Support as nominator --Rj1020 (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject is cut off and small Noodle snacks (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Noodle snacks. Also, the image is somewhat dark, and some of the detail on the bindi (as well as around the eyes) is lost.--ragesoss (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice photo but the main subject is cut off.--Avala (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Noodle snacks. Kaldari (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would it have been supported if the subject was not cut off? 76.252.1.35 (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely. Please note however that you can't currently vote here is you wish to. IP users do not have suffrage at FPC. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although the curved horizon is probably from the choice of projection, which could be changed, the exposure looks just about right. In very wide shots and panoramas, exposure can appear uneven from the sun's location—the brightness across the sky actually varies wildly in real life, though photographs usually aren't wide enough to show it. Thegreenj 17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know what causes the uneven exposure... but it still looks bad (big blotch in sky), thus very distracting... --Janke | Talk 19:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you zoom into the picture you will see that the horizon is completely uneven. The horizon is built out of hills and craters as you can see in Google Earth. The lens is a Tokina 12-24mm which is known for its low distortion at the wide end. Of course one could produce an even horizon e.g. with Photoshop Liquify filter. But that's not my purpose. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I doubt the Ev of this picture if it doesn't show the actual waterfall. Or am I missing something? --LordSunday 17:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's extinct? Thegreenj 17:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god, lol. I didn't even realize "Dry Falls". I apologize, completely spaced, lol, I now weakly support. --LordSunday 20:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Unfortunately. Quality isn't quite there, curved horizon, and the sky's exposure is goofy. Clegs (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I must be missing something. As a thumbnail, the sky looks terrible, but blow this thing up to a more normal viewing size and it the transition looks much more smooth. I don't see an issue here. Of course if it didn't have this kind of exposure variation, the foreground might be shaded and thus too dark or the sky with not enough pleasing clouds or worse, blown-out. It seems to me that the lighting is quite good! As for the horizon, this is exceptional. Most 12mm lenses are full of distortion, and yet the horizon curve (which is natural, see the comment above) is barely noticeable. The image is very illustrative and clearly demonstrates its subject. I'd have liked to see a little more on the right, but this is more than adequately encyclopedic. -- RM 15:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The sky and horizon aren't a problem, but does the image look a bit oversharpened. --Base64 (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. - We don't get enough panorama pics IMO, and this one is really nice, but I agree with Clegs (talk·contribs) that the curvature is a bit much. Cirt (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted - no consensus. --jjron (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A Hispano Aviación HA-1112 (c/n 156 C.4K-87 (D-FMBB), " FM+BB "), a licence-built Messerschmitt Bf 109G-2. Rebuilt by the EADS/Messerschmitt Foundation as a G-6. The paint scheme is missing the Swastika, due to current German laws.
Reason
This high quality (1,280 × 593) image clearly shos this historical aircraft in flight.
Support. Excellent pic, high rez. Even though the pic is a little on the small side, the subject takes up almost the whole frame. Clegs (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Clegs. High EV, nice shot. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support this action shot for its EV and high quality. Fletcher (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It lacks authentic Hakenkreuz marking, therefore does not present a historically accurate machine. Dapi89 (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I submit we can be forgiving of this if it is a consequence of censorship in Germany. The Messerschmitt Foundation appears to be a German organization, which may be prohibited from adding swastikas to its aircraft. Perhaps any German readers can clarify if that's true. And I think the photo is most encyclopedic with respect to the aircraft, less so as an example of nazi iconography. Fletcher (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am sorry to disagree, but these machines cannot and must not be view abstractly. The Bf 109 was designed and developed for the Swastika. Any attempt at removing historical symbols because we rather they were not there is a distortion of history. This might be acceptable in Germany, where there is a general keenness to sweep this under the carpet, but not in a place that is suppossed to present a neutral and factual depiction of history. Dapi89 (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to distinguish between "we airbrushed it out" (not good) and "it's not on the machine itself" (somewhat moot). The major encyclopedic value of this shot isn't in it showing a Luftwaffe machine - it's in it being a clear and clean shot of the machine in flight; note that the various captions just talk about landing gear and not paint schemes. As such, that value would still be there were it painted in complete Luftwaffe markings, in partial Luftwaffe markings, in Swiss markings, or even in bare metal. Shimgray | talk | 11:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you contradict yourself. It has been airbrushed out! It is missing, not through accident, but due to deliberate act on the part of its owners to avoid the symbol! Furthermore, the main picture should picture a Bf 109 in German markings, not Swiss, or any Axis nation other than Germany. The Luftwaffe was the largest operator of this aircraft. Dapi89 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe Nazi swastika and the SS insignia are banned from public display in Germany and Austria, which makes this not a "deliberate act on the part of its owners to avoid the symbol" but one forced on them by law. Also, this FAC is about whether this pic is of high quality and encyclopedic value, not whether it belongs as the main picture on the Bf 109 page. - TrevorMacInnis (Contribs) 14:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see mottling on the tail, but it's not distinguishable from mottling on the rest of the plane. My understanding is that the swastika won't have been on there when the aircraft was photographed - it's not been edited out of the photo. We can confirm this with other pictures of the same plane.
If what you mean is "at some point since 1944, someone has removed the swastika from the tail"... well, as it happens, when we look at this list, it turns out D-FMBB (this particular plane) is a HA-1112-M1L, a license-built version manufactured by Hispano in Barcelona sometime after 1954. It quite probably had a swastika first applied in the 1960s to appear in a film; it came into existence ten years after the end of Nazi Germany, and was later rebuilt to more closely resemble an early Bf-109, with an original engine. I really think complaining that this picture, whose main effect is to show the landing gear, has one ahistoric paint job rather than another is a bit excessive. Shimgray | talk | 15:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another contradiction, and irrelevant. German law, whether right or wrongly, is distorting the image, and that is deliberate! This is not the German wikipedia, nor is it Germany. Dapi89 (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find that more a commentary on the German government than on this particular photo of an aircraft. It is not a "contradiction" or "irrelevant" to point out that on FPC we are judging based on technical merit and encyclopedic value, NOT exclusively on historical authenticity. How much the authenticity of markings affects EV is a point that may be argued -- I think it depends on what the image is trying to show. If the image was in the Luftwaffe and was trying to show what Luftwaffe planes looked like at the time, authenticity would be of great importance. If it's in Messerschmitt Bf 109 (as it in fact is) and is just trying to depict the aircraft, I think the markings are of secondary importance. I think it may be appropriate to simply point out in the caption that the markings are incomplete to comply with German censorship. Fletcher (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a caption note is perhaps the best solution - though I'd shy from using "censorship", since it implies the owners wanted to put it on but weren't permitted. As the owners are Messerschmitt themselves, they might have better taste ;-) "A Bf-109 in partial Luftwaffe markings" might be a suitable phrase... Shimgray | talk | 15:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe it is a contradiction, and I think people are missing the point I am trying to make here. 1) The image should represent a 109 in German markings, I would expect the same for a Spitfire or a P-51 Mustang, both should be represented by their main operator, in full. The image clearly shows censorship. If you go through the list of Bf 109 survivors, all the German marked ones adorn this symbol, with the exception of the German based/German owned examples. Wikipedia is not supposed to show censored material that is restricted, for the most part, by a small number of nations due to their paranoia. The date of the picture has no relevance in this debate. A picture taken yesterday of this machine should display exactly how it looked during wartime operations. This is not an acceptable excuse. Adding just a note or caption is not ideal either, as this can be removed. Dapi89 (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate my point that this aircraft never flew in the Luftwaffe, and that what markings it is or isn't in are irrelevant to a picture whose merit is to show mechnical features rather than historic ones. The fact that the owner of the aircraft has chosen to modify what is already an arbitrary paint scheme does not make us party to "paranoia" or "censorship"; this picture is not materially any better or worse because it doesn't have a swastika on the tail. I mean, even if it did, the picture is posed in such a way that it'd be almost invisible - a small black marking on dark paint and in shadow.
We would be party to censorship if we were making out that this is what a Luftwaffe fighter looked like, because we would be misleading and deliberately erroneous. But we're not. The article contains no shortage of Me109s with and without swastikas, and I don't think anyone will be misled by this image. Shimgray | talk | 17:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even more reasons why it should not be the main picture, it is not authentic war time aircraft, and neither is its insignia. I disagree, people will be misled, I would. If I was presented with different images portraying different things, and I did not know a 109 from a kite, I would want to know "well, what is realistic and what is not? They can't all be right". I don't understand everyones aversion to accuracy. Dapi89 (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice use of focus. Cirt (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support if caption is amended to note the absence of wartime markings. DurovaCharge! 07:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support if caption is further amended to properly identify this aircraft as a Hispano Aviación HA-1112 rebuilt to resemble a BF109 G-6 and the word original is removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by M1903a4 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've updated the caption. The word "original" is just a part of the FPC process. I'm not a regular here so I'm wondering, is the caption pertinent to whether or not the picture itself is FP quality? Nevermind, I just reread WP:FP?- TrevorMacInnis (Contribs) 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOkay, I can accept the inclusion of that specific text in the caption above and will support it on that condition. However, I would like all editors to make an effort to make sure this remains the caption in the article. As you all know, people tend to change caption wording and this one should be maintained. Dapi89 (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A fire breather in the "Jaipur Maharaja Brass Band" of India. Fire breathing, which is said to have originated in India, is the act of creating a large flame by spraying, with one's mouth, a flammable liquid upon an open flame.
Suppport High quality, looks good! Caption needs to be wikified. I don't know enough about it to write a good caption. Clegs (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It certainly has a lot of wow, but all photos of this subject matter do. I think the other image of fire breathing has more EV. smooth0707 (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport As much as I agree with the other picture having the greater Ev of the two this one has better aesthetics and wow factor. It shows the detail of the fuel and the torches well. The subject(man, torches, flame) is not cut off in anyway and it follows the rule of thirds to the dot. victorrocha (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good EV and spectacular image. Kaldari (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Will support with a better caption. As for EV, the picture demonstrates well firebreathing in its traditional environment (I had no idea that it was of Indian origin until now), and I don't see why the other couldn't also be a FP with different EV. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent wow factor. --Lord₪Sunday 13:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support where are my marshmallows? DurovaCharge! 15:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shows a great view of the subject which we don't usually see. The image is very informative and gives us a good idea of how fire breathing is performed which is enhanced by an excellent caption. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another nice Viatour image showing fire. SpencerT♦C 22:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it meets all criteria beautifully.Oroso (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great focus and detail, both on the flame and on the individual's face. Cirt (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colors, nice framing of a human position that is not normally photographed. This photo definitely took skill and talent to capture. Remember to Be Bold! -- RandorXeus 02:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMo (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Here you can see the caption of an anime figure.
Reason
This is an excellent svg illustration of the subject, Manga and Anime. The image do really have a great contrast & light, including that this is very hard piece of work to do in svg.
Didn't notice that, thanks for the link. --Kanonkas : Talk 15:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as before ... --Janke | Talk 18:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like Wiki-tan, sans self-reference, this image captures the anime style. Bonus: gsv; no copyright infringement.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 23:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since this is an SVG, is it possible to move the head a little to the right? It seems a bit misaligned right now. NauticaShades 01:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose What's changed from March until now that makes this more worthy of promotion? DurovaCharge! 06:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nautica. Clegs (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I still think it's a good, technically proficient depiction of the subject which adds to the articles it's in. Guest9999 (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikipe-tan was much better visually. The tilt is off (look at the window). I don't really like the facial detail...the mouth seems to be in two pieces. Then in the .svg, the manga appears to be cut off from the torso down, but yet the rest of the scene continues. I also have to agree with Nautica. SpencerT♦C 22:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Can we not announce this on wikiprojects until the !voting is over? I believe there were issues with similar nominations in the past. SpencerT♦C 22:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image is crisp, clear and an important portrait of Adam Smith. The medallion depicted was an enamel paste portrait created by James Tassie. He was one of the only artists to have convinced Smith to sit for a sketch. As such, most (if not all) of the iconic profile engravings of Smith are derived from this medallion (a similar impression without markings was also created). The details can be found in Smith's biography. The image size is small, but those are the breaks.
Support as nominator --Protonk (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. In good faith the nominator may not be aware that copyright law applies to photographs of three dimensional artwork, even if the artwork itself is in the public domain. Please see commons:Commons:Derivative works. I have located the copyright statement for the website and they have not placed this under public domain or free license. This is eligible for speedy deletion at Commons, yet I don't want to put off the nominator with what is probably an unwelcome surprise. So I've delinked; as a courtesy please post a deletion request at Commons and I'll see if I can find a suitable two dimensional portrait of Adam Smith. The bust of Beethoven below is an exceptional find: the photograph was taken in 1895. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 06:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 08:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - what? This is awful quality at full size, there are JPG compression artifacts everywhere, chromatic aberration and soft focus. At thumbnail size it looks fine, but that's not what we're voting on. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This photograph is a remarkably sharp image of a cityscape at dusk. It shows the typical Dutch Golden Age scenery in present-day Amsterdam with its canals, bridges, many trees, and canalside houses.
Support as nominator --Ilse@ 13:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very good picture strongly communicating the athmosphere of Amsterdam Canals at dusk/night (at its most scenic). Arnoutf (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Let's see, Aug 11, 9pm, Olympics women water polo Netherlands-Hungary on tv, nobody in the streets. Still, a very good picture. -- Iterator12n Talk 02:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Clean, sharp and great lighting. Excellent addition to any encyclopedia. — Ewald(talk|email|contrib) 15:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suport per Ewald, and good EV. Latics (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm surprised I don't see any people. Nice job. SpencerT♦C 14:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its a nice moody shot, with that said the composition doesn't show much of amsterdam at all, very little of the canals and doesn't show the geometry of a canal at all. That is, what a canal looks like in the real sense. The image is also quite noisy and finally, this FP does a better job of showing the subject matter. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 19:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This picture doesn't show much of Amsterdam at all? It show the essence of the canals of Amsterdam. I especcially picked this part of one of the four main canals for a couple of reasons. First of all it shows you that there are more canals than the four big ones. Second of all it show the typical merchant houses of Amsterdam, namely buildings with a facade composed of three windows. It also depict the bow-type bridges, which are also typical for this city. The only way to get a great picture of the geometry is from a helicopter/plane and that is out of my league. What subject matter does the FP of Diliff illustrates better? More cars? For your information, large sections of the canals are currently being redesigned and there is almost no room for parking space left in this new design. So Diliff' picture will be outdated in a few years. Mine shows a transition of no cars, cars and the Amsterdammertjes, which are also being removed according with the new design. More boats? Only some parts of the canals are filled with boats, but most of them are empty. And finally, the current FP does not show any merchant house whatsoever. The trees block any view of them. And what more do you want to see of this city? Prostitutes and coffeeshops? Prostitutes you will only find on one canals and a couple of adjacent alleys and coffeeshops are not located on the main canals as well. Although I respect your opinion, its quite arrogant too say this to someone who has been born and raised in Amsterdam and still lives there as to someone who has never been there. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nog bedankt voor het nomineren van mijn foto Ilse! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an English wikipedia. Muhammad(talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
English: I forgot to thank you for nominating my picture, so thank you Ilse! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the difference between the original and edit 1 is rather small. Most canalside houses in Amsterdam are tilted, so it is hard to determine whether the correction is an improvement or not. – Ilse@ 08:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The correction addressed the perspective of the whole. Reflections of clouds/lights have to be vertical, houses stayed tilted (as they are in reality). Lycaon (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Lycaon explains why edit 1 is to be preffered and should be featured. I believe this FPC can be closed now. – Ilse@ 12:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your horses, as I stated before on wikimedia commons, I don't think Lycaon' version is much of an improvement. For one thing there is more JPEG compression. The picture requires cropping after the perspective correction, which is also not preferably. Last but not least, I still don't believe the picture requires perspective correction. All the supports were for the original by the way..--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you said, Massimo Catarinella, and I'd like to add that, in my humble opinion, a photograph featured in an encyclopedia should not distort reality. As long as the original has not been shot with some kind of (extreme) wide angle lens, then please, leave the houses tilted just as they are in real life. — Ewald(talk|email|contrib) 15:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:KeizersgrachtReguliersgrachtAmsterdam.jpg --jjron (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the article, it is in fact an alternate spelling. If you would like me to correct it, however, I can. NauticaShades 15:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Widgeon" may be an alternate spelling for "Wigeon", but "American Widgeon" is not an alternate spelling for "Gadwall". -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, that's correct. I must have been confused at the time of the nomination creation. Fixed. NauticaShades 16:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Old - and at this point largely irrelevant - horse I know but it's a good image and it would be nice if it was in the main body of an article not just a gallery. Guest9999 (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Has already been very highly vetted at Commons. Cirt (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Photo Rj1020 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suspended - clearly headed for promotion, but needs to get in (and stay in) an article proper before promotion please. A gallery only isn't good enough. --jjron (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The gallery got nuked, so now it's not used in any articles. MER-C 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I replaced the much lower quality image in the infobox with this one. Also, the previous image shows a male and female, of which an image already appears in the article. SpencerT♦C 14:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it stays there (bad memories of that cormorant nom from March/April return). BTW I don't guess anyone considered updating the caption in the article to match the new image? --jjron (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This French etching from 1789 depicts one of the most important events from the early phase of the French Revolution and illustrates the event as it was communicated within France the year the event occurred. A historic document in a high resolution file. English translation provided at image hosting page. Restored version of Image:Storming the bastille.jpg.
