Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2010 at 23:39:19 (UTC)
Original - Tibia insulaechorab, commonly known as the Arabian Tibia, is a large species of true conch.
Reason
Pretty shell identified to species level by an expert, massive picture, clearly encyclopedic, solid EV. Already featured on Commons, the German Wikipedia and the Turkish Wikipedia.
Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely excellent. Cowtowner (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has awesome lighting. Extraordinarily well done. Greg L (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The shell was extracted from the background of another image, as evidenced by the sharp line around the shell itself. Great image as-is, but if that outline could be made less harsh it would help.Hypershadow647 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very good. Maedin\talk 18:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This picture is kind of boring, a different color then black, like a navy blue might've made a more interesting background. --I'ḏ♥One 14:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of support I think this image has terrible EV (you can't identify another shell using it). On the other hand, it's Featured on the German and Turkish Wiki? Cheers to meritocracy. Gut Monk (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --I'ḏ♥One 15:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rather low ev in road. Do you know which road in the UAE this is, and whether or not it has an article? SpencerT♦C 18:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Spencer. A long road through the desert is a stereotypical shot. Greg L (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think (IMO) it's actually possible for one photo to have sufficient EV for the road article. It's just one of those subjects that needs multiple photos to really do it justice. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 19:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice picture but zzz... gazhiley.co.uk 22:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol --I'ḏ♥One 08:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, it's a pretty, pleasing picture, but I don't see special educational evalu in it. Esther Clementinatalk 00:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --I'ḏ♥One 15:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unsharp. --Dschwen 15:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty sharp considering it's only 3cm across. --I'ḏ♥One 15:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty unsharp considering it is only 1000 pixels across. Please look at our selection of macro images to see what levels of sharpness we can expect from even smaller and non-static images. This tin drop would not have run or flown away. No reason for the low quality. --Dschwen 15:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I have to agree with Dschwen here. J Milburn (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is sorta interesting, but I'm really at a loss for how a splatter of tin illustrates the subject “tin”; other elements do that. Now, Tin whisker is related to tin and is a phenomenon that has caused notable failures that made engineering headlines, such as failures on the Space Shuttle. But we apparently don’t have a decent photograph of tin whiskers. Greg L (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2010 at 15:09:50 (UTC)
Original - 'The Shoemaker crater (formerly known as Teague Ring) is an impact structure (or astrobleme) which lies in the arid, central part of Western Australia near Wiluna. The crater is about 30 kilometers (18 miles) in diameter and contains seasonal lakes that produce salt deposits as they evaporate. It is approximately 1.7 billion years old and is regarded as the oldest known Australian impact structure to date.'
Reason
An, IMO, spectacular (satellite?) shot of one of the largest and very old meteorite strikes on the planet.
Support as nominator --I'ḏ♥One 15:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty at first glance, but after all it is just a 1.5MP image that looks like an abstract painting. I find it difficult to relate to. There is no sense of scale, no recognizable features. This does not help me get an idea of how the crater looks like. --Dschwen 15:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I appreciate this may seem ridiculous, but where's the crater? J Milburn (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To above, this is my guess from my amateur knowledge of meteorite strikes. When a meteorite strikes it creates a very hard layer of melted rock, this could probably become a bed for lakes to form if large enough, and this one is large enough. Also, it's 18 miles across and 2 billion years old, I think it's probably eroded and mostly filled in over time, so it's not as easy to see its circle, but this should help you see it, it's there. I could be wrong, but it looks like the meteorite actually hit a mountain range, it must've been an interesting sight to behold -- from, maybe 100 miles away! --I'ḏ♥One 22:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I’m seeing a number of really encyclopedic, interesting nominations recently. This is another. Greg L (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not very high resolution for a satellite image, nor is it sharp. It looks pretty compressed, actually.Hypershadow647 (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it not sharp? Are you taking into account that the area of the image shown is something like 3000 square miles (Appx. 50mi×55mi)? --I'ḏ♥One 00:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I keep on thinking I've seen much sharper satellite images, but I can't find any examples (anywhere) to support this, so I guess my expectations are just too high. My bad.Hypershadow647 (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well,that corresponds to a bit more than 60m per pixel. Landsat can do up to four times better. Modern non-classified satellites have up to half a meter (GeoEye-1) resolution. In any case 60m is not impressive, in particular if you cannot see anything useful on the image. --Dschwen 01:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm afraid I just can't tell what I'm looking at here, and no one has enlightened me. J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comment above. --I'ḏ♥One 20:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dschwen. No real sense of what we're looking at or sense of scale, small for a satellite image. Jujutaculartalk 17:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per J. Heart, I agree with your logic (what do you expect at a 50 mile focus?) but if I saw a smaller image of this, I wouldn't be inclined to pursue it. Gut Monk (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is hardly a perfect illustration for the article. The lead image seems stronger, EV-wise. J Milburn (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? The current lead is blue with a URL on it. --I'ḏ♥One 22:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree- it's a poor picture compared to this one for FPC consideration, but it does illustrate the subject better. That's all I was saying. The best picture isn't necessarily the most illustrative or valuable. J Milburn (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support More or less per the nom. I'd prefer it if this were in the puffer article, too. I think it would have much greater EV (and my full support) if it talked about its camouflage and the symbiotic relationship there. 23:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowtowner (talk • contribs)
Question Undecided as yet - I like the picture but not keen on the state lines drawn on - I would prefer the picture without personally - at what stages were they added? gazhiley.co.uk 12:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure they photo them like that, those are state borders. Here's one of the northeast US, here's one of Scandanavia.. --I'ḏ♥One 16:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The storm was rather widespread, is there no image that shows both the Great Lakes area and the Eastern seaboard together? That would be much more valuable in my eyes. Cowtowner (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow up, it's important to note that not all of the Great Lakes are shown. Cowtowner (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very, very eye-catching and unusual. Without the state lines drawn in, one would need to carefully read an explanation in the caption about how the Great Lakes are visible roughly in the middle in order to understand the sense of scale. I think just looking at the image should provide all the information one needs regarding the scale of an image (big in this case). Greg L (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting photo. I think that the state border lines should be kept. -- mcshadyplTC 05:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I think it's decent as-is, but if the state lines are to be kept in I think it would be better if they were more prominent. Right now it looks like they're sort of there, sort of not.Hypershadow647 (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image is snap-shotty by NASA (the state lines are nice, though).Gut Monk (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Not "enough", too narrow a view for appropriate context. Stitch(?) error at bottom about 1/3 from left. Maedin\talk 09:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, regretful oppose There's an error in this, a diagonal line right through Illinois, Wisconsin, the upper peninsula of Michigan and Lake Superior (three cheers for geography!). --I'ḏ♥One 19:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --I'ḏ♥One 15:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; it's pretty, and a love the subject matter, but I can't help but feel that something like File:OdontodactylusScyllarus2.jpg is a more appropriate angle. The composition is confusing, and doesn't tell us as much about the shrimp as it would be good to know. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add that one as an Alt then if you think it meets criteria. --I'ḏ♥One 21:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, I'm talking compositionally. This is a nice enough shot, but it's not the most encyclopedic. We can't even see most of the animal. J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We feature portraits of other animals; wouldn't this qualify as "portrait of a mantis shrimp"? It's compositionally a portrait, not, for example, a cut-off appendage that should be in frame. That would be a valid oppose where the problem occurs, but doesn't seem to be the case for this image. Maedin\talk 18:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, interesting- if we had, say, a longer article and there was a section discussing its antennae or something, a portrait may well be appropriate- equally, portraits would normally only have EV if we discuss the "facial features" of animals or something (eyes, beaks, patterns on the face, stuff like that). We certainly have a lot fewer featured portraits of animals than Commons has, as it's generally going to be a less encyclopedic image, I would argue. I like animal portraits (and I'd like to see more shrimp FPs- couldn't honestly tell you why) but, at the same time, EV should be our first concern. J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is placed in the "Eyes" section, which this image does a bang up job of illustrating. The EV is potentially there as the species article (or genus if more appropriate) should include the ocular info. As a straightforward portrait, the somewhat bunched up position is a drawback, which is what I think you meant by "confusing" (and unlike this less confined one, for example). P.S. I wasn't wriggling for a support, just making sure there wasn't a misunderstanding of "portrait". Maedin\talk 12:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was actually removed from the article in which it was used at the start of this nomination, and the article which I was considering above. I'm not seeing the EV in mantis shrimp (it's just another picture of another species) and so I'm going to have to oppose at this time. J Milburn (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC) I already had opposed... Well, I still oppose. J Milburn (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very eye-catching. My only concern is that the apparent ‘vivid’ setting on the camera or something done in image-editing software made it have a cut-out, artificial look to it. As long as we are sure this was not Photoshopped to make a fake composite, it is a stunningly bizarre looking image. Greg L (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the alt. Nergaal (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lose the bloody alt. They're different pictures, used for different things. If you want to nominate the alt, do so elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it, it's perfectly fine and there's nothing in policy against it. I didn't name this nomination "SpecficImageofaPeacockMantisShrimp.jpg", just "Peacock Mantis Shrimp" because I thought the one I nominated was the best one, but if voters like the alt better that's fine too. If I disagreed I'd just vote in oppose. --I'ḏ♥One 22:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the pictures are being used for different things, they show different things and are used in different articles. Two very different pictures, they should not be nom'd together, as their respective EV has to be calculated separately. Can you not remember the last time you placed two different pictures on the same nomination like this? For God's sake, regardless of whether there is an explicit law against it, don't do it... J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They do not show different things, they show the same exact damn species of animal. If I was a peacock mantis shrimp maybe I could see a difference, however I'm a human being and I don't. The only differences are angle and lighting, not sure what the colors are but still, same animal. What is Wikipedia's tagline? "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Edit! A literary synonym for "change." I've already explained to you before on the M86 nom how easy it is to move stuff around, you yourself even pointed out how someone just went into the article and shifted the image I nominated for a different picture. And while on that topic according to you an image has more EV when used in the taxobox anyway, therefore by your logic it is actually the stronger one now. J Milburn, on my page I have a userbox that says I'm not an administrator and don't want to be one, these are exactly the moments why - You are an administrator and you're telling people not to adhere to a policy based on your feelings, which not only doesn't help the project, it's the exact opposite of how an administrator is supposed to behave. Instead you should be encouraging people to have better understanding of what actually is policy and what is bunk, and as an administrator who frequents FPC you should be encouraging selections of the best by allowable means like alternates and for all users to have really good reasons why they think that - that's the example you should be setting, instead you often just say weak things like "Nope, don't like where the image is placed." --I'ḏ♥One 16:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on IdLoveOne's talk page, as this is more general than just about this nom... J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 14:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The copyright status of this image is a little ambiguous. Could it please be clarified? J Milburn (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unconcluded discussion about copyright
:* this might help. This is my first nomination, so any improvements would be welcomed. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 15:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain why this image is in the public domain? J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it is a simple photograph created in 1938, hence PD. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 16:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was clearly created in Spain- why should we care about its status in Italy? J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the source states the origin (PROCEDÈNCIA: Archivio Militare dell’Areonautica Italiana, Roma) as the archive of the Italian Airforce that does not necessarily mean they were the author, they could have got it from anywhere. So, how are we certain that Italian copyright applies? IMHO this needs to be cleared up. ww2censor (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In March 1938 came a second saturation Italian bombing wave." Graham, Helen Spanish republic at war, 1936-1939 page 351. I think that clears it up. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 16:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why that sorts it out? J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"it may be considered an Italian work" - a photo taken by the Italian air-force on a bomb-raid is IMO an Italian work. I simply cannot think of any clearer case. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 18:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All you actually know at this stage is that the image is in the possession of the Italian Airforce archives, not who produced it. ww2censor (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The italian air force produced it during their bomb raid. As written above, they bombed the city and it's not like there's a lot of amateur fliers in the sky during a bombardment taking photos, which then mysteriously end up in the Italian air-force's archive. The notion that the Italian air-force did bomb the city, but someone else took the photo is beyond me. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 19:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This picture was taken in Spain. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not getting why we care about the Italian law. J Milburn (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you and ww2censor are questioning different things, so my above answer was to him. To break it down, 1) was the picture produced by the Italian air-force? Yes, I think that's fairly established by now. 2) Can the picture be considered "an Italian work"? Yes I really think so. Being a product by the fascist army, a part of the Italian state, it does not get any more Italian. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 20:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that legit, legally? Again, this was taken in Spain- surely, it would be the Spanish law we care about? J Milburn (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdented)* From the license template: "it was either created in Italy or may be considered an Italian work within the meaning of Italian law" emphasis added Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 21:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)][reply]
Ok, that's one discussion to have, but that's not actually the discussion I'm trying to have- yes, the Italian law says that it is PD if it is considered an Italian work and so on and so forth, but what I'm asking is why we care. Surely, in this case, we should be considering the Spanish law. If minor nation x says "any work taken in Europe in the last ten years in PD", we aren't going to take a 2005 picture from France and say "oh, it's public domain!" J Milburn (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this case very similar to how we use works by the US military? If a DoD employed photographer takes a picture in a foreign country, it's considered PD, correct? Wouldn't a similar logic apply here? Cowtowner (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same thing, at all. The US Military takes a picture, and so it belongs to them- they then release it. That's the same under (pretty much) any law. Again, IANAL, but I would like to see some solid reasoning as to why we're going with the Italian law here, other than the fact it conveniently gives us a nice PD image. J Milburn (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a lawyer either; but it seems to stand to reason that the Italian military takes a photo, its copyright belongs to them. That copyright expires, ergo it is PD. Cowtowner (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am not saying the copyright doesn't/didn't belong to them, but it's not that they have released it. You're claiming that it's out of copyright according to Italian law; I'm saying it's Spanish law we should care about. See what I'm saying? J Milburn (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the article it states "or may be considered national works" emphasis added. Being a product of the State's air-force, does it get any more national? I'm no expert, would like some expert opinion, but I think this one is pretty safe. By the way, when the negatives were produced in Italy, does that make the photographs Italian? Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 14:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, Milburn. But I still don't see your rationale for using Spanish law beyond the fact that the Italians were in their airspace. Like Sandman says, I think the creator trumped that in this case. Could you explain yourself further and perhaps excuse me for being thick? Cowtowner (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was taken in Spain- therefore, Spanish law applies? That seems pretty clear to me? If it was published elsewhere, there may be a discussion to be had- this is the point, I don't really know right now. J Milburn (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, though, you say "I think the creator trumped that in this case", but I really don't think we should be promoting this unless we're sure. The point I'm trying to make is that, at this stage, we really need a clarification of what law applies, whether this is PD in the country whose law matters and whether this is PD in the US, rather than this guesswork. J Milburn (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but I still don't think it matters. Look at many of the images we have taken from photographers traveling in countries which are foreign to them. The images they take are theirs and they take that copyright with them. I see no reason to expect that the Spanish government would have any control over the actions of an Italian photographer unless he were producing an image of something that was copyrighted in Spain (And I can't see that being the case here). To me, the issue is very cut and dried. Cowtowner (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not the same thing. I am not saying that the Italian Airforce doesn't/didn't own the image- that is not disputed- we are disputing which country's copyright law applies. I take a picture in Spain, develop it in Italy, move to Switzerland, then settle in Sweden (by the way, I'm a Norwegian citizen born in Finland to Swedish parents). The picture belongs to me in all those places, and it may be PD in some of them, but we're concerned about whether this is PD in the source country and/or the United States. This work may be PD in Italy, it may be PD in Iran, it may be PD in Sealand. We don't care. What matters is whether it is PD in the United States, and that can depend on whether it is public domain in the source country. J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) Under Spanish law collective works (I assume this would qualify) are protected for 70 years after their publication; if this image were ever published in Spain (and I haven't seen any evidence that it has been), it would have been done so most likely during the war which ended in 1939 making the work PD. Am I mistaken in thinking that it would have had to be published in Spain for their law to apply? Cowtowner (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taken, I would guess. But this is the thing- guesswork. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, but at some point we have to draw the line and say an image wasn't actually published in a given country. The burden of proof, if I can call it that, is really on establishing that the image was published in Spain for this case. Looking at the source, it was provided by an Italian archive (where it is PD) and therefore, presumably, no one owns the copyright in Spain or it would not have been allowed to be published in the manner it was. Cowtowner (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What law are you citing there? I don't see why we should assume that, just because it wasn't published in Spain, it has nothing to do with Spain. Spain can't stop it being published in Italy, just as hypothetical British museums can't stop images being published on hypothetical American websites. A lot of things that are PD in the US are not PD in the source country- anything published before 1923 is PD in the US, despite the fact it may not be in England, Spain, Italy or Iran. Let's go back to basics- this image is claimed public domain. Why is it public domain in the United States? J Milburn (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I wasn't the one who asserted that, the tag on the file page states that because it is a simple photograph created before 1976 which makes it PD in Italy. Because it was PD in Italy, it has become PD in the US. It does not appear to have subsisting copyright issues. This comes back to the root issue of whether Italian law matters or Spanish law does. I still believe that Italian law does because this is an Italian work because it was created by their air force. Simply, Italian copyright law applies because it is a national work even though it was created in Spain. Cowtowner (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact it is PD in Italy means that it is PD in the US... How? J Milburn (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The legalese is here. I believe the pertinent part is (b) which effectively states that if it's public domain there, it's public domain in the US. Cowtowner (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the "the source country of the work" is Spain? J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not sure that is the relevant part... Basically, I'd be willing to slap this with this template, apart from the fact this is PD in the Italy, not, as far as I can see, the source country, which is Spain. J Milburn (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the source country of the work would have to be Italy: it is an Italian national work because it was created by their air force. Cowtowner (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous- we're going around in circles here, where I say "why does Italian law apply?" and you say "Because it was taken by an Italian" and I say "but it was taken in Spain" and you say "yeah, by an Italian". To use a simple and flawed analogy, an American citizen can't walk the streets of the UK carrying a handgun and say "it's alright- I'M AMERICAN!" Until we see some evidence that this is PD beyond "I'd like it to be" or "it would make sense for it to be" or "it'd be convenient for it to be", we really can't promote this. I'm on the verge of nominating this for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been ridiculous for a while now. The analogy above is, indeed, flawed. Personally the only analogous situation is DoD works as I've mentioned it above. We may as well, as you suggest, nom it for deletion and suspend this to get some fresh and presumably more experienced people working on it. We've clearly gone nowhere. Cowtowner (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not analogous- those works are PD because of who made them, not because their copyright has run out. I'm not disputing that copyright did/does belong to the Italian Airforce (who could then, as the DOD does, release them into the public domain if they so wish). Instead, you're saying "this did belong to the Italian Airforce, but has now become public domain because of its age". J Milburn (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of collapsing the long-winded argument. We have to move forward, so what is the next step? Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 08:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not helpful. However, the next step is someone adding a template explaining the copyright status in the US, as, frankly, it doesn't matter whether it's in the PD in Italy. J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. The unusually lucky lighting angle is an interesting effect I haven’t seen before in aerial bombardment photos before. And when I click on the fully zoomed version, it is quite sharp and interesting. Very unusual for its genre. Greg L (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Presuming copyright checks out. Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Presuming copyright checks out. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I believe that the image is PD, entirely on the basis of creator. Unless this was published in Spain at any time, I have no idea how or why Spanish law applies - it never applies to DoD works on Wikipedia, and never will. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same thing. The DOD takes pictures and then releases them; that works under any law. What is being claimed here is that a picture taken in Spain is PD under Italian law, and so must be PD in the US. Very different thing. As I said below, at the very least, we will need a tag explaining the copyright status in the US- at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter if it's PD in Italy, only whether it's PD in the US. J Milburn (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the discussion above was collapsed I'll just put in my closing thoughts here (Milburn and I can go on forever, I've little more to say on the matter after this). I believe the image is PD. I think it is rational to believe that the Italian air force has the rights to this image and that they no longer hold the copyright to it (as a result of Italian law making any image before 1976 PD). As I showed above, because it is PD there, it is PD in the US. As for its status in Spain, it would have had to have been published in Spain for the nation's laws to come into consideration here. I've seen no evidence of this and even if it were published there it would have likely been during the war which would still make this image PD as Spanish copyright for collective works expires 70 years after its first publication. The Spain point is, however, moot given the situation in Italy. As for how to continue, I would suggest that we contact all of the voters and see if a broader consensus is reached on the image's status. If the consensus is in favor of it being PD, we can promote the image and move on. If Milburn still feels strongly enough about this after the fact it can be nominated for deletion and delisting. Cowtowner (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At danger of repeating myself (and, for what it's worth, I strongly think the discussion should not have been colllapsed- it was relevant and unconcluded) we cannot promote this until we are certain about the copyright. At the very least, we will need to see a copyright tag explaining its status in the US as well as in Italy- at the end of the day, we don't really care what its status is in Italy unless it is pertinent to its status in the US (which it may or may not be, yadda yadda). It wouldn't even be important on Commons, where an image is required to be PD in the source country (in this case, Spain- it was taken in Spain, that's its source, that's where it comes from- there's really no point debating that) and the US. J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That tag is on there. It does explain why it is PD in Italy and therefore in the US. You know how I feel about the source. If we reach a consensus about the copyright here then we can promote it. If we don't we'll suspend and look for other avenues be it a deletion nomination or something else. Cowtowner (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see it does. That would be true if the source country for this was Italy. Right, I'm gonna go ahead and nominate it for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support if PD, delete otherwise. I suspect it is not PD, but FPC is not the right forum for deciding this point. --Avenue (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suspended until copyright status is clarified. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Barcelona bombing.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus established this as Public Domain. See this. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Yann (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first nomination here, so please bear with me. ;o) Yann (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO, to have sufficient encyclopedic value (EV), the article should do more than just have this image in it with a caption; the article’s body text should mention this incident and explain how it was a significant event that contributed to the fall of the wall (or whatever is the true case). Doing a word search, I see only one mention of “juggling” (which is this caption) and zero mentions of “juggle.” As there appears to be no mention of this event in the body text, it leads me to suspect it was insignificant in the history of the wall—a minor side note. If that is truly the case, then this picture has insufficient EV to merit Featured Picture status. Greg L (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Greg. The mere fact that something happened does not mean that an image of it has strong encyclopedic value, no matter how unusual it was. J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why wasn't he shot, anyway? That was before the Wall fell. Adam Cuerden(talk) 09:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perestroika, which started a few years earlier. It allowed the guards to feel comfortable that they wouldn’t be upside-down in chains in some gulag in Siberia if they failed to shoot him. Military justice is no joke—even in the U.S. If a military airplane mechanic screws up through negligence and causes the death of an airplane crew, there is hell to pay in the form of stockade time and being marched around to court hearings with two guards flanking the (ex)-mechanic. Greg L (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not convinced about the EV. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support If you can link this to something that suggests this image is of great importance to it. It's an interesting old picture, but I want to see if it's historical some way, not just old, like, who is the juggler (biography on WP?) and under what circumstances did they get to do this? --I'ḏ♥One 18:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. She looks like a deer (or maybe a clown!) caught in headlights. Not a good portrait at all IMO. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 11:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per TonyTheTiger Ðiliff. I thought all these senate pictures used the exact same photo room. Apparently not. Instead of being a generic portrait of a U.S. government elected representative (which all look pretty much the same), this one is quite different but did so by managing odd lighting I don’t think I’ve ever seen before (and for good reason). Greg L (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, although I'm confused by your vote Greg - say per Tony but he supported?! gazhiley.co.uk 22:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. fixed. Greg L (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've gotta say, I really love this photo, but I'm not seeing the EV. What's it showing? What does it add to the article that the bazillion other photos don't? J Milburn (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Too dark to see enough about the stage, other than the lit parts which aren't very clear due to the exposure setting used. Stage is also tilted to the left and looks like it's about to fall onto the crowd, and the rest of the buildings in the background are tilted right. The crowd is distracting at the bottom of the picture and the eye is drawn to the performer, but this is supposed to be about the stage. also most of the structure is not in the picture - just a small part of the stage and a little bit of the overhanging metal parts... The glare from the screen is also very distracting... For this to be good EV for the stage it should be a straight on shot in daylight of an empty stage... Not a snapshot from a random concert... gazhiley.co.uk 14:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of EV. It is dramatic and of high quality. I like the balance of lighting between the foreground and the buildings in the background. I really like the way light reflects off the ceiling elements above. However, *dramatic* does not lend to EV, it can only make something more artful and eye-catching. I have no idea what this building really looks like overall because it shows only a closeup of jumbled visual elements. I should think that slightly brighter (but equally dramatic), further-away shot showing more of the structure would more effectively add EV to the subject “Pritzker Pavilion at night.” Greg L (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2010 at 16:09:19 (UTC)
Original - A highway marker on the Don Valley Parkway. Part of the parkway was recently named the "Route of Heroes" by the city of Toronto.ALT1 - Manual adjustments to exposure, brightness, contrast, saturation, white/black levels, and sharpnessALT2 - Manual adjustments to white level, brightness, sharpness
Reason
Though I'm not sure how grand this photo is, I feel it is a really spectacular composition of a rather simple subject. It could possibly be brightened a bit, but the solemn grey skies and dark image go hand in hand with the subject and theme.
