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

Baa, Baa, Black Sheep

Reason

Another Denslow illustration of a famous nursery rhyme. It turns out this rhyme has added encyclopedic value as an example of 1980s revisionism. Restored version of File:Black sheep Denslow.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Baa, Baa, Black Sheep, William Wallace Denslow, Nursery_rhyme#Nursery_rhyme_revisionism, List of fictional sheep, Black sheep

Creator

William Wallace Denslow

• Support as nominator --Durova³⁰⁶ 21:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Has tons of EV and no issues with the image.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great free use image for a highly known nursery rhyme. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 07:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. My god, Wikipedia has a list of fictional sheep. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great EV (5 articles!), beautiful restoration. Kaldari (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good encyclopedic value, interesting and visually appealing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The Black sheep illustrated by William Wallace Denslow.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping spider courtship

Reason

I have dozens of jumping spider photos that are technically far better than this one, but none of them come close to being as valuable. This photo is not for illustrating a particular jumping spider, but to illustrate the section on jumping spider courtship dances in the article jumping spider. Obviously the sharpness is not comparable to most other featured macro shots. For shooting jumping spiders (which are quite tiny) I usually have to open up to f/8 or so to avoid diffraction softening. In this case, however, it was important to get the legs in the focus plane (as they are an important part of the display) so I stopped down to f/13. At full res the diffraction softening is obvious, but IMO the trade-off was worth it and I would shoot it at the same aperture if I did it again. The other flaw is that there are 21 blown pixels on the leg and 5 in the eyes where the specular highlights are. There are no totally blown areas, however, just pixels, and otherwise the levels and curves are pretty nice. Since this was shot hand-held on an overcast day, obviously a strong flash was required (not to mention the fact that it's dancing). The primary selling point for this images is obviously it's encyclopedic value. The description of jumping spider courtship behavior needed a good photo and this one fits the bill nicely. There are only a handful of similar photographs on the internet and none that are free license.

Articles this image appears in

Jumping spider#Reproduction

Creator

Kaldari

• Support as nominator. You can also see the action from another angle. --Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose While I appreciate the exceptions you brought up, IMO this is better suited at VPC. Actually, with a little of effort in image editing, the image could have been improved with software if you would've used less aperture and more flash. ZooFari 04:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I forgot about VPC (as most people do). Perhaps you're right that it would be better suited there. Can you explain a bit more about the "less aperture more flash". I'm always interested in learning more about photography. Kaldari (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I meant "More aperture more flash", I think. What lighting conditions did you take the pic in? ZooFari 04:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was quite overcast. I was under the impression that opening the aperture always reduces depth of field. Is there a way around that? Kaldari (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • New ring flash? Noodle snacks (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ha, sharp eyes! Yep, finally upgraded to the Canon MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite Flash. It's a big improvement on the ring flash, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Appreciate the difficulty, DOF is ok and so is sharpness. --Muhammad(talk) 11:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - great shot, but the front leg is either out of focus or in a motion blur. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The spider is only 1 cm long. To get the entire spider in focus, I would have had to have stopped the aperture down to f/16 or so which would have ruined the sharpness due to diffraction. I tried to choose the best trade-off between loosing sharpness and getting the spider in the focus plane. That said, if the front leg being out of focus is distracting to you, I suppose that is a valid objection. Kaldari (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support You'd never have got that leg sharp with just another stop down. Clearly a good decision to go as far as f13 as any loss of minute detail is wholly mitigated by gains in overall pictorial value. It's a good angle and a fine illustration, only weak supporting in recognition of the high bug bar. --mikaul^talk 22:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC) -edit- and I'm not a fan of those twin flash units... too many specular highs, very distracting...[reply]
• Weak Support per above. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose flipped image, inappropriately manipulated. In my opinion definately relevent in this case as someone examining - and say using it in a school paper - would be likely to refer to the "left" or "right" legs. Guest9999 (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Striking oppose (image unflipped). Guest9999 (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, that's an interesting oppose. Since jumping spiders are bilaterally symmetrical, I wouldn't think it would be an issue. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't notice that. You could always just flip it back and place a left in the image syntax. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unflipped. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Kaldari, do you have the exact original (no RAW though)? Or is it the first version you uploaded? ZooFari 23:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the RAW and an original higher-res JPEG. The version that was uploaded was downsampled, noise-reduced, and sharpened. Kaldari (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you by any chance be willing to upload it or email it to me? Just to take a look. I might be able to do some tweaks to the version open for voting, but I would like to see the work you've done so far first. ZooFari 00:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, just send me your email address. Kaldari (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended for editing. Could also close if preferred, and you can nominate the new version later, but I don't want to discourage work being done on an image by a hasty "no quorum" close. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 201 FCs served} 00:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit now done so I'm Unsuspending. Zoofari could you strike your previous vote please since you've now voted twice? Also renamed edit from Alt to Edit per conventions (an alt is a completely different image). Note: I'm just putting this back to the 'decision time' section - if you want to run it right from the top again, go ahead but I don't think it needs it. --jjron (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt see the thumb for changes. I'm not a wizard so I couldn't bring the leg into focus :-( ZooFari 05:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the effort, but I have to say I prefer the original. The alt is over-sharpened - the areas where the hairs overlap the background are quite noisey for example. Also, all of the white areas are blown in the alt, so there is actually less detail rather than more. As you said, it would take a wizard to fix it (without being able to focus-stack), so maybe it's just not good enough to feature. Kaldari (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Phidippus clarus courtship edit.jpg --Pmlineditor  Talk 14:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why was the edit promoted? Have you read the discussion? Kaldari (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I have read it. I believe there is sufficient consensus to promote this one. The majority of the votes are support and I see no reason not to promote. If you oppose this, please nominate for delisting. Pmlineditor  Talk 15:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There is only one editor in favor of the edit (Zoofari) and two against it (myself and Jauerback), whereas the original version has four editors in favor (Muhammad, mikaul, Noodle snacks, and myself) and two opposed (Jauerback and Zoofari). Additionally, the problems with the edit were detailed in the discussion - over-sharpening and blown highlights - without response. How can that be viewed as consensus? Kaldari (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. Can you please go for a delisting (or something else)? Pmlineditor  Talk 15:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Why jump through extra hoops here? You made a clear mistake, just rectify it. No need to go through a delisting process here. --Dschwen 16:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. :( Pmlineditor  Talk 16:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Turn that frown upside down! There is no shame here. Mistakes happen, fortunately most of them are easy to fix. --Dschwen 18:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no consensus. My apologies for this but this is the best I can make of this now. We were leaving it open to give the edit some time, but we have been pre-empted and I suppose must now make a decision. I would tend to encourage a renomination (or alternative decision here). --jjron (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that decision is correct. There really wasn't any kind of consensus. Kaldari (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. That's a generous attitude and quite a vote of confidence given that it meant your image went from being promoted in some form to not being promoted. That type of 'good sportsmanship' can be lacking here at times. --jjron (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Male Magpie Lark

Reason

High quality and good EV

Articles this image appears in

Magpie-lark

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support probably should have been more hasty uploading a similar picture I had from Canberra. Well done. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That one wasn't of a female was it? The one we have in the taxobox at the moment is awful. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Good question, I'll have a look later. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Australia has wonderful birds. Durova³⁰⁶ 18:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, looks great. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, yeah, Support also. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The prominent railing the bird is sitting on is distracting. Given that these birds are very common, the composition counts against this photo. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree that it's distracting. In fact, I think it's an interesting aspect to the shot. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Given these birds are "...common and very widespread bird both in urban and rural areas", I don't think it's inappropriate for it to be sitting on a rail in a suburban garden, as it is part of the representative environment and possibly even adds to EV. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Male magpie lark in suburban garden.jpg --jjron (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sunflower on sky background

Reason

Aesthetic and plenty of EV

Articles this image appears in

Sunflower

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Wasn't there a FP as the taxobox image before this one? --Muhammad(talk) 10:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it was this one some time ago.
• Support Good quality and isolation. The ones I saw grew so closely together I couldn't get just a single one --Muhammad(talk) 10:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You gotta break some eggs sunflowers to make an omlette FP ;-). --Dschwen 14:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hehe, I was in someone's farm though. Didn't want to get the villagers angry :) --Muhammad(talk) 15:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would they have chased you with pitchforks? --Dschwen 21:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Didn't see any pitchforks but jembes were accessible. --Muhammad(talk) 08:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Size ref? Spikebrennan (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inner diameter (excluding petals) is approx 15cm --Fir0002 13:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While a scale in the image would be ideal, I'd be happy with a mention of this in the image page or the image caption. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Entirely disagree. Unless the scale of the object is unusual or exceptional to the extent that it is necessary for the illustration (for example if this was an image of the a world record sunflower) then it is inappropriate to include a scale bar. It's all the more inappropriate where the scale is not precise but a mere approximation. At any rate, I've updated the caption --Fir0002 06:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice quality and excellent EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the above. Ks0stm ^(T•C) 20:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sunflower sky backdrop.jpg --jjron (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cabbage and Cross Section