Oppose As far as depicting the storming of the bastille, these water colour blobs have zero encyclopaedic value. Not really sure what this has to do with Bernard-René de Launay either, again, I do not know which blob is him. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign in)[reply]
Support The dating of this places it within months of the actual storming. My experience with this sort of thing would suggest that an engraving of an event from the same year was probably created within two weeks of the event itself, the lag time being mainly to actually do the engraving. The hand-tinting is not very well done, that probably indicates this was very mass-market, being distributed widely. In short, very highly encyclopedic. I would suggest that the opposer has not actually zoomed in. There's detail there.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I zoomed in, thanks. Maybe it woudl be better without the hand tinting. It's a pretty lousy depiction, and I stand by my opposition. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Aftermath of a Japanese sneak attack on three U.S. battleships; from left to right: USS West Virginia (severely damaged), USS Tennessee (damaged), and the USS Arizona (sunk).
Reason
It is a historically significant image of a major event in World War 2. I have restored the image in Photoshop Elements 5.0 to remove some slight film grain and put the image's subjects in focus. As far as I know, this is the only image we have that compares the damage of three different ships.
Oppose The image is far below the minimum size requirements, so we have to ask ourselves, is this image so historical that we should ignore the requirements? I think not, because it's the kind of image that would really benefit from higher res, to allow us to see more detail. It's also tilted, and the sky seems to have jpeg artifacts. I note there is a pretty high res image of the Arizona at Pearl Habor so perhaps there are other bigger ones out there. Fletcher (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Close Per above. smooth0707 (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Close. Far, far too small. Large and high quality pictures of the attack on Pearl Harbour exist, such as this featured picture of the USS Shaw exploding. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mostlyharmless: I thumbnailed this very large image. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, suggest speedy close - I love the image, just too small. I suggest a speedy close. --Lord₪Sunday 00:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted - please check criteria. --jjron (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as conominator --DurovaCharge! 23:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as conominator and creator Thank you Durova!!! -- Sanchezn (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support not easily reproduced, decent EV. Disgusting little bastards - I propose we pass a law requiring all birds to wear diapers, and have prisoners change them regularly - all with only a minor tax hike of 48 percent! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-08-28 18:44Z
Support. Good encyclopedic value, wouldn't want that to land on me... Yuck, yuck. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sh** ... er, Support Haven't seen a shot like this before. Save for April 1st for front page... ;-) --Janke | Talk 21:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop per Base64. Support above is for original. --Janke | Talk 18:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dear God in heaven... Kind of a lot of unnecessary blue sky- perhaps a crop would improve, and make the image more striking when viewed in thumbnail. I agree with the April 1st front page suggestion. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped per request. April 1 does sound like a good idea. :) DurovaCharge! 22:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop, but the original is good too. Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop. Revolting. Fletcher (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop - it's too tight, particularly on the bottom (Badum-ching!). It loses that "It's coming at me" feel without some negative space below it. Support original (and possibly a less-tight crap, er, crop) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, Oppose crop cropped image won't give the idea that the Seagull is flying high--Base64 (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is the only time I can say this,but this picture really is a load of crap :D Lemon martini (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the caption needs a slight fix - "ejecting guano"? I think the sh** becomes guano only after it has hardened... ? --Janke | Talk 19:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually birds have only one orifice that expels the equivalent of a mixture of urine and feces. So that colorful four letter expletive is actually less accurate. DurovaCharge! 21:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC) bringing you the poop on poop[reply]
I thought the same thing as Janke, and most definitions for guano agree. Not sure what the thinking behind using the term guano was, but I don't think it's led to accuracy. The filename, which uses defecating, is also incorrect for the reasons Durova gives above. The most accurate terms I can come up with are "excretion", "droppings" and the simple "waste". Has anyone got anything better? (Note: captions in articles really need to be fixed as well.) --jjron (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although this might constitute a waste of time, I shall flush guano from the captions. DurovaCharge! 07:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crap Erm I mean crop. AJUKTalk!! 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support amusing and interesting. :) Acalamari 21:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect April 1 FP. SpencerT♦C 13:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This is definitely FP quality, but I really, really don't think this should be on the Main Page, regardless of the date. —Animum (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think you get that choice; a Featured Pictured means it will one day be "featured" on the main page, does it not? So you would need to withdraw your support. Of course, because Wikipedia is not censored, opposing an image because it is offensive will not be seen as a valid reason. Trust me, you're not the only one who finds this image offensive. :-) Fletcher (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wrong. POTD is not identical to FP. --Dschwen 15:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know supporting for FP but not POTD was a valid option here. Fletcher (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really, because the final decision is up to Howcheng and the people over at WP:POTD. We are separate bodies. We just provide them with the images. NauticaShades 17:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop Very encyclopedic, if you're into that sort of thing. This must go up for April 1st. Purple Is Pretty (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully support. The image is flawless, and also rather rare, and we can't oppose on the grounds of taste, it probably deserves to be a FP. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer original.--ragesoss (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Thisglad (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good enc but legend is placed in a very ugly way, map & colors not visually appealing, furthermore, there may be inaccuracies, for instance: How come the southern part of North Ossetia isn't "sparsely populated" when all the neighboring regions are? Janke (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The data on population density appears to be identical to [2] which is a CIA map Thisglad (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, I think this information is important to understanding, and has encyclopedic value, even on a meta-level. I vote weak because the data probably isn't entirely representative of the identifies of the people mapped, which can cause problems. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Encyclopedic value, but agree with Janke (talk·contribs) that the legend is a bit obtrusive. Cirt (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Because of the legend. Maybe a single column on the left would look better? But then the source map would not have data for the area under the legend. No reason to doubt the data. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per invalid SVG. I use the template to check validity. I see many of the problems are with sodipodi / inkspace additions which are not W3C standard. I would be happy to hear people's opinions about this... whether this is a good reason to oppose, etc. I have not fully decided but I think we need a discussion about SVG validity because it is an important issue since it will change how they are displayed. grenグレン 05:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed problems in full-size rendering, too - missing legend text, for instance. --Janke | Talk 07:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I have posted a message at Wikipedia talk:SVG Help to discuss this in general). Janke, which browser are you using? The Media Wiki SVG plugin is different than Firefox's so I have noted some differences... so this isn't necessarily a validity issue. Last time Image:Mahuri.svg was up for FPC, the blurring around the tree appeared in MediaWiki but not in Firefox--now it appears in both. And I've only seen SVGs rendered with Media Wiki (RSVG?) and Firefox yet there are many more platforms. I struck my oppose because looking through the invalid code I only saw sodipodi / inkspace references which I assume are extra things... I really don't know... but, I am sure some people write / some programs code bad SVG code and we do need to be wary about this since it is a markup language and not a binary like PNG/JPG/etc. Bad code could make it look different on different browsers just like for HTML... but, it could also be bad browser implementation. I'm sure this is an issue we will get to revisit again and again. It's a little frustrating that the sodipodi / inkspace tags are invalid (especially if they aren't big problems) because it obscures bigger problems we should be catching with the validator. grenグレン 08:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I use Firefox 2.0.0.16, Mac OSX --Janke | Talk 18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend upgrading to Firefox 3 (for many reasons but also) since it has more full SVG support. grenグレン 22:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am guessing that a lot of the grey territory in the lower right side of the map consists of Farsi-speaking areas. Why not expecifically indicate this as such (and add the language to the caption)? Spikebrennan (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted - no consensus. The SVG problem seems to be fixed, but can I encourage people to explain things such as when edits are uploaded and why they change their vote; other users are discouraged from contributing and consensus is hard to determine when things aren't explained. --jjron (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Following an explosive 2008 eruption, a sulfur dioxide plume shoots from a vent in Halemaʻumaʻu crater.Alternative - Closed up and slightly less noisy sky.Alternative 2 - Closed up even more, much more detail.
Reason
Another excellent image by Mila. Sadly, Mila has retired. Anyway, I loved this image so I hope I can feature another one of her images.
Support as nominator ----Lord₪Sunday 22:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Alternative added. --Lord₪Sunday 22:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate although the original nom. is an interesting and unusual shot, the alternate is more illustrative. DurovaCharge! 22:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate per Durova. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, it's got great colour and has somewhat of a wow factor. But the quality is less than fantastic, most notably along the horizon and almost everywhere surrounding the smoke. Latics (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate I'm likin the sharpness of the plume. Cirt (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both for being too far away and not showing enough detail, despite being nice aesthetically. Fletcher (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I plead that you change your vote because I saw a NatGeo report on Kilaeua and the tour guides do not let you anywhere near the steam. The author, Mila Zinkova, could not get any closer, I presume. --Lord₪Sunday 11:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the closeups from the USGS are more encyclopedic. Fletcher (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative.--Avala (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support both Here's to Mila. Dhatfield (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We're supposed to be judging on merit here. As with affirmative action, supporting someone because of who they are just undermines the value of their contribution. Fletcher (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Fletcher, I don't believe that editor meant it in that way. I think he meant she took a good picture, that's all. --Lord₪Sunday 20:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I read it as following up to your comment that we should give a FP to someone as a retirement gift. Fletcher (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both Both have a noisy sky, and are pretty weak technically. SpencerT♦C 14:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both per Spencer. Lycaon (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Spencer --Base64 (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A wide variety of beach-goers enjoy the sun, sand and water at Joss Bay, in Kent, England.
Reason
While compositionally, this isn't a perfect image due to the grass partially obscuring the scene, it was the best view I could get. Despite this, it is quite high res and detailed and I think it does still do an excellent job of showing a very wide variety of recreational activities at a 'typical' English beach on one of the few pleasantly warm and sunny weekend days we manage to receive each summer. I was quite surprised to find that the beach article did not contain a single similar image of a beach with real people visible (only empty beaches). As such I think it adds significantly to the article, as well as the local article.
Support The grass doesn't bother me a bit. I didn't notice it, and I don't think anyone looking at this for its real content will notice it either. Only picky people will. -- RM 03:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but FPC is full of picky people by definition. :-) Usually composition needs to be pretty perfect when the subject matter leans towards the mundane. That said, I do think this beach scene is full of life and action. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically sound, very high EV and as for the composition, I love it. The hole between the grass gives you an opportunity to focus on one part of the picture, before you begin exploring the rest of it, if you catch my drift. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I do know what you mean, and when I look at the image as a first-time viewer, I also feel like a bit of a voyeur, like I'm parting the grass to reveal a private scene. For the record this is a very public beach and I was in no way spying! ;-) That said, I was a bit wary that the image contains children in various degrees of revealing attire... Nothing shocking I would hope, but others are more sensitive than I am. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 12:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree - the composition is in several ways enhanced by the "parting of the grass". Technically excellent as per usual. The scene is great - full of character and interest. England pretending it has beaches... lol! :P --Fir0002 13:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I know. Its amazing what you can do with smoke and mirrors these days... No seriously, English beaches are usually pretty poor (think mud flats for about a mile when the tide is out), but this one wasn't too bad. It is funny though how they typically turn the seaside into a carnival (there's an amusement parlour at the end of just about every majorpierinEngland!) :-) A bit tacky, but a necessary part of the 'British Experience'. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW, what detail! Excellent feeling of depth. Makes me think of those Giles cartoons from the English seaside... --Janke | Talk 16:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great stuff as usual. I hope you were enjoying the weather yourself and not just taking a picture of other people enjoying it... ;-) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 18:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Same as Janke, for the level of depth and detail. I don't see Americans putting up so many tents and privacy barriers -- is that a British thing? (Although honestly I hardly ever go to the beach). Fletcher (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're not so much privacy barriers as wind barriers. It's usually windy at the beach and when it blows hard, the sand is kicked up and is generally not that pleasant to sit in as it stings and/or gets in your eyes. You can see from the flag blowing that most of the barriers are facing roughly the same direction as the wind. I think it probably is a British thing though. I'm Australian and you generally don't see as many of them in Australia either. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 23:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent picture. The resolution is very high and you can clearly see what the people are doing from the right to the far left. Has good EV as well I would say.(Giligone (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Support. A great image. I think the wind barriers should be mentioned in the caption, however. NauticaShades 14:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think the grass really detracts from the image. SpencerT♦C 19:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Red sunset at Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal. Sunsets are usually more brightly coloured than sunrises due to the presence of dust particles in the lower atmosphere, which cause the scattering of sunlight.
Reason
A risky nomination: all sunsets are pretty, etc. But I believe this one is better and has more EV than most, including the existing featured pictures. High resolution, very good quality and a vibrant depiction of the red-type of sunset at sea. The picture was recognized as a VI (Valuable Image) under the scope "Sunset at sea".
comment - the caption doesn't say why sunsets are brighter than sunrises. It would need to explain why there is more dust and turbulence in the evening than the morning. deBivort 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are brighter, just more colourfull. I think the main reason is the presence of larger quantities of dust particles, which scatter the light, due to the vertical turbulent motion of the lower layers of the atmosphere, caused by the heating of the surface. But maybe this kind of detailed explanation should be in the article, not the caption. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good photo to be sure, but doesn't seem to have any EV. Also, I don't see it being referenced in any articles.(Giligone (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose The sun is setting, but this is technically not a sunset. This is why the image was removed from sunset. Perhaps you should try again when the image is better utilized. smooth0707 (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Support Sunset may have already occurred, with the sun remaining visible due to atmospheric refraction. For those who want to be technical, are you sure it is not a sunset even accounting for refraction? And if the sun has actually set in this photo, that simply increases its EV and should be noted in the caption. Addendum: I found this this supporting diagram at Hyperphysics which resembles the subject photo. Fletcher (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Yes this doesn't seem to be a sunset as the sun is still above the horizon --Abdominator (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Removing this picture from the Sunset article just because the upper limb of the Sun is not touching the apparent horizon was a snobbish attitude. Doing it when the picture is being evaluated at FPC is ungraceful, to say the least. Yes, I also have a little knowledge of Astronomy and am aware of the astronomical meaning of the word. Still if we read the text with same care it soon becomes obvious, at the second paragraph, that the article is not restricted to the astronomical meaning. I really don’t think that this kind of attitude contributes positively to the project. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 06:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Franklin Roosevelt with Ruthie Bie and Fala at Hilltop Cottage in Hyde Park, 1941.Alternate
Reason
One of the few photographs of FDR in his wheelchair, as he generally refused to be photographed in or around it. Roosevelt, who had been crippled in 1921, went to great lengths to hide his depedence on the wheelchair, to the point of actually teaching himself to walk with iron braces on his legs so as to keep up appearences.
Comment alternate (better scan) uploaded with more accurate copyright info. I've also corrected the creator, who is certainly known. No opinion on featuring. Chick Bowen 20:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If only the alternate weren't way too small... DurovaCharge! 02:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nolo contendere. I just wanted to address the copyright/authorship issue. There may be a high-res scan out there somewhere--don't know. Chick Bowen 05:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The shadows are pretty distracting, I'm not sure I could support the alternate even if it were high res. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – if the alternate was of higher resolution it would stand a chance as featured picture – Ilse@ 08:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not only the above, but the crop takes off the top of his head. =/ I'd love to have a high-res version of the alternate for FP, though. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 06:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A traffic controller in the Michigan Avenue, Chicago, showing the characteristic sweeping gesture and elegant posture.
Reason
A high quality depiction of a traffic controller, showing the characteristic sweeping gesture and elegant posture. The motion blur of the car in the background adds dynamism to the image.
Weak Oppose: the subject is too small and is surrounded by a lot of distracting stuff. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It must be a hard shot to compose, but I think it would be better if it showed some of the traffic she is directing (not counting the cab that has already gone by). At some intersections, the controller is in a precarious position, which could make for an interesting shot, but in this image she seems disconnected from her activity. Fletcher (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elegant posture? --Itub (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't like the fast moving car in the background- that's very distracting, and has a negative effect on the composition. J Milburn (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow factor and quality is not great either --Abdominator (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the points mentioned by Abdominator above. —αἰτίας•discussion• 23:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 06:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Emission nebula NGC 6357 is near NGC 6334 in the Scorpius constellation, and next to it is the star Pismis 24-1 (brightest to the right).
Reason
An excellent image. No issues with this one, there are no blurry bands or lines, this is definitely the same quality of my recent galaxy picture that was featured, if not better. It may not be as full as that previous fp, but it features several stars that are shining beautifully and give off quite a gorgeous tone of light.
Support as nominator ----Lord₪Sunday 21:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose noise and jpeg artifacts put this below my standard for NASA images, especially considering the size. deBivort 16:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per de Bivort. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 06:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A Painted Lady Butterfly (Vanessa cardui) collecting nectar from a Lantana camara flower. Resident in south but migrating northward each spring to produce a summer brood all over Europe
Reason
Hight resolution and good quality depiction of a beautiful species of butterfly, comparing favourably with the existing photos and adding values to the articles.
Support So sharp I can count individual scales. DurovaCharge! 18:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great Detail and an good background Noodle snacks (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Great shot. Nice composition and good EV. It seems to me that the flower is more in focus than the butterfly. The eyes are a bit blurry to me. I doubt there's anything that can be done to fix that, Too bad. (Giligone (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Weak Support It's a pretty butterfly but I disagree with DurovaCharge! - doesn't seem particularly sharp to me --Abdominator (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Butterfly August 2008-3.jpgMER-C 06:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Silvereye or Wax-eye (Zosterops lateralis) is a very small passerine bird native to Australia, New Zealand and the south-west Pacific islands of Lord Howe, New Caledonia, Loyalty Islands, Vanuatu, and Fiji. Most of the Tasmanian population migrates across Bass Strait (an astonishing feat for birds weighing only a few grams).