Support as nominator --ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢ 16:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's very dark. It'd need levels adjustment, at the least. Adam Cuerden(talk) 16:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uploading two adjusted versions at the moment. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢ 16:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient EV to illustrate the parkway. Illustrating a sign on the parkway (as this is used in the article) is not worthy of FP status. Whereas the dark, overcast day may lend a somber note to this picture, the overall effect looks exceedingly poor IMO. Greg L (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sign is the sole focus here, not the parkway. There are plenty of other photos devoted to that purpose. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢ 17:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understood that. As I stated above, IMO, a sign on the parkway (as this image is used in the article) is not worthy of FP status; it is insufficiently noteworthy. That much ignores the issue of the lighting, which couldn’t be more inferior, IMO. “Solemn gray skies” to enhance a “solemn sign” can not come at such a high expense for the basic fundamentals of lighting. If there was ever a proper use for the word “snapshotty”, this is it. Greg L (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While I can't find a criteria to oppose this picture on, I simple think promoting this kind of pictures erodes the value of having "Featured Pictures". P. S. Burton (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't understand how a sign representing an official declaration and naming of a highway in honour of Veterans (what else would represent that in picture form? They don't have opening or dedication ceremonies for highways any more.) is less notable than a very very bland non-noteworthy photograph or some unknown army colonel, or a Monarch with a sticker when we already have several FPs of a Monarch? Is FPC about images of high quality, images that make you stare in awe, or images that tell the most information? I see nominations passed on any of those grounds. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢ 19:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Set that aside for a moment. Substandard lighting would be fall-back reason. This looks like a point ‘n’ shoot, disposable film camera was used; the exposure and lighting is horrible. Greg L (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, I'm just not seeing it. It's a well composed shot, but I'm not really convinced. I fear this may be the fact I couldn't be described as a roadfan showing, but I do try to avoid biases of that sort. This isn't the easiest subject matter to photograph in a compelling way. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can you reshoot from a better angle on a day with better weather? --I'ḏ♥One 14:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The weather I can try for... A better angle may be hard; the sign is 10 feet tall and located in the centre of an interchange (I got honked at a lot). What would you consider a better angle? Looking down, one that captures more or less of the surroundings, less sky? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢ 17:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if there's "perfect" way to shoot a road, especially one that according to its article has more than 60,000 cars driving on it daily and is 10 miles long... An aerial or at least higher angle if possible to get a longer view. FPC also tends to frown upon cars, though clearly the shutter must've been pretty fast for this shot, I think blurred cars tend to go over better to show off a busy road and minimize the presence of cars (I could be wrong about this), forgot the name of this camera trick. --I'ḏ♥One 03:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --JovianEye (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is a screenshot... with widgets in it. Sorry, but that looks somewhat cheap. --Dschwen 15:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support An animation showing very special software illustrating an invisible phenomenon is a rare treat. Greg L (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. If it had been Mac OS X software, the ‘widget’ portion wouldn’t look so Atari-like. Too bad, because as an engineer I’ve wondered about MOSFETs, which work quite differently from regular transistors (I’ve specified them before in fuel cell designs). Greg L (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite think you see what we mean. What I'm looking for is a clean illustration, with proper labeling, height color coding that is meaningful, maybe an overlay of he structure on the electron density plot, and no clutter around. This is not a question of Windows/Linux/OSX, it is a question of how to best present scientific data. --Dschwen 17:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I guess for most voters here this is going to run in the "I have no clue what it means, but it looks sciency enough" department, just like the KH-instability. The image description is lacking to say the least. For starters it should mention that it is a simulation, next it should provide rudimentary information on how it was calculated. Or are we supposed to dig that up on the software website that is embedded as a watermark in the animation? --Dschwen 17:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well… just pardon me all over the place for not seeing that It is a screenshot... with widgets in it. Sorry, but that looks somewhat cheap is somehow magically equivalent to What I'm looking for is a clean illustration, with proper labeling, height color coding that is meaningful, maybe an overlay of he structure on the electron density plot, and no clutter around. Next time around following up behind a vote explanation of yours, I’ll brush up on my mind-reading skills and read up on the dictionary terms for “widgets” and “cheap” since you use the terms far more expansively than I. I won’t argue about it any further since all the information is self-explanatory as to how voltage causes a break-away current (on the left) and the electron density is labeled on the right. I think all this needs is a better caption to explain what the various elements mean; that’s all. To each is own. Bye. Greg L (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm no, it does not magically mean this. What I did is called clarifying my point. Do you have a problem with that? Sorry that I did not make myself perfectly clear in my first post, but do you think this sort of condescending sarcasm is helpful? You know where this is heading, right? One of us will get all emotional and storm off again... --Dschwen 18:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, I can't even begin to support an image with a watermark like that. J Milburn (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New Version Removed the watermark and computer widgets. - ZephyrisTalk 17:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a step in the right direction, but still a long way to go. --Dschwen 17:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support “New Verstion”. This is very educational. I can clearly imagine many readers having a “stop, stare & click” reaction. Animations are something no regular print encyclopedia can do; this is a showcase example of the virtues of the educational capabilities of Wikipedia. Important note (in my opinion): This image, right here at FPC, needs a clear-as-glass, plain-speak caption explaining what the left & right panels represent and mean at different times (before & after). As this will end up one day on the Main Page as a Featured Picture, the accompanying caption here will be greatly representative of what will be used then on the Main Page. The caption must be directed to that portion of a general-interest audience that would be intrigued by something like this and would be thirsty to understand it. Greg L (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to remove your second support above. --Dschwen 17:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I thought of striking (apparently for not too long) but failed to carry through. Now fixed. Thanks.
Support alt, I don't want to try to judge the accuracy or EV- this is not a subject with which I feel comfortable. I am, however, happy with the technicals, and happy to support an eyecatching image in an underrepresented area (while trusting others who assert the accuracy and EV.) J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support struck while issues below are outstanding. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am vaguely aware of the topic, and it took me quite some time to understand what on earth this image was trying to convey.
Firstly, Id, Vg - I assume this means drain current and gate voltage? I know that, (took me a few seconds), but few would just from the image.
From a composition perspective, there needs to be better matching between the graph and the image -- I had to sit there for at least 30 seconds to mentally pair up each frame in the animation -- I was unable to "view" both at once -- too much information was happening simultaneously.
Why is the colour bar changing scale -- this looks like a floating point error?
I don't get the 3D bit -- I assume this indicates that the image is 3D in nature, and we are seeing a particular angle -- I am totally unable to relate it to the transistor structure.
Units?? The colour bar is lacking any kind of unit.
Scale? Could be a nanoscale transistor or a really low-load busbar.
Repeated information, and redundant information (frame #, drain voltage)
Intent of image is unclear -- I assume it is trying to show the reader the cause of I-V saturation in mosfets?
Finally, the jerky animation (too slow frame-rate) makes the image somewhat disorienting.
Forgive me if I am stupid, but I thought EV meant Exposure value -- which is a measurement of the dynamic range of the image -- or its ability to capture the full range of the flux on the camera sensor (not being noisy and not saturating*). How can software have EV? one would assume you pushed the image out in full RGB and didn't constrain yourself to only the lower part of the bit representation. Assuming I am not barking up the wrong tree, I fail to see how this image can have "EV".
Strike that "Encyclopaedic value"
'*' - Ironical Transistor saturation recursion?
Comment: Wait, are we even sure this is freely licensed? On what grounds is the person who claimed to release the image able to release screenshots of this software? J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Threshold of originality. Nuff said. Especially without the widgets I don't see any problem here. --Dschwen 14:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. What do you think the contribution of the software writer is? Two squares and three scales. That is very common imagery. The rest is plotting of simulated data. No original artwork or design here. --Dschwen 11:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image was posted by Gerhard Klimeck, who is one of the principles behind nanoHUB.org at Purdue. So the individual who posted this animation is the creator of both the application and the simulation. No problem. Besides, even if the software author and the simulator author were two different individuals (which they aren’t), I agree 100% with Dschwen; a software author can’t copyright the concept of graphs, or log-scale annotation of the axis of a graph, nor can a software author copyright Windows-standard interface elements such as sliders and click-buttons. There is no original content whatsoever shown here so far as interface elements of the application go, let alone original content that rises to a level of concern. Double-no-problem. Triple-no-problem if we were voting on the “New Version” (which I am as I find it much more “sanitary” and elegant). Greg L (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help! Can someone please explain what I'm looking at in the images to the top right? --I'ḏ♥One 21:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most transistors amplify a current. So if you put a small current into a gate lead (and out another lead), you get an amplified current out a different set. Usually that amplification ratio is around 100:1, which isn’t much.
MOSFETs use a different technology whereby they respond to the voltage on the gate. Although there is a small current associated with that voltage, the current is a really a side-effect and is of such small magnitude, you don’t worry about it. When the gate voltage rises, the MOSFET turns on and can pass huge currents. Their other virtue is they have low voltage losses when turned on, so if you have—say—12.0 volts available, you’ll get 11.8 after the MOSFET (the actual loss depends on the voltage capability of the device). So MOSFETs are good at acting like a mechanical relay or one of those Frankenstein-like knife-blade switches for simply turning on and off power supplies. I specified MOSFETS in fuel cells I designed, where you tend to have gobs of current, low voltage, and can’t afford to be losing much of that voltage.
This animation is of a type of MOSFET known as a nanowire MOSFET. I don’t know if such devices are on the market and haven’t read the article. I suspect it might be just a theoretical investigation. But what we are seeing here is how boosting the voltage (in the left-hand side of the screen as the dot moves towards the right), causes the gate current (height of the blue dot) to rise from picoamperes (almost nothing) to less than a milliampere (still not much). Note that the Y-axis is a log scale and covers a billion-fold range current. You can also see that as the voltage exceeds a certain point, the MOSFET starts conducting as electrons breach past the gap. In many ways, this is a bit like lightning where virtually no current whatsoever flows as the tension (voltage) rises to a certain value (millions of volts). At a certain avalanche or breakdown voltage where the air just can’t take any more stress, current suddenly flows; lots and lots of it, and just because voltage was increased to an avalanche point. And just like lightning, a fully-on MOSFET would conduct all the current you throw at it; even up to the point you cook the device.
I’m a nerd. I’ve just looked at spec sheets and soldered these things into boards and looked at the outside of them (black plastic and tin-plated copper leads). So it is a treat to see how electron flow is controlled by gate potential. Greg L (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but you went to 2, 3 and 4 before you stopped at 1: What is this for? I see in the articles it has something to do with nanowire and nanotech? --I'ḏ♥One 02:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison to a bolt of lightning is misleading. That would be true if the drain voltage caused an avalance. Not the point of a MOSFET. --Dschwen 18:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree; it’s a bit of a stretch because lightning would really be most analogous to a silicon avalanche diode (a two-lead device). MOSFETs have three leads because of the gate. I was thinking of that “avalanche diode”-bit when I wrote the above and am surprised any of the regulars here would pick up on nuances such as that. I was trying to illustrate the voltage-induced all-or-nothing nature of the switching of states, which is very, very different from the current-controlled nature of a regular transistor. I can certainly see that you are very well versed on this issue. Greg L (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2010 at 13:17:18 (UTC)
Original - Executions of Kiev Jews by German army mobile killing units (Einsatzgruppen) near Ivangorod Ukraine. The photo was mailed from the Eastern Front to Germany and intercepted at a Warsaw post office by a member of the Polish resistance collecting documentation on Nazi war crimes. The original print was owned by Tadeusz Mazur and Jerzy Tomaszewski and now resides in Historical Archives in Warsaw. The original German inscription on the back of the photograph reads, "Ukraine 1942, Jewish Action [operation], Ivangorod."
Oppose I’d personally like to stay away from shocking and depressing images (people being blow away counts as that, IMO) as I don’t think they are fitting for display on the Main Page as a Featured Picture for 24 hours. While this is certainly “eye-catching”, I don’t personally think it will achieve the desired effect of “being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article”—at least not in the right way; Wikipedia’s Main Page should not be in-your-face shocking. Perhaps a FA on the Main Page with a less shocking picture would be best. Greg L (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a Main page voting page - this could still be an FP without being on main page so please assess your vote based on the quality of the picture not the shock value of it on the main page... gazhiley.co.uk 17:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting you: Main page voting page: Please provide a link to where I can vote for pictures that have already been awarded FP status are again being voted upon to see if they will go to the Main Page. Last I looked, every single one of our pictures went to a giant queue (totaling over 400 entries at last count, with Howchen wrestling with how to spread out all our bug, bird, and Chicago entries). If there is no such voting page, then please forgive me for not wanting to see what I consider to be inappropriate content being featured on the Main Page. I can see that you feel this is appropriate there. I’ll thank you to not presume to dictate to me what I may think or how I may express my thoughts here. Just like the lead picture in our Vulva article (which is tack-sharp, has profoundly high EV, and has excellent lighting), I don’t think it either is appropriate as a “Featured Picture”, sorry. Just because we have articles and pictures on Wikipedia, does not mean it is always suitable as an in-your-face FP on the Main Page. Greg L (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your response was thoroughly unresponsive. Those are 16 pictures Howcheng et. al decided not to put onto the Main Page for various reasons. Some have to do with technical issues such as wide, narrow images not fitting the given space there. Others, like a bikini chick, have to do with WP:Common sense because there was a lack of common sense being exercised here. As he wrote there, those 16 pictures were skipped and are unlikely to appear as Picture of the day for various reasons. Would you like to widen the list of unsuitable entries there to 17 or even 18?
Now… what I had challenged you do do is back up an implicit assertion of yours when you wrote Main page voting page and provide a link to a place where pictures that we unwisely vote here for being a Featured Picture on the Main Page are again voted upon for actually going to the Main Page. It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee: In fact, there is no second vote to decide what goes onto the Main Page, is there(?); that’s what this place is about. Just because one of our volunteers, Howcheng, has to (*sigh*) and not expose 5th-graders who come to Wikipedia to a picture of people being being shot in the back and clouds of pink mist billowing out is zero excuse for us to not exercise some of that common sense ourselves.
If 5th-graders are to be exposed to this provocative, upsetting, or shocking material, they can type “The Holocaust in Ukraine” it into the ‘Search’ field. Greg L (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, if we're on the topic of challenges, I would ask where on this page subject matter is a criteria? I'd also point to this line: "Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all." Cowtowner (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to sign. It was I, who wrote the comment above Greg's. However, Greg, you need to chill, and read your own comments, which are long, rambling and confrontative. Whether or not something like this should be showed at the front page is a matter of a serious ethical debate for the whole community, and not the above rant. Don't confuse your own opinions with "common sense" P. S. Burton (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On an other note. I was showed both this picture and pictures of vulvas in school (in History and sex-ed respectively), and took no harm. P. S. Burton (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t start wikilawyering with me now. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. This isn’t remotely about whether the image is “classically beautiful”. You know that; so I can’t imagine why you tried pulling that whopper out of your hat. We don’t have any guideline that says “Dear small club of people who ofttimes have no common sense: please don’t award FP-status to a picture of a topless chick because it ain’t going onto the Main Page and will simply have to make some volunteer go add it to the 16-item ‘discard’ pile.”
BTW, whether you, P. S. Burton, were shown this picture of a vulva in school has zero bearing on whether it is a wise idea to feature it on the Main Page for 24 hours for shock value. I’m done dealing with you today as my BS filter became clogged with tar balls of nonsense. Goodbye; you get the last word. Greg L (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reminding you that we have criteria that do not involve subject matter is a far cry from wikilawyering. As for this being about classic beauty that is exactly what you made it about. You are opposing, so far as I can tell, because you find the subject matter unappealing because of its moral implications (in essence: classical beauty = butterflies, not human tragedy). Now, if you want to have a reasonable discussion stop talking about topless women and deal with the matter at hand like an adult. Cowtowner (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I do understand your reasoning, I do not agree. I suppose our senses just ain't common. P. S. Burton (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, we have featured controversial images before
Yeah, I'm kind of in agreement with Greg here. On one hand Wikipedia is not censored and yes, tragedies must be documented, but I wouldn't want to look at a picture of what looks like a family getting killed all day, half the time I think of Michael Haneke I want to chain him up in a cellar for "Funny Games". Feature, maybe, POTD, maybe not for me.. --I'ḏ♥One 19:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tragedies need documented. While not the best-quality photo, this is a sight we were not meant to see at all. Adam Cuerden(talk) 17:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support again per adam, as per my vote on the above nom... and Greg see my edit on that as it goes the same for this... gazhiley.co.uk 22:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support to make it official. Per above and the quote that both Gaz and I posted. Cowtowner (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A lot of dirt and scratches- could this not benefit from some cleanup work? J Milburn (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs 20 minutes of cleanup. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. While this has strong EV, it needs to be cleaned up (which should be possible without changing the image in any significant way). Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sasata and Nick-D. High EV but also a high need of technical cleanup. - Darwinek (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I agree with the above. J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose changed from Support - I never noticed that it could be cleaned up a bit - my attention was drawn to other elements of the picture... gazhiley.co.uk 21:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2010 at 13:25:35 (UTC)
Original - Rows of bodies of dead inmates fill the yard of Lager Nordhausen, a Gestapo concentration camp. This photo shows less than half of the bodies of the several hundred inmates who died of starvation or were shot by Gestapo men. Germany
Oppose I’d personally like to stay away from shocking and depressing images (rows of dead bodies counts as that, IMO) as I don’t think they are fitting for display on the Main Page as a Featured Picture for 24 hours. Perhaps a FA on the Main Page with a less shocking picture would be best. Greg L (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a Main page voting page - this could still be an FP without being on main page so please assess your vote based on the quality of the picture not the shock value of it on the main page... gazhiley.co.uk 17:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Puuhleeze. Without a link, I’m not convinced your argument is backed by facts. See below. Greg L (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FPC is not POTC. We have featured pictures which are horrific, but that doesn't mean we will use them on the main page. Vote by the project's criteria, not by your own whims. Cowtowner (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you wrote is simply not true. Howcheng has filtered out unsuitable pictures that we passed along for going into the queue on Picture Of The Day (POTD). Everything we pass here is intended to go into the queue to await its turn on the Main Page as POTD. The POTD queue is now well over a year long. The discard pictures that he considered as being unlikely to ever go to POTD totals 16 entries (one of them is a young women who is topless wearing only a bikini bottom). We aren’t here to vote for FP pictures that we fully well hope will end up in the “discarded” folder. I can think of better things to do that expose primary school children to shocking pictures of rows of dead bodies (or make more work for Howcheng as he exercises some common sense and adds this to the folder of discarded exceptions). Greg L (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'll noticed a couple of things: firstly, POTD and FP are separate projects. Howcheng does a good job of filtering through our FPs and fitting them to the criteria of POTD. What he does not do is try to impose those criteria upon this project. If this is a question of work for him and this image is promoted, I will add it to the list of unused images and save him the trouble (and spare you from crusading about it further here). While we're discussing why we are here, I implore you to read this:
Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria.