Reason

High quality + high EV

Articles this image appears in

Cabbage

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Lighting seems very harsh --Muhammad(talk) 10:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lighting is fine for me, and you must of been way across the room with a 150mm lens for this. You have swiped the top of the right cabbage with a white paint brush though, and the white balance varies between the two images. The shadow on the RHS image is very blue. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No paint brush swipe - I did some selective levels to that section to brighten some grey shadows which must have caused it (feather effects). And yeah you're right there does look like a minor variation in WB. I'll do a reprocess probably tmrw. --Fir0002 14:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed --Fir0002 06:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Size ref or scale? Spikebrennan (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most people know how big cabbage is. Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would they be looking in an encyclopedia for information about them if they knew things like that? I tend to look for things I don't know rather than read things I already know myself... Thus the viewers of this article may NOT know the size of a cabbage... Gazhiley (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thirded. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lol with all that discussion no one took the initiative to add the scale! Scale is approx 25cm in diameter (inner sphere) --Fir0002 14:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • And who's going to do that, with the flood of self-nominations that you're subjecting us to? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many things that could be added to a picture that are not necessarily clear... Not all pictures require size ref. If we ask for every picture to have size ref then why not ask for colour reference, speed of the subject with respect to the viewer reference. We could add many others magnitudes that people could ask and not know from the picture but I'll refrain from that since many might be computed from the metadata of the picture. But even this is not at all obvious how to do.  Franklin.vp  21:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. We don't need to clutter up the image with information that should be provided in the article text. Unless the subject is of a surprising scale, there is no reason to plaster a scale graphic onto the image. Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support btw. cannot see the blue that noodle refers to, and looks very good to me... Gazhiley (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is cabbage really that white? Makeemlighter (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed they are - have you never had one? --Fir0002 13:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only chopped up, and I usually don't pay much attention to the colors of the food I eat! Makeemlighter (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RAN Squirrel Helicopter

Reason

Renom of a previous attempt - comments there indicated a single image would be better

Articles this image appears in

Fleet Air Arm (RAN)

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The angle is slightly unhappy because it leads to one of the rotors overlapping the tail as well as over underexposure of large parts of the underside and sides - the farther landing skid has been reduced to a mere silhouette. This all leads to a snapshotty feel overall imo. Approaching the aerospace industry and military with requests for pictures may yield much better material than this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand the angle is slightly happy because it makes the object 3D rather than 2D-side-on-portrait. It's also from a top down rather than a overhead angle which elevates it from snapshot level IMO. I'm assuming you mean under exposure right? Still plenty of detail there - I'll run the standard suggestion of getting your monitor calibrated. If you don't believe me bump up the gamma or something in your image editor of choice. --Fir0002 13:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great angle. The farther landing skid is not a problem even if underexposed since you can see perfectly the other one.  Franklin.vp  15:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done. Cacophony (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upstateNYer_{formerly wadester16} 21:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:RAN squirrel helicopter at melb GP 08.jpg --jjron (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy Beetle

Reason

Another renom - now sitting in an expanded article

Articles this image appears in

Chondropyga dorsalis

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Size ref or scale? Spikebrennan (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size is approx 25mm in length --Fir0002 13:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Not too fond of the blunt flash lighting. --Dschwen 02:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blunt? I'm assuming you're not referring to the original? --Fir0002 13:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Atypical pose - it looks dead. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really - compare the Alt which was taken after the studio shot when it was already active (it flew off a few moments after this shot). --Fir0002 13:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Illustrates the subject well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Johnson and Calvin Coolidge

Reason

High quality and resolution image of significant EV and historical value, a US president and one of the greatest pitchers of all time shaking hands. Crop style was Durova's idea, I like it as it catches the full image and the feeling of the crowd whilst losing the intrusive barrier of the original.

Articles this image appears in

Calvin Coolidge, Walter Johnson, 1924 in baseball, Minnesota Twins, Sports diplomacy#Sports and politics in the United States

Creator

National Photo Company Collection, edited by Staxringold, Durova, and Shoemaker's Holiday.

• Support as nominator --Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm unsure about the crop... I see its purpose although I am slightly uneasy about losing some of the the bottom right. But, if we agree cropping is a good idea why did you choose to keep so much on the right and left? I don't have an answer to this, of course, but it's what came to mind when comparing to the original. I'm not sure it's the best crop for all of the articles, especially the two biographies. gren グレン 06:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea is to keep the feeling of a crowd, since that's where they are, while removing the obstructions. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What about something like Alt1? It still has a good amount of crowd but the aspect ratio isn't as severe. Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great EV. — Jake Wartenberg 01:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support revised version. Staxringold and I discussed several possible crops and agreed this was the best solution. Minimizes the intrusive barrier on the original while retaining the handshake and crowd presence. Durova³⁰⁶ 02:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose alt one. Cuts off figures at both left and right. Loses sense of crowd, including appauding figure at far right and the dynamic diagonal slope from the upper background. A more typical crop isn't necessarily a better one. Durova³⁰⁶ 00:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, Oppose Alt as auxilliary dirtzapper. The crop is more typical, but seems to lose a lot of the dynamism of the original.

Plus the 1920s fashions visible in the crowd are an additional source of appeal. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 201 FCs served} 03:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is one of those super cool pictures that I love seeing but hate voting for on. I just don't see the EV for it. Maybe someone can explain it to me before I vote. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There's the biographical value showing what they look like, it shows the interrelationship of politics and sports in the US, it came after one of the lone bright spots in the history of the Washington Senators, and perhaps most important directly displays the friendship briefly mentioned in the Walter Johnson article ("A life-long Republican and friend of President Calvin Coolidge...") which will need to be far expanded for the article to properly reach FA status (but this image goes to that friendship). Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I didn't see that about them being friends. That's interesting. Anyway, I think this picture would be best used for an article discussing the "American League diploma" mentioned in the image description. Unfortunately, I can't find any more information about that. Was it common for a president to present that to the team? Do we have any more info on this specific meeting between Johnson and Coolidge? Makeemlighter (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no information on that thing, though given that this photo is from 1925 and the Senators won the World Series (and thus the AL pennant) in 1924 and WJ won the League Award, it's probably something to do with one of those things. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Walter Johnson and Calvin Coolidge shake hands FINAL.jpg --jjron (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Sarcophagid fly Portrait.jpg

General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower

Reason

This image is a high quality and unique painting of General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower by Nicodemus David Hufford III, which I believe meets the Featured Picture criteria. The image well illustrates Eisenhower as a General of the Army and Chief of Staff of the United States Army prior to his election to President.

Articles this image appears in

Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, 1952 Republican National Convention, Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Commanders of World War II, Portal:United States Army/Selected biography, Portal:United States Army/Selected biography/3, Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1952

Creator

Nicodemus David Hufford III

• Support as nominator --Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it just me or is this really yellow? Noodle snacks (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't really look yellow to me; just karki/brown uniform and skin coloured, well skin. ;-) Perhaps it is your monitor? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those colours arent right, unless we both have monitor problems--Childzy ¤ Talk 10:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have lightened the image up as shown in Edit 1. How does it look now? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are either a lot of JPEG artifacts, or strongly noticeable halftone pattering from a scan from a book, or perhaps both. Is there a better reproduction of this painting available? Spikebrennan (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, no. The others I have viewed are either limited in resolution, or are of poor quality. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The halftone is enough to weaken support but it's hardly surprising that the colour is off given that this is a version of a scan of a book halftone of a photo of the original: a fourth generation copy. As with Chinese whispers, I'd be very surprised if this is how the original looks.--mikaul^talk 21:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this one is probably closer, albeit cropped, to the original, in which case I still think this is a better copy. Will see if I can do anything with the image, though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, thanks for posting the link. The version we have here is clearly miles out (the blue of the badge on his shoulder is rendered almost mid-grey here) and I'm afraid attempting to correct it with this file is not going to be possible without introducing a load of noise and posterisation. It's a decent painting; deserves decent repro. --mikaul^talk 10:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. MER-C 08:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above/myself. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Castle of São Jorge