Reason
Great Detail for the shutter speed and amount of light available. Had to get very close, the bird was so small an extension tube was required for this shot.
Weak Oppose Though a nice image when in focus, the bottom of the bird, its leg, and left side are out of focus. SpencerT♦C 14:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's the flower in the shot? Is it part of the bird's diet?--HereToHelp(talk to me) 17:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bird was definately feeding on the neclar from the plant, so was a Crescent Honeyeater whilst I was creeping up to make the shot. I have a few of it feeding but they make the bird itself less clear. I don't know what the plant is but have asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants, should be able to get it into the description once there is a response there. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At a guess I'd say some type of Correa. --jjron (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at the plants project seems to conclude that it is some species of Cestrum, however there are over 200 species and many hybrids, so it is difficult to say which. I've updated the article and file descriptions to reflect the Genus of plant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodle snacks (talk • contribs) 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair call - my assumption was that it was probably an Aust native, but there's no reason that need be the case. --jjron (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThanks for the response and the updated description. While I would prefer more detail, per Spenser, it's still very good.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 20:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support striking composition, and enough detail for identification. DurovaCharge! 18:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suppose... I think it's probably the creepiest bird pic that'll ever be a featured pic. Stop looking at me! :P Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The depth-of-field could have been deeper, but the pose is interesting and the quality is decent. NauticaShades 17:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The City of London skyline as viewed from Canary Wharf.
Reason
Quite a detailed image of London skyline with good EV. Not as detailed and sharp as my usual shots, as this was taken through thick double-glazed glass at an oblique angle which introduced significant softness that was reduced by downsampling slightly. It is quite an uncommon view of the skyline as it was taken from around 200 metres above ground from an office building which is off-limits to the general public, so it is not easily replacable.
Neutral Technically there is nothing wrong with this image, especialy taken in the circumstances under which this picture was taken. But I'm not sure of it's EV. It doesn't really illustrates the City of Londen as good as your other FP does.
You can hardly see the dome of St. Paul's for instance as is the case with other buildings. It gives a greater look of the Docklands then the City itself. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it is a better vantage point to get an overview of the city centre in this photo I think. In the St Paul's Cathedral panorama, you're sort of 'in the thick of it' and the two obviously show the city from opposite directions, so they both have value IMO. I also wouldn't say it shows the Docklands more than the city, as the photo was taken from the Docklands. Only the bottom left corner (Canada Water) is ex-docklands, and it is completely residential these days. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 12:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant East End in stead of Docklands. Excuses on my part. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose A nice shot, but I don't think the lighting and sky are that strong, and more importantly the image just has too much excellent competition. Fletcher (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Agree with Fletcher. My first impression was of blandness, there's no snap in colors or contrast. You know, Diliff, you're mostly competing against yourself! ;-) --Janke | Talk 19:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Janke. The 'blandness' is the first thing that caught my attention. -- mcshadyplTC 21:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose although technically perfect, really small unspectacular, and lacking in enc., especially when compared to Diliff's fantastic panorama which is already featured. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose As per Fletcher. You've set the bar very high with your 360° panorama. Hopefully not too high? (Giligone (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Weak Oppose When I first look at the picture, I can't find where to start with. When I look in detail, everything is too far away. --Base64 (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nice as picture this is, I believe it begs for more angle to see the surrounding parts of the central London. The foggy skies and bright sun reduce the saturation of the colors quite a bit. I know clear skies are a matter of chance and a bit of good luck in London but this picture definitely has the EV. Victorrocha (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have to agree with the weak opposes above, but they're not enough to make me oppose after viewing the picture. SpencerT♦C 19:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need a bit more variety, so how about a boy about to lose his leg to a shark? More seriously, this is a very well-executed painting, and a very good reproduction of it as well. The humans are painted extremely well, with that sort of hyper-realism you get in the best paintings where it's better than any photograph could ever be. Admittedly, the shark's anatomy isn't as good, but, that said, this was from before aquariums, so fishes weren't as viewable back then as they are now. Plus, it has interesting historical context. What's not to love?
Just to point this out in case anyone doesn't know - this painting, though very well preserved, has cracked a bit with age, leaving a network of very thin white lines over the picture. "Crazing" is the technical term, I believe. This is typical of any 230-year-old painting, and there is nothing that could be done that wouldn't come at a cost of encyclopaedic value.
To respond to objections below, it's a reasonably notable painting about a reasonably notable subject, and it's available to us in high resolution. Esthetically it's never been to my taste for a variety of reasons (the boat is thataway: turn your head and reach for the rope or else I'll be delighted to submit you to the Darwin Awards--should've gotten out of the water when you first saw a fin, chump), but despite the facts that its marine biology and human anatomy are both inaccurate and the whole things's a melodramatic puddle, the world of art experts and museum curators have assigned it a certain importance and our role as encyclopedia volunteers is to defer to that...even if it requires holding one's nose. DurovaCharge! 03:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. LOL I like how you answered all possible objections in the nom. Classy. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been around here a while, and you get to know what people who don't know about artistic medium X will question. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice expressions on their faces - Is he really a boy in the painting? - why is he naked? deBivort 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to double-check my facts, so I may be off a year or two, but Watson was 14, swimming alone near Cuba, when the shark attacked. Friends in a nearby boat rescued him. At that time period, the bathing suit hadn't yet been invented, hence the nakedness. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your facts are perfect, Havana Harbour, 1749. In addition to not studying the anatomy of a shark, the anatomy of a 14 year old boy isn't particularly accurate either. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not wonderfully EV, but a good reproduction and a good period painting. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Vanderdeckens objections. Maybe on the commons. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
upright version
Comment – Although this painting is shown in its entirety (here with frame), another painting by the same painter — of which this is probably a copy — is oriented upright (compare the details of the sharks to notice differences). The way the harpoon is cut off at the top of the version nominated here is also suggesting a different orientation. In my opinion the upright version shows a more balanced composition than the current nomination. – Ilse@ 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...Wow, I didn't think it was possible to make this painting more melodramatic, but the lurid sunset lighting of the artist's second version makes it moreso. I believe this is the original, though - why would the filename so clearly label it "original" if not? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The National Gallery claims to have the original painting here and it tries to found the claim here. Regardless of whether they merely want to have the original or whether it truly is, they themselves explain that the composition was altered. Maybe the artist cut off the top and painted another version without the cut later. – Ilse@ 12:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I think the encyclopedic value is very high... obviously it won't be used to illustrate sharks or 14-year-old boys, but it's a significant work of art that is being used well in several different contexts. It seems like some of the detail is washed out on the bright white areas, though.--ragesoss (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't say about the bright white areas - in any case, I don't think there's very much detail lost. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Interesting story, good painting that illustrates it. Facial emotions are stunning. I'm not a big connosseur, but I liked it. --CopperKettle (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support- great painting, so it certainly has the 'wow' factor, and this is an excellent reproduction, providing encyclopedic value. J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great painting and a good reproduction --Abdominator (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Definite wow factor, this is a sexy, very sharp image considering the age of the artefact - a good nomination Excalibur (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Watsonandtheshark-original.jpg --jjron (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First edition illustration from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Depicts the first moment that all four major characters come together. Restored version of Image:Cowardly lion.jpg.
Support old nice image, also a good image scan.--Kanonkas : Talk 12:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support classic, wonder when the scan was gotten because if it's from a true first edition copy the book itself is quite valuable. Cat-five - talk 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Library of Congress rare book division; it's the real thing. DurovaCharge! 09:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful image, wonderful story. Woah... and I was just playing something from Dark Side of the Moon. Fletcher (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Cowardly lion2.jpg --jjron (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The "Darnley Portrait" of Elizabeth I of England, oil on panel, 113 x 78.7 cm, National Portrait Gallery, London (NPG 2082). Probably painted from life, this portrait is the source of the face pattern called "The Mask of Youth" which would be used for authorized portraits of Elizabeth for decades to come.Already featured.Rescanned, v.2 - NOT THIS ONECleaned up, v. 3Version 4 Scanner streaks removed. Streaks in previous versions ran vertically down the image slightly to the right of the subject's face and were most visible against the black background and on the green feather of the fan. No longer a problem.
Reason
This is a new high-res scan of "one of the most important portraits of the queen" (Cooper, A Guide to Tudor & Jacobean Portraits, National Portrait Gallery, 2008, p. 34). It is one of the few portraits which is believed to have been painted from life. As the source of the face pattern (called by art historians "The Mask of Youth") for portraits painted by many other hands throughout the reign, it is the origin of the iconic image of Elizabeth I. It is widely used throughout English Wikipedia and would become the logical lead image for the article Elizabeth I of England which has had many changes of lead images over the last few months. (Note: Identical images exist in English Wikipedia and in Commons, replacing two different poor quality images which had the same name before. This scan is possible under the new guidelines for photographs of public domain art.)
Support per nom, though I'd like to see the duplicate files cleaned up.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 17:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So would I - can anyone here help? - PKM (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. About time we had a quality image of this painting. It brings out the golds and oranges, which are difficult to distinguish on the old image, and the detail is marvellous. Will go well in the Elizabeth I of England featured article. qp10qp (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose our current featured picture of the same subject doesn't have scanner streaks. Note the vertical bar to the right of her head and farther down in her dress. DurovaCharge! 18:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The line to the right of her head is on the painting. You might be right about the blurrier one parallel to it, further to the right. qp10qp (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Correct on the skinny line to the right of her head (separation in the panel, I think?) Let me see if the blurry line is in the original.
I love the current featured picture, but it's not nearly as significant in the greater scheme of things, and it's nowhere near as useful in encyclopedic contexts. Surely we can have two featured pictures of the same historical person? - PKM (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it's very high EV and high resolution. I'd love to be persuaded into this. The streak on the dark background would be easy to correct, but not the one on her dress. Scanner streaks that cross pattern boundaries are a miserable thing to work on. Any change of getting a cleaner scan? DurovaCharge! 23:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Rescanned and uploaded as v.2 (right). There's a slight blurry streak on the left that is in the source. - PKM (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, still needs a little work. I have prior commitments or I'd give it a go. DurovaCharge! 01:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to avoid overworking the image; flaws in the original painting are part of the historical record. What changes would you like to see? - PKM (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The scanner lines are less prominent, but they're still there. Shoemaker's Holiday has written a guide to scanning art that's available somewhere at Commons (I just don't remember precisely where at this moment). Suggest you contact him for advice. He's a master at this. Best, DurovaCharge! 03:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
commons:Help:Scanning. For Scanner-line problems, the easiest way is to simply rotate the image 90 or 180 degrees, and rescan. Scanner lines happen at the same place - they're a scanner artefact. But, if you scan at high-enough resolution, then it's trivial to stitch the two versions together, editing out the scanner lines. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Thanks for the tips; I see a serious flaw on v.2 which I think I have fixed on v.3. The pinkish streak on the left in the dress is another flaw in the painting. If there are scanner artifacts still there I simply cannot see them. - PKM (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's most noticeable as two vertical lines running up the green plume on her fan, and directly above there running next to her face. It's good enough now that it wouldn't be utter torture to try repairing; if you've got Skype (or are willing to download it) then e-mail me for my Skype ID; I'd like to do the repair from an uncompressed .tif file if you'll accept the help. DurovaCharge! 09:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent with options; I have a color-corrected .tif ready to go. - PKM (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clean-up, Durova! Looks great. - PKM (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rescanned. Both the rescanned pic and the one already featured provide unique and valuable EV. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support version 4 for the record. - PKM (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original should be speedy deleted as it appears to be an exact dupe of the corresponding Commons file. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's quite a backlog through the normal process. Is there an admin reading this thread who can take care of this prior to the final decision on FP for this image? That would be great. - PKM (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have copied the description from the original file to the new one.
MichaelMaggs, as an admin in Commons can you move Image:Darnley stage 3.jpg to a new but meaningful name like "Elizabeth I Darnley Portrait c 1575.jpg"? (I'll drop a note in your talk page as well.) - PKM (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Bust of Ludwig van Beethoven based upon his death mask.Edit 2 - Took Duvora's TIFF master and set white point, black point, and grey point according to key in original photograph.Here's the color key I used, BTW. (This version not for voting.)
Support. A very striking image. I think it contributes a lot to the article because it's one of the few non-sketches there. However, I do think it'd have a lot more EV in the piano section of Schroeder (Peanuts). :P Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Encyclopedic as an illustration of the death mask and or Beethoven himself. NauticaShades 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with weak preference for Edit 2 as a sharp, encyclopedic image and good restoration. If this is from a death mask one should be sure to read the quoted quoted description of his last moment. Fletcher (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Fletcher. Added to Schroeder (Peanuts) too for illustration of the Beethoven obsessiveness section. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The background is extremely noisy. Shouldn't it be black anyway instead of gray so it isn't so washed out looking? Kaldari (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment. Noise refers to digital photography; the concept sometimes gets misapplied to natural traits of pre-digital photography such as grain (this photo was taken in 1895). Could you please describe the visual traits in more detail? DurovaCharge! 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the comment: Basically, there's multiple way to restore a photograph, and one should be a bit hesitant to remove information. If the background is actually distracting, then it might be worth smoothing it out by raising the black point, but this has the inevitable consequence of removing some detail from the more shaded parts of the bust. This basically works out to balancing two issues: the photo as an illustration of Beethoven, and the photo as historic document. Both your suggestion and Durova's choice are reasonable restoration decisions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inevitable? Isn't that the kind of thing one can do with layers? Fletcher (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been giving this some thought--it's largely guesswork because the request is a bit vague--so here's my best interpretation and response. It appears that Fletcher wants a totally black background, such as sometimes gets presented in modern digital photography. The comments about "gray" and "washed-out looking" led me to suppose he was unaware that this was shot on black and white film. The bust sits on a pedastal, which along with other background details was almost certainly covered with black cloth for the photographic session. Then, in order to compensate for low light conditions, the photographer would have used a high speed film, which produces grain as a natural function. This was a limitation of the technology of the time, yet was also an artistic choice--during the film era photographers often selected grain for effect (for instance, using grainier film to shoot male nudes than female nudes because grain was considered more masculine). Now Fletcher's comments appear to assume that the grain and black cloth were technological limitations rather than artistic choices, which might be a reasonable supposition, and his suggestion of a layers fix is theoretically feasible, but difficult. The principal challenge is the intersection of the bust with the background. If Fletcher or anyone else wants to have a go at it I'd be curious what it yields. DurovaCharge! 01:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No wait, sorry, I was just questioning Shoemaker's claim that it couldn't be done without losing detail around the bust. I'm actually ok with the image (I supported above); it was Kaldari who claimed it was noisy and washed out. Indeed the background is not perfectly smooth, but I didn't find it grainy enough to be distracting, and it's quite an old photograph anyway. However if it were needed I thought one might be able to edit the background without hurting the bust, though like you say getting the edges right would be difficult and, in this case, probably not worthwhile. Fletcher (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, right you are; apologies for the misreading. DurovaCharge! 03:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created a version with a pure black background (and less severe crop on the right-hand side). There may be some detail lost in the shadows, but aesthetically I think it is a huge improvement. As this is a sculpture rather than a painting, I don't think losing some detail is hugely important as you can never see the entire sculpture in one image anyway, i.e. every photograph is a limited and artistic view. Kaldari (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1, Weak Oppose Original - per discussion above. Kaldari (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Orginal, Weak Oppose Edit 1 - Look at the bottom of the bust, for instance: In the original, there's a lot more detail, just visible that's lost in the edit. I'm not comfortable with changing the evident artistic intent of the photographer (he could have covered them with black cloth as well) like that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 2, Oppose original and Edit 1 - per the comments from Shoemaker's Holiday above, I have rerestored the image from scratch (using the original TIFF), this time setting the white point, black point, and gray point according to the color keys in the original Library of Congress photo. This means there should be no real data missing and the photo should be as close to how the original photographer saw it as possible. Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: quite a few dirt specks are present in edit 2 that I had removed from the original. I saved a version post-that phase of cleanup and pre-histogram adjustment; if you'd like it please e-mail me. DurovaCharge! 22:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through and removed a few more dirt spots and specs. Try reloading the image and see what you think. I don't think I can find any more. To answer your question about the "noise", I've uploaded a graphic to demonstrate. It has the brightness boosted so that you can better see the "noisiness" of the background. I don't know if it's analog, digital, or a combination of both. Kaldari (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not very sharp (any version) —Pengo 13:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's 2350×3500 pixels. Would you prefer it be downsampled? It's looks very sharp at 1175x1750 (which is still well within the size requirement). Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks very much for the hard work, Kaldari! I'd support either edit 2 or the original. DurovaCharge! 00:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional input: can contributors please indicate their preference. With no further clarity it will be the Original. --jjron (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Shiveluch Volcano, Kamchatka, Russian Far East is featured in this image photographed by an Expedition 15 crewmember on the International Space Station. Shiveluch is one of the biggest and most active of a line of volcanoes along the spine of the Kamchatka peninsula in easternmost Russia. In turn the volcanoes and peninsula are part of the tectonically active "Ring of Fire" that almost surrounds the Pacific Ocean, denoted by active volcanoes and frequent earthquakes. Shiveluch occupies the point where the northeast-trending Kamchatka volcanic line intersects the northwest-trending Aleutian volcanic line. Junctions such as this are typically points of intense volcanic activity. According to scientists, the summit rocks of Shiveluch have been dated at approximately 65,000 years old. Lava layers on the sides of the volcano reveal at least 60 major eruptions in the last 10,000 years, making it the most active volcano in the 2,200 kilometer distance that includes the Kamchatka peninsula and the Kuril island chain. Shiveluch rises from almost sea level to well above 3,200 miles (summit altitude 3,283 miles) and is often capped with snow. In this summer image however, the full volcano is visible, actively erupting ash and steam in late June or early July, 2007.
