments pretty obvious (on my LCD monitor). I wounder if it wouldn't be better to just cut out each moon, and arange them in a line. As it is now the black BG and the semi-black sky clash a bit too much. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 17:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah ha, I decided to recalibrate my monitor after trying to do some photo work and getting bad results and when I checked back here... guess what, black as night. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 21:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah it will make a difference on a properly calibrated monitor! I don't think it's be a good idea to just cut them out - compiling them as I described above gives a really scientific image with correct trajectory! I've uploaded an edit where I've brought up the levels of the blacks 4 points which removes most of the visible bordering. I've also removed the stars (believe it or not at the exposure I was using they were only visible once the moon went red) - keeping them looks messy (it's just a heap of dots). I've also added more time pointers. --Fir0002 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Looks good. : ) -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 00:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like it, and was impressed. But two comments, echoing others. I might like to see more time stamps (but am unsure until I see how they look). Also, I am disappointed in the greater gap between the final image and the preceding image. Was someone sleeping on the job? Unschool 01:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit I prefer the star-less version and I prefer the extra time stamps. As others have touched on, I would also prefer a continuous sequence up to totality, even if it makes the image significantly larger. Matt Deres 14:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit per above --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. I was going to nominate this myself. NauticaShades 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Wonderful image. I think time labels would draw attention away from the image itselfGhelelio 14:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support edit 1 The timestamps are messed up : 7:54 PM, 7:12 PM, 7:30 PM, 7:18PM. I prefer the edit for the better contrast. Anyway, great pic, congratulations to the author.Ksempac 20:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. If you have the information, may I suggest adding more precise time information (seconds, if your camera's internal clock is sufficiently accurate), and adding to the caption the precise GPS coordinates of the location of your camera? Who knows-- this information might be of some scientific benefit for people who want to compare your pictures to those taken by other observers at other locations. Spikebrennan 13:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1 - great picture. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 19:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Total lunar eclipse august 28 2007 edit.jpg MER-C 02:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GloFish

Reason

This picture shows an amazing example of genetic manipulation. The picture is high resolution and meets the criteria of a featured picture. Genetic manipulation is a very important topic both in the scientific community and in the popular press.

Proposed caption

These zebrafish (Zebra danio) have been genetically modified so that they produce green, orange, or red fluorescent proteins which impart a dramatic neon color to the fish. Although not originally developed for the ornamental fish trade, they are the first genetically modified animals to become publicly available as a pet.

Articles this image appears in

Recombinant DNA, Genetically modified organism, and GloFish

Creator

www.glofish.com

• Support as nominator Jeff Dahl 04:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose low quality, reproducable and the white parts are really bright (blown highlights i think they are called???) --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Uncorrectable quality issues. Photographing subjects in water is tricky as the water and glass your shooting through will diffuse the light and give you a loss of contrast, bluring and those kinds of white blow outs, Don't be put off though, a pic of a GFP fish would be nice for more than a few of the science articles. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 11:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per WikipedianProlific. Unschool 01:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Curious subject, but the quality is under par I'm afraid. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabethmarkt Muenchen Graffiti

Reason

A great image of Graffiti, it shows the size of images that can be made and how it is a true artform.