.
Don't forget the purpose of this project or its criteria. Cowtowner (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you must have a serious problem with Howcheng. He’s not gonna put that picture of the topless babe on the Main Page and it is clearly very eye-catching and would make readers want to click the article. But then, he has common sense, doesn’t he? Good for him. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where you got the idea that I have a problem with Howcheng from. I truly appreciate everything that he does at POTD. If it wasn't clear from the discussion above, I support this image. Cowtowner (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Adam Cuerden(talk) 17:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Adam Cuerden... Couldn't have put it better myself... Oh and Greg I don't need to supply a link - the first paragraph on this page says it best : "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria." There is nothing there about this being a POTD entry page... The fact they end up there is because why would we want anything but the creme de la creme of pics on wikipedia on the front page?!! gazhiley.co.uk 22:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it would be exactly the same as opposing a picture of a mushroom because you don't think it should appear on Portal:Fungi. Yes, fungal FPs do go on the portal, but that's a by-product of them being FPs, not their sole reason... J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A little conservative restoration may be beneficial here- note top and bottom left corners. J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Gazhiley: There is nothing there about this being a POTD entry page... Well, technically that is true; there is nothing about this being a POTD entry page. It’s too bad the omission has so easily confused you two. It seems rather redundant to have an explicit statement that “Featured Picture Candidate” means “if granted, it will be a Featured Picture on the Main Page one day”. This thoughtless omission has caused you two to run off with a wild and incorrect notions. Because every single picture we grant FP status to is headed to the Picture Of The Day and will jump into the queue awaiting its turn. Only unless Howcheng intervenes to pull out wildly unsuitable pictures like this one—or if we explicitly state here that the “support” vote is conditional that it not appear on the Main Page—does an FP-awarded picture not appear as a POTD one day. If you can’t see that yet, that’s not my problem.
So, thinking about that, I’m striking my above “oppose” vote and am making it a conditional “support”, as follows… Greg L (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Provided that this picture does not appear on the Main Page as a Featured Picture Of The Day. I’d personally like to stay away from shocking and provocative images (rows of dead bodies counts as that, IMO) as I don’t think they are fitting for display on the Main Page as a Featured Picture for 24 hours. Regardless of the good intentions of illustrating tragedy and man’s inhumanity to man, we must remember that primary school-age children visit Wikipedia. Pictures of rows of dead bodies is an adult theme. Of the 400+ FP pictures waiting in Howcheng’s POTD queue, there is really no point adding to the 16 images he has so far pulled out as being unsuitable for the Main Page. But we might be able to add another one or two. Maybe. Sometimes, pictures can be eye-catching and make readers want to click the article, but even on Wikipedia, WP:Common sense is applied in ways that are beyond stated criteria and FP-winners are left off the Main Page, as happened with the Michele Merkin picture we awarded. I can see how others might think Howcheng lacks wisdom and was a prude for pulling out a picture of a naked female form when there was so little breast revealed. But his instincts were correct, IMO, and he does a good job; we don’t need adult-themed, provocative, shocking images except when they are being sought out by the reader. There are 16 such images (out of the more than 400 in the queue) that are FP award-winners but won’t appear on the Main Page; we can add one more to the exceptions list, I suppose. Greg L (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to second that... gazhiley.co.uk 09:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded. I do not feel an image this horrific has a place on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth-ing the 'not POTD' thing, and it's not just the mainpage, it's also every single userpage, talkpage, sandbox and what-have-you that template ((pic of the day)) posted. --I'ḏ♥One 20:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Large image, not great quality, but high EV. POTD can decide appropriateness on main page. Fletcher (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Fletcher. Whether this goes up on the main page isn't our decision, and I like it that way. --Avenue (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Corpses in the courtyard of Nordhausen concentration camp.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I simply don’t think this is eye-catching to the point that readers will want to read the article. Greg L (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last one had too many people according to you, so I find a major artist of the Wild West - one of the people responsible for creating the popular image of cowboys - and provide our only high-quality image of his work. Now major artists aren't eyecatching. What CAN be featured nowadays? Adam Cuerden(talk) 18:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the major artist has a more eye-catching piece of work, I’d like to see it. Greg L (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find it very eye-catching. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support An iconic image from an excellent artist. It's absolutely dynamic and the technicals are great too. Cowtowner (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Meets criteria, and eye-catching. Sasata (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking, quality, and interesting picture. :) Cordially, Esther Clementinatalk 03:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meets all criteria. - Darwinek (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Charles Marion Russell - A bad hoss (1904).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a fan of western art and a proud holder of a BFA. I believe that Charles Russell was able to capture a degree of movement and detail in this work that most modern artists cannot capture. This despite the use of photos as a visual resource that was not available in Russell's day. This painting includes unsurpassed details of movement, anatomy and history, all in one image. I challenge any modern artist to surpass this phenomenal image and improve on Charles' contribution! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.219.1.139 (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2010 at 21:37:51 (UTC)
Original - Maggie Roswell is an American film and television actress and voice artist, best known for her voice work on the Fox network's animated television series The Simpsons.Edit 1 Framing the face.
Reason
High quality portrait released for use by the subject (who is the copyright holder, as confirmed by the photographer). Obvious EV, good technicals, used as the lead in a high quality article with this as the sole illustration.
Oppose Portraits is one of the tough categories for FP. There is nothing I can see here that sets this portrait apart from the many that get nominated here. Greg L (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Expanding upon “nothing that sets this portrait apart”: I also find the the slightly olive-noted tan backdrop here, which gave her hair and her skin a similar color-cast, to be unattractive; it gives the whole picture a bland look. The “Edit 1”, without even that red blouse, looks like one of those 1950s pictures where an artist used a color pencil to add color to a black & white picture—except the artist was able to use one, single pencil to color nearly the whole thing (other than her lips). I think a small, spot fill light from behind her might have filled in the back of her neck with a “silver lining” of highlight. And that would be a work-around due to having her stand so close to the backdrop that she casts a shadow right behind her image (which is generally a terrible no-no unless properly managed with fills); it lends a “stand in front of the wall”, amateurish nature to the portrait. As portraits go, I don’t think this is anywhere near an example of fine photography. I do not find it to be eye-catching as a result of any virtues. Greg L (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really seem like a fair oppose. --I'ḏ♥One 06:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - this is not a competition... Please judge this as a stand-alone picture not whether it's better or worse than others... That's the responsibility of the Delist & replace section further down... gazhiley.co.uk 09:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I expanded upon my explanation for my opinion that this isn’t anything special. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg L (talk • contribs) 16:51, 26 August 2010
Support This is certainly one of the better ones.Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After viewing this a second time, I'm wondering if we could get a crop that focuses a little less on her decolleté. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do also have this, but the slightly cut off hair and the watermark won't go down well here. Perhaps you'd like to suggest your own crop? J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original I just think she looks nicer in it, the red matches the soft lighting and the background, also her hair, earrings, lipstick... She knew what she was doing when she dressed herself that day. --I'ḏ♥One 20:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original - I think it's a fine portrait. Sasata (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original only - Fine portrait, I oppose the edit, looks a lot worse. JFitch(talk) 09:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Competent, even appealing portrait, but it doesn't stand out to me. I share Greg L's concerns too. --Avenue (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. Fine portrait. - Darwinek (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support of original I do agree with some of Greg L's concerns, but overall the softness and clearness describes the subject well and pleasingly. Esther Clementinatalk 12:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of quality, the image is the best we have of the subject, striking and of a high resolution. It is also featured on the Spanish and Turkish language Wikipedias. Primarily, its historical value warrants it in my opinion.
Oppose Too dark. Greg L (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added an edit with brighter lighting --AutoGyro (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cluttered composition, jpeg artifacting visible even in thumbnail. Not sure why the edit was uploaded as PNG. Fletcher (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty sure it's impossible to see JPEG artefacting from the original image in a 300 px wide thumbnail of a 3000px image. Adam Cuerden(talk) 07:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I should have said the image description page. Although I can make out the artifacting in the thumbnail of the edit version, near the lower left. Fletcher (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. Greg L (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not wild about the lighting or composition. We also have colour shots of the subject- it's not a bad shot, by any means, but I don't think it's feature worthy. J Milburn (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, JM. It was a news conference in the 50s when there were probably scores of Cuban rebels around with guns. They used flashbulbs in big parabolic reflectors back then. One of the common complains about that flashbulb technology is pictures often had a “charcoal & whitewash” look. This is really quite good given the period. But that’s OK; with 400+ FPs in the queue waiting for their day on the Main Page as a Featured Picture, I’m pleased when nominations that I voted “support” on don’t do particularly well.Greg L (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's an environment in which it is damn near impossible to get a picture up to the quality we expect, and, surprise surprise, they didn't manage to get a picture up to the quality we expect. Not really seeing your point. J Milburn (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Press conferences such as these usually are cluttered. Sir Richardson (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I said cluttered I didn't just mean a crowded scene - I meant other people and objects visually intrude too much on the main subject. In that picture of Kennedy there is more visual separation between him and the crowd below or behind him, and it's a more striking image IMO. If the picture of Kennedy were cropped and centered showing only the bullhorn, microphones, and heads of a few people around him, it likely wouldn't be FP. Fletcher (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Boring picture per J Milburn I'd rather see a color picture, interesting moment depicted (Castro in the US). --I'ḏ♥One 20:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --I'ḏ♥One 14:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not bad, by any stretch of the imagination, but the lighting's a bit off, the pose/composition is awkward, and the background is a bit distracting (which is the point of adverts, I guess, but it doesn't help this picture). J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seldom are these runway shots, where volunteer contributors are sharing space next to reporters shouting “Jon… OVER HERE”, examples of high-quality photography. The lighting is invariably from an on-camera strobe and there are no fill umbrella lights. Such is the case here. If Jon Stewart it to be on the Main Page for a day, a Featured Article might be better. But presenting this picture as somehow being high quality photography (via composition, lighting, etc.) doesn’t seem realistic. Greg L (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was taken at a gala-type/black tie event, so I think there were probably many flashes going off at once from many cameras as far as the lighting. --I'ḏ♥One 17:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having two strobes going off near-simultaneously is possible, but not likely. We’ve all seen news footage showing stars at a photo-op where rapid-fire strobes make a nearly stroboscopic effect. But even as rapidly as that happens, it typically max's out at around 10 to 15 flashes per second. And the fastest rates tend to be when stars are walking and waving so many photographers are trying to take a picture of the exact same moment (bingo wings flapping). Such is not the case here; Jon is standing still and posing so the rapidity of the strobes is probably more sedate. The odds are stacked well against two flashes going off within the 60th or even the 120th of a second at which modern cameras can strobe-sync. Moreover, the deep shadow to the right of Jon Stewart’s waist demonstrates that this image is wholly dominated by the single, on-camera strobe. And that (the result here of an on-camera strobe with no evidence of umbrella lights to fill in shadows) is what I based my opinion on. It is what it is: an on-camera strobe picture at a gala photo-op in front of a panel spammed with some for-profit corporation’s logotype. Do I find the totality of these shortcomings to be an example of eye-catching, fine photography? No. Greg L (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't nominate it out of the idea that it was spectacular photographic technique, it certainly isn't, I just thought it was an opportunity shot that came out very well. Half the time as far as celebrity photos that's all we can hope for. --I'ḏ♥One 20:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, and this is certainly better than most- but that doesn't mean we should be featuring it. J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the flash pulse duration would be probably shorter than 1/2000th of a second for something like this. Sync speed is different - a camera shutter limitation rather than something representative of the flash speed. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the duration that the film (or digital sensor) is being exposed to all light from the lens. With most any decent SLR, one can set the exposure for maximum hand-held gain from ambient light, like 1/60th of a second. With old-fashioned film SLRs with focal-plane shutters, the maximum shutter speed at which one could strobe-synch was typically 1/60th of a second, or maybe as slow as 1/30th. Since 1/60th was around the slowest speed one could reliably shoot hand-held without motion blur, photographers would typically just go with the red “flash-sync” speed on the dial. The flash duration of the strobe might only be as you say: 1/2000th of a second. But the odds that two such flashes would be going off during the typical exposure time of 1/60th or 1/120th of a second is slim since at such an event—where the subject is standing still (unless Jon steward walks like that with his arms folded across his chest)—they would typically be going off at less that eight flashes per second. Greg L (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Focal-plane shutter has a much shorter fully open duration than the shutter speed - you don't get anywhere near that much time for everything to line up. It'd be unusual to use anything but sync speed in these situations - it would artificially constrict your frame rate. It is a moot point though anyway, the additional flash would probably ruin the exposure. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. That’s my point. I used to own a Minolta SRT-101 back in the 70s. It was the most magnificently well-made, fine instrument I had ever owned or seen.
I was addressing a comment above where an voter opined …so I think there were probably many flashes going off at once from many cameras as far as the lighting.
Focal-plane shutters at short exposures have a slit passing across the film that gives each spot on the film an exposure of as little as 1⁄1000th of second. But the shortest possible duration that the entire film can be exposed (strobe-snc) was typically 1⁄60th of a second. At that speed, the instant the first curtain gets all the way across the film, the second curtain is being released. The strobe has to go off at that moment to illuminate the entire frame of film. And that (the slower, red-colored strobe-sync speed) was the one a photographer would typically use when shooting hand-held in order to not have blur in the image due to smeared ambient lighting.
Again, my point is that because when shooting with a strobe, one wants to have as much ambient fill light as possible to help fill in the shadows. So the best strategy is to set the shutter speed—regardless of the type of camera (digital or film) or capability of the camera—to about 1⁄60th, which is the slowest shutter speed one can reliably shoot hand-held without motion blur due to camera shaking and will thusly maximize ambient fill in shaddows.
And then the rest of my point is that in such a short duration (1⁄60th of a second), the odds of two different photographers’ strobes going off in such a situation (maybe 5 to 12 flashes per second) is slim. If Elvis came back to life and walked into Shea Stadium along a red carpet (or Lady Gaga kissed a female groupie on the mouth to (*sigh*) get into the headlines again), then the strobes would be going off fast enough that you have pretty decent odds of having an image that is being illuminated with other photographers’ strobes. Not so with Jon Stewart standing there with a bright red pimple on his right cheek with his arms folded across his chest. Greg L (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per above. Sasata (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting and striking picture of extremely interesting subject matter- it may well make a great April Fools' Day POTD. Clear EV in the context of the (very well developed) article- there are two paragraphs (and two blockquotes) devoted entirely to this image. Other than that, the file is of a very high quality, all the text is readable, the colours are great and the image is nice and big. It's aged well.
This, much like the article, really defies categorisation. It could be People/Others (it's illustrating the person),Artwork/Others (it's in a section about the artistic depictions of the subject), Culture and lifestyle (people really believed she existed), Religion and mythology (the pig-headed woman is a creature of folklore and myth) or History/Others (this very much belongs in the history books.) Opinions welcome.
Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This is weird, I'm sure it's meant to be humorous but, I don't know, maybe you had to be around during the time period to get it; You know what they say about a joke: If you have to explain it, it's not funny and you know that feeling of hearing a joke you don't get? That's what weakens my support =\ It is technically good, although someone else might not like the yellow edge and suggest more restoration. I'm inclined to categorize this in Literary illustrations. --I'ḏ♥One 20:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's 19th century satire. Take a read of the article (I'd recommend reading it anyway, but the subject matter is something I love of a number of levels)- you'll start to appreciate what the image is showing and the significance of it. The joke will also become more apparent. (It doesn't fit in litarary illustrations at all- it's not an illustration from a book or literature, it's a pair of charicatures of real people in the style of the time.) J Milburn (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of Pig-faced women, I'd be inclined to say that this should be categorised at Artwork/Others if it's promoted (no opinion on whether it should be). Although it's currently only used to illustrate Pig-faced women, I suspect most people will be primarily interested in this in the context of "very unusual work by Cruikshank", not in the Pig-faced Lady of Manchester Square or in Ferdinand VII per se. Agree that it definitely shouldn't be in Literary Illustrations, as it has nothing to do with any book; the point Cruikshank was trying to make was that, despite his high rank, Ferdinand was less civilised than the human/pig hybrid believed to be living in London at the time. – iridescent 11:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that it's an illustration that has literature. According to the article these stories apparently used to be popular folk literature and stories, there's even a pic at the top of the article that was from a newspaper, but w/e. --I'ḏ♥One 14:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"That has literature"? What does that even mean? J Milburn (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Idloveone is misunderstanding what this image is. It's not the illustration to any piece of literature; it's a print of a drawing, and the only text attached to it is the captions visible above and below. (I'm not sure what "one of the other images in the article is from a newspaper" has to do with anything.) – iridescent 00:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. IdLoveOne, again, I impore you- take a look at the article. J Milburn (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One full Support even though I still barely get the joke. My point about this being "literary" is that the captions of each image double as, in effect, short stories; Story-telling and drawing are two types of artwork clearly present in this, but if you still disagree then my vote goes to Culture and lifestyle since, apparently, these are long-past archaic themes of folklore according to the article, or Other artwork since that is what it is. Was this really just released singly? It was never apart of a book, magazine? What is "The Pig-faced Lady of Manchester Square & other Medical Marvels"? --I'ḏ♥One 18:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good EV and resolution. --Avenue (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional weak Support Conditional that it's moved to Commons. (yes I'm aware the uploader doesn't want that, but there is no legal reason why it shouldn't be there and available to other projects.) Also I'm pretty sure the restoration pushed the colors WAAY to far, the paper is almost mustard yellow now. A more careful color correction might be fully supportable but this one is most likely highly inaccurate from the original (unless another source shows the originals colors and this is faithful to them). — raekyt 11:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've uploaded it to Commons, where it has the same name. The paper is not yellow due to age (and I don't think this has had any cleanup work)- it has been deliberately coloured yellow. Look, for instance, below the words "so justly form'd"- you'll see what I mean. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea I looked at some more of his work and it appears he usually colors in squares like that for the effect. Still seems unnaturally saturated, but I'll defer to your opinion. — raekyt 23:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2010 at 15:26:15 (UTC)
Original - The Battle of Bazeilles, in the Franco-Prussian War, was a crushing defeat for the French. To give the rest of the army time to escape, a small group holed up in the last house along the road to Sedan, and fought to the last bullets trying to buy the others time. This 1873 painting, Les dernières cartouches [The last bullets], by Alphonse-Marie-Adolphe de Neuville depicts this scene.
Reason
One of the most famous paintings depicting the Franco-Prussian war. Iconic in France.
Comment: It's very sharp, and a lovely picture (it's also clear we've got the whole thing). I wonder about the dimensions, though? J Milburn (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was tempted to nominate this. I think this is the one that has the most EV on that article, showing the urban guerilla/sniper warfare that would later be repeated at the Battle of Stalingrad and civil wars the world over. In this case, the civilian population paid heavily after the French forces withdrew, for allowing them to ambush from their (civilian) homes. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, this one didn't exist when I prepared the other - we just had a horribly bad, low-res copy (now universally replaced and deleted), with inaccurate colours and no detail able to be made out. Not so useful! =) I still think both this and the other are valuable, though, as they show very different parts of the battle - roughly the beginning and end. Adam Cuerden(talk) 16:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good artwork. Decent scan. Very interesting image of soldiers holed up in a shelled house. Interesting, historical subject. Eye-catching. I wish this image was lighter but I don’t know if this scan is honestly representing the darkness of the actual artwork (which would be fine), or if this scan is a bit darker than the actual artwork (which would be unfortunate). Greg L (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this was taken from the museum situated in the house where this happened, I'm presuming it's right. The lighting makes sense given the windows being barricaded up. Adam Cuerden(talk) 17:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly my take. But there was no way to be certain. Either way, it’s fine with me. Greg L (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger it, support. I'm leaning towards it having the most EV in the artist's article, but I don't mind either way. J Milburn (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Just to explain my logic (and thus give some feedback beyond "Oooooh! Yessssss! Wooooooow! Per others¨." ;) ), I made two presumptions: 1. the lines in the sky are paper texture. 2. The colours are correct (it's a little yellowish, but that could well be fading). All the rest is unammbiguously excellent, and those presumptions are quite safe ones, so... =) Adam Cuerden(talk) 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. EV's not sky-high, but it's there. Nice subject matter, makes a great addition to our gallery. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2010 at 01:29:10 (UTC)
Original - As the Russian Revolution raged, various countries tried to stop it, supporting the White Army over the Red Army. Japan was one of these. It was ultimately a failure, but the campaign had its successes - the capture of Blagoveshchensk being one of these.
Reason
A fine illustration of a largely forgotten aspect of the Russian Revolution: The attempt to stop it. I also like seeing Japanese work of this period - this is probably the period where their art is most affected by Western styles, and it just looks neat. I like the way the slightly off-kilter angles serve to give a dynamism to the image, and how it rather luxuriates in its bright colours.
Support. Hooray for uncontroversial noms! J Milburn (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very nice. --Avenue (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High EV, good restoration. - Darwinek (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:The Illustration of The Siberian War, No. 16. The Japanese Army Occupied Vragaeschensk.jpg --I'ḏ♥One 03:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2010 at 16:01:43 (UTC)
Original - The puffball Lycoperdon pyriforme, is a common saprobic species of fungus that grows on decomposing wood. It is edible when the internal gleba is white and firm.Edit - 1 cm scale added by author
Reason
I believe the technical standard is comparable to other fungal FPs, the resolution is ~3x the minimum, and the image has high EV in the species article. In my biased opinion, the image is interesting and compelling enough to induce some readers to click to find out more. Please note that from 2003-2008, the species was known as Morganella pyriformis, but new phylogenetic evidence indicates the old name is a more appropriate choice. I will update the species article soon, but need an admin to move over a redirect for me.