Reason
Huge EV, excellent resolution and quality, practically all noise has been removed by Noodle snacks. This is an edit, so I would like to see if it passes before the original is removed. Almost as good as the Mount Cleveland image.
Support as nominator --—SundayScribe 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though looking aesthetically nice at a smaller resolution, the general low quality (noise/faint square-shaped artifacts) makes me oppose. SpencerT♦C 00:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the editing process seems to have left visible artifacts in the image -- just look in the tan-colored plume for instance. Readers might want to check the original for comparison [3]. Showing the junction point of two volcanic lines, the image is encyclopedic as well as aesthetic, and not replaceable as it's taken from orbit. The original is not extremely high quality but I wonder if it's salvageable? Caption is also way too long and should be moved into the article (which really needs it). Yet, it seems to have been copied from NASA. Anyone know if it's standard practice to put a disclaimer in noting the text is from a PD source, not a Wikipedian? Lastly, I doubt the caption is accurate in a few places. First, could the summit rocks be only 65,000 years old? That seems like a bit of an eyeblink, geologically. On the other hand, I take it the summit rocks of a volcano would be the youngest. But the 3,200 mile peak noted for the summit is definitely wrong... the photographer would be looking up at it from the ISS! Fletcher (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know people in some countries use the comma instead of the decimal point, right? I think 3.2 miles wouldn't be an unreasonable elevation. --Itub (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense; I thought it might be 3,200 feet which seemed too small. Strangely the text comes from NASA, although probably NASA got it from someone else. Fletcher (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Kamchatka has >15,000 foot peaks deBivort 07:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article says 3,283 meters. So the comma was really for thousands, and not for decimals, but the unit was wrong? --Itub (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose - Although an interesting shot from a good angle the quality of the photo is very poor. Also, the caption is probably too long. (Giligone (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose Artefacting and its too dark IMO. --Abdominator (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to low technical quality explained by Spencer above. —αἰτίας•discussion• 22:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A view of the Mostecká viewed towards Malostranské Náměstí with the Church of Saint Nicolas in the background in Malá Strana, Prague just after sunrise.Edit 1 - More saturation and contrast
Reason
A picture possessing a good quality with a high EV. It illustrates the Mostecká, the street leading up to the famous Charles Bridge in Prague. This street is almost always crowded with tourists, but in this picture there is not a soul to be found. Therefore, you can see every aspect of the street and look all the way through to Malostranské Náměstí.
Weak oppose- it's a little dull, there are far more impressive sights in Prague. It looks a little dark. J Milburn (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it is a little dull, but that's because the picture was taken in the early morning. Yes, I am aware of the fact that there are more impressive sights in Prague since I have seen them all, but this is not about a photo of the most impressive sight in Prague. It's about delivering a good photograph of this particular street. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like pictures like this that show how life really is. It provides a second view of cities, instead of only the big touristy places, and hence has good EV. It's a little dark, but I don't think that's an issue. Good choice. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- There doesn't seem to be anything special to me about this picture. There's no real subject to the photo and its quite dark. (Giligone (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Support. This street is generally very dark and crowded and it's impossible to take a photos full of light so this is probably the best possible view.--Avala (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Definitely a useful shot, but it's not a striking composition and, as others note, has dull colors and little contrast. The more mundane the subject and composition, the more outstanding the technical elements have to be to make up for it, and in this case it would have to be really high resolution and really really sharp to win my support.--ragesoss (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a new version of the picture as many of you found the picture to be too dull. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perspective distortion. Mfield (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As mentioned already it's a dull photo --Abdominator (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special indeed, M.K. (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stereograph of the Wawona Tree of Yosemite National Park, taken in 1918. A tunnel was cut through it as a tourist attraction in 1881; the tree collapsed in 1969. Its estimated age was 2300 years. Restored version of Image:Wawona.jpg.
Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 17:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't really like the framing of this picture-- I think it's insufficient to just show the base as opposed to the tree in its entirety. This leaves the viewer wondering of its true size relative to those people. I wish something could be done about those curved edges. In any case, I wonder whose fantastically brilliant idea it was to blow a giant hole through the middle of such an obviously rare and intriguing specimen. Unbelievable. -- mcshadyplTC 21:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Photographs of this tree tend to be framed similarly, probably because it wasn't possible to capture the whole thing without losing the human scale and/or getting one's view obstructed by other sequoias in the grove. DurovaCharge! 21:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definite "wow factor". Technicals are decent for WWI-era photography.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 21:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per HereToHelp. Dhatfield (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've seen better photos of this tree. FWIW, the round corners suggest this is one of a pair of stereoscope images. --Janke | Talk 13:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the nomination calls this a stereograph (half of one actually). It was the best I could locate within the pre-1923 PD window. If you know where to find better I'll be right on it. DurovaCharge! 16:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good.--Avala (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Definitely interesting subject but image quality is pretty poor and I'd prefer if the black arches were cropped out. --Abdominator (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For a tree which lived well into the 20th century, I would think there has got to be a better one out there. Alas, I can't find one... --65.127.188.10 (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A spiral-type compact fluorescent lamp. This style has slightly reduced efficiency compared to tubular fluorescent lamps, due to the excessively thick layer of phosphor on the lower side of the twist. Despite this, it has become one of the most popular types among North American consumers since its introduction in the mid 1990s.[1]
Reason
This is a Beautiful, High quality image depicting a Compact Fluorescent Light Bulb. Significant because these bulbs are becoming more common every day and now play a large part in many people's lives.
Oppose well composed, but a bit small. Circumstances should be possible to duplicate at higher resolution. Please try again. :) DurovaCharge! 23:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support but it's too small so Reluctant oppose. Intothewoods29 (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rather low enc, little or no "wow" - a larger size actually wouldn't bring out more detail... --Janke | Talk 08:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I don't think 'wow' is a requirement. The EV is high, but the resolution is not. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Janke is right in that there is no important detail missing. I'm not convinced that this particular subject can have both EV and "wow". To me, it's a picture of a light bulb, and does exactly what it says on the tin. For those that like comparisons with existing FPs, see Image:Lens aperture side.jpg, Image:EIAJconnector2 edit.jpg and Image:Water drop animation enhanced small.gif. Light bulbs simply aren't as picturesque as matches. That's a fact of life (i.e. should be reflected in an encyclopaedic work). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - image doesn't cover the whole object in full.--Avala (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose PLW's point is well taken, but I agree with Durova that the image is too small. A pic like this doesn't need to be huge, but it should meet the requirements. I may support if it could be retaken. Not sure I agree with Avala's point about needing to show the full object -- it would just be a monotonous white plastic cylinder. I think it's the spiral tubing and color of the lamp that confers the most EV; this may be a rare case where I actually like it cut off. Fletcher (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
High quality illustration of a U.S. historic site, carefully taken in appropriate weather conditions. Compares well to other photographs of the same site.
Support as nominator --Specious (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, weak technical quality at full resolution. Sorry. —αἰτίας•discussion• 22:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment might make a good candidate for the Valued Image program at Commons. DurovaCharge! 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Minimal wow. Good photo, can't take that away. I think Durova's suggestion of VI isn't a bad idea. -- Wadester16 (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - George Washington's handwritten notes for the first State of the Union Address, January 8, 1790. Click on image to view full 7 pages.
Reason
This might be our first .djvu file to become a featured picture candidate. Click on the image to view all seven pages. Resolution is a little on the low side, but the text is legible and the encyclopedic value is pretty high.
Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 20:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a really great image, but i'm not thrilled about the fact it is a .djvu. I think that most users, like myself, will come across this image, and not know how to view the full res, or how to properly save and open the file. The same could be said of a pdf file, but that is more of the standard and most users know how to deal with such a format. Is there a specific reason why this is in djvu format? smooth0707 (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It was originally researched and uploaded as a request from Wikisource to illustrate featured content of theirs. DurovaCharge! 02:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs to be in a more common format, so we can fix the annoying tilt... ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
Oppose Not opposed to the format, but the quality isn't great. Very noticeable jpeg artefacts (viewed in Evince). —Pengo 09:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator ----Music26/11 19:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice sketch, but the fact that Sheen's face is cut in half drastically reduces enc. SpencerT♦C 20:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I guess the sketch is ok, but I don't see the point. If this was a photo of him, it could be said to represent Sheen. Instead it's a sketch, so we are representing the sketch instead of the actor. I don't see that the sketch is important in any way. I also take issue with its execution, the bits of hair coming down his forehead aren't done very well. The Talking Socktalkcontribs 22:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't even think it looks that much like Charlie Sheen. Sorry. -- Wadester16 (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unclear what the source is, and I also think we should have a whole face at least. We have previously accepted at least one recent drawing by a not-yet-notable artists as an FP, but not afaik for a portrait. When we have a more complete and verifiable example, maybe we can have some more public discussion about the acceptability of such creations/reproductions. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Wadester16 (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Fair enough, the other that has already become featured is indeed better. I hadn't seen that one. Thanks Calliopejen1. - Wadester16 (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - I thought this was a Featured picture. Can we double-check a similar version wasn't promoted already? Otherwise, fully in support of this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was nominated with another here, and this particular one wasn't promoted. I opposed it then and I oppose it now because the arrangement of the pupae (laying on top of honeycomb) is unencyclopedic and misleading. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Misleading per Calliopejen. I learned more by looking at the previous nom's other image.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 02:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Excavations at the site of Gran Dolina, in Atapuerca (Spain), during 2008. Panoramic photography formed using 3 individual photographies with Hugin software. TD-10 archaeological level is being excavated where the most of the people are. It is a Homo heidelbergensis' camp. Under the plank, we can observe a woman with red sweatshirt excavating TD-6 archaeological level, where were found the first remains of Homo antecessor.Version 2Version 3Version 4 full size
Reason
panorama image which shows a normal day in the Atapuerca excavation. Hugin and Gimp were used to make this great photo. If you like this image, any of you can put it in the Atapuerca English Wikipedia.
Weak oppose Though it looks pretty decent as a thumbnail, when viewed full, sharpness is quite lacking. SpencerT♦C 20:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's been said before, but we really are holding a double standard if we call sharpness lacking in 29 megapixel pictures like this, then pile on support for, e.g., Fir0002's "sharp" 1.7 MPs. This picture is extremely sharp at around 6 MP, which is still a far higher resolution than we normally see here. Thegreenj 20:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then someone should downsample it. The image should be judged at full size and if it isn't sharp at full size it shouldn't be featured (presuming there are no special circumstances). There is no reason to have anything less than stunning sharpness in the FP collection unless the image is very rare or difficult to capture. Perhaps if it was downsized it would be better. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 21:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fbc is right - there is no excuse for poor sharpness at 100% in 29MP panoramas as Diliff has conclusively proven. And you can lose the inverted commas because my images aren't sharp just because of downsampling. This FP is nearly 100% crop (I think the original was ~1700px) and you can see a 100% crop here. Sharpness comes from decent equipment, good technique and correct post processing. There is no excuse for a 350D to produce images with sharpness as terrible as in this image. To give you an idea how bad it is I downsampled the image to 50%, applied some sharpening and then resized it to its original size in Photoshop and I'd argue it's even better than the original - it certainly hasn't lost any information! Downsampled and then upsized, crop from the original. At 100% this image simply isn't FP grade --Fir0002 22:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to single your photos out; they're just a convinient example of high-quality but medium-resolution pictures (and FWIW I don't really care how your pictures look at 100% so much as how the version on Wikipedia looks). I don't argue that it shouldn't be downsampled. If it won't lose any information, by all means, do so! But downsampling it hasn't made it higher quality; at best it's the same. To oppose a blurry 29 MP picture and support the same one downsampled is like printing a photo out poster-size and saying that it's lower quality than a 4×6. Thegreenj 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well no I can't say your analogy works. Because at FP the technical quality of a 29MP image has to be the same as the quality of a 1.5MP image - it's a linear quality curve (at least that's how I consider it). I'm not saying that downsampling will make it higher quality, I'm saying that the image quality is not that of a 29MP FP - it has to be downsampled to get to FP levels of sharpness. --Fir0002 13:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I see what you're saying, though I don't agree with it. I suppose as long as the phrase "no information is lost" is remembered, it's an OK (albeit pointless) way to look at the guidelines. Thegreenj 13:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This wasn't in any articles on en.wiki at the time of the nom, but I added it to Atapuerca Mountains. SpencerT♦C 20:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the good EV. I think it's sharp enough. You might consider expanding the caption on the article, right now all it says is "Gran Dolina". Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the caption to: "Excavations at the site of Gran Dolina in 2008: Most of the people are excavating at the TD-10 archaeological level, where there is a Homo heidelbergensis camp." SpencerT♦
I reduced the size of the image and the darkness at the bottom of the image, where the red archaeologist is excavating, to show better her work in one of the main archaeological levels in Europe. Mario 14:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It's better but I think you can get it even better if you apply some sharpening. --Fir0002 13:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Highlighted and sharpened. i hope you like.
Oppose any downsampled version Whichever way you look at it, downsampling DOES remove information. Downsampling makes an image LOOK better, but in no way improves it. If someone wants to print this photo on a big poster, they would want to use the largest version available. If someone wants to print it to something much smaller, it is simple for them to do the resizing themselves. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's true Mahahahaneapneap. It does remove information. I don't have enough knowledge to modify the image in its original size. So I decided to reduce it. I would like anybody of you telling me how can I improve it in its original size, sharpening, highlighting, and any other thing could make it better. I am a linux user and I use The Gimp (it's like Photoshop). Better, if any of you can really improve it, please, do it and then, tell me how did you do. All together can improve images and wikipedia. Mario
Comment Added version 4, no downsampling. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original – A feral Barbary dove in Tasmania, Australia. The species is not usually found in Tasmania. The dove had most likely escaped from an aviary as its flight feathers have been clipped. Also known as a ringneck dove or ring dove (Streptopelia risoria).
Reason
Good image quality, obviously escaped from an aviary, not supposed to be found here
Comment it'd be nice to have a longer caption. I want to know why it's "not supposed to be found here". They're not native to Tasmania is my guess (I'm too lazy to look @ the article. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit more to the caption based on the conclusion that the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds came up with when asked to identify it. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are some out of focus areas but no important detail is lost imo. The detail in the important areas and the background and lighting are very good. There are some blown highlights in places as well but I don't really think it effects the image much. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah, there are some weak points (mentioned by Noodle snacks), but it's still a quite good picture. Well done. —αἰτίας•discussion• 22:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Subject is cut off (bottom of the left leg). Although there might be an explanation for it I also suspect there has been some significant and unpleasant editing to the background colour/saturation. I base this off the following: the leftmost leaf has a very odd colouration with dapples of green sharply contrasting with the rest of the leaf (this is characteristic of saturating only in the green range in Photoshop); there are strange red outlines around many of the OOF background leaves; and the underside of the ant's black abdomen seems tinted in the greens too much (reflections?). Not bad but those issues prevent it from being FP worthy IMO --Fir0002 02:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - It seems a bit over sharpened to me. I can see green and red dots all over. Also, as per Fir0002. (Giligone (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose. I suspect Richard would agree that this is not one of his best. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Two Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment during fighting at Wana Ridge during the Battle of Okinawa, May 1945. On the left, Davis Hargraves (1925-) provides covering fire with his M1 Thompson submachine gun as Gabriel Chavarria (on the right; 1926-), with a Browning Automatic Rifle, prepares to break cover to move to a different position. Wana Ridge was a long coral spine running out of northern Shuri Hill and was lined on both sides with Okinawan tombs. Japanese emplacements in the tombs and on the reverse slope of the ridge forced the Marines to carefully fight their way through the fortifications.
Reason
A dramatic, good quality image of historical interest and which effectively shows employment of infantry combat tactics in a real life situation. The photo was unsuccessfully nominated in 2005 [4] but a recently published book has provided additional information and context about the photo [5].
Support as nominator --Cla68 (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown highlights. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC) (forgot to login)[reply]
Comment Though storming Okinawa might have been difficult, and historically important, this isn't much of a picture. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A rare and powerful shot. The well-presented, well-sourced contextual information more than makes up for the technical weaknesses.--ragesoss (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If I was a soldier and I was under fire, and I saw some civilian guy taking pictures of me, I'd better end up being a featured pic! LOL oh yeah and for the reasons already stated. Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is too low - white dust/blotches, contrast problem, plus what looks like slight posterization & compression artifacts. --Janke | Talk 12:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Janke...quality is way too low to allow me to support. SpencerT♦C 20:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comparing the first and second versions, it's apparent that the photo was adjusted. Also, it seems something was removed from the sky near the top left corner. Can you detail the ways in which this was manipulated? Fg2 (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this will be worth featuring once a good restoration job has been done on it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support thought it was already featured. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - This image shows the district Wolfersgrün of the town Kirchberg in Saxony, Germany. It is a two segment panoramic image.