Articles this image appears in

Elisabethmarkt Graffiti

Creator

Oliver Raupach

• Support as nominator — Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• When you say creator and selbst gemacht (own work) does this mean you are the Graffiti artist? If not then we have a problem here... --Dschwen 22:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why, if the person that took the photo releases it then there is no problem. It is graffiti, nobody owns any rights towards the work anyway --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a discussion about graffiti and copyright and here are German laws on freedom of panorama. What could you make of it?--Svetovid 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Strong oppose upon reconsideration I'm not convinced that using the image isn't copyright infringement, unless we have the permission of the graffiti artist him/herself. Even if there are no legal ramifications from using this image, posting it without the painter's consent doesn't reflect the ideals of WP. At least that's my perspective. SingCal 23:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that information wants to be free and we need to get it into the hands of everyone at no cost? Copyright goes against wiki ideals, it's just something we have to deal with since people with guns and lawyers don't agree with us --froth^t 17:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Encyclopedic and excellent quality reproduction. Bleh999 11:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at 100%, the image is not crisp. I understand that the medium (presumably spray paint) doesn't give a crisp edge, but I am not talking about that. Look at the texture on the wall. There seems to be focus issues.-Andrew c 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Support withdrawn It's in focus, I think. As it's rather large (10MP) and not sharpened, it looks "soft" at 100%. This is more the fault of the Wikipedia image display defaults: images aren't scalable, so there's no happy medium between 800x600 preview – where you see little to no detail – and full resolution, where you can't see the wood for the trees. While downsampling and sharpening would work, you lose the benefit of high resolution and spoil the image for possible print use in the future. I've uploaded a ds version anyway, so you can see what it might look like in print. (All) that said, whereas I really like the illustration, the copyright situation is unclear (per SingCal) & I'd need clarifiaction before supporting.
  mikaul^talk 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support downsampled provided copyright is resolved. Also, do you think the nudity is sufficient to disqualify it from the Main Page. (Yes, I know, an image can be featured but withheld a Main Page appearance.) I don't mind, but someone else might.--HereToHelp 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no copyright issues.. this photo is just a picture of a wall, the wall happens to have a FP worthy design on it. The artist does not own the wall thus does not own the picture. There is no copyright tag on the wall so the picture has not been copyright protected. You can look at it a million ways but at the end of the day lets finish with the semantics and accept that there is nothing wrong with it from a copyvio point of view --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a picture of a picture, not just a wall... Just so you know, a ©-mark is not necessary. Copyright is automatic when an image is made public. However, if there is no author's name or signature, then we don't know who the © belongs to.
      • I've just reverted my reconsidered support for this. As a photo of a recent artwork, the best we can hope for is Fair Use, which makes it ineligible for FP. I'd also like to point out that it is signed... mikaul^talk 21:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But from a legal point of view is graffiti entilted to copyright protection. Now im no lawyer but id think not tbh. --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it's illegal graffiti, probably not. But I look at the intense, painstaking detail of the painting and I think it wasn't a rush job. I feel like the artist had permission to use the space, either from a business owner or as part of an exhibition similar to the one that Wooster Collective sponsored. In either of those cases, intellectual copyright holds and we don't have permission to use the image. And I think these scenarios are likely enough that promoting this to FP would be irresponsible. SingCal 16:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP is not censored. So nudity shouldn't matter. Debivort 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I know it isn't and it shouldn't. Just wanted to make sure nobody else disagreed.--HereToHelp 03:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Debivort 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Fair use#Images: As a recent artwork with clear authorship, wikipedia might be entitled to Fair Use licensing of this image under "images illustrative of a particular technique". Regardless of any (unfounded) assumptions we might make about the legality of the original artwork, and despite it being a photographic reproduction, it must be assumed to have legitimate authorship and therefore subject to copyright the same as any other artwork. Fair Use might be ok for wikipedia in general but it is not a permissible license for featured picture submissions under the current criteria. I move we suspend this nomination at the very least, until the license situation is properly resolved.
mikaul^talk 17:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I totally agree with Mikaul. I move to suspend the nomination as well, with the understanding that I would likely be in support of this candidate if not for the copyright issues. SingCal 07:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wouldn't the owner of the wall have the rights? Shoeshirt 17:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, authorship is everything. It's yer intellectual property, innit? mikaul^talk 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if am using your property without your permission as a component of the art, then wouldn't that make a difference? If I took your paint and your canvas and made a picture without permission, or if I stole a camera and took a picture and it was recovered, wouldn't the owner of the medium have the rights? Not basing this on anything, it would just seem to make sense. Shoeshirt 14:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting Shoeshirt 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but again, that discussion only applies if the graffiti is created illegally, and as I've said, I think that there is ample evidence to support that it was created legitimately. Even if the building's owner has since removed it, the artist still holds intellectual copyright on visual representations of the work, including images, until he or she decides to release them. SingCal 16:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, unless there is a specific prior agreement to the contrary, ownership of the medium (camera, film, canvas, wall) employed to create an intellectual work is secondary to ownership of the content within that medium. Hence you may own a book but not the ideas printed in it, or a music CD but not the songs written for it. If I use your camera and take a photo with it, it's your camera and my photo, whether I took it with your permission or not; they're entirely distinct entities. mikaul^talk 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarize, since there's often confusion around this idea: If you were to spray-paint a tuxedo on a statue, the resulting art (yes, it's art and copyrightable, even when illegal) is a derivative work. Copyright is held by both the street artist and the statue's artist. However, when you put a mural on a wall, the wall is typically considered a canvas of sorts, which has no copyright standing. The art, therefore is not a derivative and stands on its own. Ownership of the material on which the art is painted does not convey copyright. For example, if Picasso had stopped to draw a picture on a paper that someone gave to him to autograph, that picture that he drew is his work, and the person who owns the paper has no standing to claim copyright controls over it. The visceral sense that we get that an artist who uses someone else's property for their art must be sacrificing control is appropriate, legally, only in terms of disposing of the art. When it comes to reproduction, copyright law makes no allowance for ownership of the media. Note: 1) I am not a lawyer, this is just a summary of what I have researched myself 2) I'm discussing U.S. law due to Wikipedia's hosting location. German law may differ. -Harmil 14:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose conditionally - should the artist authorize the image's release under a free license, then I would support this image. Its focus is not even, but that's a factor of the size of the wall, I believe. The composition and lighting are excellent. The art itself is stunning, and clearly topical if somewhat adolescent. Has anyone tried to contact the artist? -Harmil 14:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's been 3 months since the nom was suspended, and there's been no progress on addressing the image's status. I couldn't find a clearly explained WP policy on suspended nominations, but as so much time has passed I move to close as no consensus due to inactivity and the inconclusive voting results thus far. SingCal 01:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended due to uncertain copyright status. MER-C 08:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted because of copyright issues. Can be renominated when they are resolved. --NauticaShades 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lilium University of Saskatchewan