Support original with editSupport edit Burton, good idea! On the other hand, put the scale on the original. Fungi are function of moisture content, so you really can't size them? Good placement of the scale, and great photo, Sasata 8) Gut Monk (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, it's only now I notice I put the scale bar on my unedited version... but comparing the two now, I'm not completely convinced that one is better than the other. The original was slightly sharpened and had the levels tweaked slightly; as a result its colors are slightly more vivid and shadows darker. Preferences? Sasata (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, put the scale on the original. P. S. Burton (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good specimens, fantastic EV, good technical quality and a great composition. J Milburn (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supprt: with scale Good EV. --RedtigerxyzTalk 13:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support version with scale. --Avenue (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technicals are not up to par in my opinion. It is quite noisy, and possibly oversharpened? May I ask (unless I'm mistaken) what post-processing was done on this picture? Jujutaculartalk 19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was cropped, sharpened, and had the levels adjusted. All three were minimal (IMO). Sasata (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose scale version. Scale should not have text on it. Use the caption to specify the length of the scale. Kaldari (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reasoning? This opinion does not seem consistent with the majority of other other current FPs with scale bars. Sasata (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that way why not just support the original then? --I'ḏ♥One 16:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Harsh lighting is the issue here. EXIF says 12:08, so certainly close to worst case. This has led to blown highlights on the terraced stones and the pond lilies. Try magic hour or a day with light to medium cloud cover, and make sure to use more moderate exposure settings. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per PLW on lighting but mainly due to what appears to be tilt... I find my head tilting to correct the lines as everything seems to be tilted to the right... Certainly the horizontal slabs in the "hut" appear to not be horizontal... gazhiley.co.uk 14:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can this nom not be re-done using the edited version then? I cab't see this being promoted with the tilt... gazhiley.co.uk 14:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, the one most people voted in favor of was SSE, Jujutacular and Amphy were the only 2/6 that suggested or voted on the correction. --I'ḏ♥One 18:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That nom was confusing and left in the further consideration necessary class without clarification on the further consideration necessary. If the thing does not pass here at FPC, I think that VPC should be reopened to consider which image is promoted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to, I'm not really sure of the policy in that but, honestly it would be nice to move on from this one pic, we've been dealing with it for like 2 months now. --I'ḏ♥One 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to me, the consensus was for the original SSE, not your edit. I guess if you reopen it contact the voters and ask them to specify which they like better, consider me in support of whichever the consensus leans to. --I'ḏ♥One 20:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I have to nominate the rotated and cropped version to replace the current VPC as a new nomination?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok the deed is done, I hope no one minds. --I'ḏ♥One 19:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting is pretty bad, I'd probably lean towards an overcast day, and a polariser would help saturate the colours if you have one. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2010 at 07:21:50 (UTC)
Original - The first part of the video released by Wikileaks, showing the first attack on a group of men and the second attack on a van. This is 13 minutes of onboard footage from one of the two AH-64 Apache helicopters involved in the incident released by Wikileaks. This video is from the editorialized version of "Collateral Murder", but has had the editorial removed.
Reason
I have a hunch that this is going to be a controversial Featured Picture nomination, but I am nominating the footage taken from cameras of United States Army AH-64 Apache Helicopters released by the site WikiLeaks for Featured Picture status because I feel that the footage is both moving/disturbing and eye opening. The story, which is quite well known now, involves separate airstrikes by United States Army assault choppers on what was classified at the time as a group of armed Iraqi Insurgents. The attack footage shows the helicopters rather liberally engaging ground personnel with 30 mm cannons, and features uncensored radio chatter between the air units and their command which further provides a unique insight into this incident. Moreover, as was later determined, the incident was in fact a so called "friendly fire" attack since the alleged insurgents turned out to be civilians and a Reuters news team. For this unique perspective of the engagement - both the raw and uncensored radio chatter and the sheer brutality of the attack - I hereby nominate this footage for featured picture status on the English Wikipedia.
Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 07:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Attacks during war, where the intention is to kill, almost always looks like “sheer brutality.” It only looks non-brutal on video games. Greg L (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interesting nomination. Ok, firstly, I'd want to see the file name changed- "CollateralMurder" is rather emotive, and suggests a very particular point of view. I appreciate that's what WikiLeaks called the video, but that doesn't mean we should call it that- it's not theirs to name anyway. (For instance, I'm sure this will have a name something along the lines of "AH-64 Apache109876432876507283" from the US military.) "July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike leaked video footage" or something may be better. Secondly, I'm not certain I like the fact this opens with a little advert for WikiLeaks- at the very least, the WikiLeaks logo slams another copyright on this (though I accept the logo is free). Thirdly, where's the sound? There obviously originally was sound. Fourthly, error at 2:00- "lets" instead of "let's". Fourthly, why does it suddenly go black at 3:30? I've just seen the part where they fire upon the van... If this was to be promoted, there would be no way it should go on the main page. Another error at 8:38, "crusing" should be "cruising", shouldn't it? Who added these subtitles? I am not loving the quote from the Army Chaplain... Or the emotive stuff about the children, or the doctored shot showing the body... If we're gonna feature something like this, we have to think about neutrality. If I'm honest, I'm not sure I even like the shaky labels added later. At about 12:25, what does "rusty" mean? That a name? Again, the quote about from the Military about how they didn't try to hurt anyone isn't balance, it's been deliberately chosen to make them look like liars, and that very last bit on the end is completely unnecessary- more of the same. I think there's parhaps an argument to be had about featuring this as the exact video released by WikiLeaks, but, right now, on its own merits, there is some sloppy text, clear doctoring and horrific POV issues. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must have plugin problems or something... J Milburn (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - @J Milburn: The name "Collateral murder" was given to it by Wikileaks or whoever leaked it, it's not TomStar's decision, plus it's famous for that name. If we're going to feature tragedies this is one I can get behind because it's recent and still fresh. Everyday people cheer for war and military and never think about innocent people just getting killed like this. Not sure what J Milburn means by doctoring and POV issues, but the video shows what it shows: A bunch of people being killed just for being there and a chopper pilot apparently getting aroused by their corpses, one of which was reporter that the military lied and said they had nothing to do with from what I hear. --I'ḏ♥One 17:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely disagree with this it "shows what it shows" sentiment because it is simply untrue. The source has edited this video in a deliberate manner to twist the portrayal of the United States army in a manner that favored the source's agenda. Please read my vote below if you'd like details. Cowtowner (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cowturner's right, did you even watch it? This video has very clearly been edited and spliced with quotes for the sole purpose of making the US military look bad. Like I said, there could be an argument for promoting it as "the famous video that was released by WikiLeaks", but there certainly could not be to be "a video of the events of July 12, 2007". J Milburn (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replied throughout, and that pilot is still an elohssa. --I'ḏ♥One 16:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Oppose Let me see if I can very calmly lay out the reasoning here:
Our Featured picture criteria doesn’t say things like “Featured Pictures should not be unnecessarily provocative and shall not cast Wikipedia in a poor light.” Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Of the thousands of candidates that have been awarded FP status, and of the 400+ that are awaiting in the queue to make their appearance on the Main Page, the editor responsible for one last sanity check for appropriateness has pulled out 16.
We can not have Featured Picture Candidates being used as a soap box to POV-push on contemporary, highly polarizing, emotionally charged, “disturbing” (as the nom wrote) issues. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The title of this movie is “Collateral Murder”. I find that illuminating. Under the law, “homicide” is the killing of a human at the hand of another. Sometimes they are justified, sometimes not. Coroners make findings regarding homicide. That is distinct from “murder”, which is a finding that the killing was unjustified as a matter of law. Judges and juries make decisions regarding murder. The available evidence is that the pilots had incorrectly identified the journalist with a camera bag as being an armed insurgent. There are no criminal charges pending against the pilots. None are contemplated. The very nature of war results in accidental deaths; often those of other soldiers on the same side. The choice of the title used here suggests ignorance of what words like “homicide” and “murder” mean, a POV-pushing intent, or both.
This movie is part of reams of classified information that was illegally leaked. I can see that the nominator here, TomStar81, expanded the hat statement on Talk:Afghan War Diary so it stated This is not a forum for general discussion of the war effort, the legality of the material released, the political implications of the leak, the potential national security risk… Moreover, this move was immediately after this “NPOV” thread (at the bottom) was started with an editor complaining This article reeks of bias. Our Main Page and the Featured Picture on it, again, should not be highjacked for POV-pushing on provocative and controversial issues.
This is particularly important here because the 22-year-old soldier, Bradley Manning, who jeopardized national security and broke the law by illegally disseminating reams of classified materials—which this video is part of—was arrested for those actions. I find it highly inappropriate to make the well-regarded encyclopedia that is Wikipedia be a party-after-the-fact to this unfortunate and illegal act by further disseminating the information; it casts Wikipedia in a poor light.
Even though all of these concerns (casting Wikipedia in a poor light and being a party to further disseminating (still)-classified materials and allowing FP to be used as a soapbox for POV-pushing) are not official FPC criteria, our criteria are not the product of official policy of Wikipedia; it is the product of a fewer than a dozen active FPC volunteer contributors where only a handful of like-minded individuals are required to amend and modify the criteria. The community had not, up to now anyway, considered it necessary to add criteria saying “Pictures of a topless model should not be awarded FP status as they unsuitable for the Main Page and will end up in the 16-item scrap pile.” Nor has the active band of editors here previously considered adding a FPC voting criteria stating that “FPC should not be used for POV-pushing”.
However, I can still make a case for opposing based on an existing FPC voting criteria:
The title of the movie (murder) is wholly and profoundly inaccurate. The totality of the evidence is that this nom is all about POV pushing, which is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. Suggesting in any way that the pilots who mistakenly killed the civilians committed an act of murder is slanderous and amounts to, without any question whatsoever, “unpublished ideas or arguments”. Changing the title of this file will not overcome my objections; the damage is done and the intent here is abundantly clear and there are other reasons this nom fails in my judgement; all of which point to violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The Main Page of Wikipedia is not a town square for someone with a bullhorn to make anti-war statements; it is a place of learning and simply does not need polarizing and controversial content that will make it a battle ground for others to try to balance it with opposite POV-pushing. Just like when some editor nominated a Nazi flag, I suggest this one for speedy closure. Greg L (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, let's start with point one: The name of this video is "Collateral Murder," that was a choice made just like the naming of any other film. "Murder" is completely acceptable as defined by Dictionary.com: "Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder)" as was in this case. If you think someone is breaking into your house and find out you were wrong after you killed that person, is it still not killing? You type that whole diatribe as if you yourself aren't POV, but I see through that: You're siding with the military and sympathizing with them for being casted in a bad light, like your opinion that this video 'jeopardizes national security'. Your whole argument is slanted with points that only demonize this film and the people who made it publicly known, but what about my own lying eyes that see 13.5 minutes of clearly unarmed people being killed from above? BTW Julian Assange has some words for lawyering you used above:
The tone and language is all about trying to find an excuse for the activity... It’s very clear that that is the approach, to try and find any mechanism to excuse the behavior, and that is what ended up happening.
Also, the investigation has been closed. Seems to me the military just wanted to find out who hurt their feelings for showing them with their pants down in yet another scandal, and now that they might have, don't really know for sure because Wikileaks doesn't keep record of their sources, of course they don't want to look through their ranks and find out who gave this inaccurate permission to fire again and again. Manning still hasn't been convicted of anything, they've just been detaining him for months. It would be a different story if the pilot had monitored them and actually saw them take weaponry to be used against civilians, military or whatever, but that wasn't case here. The real truth in this is that "Crazyhorse 18" is the one fick suck who got caught, no one will ever know how many similar things like this have happened to the countless casualties of the Iraq War, whichever side they fell on, and the military's obviously not gonna court martial him because they'd have to implicate someone higher up as well. If you want to talk about national security and breaking laws I hope you'll hold the military and the Iraq war itself to that same standard as you peruse your Geneva Convention documents. Greg, with your love of the F word it's funny you could have a problem with Wikipedia not being censored. --I'ḏ♥One 19:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go back and read what you just wrote about murder. Sorry, but you don’t have the foggiest idea what you are talking about regarding murder, killing, and homicide. Quoting you: If you think someone is breaking into your house and find out you were wrong after you killed that person, is it still not killing? Yes, it is. And it is often classified as “justifiable homicide” if it was not done recklessly and the homeowner had a well-founded fear; the litmus test varies by jurisdiction. That’s why I wrote above about homicide as follows: Sometimes they are justified, sometimes not. I’m not going to educate you on this stuff any further. But in a nutshell: the pilots killed people. That is homicide. Unless a crime is committed, that is not murder. It is just that simple and to allege so in a file name is slanderous. I can’t help it if you can’t understand these issues. Greg L (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point of clarification Being as how this is a point of controversy I wold like to clarify one little thing: In naming the nomination "Collateral Murder" I did not intend a political statement; I typically name the nominations after the name of the picture or video file uploaded if image/video in question already had a proper name. That was the case here, although I am all for changing the nomination name to "July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike" if it would help establish NPOV for the nomination. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a new title to even exist on Wikipedia at all. There are abundant on-line encyclopedias you could have availed yourself of to look up what “murder” means before uploading stolen material to Wikipedia and giving it that title.Greg L (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CM is the original name of the piece, not his pick, it was even uploaded by another user, SOURCE (recently edited I think). Anyway I really don't care for Greg's argument that the snitch is more guilty than the killer. --I'ḏ♥One 20:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I struck that bit. There are abundant on-line encyclopedias the original uploader could have availed him or herself of to look up what “murder” means before uploading stolen material to Wikipedia and giving it that title, which is slanderous.
The rest of your post where you allege that my objection amounts to the “snitch is more guilty than the killer” is patent nonsense. You simply don’t understand one iota of what you wrote above and you appear uneducable when you get in these moods. You don’t appear to take disagreeing with you well and I suspect that equates to rejection in your mind.
Your above rant, where you invite me to peruse the Geneva Conventions and accuse me of “siding” with the military with its concerns about hurting national security (which is something the president of the U.S. himself so stated),just proves my point that Wikipedia does not need polarizing and controversial content on the Main Page that will make it a battle ground for others to try to balance it with opposite POV-pushing. Thank you for that; your getting your hair on fire over this illustrated this point exceedingly well. You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. You might find that a disagreeable notion. Deal with it. There are millions of non-controversial issues on which to have Featured Pictures without turning it into a battle ground. Greg L (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this being speedily closed; let it run its course. Unlike the Nazi flag nomination, I don't think that this was meant in a malicious and provocative manner (though I assume the nominator came prepared). I do however think that the discourse following Greg's vote should be collapsed. It's full of POV and half-truths. It adds nothing here except clutter and ill-contempt. Cowtowner (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question - Did any major news station, show this version in full? I think I remember seeing it on the News here in Sweden. Not sure if they showed the whole thing though. Since we can't really exercise editorial control ourselves, I think we need to "follow the sources" on this one. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Yes, it was thoroughly covered by the U.S. media (omitting the most gory stuff for the most part). And I agree 100% with you that we need to follow the (reliable) sources. And that would start right here in the “Afghan War Diary” article, where the body text calls this “the ‘Collateral Murder’ video” because the Wikileaks guy (hardly an RS) released it with that title. All major news organizations knew better than to use that as the proper-noun title.
There are problems all over Wikipedia with people coming with an agenda. There was an editor who went around from article to article revising links to Anwar al-Awlaki by referring to him as “a conservative Muslim scholar.” Then on the flip side of the coin, recently a Jewish group organized an effort to “educate and enable an 'army' of editors of Wikipedia, giving them the professional skills to write and edit the online encyclopedia's content in a manner which defends and promotes Israel's image.” Caught in the middle are editors who (*sigh*) and try to bring some balance to the POV-pushing. Next up in response to this garbage would be Michael Yon-like nominations along the lines of “Strength and Compassion” and “Valentine's Day Weekend, Afghanistan.” Wikipedia needs raging POV-battles encroaching into FPC like a hole in our heads.
TomStar81’s above suggestion that this nomination be titled “July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike” is one of the more thoughtful posts on this page today; that is mighty close to how the major media outlets described it. Closer yet, IMO, would be “Leaked July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike video”, which is more along the lines of how the major RSs described this and is what should be used for all references across Wikipedia.
But those issues are best dealt with elsewhere. The narrow focus here, IMO, should be in avoiding having polarizing and controversial content on the Main Page that will make it a battle ground for others to try to balance it with opposite POV-pushing. The passions evoked here provide more-than-ample evidence of the very reason for why we want to avoid this sort of thing. Merely re-titleing this nomination is like putting lipstick on a pig and trying to pass it off as a prom date. Greg L (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the raw material may be refereed to by several names. This particular edited video clip is titled Collateral Murder whether we like it or not. Just as Al Franken's book is titled Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations whether we like it or not. I think wp naming is pretty clear on this. What i meant with "following the sources," was more connected to whether this should be featured/POTD or not. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wikileaks is not an RS, the proper way Wikipedia should refer to it then is to give quoted attribution such as this:
Otherwise, we are just endorsing a non-RS’s editorializing and POV-pushing. It may take a while, but such a revision to the title will undoubtedly occur in due time.
As to “following the sources”, that’s entirely beside the point. Whether RSs carried a story at all or carried it often enough to be considered as notable has zero bearing on whether it is incumbent on Wikipedia to put it on the Main Page. If we “followed sources” in that regard, more than 90% of the stuff we award FP status to, like Focus stacking, would never qualify. Greg L (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again: While the raw video material shoot by the U.S. Army may be refereed to by several names. This particular video clip, edited (i.e. created by) Wikilieaks is titled Collateral Murder whether we like it or not. P. S. Burton (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose First off I highly endorse the death penalty for clear treason, and the release of this and other documents by Bradley Manning is a clear case of treason in my opinion. Such a release of classified documents in past periods like WW2, no one would doubt such a sentence. This release puts our heroes in harms way, the release of all the other documents that Manning is accused of puts many more people's lives at risk. I strongly oppose featuring anything remotely to do with this video or documents or Bradley Manning. — raekyt 01:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully move that this oppose be struck on grounds that the opposition has not cited any grounds that may be justifiably addressed. While I concede that the rational is political and thus part of the controversy I cited in the nomination statement the fact remains that the video meets all applicable points for FP consideration, and Raeky has not cited anything that cam reasonably be addressed. I am willing to strike this comment when and if a actual point as defined by FPC criteria is brought up for opposition. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule that you have to cite something that can be addressed. Are you new to FPC? — raekyt 02:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's terrible. Someone shows the truth about what happens and you say "Kill them!" Want the sausage but don't want see how it's made? First of all, I disagree that this puts the people responsible in harm's way, no names were used in case the transmission got intercepted. Secondly, yes, it does say right under "How to comment:" If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. --I'ḏ♥One 05:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Raeky, the exact same thing that you are saying about this video could be said about this picture Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Einsatzgruppen. It to was stolen (i. e. the transmission of it from Ukraine to Berlin was intercepted), and the Polish partisans who took it would have been executed if found. Whether the helicopter crew or the German execution squad were/are heroes or not is simply a matter of POV. What would you say if someone opposed the other picture because it was stolen and cast the German army in a bad light? Murder is always murder, no matter the perpetrator. P. S. Burton (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goodwin law already? I'm not just referring to this image, I'm referring also to the tens of thousands of other classified documents he allegedly disclosed. The penalty for treason is death, always has been, we've invoked it many times. As for IdLoveOne, if you can't see how this video puts American lives in danger then your either being deliberately fallacious or just ignorant. Just because we've not put anyone to death for treason for decades doesn't mean we abandon that law. Also doesn't mean we give treasonous vermin a free pass to leak classified documents. Whats the difference here and say nuclear secrets to Iran? Same law applies. — raekyt 13:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Where is the EV here? This is clearly an agenda pushing work that violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Why do I say that? Several reasons. Firstly, the video is cut. When the full footage of a controversial event is available, the whole video should be shown. We should not allow for a source to cut down to certain parts that they feel are best suited to garnering more attention for themselves and furthering their motives. Secondly, I note that the camera men are conveniently labeled but the men who are carrying rifles at the 1:00 mark are not (I also notice that they take every opportunity to point out Saeed's and Narmir's body. One wonders about the relevancy of this, it simply demonizes the US military). Thirdly, just before the four minute mark we see handy close up shots of the casualties; these seem to have been edited in after the fact. Fourthly, the quotes that have been inserted give a faux pas at NPOV but simply slander those who said them; same thing with the parts about the children. I also take issue with the apparent PD status of this. While I have no law to cite it makes no sense to me that these can go from being illegally leaked to being PD. Additionally why Wikileak's logo remains on this video is beyond me. We don't let photographers do that. Cowtowner (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is very strong EV in the case of both articles linked above. If it wasn't for this video they wouldn't exist, nor would a whole series of events have happened that lead to an investigation, and a revelation of details, the creator of Wikileaks even appeared on the Colbert Report to discuss the video. Even if your principles lead to feel in opposition to the bad light this cast the military in (like it or not they have a history of heavy-handedness and all manners of inappropriate conduct we can't even begin to get into here), the positive for your side, I suppose, is that it lead to the discovery of one or more possible persons who might be leaking out even more stuff. --I'ḏ♥One 05:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you say would sound like wisdom and championing of the free press but for the fact I have used my head. It is true, without this leak those articles would not have existed. However, some revelation of details did not occur and is certainly not available from these videos. If this were truly featured material, in a quality article, it would deal with the issue at hand in an objective manner. To deal with it objectively the issue obviously needs to be dealt with on both sides. I wonder then, how this video does that? Was the helicopter crew conveniently told, as the video does for us, with subtitles and arrows who the camera men were? Did they have the benefit of slow motion replay with extra zoom and circles to show that there were children in an unmarked ambulance (which, for your information, is not protected in the Geneva Convention)? Did they experience all 39 minutes of the firefight or were they only paying attention for the 13 minutes which have been conveniently shown here? At certain intervals were they shown 'unbiased' and 'encyclopedic' quotes? The answer to all that is no. How then, can this video be considered NPOV and amongst our finest work? It quite simply cannot be. There is no EV in a propaganda piece which deals with an issue so lopsidedly. As for the Colbert Report, have you watched that interview? I'd direct you to one common sense quote "you have edited this tape and you have given it a title. Called Collateral Murder. That's not leaking, that's pure editorial." When asked about the title of the video Collateral Murder Assange answered that "Yes, absolutely" it was to get maximum political impact. How do you feel about this piece now? Consider, as Colbert says, the "emotional manipulation" of this. How can we have an objective article when we call our videos by such connotative words? Puh-lease. Give me a break. This is not encyclopedic. This is not valuable. As for casting the military in a bad light, that's not what we're here to do but you agree that that's what's happening. We've got a one sided video that fails to note the presence of AK-47 rifles, RPGs and the significance of unmarked cameramen and ambulances. If you want to dispute the actual content of the video and actions of the military take it to my talk page. Cowtowner (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find your reasoning, Cowtowner, to be very thoughtful and compelling. Greg L (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of the leaked material: ALL works created by the United States government are automatically released into the public domain, regardless of when they were created, how they were created, or the circumstances surrounding there creation. Even if the material is classfied, as this was, it comes from a video camera used by the United States Army, which automatically makes the material gathered by the camera released into the public domain. In this sense if in no other the material is legally eligible for a Featured Picture star. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. However, I think this is still bad policy. By even having this kind of video on the site it says, not tacitly but explicitly, that the curators of Wikipedia believe if you steal it, it's theirs. That is, for me, unacceptable. Cowtowner (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This gets into the distinction of copyright restrictions and other restrictions. Copyright-wise, this doesn't belong to anyone. We are allowed to do what we want with it. It does, of course, have some other, more grisly laws attached to it. J Milburn (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I grew bored of this argument and abandoned it days ago, but if Cowtowner considers this propaganda and thinks it bad policy to feature propaganda, why didn't you oppose this recently promoted picture? --I'ḏ♥One 16:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're twisting things. The difference between that image and this video is that the article treats this video as a factual, accurate and neutral record. Obviously, as I showed in my post above, it is not. Unless you can address all of the arguments laid out above as to why this kind of video is unencyclopedic (which you are yet to do) then it has no place amongst our best work, and arguably has no place here at all. Cowtowner (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I already explained why this should stay: Without the video the articles, which contain the views of both sides, wouldn't exist. If we lose the video we may as well delete the articles and pretend a whole ethical and international controversy didn't happen, which I'm sure is what POV supporters of classification at all costs would like. Not to seem anti-military but I do feel that some people here have exaggerated the 'unfairness toward the military,' downplayed the killings and their possible corruption (I wonder if we ever would've even found out about this in 50 years when it might have officially been de-classifed), but that's the thing about Wikipedia: You can notarize and source things so all perspectives can be accounted for. If you or someone else has truthful points and observations about this to contribute that aren't original research there's nothing stopping you from doing so on the articles or adding notes on the video or the video description itself. --I'ḏ♥One 08:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I almost wish the people killed actually were terrorists, the authorizer and the shooter would be heroes and I wonder if the opposed would still feel the same. --I'ḏ♥One 05:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presented in the biased manner it is now? Yes, I would. See my above post. (edited this one because my late-night reading comprehension is poor) Cowtowner (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
“I almost wish the people killed actually were terrorists”(?) The photographer was in the crowd for a reason. It’s not too hard to figure out what was going on here; the photographer was going where the action was. In this video, the *thoughtfully* unlabeled individuals with the RPG and the AK-47s (“oh, those silly things”) weren’t workers at the local baby-food factory. The photographer thought he was in the right place at the right time to capture shots like this. Though a perilous activity even under the best of circumstances (where all you have is combatants on both sides of the street armed with rockets, grenades, and rifles), it’s a winning strategy most of the time and brings home a few hundred dollars for bacon—at least until unseen individuals with a 30 mm cannon and low-res B&W gunsight video who don’t like insurgents and have an assignment to carry out arrive.