Reason

Quality+EV

Articles this image appears in

Castle of São Jorge and Lisbon

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I should say that this is not a picture of the castle, it is a picture of the houses next to it that manages to capture the whole castle. Sadly enough, cropping it, I think, either will eliminate some portion of the castle or make the picture ugly. I see that the castle has this sort of stairway that would be difficult to isolate from the houses if we want to include it in the picture. Except for this mistake of the composition, I think, for the Wikipedia purposes it is a good picture. Now it comes to my mind that maybe the houses are part of the castle. Maybe someone knowing about the Castle of São Jorge can explain this. If this is the case I have no objection about the picture. Franklin.vp  21:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The castle is located in a citadel, which is quite big as you can see in the picture (look for the wall above the houses). You can only access the castle by first entering the citadel. The entrance to the citadel is on the other side of the one shown in this picture. Before you arrive at the gate, you have to make your way through a residential neighborhood, which is built around the citadel as shown in the panorama. Since the castle, citadel and surroundings are so much woven into one another, I think it is best to show them all in one panorama. Also, the composition would be damaged if I would crop the picture otherwise. Some of you have expressed to see more of the surroundings as stated below at the nomination for the Jeronimos Monastery. I only found two good vantage points to take this picture from. One was where this one was taken from and the other one the top of the Santa Justa Elevator (use Google Maps and Street View).--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, however shouldn't this get added to Lisbon to completely use it's EV? As it stands the castle is but a small part of this image. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a good spot to insert it in the article of Lisbon, but if you know of one then please do so. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there nobody willing to cast their vote? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I agree that this should be added to Lisbon. It would have better EV there. Otherwise, great shot. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Full support due to placement in Lisbon article. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have also inserted the image in the Lisbon article as requested, after rearranging the history section. --17:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted - no quorum. --jjron (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lace Monitor Full Length

Lace monitor, Varanus varius, up a tree

Reason

Quite a striking illustration of the length of this animal. Yes part of the tail is partially obscured by some leaves which were in the way, but there wasn' much I could do about it and it doesn't detract much IMO. Good quality + good EV

Articles this image appears in

Lace Monitor

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 13:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Most of it is obscured and the angle isn't very illustrative. Compare to [1] or [2]. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think the fact that's significantly obscured behind the tree is enough. Many of the other images in the gallery of the article show that a better view of a Lace Monitor up a tree is quite possible. They're not as good technically, but they're better compositionally IMO. We should expect both good technicals and a good illustrative view of the animal. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Noodle snacks and Diliff. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The bottom 1/3 or so is obscured by green bluriness. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's not hard to get a better illustration than this cut off image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rufous Whistler

Reason

Good shot of an attractive small bird

Articles this image appears in

Rufous Whistler

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 13:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Haha, what a cute little guy. Assuming his feet aren't wildly unique (since they are hiding in this shot), great photo. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• One foot is visible, it is just very similar in colour to the branch. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent shot Gazhiley (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Buckets of direct flash is misrepresenting the plumage (compare to: [3]) and giving the bird steeleye. It is over-sharpened, probably in an attempt to mask the slightly out of focus head. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rufous whistler.jpg --jjron (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Gull

Reason

Aesthetic composition of this bird on the beach with the ocean behind it

Articles this image appears in

Silver Gull

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 13:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clean and simple. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice composition --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good composition, nice work! --Cj.samson (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Doing his little turn on the birdwalk, on the birdwalk, on the birdwalk yeah, he's doing his little turn on the birdwalk... yeah its friday afternoon and I'm looking at pictures of birds... excellent picture... Gazhiley (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It looks like he was posing for you. Great shot! --Arustleund (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As if my vote is really needed in this highly liked nomination, still though, great shot. Nezzadar (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avala (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Silver gull jan 09.jpg --jjron (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Treecreeper

Reason

Good quality shot with good EV

Articles this image appears in

Brown Treecreeper

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 13:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As per nom. Gazhiley (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good action shot. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Brown treecreeper jan09.jpg --jjron (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Female Golden Stag Beetle

Reason

High quality shot of an interesting insect showing its highly iridescent shell

Articles this image appears in

Beetle, Iridescence

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 13:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The beetle looks funny on the white background, similar to the one below. During my few attempts to refrigerate arthropods for "studio shots" I noticed that before they got warmed up, they were in an unnatural position similar to this one, and only afterwards did they look natural, but it was usually too late to properly photograph it then. --Muhammad(talk) 14:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Once more, with feeling... size ref or scale? Spikebrennan (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approx 25mm --Fir0002 06:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Same as below - looks dead. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for EV in Iridescence. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Good detail and I don't mind the white background. The pose doesn't look particularly "dead", but even if it did I'm not sure I would care about that, either. I'd like to see this in articles for the family, genus, and the species, so I just might work on those. Maedin\^talk 07:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Who cares if it looks dead, it's illustrating iridescence. It meets the technical requirements, looks nice. I'll vote, why not? Nezzadar (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my earlier comments and noodle. Ev for iriscidence is also limited as that article is filled with images. --Muhammad(talk) 22:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I think it's valuable as an example of biological iridescence. The other images don't show that quite as well. The one that's an FP is certainly excellent, but I'm not sure it has as much EV for this topic as the current nom. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no consensus. --jjron (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calliphora vomitoria

Reason

Really detailed, adds enc to a number of articles. 3.5:1 magnification. Handheld, all natural light ;). Compliments the other Calliphora vomitoria FP with the nasty crop.

Articles this image appears in

Blow-fly, Calliphora, Blue bottle fly, Calliphorinae

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support How did you manage it handheld? How many images stacked? I am turning green ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 10:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Handheld is a joke. I'd say that 3:1 or less is generally OK hand-held with some support (arms against something, monopod, pole) and flash. Tripod is basically mandatory for anything higher though. It is very difficult to focus at high magnifications and the viewfinder is very dim. This is also a 30 image stack (seems to be the magic number). Noodle snacks (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice work. Still a few stacking flaws but better than the other shot --Fir0002 13:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support wow. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lovely...erm, I mean disgusting. Durova³⁰⁶ 16:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support. The right antenna is abruptly cut off at the eye due to the focus stacking. This is also true of most of the hairs, but not as noticeable. The antenna should be easy to fix by manually masking it. If you can take care of that, I can overlook the other minor focus-stacking problems and support it. Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More difficult than it sounds unfortunately. It'd be a manual mask over about 8 frames... Noodle snacks (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 8 frames just for the antenna? Wow. It's hard to support otherwise, as the antenna is an important part of the anatomy of the head, and since this is a portrait shot, the parts of the head should be clear at least. Considering the difficulty of fixing it, however, and the excellence of the picture otherwise, I'll give a weak support. Kaldari (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Calliphora vomitoria Portrait.jpg --jjron (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Austen

Reason

First published image of her, and the one which almost all subsequent depictions are based off of. The revisionism of this image compared to Cassandra Austen's original sketch is a major subject of academic discussion, and, indeed, is discussed in both articles this engraving is used in (it replaces a low-resolution image). Could reasonably be used in the main Jane Austen article, but I'd rather let the editors there decide where to put it in.

Articles this image appears in

Reception history of Jane Austen, A Memoir of Jane Austen

Creator

From a watercolour by James Andrews of Maidenhead based on an unfinished work by Cassandra Austen. Engraving by Lizars.

Restoration by Adam Cuerden and Staxringold

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 201 FCs served} 23:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a minor co-worker on this key image. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High quality; top enc. Durova³⁰⁶ 02:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support + Suggestion. I really don't think it would detract from the value of the image to crop off the text, and I think a cropped version would be more appropriate for the article (you can't read it at thumbnail size anyway). Kaldari (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there I had some major debates. In the end, I thought it was probably important to leave in the context, as the provenance of this is rather important to its value. I actually wondered about crossing less tightly, in order to balance the text at the bottom, as the image is a bit more centred in the book itself. Perhaps the best option is to make both versions available, and use one in the Memoir article, the other in the reception history? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 201 FCs served} 01:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like a good idea to me. Kaldari (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll get it sorted tonight. Any opposition to labelling both as FP, but only adding the uncropped to galleries and such? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 201 FCs served} 16:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sounds fine to me. Kaldari (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think that would set a very dangerous precedent. Need to chose cropped or uncropped, as we do for every other image that has edited versions. --jjron (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jane Austen, from A Memoir of Jane Austen (1870).jpg --jjron (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grant of arms

Reason

A good period example of heraldry: this comes from a sixteenth century manuscript grant of arms signed by the king of Spain. Restored version of File:Grant of arms.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Grant of Arms, Law_of_Arms#The_right_to_bear_arms, Spanish_heraldry#Origins_and_history

Creator

Anonymous illustrator employed by King Philip II of Spain

• Support as nominator --Durova³⁰⁶ 18:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is this the entire document, or is this just an illustration included on the document? I would think that a grant of arms would be a document that includes legal text and includes an illustration of the arms, something like: "I, the king, hereby grant to Senor Mesa and his descendants the right to bear arms described as follows (HERALDIC DESCRIPTION), which look like this (ILLUSTRATION)." The document itself would have EV; I am unsure what EV the nominiated picture has apart from depicting this particular coat of arms. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption "Illustration from a manuscript grant of arms..." isn't clear enough? Of the nineteen page manuscript only two pages contain illustration: the initial page and this portion illustrating the coat of arms itself. Durova³⁰⁶ 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It would be impractical to include all 19 pages, but this provides an attractive and encyclopedic sample, from which further discussion can spring. If more details are desirable, the original text is linked (and, being LoC, should be stable into the far future), so they are easily acquirable, and could be added to the caption on the appropriate pages. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 21:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It is pretty soft at full size though. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good enough EV and quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, GerardM (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Grant of arms2.jpg --jjron (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Cobb with the triple

Reason

High resolution and quality image that clearly displays the triple, featuring one of the all time greats at achieving the triple. This is like a photo of Ruth, Aaron, or Bonds hitting a home run, a great doing what he's great at. The previous nomination fell flat due to EV issues, but in discussing this with Durova I pointed out that this isn't a great pure-EV image for just Cobb (although it is valuable in displaying his massive baserunning prowess and speed, it is not a portait) it also displays the triple itself.