Reason

seems to fulfill all 9 categories at Featured picture criteria. Seeking to edit University of Saskatchewan to feature article status as well to celebrate the 2007 centennial year of the U of S

Proposed caption

Lilium University of Saskatchewan University of Saskatchewan Centennial Lily by plant breeder Donna Hay. University of Saskatchewan Centennial Lily

Articles this image appears in

University of Saskatchewan University of Saskatchewan Academics

Creator

J. Adamson SriMesh | talk 17:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator SriMesh | talk 17:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Gorgeous flower but there are glaring blown highlights and some fringing on the petals. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 17:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Overexposed --Kryobot 18:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Details lost in overexposure. --Bridgecross 19:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per CillaИ X♦C. I guess that's the school flower? Puddyglum 23:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This flower was bred to show the University of Saskatchewan school colours for the centennial year.

• Oppose - Per all of the above. Its not a flattering angle either --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Çomment': Thank you for the discussion. Add two more smaller thumbnails of other photos taken. Would appreciate knowing if they have the same problem for another day. Thank you.SriMesh | talk 22:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically yes. It's hard to capture an essentially white object like this flower in full sun without overexposing/blowing highlights. You could try a much faster shutter speed, or try taking it on an overcast day or early morning/late afternoon when the light's not so harsh. I'd say the nominated version is probably the best of the three, but the background is not that attractive in any of them either. It is a lovely flower though. --jjron 14:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. The flower is finished blooming, starting to get frosty nights here. Have to try again another year. Thanks for comments though! Will try to learn from the above for another day.  :-)SriMesh | talk 04:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea)

Reason

Seems to fulfill all 9 categories at Featured picture criteria

Proposed caption

Silver Buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea) Photo taken at Chief Whitecap Park near Saskatoon Saskatchewan. See also Buffaloberry