Oppose due to Wikileaks advert, subtitle typos, and POV issues. The 40 minute unedited footage (parts 1 and 2) would be a better candidate, but still not really Wikipedia FP material IMO. It might be better suited to Wikisource; for instance, they featured s:Transcript_of_the_'friendly_fire'_incident_video_(28_March_2003) in March 2009. --Avenue (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Avenue. This video is highly edited, POV, and advertisement for Wikileaks, right down to the very name. Honestly, this thing should be put up for deletion, not feature. Lastly, I'm pretty sure that classified material does not qualify for public domain, so I don't think it's free content; the folks who are better expert at copyright law should be debating this. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 18:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather a nice view of the somewhat romanticised view of Indians in the Old West. I particularly like the use of fading out for more distant groups, which is very advanced lithography, requiring many, many maskings of the various plates, since the number of masks used determines how many variations in lightness you can get. It is pulled off superbly.
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others (used to illustrate the section on the battle discussing its depiction in art, so I don't think it's really at its highest-EV in history)
Comment. The white balance seems to be a bit off from the key. Are you setting it based on the artwork or the color key? I think there's an argument for doing it off the artwork itself, but I usually try to use the key if present. Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I generally use the key to get the initial levels, then, if it appears justified, do small tweaks after cropping, to account for fading, yellowing, and any contrast or saturation issues. Adam Cuerden(talk) 21:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (first and third version). It looks better to me now. I do agree there are situations that call for tweaking the contrast though. Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support I agree with the white balance concern, but check out the Lithography article. The image's caption implies that this is how Charles artwork looks? Gut Monk (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. You may have a point. I've reverted to my first upload, which was based on the blocks alone. Adam Cuerden(talk) 01:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Have to support a Russell painting, it's decent quality. Also Adam you really should use the ((LOC-image)) template... LOC has a bad history of changing their url format quite often... — raekyt 11:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is they just changed it, and I don't think LOC-image supports the new format. Adam Cuerden(talk) 19:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's trivial to change the template's link, which automatically updates the link on thousands of images, if you don't use the link the next time they change the format, here in a few days if you go by their previous record, your link will be broken and no easy way to fix it... Thats why it's always best to use a source template if it exists, and create one if you do a lot of uploading from a specific source... My two cents on the matter. — raekyt 23:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is kind of boring, it just looks like a medium-quality scan. --I'ḏ♥One 17:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lithograph. Lithographs have a natural maximum resolution, as part of their nature. Adam Cuerden(talk) 21:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2010 at 20:04:08 (UTC)
Original - Clematis montana, also known as Anemone Clematis. The "Wilsonii" variety, which is white is shown here, some flowers are in full bloom and others are just budding. Clematis is a climbing vine and if you look closely you'll see two types of leaves, one of which belongs to an unidentified plant this specimen is growing over, into or competing with, likely an Ivy: One spear shaped and one a frayed disc shape.
Reason
Seems to meet all criteria, I think the size is decent (the quality is still pretty good at 150% in fact) and I find it beautiful.
Support as nominator --I'ḏ♥One 20:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably oppose I love flowers, I'm a guy and absolutely love flowers, but people, I think, like the money shot. Take a macro shot of the flower, rather than the plant's structure. Take it on a cloudy day and see where that gets you. Gut Monk (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Gut Monk. Anyone nearly anywhere can take this picture. That it turned out well is nice. But that’s not enough, IMO. Greg L (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I agree with the above. This really isn't screaming FP at me. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --I'ḏ♥One 17:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2010 at 20:06:25 (UTC)
Original - Future Hevea brasiliensis. In spite of its name the rubber tree is one of more than 12,000 plant species that yield latex containing rubber, but one of the few that is suitable for commercial use.
Reason
I find it to be eye-catching subject matter that meets technical criteria.
Any of you have a suggestion for how that can be done? --I'ḏ♥One 18:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Get a bunch of seeds, measure them, and use that info to add a scale marker in the image with a drawing program. Or, find a reliable source that gives the seed length. Be explicit in the image description what was done to determine the scale. Sasata (talk)
Conditional support Get a scale and you have my vote. Gut Monk (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support as with Gut Monk. I saw the hand and went "Ah, a giant!" Cowtowner (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LoL waiting on the photographer... --I'ḏ♥One 03:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Solved?. I measured some of the same seeds in the photo before adding the graphic scale. Thank you all for considering it and specially IdLoveOne for nominating the picture and notifying me the debate. ... And sorry for my bad English. Luis Fernández García
Thanks, and your English is pretty good. =) --I'ḏ♥One 16:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can get behind this. Nice work Luis, and nice find IdLoveOne. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Hevea_semillas2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2010 at 20:10:34 (UTC)
Original - The Transvaal War: General Sir George Colley at the Battle of Majuba Mountain Just Before He Was Killed, by Melton Prior. The Illustrated London News, one of the first newspapers to include images to illustrate its articles, sent both artists and writers out to wars to capture the scenes ongoing there. This scene, illustrating the war better known today as the Boer War, was published in its issue for May 14, 1881.
Reason
Good quality engraving, on-the-spot reporting (admittedly this one is, based on second-hand accounts: The bottom text reads "From notes supplied by officers present to our Special Artist"), and, in addition, we didn't have anything for the Boer War that I saw.
Support. Nice restoration, good EV. Kaldari (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree, nice restoration, good EV. By a coincident, I saw this illustration in a book just yesterday, weird to see it turn up here the day after. P. S. Burton (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I stopped, stared & clicked. The image was understandable as a thumb and the artwork in the zoom proved to be exceedingly well done. Nice nom. Greg L (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose Good EV, but I don't find the image eye-catching. I probably wouldn't read the article with this image. Gut Monk (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, this is nominated more for EV than art. Though by no means my favourite engraving from this newspaper (that would be File:Franco-Prussian_War_-_Students_Going_to_Man_the_Barricades_-_Illustrated_London_News_Oct_1_1870.jpg, for the record), as on-the-spot reporting of a notable event in the Boer War, I think it has loads of EV, which makes up for it being fairly average art (For this period, anyway: the Victorian period is noted for very high quality engravings). Adam Cuerden(talk) 00:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above supports. Sasata (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Melton Prior - Illustrated London News - The Transvaal War - General Sir George Colley at the Battle of Majuba Mountain Just Before He Was Killed.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeMild oppose This was taken with a scanner, you can tell, and it's not eye-catching. Sorry to be a bummer D: Gut Monk (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's from 1898. this is an incredibly high quality photochrom, but exactly how much detail do you expect in a 19th-century photograph? (also, what does "taken with a scanner" even mean?) Adam Cuerden(talk) 01:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very little. The scanner's resolution is set too high, and it gives people (like me) ample opportunity to nit pick it. Look, the edges are blurry, it will be artifacted when compressed. Get my drift? Gut Monk (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ie, the photo is taken from 1898; of course it is scanned from a book. Gut Monk (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's scanned from the original in the LoC's possession. Further, such high resolution scans make editing far easier. =) There's a strong taboo against downsampling here, (and Commons would just delete it anyway in favour of the full-sized), so... Adam Cuerden(talk) 01:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another advantage of this is that, well, there weren't really any round-ups on this scale very long after this. Barbed wire made them unnecessary, you could just keep the cattle where you wanted them year-round. If anything, this is surprisingly late, just letting it squeak in to higher-quality photographic equipment. Adam Cuerden(talk) 02:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks unreasonably scaled up. --I'ḏ♥One 23:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support For a photochrom, this look more like the real thing. Very eye-catching. Greg L (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV, high res, attractive. Sasata (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support No longer appears in Ranch or Muster (livestock), but has good EV in the remaining two (although Cimarron could use some accompanying text on the history of the place). Avenue (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and resolution. decent enc. SpencerT♦C 02:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Colorado._Round_up_on_the_Cimarron.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was removed from Muster (livestock), its highest-EV usage. It might need re-evaluation at some point to see if it's still used in article space and if it still meets our EV standard. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:58,, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Far too snapshotty. Overall composition is bad, theres enough room for a small billboard above his head, the lighting is harsh, his hand looks awkward, he's halfway through a word which makes his mouth look wierd. Just to name a few reasons.JFitch(talk) 09:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the distracting background. J Milburn (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. I can’t see how readers would be induced to click on a closeup of this image or want to click on the article based on the hard-to-find virtues of this photo. It looks like someone had the good fortune to select an aisle seat, creep out of it, capture the picture while crouching (as the audience puts up with the mild distraction because the photographer had a fine Canon EOS 40D), and then slinked back to their seat. While this nice, it isn’t special and interesting in any way, IMHO. Greg L (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry - it's a nice picture, but the background is mildly distracting and I'd like a rather higher quality for a featured picture. Regretfully, Esther Clementinatalk 03:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --I'ḏ♥One 13:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2010 at 13:37:07 (UTC)
Original - Ego Likeness are an American darkwave/industrial rock band. The picture shows Steven Archer (guitar, programming, vocals, music and spoken word) and Donna Lynch (vocals, piano, spoken word and music), the two founding members.
Reason
This is an exciting one for me- a high resolution publicity shot from a notable photographer of a band I love. Clear EV, and Kyle said he'd love for me to nominate it here. If you're interested to know what they sound like (and it may not be to everyone's taste) they have a a load of videos on YouTube. "Burn Witch Burn" is a personal favourite.
Comment I’m undecided here. I think this is very well done, interesting portrait. It is eye-catching. As portraiture goes, I think this is a paradigm for how to not look like your generic, ho-hum shot. However, I am always a tad reluctant to provide a spam resource for contemporary entertainers. How do others feel about using Wikipedia’s Main Page like Craig’s List? Greg L (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm alright with it, personally. DYK and TFA frequently cover this kind of subject, and so I don't think we should be restricting ourselves. If anything, this kind of shot could inject a little variety into POTD, which people have criticised as disproportionately representing certain subject areas (insects, for instance). If it makes you feel any better, they're a small band (pretty big in right circles, but they're pretty small circles) who allows the free download of their music from their website- hardly money-grabbing bastards :) The default reply on Talk:Main Page when people complain about the TFA is that we judge based on the quality of the article, rather than the subject. When we've got content this good, I don't think anyone could blame us for showing it off :) I also think it would be sad to turn against the contributors who want to provide this kind of image- it'd be the same as saying, for instance, that episodes of The Simpsons shouldn't be FAs, which would alienate some great editors. J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, subtract 1 point for commercialism and add 5 for artistic merit. EV is excellent here since I assume the alternative would be some random snap from a concert or at a public event; you can tell without reading the article that these guys aren't Christian rock.--RDBury (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support That they are a small band giving away music for free way-overcomes my concerns about using Wikipedia like Craig’s list. Like User:RDBury wrote: “subtract 1 point for commercialism and add 5 for artistic merit.” I agree 100% with both of you. Greg L (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This'll definitely get some clicks when it appears on the main page. Sasata (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Greg (and this speaks so risqué I love it). Gut Monk (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2010 at 17:48:43 (UTC)
Original - Explosive Ordnance Disposal 1st Class Christopher Courtney of Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit Six (EODMU-6) assists his team members during Special Purpose Insertion/Extraction training between a Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk helicopter and the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69). Special Purpose Insertion/Extraction involves either a person or goods being lowered or raised from a helicopter above terrain on which landing would be difficult.
Support Very eye-catching. Very interesting, privileged, and rare point of view. Greg L (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Very interesting and striking, but I can't really see the value of the image in the article on the ship. The training/the exercise is not even mentioned in the article. J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that’s a good point: insufficient EV. This picture adds boat-loads (no pun intended) of EV to Special Patrol Insertion/Extraction. It’s a small article and the addition of this picture might require a ((-)) tag to control the flow of page elements. I don’t think having two pictures in that article would detract; far from it. The picture that is there now would lead one to think that insertion and extraction is a low-level activity (30 meters or so off the deck at most). No matter how wide the lens was here, this is clearly up more than 30 meters. Greg L (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Loving the decals on the helmet too! Great picture tho, really like the parked planes - excellent example of valet parking! gazhiley.co.uk 12:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:CVN-69-SPIE-training.jpg --I'ḏ♥One 19:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I added a category, too. Gut Monk (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd definitely like to support this; it's a great resolution, the whole thing's there, the dimensions are right... I can't help worrying the green is a little too bright. Is this a reproduction of the original? The image page lacks a source, which is somewhat problematic. J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the uploader, but I believe this to be the source [2]. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. Stupid moment on my part. And if they say the colour is right, I believe them. I'd love to feature this- strong support unless someone can see any issues I can't. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support unless (and this is something I'd add for all paintings) it's shown that a significant fraction of this painting is lost to a crop. Adam Cuerden(talk) 04:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if someone could remove that ugly misshapen thing from the foreground I'd be willing to reconsider. What is that thing, anyway? :-) (That's a support, of course.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
God, you got me. I felt a sudden rush of "oh my god what the hell am I dealing with" :) J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about art itself, but 16th century England is something about which I do know a little. My personal favourite is his painting of Anne of Cleves. Many times I've looked at that and thought "I wonder what she really looked like?" J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Very cool painting; I wish I could see the real thing. Cowtowner (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The previous nom from 2008 was not for the same file. A new higher res file was uploaded in 2010. P. S. Burton (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very cool. Avenue (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Holbein-ambassadors.jpg --I'ḏ♥One 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2010 at 22:10:38 (UTC)
To consummate Hubble Telescope's 20th Birthday, NASA, along with ESA and M. Livio and the Hubble 20th Anniversary Team (STScI), featured a finding from the Carina Nebula.
Support as nominator --Gut Monk (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aww, this reminds me, doesn't this mean the Hubble's gonna be retired soon? --I'ḏ♥One 22:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda. They have something that is "4x as powerful" in 2015, I've heard. Gut Monk (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Remember when Hubble was launched, and became a byword for failure? God, that changed quickly once it was fixed =) Adam Cuerden(talk) 03:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't know. Fascinating, opinion changed that quickly? Gut Monk (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a nice image, but there's no source link, and the image description says nothing about what it's an image of. (Nor do the image captions.) I don't see why someone's name should be in the file name either. --Avenue (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of hidden. Under the 20th Birthday article, I put a link and another here here at 107. Gut Monk (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for the challenge ;) The caption is much more descriptive now. Gut Monk (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not descriptive enough for me, and I would like to see more of this information on the image description page. I'm also not convinced of the EV, either; the 20th anniversary is not that big a part of the Hubble telescope's story, and the image only appears in a gallery in the other article. --Avenue (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I think it's credited wrong and obviously missing the source link. I tagged it for missing source. By the description this seems to be one of the ESA/NASA images, like the other we recently discussed below. It needs tagged appropriately. — raekyt 11:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be obstinate in anyway, but I have no idea what you said. I'll rectify any error; give me links :) Gut Monk (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As in according to here, the credit line is "NASA, ESA, and M. Livio and the Hubble 20th Anniversary Team (STScI)" When you upload images like this you had to of gotten it from somewhere, so you must provide the link where you downloaded it. Also if the site has specific credit lines, like this picture does, you must use the attribution line they provide. — raekyt 00:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good point. I see the need for consistency. (Updated) Gut Monk (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The credit line now seems fine, but the source link only seems to give access to a cropped version of the image. Where can we find this version? --Avenue (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I like the image, but there are problems with the sourcing (see above), and I don't see much EV at present. It's only used in a gallery in Carina Nebula, and all that's said about it there and in the Hubble_Space_Telescope article is that it was released for the 20th anniversary. That's a pity; it seems like there's a lot that could be said about what it shows (e.g. the pillars and the Herbig–Haro objects). --Avenue (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Ikiwaner (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can see a lot of detail in that pig. --I'ḏ♥One 07:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality. I have never seen one this close --Muhammad(talk) 10:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not quite perfect (you could nitpick about the grass) but eyecatching, fairly well composed and of great quality. Solid EV. J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A nice shot. Good pose, detail, EV. --Avenue (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Avenue. Sasata (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2010 at 20:25:03 (UTC)
Original - The Arnolfini PortraitA version of higher resolution
Reason
Very famous painting. Much debated and discussed by art historians. See "Arnolfini Portrait." I believe this to be a good representation of the painting, despite it coming from the Yorck Project.
Support (high res) as nominator --P. S. Burton (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whitdraw - Was not aware of the previous nomination. Based on the many opposes to that nomination, I think its best to withdraw this one. Something that didn't pass 2008, should certainly not pass 2010. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Implore otherwise Keep this open. That was them, this is us. Gut Monk (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since we now have a high resolution file, I withdraw my withdrawal. P. S. Burton (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS, wanna un-strike your support vote? --I'ḏ♥One 17:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very mild support I am not taken by this image, but the article has a lot of discussion. I don't get this style of art? Gut Monk (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an incredibly famous painting... I don't really think we can be opposing based on the fact we don't like the art style. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen it. Fascinating. Gut Monk (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's something up with the dimensions. The image page and article say that this is around 82 by 60 cm, but, surely, that would be a landscape painting, not a portrait one? Or am I missing something? Is it different in art? Also, note that this has been nominated before, but it failed due to a low quality of reproduction. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The composition is correct by algebra, things are described in terms of rows by columns in algebra. Furthermore, anecdotally, you have people standing up; portrait is the meant composition. Gut Monk (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is art, don't assume anything... But yeah, this looks right and stuff, I was just a little confused. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the version at right which I recently uploaded. It is significantly better reproduction. Helms2 (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed, the details are far more visible. However, the colours are different, and it's not currently used in the article. Are they both from the original? Both seem to come from fairly reliable sources, but part of me wants to trust the National Gallery a lot more. Could the image's source be stated more explicitly? J Milburn (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The color accuracy of the Yorck images are usually less than stellar, particularly, they tend to have a red cast. Kaldari (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would also trust the National Gallery over the Yorck reproductions, which generally are not great. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support high res --I'ḏ♥One 22:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support high res Fine reproduction of important artwork. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2010 at 20:57:17 (UTC)
Original - A true-color satellite view of Hawaii shows that most of the vegetation on the islands grow on the north-east sides which face the wind. The silver glow around the calmer south-west of the islands is the result of the shelter provided from the islands.<ref>http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3510</ref>Edit 1 - Red line on Hawaii island cloned and healed out. --I'ḏ♥One 22:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reason
The image is a quality demonstration of the macro climate patterns of the archipelago. It adds to a readers understanding of the concepts described in its caption in a meaningful way. The technicals of the image are easily up to snuff by our standards (the horizontal lines in the water with slight colour shifts are, as I understand it, necessary to create these images from this kind of satellite).
Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's with the red stuff on the bottom island? J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources site says that "The small red dot on the Big Island’s southeastern side marks a hot spot on Kilauea Volcano’s southern flank. Kilauea has been erupting almost continuously since January 1983, and is one of the world’s best studied volcanoes." P. S. Burton (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I meant to mention that. Red spots on almost all NASA images are active volcanoes or ongoing fires as I understand it, nothing we can really do about it with compromising the image. Cowtowner (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not wild about it... J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "wild" about it either, but we have an image that has a multitude of the same artifact and is taken from the same satellite (or type, at least). Fact is NASA uses these images for a variety of purposes, 50 or so red pixels is the price we pay for that here. To me, it doesn't hold the image back from being amongst our finest. Cowtowner (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting lighting as viewed from space. Quite sharp; NASA must have used a pretty nice camera on their Terra MODIS satellite. Greg L (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, the NASA-added red outline really ruins it for me. The EV is also not sky-high, though I certainly would be supporting without the red. Is it worth contacting NASA? J Milburn (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose there's any harm in it; we may be lucky and it'll just be on a separate layer of some PSD file. I'm disappointed that the smaller number of red dots ruined it for you; but, to each his own. Cowtowner (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I wouldn't have nominated this if I'd noticed that little line either, but it's ok otherwise. --I'ḏ♥One 17:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Cowtowner nom'd this?! gazhiley.co.uk 21:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the "either", and I've seen a couple of other satellite images with a little line, that's what I meant. =) --I'ḏ♥One 03:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry, mis-read it... hehe Thanks... was all confuzzled! gazhiley.co.uk 21:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit, I removed the line best I could. --I'ḏ♥One 22:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support edit changed pref as edit now available and prefer that... Nice work IdLoveOne... gazhiley.co.uk 09:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting clarification of vote from J Milburn, regarding the red line. Jujutaculartalk 03:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, support edit. J Milburn (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Hawaje-NoRedLine.jpg --Jujutaculartalk 02:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I have to agree with Greg. A good picture to have, but not FP material. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The July 2005 picture is a better shot and that's not FP material either. I guess I have a hard time seeing how a snap taken from a crowd is going to meet FP requirements. I appreciate the effort it takes to get these photos, especially since in most cases there is no alternative. But to me the EV requirement says that for a public person the photo should tell me something about what the person is known for. For an actor it would probably be a shot in character in a role for which the subject is known.--RDBury (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we have guidelines that specifically discourage that- a picture of the actor as themselves is preferred. What they are as a character is certainly not necessarily who they are- it wouldn't be fair to feature a picture of Russell Crowe as Maximus, as Crowe isn't actually a Roman soldier. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an actor, though, showing him in a role tells us at least as much about him as a regular portrait does. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only if that actor has only ever played one role... If he has played more than one (as DS has) then one could easily mistake their appearance in a picture as their regular appearance... Therefore it is best to have a picture of how they look most of the time ie when not working... gazhiley.co.uk 14:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support If this is or is close to the same dimensions as the original. --I'ḏ♥One 17:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume by “dimensions” you mean the aspect ratio. A quick Google-Image search shows it is close, if not perfectly correct. I was more concerned about the darkness. But the same search reveals that too is close. Greg L (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I almost forgot that how big an image appears on someone's computer will be different computer-to-computer depending on things like DPI settings, for some reason a computer running Windows like mine will apparently display an image larger than one running Mac[3]. I was suspicious of this having a 1000px dimension. With paintings I think it's usually better to get them as [realistically perhaps] large and unbroken as we can. --I'ḏ♥One 20:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; This a big painting, I'd really want to see a larger file if we were to feature it. Also, I'd want to see a concrete explanation of just how PD this is- obviously, it is not PD in the source country, we know that, but it is claimed PD in the US as it was published prior to 1923 (for those who don't know, this means it falls into a rather odd category of being free enough for the English Wikipedia, but not free enough for Commons). Much as with this recent nom, that's not actually as simple as it may seem- "published" has a specific definition under US law, while questions about what was published and what is used here may (or may not- it seems Mike Godwin is yet to get back to us on that issue) be pertinent. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The full size version is 1000px wide which is enough to fill up my screen. If the intent were to have people be able to print off actual size versions to frame and hang in their living rooms then I could see the point of complaining about file size, but this is fine for what we need.--RDBury (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I really love the its big enough for me defense. Being able to study brush stroke and stucture of the painting adds tremendous value to a reproduction. This one does not have that. --Dschwen 16:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC) P.S.: the full size version is 813px wide. --Dschwen 20:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm shocked that a version of this already isn't an FP. It almost makes me want to, scream. Gut Monk (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment two lines above. --Dschwen 16:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've increased the image size to around 3000 x 3000. Higher is excessive and decreases its quality. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? That achieves nothing- there's no extra information, all you've done is stretched out the information that's already there. You've not improved the image in any way; I am reverting. J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to WP:BITE the newbies. --I'ḏ♥One 18:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to wag the policy finger three days later either. There was no biting, J just pointed out that upscaling is complete nonsense. Oh, right you suggested the same thing a while ago... ...well, don't take it personally. --Dschwen 19:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*rollseyes* No, firstly I was talking to J Milburn, not you. Secondly, again you fail to assume good faith, Sir Richardson simply misunderstood the meanings of J Milburn's and my comments. --I'ḏ♥One 20:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly J Milburn was talking to Sir Richardson, not you. So what?! That's how a public discussion works. Or do we now need special permission to address you? Secondly, again you fail not to wag your policy finger. Thirdly, I don't think even you understood your "comments". --Dschwen 14:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think even you understood your 'comments'?" How assumptive can you get telling me what I meant. I meant what I said: That my vote is for a full size digital version of the portrait, I never said stretch this version out and that that would somehow make it of equal quality to the real-life portrait, so you really need to stop with the trollish disruptions and putting words in my mouth, it got old a long time ago. Nextly, J Milburn's comment above was unnecessarily harsh, policy advises against that and it's a fair, reasonable rule, and as far as a "conversation" I'm allowed to disagree with his use of tone in that particular comment without having to ask your permission. --I'ḏ♥One 17:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is unnecessarily harsh (and unnecessary, too) is your chastising. So please accept that I won't make my contributions contingent on your approval. You are missing the point over and over again. I did not put anything in your mouth, but you posted a link to a confused and off-topic rant (no72dpi, just read Dots per inch, and maybe you will understand). I did not imply you need permission to comment, that was you. Ahrgh! --Dschwen 18:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I apologize and retract my own harshness, but no one likes to feel ganged up on. I only posted that link so it wouldn't look like I was making stuff up, not to pick on Macs. =) --I'ḏ♥One 18:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think I was overly harsh (I think that's something we have a right to be a little surprised about...) and Sir Richardson is no newbie. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh, now you are talking like a computer scientist—"no extra information." We also use phrases like "destruction of data." Gut Monk (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, I'm a long way from a computer scientist :) However, expanding an image doesn't solve the problem that it's too small, any more than applying butter very thinly stops the fact that there isn't enough to enjoy your toast. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you are telling me to apply the butter more thinly on my toast? Now you are talking like my wife! :-) --Dschwen 22:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some more possible versions[4][5] --I'ḏ♥One 18:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any way of knocking the contrast down a bit? it's too light for me - it's hard to see where the fruit ends in the half peeled part... gazhiley.co.uk 12:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The English-language Wikipedia is frequented by individuals who’ve seen bananas like this before. It is not Warhol-like. It is bananas. Not eye-catching. Greg L (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm… I don’t think I was part of any of those. I could support an unusual fruit, for instance, one that has long been popular in South America but isn’t generally known in the English-speaking world or tends to be a niche product. An encyclopedia is a place of learning; wasting POTD space for a peeled banana doesn’t seem best and ranks right up there with “Here’s a picture of a cloud that looks like a Valentines-day card.”; been there – done that. Greg L (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus Greg, we've discussed this already... THIS IS NOT A POTD VOTING PAGE! Please base your opinions on the standard of the picture, the quality of the photography, it's EV in the ARTICLES (again not just whether it is POTD suitable)... Let the guy that does the POTD pick whether it's good enough for POTD... You've been told many times now about this... Please learn from the helpful comments... gazhiley.co.uk 21:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feigning exasperation does not make your fallacious beliefs true. If you aren’t feigning for effect, then your rant just highlights your inability to understand the facts—not wise. Or is your display of exasperation intended to signal that you fancy yourself as a big fish in a little pond and can take the *slow ones* to task? Note also that SHOUTING does not instill the *faith* necessary to accept falsehoods as true; it just makes you look ill-tempered.
Earth calling gazhiley: Yes what we vote here all ends up as Featured Picture Of the Day on the Main Page. Other than the 16 images Howcheng has so-far pulled out as unsuitable, everything that achieves FP status here adds to queue, which is now numbering over 400. Here is a sample of the >400-entry queue. Count ‘em. Recognize some of them? How do you think Howcheng’s queue got so big? Haven’t you noticed a connection between “Featured Picture Candidates” and “Today’s Featured Picture”?
Quoting you: Let the guy that does the POTD pick whether it's good enough for POTD. Wouldn’t that be nice if he was so selective? But he isn’t; the 400-entry queue simply means it will take a l-o-n-g time for the picture to appear as a “Today’s Featured Picture”, but it will be there—over a year from now. Don’t believe me? Well, read Howcheng’s own words, where he explains that pictures that were awarded FP-status a long time ago have to work their way through the whole darn queue; he isn’t weeding out hardly anything at all—just topless chicks and other brain-damaged stuff we passed along. Reading that made me realize how we are depriving newcomers of the opportunity to quickly see their FP-awarded pictures on the Main Page. Unfortunate.
The other value-added Howcheng brings to the process is he (attempts to) spread the types of pictures around so our excessive bird pictures and whatnot don’t appear too often in a row. Howcheng certainly isn’t going to pull out this “banana” picture and add it as #17 of the ones unsuitable for ever appearing on “Today’s Featured Picture ”; he’ll just muse about how a half-dozen volunteer contributors who were active in late August of 2010 thought it a swell idea to show our visiting I.P. readership what a banana looks like.
There is no need to add a peeled banana to the queue. And try also to read my above vote comment. Notice the part where I wrote about how everyone has seen bananas and therefore I find that it is “Not eye-catching”? Therefore, it is not, IMO, worthy of FP status. It is not worthy of being on the Main Page; not when there are hundreds of thousands of other interesting subjects few of us are familiar with that we can be exposed to. As I also wrote above, just an unusual fruit hardly anyone has heard of before—and maybe also looks unusual—might work for me (if it is also a well done picture).
P.S. By the way, the next time you are tempted to conclude a post with You've been told many times now about this... Please learn from the helpful comments..., try getting your facts straight, it looks less foolish that way. And it takes up less of my time because it is easy and quick to write falsehoods like “The Apollo moon landings were faked.” It takes (*sigh*) patience and time to craft language that works like a foil to cut the logic-suspenders of such posts so the other guy’s trousers fall to his ankles and everyone can see his knobby knees of nattering nonsense. Greg L (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, don't take offense to this, but you seem to be in the wrong project. Your main concern has consistently been POTD, which is a separate project for FP. Maybe it would be worthwhile to ask Howcheng if he wants some help in selecting images for the front page and see if you can implement changes over on POTD rather than belligerently trying to enforce your own criteria here? You're more than welcome to vote here, but please focus on the image not on a large queue (a basis on which every image could be opposed). I think it would save everyone a little heartache and might actually improve Wikipedia. Cowtowner (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t take offense, but you seem not to have comprehended on single thing I wrote above. So I won’t bother anymore as your mind seems set in stone now. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Greg, there is no need to get hot and bothered about this. I am only suggesting a way that balances your interests with the purpose of the projects here. As it stands, while all FPs do make it to the main page the place to implement changes to reduce a queue is over at POTD. There is no reason why our best work ought not include bananas and ought only have dragon fruits. Whether or not they appear on the main page is not something we decide here. If you think newcomers are being deprived or the situation is unjust go through the paths of least resistance to change it. Vigilantism on FPC won't help your cause. As for minds being set in stone, having read your posts I think you had best linger on that statement for a moment. Cowtowner (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not “hot & bothered”, Cowtowner. Your suggestion that I am is a classic debate stunt that hopes to diminish the credibility of the other party by posturing yourself as riding in; all tall, dark & handsome; as a wise voice of reason. Fortunately, you undercut that objective by writing Vigilantism on FPC won't help your cause, which is patent nonsense and amounts to yet another attempt at posturing—an pallid attempt to paint yourself as a big fish in a small pond. Just pardon me all over the place, but I don’t think a picture of a peeled banana is eye-catching. I’ll thank you to not presume to dictate to me what I may think and how I may express that opinion here. You apparently think a picture of a peeled banana is eye-catching. I don’t. I voted and stated my reasoning that it didn’t meet that critical FP criteria. Greg L (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I resent that you think I am merely posturing here, I suppose there's nothing I can do to change your mind about that. I would like to clarify two things about what I have said: Firstly, I don't take issue with the fact that you don't consider a banana eye-catching, I take issue with the fact that your argument revolves around this image appearing on the main page through POTD (and to a lesser extent that it discriminates based on subject matter, which is not in the FP criteria). Secondly, my suggestion that you try to help Howcheng and change the system over at POTD instead of trying to do it at the grass-roots level here was made in earnest with good intentions. If there is a problem, then trying to fix it there would seem the most reasonable and simplest way to do so. Please, don't write it off as an effort to drive you out. That's not my intent. Cowtowner (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, you say "I could support an unusual fruit, for instance, one that has long been popular in South America but isn’t generally known in the English-speaking world or tends to be a niche product." Do you not realise the implication here? "I've seen it before, so it can't be good". What's commonplace to you may not be to me. What's commonplace to us may not be to someone else. Yes, the encyclopedia is written in English, but it's not written from a Western POV. That's no better than the kind of person who nominates articles for deletion saying "well, I've never heard of it". J Milburn (talk)
Quoting you: Do you not realise the implication here? Yeah, everyone knows what a bloody banana is. Before you wrap yourself any further in the flag-of-wholesome goodness (“Let’s celebrate diversity” and “We are the world” stuff), go find an English-speaking person who doesn’t know what a banana is. Let me know when you find one. Pardon me if I don’t hold my breath while you search under rocks for one of those.
And while you’re doing that, perhaps you can contact the people behind the rarefruit.com web site. Those idiots have such a non-politically correct, Western-centric view of the world and need to your enlightenment. They probably used a simple metric, like “Banana shipments: one trillion tons to English-speaking countries” vs. “Pitaya shipments: one hundred tons to English-speaking countries.” You can accuse them of using “hate‑statistics”. Tell them how that “can’t be good.” Greg L (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're not rarefruit.com, we're Wikipedia. It's not our job to cover "rare" fruit, it's our job to cover damn near everything. This is nothing to do with political correctness. An argument can also be made that this is something of which people are far more likely to be appreciative than a pitaya. You'll note I agree that this image shouldn't be featured, but I hate poor arguments whereever I see them... I'm sure there are plenty of people who are far more familiar with pitayas than bananas, and there will certainly be parts of the world (I'm not buying your "English speaking world" argument- again, we're in the English language, not from the "English point of view") where a banana is an unfamiliar sight. J Milburn (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
…it's our job to cover damn near everything.Say…now I know how your mind works. Thanks for your compelling “we are the world” argument. Greg L (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"We are the world"- what? It is our job to cover "damn near everything". You may want to familiarise yourself with the concept of an encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; I like these kind of shots, but this one's really not screaming "FP" at me. J Milburn (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For my benefit, would you please elaborate? Cowtowner (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overexposure, muted colours, poor composition. This is a very repeatable shot, I'd really want to see better to support it. J Milburn (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in a sense. I think that it's a little too contrasty, but the muted colours and lightness are really a consequence of the fact that bananas are white and yellow. Cowtowner (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a followup, looking at the image again, I think that I'll make my support a weak one. Cowtowner (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As for the Fruits section of Featured Pictures this will definitely fit in there nice and comfortably. This one isn't very artistic or pretty, but it is somewhat scientific. If a better one come along we can just replace with that one. --I'ḏ♥One 21:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Support per nom. The colours could be improved especially when this is something we can replace. It may be interesting, too, to have an image displaying many types of bananas like we have for carrots (if anyone is up for putting that together). Cowtowner (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's a nice shot and describes a banana well, but I agree with gazhiley that it's rather too light (especially the white part of the banana). Esther Clementinatalk 03:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak opppse Not really happy with the colours, and given sliced bananas are used in a lot of food, I think I'd like to see a transverse section as well. Playing with arrangement might be good too - it seems to ask for vertical stacking of the lengthwise cuts, even though that would normally be unusual. Adam Cuerden(talk) 07:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeper J Milburn. --Dschwen 14:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another stunning portrait of a band from Kyle Cassidy. Black Tape for a Blue Girl are a hugely important and well-known band in the right circles (and one I really need to rediscover). EV is obvious, quality is fantastic. There's also a .tiff version.
Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The EV of a posed publicity photo of a band seems a bit weak to me (I doubt that they they record and perform music while standing still with their hair and clothes neatly arranged) and while the photo is of good quality, it's not outstanding by any measure. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Popular music is all about image. What do you want, candid shots? Surely, a large part of making a good portrait is setting it up as intended? For what it's worth, though, search YouTube for some performances; they aren't the worst dressed of bands. J Milburn (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the photo to have strong EV it needs to show the band doing the thing for which got them into the encyclopedia - eg, recording or playing music. Standing in formation in a studio isn't their claim to fame. That's just my view though, so there's no reason to get defensive. Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to weigh in on that, without judgment towards the image yet. Standing around in formation is part of how bands build their fame and image. That's certainly encyclopedic. Look at a couple of famous acts: The Beatles had their hair, Lady Gaga has eccentric costumes. Cowtowner (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support'. Nick-D, "not outstanding by any measure", what on earth are you talking about, this is an exceptional piece of photography. I can't fathom how someone with even a scintilla of an artistic eye could not see that. As for the TIFF version, upload a PNG version to preserve the lossless. — raekyt 00:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So much for civility. I think that this is an average publicity shot - you don't, and that's OK with me. Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an eye-catching image. But I think we’re heading down spam-road with this one. Wikipedia is not Craigslist and this sort of thing seems to have pushed too far into violating WP:SOAP. I voted “support” on the below, Ego Likeness band nom because the image is quite unique rather than the trite, U2-esque mood I find this one to have. Also, the other band is giving their music away. Greg L (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If thats a concern you can support with a condition that it be restricted from POTD... remember FPC isn't strictly linked to POTD... we can say not to use an image on the front page but still recognize it as a featured picture. — raekyt 02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But with only 16 pictures in the “ain’t going to POTD”-file, I’m reticent to begin splitting hairs like this so we start adding to that short list on a regular basis. We are presently on that road with the WWII pictures of people being shot and rows of dead bodies, below. Also, I have concerns that introducing a vote variable like “give it it’s gold star but no POTD” will be a bit like having nominations with two or more edits tossed into the mix: it’s hard to discern a consensus. “Featured Picture” means we think it ought to be a “Featured Picture of the Day”. I suggest we just “do the right thing” here. Whatever that is, it will be by consensus. And with rare exception, like the topless model that Howcheng refuses to use, the consensus results here seem to be correct for the most part. I mean, just how hard can it be for a professional band to go pay $1200 for a professional photo shoot, make it available to Wikipedia, and see them advertised for a day? I think we need to shut the door on that sort of thing unless there are unusual circumstances.
The only thing that is unusual about this photo is it just barely meets our resolution requirements. I find that odd. If I were them, I’d make a bazillion-pixel picture available. That’s what some business consultant from Australia did. He’s one of those “Fall backwards into the arms of your coworkers – do you feel the magic?”-type inspirational guys and paid one of our admins to write an article about him. Of course, that got the admin’s tail features burned off and the consultant’s Wikipedia article AfD’d. But his picture!. It has so much resolution (here’s the image) I could literally count the whiskers on his upper lip. Greg L (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't provided by the band to advertise themselves, this was provided by the photographer in an attempt to improve our coverage on Wikipedia. I think your concerns about spam are a little misguided- this is no different than featuring a Wikipedian-made photograph of a person or a band. Again, this is hardly the most ridiculously commercial band... J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the spam concerns being misguided. WP isn't supposed to be for promotion, but if we had to avoid doing anything that might promote something as a side effect we'd never be able to do anything. Every time we use a book for a reference it has the possible side effect of promoting sales of that book, but that that doesn't mean we shouldn't use books as references. But I do have an issue with the EV in this case. Unlike the Ego Likeness nom, I can't tell that these guys aren't Christian rock without reading the article.--RDBury (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting you: but if we had to avoid doing anything that might promote something as a side effect we'd never be able to do anything. See “Banana”, below. J Milburn sure glommed onto a work-around for that concern. Greg L (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the “dark, gloomy, curiously-alienating, solemn” shot of a band is a trite, thoroughly copied, and overused stunt from the 80s. Yuck. Greg L (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
??? Not to hijack the thread, but I nominated the clematis because it's the lead image of the article and meets criteria, I believe we have featured images that appear on stubs and certainly have plant images. --I'ḏ♥One 17:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We would feature the article if it was high enough quality, we should be willing to feature a picture if it's high enough quality. Like I said, this image was not given to us by the band, so suggesting they have nefarious intentions is simply misguided. As for featuring this "just encourag[ing] more of this sort of thing"- I think that's a pretty solid argument in favour of promoting this. You don't want to encourage the release of high quality publicity photos? What on Earth do you want? That's what I spend a lot of my Wikimedia-hours dealing with, and is some of the work of which I am most proud... J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve seen that argument of “If a picture appears in an article then it is a valid candidate for FPC” before. I am wholly unpersuaded by that line of reasoning as it strikes me as an absolutism. Many absolutisms fail to properly deal with the shades of gray that comprise real life.