Articles this image appears in

Ty Cobb, Triple (baseball), Slide (baseball)

Creator

National Photo Company, edited by Durova

• Support as nominator --Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note, previous nomination is here.
• Support per nom. Staxringold found additional encyclopedic use for the image. Durova³⁰⁶ 20:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not particularly convinced EV has been improved. As the previous nom noted this looks like it's taken at practice. If so then any claim that he's making a triple is surely rather hollow? And regardless this is one of those things that's going to be really hard to capture. What we actually see is him making third base, anything beyond that has to just come down to the photographer's word or speculation, and the LOC image page says "Title from unverified data...", so that's not all that convincing. --jjron (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This was discussed extensively at the talk page. Given that on the day and in the city for this photo Cobb had a triple, it seems quite real. Plus it displays the full EV either way. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting discussion but inconclusive - one knowledgeable editor suggested it was the triple, another that "So as far as we know, it's Cobb stealing third...", and the weight of discussion seemed to feel it was a practice or staged shot (not just due to the empty stands, but due to the stance of the left fielder), though no one was really committed. --jjron (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if that was true, what exactly would it detract from the EV? Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The main reason given for the renom was that EV was now better because it's illustrating a triple. Well surely if it's not doing this (and at best it seems we're unsure) the reasoning given and the EV isn't that strong? Only after voters are sure about that should they then be evaluating whether it's an FP quality illustration of a triple. --jjron (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe a happier and higher EV home for this could be Slide (baseball)? Ty Cobb actually already gets a mention in that article. --jjron (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually looked at that article pre-nom, but it's already image-laden. Staxringold _talk^contribs 08:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this not superior to some of the current images? I wonder also if this wouldn't benefit from a bit of a crop to focus more on the play - frankly that sky's not doing much for it. --jjron (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. And give a crop a try if you want. Staxringold _talk^contribs 08:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was also very suspicious about it being a genuine triple. It just doesn't look like a legitimate game situation, and as mentioned, it doesn't really illustrate a triple at all. It may have been a triple, but it just doesn't illustrate it. The only thing that properly does illustrate it is a video of the entire event from the moment of the pitch onwards, or a diagram. But as far as EV on slide goes, I think it's a pretty good historical example, and IMO the only article that it illustrates significantly enough. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit1 added. --jjron (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit1 or consensus version now it's in slide per above discussion. Incidentally I touched up the article a bit as well. --jjron (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I kinda like that crop... I guess I support either one really. Nice clean-up on the article, too. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support crop. Great photo. Nice restoration. Good EV. Meets all the criteria. Kaldari (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support crop based on the EV in the Slide (baseball) article only. Would probably withdraw support if it were not kept in the article but will support for now. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support crop if the caption is altered to make it clear this is baseball-related to someone who isn't familiar with the terminology. Perhaps something like "Ty Cobb, the baseballer second all time in career triples, ...". Time3000 (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's only included at baseball articles, which caption would you like changed? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking of the caption on this page, since it's used (I think?) in the POTD text. Time3000 (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, ok, all done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't matter really - Howcheng does a sterling job rewriting the captions for POTD anyway, he doesn't just use what's here, he ensures it makes sense to a general reader. --jjron (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Either way it's there now, so mine's definitely a support. Time3000 (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support crop per above. Ks0stm ^(T•C) 20:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose Both Really? Okay, first off, it dosen't show a triple, second, it dosen't identify the players, third off, the picture is blurry. If you want to highlight Ty Cobb, get a shot that clearly is of Cobb. As for the triple and the slide, there are a multitude of better pictures. Nezzadar (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether it's an in-game or practice triple it's a triple, and it's a perfect shot of a slide. How exactly else do you propose displaying a triple? As for Cobb, the EV is not as a portrait (for which this image would be less useful, as you say), but for displaying his baserunning ability. That's a minor part of the EV in this new FPC anyways, that's the whole difference from the original. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ty Cobb sliding2-edit1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Towed Tubing on Pleasant Lake, MN

Reason

High quality, dynamic image, represents the subject well

Articles this image appears in

Tubing (recreation)

Creator

Peter Opatrny

• Support as nominator --Arustleund (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good shot, clearly illustrative of riding a tube. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A bit underexposed maybe, but the expression is classic. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though slightly tilted, it really doesn't matter in this action shot. Good quality. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Noodle snacks. upstateNYer_{formerly wadester16} 17:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Illustrates the subject in a compelling manner. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it's all been said already. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - well done. - 154.20.253.177 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tubing_on_Pleasant_Lake_MN.jpg --jjron (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Lisa

Reason

The version in the last nomination (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mona Lisa) was too small (Version 10:40, 16 November 2006). Now it has much higher resolution.

Articles this image appears in

See Pages that link to "File:Mona Lisa.jpg"

Creator

Leonardo da Vinci

• Support as nominator --Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The source is obviously not accurate. Seems to be a scan of a poster. Half-toning and striping artifacts are evident if you look at it full-res (see the sleeve of the left arm). The level of detail is excellent, however, especially compared to our other versions of the painting. Inclined to support if we can fix the source. Kaldari (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even beyond the source there are basic and clear dust spots, and is a bit blurry at points. Really needs a lossless format to fix up. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the alternative one? Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -There is no place for pics of Sonia Jackson on wikipedia. Joking aside it is not good quality. Himalayan 20:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Iconic painting, but the reproduction isn't there yet. Durova³⁰⁸ 22:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: There is a higher-quality reproduction of the Mona Lisa now available at File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg if anyone would like to nominate it. Dcoetzee 21:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Winter nesting

Reason

High quality shot of an interesting scene

Articles this image appears in

Jacky Winter

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 06:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support HE'S LOOKING RIGHT AT US!!! RUN! Staxringold _talk^contribs 08:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely clear picture, excellent quality. I get the feeling from the current crop of FP noms that fir loves the birds... not alone there... hehe Gazhiley (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm a bit concerned about the ethics of featuring nesting birds. Lycaon (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you clarify this? I guess I'm just not seeing the ethical dilemma. As far as I can understand, I don't think Fir touched/moved the eggs or nest. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 15:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The foxes who read wikipedia might find out where the birds nest :-) --Muhammad(talk) 16:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately they will miss that meal, as the image is not geocoded. --Dschwen 18:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wonder if lycaon also would mind featuring images of mating birds. I was about to upload and nominate one, but now I am not sure what to do %-( --Two+two=4 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Some species will abandon a nest if disturbed. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is that pertinent to a FPC though? If this image was ever released on a suitable license would we be arguing about the ethics of what Kevin Carter did or should have done? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not really, no. I did support the image. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I know, it was more directed at Lycaon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is a myth that birds will abandon nests due to any minor disturbance of humans, though they may briefly fly away or even attempt to lead the person/fox away. This is especially true if this only involves a picture and the taker didn't even really come close to the nest. What a silly thing to get in an ethical dilemma about, nesting birds are the bread and butter of a lot of wildlife photogs.D-rew (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • It varies I think from species t species. Some species can be picked off the nest, then placed back down without the bird being remotely concerned (albatrosses) some may indeed decide to abandon. Abandonment is more usual if the disturbance is repeated, which happens to rare species beset by twitchers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • As Sabine says it is indeed a falsehood that it's a myth, it varies depending on species; see this for example. While it appears Fir has tried to minimise disturbance, including shooting with a 400mm lens, perhaps Lycaon's main concern is that it may encourage less ethical behaviour in others by featuring them. @ User:Two+two=4, mating is a different matter which I doubt would raise these concerns unless you were obviously disturbing the mating, but we certainly have several mating bug images. --jjron (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't oppose taking images of nesting birds if done ethically and responsibly (e.g. here with a 400 mm), and I trust Fir to know what he is doing. I oppose to featuring this kind of images (unless you can assure me they'll never reach the front page as POTD) as to avoid copycats by less scrupulous photographers. Nesting birds are 'easy prey' for spectacular shots but disturbance of nesting birds is an all too sad reality. Lycaon (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. throws a rotten egg at the threaded discussion Durova³⁰⁶ 21:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm sure Fir did his best not to disturb the bird, I would have been more concerned if it was remotely endangered, but the loss of one nest is minimal. Also I would have thought including the picture was more important than whether it's featured or not.Terri G (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great picture. I've watched birds nesting in my garden since I was a little kid, and never has a nest been abandoned apart from once when the chicks were killed by magpies. There is no ethical issue to photographing bird's nests, and even if there was, it would not be our place to judge. The photograph is highly valuable/informative, freely licensed and technically excellent. J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jacky winter nesting.jpg --jjron (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dusky Woodswallow and chicks