Articles this image appears in

Silver Buffaloberry

Creator

J. Adamson SriMesh | talk 15:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator SriMesh | talk 15:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Picture looks a bit grainy, I think. Let me see what others have to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Grainy and a little out-of-focus. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 17:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Grainy and jpeg compression artifacts. --Bridgecross 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This might not be a sure-fire FP but it's a fine, encyclopedic shot with only minor techincal flaws. I have to say, those flaws don't include grain or compression artifacts: I think what reviewers here are seeing is the texture of the leaves. Everything else is pretty smooth. It could have done with more DOF, for sure. mikaul^talk 23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought much the same thing; I was wondering how a 2.2MB file at that res would get compression artifacts. There are also speckles on the fruit, but I think they are just that, speckles on the fruit, not grain or artifacts. --jjron 08:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Focus problems --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I agree; a bit out of focus. *Cremepuff222* 01:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush portrait

Reason

Very good portrait (even though I despise the subject).

Proposed caption

Maybe not suitable for the main page, but: George Walker Bush is the forty-third president of the United States of America...

Articles this image appears in

George W. Bush, President of the United States, United States presidential election, 2000, Republican Party (United States), 1994, List of Governors of Texas, Presidency of George W. Bush, List of Presidents of the United States, British American, United States presidential election, 2004, The Greatest American, Professional life of George W. Bush

Creator

White house photo by Eric Draper

• Support as nominator Cacophony 01:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I was all ready to be the big man and support this despite the personal cringe factor. Then I saw it at full rez with its horrific jpeg artifacts which initially looked like noise. Maybe if it was downsampled and cleaned up. There are plenty of pixels to play with. Debivort 03:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose Sadly, I tried to clean this up to no avail. The JPEG artifacts are just too pervasive. His hair is horribly color separated. -Harmil 07:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose I agree with the above, the noise is simply too horrific for consideration. As with Debivort, if someone feels they can clean up the image i'll more than happily consider my vote to be changed. -Cyclonenim 13:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose Even the pictures of him are horrible... low technical quality--Svetovid 14:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose Per opposers, low quality --Kryobot 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• very weak oppose edit 1 much much better, but there are still awkward parts, like the edge of his ear which has residual noise made obvious against the now over-smooth background. For such a reproducible subject, a better shot should be available. Debivort 19:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The background is a little less smooth in edit 2. But I agree with you, there's got to be a better image out there. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not good enough, more pictures will be taken. This doesnt cut it --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, it doesn't really distinguish itself from any recent presidential portrait. gren グレン 03:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning striking the Eiffel Tower

Reason

Unique historic image (a cleaned-up version of this image). The caption admittedly needs work but I believe the image itself is featurable.

Proposed caption

Lightning strikes the Eiffel Tower on June 3 1902. During a lightning strike, the presence of electrical charges on the tops of prominent objects such as tall buildings and trees enhances the electric field formed by the stepped leader. The current flowing between the two oppositely-charged fields creates the electrical discharge.

Articles this image appears in

Eiffel Tower, Lightning

Creator

M. G. Loppé

• Support as nominator CillaИ X♦C [dic] 00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Not sure how unique this is, considering lightning probably strikes the tower during every Parisian storm, but it looks good for the period. the caption might need a bit more work, as you suggest.--HereToHelp 01:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Looks like a scan from an old magazine, not the original photo. Even in 1902, photos were better than this. IIRC, this has been up before (probably another version of the same pic, or a very similar one, since there's nothing in the file links). --Janke | Talk 05:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Indeed you're right Janke. This image in fact appears in no articles (tsk, tsk). It is this version that's in lightning and Eiffel Tower. And that one has been nominated before, and roundly opposed (though as the nom says, this version has been fixed up a bit). --jjron 08:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC) (Hehe, just noticed, you were the first to oppose it last time too. --jjron 08:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)) OK, done a bit more looking - I wonder if a better caption wouldn't be the one included with and below the image on what I presume is the source site for the photo here at the NOAA Photo Library? --jjron 09:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You're right, it's the other version that appears in the articles. I cleaned-up that version to create this one but I wasn't sure if I should replace the image in the articles (this is my first time nominating so I admit I probably made a few mistakes :S). I didn't realize the image had been nominated before. :S CillaИ X♦C [dic] 12:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Technically the nominated version should be the one in the article - it's probably not a big issue seeing as it's basically the same picture, but still, it's the principle. And if this one's an improvement, then it probably should go in the article. If nothing else, at least you've fixed up the tilt. --jjron 14:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it completely for real, this shot? The minor rays to the sides look convincing enough, the way they merge with the sky, but those ones on top look retouched, if not painted in. Look closely and there's no "interaction" with the grain of the emulsion and the bleached out rays, which appear sharper and better-defined than the tower itself. Just wondered.. mikaul^talk 14:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose not very good quality, only mildly historic, and not particularly encyclopedic of anything. There are lots of pictures of the Eiffel tower and lots of pictures of lightning, so why nominate this rather poor specimen of either? Any historical weight is blown out by the poor quality, darkness, and large number of other pictures of the tower from the early 20th century. Matt Deres 20:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per above --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, poorish quality, and not encyclopedic per above. *Cremepuff222* 01:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No real encyclopedic value. We've got better pictures of lightning and the Eiffel tower. The fact that it's 100 years old doesn't really change much. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Eiffel Tower 1902 Lightning Strike is briefly seen in Evrett's movie, Be the Pairs (2019) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.21.250 (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Felix hits land