Reason
A really beautiful scene from Saxony Germany. Very useful as well as the article doesn't have much text and so the proverbial thousand words from this image substantially improves it.
Oppose - it seems that we support any panorama here but this one in particular doesn't have a very good composition.--Avala (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - awkward composition and blown highights are the big problems.--ragesoss (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - what do you two not like about the composition. If it were me, I would crop a bit on the left, but otherwise it looks balanced and well composed. deBivort 16:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well, I have to agree with ragesoss and Avala; the composition is really nothing special. Additionally the technical quality is quite weak at full resolution and finally I don't think the encyclopedic value is that high. All in all not enough for an FP, sorry. —αἰτίας•discussion• 22:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Profile of Adam Smith, etched after the death of the subject, likely for a cover to The Wealth of Nations.
Reason
Image is encyclopedic and of clear historical value. This profile of Smith, based on an enameled paste medallion created in 1787 by James Tassie, graces literally hundreds of books. This image name was previously nominated in June, but the image rejected there was then of unknown providence and was reversed (so smith faced left). While the exact author is still not known, two of Smith's biographer's point to the four possible names listed on the description page.
Support as nominator --Protonk (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Size requirements victorrocha (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2008(UTC)
Found larger version at the LC I'll upload it later. victorrocha (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2008(UTC)
Man, I'm terrible at these things. :( Protonk (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with condition the condition being that a larger version is uploaded that is larger than the guideliens. A very good portrait, very historically significant and encyclopedic. Cat-five - talk 02:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution is way too small. --Abdominator (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Hold the voting for a sec...User:victorrocha says that they'll upload a larger one later. Unless I'm mistaken, that hasn't happened yet, but we should hold voting ntil we have the new one. SpencerT♦C 19:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a vote For some reason, when I go to the img page, it where the image should be is a link to Upload this image. Anyone else getting this? Pie is good(Apple is the best) 00:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. WTF? Protonk (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a large accidental baleetion of images this morning, though this image isn't on the lists of images gone missing. Just upload the high-res version and be done with it. MER-C 10:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been searching for an alternate but the one I found wasn't a genuine copy it had been made larger from a copy that is at the Library of Congress archive. If anyone would like to have that uploaded.Sorry for the delay but there's been a lot going on with college starting up. From the File History there seems to be another version that was 1400x2100 px anyone know what's up with that one? Victorrocha (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what happens when people ignore upload warnings. MER-C 10:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can restore that version if it is flipped to face the right (the original orientation of the etching). don't see a problem there Protonk (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Uploaded a reversed prior version. sorry for not noticing that they were two scans of the same etching (or two scans of two prints of the same etching, rather), I just looked at the version immediately before mine when uploading a new one. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for all around meeting-the-criteria-ness! Intothewoods29 (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator ----Music26/11 19:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good technicals (I can see each hair!), but more importantly, intriguing composition. I find the mike, and the subject's expression, appropriate for a comedian.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 19:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An article on a comedian should have an equally zany pic like this. Good EV. However, you should expand the caption ASAP, as that might garner some oppose votes. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Composition, quality, and the "wow" appropriate for illustrating a comedian. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as per above. (Giligone (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Support An excellent portrait; has character as well as excellent technical quality. --Abdominator (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A featured pic from the photo submission queue? Neat!! Raul654 (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Evidently he didn't like the article's previous PD-USGov photo (uploaded by my alter ego), in which he looked somewhat deranged! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Josh Blue by Bryce Boyer.jpg --jjron (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A 1898 film short by the Thomas Edison studio depicting an execution in Cuba. Staged reenactment, probably filmed in New Jersey.
Reason
"Shooting Captured Insurgents", reenactment probably filmed in New Jersey. Edison films catalog description: A file of Spanish soldiers line up the Cubans against a blank wall and fire a volley. The flash of rifles and drifting smoke make a very striking picture. Duration: 0:22 at 34 fps.
(Expired) copyright named Thomas Edison. Camera, William Heise.
Support as conominator --DurovaCharge! 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as conominator Humanity has come so far since those days... Bastiquedemandez 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Quite striking and shocking indeed. If ever a media file had encyclopedic value, this would be it. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I substituted .ogg file to act as a temporary placeholder until the bug gets fixed. Bastiquedemandez 18:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (assuming bug will be fixed) A moving film with impressive encyclopedic value. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bug is no longer relevant to this now that we've got an .ogg file; the bug applied to .ogv files. DurovaCharge! 20:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A lithograph print of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. From left to right: Henry Rathbone, Clara Harris, Mary Todd Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln and John Wilkes BoothAlternative - Levels adjusted to bring out the detail.
Reason
Of high quality, considering from 1865. Was seconded at WP:PPR. Used in 13 articles. It is arguably the most referenced and widely used artistic interpretation of the monumental events that occured that day.
Support as nominator --smooth0707 (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)|| (either version) smooth0707 (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good clear copy of an historic image. Has plenty of EV, just look at all the articles its in. (Giligone (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Support- good reproduction of a historic and well known image. J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A well-deserved promotion. SpencerT♦C 19:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I prefer lithographs a bit higher resolution, but the nature of the medium probably makes this size alright. Text could be a bit clearer. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Support alt[reply]
Weak Support it's a little bit blurry, but it's a good image --Music26/11 19:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blur is inherent in the lithograph format. It's basically the art of creating an image out of noise: acid is used to etch a plate, and by carefully adjusting how much the acid eats into the plate, you determine how many pits there are for the ink to get into - and thus how dark the area is. Zoom in on a lithograph enough and you'll see a sort of static made out of black blobs. That said, it could be higher resolution, but I think that, for a lithograph, this is acceptable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at this one, I think it's actually rather washed-out. Allow me to suggest an alternative. Also, can this be kept open a bit longer to let people evaluate the edit? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional input required: version please... --jjron (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why not uploding this on commons? --Sfu (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question:: From the article I gather that generally, flypasts are meant to honor someone or a special occasion. Is there any specific reason why the planes are flying past? From the caption it just sounds like they're flying to an air show, which drastically reduces its EV. Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks good but the background is just too distracting. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree. The image is great but the background is distracting. --Enigma Blues (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 04:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found this scene amazing when I took the photo. Its EV is high due to the current immigration situation in the US, and I believe its interest value (or "wow factor") is high due to the population of vehicles and vendors traveling between them. I could be pushing it, but I always liked this photo a lot and I think the resolution is good enough.
Support as nominator --Raul654 (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the contrast between the dull metal chamber and the bright coals inside. Good EV and enough interesting aspects to deserve FP status. -- Wadester16 (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support' Good photo of a technical aspect of steam engines -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vehement Oppose - speedy close You've got the terminology (and article) completely wrong - this is not a "combustion chamber"! On a steam engine, this is called a firebox - I know, because I build steam loco miniatures... Also, the chamber - er, the firebox, is never that hot - it's just the coals that glow hot, The walls of the firebox have water on the other side, and never reach a temp of much over 500 F. PS: Certain loco fireboxes do have combustion chambers, but this picture doesn't show that. I removed the image from the article. (You can add it to firebox, and then re-nominate, if you wish.) --Janke | Talk 08:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The file should be renamed as well. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-08 13:08Z
I've renamed the picture, and moved the featured pic nom accordingly. As to the temperature, the 3,500 F number came straight from the engineer who gave me the tour wherein I took the picture, so I'm pretty sure that's reliable. And I can say that the engine was *substantially* hotter than any oven I've ever cooked with - I was standing 8 feet back and it felt like I was right in front of a 300 degree oven. With that said, however, I've decided to err on the side of caution and remove it. Raul654 (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, better now, with the terminology fixed. Yes, it's hot, but that's mainly because you're looking at some 10 square feet of glowing coals! Been there, done that - so it's not that hard to get access to... I have a few similar shots - too lazy to look them up (among some 20,000 digital pix) and see if they're any better, so I'll vote Neutral for the time being... ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice and unusual for WP:FPC. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture, high encyclopedic value. —αἰτίας•discussion• 00:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Image page and caption ought to give some sense of scale, since nothing in the image does so. How big is the aperture and how big is the firebox? Spikebrennan (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The aperture is a bit larger than the head of the shovel - about a foot in diameter. If I had to guess, based on what I saw of the disassembled train in the shop, the firebox is probably about 5 or 10 feet deep and 2 or 3 feet wide. Raul654 (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's difficult to get a sense of context and scale. A wider shot would be better. Also it's not all that high quality. —Pengo 04:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hell yea! Its about time some bureaucrats do some actual work featuring stuff! :) —SundayScribe 19:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I know it's going to be difficult to get something exposed right with the range of light conditions, but there's just too much direct sunlight on the metal surrounding the box resulting in overexposure, and the fire itself isn't particularly clear. Perhaps you could reshoot in lower light conditions? Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting shot of a time gone by. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Firebox on a steam train.jpgMER-C 04:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Bewareofdog 02:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Interesting flower pic. I like your reason. LOL Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excelent composition and quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As per above (Giligone (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Support very very well done. Not just a great composition, but great technical quality as well. One of the best pictures in this manner I have ever seen. Again: Very well done. —αἰτίας•discussion• 00:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support For what I can tell, this is appropriate. Has enough detail even of individual flowers, and the merits of the composition are obvious - with a tip of the hat to Mother Nature! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blown highlights? The only blown highlight area is of the sky in the background. The subject of the photo (the dahlia) is not blown out. —KendraMichele — 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a very good choice, very professional and beautiful. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Alves (Giligone (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose as per the poor photographic quality described very well by Alvesgaspar above. —αἰτίας•discussion• 22:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice picture of a dahlia, but far from the outstanding quality expected for a featured pic. Per Alvesgaspar. Húsönd 00:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar -- Wadester16 (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the image in question is really noisy and do have a background which I don't believe suits for a featured picture, it should show more of the subject. --Kanonkas : Talk 09:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 04:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the criteria, I believe this image is of feature standard. It's of a good quality and high resolution. I understand there are a lot of images of caterpillars dotted around the project but I believe this image is a very ravishing depiction of such a creature.
Support as nominator --—— RyanLupin • (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It's a very clear and detailed photo of a tiny creature. Very well done. —KendraMichele — 16:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support! Wow, it's impressive as a thumb, but even more so full res! Good choice. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject cut off at rear end, leaf covering it in part. Grainy, compression artifacts... --Janke | Talk 19:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Overexposed and unsharp. Subject cut off. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I see no problem with the covering leaf, but cut at rear end is unfortunate. And I share the sharpness concerns. Húsönd 00:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - I like this photo and I think it's great, but I'm concerned about the fact that the head is out of focus and the the upper part of the body is overexposed.- Wadester16 (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good picture but the sharpness doesn't meet the very high bar that has been set for this kind of image on Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Advertisement for Great Western Railway travel via the Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge, c. 1876.
Reason
A notable bridge, a notable location, and an irreproducible image: the railroad got bought by another company in 1882 and the bridge was replaced in 1897. Restored version of Image:Niagara rail.jpg.
A high resolution, good quality image with a great amount of encyclopedic value, replacing this image in the article. This picture shows the complete ranges unlike any other picture on the internet and is much better in terms of quality. The picture also gives a clear view of the mountains, without the distractions caused by telephone and electricity cables.
Oppose Unappealing composition - it feels severely cut off at the bottom. For this reason, showing so little of the surroundings, enc is also low. --Janke | Talk 08:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried different locations to take pictures from, but there were always obstructions. I had to climb on top of a sheet of metal roofing to take the pictures. Even then, there were quite a few obstructions such as roofs of huts which needed cropping hence the lack of foreground. But IMO the EV is still high because the image is supposed to illustrate the mountain ranges, which it does. Muhammad(talk) 17:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think exposure is inapropriate. Foreground elements have more contrast than very bright and pale background, depiste it being the main subject. Easy to say, but maybe you could try from a different place ?? Blieusong (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe next year during my vacation ;) Muhammad(talk) 14:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When addressing the foreground/background contrast, please keep in mind that this is a natural effect of aerial perspective.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 21:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Janke on this. There is also slight noise in the sky, and the telephone pole (or wooden pole) near the bottom left is also distracting. SpencerT♦C 20:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 04:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - When USS Iowa (BB-61) was selected to ferry President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Cairo Conference and the Tehran Conference she was outfitted with a bathtub for Roosevelt's convenience. Roosevelt, who had been crippled in 1921, would have been unable to make effective use of a shower facility.
Reason
When USS Iowa (BB-61) was selected to ferry President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Cairo Conference and the Tehran Conference she was outfitted with a bathtub for Roosevelt's convenience. Roosevelt, who had been crippled in 1921, would have been unable to make effective use of a shower facility.
Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 22:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite noisy. SpencerT♦C 00:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Interesting picture, and although I'm not too familiar with this process it appears to meet all the criteria to me. Joe (Talk) 00:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Haha I didn't know FDR used a rubber ducky in the tub! I also like the boat. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for being noisy (as Spencer points out) but mainly because it's trivia and silly. Kind of funny, yes, but not enough to bowl me over. Fletcher (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is this trivia and silly? Its not ment to be funny, its meant to be different, and while I do see some humor in the tub toys I nominated this as a serious FPC, not a humourous one. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't think Roosevelt's bathing facilities are of any notable historical importance. And a bathtub on a Navy ship may be one of a kind, but it's still just a bathtub. It would be something to point out on a tour of the ship, but I don't see why it should be a FP here. Further, if you intend it seriously, the tub toys kind of ruin the mood, because it shows it was staged to look cutesy. I respect that you appreciate its uniqueness, not its cutesey-ness; this is just the way I react to it. Fletcher (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - noisy, not particularly enc for article. If there was an article Personal hygiene on the open waters, it might be a little more encyclopedic. ;) — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-12 14:15Z
I think it has some enc...this bathtub is the only one ever installed on a United States Navy warship. SpencerT♦C 19:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photo has EV due to its novelty value, but it's an entirely unremarkable photo otherwise and I don't think that it meets the featured picture criteria. It's caption at WikiCommons needs to be corrected by the way - the conference was at Tehran, not Casablanca. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So why is this not in the Roosevelt article? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A Female Galah displaying her crest outside her nest in Tasmania, Australia. The Galah nests in tree cavities. Galahs create strong life-long bonds with their partners.Crop suggestion
Reason
Good image quality, outside a nest and displaying a crest so EV is raised.
Articles this image appears in
Galah, Crest (bird) (only in a gallery but the article needs expansion so could appear inline)
Neutral Good composition and enc, but I'd like to see it bigger and a little sharper. Also, grainy and a (very) small amount of purple fringing on the tail feathers.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 11:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - The bird seems like its in the wrong place to me... It could stand to be larger in resolution as well I think. (Giligone (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
What do you mean by "wrong place"? Noodle snacks (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant compositionally. It just feels off to me. (Giligone (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. Re comments on size, please note this image is well within size requirements and I'd say a reasonably typical resolution for bird FPs, and it's hardly like it's padding things out with lots of empty space. --jjron (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Crop - I like the cropped version alot more. Its still not 100% sharp enough IMO and the res is a tad low but I like it. (Giligone (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Weak oppose the resolution is kinda low. Diego_pmcTalk 08:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep repeating myself on this point. If you feel that the 1000px criterion is too low, please raise the issue on an appropriate talk page, and see if there is new consensus to change WP:FP? accordingly. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you care to look there are plenty of bird FPs with similar to lower resolution than this. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. No obvious technical problems (a quibble with the light); it just doesn't do much for me as an image. I should note that I see herds of Galahs every day, so perhaps I'm just jaded by them, or think that a better picture isn't too hard. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus MER-C 05:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing quality. Darwin is a hugely important historical figure, whom we have no current FPs of. Appears in 4 articles, but could also perhaps find a place in Julia Margaret Cameron.