Reason

High quality image of a hard to get scene with good EV

Articles this image appears in

Dusky Woodswallow

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 06:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The branch is just too intrusive, IMO. Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Distracting branch -- Cj.samson (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above sorry... I can't help but think that if fir stepped just one or two steps to the right that branch wouldn't be in the picture... Sorry... Gazhiley (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW this composition had the largest "window" into the nest - a step to the right and the image would be of leaves. They obviously value their privacy :) --Fir0002 14:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I have no doubt you did your best to get the right angle. It's that sort of problem that is the bane of my architectural/cityscape photography, there's always something that gets in your way in crowded cities. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not FP quality composition. Hard to get, I agree, but it can be done. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not ideal composition, but if this were used in an article dealing with feeding, the EV would probably be enough to overcome the composition. This really is an excellent look at how the parent bird feeds the young birds. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As above nom. Lycaon (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Yeah, the branch is one thing, but the birds are not that clear either. Nezzadar (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Wagtail in nest

Reason

High quality image with good EV

Articles this image appears in

Willie Wagtail

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 06:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support What a funky looking little guy. Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very clear and high-quality photo with good EV. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support agree with above Gazhiley (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As above nom. Lycaon (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Who names these critters-the 3rd grade? :) Lemon martini (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality picture, although the other nest picture in the article is quite good too, might be good in Bird nest too as it's held together with spider web.Terri G (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova³⁰⁸ 22:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice. - 154.20.253.177 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Willie wagtail in nest.jpg --jjron (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Browed Scrubwren

Reason

High quality shot of a small bird

Articles this image appears in

White-browed Scrubwren

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 06:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This and many other recent bird shots are heavily over-sharpened. Any chance of toning it down a bit? Noodle snacks (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree - I'd just call this image sharp, and "heavily over-sharpened" is a bit of an exaggeration don't you think? I guess there's an element of subjectivity in "oversharpening" - for example I personally find this shot of yours oversharpened. Incidentally, that shot has had the background blurred hasn't it? Might be worth mentioning that somewhere if so... --Fir0002 14:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support despite noodle's request, I still think this is an excellent picture... Gazhiley (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Oversharpened. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh - well if you feel that strongly about it I've uploaded an edit converted from RAW with a low sharpness setting which is hopefully more to your liking --Fir0002 13:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the angle of the head bothers me a little. It is hard to make out the characteristic facial markings. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile Pacific Gull

Reason

Good shot with high EV - juveniles look quite different to adults

Articles this image appears in

Pacific Gull

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 06:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Awesome image. You just come back from a big birding trip? Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support You should start your own social networking site devoted to pictures of birds and call it Tweeter... Gazhiley (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If updates on Twitter are called tweets would updates on Tweeter be called twits? Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not an easy decision, but its sister image, File:Larus pacificus Bruny Island.jpg, has set the bar for sharpness and detail so much higher. Rationale for inclusion is good, but the image doesn't fulfil its potential. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Seems unsharp in areas, particularly at the beak. Agree with PLW. Maedin\^talk 11:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whistling Kite

Reason

Interesting shot with good EV

Articles this image appears in

Whistling Kite

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 14:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Very good capture, but also very indistinct from the background and it is slightly underexposed IMO. Could definitely do with some dodging of the bird's wings to bring it out from the background. I had very rough attempt at it and it brought out the detail very well. Putting a bit of effort into it from the original (RAW, hopefully) would yield much better results than mine. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a slight overall brightening on the bird and boosted the saturation slightly to bring it out a bit more; but I'd already done a fair bit of dodging/brightening from the original and personally don't feel it should have any more as it starts looking a bit unnatural. --Fir0002 13:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. Well I put this edit out there anyway, as I don't personally think the bird looks significantly more unrealistic as a result of the edit, but it does stand out a bit more now. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Edit 1, Neutral Original, as per above discussion. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, good shot --Muhammad(talk) 00:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. Highly illustrative, sufficient quality. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 I was torn between the better detail in the edit and the closer to real-lifeness of the original, but showing more detail is probably more important.Terri G (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. The lower wing edges are more distinct. Brand[t] 09:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both: Much too dark. I don't like the haloing of the edit and don't think it's much of an improvement, sorry, :( If the image were provided higher resolution, this may offset the flaws, but at only 1067x1600, no way. Maedin\^talk 12:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Whistling_kite_in_flight_edit_1.jpg --Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Pelican in flight

Reason

Good shot with high EV

Articles this image appears in

Pelican

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 14:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the quality is excellent. Dogposter 23:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Stunning and beautifully crisp. Himalayan 20:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much anything you downsample to 1.6 MP should be crisp! --Dschwen 01:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Does what it says it does. It could also go into the gallery in Australian Pelican, although I understand why you might not have. Putting something into a gallery in a second article weakens its chances here, even when it has high EV in the first. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good image with good EV, much better than the only other flying pic in the article.Terri G (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avala (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Australian pelican in flight.jpg --Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Cormorant

Reason

Interesting shot of this species

Articles this image appears in

Great Cormorant

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 14:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great capture. Durova³⁰⁶ 21:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Durova. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's good, but I am supporting it because it needs a third vote to reach quorum, not because of anything special. Nezzadar (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose well timed, but almost nothing is in sharp focus. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Not sure it has it's best EV at great cormorant, I would have thougth Bird flight would be more appropriate and it is certainly of a comparable quality to the other FP's on that page, for which it might be nice to have an idea of what phase of flight it was in (although with Fir leaving we might never know).Terri G (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't mind so much about the wing tips, but the base of the wing is really messed up as well. Probably just unlucky, but since FP is a binary operation, I come out opposing. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo Licking itself to cool

Reason

Kangaroo licking its forepaws to assist in cooling during a very hot summer day. High quality image of an interesting animal behaviour.

Articles this image appears in

Thermoregulation

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A high quality example, but that fence really clutters and distracts from the the image, unfortunately. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mostlyharmless. The mixed lighting doesn't look great either. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support EV looks good, but the lighting is a bit distracting, even if it was unavoidable.Terri G (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mostlyharmless, Noodle snacks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Yellow Robin

Reason

High quality with good EV

Articles this image appears in

Eastern Yellow Robin

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The tag is the only noticeable imperfection, and it doesn't detract from EV. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Illustrates the subject well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Usual high quality bird pic from Fir. Terri G (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Eastern yellow robin (Victoria, Australia 2008).jpg --Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo goes swimming

Reason

A merge of two notable subjects that illustrates humor that is often associated with digitally composed montages in popular culture. Originals are here and here.

Articles this image appears in

Image editing, Photo manipulation

Creator

Originals by User:Kalyanvarma and William-Adolphe Bouguereau, edited User:Durova

• Support as nominator — Jake Wartenberg 04:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I tend to think that pages such as this should be represented by more famous images (Stalin photo manipulations) and not Wikipedia self references. Had this been a specific skill with no famous public domain examples (Photoshop-swap-heads). But, I don't think this is the proper image to put as an FP for something as basic as image manipulation which I feel could be better represented. gren グレン 07:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too trivial for a FP, per Gren. MER-C 12:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Images are not appropriate for Wikipedia articles, per Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. Kaldari (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. For one thing, the hand on Jimmy Wales's head (belonging to the nymph on the left) looks unrealistic. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice work, but zero EV, the original version fits best. Brand[t] 10:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above. I don't believe that such images can be featured. Pmlineditor  Talk
• Oppose. I'm really not big on these self references, and, if push came to shove, I think I'd support removing the image from the article. It reminds me of a Wikipedia-themed lolcat I removed from our article. This image is actually very Uncyclopedia, and more than a little silly. J Milburn (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Kingfisher

Reason

Great quality and good EV

Articles this image appears in

Sacred Kingfisher

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova³⁰⁶ 04:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High quality and EV. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice shot, fine colors. Brand[t] 10:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm assuming the technicals are fine, which makes it a great picture. How did you get it to pose so perfectly though? Terri G (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avala (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sacred kingfisher nov08.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Swan

Reason

High quality + good EV

Articles this image appears in

Black Swan

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A great illustration Note: This comment was by User:Mostlyharmless
• Support Great picture in a nice and natural environment for a swan, water. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Fair-well happies aside I don't think the quality is there, and the lighting is pretty bad on the head. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Don't agree with noodle snacks on the lighting, don't know enough about the technical side to decide if there's an issue with quality.Terri G (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Noodlesnacks. Mfield (Oi!) 23:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The lighting looks fine to me, and the image looks nice, has good EV, and does not have any major technical flaws that I can see. NW (Talk) 04:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Black swan jan09.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Barren Goose

Reason

High quality with good EV.