Reason

High quality image of this hurricane. The picture captures the perfect shape of the storm as it hits the coast. It meets the fp requirements. The image has already been on the main page of wikipedia as well as featured on various news portals within wikipedia.

Proposed caption

Hurricane Felix makes landfall on Nicaragua's Mosquito Coast as a Category 5 hurricane, making it the both the second Category 5 storm and the second landfalling storm of that strength in the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season.

Articles this image appears in

Hurricane Felix (2007),

Creator

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• Support as nominator ZeWrestler ^Talk 13:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose with regret: I love the colour sat and wide view but sharpness and resolution need to be nearer this example to challenge this, arguably less informative, FP. mikaul^talk 13:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The caption ("makes landfall on Nicaragrua's Mosquito Coast") seems inaccurate-- the storm is well east of Central America, between Hispaniola and Lake Maricaibo. Compare this one.Spikebrennan 18:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per mikaul --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - source? Alex Spade 19:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The picture is on commons: (2007-09-02 1810Z.jpg) it's just uploaded for the main page. Borisblue 21:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Skyline

Reason

This hi-res panoramic of the St. Louis skyline was taken Labor Day Weekend 2007 from East St. Louis. It is a intriguing classic view of a beautiful city and a great compliment to the St. Louis main article.

Proposed caption

St. Louis Skyline taken from East St. Louis. (needs more St. Louis detail)