Oppose for now. Needs clean-up. Clegs (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Needs restoration - I'll support once restored. Dendodge|TalkContribs 17:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Great potential, though.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 23:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wait a sec. There may be a bit too much of a rush to call for restoration on some of these historical images, without sufficient attention to whether a given nomination is the right image to attempt restoring. This is a full profile of a very old Darwin, with full beard and eyes almost in complete shadow. And it's soft focus, which restoration isn't going to fix. I'd say at best, with a brilliant cleanup, it'd earn my weak support--principally because Wikipedia's Darwin biography already hosts several portraits that are technically superior as works of art. Rather than presuming that restoration of this image is the thing to work on, we really would be better off checking archives for high resolution versions of superior portraiture. And unfortuantely, I already have more than I can keep up with, so I won't be available to do more than coach if someone wants to undertake a Darwin restoration. DurovaCharge! 03:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a valid point. I actually did a fairly cursory online search for good Darwin images some time ago and couldn't find anything of decent resolution freely available. This looks to have been scanned out of a book or something similar, and I suspect a lot of the problems come from a fairly average scan of a perhaps ordinary print, not just problems with the real original. Re choice of image, I certainly prefer an old bearded Darwin image, though this is far from my favourite - despite this I was inclined to support if quality had have been reasonable. --jjron (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to dig through some archives to see what I can find. smooth0707 (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hunch the best solution will probably wind up being a scan of a good book reproduction (pre-halftoning). DurovaCharge! 15:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you find option 2 more suitable? smooth0707 (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should suspend the nom while restoration is underway?--HereToHelp(talk to me) 21:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think the gist of the above discussion is that the original is almost beyond restoration, Alt 2 is a viable alternative. --jjron (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Yes, much. Support alternate. DurovaCharge! 22:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Whats up with his face? It looks way too bright. There are some strange looking artifacts too. I would love an FP of Darwin, I'm not sure this is it. Would change to support of someone can explain away my objections. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can someone verify the dates on these. The first one says 1868, the second says 1869. At a guess I would have said they were taken in the same sitting, but that could be wrong (if so, it shows just how degraded the first one is, but I'm having trouble determining if the clothing is identical). But that's all a bit peripheral, because to me they look like they are taken considerably later than this, it looks to me to be an older Darwin - if the dates given are correct then this is a man not yet 60 years old. A complication is that Cameron apparently moved back to Ceylon in 1875, so if she is indeed the photographer, then they must predate that. Hmmm.... --jjron (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look in a few art books I have lying around and see if I can verify the dates. smooth0707 (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, on second thoughts the dates could well be right. Darwin aged quite rapidly from his unidentified illness and from the stress after the publication of the Origin, and these would be almost 10 years after it was first printed. Also I've compared with some other images and these don't stand out as obviously unbelievable. Wouldn't mind a confirmation on the 68/69 question, i.e., that these are from different sittings with Cameron. --jjron (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Darwin went on holiday to the Isle of Wight on July 16 1868, and rented a cottage from the photographer Julia Margaret Cameron who took Darwin's portrait – they returned home on 21 August 1868. Browne says Cameron took three portraits of Darwin during that period, the most successful being three quarters view, so that suggests they're both from 1868. No indication I've found of any Darwin portraits by her in 1869. Sources: Browne Power of Place p. 301, Desmond & Moore, Darwin's journal 47 recto and timeline. . dave souza, talk 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option 2. Oh, what the hey. Not my favourite Darwin photo ever, and I'd personally rather a downsize, but it's good enough. Can always add or replace if we get a better one. --jjron (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option 2. Liking the sharpness. Cirt (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original I've always preferred this of all the dwarwwin pictures - it's the only one that looks three-dimensional. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support option 2--Avala (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original - too dark.--Avala (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very poor quality - even historic photos need to be held to reasonable standard --Abdominator (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify whether you are opposing both, or just the original? --jjron (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposing both. First one is dark, unsharp and grainy. Second one is unsharp, hands cut off, and although the beard isn't blown as in it's not pure white it is blown in that all the highlights merge into a single shade of gray and lose all detail. --Abdominator (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Abdominator. I will, however, support a not so dark, and cleaned up version of the the original. Diego_pmcTalk 08:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus MER-C 05:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A standard household integrated compact fluorescent light bulb. This format of bulb is considerably more efficient than traditional incandescent bulbs. The popularity of the compact fluorescent bulb has risen tremendously in recent years for this reason.
Reason
This is a striking black and white image of a compact fluorescent bulb. It is detailed and of high resolution. There was recently a similar photo on FPC that was not accepted primarily on the grounds it was of too low resolution. This image is well above the 1000px limit.
Oppose Ditto here... Black and white isn't great to start off with but it also makes for an UNcyclopeadic picture because CFL glow with a slightly warm or cool white. Plus I'd like to see an image that has some hint of the base(always assume that the reader has never seen an object). Victorrocha (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The picture has been removed from the CFL article and replaced with the other FPC, which is IMO more EV because it's a natural color. Just letting you know, if you want to talk to the other editor and work out an agreement. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn since its not in an article anymore, it can't be an FPC.(Giligone (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
An ijazah is a certificate of competency to teach a subject. This example written in Arabic is over two hundred years old and certifies competence in calligraphy. Restored version of Image:Ijazah.jpg.
Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 22:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. Just a question: per the caption, was it made on 1791-12-06, or in 1206 AD? :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I think it was created in 1206 and published in 1791 according to this [7]. The edges are a little beat up. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 99% sure they mean 1206 AH/1791 AD. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, different calendars. DurovaCharge! 01:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please update the caption accordingly :-) --Uncle Bungle (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for EV and something different from the usual. Muhammad(talk) 08:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - big and with great EV, but JPG artifacting spoils it for me. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little artifact-y, but still good. Since this is a non-Christian document, should we use CE instead of AD? (MOS has no preference.)--HereToHelp(talk to me) 11:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would work if we wanted to be clear. My point is that I don't want to reference Jesus regarding a a non-Christian image. It just seems more neutral.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 22:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Artifacting and the missing lower right corner don't allow me to support. SpencerT♦C 23:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The image is large enough that it can be downscaled enough to make artifacts disappear and still be plenty big.--ragesoss (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. EV, sufficient quality at reasonable resolutions. And it's interesting of course too! Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Ijazah3.jpgMER-C 05:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An image of great encyclopedic value. Shows the extent of usage of spices and herbs in Indian cuisine and gives a great visual description of panipuri, a popular street snack across India. Colorful, well-focused and high-resolution image.
Oppose, it could be higher resolution... but what bothers me most is the crop. Great picture, though... just not FP in my opinion. grenグレン 13:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight framing, enc suffers. --Janke | Talk 13:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose it's a good encyclopedic subject and would make a great FP except for the framing issues. Cat-five - talk 20:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A very good quality colour lithograph, in superb conditio, illustrating traditional ways of making Mexican tortillas. By being able to select details, Carl Nebel was able to create something better than a photograph would be in illustrating this. As a bonus, the creator is quite notable. - understandably so, perhaps - his use of delicate colour in the sunset really is a masterpiece of lithographic art. The ability to reproduce delicate shades in bulk, outside of masterworks such as this, won't be seen again before the early 20th century.
Strong Support! This is great! Not only for Carl Nebel, but also for the food articles! Tortilla making is such a big part of Mexican cusine and social interactions that it's great to have this view of it! Intothewoods29 (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above Bewareofdog 16:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given that tortilla making is so important, I think the article would benefit more with a high resolution digital photograph than it does with a dated artists interpretation. Both articles already have actual photos of the subject matter which illustrate it rather well. The lithography article has numerous examples of artistic lithographs, I'm not really sure what is one is adding to it. That is compared with only one, rather weak technical image. This is the best example of Nebels work we have, though his article is a stub with a gallery in the public domain. I'm not overly moved by its artistic qualities, which as I understand carry more weight on the commons than they do here. This is a high resolution, high quality image which is ultimately going to become FP, I just don't see what all the fuss is about. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no other high-resolution colour lithograph in lithography. The only other colour lithograph is very low resolution. Secondly, there is no other image of people making tortillas in the tortilla article, only of tortillas themselves, or as part of food. Thirdly, this lithograph, through its age, shows the length of time tortilla making has been important to Mexican culture, in a way a modern photograph could not. The historicity lends interest - for instance, this could also be used to discuss Mexican clothing of the period - and having a variety of reproduction media in an article adds depth. Finally, an artwork can choose to eliminate distracting elements, and a photo can't, so I'd question whether a modern photograph of similar quality would actually be that easy to get. Since said photograph does not actually exist yet, I'd say that if and when it does, then would be a better time to compare and discuss. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Historic value does not necessarily equate to encyclopaedic value. I agree this image adds some value to the articles, but not enough to warrant featuring. An artwork can chose to eliminate distracting elements, or important ones, or embellish some, or whatever. I'm not convinced that this manifestation of a mans imagination is in any way superior to an accurate photograph of an actual event. People are still making tortillas in the traditional way. I can not support this image on the basis that "hey, it's the best we've got" when it is possible to do much better. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well,I think that, even if we had a modern photograph, this would be useful to show how long it's been part of Mexican culture, in addition to said photograph. Also, even if it wasn't encyclopedic there, it would be in Carl Nebel or lithography. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Shoemaker that it provides a unique and valuable, if not vital, addition to the respective articles. Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, having a photograph as well would increase the encyclopedic value: Think about it: it was important enough to be the subject of art in 1816 - and here's a photo, showing that two centuries later, it's still important to Mexican culture. The two together would, if anything, be far more encyclopedic than either one alone =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no photograph, there is only this piece of art. It is pretty, but it is not so good at illustrating the articles that it warrants featuring. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well... this conversation's probably not going to go anywhere. Agree to disagree? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, nothing personal either, I think we just have vastly different opinions of when artwork has EV. --151.124.247.200 (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I agree with Shoemaker's Holiday that this image has encyclopedic value for several of the articles that it illustrates. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added the image to nixtamalization, which previously had no illustration and where a historic lithograph of tortilla production in Mexico looks highly encyclopedic. DurovaCharge! 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Tortilleras Nebel.jpgMER-C 05:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The interior of the Australian Synchrotron facility. Dominating the image is the 216m circumference storage ring, with an experimental endstation at front right. In the middle of the storage ring is the booster ring, with the linac to the right. At front left is a display of the dipole, quadrupole and sextupole electromagnets used in the storage ring. The two people at the eVBL endstation give a sense of scale. (See image description page and articles for more details.)
Reason
Highly encyclopaedic small panorama, and rare to get this sort of image. I certainly couldn't see anything like this, at least on Wiki. High-tech facilities like this are not generally available for the public or photography, and are not easy to photograph due to lighting, size, etc. Maybe not the highest quality image I've ever put up, but I think quality meets guidelines, and composition, rareness, and EV make it worthy of FP.
Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like that there are people there to provide scale. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish this photo was bigger. smooth0707 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good enc, could be larger (= more detailed...) --Janke | Talk 06:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too small for a panorama. There should be greater detail of the subject. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You've got a minor stitching error ~935 pixels from right—look at the rails. Thegreenj 17:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that is a stitching error (I could be wrong though)... It does look funny but each of the 'ghost' lines (why would there be two of them? usually theres just one ghost, unless there was enough overlap that three frames contained the object) seem to lead somewhere both on the top of the synchrotron and also on the device at the bottom. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 19:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greenj was right, there was a stitching error - not sure how I missed that. I have repaired it from the original and, to save hassles, reuploaded over the version with the error (i.e., the version shown here is the same as it was, but with the error fixed). --jjron (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see it now. I was referring to something completely different obviously. That stitching error is so minute I completely missed it, even when looking for it where he described. ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 13:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Must say I had to look pretty closely and wasn't sure I'd got the right thing at first - I think I was confused by him giving the distance in from the right rather than the left, and was trying to look in both places. --jjron (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agreed that it could/should be a bit larger, but IMO it is still detailed enough to see what it is. Compositionally it is a bit awkward with the 'thing' on the front right cut off though. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 19:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think stitching was done unproperly (minor errors visible despite small size, vertical lines not so vertical), but I don't find them distracting at all, and the view is interesting. Blieusong (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great quality photo. I can actually see the outside of the building from my window here, but I've never been inside. Stevage 00:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Aust.-Synchrotron-Interior-Panorama,-14.06.2007.jpgMER-C 05:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OriginalPlease zoom in! - Pirates relaxing, from Howard Pyle's Book of Pirates
Reason
With a little fiddling, I was able to bring out the detail in this quite good reproduction of Howard Pyle's work. As one of the mahjor American illustrators, Pyle deserves a featured picture... and I promised Howcheng I'd at least try to get a pirate-themed FP in time for Talk Like a Pirate Day's mainpage. This was the quick option, the labourious option, a large engraving of Francis Drake, will probably not be ready by the end of the day.
One disadvantage of this is that it doesn't thumbnail very well - it really needs at least 400 px or so for the detail to come out. If anyone else wants to slip in a nomination that would help Howcheng out, please do =)
Support definately. Great pic, except at thumb size. Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. I looked at it in the articles and it looks decent (It's about 400-450px there). SpencerT♦C 19:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pyle was best known for his work on Robin Hood, the whole pirate collection is one sentence near the end of the article. The image is just sort of stuck in there. He was not an expert on pirates or a contemporary of the golden age of piracy, therefore his illustrations of the subject matter carry little encyclopaedic value. Lastly, though the artist may have intended it, the style of this illustration leaves may details obscured (look at the faces and shoes), which further reduces it's value to piracy. Nice restoration, but not an FP IMHO. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the article isn't very good, so I wouldn't use it as a strict guide to importance. Secondly, it's used in the section on piracy devoted to pirates in popular culture, which I believe it helps fill out. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, but I just cant stand by an illustration for illustrations sake. If it were a portrait of blackbeard, it would be a no brainer. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your view is reasonable, even if I disagree with it, so I suppose it's best to agree to disagree. I think there's a good case for this to illustrate the pirates in popular culture - as it's part of a major literary/artistic book on pirates from the fin-de-seicle period, but can understand your disagreement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a nice illustration captured very well in high resolution, and I think it certainly fulfills the "making the viewer want to know more" criteria. krimpet✽ 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - View of the Bunder Road (now M. A. Jinnah Rd.) The Max Denso Hall (completed 1886) can be seen in this picture. Karachi, Sind, Pakistan. This road has transformed dramatically over the decades.
Reason
This is a picture of Bunder Road (now MA Jinnah Road) in Karachi. Pre-1947 images of areas which now make up Pakistan are extremely rare, especially images of public areas. This is an image that most Pakistanis have never seen. I believe that this picture adds significantly to the History of Karachi article, as anyone connected with Karachi would find the image very interesting and would therefore be inclined to read, and perhaps expand, the accompanying article. The image is from the year 1900.
Support as nominator --Zaindy٨٧ 16:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose partly for the quality and below-requirements resolution, partly because I'm not seeing great EV. I think we can make exceptions to technical requirements when the subject has great historical value, but in this case, the subject appears to be a fairly mundane street setting. The historical value lies in the fact that images from this era and location are rare (according to the nom), but I'm not sure the rarity of the class of image (as opposed to the subject) is as strong a reason for disregarding technical requirements. (I'm sure people will tell me if that makes no sense!) Fletcher (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll take objection with the "lacking EV" claim: I can see various different traditional head dresses, and two variations of the traditional men's dress. Several different vehicles are represented - an ox cart (twice afaik, although I couldn't swear that the one further back is drawn by an ox) and a hand cart. They seem to be roughly the same build, so may be being used with both draught "animals". Colonial buildings are in the background, apparently supplied by electricity carried by the telegraph poles (for lack of a better word). An open tram stands out along with a woman carrying two huge boxes on her head. The image description also identifies one of the buildings as the Max Denso Hall, although I can't fully guess which building that is. The last thing I'm curious about is the road surface in the foreground - is it bare ground or tarmac? The fact that some of it is cobstones suggests the rest might also be fortified in some way. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The resolution IS a problem, but the encyclopedic value is at least as high or higher as some American street photographs of the period we have featured, while being far rarer. As the EV is high, and photographs of this time period from outside the west so rare, I'm supporting. However, it could use more dissemination into appropriate articles, though. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't that watermark be removed? Diego_pmcTalk 08:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 05:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Summit of the Chachani (on the left), and Mt Fatima (highest point), the highest of three volcanoes above Arequipa, Peru, in October 2007. The path to reach the summit can be seen, going almost to the top of Mt. Fatima first. This region is almost entirely empty of snow, due to the fact that the region is extremely dry.Less edited version
Reason
A high quality, picturesque image of the summit of one of the highest volcanoes on Earth. High EV, and illustrates topic well.
Support as nominator --—SundayScribe 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Originally I thought that it didn't give a feeling of mountain's height like the other pic on the article page, but then I realized that it's huge EV comes from showing the atmosphere and the dryness, so, yeah, that's my reason for support. Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As the photographer, I'm obviously biased but still like this image very much, and think it makes a fine job of showing the mountain and its environment. --Nattfodd (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a good picture imo because it illustrates the environment quite well, rather than the geographic location. For the latter purpose, I think that a photograph from an adjacent peak, or the valley (with appropriate zoom lens) would work a little better, not least because I suspect (never having been to this location iirc) the valley view is what most people will see and hence recognise. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support less edited version, Oppose Original per criteria 8 (Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation). The contrast is jacked up way too high. Looks completely unnatural (dark sky, bright ground). Kaldari (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's "inappropriate". It's no different from what most cameras do internally, I just choose to have more control by modifying the curves myself during post-processing. As for the sky, you can see in the "less edited version" which was posted afterwards that it's very dark indeed (my guess is that it's because of the extreme altitude).--Nattfodd (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That one looks more realistic to my eyes. I would expect a mountain summit to look a bit hazy, rather than having perfect levels. Kaldari (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mountain summits are often in the clearest air available. deBivort 23:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you've never been to the Smoky Mountains :) Kaldari (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you don't know the meaning of "often" :) deBivort 22:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added the less edited version to the nomination. Hope that's okay with everyone. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. deBivort 23:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support less edited version. Diego_pmcTalk 17:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Chachani summit edited.jpgMER-C 05:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Two pot-bellied pigs sleeping. This breed of domesticated pig belongs to the same species as the wild boar and the common farm pig (Sus domestica), and originated in Vietnam.