Articles this image appears in

Goose. Could probably replace the existing image in the Cape Barren Goose article as it has better lighting and shows the bird from a slightly more representative angle (side on). Thought I'd raise this issue here to generate some greater consensus

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Doesn't bother me if it goes in cape barren goose. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Not as compelling as some of Fir's other pics, but I think it could easily replace the image top left in the cape barren goose article, if not the one in the infobox.Terri G (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Darter

Reason

Good quality + good EV

Articles this image appears in

Australian Darter

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 14:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Would prefer a slightly tighter crop, but good composition. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Diliff. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Only because I found I was focusing more on the branch than the bird.Terri G (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Darter - anhinga melanogaster.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domtoren, Utrecht, Netherlands

Reason

EV+Quality

Articles this image appears in

Domtoren, Utrecht and the Netherlands

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice image, however Oppose due to distracting deep shadow on the roof. SilkTork *^YES! 22:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded an alternative --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that; however, what you gain in one area you lose in another - the tower is now slightly bleached in the Sun, and there are some distracting shadows in the lantern. Also, looking at both, it appears that the tower is leaning to the left. SilkTork *^YES! 07:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help the fact. that a 700-year-old structure is tilted somewhat. As for the image itself, there is no overexposure. Shadows will always be there. This building is very large and has a lot of nooks and crannies, which can't be evenly lit at the same time. It's either this or that. I've now offered you an image in the early and late afternoon. If I would have taken this in the morning, the sun would be in my face. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the tower leans slightly more in the first image, I think it's the camera angle rather than the age of the tower that is at fault. This is bourne out by looking at the modern white building in background (the one in front of the ASR building) as that also leans in both, and leans more in the first than the second. As for solving the shadow/bleaching problem, try shooting it on a day with good light, but no direct sunshine. SilkTork *^YES! 17:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one File:Domtoren vanaf de Stadhuisbrug.JPG has a more interesting angle that gives more detail and overcomes some of the shadow problems. Also it doesn't lean! I'm not offering it as a substitute, but a suggestion of a better angle to take the tower. SilkTork *^YES! 17:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I haven't convinced you, but you have to believe me when I say this tower is tilted. First of all, I've seen the tilt with my own eyes. I also took different pictures that day from different viewing points, which also show the same tilt. I use a Manfrotto tripod with a built in measuring system, which uses a water bubble (don't know the English noun for it). Since this panorama was taken from a modern building, this simply eliminates every major tilt. Afterwards, I've corrected a small tilt of 0,2 degrees in Photoshop by drawing vertical lines using the modern office building in the background, which you mention, as a reference point (draw a vertical line over it and you will see there is no tilt). Another way to notice there is no tilt, is by looking at the chimneys and the small tower in the foreground. The alternative could contain a minor tilt, since I've that one quickly by hand. If it were to become a FP, I could always correct this afterwards. Oh, one more thing about the tilt-issue... every part of the tower is tilted in a different direction (the lantern for instance is less tilted than the part directly below it). As for the other image you showed, yes, that one was taken from the square in front of the city hall. That square is a very crowded place, so a panorama shot there wouldn't become a very nice one imo. I've uploaded the current panorama to Wikipedia, because it also includes the cathedral and not simply the tower. Therefore it can also be used in different articles. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with slight preference to the alternative. EV is high enough to offset minor lighting problems. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I don't consider the lighting an issue (and laughed out loud at the fact that "I can't help the fact that a 700-year-old structure is tilted somewhat") but I don't like the distracting building at the bottom, cutting off the bottom of the subject. Compare with our other architectural FPs- a full shot of the whole building would be best. I appreciate how difficult that is, but right now this is slightly lacking. J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your argument, but would like to point out that the FP's of the Big Ben and Torre Agbar are also cut of at the bottom. I noticed that Wikipedia didn't had a decent picture of this structure, so decided to take on while being in Utrecht yesterday. At least now Wikipedia has one. Whether it becomes a FP is up to you guys (obviously). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of the Big Ben image when I made the comment- that is of the tower, rather than the building as a whole, and so serves its purpose well. The other one is a little cut off, but not nearly as much as this one. Please don't take this negatively; it's a great picture and a great addition to the encyclopedia, I just don't think it's FP material. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I don't take things said here (well, most of them ;) ) negatively including your comment. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Alternate; Neutral on Original What was done to the shadows on the alt is clearly unnatural, especially the small roof in the bottom right corner. As for the other, I have yet to decide if it is worthy. Nezzadar (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I've done nothing to the shadows. The picture was just taken earlier on in the day (see the clock on the tower). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no quorum. --jjron (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Gardens

Reason

Fits the criteria and looks good to me. Better than the last nom. I made.

Articles this image appears in

West Bengal, Kolkata, Eden Gardens, Feroz Shah Kotla and many more, too large to mention

Creator

Peter Andersen (uploader) and Chippu Abraham (creator)

• Support as nominator --Pmlineditor  Talk 14:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose mainly due to poor composition --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Childzy. See this image as an example of a fully inclusive stadium shot. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to lack of drama and interest, possibly due to awkward angle, and part of the field being cut off. SilkTork *^YES! 22:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. MER-C 07:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Lake Stadium

Reason

Seems to meet the criteria. Above 1000px :) The picture is that of the second largest stadium in the world during a match which was the last of Oliver Kahn. Seems to be okay to me.

Articles this image appears in

Kolkata, Baichung Bhutia and Yuva Bharati Krirangan

Creator

Lovedimpy

• Support as nominator --Pmlineditor  Talk 14:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Very poor resolution at 100%, uninteresting angle with low encyclopedic value. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, poor resolution, grain, color noise, and the lights are too prominent in the background. –blurpeace ^(talk) 14:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per above. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per everybody. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Fuzzy and poor quality - it doesn't get better at full resolution, that reveals the poor quality. SilkTork *^YES! 22:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. MER-C 07:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Interesting thumbnail, but I don't think this is featured picture material. J Milburn (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Jimena approaching Mexico

Reason

The image shows an extremely powerful tropical cyclone with classic features. It shows a textbook example of a rapidly intensifying system with a pinhole eye (a pinhole eye being an eye less than 10 nautical miles in diameter).

Articles this image appears in

2009 Pacific hurricane season and Hurricane Jimena (2009)

Creator

HurricaneSpin (uploaded by) Image produced by NASA

• Support as nominator --Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nah, seen that before. We already have features cyclones. What makes this one so special? --Dschwen 14:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WIAFP does not prohibit multiple featured pictures on marginally similar topics. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not really just marginally similar, it's basically the same as File:Cyclone_Gafilo.jpeg or File:Hurricane_Isabel_18_sept_2003_1555Z.jpg. Call me ignorant, but if you've seen one storm shot from space, you've seen them all. Also, big f'ing deal. NASA produces one of these for pretty much every storm. Should we batch nominate them all? --Dschwen 22:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All birds look similar to me. Should we demote all but one or two featured pictures on birds? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep in mind this picture is for the 2009 hurricane season, so the pictures you suggested couldn't be put into the 2009 season page. Also, per Juliancolton Nezzadar (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It meets all the critera for an FP and remember no two cyclones are the same.Jason Rees (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Seen far better TC FP's. This isnt a great example. Please do ask if you want a slightly more technical reason, but most people tend not to like the cloud babble. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 02:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would actually like a more technical reason :) I don't mind the babble Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WIAFP #3. MER-C 07:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed Oppose The storm is cropped, particularly the southern/western outflow. The storm itself is also rather ragged, with very broken banding. This is not a prime example of a tropical cyclone, also a further pulled back image would give more of a sense of scale, particularly it should have more of the Baja peninsular, preferably with the connection with mainland mexico further north. It is clear that the argument it not that there are similar images of tropical cyclones, but that there are better images of tropical cyclones. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And.. the image is no longer in use in the article. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Great image of a great Tropical cyclone, and a good addition to all the wonderful FP's based on crteria. Darren23 ^{My Contributions} 02:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A high quality illustration of Hurricane Jimena. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. And no, it ain't gonna hit me. Durova³⁰⁶ 03:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to banding. Also per Dschwen, fails WIAFP #3. MER-C 07:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-While this is another tropical cyclone, it is one of the best examples of a pinhole eye. --Anhamirak 12:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support It's a nice picture, but as someone who has lived through hurricanes, I can never be enthusiastic about them, hence the weak support. He eh. Nezzadar (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. YOU try taking a photo from space, then you can comment on it being framed poorly. There just aren't that many alternitives. Nezzadar (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we were talking about Mars or another planet, then your argument would stand and if fact I would totally agree with you, as I have before. But it falls apart when we have all of these, and these are just the ones that have been categorised properly. It has a viewing width of 2,330 km and views the entire surface of the Earth every one to two days. It is an almost statistical certainty for a storm to be captured. I think we can be picky with what we can promote or not. There are a swathe of these images so please people, lets start applying better standards than Ooooo they're pretty clouds from space, that'll do. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 03:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Seddon. Unless we decide that each storm is sufficiently different than the other tropical storms that each one can have its own FP, so to say, we should really only choose the best of them (of which this is not one, per Seddon). NW (Talk) 03:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral A very nice photo (after all, GOES is a professional photographer :-D), but for FP I prefer that there be no ambiguity about what the cyclone is (to a non-expert). Here there is a lot of convection and convective debris all around the storm, especially over land, which takes the focus away from the cyclone itself. I like tropical cyclones with a nice moat around them, so it is clear what is the storm and what is not; we can't all be experts in hurricane structure, after all.