Articles this image appears in

St. Louis

Creator

user:buphoff

• Support as nominator Buphoff 15:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It could stand some downscaling and a contrast boost. Noclip 16:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Edit 1: Contrast Boost, Histogram Work, Slight Crop Buphoff 17:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Great panorama but it's a bit grainy at full resolution and there are some blown highlights (on the paddle boats especially). CillaИ X♦C [dic] 21:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit 2 CillaИ X♦C [dic] 22:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Edit 2.Great picture, but I'm only weak supporting for reasons stated above.Great work on the second edit. NauticaShades 22:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose although Edit 2 is much improved. The word "intriguing" comes to mind less than "clichéd", sorry (I can think of at least three good skyline views of Chicago, for example). If you want a nicer word, go with "classic". Problems include the distracting ironwork in the water on the right, and the fact that both the tallest (One Metropolitan Square) and most interesting (Old Courthouse) buildings are obscured. (Compare this non-pano commons image.) Granted any given angle will have deficiencies, but I think this is such an easily obtained shot that we should want a slightly better one to be ranked as our best, especially for an, ahem, classic shot. --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The caption will be reworked by others at Wikipedia. I am submitting the photo with an open caption so 'classic' is fine with me and I recommend it be used. I walked up and down the East STL shore to find the best shot to take a balanced photo with an unobstructed view and this photo is the result. As an artist I like the iron work in the front because anyone who has been to this area knows that there is a large industrial base and this at least doesn't comically remove all of it.Buphoff 15:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The ironwork is a visible, and in my opinion, prominent part of the riverfront. It's extremely visible from the Poplar Street Bridge and the Arch, becoming almost a part of the skyline.Rwhealey 21:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit2 This image looks very balanced as it is, and any attempt to take this picture from another spot would (IMO) make the Arch go out-of-balance. I actually like the ironwork on the lower right. If someone can take a much better picture (which will not be very easy), there are still de-feature options for this one, but I don't think we need to go there for a long while. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Although there's little to oppose here – it's obviously a really clear & informative photo – there's not much to actively support either. None of the versions have really good contrast or colour balance and the whole panorama looks around 30% wider than it needs to be. mikaul^talk 13:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 I love the composition of the photograph, the arch is very eye catching! The colours seem good and it is clear enough. Cant see any other errors --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 Smokizzy (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2- thank you Astuishin (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Now I don't know for sure, but it seems as though this isn't the ideal view. A rusty iron 'thing' on the right edge of the panorama (surely it could have been avoided by moving a little further to the left, or cropping it a bit, or a combination of the two?)... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe "rusty iron thing" can be cropped or photoshopped out but it detracts from the overall prospective of the shot. Also, anyone who has ever taken a shot of STL from any angles knows the inherent difficulty of the Mississippi's industrial facilities and numerous obstructing bridges. Buphoff 04:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 as above. Schcambo 20:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:STL Skyline 2007 edit.jpg MER-C 10:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of amplitude modulation and frequency modulation

Reason

A simple, concise illustration of the difference between AM and FM modulation.

Proposed caption

The signal to be modulated (top) is shown as represented by amplitude modulation and frequency modulation.

Articles this image appears in

Amplitude modulation, Frequency modulation, Modulation

Creator

User:Cuddlyable3

• Support as nominator Noclip 15:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Amazing. I learned so much so quickly. Debivort 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• question I would like to see those suggestions below implemented. Also, the leftmost edge of the FM waveform never moves - would there actually be a fixed point there, or is that a mis rendering? Debivort 04:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a mis rendering but is typical of what one sees on an oscilloscope whose sweep has to be triggered by an edge of a waveform, so that edge appears stationary. Any of the 3 waves could have been used as the trigger.Cuddlyable3 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The modulated signals are off by 180 degrees (i.e. its backwards). The peak of the signal wave should corrospond to the highest amplitude of the AM signal and highest frequency of the FM signal. I think that the lines could be smoothed out quite a bit. It would also be much easier to understand if the carrier frequency was higher and the signal was irregular as opposed to sinusodial. Here is a better example of a FM waveform, and here is a better example of an AM waveform. Cacophony 18:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree your static examples are good (and similar to diagrams already on Wikipedia pages). Note however that for an audio signal the modulation polarity is not necessarily wrong, because in monophonic radio it doesn't matter! As to this mathematical nicety that boils down to whether the receiver loudspeaker cone moves out-in or in-out, I accept your point and it looks like NoClip has fixed that.Cuddlyable3 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - as per Cacophony. Don't have a problem with the signal being sinusoidal, but even for an animation it's very low quality. Great idea though, if anyone with the necessary tools/skills could create a higher quality version I'd be a strong support. Bad_germ 20:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, this was intended to be a very small animation file that would not slow down loading of pages that use it. As more Wikipedia users get broadband Internet we can become ambitious with higher resolution, colo(u)rs and frames.Cuddlyable3 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I love the idea of this image, but would want the above concerns resolved before supporting. --Sean 21:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've flipped the input wave. Noclip 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks the same to me. I wish that I knew more about creating/modifying animated gifs. Cacophony 05:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear your browser cache. Noclip 13:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Great from the enc point of view, but technical quality should not be this terrible for an FP, and it doesn't have to be, this can be redone (unlike a historical photograph). --Dschwen 14:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Questions about the accuracy but more so the quality is too low in my opinion. In the old days we were very limited by what we could do with animated diagrams in terms of quality due to file size, but with broadband virtually everywhere now it isn't such an issue, we could certainly make a much higher res version. I oppose this version but not the idea, its one of the more encylopedic FP ideas we've had recently, I recommend SNOWball closing this unless/until a higher quality version can be provided, possibly with a fourth line with all the waves overlaid.WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 15:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One further thought is this could probably be added to more articles. For example it demonstrates fairly nicely different types of waveform.WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 15:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Not big enough --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This would make an excellent featured picture if it were larger. Calibas 22:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How big would you like?Cuddlyable3 13:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Around 1000 X 500px would be nice, anti-aliased if possible. Calibas 00:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contact me if you wish to pay me fairly for preparing such a 5x enlarged diagram. IMO it would merely waste page area if posted in Wikipedia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elzabeth II of the United Kingdom