The “good for article means good for FPC” reasoning is easy to refute. Plenty of times before on these pages, I have pointed to articles containing images that simply have no business whatsoever on the Main Page as “Today’s Featured Picture” (where, with very rare exception, these all end up one day). I shouldn’t have to again provide links to demonstrate the clear-cut reality that FP-candiates are subject to different hurdles than when they are simply added to an article.
In this case, the distinction is over issue of WP:SOAP. If readers want to seek out the article on this band, it is great that—once there—they can see an image that adds EV to the subject by illustrating it. That is an entirely different thing from pasting their image onto the Main Page for a day.
Ideological certitude is one of the great weaknesses of mankind. It is the tool of bad leaders; its allure, the refuge of weak minds.
And many people have explained to you many times why your main page-based arguments hold no water. We judge images based on our criteria, not based on potential by-products of promotion. To give an example I have given before, we would laugh at anyone who opposed an image of a mushroom on the basis that they didn't want to see it on Portal:Fungi. J Milburn (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree (again) about this publicity shot. Bye. Greg L (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly becoming that you will sit there and present argument after argument, often with flowery language, and happily compare those who disagree with you to absolutists, then just say "well, I disagree" when someone presents a counter-argument. It's not even about this image any more. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you may be wrong, but you can still make me giggle :) J Milburn (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is nice that this publicity shot is freely licensed. But the resolution is way too low to consider it among Wikipedia's best images. --Dschwen 16:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's too dark. Gut Monk (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and have ‘em smile next time too. Greg L (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're complaining because a publicity photo of a darkwave band is dark and gloomy? J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No; not at all. I thought the irony to be self-evident but should have put a ;-) at the end of that to drive home the point. Sorry. I was pointing out that the publicity photo clearly came out exactly as it ought to have and that an objection about it being too dark is like complaining about a lack of color in an Ansel Adams landscape. It’s the same for the expressions on these band member faces; (Photographer: “Hey darkwave band members, let’s not have *frowny* faces… SMILE! Sing with me now: ♬♩ I’m a little teapot…♬♩”). I knew I shouldn’t have chimed in like that.
Even though that 80s U2-like style album artwork is trite today, I still do find it eye-catching. But I also think the bar for novelty and eye-catching has to be darn high for publicity shots of existing bands to steer clear of WP:SOAP. The one with the guy and the apple: now that is something quite different. This shot (“Well… we can also look brooding as if we are disaffected philosophers trapped in a world of absurd conformity and lack of introspection, *just* like U2”) doesn’t. Greg L (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that, to a certain extent. I assumed you were being sarcastic, but I wasn't quite sure... J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking to read this recently featured article, I was immediately struck by this portrait. It totally meets criteria as far as I can see. Any possibly shortcomings will be due to its age.
Support, it struck me when I saw it, too. A little cleanup could be beneficial, but I'm certainly happy to support without it. J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without cleanup. It's striking, but there are a lot of noticeable defects when viewed at screen size (and the white patch under his lower lip is visible even in the thumbnail). --Avenue (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would support if it was brighter. The histogram cuts off about two-thirds the way across and there is no reason in the world for that. But I do find that this portraiture is striking and eye-catching. And because it is from 1915, it ought to elicit a “stop, stare & click” reaction from a readership visiting a place of learning. Greg L (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is rocking the 'stache. Gut (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Yann (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very few people visit Adivasi villages, and it is difficult to take pictures of women, as they rarely appear in public. Yann (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has a National Geographic look to it. It ought to be an interesting subject for the middle of the bell curve of our I.P. readers visiting en.Wikipedia. I pulled this one out, edited it, and found that, for me, it looks much, much improved when brighter. But I support as-is too. Greg L (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think the DOF is too shallow in this? --I'ḏ♥One 17:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all three in sharp focus, I suppose the subject would be “three ladies waiting.” As is, it could be regarded as “a lady waiting.” The sharp focus on just her makes her the only central subject; the two behind her establish that she is part of a group without unduly distracting from her. It is, after all, her engaging expression that sets her far apart from the others. I don’t mind it this way. BTW, for those with Macs, a super-quick way to explore what this looks like brighter is to click the image, click the link to go to the actual image (you don’t have to zoom), drag it to the desktop, and double-click it. In Preview, select Tools>Adjust Color…>Exposure. Drag the exposure until the histogram looks like a straight slope pointing at the 255 origin. I think it looks much improved. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She has great teeth. Gut Monk (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a good, slightly nontraditional portrait (because there are other people in the background). Chick Bowen 02:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm probably missing something here, but... Isn't this just three women having a chat? J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, this picture was taken during a meeting about land rights organised by Ekta Parishad. Yann (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, that's irrelevant if it isn't a meaningful part of the article. As it stands, how do you see this image's EV? Cowtowner (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The land rights are the main grievance of the Adivasi people. They are denied the property of the land on which they live since ages, but some progress is being made due to Ekta Parishad activities. So this picture is also related to an event which has a major impact on their lives. Yann (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but it's still just showing three women sat around doing nothing, as far as I can see. This is coming across as more of a Commons FP than a WP one, for me. J Milburn (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but it isn't used in that kind of capacity within the article. Also, smiling doesn't typically convey grievances. I just don't see there being sufficient EV here, so I'm going to oppose for now. Cowtowner (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smiling doesn't typically convey grievances: this is really a meaningless comment. The speaker was making jokes about the government policies. And if I would submit a picture of angry people, I would be told that the mood of the picture is bad. Yann (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring the crux of the issue: nothing about the grievances, meeting or her jokes are involved in the article. Therefore, none of that is encyclopedic. Cowtowner (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just used to show what the Gondi people look like, it wouldn't really need to be more than that. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Greg. It does have a National Geographic feel. Gut Monk (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Greg and Makeemlighter. --Avenue (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - interesting and of very high quality. Cowtowner makes a good point, but I think her clothes and appearance has enough educational value for me to support this. Cordially, Clementinatalk 08:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry; it's a really nice image, I just don't really see the point. Would we have a featured picture of some women attending a parish council meeting in Scottish people? Of course not. J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Women in tribal village, Umaria district, India.jpg --I'ḏ♥One 14:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2010 at 21:41:37 (UTC)
At Gallaudet University in Washington DC, where SEIU local union leaders individually questioned Hillary and seven other Democratic presidential hopefuls.
Reason
Personally, I think it is a great picture. In the past, concerns of how "every politician has a picture like this" have been expressed, but this, I think, is a live action shot. Furthermore, she is important. Having pushed for health care reform, she also is a Secretary of State. Wikipedia currently has no featured pictures of her.
SEIU Walk a Day in My Shoes 2008, derivative work by Raeky
Support as nominator --Gut Monk (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Quality's good and it's interesting as a portrait (that may be a positive or a negative, I'm yet to decide, personally) but I'm not really seeing what it's adding to the article. It's just another picture of her. J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per J Milburn. Note also that while it might be thrilling to be a regular Joe Blow and to get this sort of close-up of her, the lighting and contrast and brightness (etc.) is substandard here as far as what it takes to qualify for FP status. Greg L (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's always good to link to the last failed nomination if a picture was nominated unsuccessfully before, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hillary Clinton II. The derivative work here is me removing the noise in the background of the image which was done due to the last nomination. — raekyt 05:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How did you know this was previously nominated? Is there a feature that let's you know something was previously nominated? Gut Monk (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would take some detective-work and you can certainly be forgiven for overlooking such a thing. You’d have to go to this image’s file page and then scroll down to see if your envisioned nomination is a derivative, which it is (of File:Sen. Hillary Clinton 2007.jpg). You click that earlier version and scroll down to see where it has/is being used. One of those is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hillary Clinton (where the nom for FP status got ignored to death). (*whew*)
Either you do that, or you have to have been one of the regular “innies” here to recognize that this image had been here well over a year ago. You apparently haven’t been handed your Ovaltine decoder ring yet to signal “inny” status. Go hide in shame, you detestable newbie. ;-) Raeky might have an even slicker way to figure this one out I’m not aware of; I haven’t earned my decoder ring yet so I’m still navel lint too. Looking for previous nominations is not documented in our FP directions. Now someone will jump my bones for not figuring out that this had been discussed on WP:Village Pump back in 1991 on ARPANET. Greg L (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering this is an image I worked on in the past to clear up the noise, I immediately recognized it, kinda have an advantage here for this specific picture. :P Plus this image is linked in the previous nomination, so in it's usage you see a second featured picture nom page. Easist way is to look at usage for the image on the image page there you can see the FPC pages it's linked on... Pretty much a dead giveaway if it's been nom'd before if it's linked into a FPC sub-page and not a featured picture. — raekyt 21:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
“BesuretodrinkyourOvaltine” Greg L (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, eureka! Thanks, Greg. (Noob) Gut Monk (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per J Milburn -- mcshadyplTC 01:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (original) or neutral, maybe I can be convinced for WS.. Oddly enough I saw this recently also and thought about nominating it, but decided not to because I thought the composition was odd. Any version smaller than the original looks kind of cartoonish and the background colors are strange how it goes, seemingly to my eye, unnaturally from dark blue to even darker blue without looking deeper down... --I'ḏ♥One 13:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wonderfully composed image, the dark blue most likely is entirely natural, probably extremely clear water combined with depth and/or reduced daylight. It's a striking image and I can't see how you see it composed wrong? — raekyt 13:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at how weird the preview is, it looks more like a color pencil or chalk drawing than a photograph, and unless this was taken in particularly deep water (though according to this these creatures live only 15 meters/50 feet down, whereas according to this and this the ocean is lit by the Sun up to almost 700 feet/214 meters), I can't see any reason why the background should be so much darker than the foreground, and it certainly doesn't explain why the light source, which seems to be coming from an angle to the right of the camera, wouldn't shine on the background; I'm wondering if this was majorly digitally altered. Even though I don't like this photo it is definitely educational and good in some ways, but I don't think it's feature-worthy. --I'ḏ♥One 18:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Light levels do vary through the day, if you never noticed. In extremely clear water the water color is very blue. 50 feet is pretty deep, deep enough to color everything blue. this image was taken 50 feet deep, as by it's caption. The link you gave about the depth these creatures live in has a black background picture, according to your logic thats not natural. The sun doesn't just go from off to on like a light switch. And it's pretty obvious that a strobe was used to make this photograph. I don't see where your talking about the light source being in the background. Do you have any expereince in diving and undersea photography? Do you have much experience in photography in general? — raekyt 18:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deep sea photography? Can't say I do, if I had the money and time to do it and buy/rent/research the equipment necessary I wouldn't be sitting at my computer arguing about a strangely-lit picture of a bunch of boneless creatures, but this isn't about me. I know the Sun doesn't switch off, it gets dimmer. This was only one meter, so does that mean ALL underwater photos should be allowed to be dark? These were as much as 8 meters, this is 50 feet, this from here says it's about 50 feet. It seems to me that your link, my first from this reply and the nominated pic all simply are poorly lit, which wouldn't be allowed for an above-ground photo, I'm gonna need stronger convincing that this really is up to par to vote for feature. --I'ḏ♥One 19:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you oppose flash photography and only support naturally light subjects? At 50 feet of water, or even in most cases much shallower depths, you HAVE to have a flash to accurately render color. As we discussed in other recent underwater noms that water filters out the reds very quickly and it doesn't take much depth in water until you only have blue light. Because of that colors can only be rendered accurately if you have underwater lighting. I don't quite understand your logic, either your willfully ignoring that fact, or don't understand that. — raekyt 01:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is well-lit, is it not? The lighting on the background, providing it is neither distracting nor misleading, shouldn't really be an issue, so far as I can see. J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Excellent on all fronts. — raekyt 13:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit too dark and too saturated (implausible saturation based on intuition and a totality of visual clues), but it is very eye-catching and interesting. Greg L (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I couldn't be the only one who thought so. --I'ḏ♥One 19:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This comment is not intended to influence the voting process for this (my) image but to provide more information regarding the use of light in underwater photography. It is true that the deeper you go, less sunlight makes it through the water column. Also, as depth increases, you lose more of the red end of the spectrum leaving only blues and greens at depth. Artificial light, through the use of strobes, will allow the full spectrum of light on the subject. As for the color of the background, this is not so much a function of depth as it is of shutter speed and aperture. With a fast shutter speed and a small aperture, you can have a black background and vibrant colors in the foreground at very shallow depth. This is a good technique for framing a subject using the black or dark blue “negative space” to highlight a subject. Another method of altering the background color is to vary the angle of the shot. If you put the subject between you and the surface, the blue background will be a lighter blue and some photographers choose to have the sun in the background in what is called a “sunball” shot. If you position yourself so the subject is between you and the depths, the resulting background will be dark to black. In this shot the colonial anemones where somewhere in between where the top of the background is lighter than the bottom. This gradient does not affect the subject as it is being lit relatively evenly by the strobes. I hope this helps in evaluating future underwater images. Keep an eye on the f-stop and shutter speeds in the photo’s exif information to confirm the above phenomena. Thanks. NickNhobgood (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the primer on underwater photography, Nhobgood. I voted “support” for this one. Note that my support reasoning cited my opinion that—subjectively—this image appears to have over-saturated colors. Is that the case here? Or does this type of sea anemone really have such a deeply saturated, brownish coloration? Greg L (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg L, the richness of the color of the anemone bases in this image is due to several factors. I do like to shoot using the "vivid" setting in the Olympus which does give richer colors but you will notice that in many macro underwater photography shots, marine life is naturally characterized by very rich colors especially when small apertures are used with additional lighting from the use of strobes. Finally, many anemones have bases with deep rich colors, especially reds and oranges, as is the case with this one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhobgood (talk • contribs) 04:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suspected a “vivid” setting; my brother does that on all his photos. Normally I vote “oppose” for that until the color is corrected. But this is such an eye-catching photo, I voted support. Given that his is, however, an *encyclopedia*, might you be inclined to provide an alternative version here with the color tweaked to match—as best as you can recall from personal, first-hand experience—what it looks like in reality? That would likely reverse the above two “oppose” votes and get this awarded FP status. Greg L (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg L, your suggestion is compelling and may take us into the metaphysical when trying to define "what it looks like in reality ? " This begs the question as to whether any flash photography should be used at all as we are adding artificial light to what normally would be another reality under sunlight. The difference is even more pronounced underwater where we are bringing light to things that have never been seen as "red" due to their position in the water column. I have uploaded an image from my dive course to better illustrate this issue.These two images are of the same soft coral. The top image is lit with ambient or natural light. The bottom image was taken with artificial light from the camera's flash. As sunlight penetrates the water column the red end of the spectrum (reds, oranges and yellows) are lost leaving only blues and greens. Therefore, the colors we see in underwater photography using artificial light are evident only at the precise time the strobes go off and/or when lit up with an underwater light. So, the only recollection I have of the subject under artificial light is the playback image on the back of the camera after taking the shot. I will go back to the original images and see what they looked like and try and "correct" the image for the additional saturation from the "vivid" setting but given the above challenges regarding the "reality" of color underwater, some subjectivity will be inevitable. Clear as mud ? Nhobgood (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a slightly less saturated version of the image (right). This compensates for some of the saturation from the "vivid" setting on the camera. It must also be noted that some of the white balance sliders on image processing software will saturate the dark blues. (The use of white balance adjustments also brings us back to the question of what is "natural" with the primarily blue-green tints at depth.) As for the gradient from light to dark, from top to bottom, you see in the background it is due to both the position the image was taken in the water column as described above, and after looking at the images taken that day, the darker part at the bottom is due to the reef in the lower background. One must also be aware that much of the variation in light in an image, especially in underwater photography is due to aperture and shutter speed and not depth. At the same depth, a background can be light blue with larger aperture/slower shutter speed or dark blue to black if taken with small aperture/very fast shutter speeds. This imagewas taken at a very shallow depth but with a very fast shutter speed of 1/1,000th of a second. The same phenomenon can be seen when taking pictures of a blue sky - light blue to white with open aperture and slow shutter and dark blue with smaller aperture and fast shutter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhobgood (talk • contribs) 18:02, 20 August 2010
This is evidenced by the deeper you go in the ocean the more the creatures are red. MANY of the creatures that inhabit the mesopelagic zone are red, but in their natural light, what very little that reaches those depths they're quite black. Since no red light reaches those depths evolutionary advantage between being black or red is minimal since the absence of red light makes red appear black. So it becomes a question of what is natural for these creatures? Since the mesopelagic depths is VERY low light, to photograph anything at those depths you have to use artificial light, which obviously isn't a light spectrum these creatures have ever experienced and isn't natural for them. But to show them in their natural light isn't good either since either they'd be all black, or have very few detail, and would make poor photographs. Even in shallower waters like the soft coral Nick linked too above, in it's natural light it's very monotone, the reds are blacks and the rest is blues. A diver will see it as the blue and black version and not see the hidden colors, the reds and such, the flash camera reveals that hidden world. I know from a scientific standpoint these deeper water creatures are show in artificial light for identification purposes, so from a educational and science stance, strobes are a must. As for the issue of using "vivid" setting on the camera, my experience with cameras is those settings generally don't punch the saturation to drastic levels, they obviously punch it up some, but usually not by a ton. Most professional photographers post-process their shots by sharping and punching up saturation anyway, so seeing shots in say National Geographic those have been tweaked too. Camera's generally don't capture colors accurately and digital sensors usually are less saturated then you want. I personally don't have a problem with the vivid setting on his pictures, I think they're quite excellent, definitely some of the best underwater photography we have on Wikipedia by far. — raekyt 19:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support None of the issues that have been raised above strike me as compelling and, though I have no experience in the field, they seem to have been explained away. Cowtowner (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually the creator confirmed everything I thought. --I'ḏ♥One 04:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And explained why it was not a bad thing... Yes, a flash was used. It doesn't take a fricking genius to work out why. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the relatively shallow depth this was taken at in comparison to the possible 7 diagonal miles of ocean there are, this was 1) Just taken at the wrong time of day or had the Sun obstructed by something 2) Digitally altered when photographed so that it's not realistic anymore 3) Poorly lit. It's cool that Nick went scuba diving and provided us with an image of this subject and I don't know what his schedule was when when he went diving or if the only one of these was maybe behind a big sea cliff, but this one I think blew or simply didn't have a lot of chances to be much higher quality and I'm afraid I just don't find it eye-catching or believable. I think this particular image is more for a slideshow reel to show family than it is of scientific value or spectacular undersea photo quality. Most of the photos on Nick's page are freaking amazing, this is not one of them. --I'ḏ♥One 14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh well… let my above “support” vote be considered to apply especially to the less-saturated one, which still looks stunning to me. I’ve only dived in muddy water where you could only see 10 to 20 feet. I can only imagine being in clear waters and being able to see something like this. Amazing. Greg L (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm with you, the less saturated one looks slightly more realistic. I don't believe that even at night water can ever look as perfectly evening sky blue as in the original unless maybe you're in a pool, a tank or a urinal with one of those tablets. --I'ḏ♥One 06:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear One, constructive criticism much appreciated. Please do not dismiss blue backgrounds in underwater photography as many photos will have such backgrounds. I offer a recent photo from an accomplished underwater photographer to provide another example here. If the diver had gone to macro and taken a photo of the lower part of the sea fan with a greater downward angle, the background would have shown as a dark evening sky or urinal tablet blue. ;-) It is good to be suspicious of modifications given the capabilities of software but do not underestimate the range and variety of colors nature has to offer underwater. Thanks. Nick Nhobgood (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That example is what I would expect from a diving photo (the fan looks a bit overly lit but it's nice), I know I'm looking through water and that the field of vision should be very shallow unless you look toward sunlight. In the original it looks like a open night sky in a city with a lot of light pollution obscuring the stars with no clouds and unlimited visibility - which is impossible underwater under any condition. I've never taken photos underwater, but I love the beach. =) Weak support edit. --I'ḏ♥One 05:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, prefer the original's colouring. Cowtowner (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With fewer clipped shadows and less blown saturation (when viewed as HSV), prefer alt. It looks like it was redone from RAW, which is how things should be. Good job. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makeemlighter, could you please close this? Been here a while. ::7.5::(hover) total supports, :2: opposes (both specifically at the original), 3 statements/votes out of the 7 votes for the edit including :1: half vote, :1: preference for the original. --I'ḏ♥One 04:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photographer, Nhobgood, who took this shot stated above (18:02, 20 August 2010 post) as follows: I have uploaded a slightly less saturated version of the image (right). This compensates for some of the saturation from the "vivid" setting on the camera. That upload is the un-captioned alt edit, above. Regardless of which image might strike each of us here as most stunning, an encyclopedia can not misrepresent the coloration of a sea anenome. Since the “vivid” setting on cameras produce colors that are richer and more saturated than actual, I think it is abundantly clear which of the two above images has the most EV. Clearly, the edit, with its more true-to-life color saturation, is still a very stunning image (take a look at its enlargement). Wikipedia is the beneficiary of a talented underwater photographer who donated it to the project; let’s ensure one of these gets promoted. Greg L (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not necessarily true. In my experience digital cameras often produce images that are blander than reality; a vivid setting can therefore also offer a more accurate rendering of the subject. Cowtowner (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As has been noted before, it is somewhat of a myth to assume that some colours are "real" while other, similar colours are not. It depends under what circumstances you observe the subject. J Milburn (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Struck my earlier “support” vote. Lack of EV as a result of inappropriately depicting the sea anenome with coloration not found in nature. What is “noted here”, J Milburn, is sometimes not true and often reflects the opinion of amateurs who are anxious to espouse on science but have no expertise or formal training in the subject of how the eye responds and adapts to images and how light transmits through water. This is one of the shortcomings of Wikipedia, where a 14-year-old kid can revert the writings of someone with a Ph.D. in the subject (which drives away many real experts on subjects). I’m a certified scuba diver and know how things look under water. Over-saturated colors is an ongoing problem here on FPC because of the ease with which volunteer contributors can set their cameras to “vivid” saturation and the ease of low-cost (or free) photo editing software. The first image, above, appears implausibly saturated. The edit is not much improved. A more important issue is this image of the same thing was taken by a commercial firm DeapSeaImages.com that has genuine expertise in this subject and makes a living at it. Researching existing images from the pros is a step I should have taken before voting the first time and mentioned this issue of wildly implausible saturation. This image fails due to lack of EV due to misrepresenting the coloration of the subject where there is authoritative, objective evidence to the contrary. Greg L (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg L - I appreciate your comment and would like to offer the following - these anemones interested me specifically for the variation in color that their bases showed as I had not seen any like that in over 600 dives off the Northern Coast of East Timor. Although not common, some of the other ones found were more like the one you mention in your comment above such asthis group, this group, this individual, this individual, and this group. All these images were taken using the same Olympus vivid setting. I was also surprised to see the all white version of this colonial anemone, further demonstrating the great variation. I believe that specimens of a rare color should not be dismissed because the majority of other examples are of another color. Finally, I cannot repeat enough that the same specimen can be taken using two different shutter speeds and apertures and yield very different results. The faster the shutter speed and smaller the aperture the richer the colors in the captured image. The difference is much more pronounced in underwater photography. Nhobgood (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This search on “Gorgonian wrapper” at DeapSeaImages.com, which is this, very specific species of sea anenome, demonstrates what they typically look like. The intense and clearly enhanced colors reflecting off the white tentacles here shows that this image has had its color punched up beyond all comprehension. Even if the true situation was that this image is a specimen of a rare color, as you say, the Nemanthus annamensis article (which is just a stub to make way for your picture) should state somewhere that the photo is of an example with “rare color” and is not typical nor representative of the species in general. That would clue other would-be contributors to offer up and replace the existing image with one that is more typical if the species because, as you wrote: because the majority of other examples are of another color.Greg L (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Greg L. I am sorry you see it that way and that with only one other example you find it easy to conclude that this image was altered in the manner you describe. The best thing about Wikipedia is that it is open and everyone is entitled to their opinion. All I was offering was the experience of hundreds of hours of underwater photography to explain that this is pretty close to what these anemones look like when taken under artificial light. It is for each individual to decide whether they think so or not. In the meantime, here is a picture of a similar colony taken in the Red Sea of similar color variation. I guess the coloration is not as rare as I first thought. Frankly, I am glad that reviewers on Wikipedia are so critical of the content. This can only assure higher quality images and articles for the Encyclopedia, just don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Thanks Nhobgood (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know why you would write only one other example; the provided link has four images—all taken by an professional outfit that sells marine imagery. Flickr pictures aren’t what one would call an auditable RS. Greg L (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's deeply unwise of Greg to suggest that individuals of one species are always coloured the same. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Get real. I suggested no such thing. Greg L (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Papa Lima Wiskey, yes there are many examples of color differentiation between individuals of the same species, like us for example, but in this case Greg L has reason to doubt the color. I must recommend that this FP entry be de-listed. Although I do not agree with the manner in which Greg L rather crassly states that the image must have been grossly altered, after more research, there is very good reason to believe that these are colonial anemones of a different genus -Amphianthus An example with similar color and form from the Philippines can be seen here. I also found a similar one in an Indonesian field manual. I apologize for erroneously identifying the animals. I will change the information on both images above and make a genus page for this image in order to correctly represent it on Wikipedia.Nhobgood (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I think, with that, this nom has been confusing enough. With such a drastic change at this stage in the game, we would have to discuss the entire issue anew. I feel this should be closed as not promoted- if I can do this, I would like to withdraw my nomination. J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really the kind of image I normally nominate, but a compelling historical photograph. Considering it was taken in 1910, the quality's good. Nice reproduction with careful restoration work. Clear EV. Was nominateda few months ago over a year ago with three supports and an oppose, but I thought it deserved another go.