As for whether a separate storm is a separate subject as far as FP is concerned, I like the example used above. Two birds look similar: what is preventing them from having their own separate FPs though? We can't use a picture of a raven on the crow page (even if they look the same to the untrained eye) any more than we can use an image of Hurricane Katrina on the article for Hurricane Ike.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 03:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no consensus. --jjron (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emu Feeding on Grass HD

Reason

Not entirely sure, but I think FPC is still the venue for movies. At any rate here's a sample of the Mk II video. Unfortunately I've got very slow uploads (~10kb/s) and wasn't sure whether the media wiki software could handle 1080p, so I've downsampled to 720p and reduced quality from 44,000kbps to 9600kbps. So not quite as amazing as the original footage, but still pretty good. Shows interesting feeding behaviour which IMO couldn't be shown in an image half as well.

Articles this image appears in

Emu, High-definition television

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Took a long time to download but was worth the wait. EV for feeding is good as it shows how the bird lifts its head and all. Ideally, the leaves at the front should not have been there but well you can't have everything. Good EV in the HD article as well as it shows how good the quality is. Would have enjoyed to see some macro videos but alas... --Muhammad(talk) 17:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Not convinced on the EV for emu (can't see the head when actually feeding), but looks fine for HD TV. Terri G (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian White Ibis

Reason

High quality with good EV

Articles this image appears in

Australian White Ibis

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 14:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A good illustration of an Ibis in a natural habitat. The shadows don't put me off at all. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support The bird is good, although I find the background a little distracting.Terri G (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It's a featured picture...--Sabri76'^message 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meerkat

Reason

Well this is it boys - the last one! One full res 5D shot to bid WP and FPC farewell as I retire. High quality and good EV showing the entire tail

Articles this image appears in

Meerkat

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Why retiring? --Muhammad(talk) 13:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• We need a slightly different picture underneath this one so that we can...compare the meerkat :) Lemon martini (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but mirror the above, why are you retiring?! Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - his reasons. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, found that soon after my post. It's always sad to see drama drive someone away. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Really good, and big! Farewell to Fir, and a very good choice to go out on. Maedin\^talk 15:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: As always a great image. I understand your reasons to retire. Wikipedia should also offer its contributors the option of uploading their pictures under a non-commercial license. If they would offer people this choice, Wikipedia would greatly benefit from it and attract more semi- and professional photographers. With that being said, I wish you all the best. I normally don't give comments regarding your pictures (don't know why actually), but you have given Wikipedia a lot of yourself. Therefore you deserve our gratitude and respect. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All the best to you, Fir. upstateNYer_{formerly wadester16} 21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow, I didn't think I'd see this day. A full resolution shot from Fir! I'm going to hold off on my lengthy thank-you speech, as in my opinion uploading full resolution should be the norm, not the mini-cherry on the whipcream on the sundae. So to make it short: thanks for your contributions, but Wikipedia should stay true to its ideals of being free as in speech, not just as in beer. Oh, and support of course. --Dschwen 22:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and so long and thanks for all the birds. Sorry to see you go. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What the said; support. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A great image. Thanks Fir. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova³⁰⁶ 03:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Meets criteria, and so Support. Pmlineditor  Talk 08:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sorry to see you go, but thanks for the latest rash of great pictures, of which I think this might be your best. Terri G (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per all above 154.20.253.177 (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Meerkat feb 09.jpg --jjron (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Lee Wynter

Reason

High quality, emotive portrait. An excellent example of how our submissions system should work- though an image was not even actively requested, Wynter was happy to contact us with this photograph to be released under a free license.

Articles this image appears in

Danny Lee Wynter

Creator

Publicity photo supplied by Wynter himself. Johan Persson

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Awesome. Glad to see some other celebrity realize the intelligence of what I believe Plácido Domingo was the first to do. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do get a good few, but there's also a lot of junk at the OTRS address, plus people not jumping through the necessary hoops (clarifying license and their claim on the image; that sort of thing). It's pretty tedious working through it all, but it's good when you get an image like this! J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Kudos to smart celebrities who understand free licensing. Durova³⁰⁸ 21:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A high quality portrait. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support f2.8 on a full frame camera is leaving one eye out of focus. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - insufficient DOF and JPEG artifacts with the eye a little blocky. Not an oppose, but can't bring myself to support. MER-C 08:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Essentially for the DOF issues, although I think it's aesthetically very good, so I'm glad an oppose won't mean it won't be used on wikipedia. Terri G (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't think the DOF issue is significant in this case. The level of detail is excellent and the aesthetics are obviously quite good. Kaldari (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Questions Do we know that Wynter owns the copyright of this image, and if not whether the photographer released this under a free license? I'm not sure Winter should be credited in the "Author" field on the image page, in any case. --mikaul^talk 22:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wynter did not say who the photographer was. However, he is the copyright holder- this is a work for hire. J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm, you don't normally see WFH agreements in the UK. I've heard of similar arrangements but they're quite the exception and copyright usually resides with a company, not an individual. Even then I'd expect the moral right of attribution to be retained by the photographer, not the copyright holder. --mikaul^talk 22:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • At this point, I step down- I'm certainly not a lawyer! This is a publicity photo that Wynter uses as he wishes, and he contacted us and said he was releasing it- am I wrong to assume good faith? J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Me neither! I don't wish to cast aspersions on the actions of the contributor but it is quite possible that he doesn't understand the nature of his license to use the image. I may well be completely wrong but we do need to be careful with this sort of thing, especially with FPs. FWIW the EXIF data reveals the author to be Johan Persson, a stage & screen specialist. I've dropped him an email. I still think, whatever the fact of the matter, he should be credited as author. --mikaul^talk 00:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have no objection to that, obviously. J Milburn (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply received from the photographer; he has no objection (as I suspceted) but very much appreciated being informed of the upload here. Assuming we want to encourage more of this kind of work, it's essential we properly credit the photographer (and not the license holder) as author. I've amended the image description page accordingly; further comments at talk page. --mikaul^talk 21:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you could forward your email to permissions@wikimedia.org, along with a link to the image, that would be great- that way, we have evidence of release from the copyright holder and the photographer, meaning there are no potential copyright issues in the future. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Done. --mikaul^talk 22:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support The framing's a little weird, cropped quite long and tall for some reason, but still a very nice capture. --mikaul^talk 21:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This sort of model shot has an aesthetic maybe a little different to what we're used to, but it's still quite usable in an encyclopedia. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 22:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Danny Lee Wynter.jpg --jjron (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7 Lions

Reason

Clear and good shot, seems to meet the criteria. We have many pics of Lions featured, but this looks ok to me.

Articles this image appears in

Lion

Creator

Tekken50

• Support as nominator --Pmlineditor  Talk 12:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Great composition but its not got the same sort of quality FP's have, possible Quality Picture --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- it's great, but can't really compare with the likes of File:Lion waiting in Nambia.jpg in terms of encyclopedic value. J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - For it to meet the requirements' it has to make a significant contribution to the article(s) it is attached to. This picture is one of over a dozen and offers little to the article. I also find it too bright, but that has less bearing on my decision. Nezzadar (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, got to agree with the others, EV is too low. Terri G (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Sea

Reason

Looks like a good picture to me. Not at all grainy and meets the size requirement. Hopefully, this one is ok.

Articles this image appears in

Arabian Sea, Kannur District, St. Angelo Fort

Creator

kjrajesh

• Support as nominator --Pmlineditor  Talk 10:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support иιƒкч? 10:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose tonal value has to be corrected – Wladyslaw (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Lots of technical problems --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The bigger it gets, the worse it looks. A good picture taken by a modern camera will look better when enlarged, as the details will "pop." This blurs as it gets bigger. Sorry. Nezzadar (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - blown highlights, washed out and blurry. MER-C 07:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Walsh

Reason

Very high quality and resolution portrait of a very intense looking Ed Walsh. Restoration of this image. The career record holder in ERA the subject is a hugely notable, Hall of Fame pitcher who holds the all-time record in one of the game's most fundamental statistics. This careful restoration very clearly displays Walsh in traditional portrait-EV style, but the intensity of his gaze also creates a very engaging image.