Reason

Nice looking, crisp, encyclopedic image of her majesty the Queen

Proposed caption

Queen Elizabeth II greets employees at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland during her six-day visit to the United States in 2007. She was presented with a framed photograph of the Hubble Space Telescope.

Articles this image appears in

Elizabeth II, Politics of the United Kingdom, Monarchy in Canada, Commonwealth of Nations, and many others

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator Hadseys 02:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit1 - with respect to image quality, it's sharp, nicely framed and has been perfectly composed. Encyclopedic value is equally as good IMO, so I support. (We need more peole FPs) -- Chris B • talk • contribs 08:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support damn you i was going to nom this!! =) excellent quality and composition --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1 --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Photo is of impressive size and has vivid colors, but Her Majesty's face is not in focus and lacks the crisp detail that a portrait should have. The hat also casts a shadow over her face. Not so impressed. --Bridgecross 13:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support The composition is excellent, and we should remmeber that well composed pictures of the Royal Family that are free use are going to be relatively hard to get - however my concern is the shadow per Bridgecross.Pedro |  Chat  13:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeh but when you consider that the queen always wears a hat in public, a free license image without a shadow might be hard to get. Anyway the hats pretty, leave it alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support Overall quality of the picture is good, but the backlight throws a shadow on her face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghelelio (talk • contribs) 05:59, September 4, 2007
• Support Nice pic. Cacophony 18:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support' I was going to oppose on grounds of the face not being nice and crisp, and then realized I'm looking at a person, not a bird. So yeah. I dub thee Lady Featured Picture! --HereToHelp 00:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1 Fir's done it again!--HereToHelp 21:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Debivort 04:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support on the assumption we have no other free images of H.M. I am no expert, but is it possible that some histogram work could improve the shadow situation somewhat? Also, I hope to one day receive my own framed Hubb. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I was wanting one of those Hubb's too, especially a framed one... ;) --jjron 08:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went ahead and rewrote the cut-off caption. Vote changed to support edit 1 although I still feel Edit 1 is not quite there, despite being a great improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to oppose this: blown hat and coat (it was obviously a windy day ;)), uncomfortably-tight crop, and rear-focussing leaving the facial detail soft. A fill flash or even nifty post-processing would have made a world of difference. The crop is so tight that the Hubb is totally obscured from view. mikaul^talk 14:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Above. ^8thstar 15:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above --Brendan44 18:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Brent Ward 18:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to face darker than background Spebudmak 23:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Her face is not as in-focus as her jacket, but it's not a fatal flaw. As for her face being darker than the background... I'm not sure that detracts at all. She has a hat on, which shields her from the sun. It's part of the composition. -Harmil 07:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good pic --Kryobot 18:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Blown highlights all over the place, and the shadowing is a shame. To find good-quality pictures of HM, I'd suggest finding images of her meeting with U.S. politicians-- these are more likely to be public domain and can be cropped as appropriate. I think the portrait of HRH Charles on his bio page is such an image. Spikebrennan 21:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1, strong oppose Original but only because her face was too much in the shade there. (Edit 1 has much nicer colors; I like the composition and didn't see other major flaws.) – sgeureka ^t•c 11:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 Brighter, more details. Smokizzy (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 I was holding my vote because of the shadow on the face, but now i can only approve :) Ksempac 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. Much better. NauticaShades 17:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1, Oppose Original. A lot better without the shadow. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]