Reason
Good quality and high resolution depiction of an interesting breed of domestic pigs, adding value to the articles
Conditional support pending OTRS confirmation of model permission from the two administrators who posed for this. ;) DurovaCharge! 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In clarification, yes the support is real. DurovaCharge! 08:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting, hi-quality, decent EV. — Diego_pmcTalk 19:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support because they're so cute. kidding. Very good choice. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The EV and quality are acceptable, but there's no real "wow". NauticaShades 17:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty well covers pot bellied pigs. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing really special here. Seems like you were just strolling by the petting zoo. (Giligone (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose For EV, I'd prefer they were standing so you could see their legs. Mfield (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special - agree with Giligone. Mfield also makes a good point on EV --Abdominator (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support EV : can't see the tails ;) Still good enough to me, and a huge cute factor. Blieusong (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support if retained in Zoological Garden or Lisbon Zoo (sorry for adding further complexity to the nom, but we need to get this right). Otherwise oppose The EV is just not there to be comprehensive for Pot-bellied pig, and I don't see it making a particular contribution to Domestic pig (which, btw, is a mess of an article right now). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- The picture was moved to the "Education" chapter of the Zoological Garden article, as they are in a section of the Lisbon Zoo dedicated to the education of school children: the "Quintinha" (Little Farm) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you may want to review this change and consider whether the pot-bellied pigs isn't a much better image overall to head up the article, or whether we have another image of a zoo animal that is more attractive than the cut-off low-image-quality giraffes. I'm not saying the article *has* to have a picture up top, I really don't mind either way. I just know that in all likelihood, somebody else will stick another medium quality image up there, and this we should definitely avoid. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary summary 7.5 supports, 3 opposes. Has had no new !votes in three days and looks like a promotion. I won't close it because I participated - maybe someone else can? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we're not just counting votes - the wait is because there's been questions on the EV, and the image was in fact added to two articles late in the nom to try to up the EV. Owing to that we need a bit of a wait to see that it sticks (and FWIW, if it didn't stick in those zoo articles your conditional vote would make it 6.5/4 (or now 7/4) using your vote counting method, and would likely be 'no consensus'). I'm not closing any for a while, but I think MER-C's doing a close in a couple of days, so he can decide then. --jjron (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm quite the person to determine whether my conditional support is being met - thank you, John! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The image should be downsampled. Not enough detail for this resolution. Width at 2000 seems alright. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-12 14:22Z
Check out the hairs on the RHS chappie. You'll find a lot of detail there. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm puzzled with the delay of the decision, since there is a comfortable majority of favourable opinions. Is there any further element that I can't see? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Pot-bellied pigs in Lisbon Zoo 2008.jpgMER-C 05:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took this one at US National Botanical Garden. The plant's reproductive parts are quite clearly visible.
Articles this image appears in
Phalaenopsis 'Kaleidoscope'
Creator
Raul654
Support as nominator --Raul654 (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because I really don't like the background. It also has a few other issues (some of which might be fixed or improved upon), it is a tad soft, noisy and needs a black point and/or contrast adjustment (looks a little washed out and a histogram confirms). Noodle snacks (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Encyclopedic and basically a gorgeous flower, but I agree with Noodle snacks. Low resolution for such a large image; perhaps it's compressed? Would love to see a reshoot under slightly different conditions: either a different angle or less depth of field could reduce the distracting qualities of this background. DurovaCharge! 18:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Highly distracting background and extreme noisy. Also per the points mentioned by Noodle snacks. —αἰτίας•discussion• 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy and poor background choice --Abdominator (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 07:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Anne Frank House (left) together with the house the Anne Frank Stichting originally bought to turn into the Anne Frank Museum in Amsterdam, The Netherlands at dusk.
Reason
A photograph with a high EV and of good quality. I noticed Wikipedia didn't had one good photograph of one of the most famous tourist attractions in Amsterdam and a site of importance. So I also took a picture especially for Wikipedia. There are some branches in front of the buildings, but they are still mostly in sight.
Weak oppose sorry but the trees take away too much of the photo for me --Thanks, Hadseys 10:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the trees, and also blown highlights around the cornice molding at the top. Is a closer-up shot in front of the trees possible? Not sure how bad the perspective distortion would be for a three-story house. Or, see how it looks when the leaves fall off. Fletcher (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The blown highlights (only minor) are due to the illumination and not my fault. As for the trees, the only possibility is to wait until December, since by then all the leaves will be gone, but you will still be stuck with the branches. No, a closer-up shot is not a possibility, there is just no room to capture the whole building in a frame and still have a nice composition. I practically had to stand on my head to get this picture, due to housing boats, bicycles, etc. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not because of the trees, but because of the low lighting at the bottom. Pie is good(Apple is the best) 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting and converging verticals. Looking at and knowing the location I doubt it would be possible to take a compelling enough image of this subject to make an FP though. Mfield (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be possible if done in winter - the trees would lack leaves, improving composition and lighting. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The trees obstruct the view.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition, there's poor sharpness and the trees are blurry. SpencerT♦C 00:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The buildings themselves are pretty darn sharp..--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean in the roofline of the building, in the trees and on the lower part of the street. It's nice in the middle of the building. SpencerT♦C 12:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 07:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The eye of Hurricane Isabel, 2003. Hurricane Isabel was the costliest, deadliest, and most intense hurricane in the season. The ninth named storm, fifth hurricane, and second major hurricane of the season, Isabel formed from a tropical wave on September 6 in the tropical Atlantic Ocean. It moved northwestward, and within an environment of light wind shear and warm waters it steadily strengthened to reach peak winds of 165 mph (265 km/h) on September 11. Here, the storm has just weakened to a Category 4 storm from its peak as a Cat. 5Edit 1
Reason
This is a rather detailed and clear image of the eye of Hurricane Isabel during the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season. A NASA astronaut, Ed Lu, took this image of the eye of Hurricane Isabel from the International Space Station at 11:18 UTC on September 13, 2003.
Support - Only for the EV. The quality isn't great but its good enough for FP. —§undayb 01:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 The EV value is very good and edit 1 definitely goes far to fix it being a bit too light although I had the same thought as Julian before I went and tweaked my monitor settings a little bit. Cat-five - talk 01:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOriginal version is a better starting point for edits (larger, dust specks can be removed, no JPG re-compression issues). Juliancolton, when uploading new versions of images with significant differences do not upload over the original!--Nilfanion (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I could tell they were very minor tweaks more than significant differences... –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 01:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A crop is a significant change, particularly in the context of FPC. In context, I feel the original works better as a thumbnail in article (the extra vertical size helps). When in doubt do not upload over someone elses image.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sorry then, I'm not particularly familiar with images on Commons. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 01:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same applies with images on WP.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it's the turn of the pedantic knowitall to pop up-in the caption,it should be 'its peak' not 'it's peak' Lemon martini (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops; note to self, don't write when tired. How's the image itself? –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 12:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 with the comment that significant edits should be uploaded under a new filename, with the actions performed fully noted and a link back to the original file. DurovaCharge! 18:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 - This is a great photo. High EV and the quality is quite good. (Giligone (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Support edit1--Avala (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 I tried to stay away from FPC for a while but this is amazing!--Elena85 | Talk to Me | 1800edits!!!' 19:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Though it has a high EV, noise and artifacting prevent me from supporting. SpencerT♦C 12:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Hurricane Isabel eye from ISS (edit 1).jpgMER-C 07:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A panoramic view of the Thames Riverfront in Richmond from the Richmond Road Bridge
Reason
It is a very high res/detailed panoramic view of the Richmond riverfront. The view is interesting, it is compositionally interesting and there is a lot of activity on the river and the banks.
Support, per Janke. Diliff, do you want to clarify what event, if any, this shot is of? Or is this just the river on a sunny afternoon? Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just the river on a sunny afternoon. :-) You gotta make the most of them when you get them! Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 23:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Apparently you also had some nice weather across the North Sea :). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great landscape-panorama. Very well done. —αἰτίας•discussion• 00:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, if you want a "correct reason" it's a high EV very technically sufficent shot, etc... but it's a very good shot in very good conditions and makes me wish I was back in London. Cat-five - talk 01:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Where is Wally, part II. It remais for me a mistery how the stitching was done, with all these people walking around. The excellent image quality is apparent in the trees, at left. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. I agree with Alvesgaspar, and was looking for an error on people as well. Blieusong (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, excellent image. -- vineeth (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per above. (Giligone (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Support Great Detail and an excellent job stiching with people moving about in the frameNoodle snacks (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everyone's said it all already --Abdominator (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Richmond Riverside, London - Sept 2008.jpgMER-C 07:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lithograph by Corbould from a painting by C.B. King
Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 07:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. SpencerT♦C 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not the prettiest of FPCs, but still valuable. Except for the fact he's wearing a blue jacket! Dun-dun-duuuhh! :P Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice and historically significant. Cat-five - talk 01:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A female Goldenrod Crab Spider (Misumena vatia) capturing a bee (cf. Andrena sp.). Notice the perfect colour match (mimicry) between the spider and the flower. Spiders usually inject the venom at the back of the victim's head, where the nerves are concentrated.
Reason
High quality and detailed action shot illustrating the mimicry capacity of the species.
Support. I know you have a difficult time here with the nature macros, but compositionally this is pretty good. Because both the spider and the bee are the combined focus of the image, the lack of a complete and clear view of either of them individually can be excused. The lighting is a bit flat though, but overall, good job. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 19:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Pine Processionary Moth (Thaumetopoea pityocampa) is a forest pest, causing serious damage to pines while at the larval stage. This one is an adult male and is holding its wings upright to get them dry, after being immerged in water. Notice the bristle springing from the underside of the hindwing (frenulum), whose function is to link the wings together, and the plumose antennae, characteristic of the males. The white hindwings, the dark mark on the underside of the forewing and the frontal protuberance are distinctive features of the species.Alternative - Better overall focus but less detail and weaker composition
Reason
a detailed and high quality depiction of a Pine Processionary Moth, a common forest pest, adding value to the articles
No, it is just out of focus. This is a really close-up shot and the DOF is shallow (a few mm) despite the very small aperture (F/29). A better focus was achieved in this other version, but the angle is not as interesting. No miracles in macrophotography... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was also wondering - there are some double contours in the sharp wing, which first suggested motion blur, but on a closer inspection, it appears that the ribs in the wings diffract the light into double lines... Neutral vote. --Janke | Talk 10:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. It's a really good bug pic, and the quality on the rest of the pic and the EV make up for some small diffraction. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The body and wing is off focus. unsigned entry by ZooFari 02:52 13 September (UTC)
Question How confident are you of the ID of this image? I ask because the filename "Moth September 2008-3" suggests an ad hoc ID? I did a quick search in google and your image doesn't seem to match: [8][9][10]. The wings in this moth appear to be semi transparent? --Abdominator (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - I'm quite confident about the ID. The wing venation, as well as the dark mark on the underside of the forewing and the frontal protuberence are quite distinctive. Yes, I was also puzzled by the transparent wings held upright. This is explained by the fact that the moth was rescued from the water, where most scales were lost. The wings held upright is probably to help them dry. They also do that when they expand and dry their wings after emerging from the cocoon. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWeak oppose Now that I've learnt that the creature has lost most of its scales, I'll have to oppose. Thanks for your honesty about this fact, but we really can't promote images that are unrepresentative. Eventually, someone will write an article about how moths behave after being immersed in water, but until then... it's a regretful oppose from me. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC) I read the "comment and info" but I'm now thinking that if the wing venation is the feature I should pay attention to, then the blur in the wing (even if not caused by motion) is rather letting us down. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Info -- Let me defend my knight (the moth is a male...). Rather than harming the EV of the picture I believe that the fact the wings are almost transparent and stretched upwards improves on it. Only this way it is possible to depict some characteristic features of the family (the wing venation and the stout body) and of the species (the white hindwing, the dark mark on the underside of the forewing and the frontal protuberance). Also, this particular view clearly shows a distinctive feature of most moths, the frenulum, which is a bristle springing from the underside of the hindwing and running forward to be held in a small catch (also visible) on the underside of the forewing, the function of the mechanism being to held the wings together when in flight. Of course, all these features can only be shown in a side view, with the wings of the moth held upright, like in th epicture. I know of no other photograph of a living moth showing all this. The captions in the articles will be improved to draw the attention of the reader to the important details. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almost forgot: this rescue story didn't have a happy ending. Less than one hour after being taken out of the water, and when the moth already seemed ready to fly, it was attacked by a paper wasp and killed (here) !. This must be a rare event as moths are active by night and wasps by day. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 07:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Goldenrod Crab Spider (Misumena vatia) has the capacity of changing color by secreting a liquid yellow pigment into the outer cell layer of the body. In this picture a female shares its ambush flower with velvet mites
Reason
High quality and detailed depiction of the species, clearly showing the camouflage capacity. The mites walking over the motionless spider add a grain of salt to the picture and emphasize the theme.
weak support A nice picture that shows nymphs, but the dandelion seed killed it and the photo could use some brightening. unsigned entry by ZooFari 02:45, 13 September 2008
Oppose Flat lighting and poorly composed - mites and dandelion seed distract from the spider --Abdominator (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus (bzzzzt!) MER-C 11:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Broad-bodied Chaser, Libellula depressa, is a European dragonfly. The approximate wingspan of the broad-bodied chaser is 70 millimeters. The dragonfly is mainly found in Wales and Southern England. It is active between the months of May and August. Shown here is a male.
Reason
Good macro image of a notable insect, high res on subject
Weak support. I was leaning towards oppose, because of the very distracting background, but the detail on the bug is very defined. Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As mentioned before, the background has high distractions. Also, the left wing was left out of focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZooFari (talk • contribs) 02:50, 13 September 2008
Weak Support the background is an issue but of course if it was photoshopped or engineered that the background wasn't natural people would oppose for that so there's no pleasing everyone, good EV and overall a good shot in my opinion. Cat-five - talk 20:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't find the background very distracting, and the focus is quite good for this kind of shot; it's not possible to get all of a dragonfly in focus without heroic measures, and the sharpness of the in-focus parts is excellent. It's not the usual angle for an insect FP, since it doesn't show the head in focus, but I think the most interesting parts of this insect are the ones that are highlighted.--ragesoss (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Essentially I disagree with Ragesoss - I think the composition would have been vastly improved with a side on view in which you can see the head. That said technically it's quite a good photo. --Abdominator (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus MER-C 11:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over 100 years old, but timely. Early film clip of Galveston, Texas residents sorting through rubble in the aftermath of the 1900 Galveston hurricane. Rubble piles such as this one contained hundreds of bodies and the stench carried for miles. A body was discovered (but not filmed) on this pile while the camera crew was present.
Oppose Yes, I know it's 108 years old, but it's still very small, grainy, has those parabolic flashes, and doesn't really show much. I see one pile and a few people milling about. IMHO, a pan across the debris field with recovery efforts underway would be much better than one pile with repetitive action.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 00:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Note that pans were not common until quite a bit later (1920s), as cameras became less unwieldy. Thegreenj 00:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually panning was possible and the archives had a couple of pans from the same disaster. I selected this clip because it's the only one where people were present doing cleanup. According to the Library of Congress notes, the camera crew took substantial risks by filming at all. The city was under martial law at the time and law enforcement was shooting (with bullets) at people they caught taking pictures. DurovaCharge! 00:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok... Disregard the other comment—I've been taught wrong. Thegreenj 04:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I would like to lose the first intertitle - it's glaringly modern. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how to fix it? I might be able to do something via ffmpeg2theora, actually... don't know... Bastiquedemandez 23:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a good video for what it shows. Zginder 2008-09-20T01:31Z (UTC)
Promoted Image:Searching for bodies, Galveston 1900.ogvMER-C 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A large sign reading "I am an American" placed in the window of a store, at 13th and Franklin streets, on December 8, the day after Pearl Harbor. The store was closed following orders to persons of Japanese descent to evacuate from certain West Coast areas. The owner, a University of California graduate, would be housed with hundreds of evacuees in War Relocation Authority centers for the duration of the war.
Reason
Heartfelt plea by a Japanese story owner for the public to recognize that Americans of Japanese ancestry living on the west coast of the United States were Americans first and Japanese second, and as such should not be treated as enemy combats or enemy aliens. With the signing of Executive Order 9066, the Japanese living on the west coast were evacuated and interred in various camps until the conclusion of WWII. I think the picture makes a compelling and moving statement as to the extent of the irrational hysteria and deep-rooted xenophobia present in the United States, even in the here and now.