Articles this image appears in

Ed Walsh, Chicago White Sox, Earned run average

Creator

Paul Thompson

• Support as co-nominator --Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as conominator. Durova³⁰⁶ 02:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per noms. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Looks fine IMO. Pmlineditor  Talk 09:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, GerardM (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the epitome of awesome old photo. -Ben pcc (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is he sucking on something? It's technically excellent, but it seems a little candid? J Milburn (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not be surprised if he's chewing tobacco, but given his expression he's also probably a bit of a tough old arse and is pissed at being photographed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconding the guess about tobacco. Very candid shot: note the sweater slipping from his shoulder and the dark circles under the eyes. Also the knitted brow. Durova³⁰⁸ 21:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Muhammad(talk) 16:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support awesome photo with good EV but I prefer the original, wider crop, tone, scribblings and all. --mikaul^talk 22:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ed Walsh portrait 1911.jpg --jjron (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Arcade, Cleveland

Reason

Stumbled upon this when wikilinking an article to arcade. Found the composition to offer stunning beauty and the steel work just amazed me (as a structural engineer by education). Wasn't originally in Cleveland Arcade, but that has now changed and it is now the lead image, for which I believe it is warranted. This is the kind of photograph that just shouts "MAIN PAGE!" to me.

Articles this image appears in

Arcade, Cleveland

Creator

Martin Linsey (HABS photographer)

• Support as nominator --upstateNYer_{formerly wadester16} 01:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above. I think I see a tilt in the image though. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks great to me. ;) Pmlineditor  Talk 11:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Definitely some slight tilt and slightly off center, but without a time machine you can't really fix this one. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - as others --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, GerardM (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Strongly reminds me of what the interior of the Philadelphia Bourse used to look like (http://chowtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/phillysgourmetcafe-14.jpg for a post-renovation photo). Spikebrennan (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cleveland Arcade, 1966.jpg --jjron (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrocumulus clouds

Reason

Buy one stunning shot of an unusual and interesting weather phenomenon, get an incredible landscape of a national park for free!

Articles this image appears in

Pyrocumulus cloud

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Snurks^T 06:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Stunning, if surreal image, however I am sure the colouring of the sky above the cloud formation is not accurate - above looks very very dark, almost too dark as if the colour settings of this picture have been adjusted... Plus coulds look orange? Will change to full support if anyone can explain and verify that this is the true colours... Thanks... Gazhiley (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read the article: These clouds are clouds created by a major forest fire: They gain that colour because of the ash and smoke in them. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 19:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sky is definitely very dark though. It looks like a polariser was used but even then, it seems too dark to be just that. The author of this image has a habit of overprocessing her photos, rendering them interesting and punchy but unrealistically presented. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Was this reproduced or downsized at all, it's way too dark for my taste, and this leaves me to wonder why? ceranthor 11:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful and high EV. To me it looked like the darkness was because of the smoke from the fire. — Jake Wartenberg 21:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Difficult to oppose such a dramatic image with such high EV. Slightly heavy-handed filtering (but it has brought out the subject very well) slightly pointless foreground (but the width is necessary & good) not tremendously sharp (but not poorly-defined either) I think it's a worthy FP, on balance. --mikaul^talk 22:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This picture has been filtered, I should say too much. On the other hand changing that I-totally-faked-my-sky effect will reduce a lot the attention over the clouds and sky. I suggest cropping a good deal from below (almost before the woods) while leaving the sky that way. The reason is that in this picture the viewer is attracted both to the first plane and the clouds. This dichotomy is subconsciously uncomfortable for the viewer. You can see that there are two hard lines in the picture (the horizon and the one right after the foreground and before the woods) that divide the picture in three bands. The first and the third are highlighted in the picture while the middle (the woods) is not. The viewer's attention is split in two. Try now covering with your hand the foreground. All the attention is gathered by the clouds. At this point (after the cropping) I would try the filter of the sky in a more subtle way. The better composition now brings the sky as the point of attention without the need of 'touching' so much the colors. Maybe a little 'touching' is good but if people are noticing it is because it was too much. This is an example that tells us once again that cropping and good composition are far better strategies to get a good picture through edition than filters. Blurring is also quite useful but this picture (I think) doesn't require it. I hope this is useful Frank cheValier on a Pc (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Frankche. Very odd filter. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support High EV makes up for technical deficiencies. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit1 added. --jjron (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jjron, do you have access to the original? Could you please also upload an edit cropping from below between the first line of trees and the second? If you have the original more can be done for the colors. It is good to to the filtering after the cropping. Thanks  Franklin.vp  16:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No I don't sorry. I was just editing off the 'original' version here. If I had the original original (as it were) I would do a less cooked version, as is I was basically just trying to undo some of the possibly excessive work done (as per Diliff's and others comments) - as a side effect, and not necessarily a bad one IMO, I think it brought out a bit more yellow in the clouds. BTW, while I was editing I tried cropping as you suggested but just couldn't make it look good - I see what you're suggesting, but it just made it too long and thin for mine, I ended up basically agreeing with the sentiments Mikaul expressed about the pointless foreground but it being necessary for the width. BTW also tried a minor sharpening, but for mine it brought out excessive noise in the sky. --jjron (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giving a little time for the edit to be considered. --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 201 FCs served} 00:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support per Makeem & Mick. Preference to Edit1. --jjron (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit2 added.--jjron (talk) 08:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all Unrealistically overprocessed. Lycaon (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The edits look better to me. I don't really have a preference between them. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Origional, Oppose Edit One, Neutral on Edit Two I just don't like the massive chunk of land at the bottom of the first two versions, concidering the focus is on clouds. As for the third, I Support it if the clouds naturally look that yellow, but Stongly Oppose if they were yellowed by the photographer, as has been stipulated. Nezzadar (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What is always surpising to me is how reviewers, who have never seen a phenomenon are talking about it as if they have seen it many times and know what they are talking about. It reminded me how one of my first nomination was opposed and I was advised to use not a fisheye lens that I did, but 17 mm lens here. That image was of fogbow. Fogbows are rare, but few days ago I was lucky to see one and I used my 17 mm to capture it. Of course it did not fit File:Fogbow with 17 mm lens.jpg. The same with pyrocumulus clouds. How do you know what colors they should have been? They could be of a different colors [4] deppending of many things. I have crashed my hard drive, so I have no original image to upload. John, thanks for working on the image! mbz1
• Neutral I tend to disbelieve unsubstantiated claims on this page that an image has been "over-processed", as personal experience has taught me that these are often untrue. Unfortunately the original photographer can not be contacted, but I am loathe to believe that the colors have been substantially altered in post-processing. I get a "dark sky" result like this all the time when using very fast shutter speeds, as would be required to resolve the details on the very reflective cloud tops in the direct sun. But again, it would be nice to get testimony from the original photographer. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 02:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to Support. I guess I should have read the previous comment :-D. A minor scolding to those who dismiss wonderful pictures as the result of "processing". Some people just take damn good pictures. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 02:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, probably the original picture was a "damn good picture" but these clouds are a classical output of enhancing the colours in the picture:the sky with that dark blue, the clouds with the redish-yellow colour the whitening underneath and grainy looking water in the air. The composition of the original is not that great either. In a picture where the subject is the clouds you have a highly attractive foreground. I don't like the cropped version either because the filter applied didn't managed to recover the original. It looks like my shirts when I do the laundry myself, bleached. Franklin.vp  17:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit1, Weak Support Original and Strong oppose Edit 2 - I guess I'll vote. I just feel that Edit 2 absolutely ruins all artistry in the image, and makes it much less eye-catching. The reprocessing of Edit 1 is reasonable to make the camera's eye better reflect the human. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 14:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all Well, I have to oppose because I don't think the image has enough quality yet or could have, since the original is missing. The first posted image has a very distracting foreground. Distracting doesn't mean bad in fact it means that is too good for being there. It is only a mistake of the composition. You know what is the prettiest part of the picture? In the center-right and lower part, the contrast of the green, then yellow and then very green again of the grass; close to that light or pole over there. You have to fight not looking at that place. You can notice the presence of a color filter not just from the unusual colors but also from the look of the clouds when magnified a little. Enhancing the sky makes some very thin parts of the clouds to become more blue and then those that don't look like (visible) drops. (look at the left part of the clouds). Also the white halo under the clouds is very suspicious. For some reason all of my fake skies have this color features. The dark blue of the sky the yellow in the middle-lower part of the clouds and the white halo together with the visible "drops of water". I just noticed in the center it is even more noticeable this phenomenon.  Franklin.vp  16:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Appears to have had a great deal of highlight reduction, leaving halos. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]