Original - Crested Tern (Thalasseus bergii), in breeding plumage, displaying in Tasmania, AustraliaEdit 1 - Crop (log centered)Edit 2 - Selective Noise Reduction on the back
Reason
Good quality, interesting pose (a breeding display)
Support. Support either with preference for Crop (Edit 1). Nice capture. Looks slightly underexposed in the thumbnail but better when viewed at 100%. I would have liked to see slightly more space behind the bird and slightly less in front - it just has a bit of an imbalanced composition IMO, even though the body of the bird is centred. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 06:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sharp and excellent use of depth of field. Good ev. DurovaCharge! 09:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photographically good image, nice bokeh. --Janke | Talk 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd support this, but the dark sharpening artifact on the bird's breast/beak really is distracting. Do you think you could mask an unsharpened version (or one with sharpening blended for lightening only) in that area? Thegreenj 22:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have a PSD with a masked sharpened layer so i should be able to fix it when I get home without any quality loss etc. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed that, I uploaded straight over the top since only about 100 pixels are different and the difference is barely perceptable anyway. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Better now, though the breast still has sharpening artifacts, and there's a bit of noise. Still, very nice. Thegreenj 19:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; good picture with excellent use of depth of field. Composition would probably be made perfect by cropping just a bit of the left side so that the log is centered; quick experimentation show that balancing the bird surface pushes the log too far to the left. — Coren(talk) 01:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a cropped version so the log is centered Noodle snacks (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Nice colours and bokeh but there is quite a lot of noise in the wing area. --Abdominator (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he's right, that is quite a lot for ISO 400. Did you underexpose and then brighten the shadow detail on the wing? I can understand why if you did, as its hard to shoot a subject like this and avoid the white feathers facing direct sun becoming grossly overexposed. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 06:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had to to a certain degree in order to preserve the highlights, I used fill flash with a frensel lens type flash extender to fill in the shadows, but I was at the edge of the effective range for that setup. A version with selective noise reduction is now attached. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, oppose edits 1 and 2 Nicer composition in original than edit 1. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Not convinced of the noise reduction in edit 2. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very nice composition and colours but unsufficient quality for FP due to noise -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support any.--Avala (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support original Though a good bokeh and composition, the subject itself is quite noisy. SpencerT♦C 12:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support any, with slight preference for edit 2. The noise is a little better, though still a bit of a problem.--ragesoss (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support any. --Base64 (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Crested Tern Tasmania.jpgMER-C 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) -- Sauble Beach, Ontario, Canada
Reason
A valuable image of threatened bird species with very good technical quality. Original info from photographer: The Piping Plover is an endangered species in Ontario. This individual was photographed on a public beach in Sauble Beach, Ontario, one of about three known nesting attempts within Ontario in 2008. At this location, the nest is enclosed in a wire cage, and a 50m x 50m area of the beach is temporarily closed. The birds, and their chicks, are closely monitored by volunteers 24/7
Question. What is the ring around it's leg for? Noodle snacks (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just a tag to identify the bird (for study purposes). Victorrocha (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my point is that something about it should be in the caption, i'd support straight after that Noodle snacks (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the relevant article would be Bird ringing, with "bird banding" being the more common term in North America (a redirect exists). -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about replacing the current caption with the information from the photographer? Muhammad(talk) 07:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality. The tag on its leg makes the picture eligible for other articles as well., related with tracking of birds, etc., -- vineeth (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support This is a bit nitpicky, but the background is noisy, and the tail and lower back side is too. Otherwise, very nice. SpencerT♦C 12:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Background is very noisy, in fact i can see it in the thumbnail, but also because I don't see anything special with this image. What makes it featurable? —Sunday| Speak 22:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a weak support or weak oppose? Muhammad(talk) 16:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Charadrius-melodus-004 edit.jpgMER-C 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only South Atlantic tropical cyclone to be officially accepted. This shows Catarina nearing the Brazilian coast. Look at the symmetry of the storm.
Elena85, it is a beautiful image, but please do not once again start flooding FPC with hurricane images as you did this past spring. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 00:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I didn't nominate the other one and I knew I would forget if I waited.
Well then the picture can't be as special to you as you claimed. :) –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 01:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support There is no such thing as a south atlantic hurricane season. Great picture of a one of a kind event. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think that the nominator made it clear that this is the only known cyclone/hurricane in the South Atlantic. PlasticupT/C 01:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fixed that.--Elena85 | Talk to Me | 1800edits!!!' 01:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets all the criteria, plus historical rarity is a plus. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive image; it also has encyclopedic value, representing a unique storm. Hello32020 (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is far from the most best quality, most captivating image of a hurricane that is available. The first thing that caught my eye was that the image is especially blurry when enlarged. This picture of Katrina, for example, seems to be significantly sharper [11]. -- mcshadyplTC 05:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very unsharp on left side - wonder why, since it's sharp at right... --Janke | Talk 08:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the sharpness problem: The raw feed shows the storm is at the edge of the covered area - where spatial resolution degrades rapidly. One pixel represents 250m in the centre, but more much more at the edge. The projection performed by NASA gives a "top down" view, but cannot add detail in those margins.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The poor resolution is just too much in the important parts of this image, especially the eye. There are hundreds of cyclone images from this sensor, those where the eye is near the centre of the swathe produce images with a much higher technical quality, and are more impressive visually than this one. Incidentally the caption is wrong - the image is from March 27.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think it is that great of a picture. We know the storm is impressive and notable, but that isn't shown by the image at all. There already is a very striking image of this same storm. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too bad if it's out of coverage range, it just isn't sharp enough. It's pretty good about the highlights though, a major problem with Hurricanehink's image immediately above.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 00:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally I think that the EV of a high resolution image showing the entire storm along the Brazilian coast out weighs some technical issues. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with Uncle Bungle. Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Another satellite picture of a storm has recently been featured. This starts to get boring for non-storm-geeks. This picture has really nice EV value, despite the flaws in quality, but I don't think it should be a FP. Luca (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This hurricane FP (Hurricane Isabel) shows a hurricane in far greater detail (in addition to well illustrating the size of the hurricane), being everything the current candidate is and more. M.Nelson (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Majestic Seal of the Realm of Wladislaus II of Poland (16th century copy).jpg
High enc. Image donated to the public domain by copyright holder. Restored version of Image:Gerald Ford hearing.jpg. Slightly grainy due to constraints of film photography under low light conditions.
Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 22:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The photo seems very important and is of great quality. Zginder 2008-09-20T23:38Z (UTC)
Support The grain is extensive but uniform, but given the historical value, it's tolerable and does not significantly detract from the enc value. Dare I say it adds to the charm?--HereToHelp(talk to me) 00:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As per above. (Giligone (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Support - per above. ErikvDijk (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support mainly per heretohelp, it has great historical value and considering restraints is a very good image. Cat-five - talk 21:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per above. I like the grain. Btornado (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good cultural and historic value. JordanContribs 11:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Snapshot of Ford, nothing special. I look at this I don't think "wow, watergate", it's more of "who is that and why is his mouth part open". --Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Gerald Ford hearing2.jpgMER-C 06:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A picture of the dome in the central monument of the Akshardham Temple in New Delhi, India. The dome is 141 ft high
Reason
The picture is a clear picture of the dome on a clear day with sunlight pouring in. Also, the detail in the carvings on the dome can be seen. The temple is the largest hindu temple (at least according to the Guiness World Records). This picture shows its height.
Original - Weevils are a very large group of beetles most of them with a prominent stout (rostrum), with jaws at the end, and elbowed antennae normally attached about half way along. In this species (Lixus angustatus) the body is covered with tiny yellow scales which fall with age.
Reason
It's a very detailed and high quality depiction of a weevil, showing the characteristic features of the group
Support Detailed, nice lighting and colour. There are a few blown pixels around some of the legs etc but that is no big deal in this case. There is some sort of wierd ghosting going on just underneath the body of the insect (a darker section of the background with a hard border), that should be fixed though. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition Muhammad(talk) 07:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - the leaf is in an unfortunate location, and at first glace it was difficult for me to discern where the weevil was. It blends in too well. That said, good quality pic. Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The blending would be the camouflage. It is an adaptation of the weevil and thus contributes to the EV. Muhammad(talk) 19:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Would be stronger, but the strange location confuses me... a bit. —Sunday| Speak 22:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What if the picture was flipped upside down (righting the orientation of the bug)? Noodle snacks (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried it and didn't work, it looked artificial -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The leaf placement is only distracting (to me, at least) in thumbnail size; at full size, the beetle's head stands out quite well against the leaf. Excellent detail, really weird creature.--ragesoss (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - President Harry S. Truman at his desk at the White House signing the proclamation declaring a national emergency that began US involvement in Korea.
Reason
This is a very historically significant image and despite it's flaws (soft focus on the hands, fuzzinesss) I believe that the historical significance and the limitations in photography when this was taken are enough to still make this FP worthy.
Support as nominator --Cat-five - talk 21:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a few scratches that we could probably remove before deeming FP. Would anyone support a crop to just below the paper Truman is actually signing? That would cut out some of the paper in the foreground which is very lightly exposed. Fletcher (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think either Durova or Fir would be good for this job. [To Fletcher] —Sunday| Speak 22:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stretched a bit thin to do it myself, but anyone who wants to try their hand is welcome to join the media restoration wikiproject and get coaching. Best, DurovaCharge! 22:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 08:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - circular wire brush mounted to an 205mm (8in) bench grinder with a tool rest in front. Wire brushes are typically used for removing paint and rust.
Reason
Detailed, I find it interesting to look at, are not many FP images of tools
Neutral I'm torn between the extreme detail and the tight crop ("subject cut off").--HereToHelp(talk to me) 12:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't mind the crop here as it is functional and well done. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good quality and EV -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low enc IMO, because the use of the tool is not shown - some "action", please! ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for cool detail and uniqueness. Good EV because it shows the brush, very important for Wire brush. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't really like this photo, Not that there's anything wrong with it... I guess I just don't like bench grinders. But it is well done, and has high EV. (Giligone (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC))\[reply]
Oppose - Nearly the entire subject is cut off. In terms of encyclopedic value it fails. Is it run directly through an electric motor? Steam engine? I can't tell. To me it just looks like a wheel of wires. The aesthetics are there the framing needs to be improved though. Victorrocha (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A wire brush is a "wheel of wires". Kaldari (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is in both articles and to me it has to fit both articles to the point. Still it's cut off whether it be a bench grinder or wire brush. Victorrocha (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's definitely a cool image but I think the extreme close up means the image could be unnecessarily confusing/inaccessible for those without specific experience with the tool. Guest9999 (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that the primary subject is the wire brush, not the bench grinder. Wider framing is a possibility, but then very little detail of the wire brush itself would be present. Other photos in bench grinder provide the background as to the machine's shape. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree except that there are already two images in the article that are perfectly good representations of wire brushes on their own. I therefore see this image's purpose within the article as being to show a wire brush in a certain context, that of its use with a bench grinder and in this respect I do not think the image (whilst technically and aesthetically impressive) helps the reader understand the particular use of the brush as much as it could. Still good luck with the nomination, it's an impressive image. Guest9999 (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In both cases it illustrates the wire brush, rather than the grinder, and does so sufficiently in my opinion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for excellent detail of the wire brush. This may be a case where applying it to two different articles weakened its chances: it's too cropped to have much EV with respect to bench grinders, which may leave people feeling bad about the image, or confused about what it's trying to show. But it shows the brush very well, even finds a weird beauty in the mundane. Fletcher (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Only because it's cut-off. I would support so hugely if you could, but then I suppose the DOF wouldn't be quite as good. —Sunday| Speak 22:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I like this picture. The crop may be tight, but it really focusses the eye on what is important.--Tufacave (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support at first glance, I though this would be a boring image, but actually, it was interesting enough to convince me to read the article! SpencerT♦C 00:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Bench Grinder Brush 1.jpgMER-C 08:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --—Sunday[speak+] 02:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great idea--perhaps we should consider a featured set of the 7 continents--but this image simply isn't high rez enough. We already have Image:Whole world - land and oceans 12000.jpg. The only benefit of this image I see is that it focuses on North America and not the world. If we need such an image, crop it from the link above. (Ireland, by the way, had clouds showing the natural climate, not just geography.)--HereToHelp(talk to me) 03:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 08:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wow. the scan is so good you can see the individual fibres in the paper!
Weak Support A great scan, but it would benefit from some cleanup - notably, that nematode-shaped artefact on his forehead, or the long trail of dirt on the left. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. It'd be nice if it was cleaned up a bit, but it's excusable because of it's age. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with or without cleanup. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-08-25 18:52Z
I agree that this is a great image (I uploaded it), but others might want to make sure that they think this is the best example of several similar images. Search for sumo here and there are some other fantastic scans I didn't upload. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across your upload while I was looking for a good PD image of a banzuke poster. (Didn't find one). Thanks for the upload! Spikebrennan (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a good quality scan and a has great HV and EV. My support would only be bolstered by a cleanup. NauticaShades 01:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Faded, smudged and spotted. Badly needs restoration. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I'm not bothered by the stains and cleanup issues so much as the fact that we don't know who made it; it's a great scan, but pretty typical in terms of artistic merit among mid-19th century Japanese prints, and without artist information or other image-specific context it has limited value except as a sumo illustration.--ragesoss (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a picture which is supposed to accurately depict something which predates photography, the condition is far too shabby to be featured. There seems to be some agreement even among supporters that this image needs a cleanup. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I think clean-up would be good. But that's a very minor issue on this image for me; I disagree that it's too shabby to be featured. Also, I don't think it can be taken as (or was necessarily intended to be) an accurate depiction in the same way as a photograph; it's fairly stylized, and is as much a work of art as a literal portrait.--ragesoss (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. - Uncle.bungle (talk·contribs) brings up some good points but it is a quality image with high encyclopedic value. Cirt (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - per provided ragesoss' rationale, cleaning would be helpful too. M.K. (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suspended, please clean me. MER-C 06:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More information available. The Library of Congress ([12]) says that the artist is Toyokuni Utagawa (1786-8865) and that this is a woodcut in the "Vertical oban nishikie" format (whatever that means). Before people complain so much about the cleanup, please realize that this is a woodcut print on what looks to be very grainy, unevenly colored paper. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question on the restoration do i clear out the splotches of ink that have run off from the original blacks of do I just clean up the numerous spots on the image? Victorrocha (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be patient and I'll have it done by the end of this week. It's a long time but I just can't stand to click at dots for hours a day. It gets boring(sorry I'm human). Victorrocha (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delays but this is taking a bit longer than I imagined. I am done with the minor details and now I'm cleaning the black smudges. Expect the restored version soon. Victorrocha (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK Done! You can comment on the finished product and request any changes you might want. MER-C would you please compress the previous votes and restoration info? Thanks. Victorrocha (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. Can someone check what's up with the thumbnail preview? [reply]
Question: I'm not sure how relevant to the article this is. He looks more like a fat samurai, with the swords and stuff, than a sumo wrestler? Is that how sumo wrestlers dressed for competition in the early years of the sport or something? What's up with his clothes? :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've only attended one sumo tournament, but as far as I remember the wrestlers entered the stadium wearing robes not unlike this one. I'm not sure what the deal is with the swords. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (no longer weak) now that we know the artist (Kunisada). I don't think it's among his strongest works, but it's a flawless scan and a nice restoration job.--ragesoss (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question How do we know this is Kunisada? Is this signed? (And if it was so easy to tell, then why doesn't the LOC identify the artist?) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The LOC does identify the artist. See the link Spikebrennan provided; LOC identifies the author as "Toyokuni Utagawa (1786-8865)" (Utagawa Toyokuni III, aka Kunisada).--ragesoss (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Excavations at the site of Gran Dolina, in Atapuerca (Spain), during 2008. Panoramic photography formed using 3 individual photographies with Hugin software. TD-10 archaeological level is being excavated where the most of the people are. It is a Homo heidelbergensis' camp. Under the plank, we can observe a woman with red sweatshirt excavating TD-6 archaeological level, where were found the first remains of Homo antecessor.Downsampled version from previous nom
Reason
Panorama image which shows a normal day in the Atapuerca excavation. Hugin and Gimp were used to make this great photo. New nomination for cleaned-up version of image because previous nom was closed shortly after adding this version to the nomination.
Support again. Very cool and unique, not to mention meeting all the criteria. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I checked out the previous nom and the downsampled ones, and though I believe downsampling and still keeping this image quite large is possible, I don't see another reason to oppose. SpencerT♦C 19:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: Support downsampled version, Weak oppose original. SpencerT♦C 03:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (downsapled edit, see (*) below) High enc, visually interesting. Slight quality issues are of no concern because of huge size. --Janke | Talk 06:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose This edit has made an already unsharp original even worse and lost a lot of fine detail through some poorly applied and unnecessary noise reduction. This image desperately needs downsampling as it has no useful information at this resolution (as I demonstrated in the previous nom). Leaving it at this res is the result of blind pixel counting and a misguided bigger-is-better mentality which poorly reflects on FPC's technical standards. --Fir0002 23:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make a composite where the areas that you feel require "fine detail" are preserved, I can upload my version from before white balance correction, or of course feel free to add your own edit! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and would also support a downsampled edit. --Janke | Talk 17:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put up a downsampled version of the previous nom. SpencerT♦C 22:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the original nom had been downsampled to 1500 x 2600, and no mention of the original, we wouldn't have had to go through the "downsample or not" discussion again, right? ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but given criterion 3, I'd hate to promote an inferior version of the image. Thegreenj 22:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(*)I'd rather promote a smaller, sharper version. What's the use of having a super-sized but soft image, when you lose practically nothing, but gain a lot of subjective appeal by downsampling? --Janke | Talk 17:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The changes in perspective from top to bottom are very disorienting, and the overall composition does not create an adequate sense of the what the physical space is actually like. Panorama doesn't seem appropriate in such close quarters.--ragesoss (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support downsized - Ragesoss, there is no other way to represent panoramas of 3D environments in a 2D image. That kind of distortions are normal. Diego_pmcTalk 09:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, although sometimes you have options to minimise the distortion. One option is to shoot from further away, so the angle of view is smaller. For encyclopaedic photos, it is usually important to get as far away from the subject as is allowed by the environment so that distortion is minimised. I suspect that wasn't possible in this shot though. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 21:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a very sharp and high quality image with great enc. The distortion doesn't bother me at all. I see nothing that the distortion takes from the image. I looked at the downsampled version, but I'll support either because while the downsample is easier to view, the large version is more useful. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:Dolina-Pano-3.jpgMER-C 08:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
Done Uploaded a reversed prior version. sorry for not noticing that they were two scans of the same etching (or two scans of two prints of the same etching, rather), I just looked at the version immediately before mine when uploading a new one. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
_bathtub_DN-ST-86-02543.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
![[11]](/en/Image:Hurricane_Katrina_August_28_2005_NASA.jpg){kind=link}