Support Meets the criteria and stacks up nicely with images like the portrait of Ed Walsh we have featured. Cowtowner (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very rare, very interesting. Eye-catching. What appears to be depth-of-field issues is failure to hold his right arm and sword still for what was no-doubt a very long exposure; Fujifilm wouldn’t be around with the fast stuff until 1934. Greg L (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality is good for a photo taken in ~1860, but the EV is undeniable. Very fascinating photo -- mcshadyplTC 01:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2010 at 20:22:31 (UTC)
Original - Casting of about 40% of a skeleton of an Australopithecus afarensis, believed to be an ancestor of humanity from over 3 million years ago. On display at Museum national d'histoire naturelle, Paris, France.
Reason
I was surprised this was never nominated. I think the quality, EV and notability is all pretty high.
Support as nominator --I'ḏ♥One 20:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's going on witht he source of this image? We're gonna need to see some clarification there... J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, see caption addition? --I'ḏ♥One 21:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I mean is, did he take pictures of the bones individually? Are they just on display like this? Did he work another picture with photoshop? J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the photos of the bones were digitally arraigned against a black background, I think that because the description mentions photoshop, but I'll ask the creator. --I'ḏ♥One 15:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea and the subject matter but the resolution is just too low. Not enough pixels are devoted to the bones and I'm left wanting to see more but being unable to get it. Cowtowner (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --I'ḏ♥One 20:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very nice. I think Kbh3rd also deserves credit as the original uploader. --Avenue (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean Pixeltoo? That's who is said originally uploaded the smaller version of this file. --I'ḏ♥One 16:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Pixeltoo just transferred it from Wikipedia to Commons. The smaller version was originally uploaded back in 2004 by Kbh3rd. --Avenue (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's going on with that severe blockiness in the top left? J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon if I'm way off, but do you mean the farms? :P --Golbez (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks like a common aerial view of a plat in southwestern Russia. --I'ḏ♥One 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The caption says it's eutrophication. I don't know whether it's a temporary phenomenon or not, maybe it's absent now. Twilightchillt 17:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not that, he was talking about the top left, you're looking at the top right, and I don't think the bloom is too much a problem, we have FPs that have that already. --I'ḏ♥One 17:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What are the small areas outlined in red in the lower left quadrant of the image? --KFP (contact | edits) 00:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, reference points for the satellite maybe? See the edit, I think I edited them all out. --I'ḏ♥One 03:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are fires. As far as I'm aware, all satellite images highlight fires in that way: see this image of Borneo. 79.67.141.104 (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Caspian Sea must feel so unloved. ='( --I'ḏ♥One 23:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2010 at 01:04:13 (UTC)
Reason
Good quality, high resolution panorama of the skyline of Manila. A previous nomination of a similar image failed because of inconsistent contrast, poor stitching, and small file size. This image is much larger and doesn't have those problems.
Support as nominator --TheCoffee (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose It's almost there, but there's a little bit of tilt in my opinion... The buildings are leaning slightly, and the water height at the right side of the pic is lower than the left... needs slight anti-clockwise rotation if that's poss... But other than that it's very nice... gazhiley.co.uk 08:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (You have a great camera, btw) It look's like an industrial park to me. Also, personally speaking, panoramas have a built-in deficiency; no computer screen has a resolution THAT WIDE by this *tiny* tall. Keep nominating, something will stick. Gut Monk (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It look's like an industrial park to me" - That's sorta what Manila looks like, at least in that part. SpencerT♦C 02:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as is. I'm sorry but this is not one of the best panoramas, there's a lot of image noise in it, compare with a similar image, water, building etc. --I'ḏ♥One 13:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are better images in the Bengal tiger article, such as Panthera_tigris7. This one has poor lighting (entirely in the shade), a road in the background, and relatively in-focus background objects sprouting from the tiger’s back. Greg L (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Greg, basically. In particular, we have images of higher resolution even among the full-body shots. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per above. Sorry, not buying this at all. J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OMG no argument that the photo comparisons "are different things! used for different things!"? --I'ḏ♥One 13:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --I'ḏ♥One 20:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Gut Monk (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality, striking, and has enough educational value. Clementinatalk 06:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Right now, we really can't start to make a judgement about it, because we have an unreferenced, one-line stub with incorrect formatting that is uncategorised- you'll note that the genus article redirects to an article on a cacti genus with a different name. If the redirect is correct, this article is wrong. Either way, this really needs cleaning up... J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article to the correct title and added a reference. I'll see what I can do about expanding it (certainly something, though maybe not loads) this evening. J Milburn (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the genus article a whole bunch of genuses (geni?) have been grouped under the one you redirected them to more recently, Notocactus in particular and apparently there's some controversy over the decision. A successful search engine image search[6] for Notocactus minimus shows that N. minimus is apparently still in use, even by the photographer who labelled it N. minimus in the image description in 2008 (which BTW was what I went on when I began that stub). Could you add some links about the reclassification, and did they really change the species name? --I'ḏ♥One 16:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Genera. If the genus was synonomised with another, then yes, the species name would be changed; that's how taxonomy works. I've expanded the article. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, and I read taxonomic articles all the time, back to Latin 101. Great job, no comparison at all to when the article was only a stub. --I'ḏ♥One 17:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed everything I think. --I'ḏ♥One 19:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support; not to get existential, but I wrote an article, so I must like it. I will also note that this looks much better close-up. J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely Image. JFitch(talk) 11:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Notocactus_minimus.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2010 at 00:03:28 (UTC)
Original - The original plat that led to Chicago becoming a municipality and eventually a city.
Reason
The filing of this 1830 map of Chicago is said to mark the beginning of the municipality of Chicago, which would incorporate as a city later that decade. To this day the original 58 blocks of this city are regarded as such, with the most famous being Block 37. Wolf Point, Chicago is block 14. This recently passed at VPC and I thought I would get a consideration here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though it might benefit from a little light sharpening. As I'm leaving for a week, presume I support any version. Adam Cuerden(talk) 00:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about the source and description. No doubt this is a map of Chicago as it was in 1830; however, I find it odd that a Chicago Historical Society would contemporaneously create a map stating that it was of "Chicago in 1830". Usually a contemporary map is simply "Chicago", and not distributed by an historical society. The map likely dates from later than 1830 or, if not the map itself, then the framing stating it's from the Historical Society. (Though then it should have been labelled "1830 map of Chicago", rather than "map of Chicago in 1830".) --Golbez (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine the text at the bottom has been added. User:JeremyA uploaded this and has knowledge of alternate versions. I'll call his attention to this concern.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a plat rather than a historical map—It is an 1830 survey of how Chicago was planned to look when laid out rather than how Chicago was in 1830. This historical value of the plat is that before it Chicago was just a few scattered huts; the plat laid out the grid system of what is now downtown Chicago, and so could be considered the founding document of the city. I am not sure if the original of this plat still exists. The Chicago Historical Society holds a certified copy from 1837.[7] The reproduction that we have here comes from A.T. Andreas' 1884 book History of Chicago (volume 1, p. 112),[8] the text at the bottom states "from a plat in possession of Chicago Historical Society", so I think Andreas used the 1837 copy as his source. It looks like there is a reproduction of the original in M.M. Quife (1923) Chicago's Highways[9] (p. 18).—Jeremy (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone (I certainly wasn't) was challenging the veracity and historicity; I was simply challenging the description saying it was from 1830, which seemed unlikely based on my evidence. --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image barely meets the resolution requirement and is fuzzy even at the current resolution. I also don’t see the point of having a Chicago-of-the-week Featured Picture; with 6,821,420 articles, we can find subjects that aren’t “Chicago today”, “Chicago then”, “Chicago alderwoman”, and “Chicago brick building”. Greg L (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd ended your oppose after the first sentence, your opposition would have been well-reasoned and valid, instead of sounding kind of douchy. --Golbez (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your opinion, as douchy as it sounds. And that’s Mr. Douche bag to you. ;-) Every single one of the above examples of Chicago-related content is a real nom in just the last month or so from TonyTheTiger. If you think I’m the only one around around here who thinks FP has had more than its share of all-things-Chicago, there’s some news waiting for you. Enough already with Chicago; over-representation of that theme undermines one of the requisite requirements of FPs: that they be eye-catching, which can be undermined through tedium. Greg L (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anything is getting tedious, it is your off-point instigatory statements that have little to do with image quality.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense; if we had 10 FPCs of buildings around the world, how would that be less tedious than 10 FPCs of buildings in Chicago? --Golbez (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is not trying to make sense. He is trying to insult me or pick a fight or something. It has been going on for a couple of weeks now, where whenever I nominate something he makes a non-sensical objection about Chicago this and Chicago that.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and I'm not sure that's a valid reason to vote against an FPC. --Golbez (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(*sigh*) Tony. Quoting you: He is not trying to make sense. He is trying to insult me or pick a fight or something. Is there any possible way I could have made myself any more clear? I’m not trying to insult you or pick a fight.
I’ve been telling you that your nominations of all-things-Chicago are tedious and the subject “Chicago” has been awarded FP status more than enough now. I have invited you on many previous occasions to find a Chicago-related image that is stunningly eye-catching or to just start nominating non-Chicago-related subjects. But instead all we see out of you is “Chicago (building in)” “Chicago (alderwoman of)”, “Chicago (amphitheater in)”, “Chicago (actor who lived there)”, and “Chicago (park in)”. Many of your nominations have been really unremarkable as far as picture quality goes (thoroughly blah, overcast day, for instance) and we would look at some of these images and wonder “WTF, what’s the virtue of this nom?”, only to see it is a nom from you (“Oh… *Chicago*”).
And remember, I enthusiastically supported your nom of Wolf Point; IMO, there’s room for even more Chicago-related stuff so long as it is genuinely eye-catching. Alas, I was in the extreme minority in supporting that Wolf Point nom.
We simply don’t have enough participants to FPC and this can result in a thorough lack of diversity in subject matter if the “regulars” here don’t do a better job. For a while there, we were having far too many photos of birds. If you are going to be one of the few regular contributors to FPC, try being a better steward of the privilege and make nominations that highlights the diversity of subject matter the world has to offer that we can expose to our visiting I.P. readership.
Boring readers to tears with all-things-Chicago speaks straight to the heart of whether any particular Today’s featured picture—where all but 16 FP-awarded pictures so far are heading—is eye-catching or not. Greg L (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you tell the mushroom guys that they have already given us a broad spectrum of nominations and that it is getting tedious. Instead of evaluating whether each nomination is from Chicago, just say whether it is eye-catching. There will be another Chicago one soon, since the suspended nom below is ready to go. Evaluate that and others that follow based on whether they are eye-catching and not whether they are from Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the “mushroom guys”, indeed, that is a good point. As for “eye-catching”, tedium is an element of that; that’s my point. It’s the same with birds and mushrooms; these things seem to come in waves. Greg L (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are estimated to be 1.5 million species of fungi (and that doesn't include subspecies or the fact that species can look very different at different times in their lives) and we have 32 featured pictures. There are 10,000 extant species of bird, and we have around 175 featured pictures- sometimes several pictures per species. If you're going to pick a fight with the "mushroom people", please get it into perspective. I would also like to add that, despite being a "mushroom person", I have nominated all sorts of things here. J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no fight to pick with the mushroom people. I get some of my best joke material from the constant flow of mushroom articles. Furthermore, I wholeheartedly support any and all sorts of contributors who focus on specific topics regardless of whether they are species, politicians, Simpsons (either O.J. or Homer), regions of the world, types of wines, automobiles or what have you. We are all underpaid here and should at least be enjoying what we do. We should not have to work on a liberal arts spectrum of diverse topics just to make people happy. However, I don't think I should be the only person who gets picked on for focusing on a topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak (maybe full) support I know this is important, but it's really plain. Frankly I think the only people who'd look at a thumbnail of this and think "ooh! lemme get another look at that!" are other Chicago enthusiasts like you, Tony. --I'ḏ♥One 18:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Idloveone Spongie555 (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional supportSupport edit Chop off the left-side empty space. Beyond that, this has a very complex depth of field (blurry spots in both the back and foreground.) On the other hand, I could identify another bug with this image, so it has EV. Gut Monk (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does the edit suit you? --Muhammad(talk) 09:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support edit. Decent picture with good EV, but not your best. The crop helps. J Milburn (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support edit Because I've seen far greater quality work from you before so I know you can do better. --I'ḏ♥One 17:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I appreciate your confidence. The problem is since the day I took this picture, almost a year ago, I have never got the opportunity to shoot this wasp again. --Muhammad(talk) 18:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad (or good? Since you can't get stung then? lol) --I'ḏ♥One 22:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2010 at 22:05:53 (UTC)
Original - Footage of the Germany Zeppelin Hindenburg, covering the arrival of the zeppelin and its subsequent fall from grace.
Reason
This is footage from one of the four known cameras present at the time that the German Zeppelin Hindenburg exploded and crashed. It shows the famous fire and the collapse of zeppelin as ground crews scramble to put out the flames and rescue the survivors. The footage, as well as the commentary, have become culture icons - in particular, the phrase "Oh the Humanity" is associated with this disaster. For these reasons I feel the footage should be featured here on wikipedia, and as such submit this nomination for community consideration.
Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 22:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support Forgive my ignorance in voting on multi-media content, but is a higher resolution of this candidate available? Gut Monk (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Hindenburg disaster has to be one of the most ubiquitous disaster sequences ever filmed. By the age of 10, the bulk of our readership has seen this ten times. It therefore, IMO, is insufficiently eye-catching. Greg L (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is contemporary coverage but not the famous narration that the nom is referring to. Is the famous version in public domain? The event is recent enough that it might not be. Leaving the picture quality aside, the music and the narration style is very dated. One the whole it does not leave me with that FP feeling.--RDBury (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the articles on the event, the the famous narrative and the film footage are independent of one another, not a single unit. Morrison, the man whose broadcast is most associated as the voice behind the event, was a radio announcer, not a newsreel person. The footage of the crash and burn was filmed from four different cameras, Morrison's account was later added to the film to make them appear as one and the same. As a result, the two properly speaking do not belong together; however I concede a point that the film reel you are referring to is more universally known. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure which other version was mentioned, I'm sure I've seen this one. I'm willing to support this and if a better version comes along support a D&R. It's supposed to be dated, that helps us know that's it's PD (though, not to start another licensing fight this is dated 1937, so..) and it makes it classic and historical. It's also not just enough that it be a person's view of eye-catching, EV is also important and this has got it. --I'ḏ♥One 13:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, this almost certainly won't be cc-by-sa-3.0 (and that's not what the source says anyway...). Someone really needs to fix that... J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a case of the copyright not being renewed, as in ((PD-US-not-renewed)), which was also used, for instance here (also from Archive.org). --I'ḏ♥One 10:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In 1976, the films' owner, MCA, made the unusual decision to turn over ownership of all of the newsreels to the National Archives. The decision effectively ended Universal's copyright claim, releasing the films into the public domain. Because royalties no longer have to be paid in order to broadcast them, Universal Newsreels have become a popular source of file footage in recent years. The History Channel made them a key part of the TV series Year-By-Year. Also, C-SPAN and CNN regularly use the films for video of events that took place before those networks were founded.
Among dozens of existing portraits of armored men I think this one is of particular interest not only because of full stand, but of historical value. Maurice received this gilt suit of armor from the Dutch States General after the victory in the Battle of Nieuwpoort. The resolution allows to inspect plates, helmet, gauntlets, shield, etc. The collar shows the insignia of the Order of the Garter, given by the English king in 1613. Plus iconic Dutch orange colors.
The people category would be far more appropriate- this is being used to illustrate the person, not the artwork. (No opinion on the picture itself at this time.) J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit Category people. - P. S. Burton (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support preferably the original, it's brighter and the golds seem more reddish in the edit. It's a painting, I'd put it in paintings. --I'ḏ♥One 17:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the encyclopedic interest in this image? It's the person, not the fact it's happens to be a painting. Every photograph we promote shows off certain photographic techniques or equipment, but we only categorise them as such when they're being used in the encyclopedia for that purpose. Same with taxonomic drawings, or historical sketches- they don't get slammed into drawings (or shouldn't). J Milburn (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could see it that way and I agree about drawings meant for scientific bases, in this case my thinking is that this wasn't just made to document the guy. Like the other additions we have to paintings, this was made to show off the skills of the painter as well, the pose and his outfit clearly show that the arraignger had faith in Mierevelt's abilities. Plus we have a bunch of paintings in there that document a person or event just as we would with a photograph in this day and age, but as it's not up to me there's no point in me debating. --21:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It's no one person's decision, hence the discussion. And, erm, where I have I asserted anything other than the obvious? Are you going to deny that we judge candidates here based on how they are used on the encyclopedia? J Milburn (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also argue for my categorization above (preferably military), simply because there were no cameras at that time, while the person is notable. Twilightchillt 21:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Michiel Jansz van Mierevelt - Maurits prins van Oranje-edit 1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Diego Grez (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The image quality isn't that great, and I find it hard to tell exactly what the earthquake/tsunami has actually done. It looks just like a normal unattractive littered beach to me. :) I know it's too much to ask for after the event, but I think to have really good EV, a before and after comparison would be necessary. Even an after and now photo would probably suffice, just to show what it normally looks like. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 08:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, what Diliff says is correct. Glancing at the image, it didn't occur to me tht this was the aftermath of a tsunami; it wasn't until I saw the title that I realised. J Milburn (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What am I missing here? As a source a link to a flickr image is given. That image is neither free nor available in the uplaoded resolution. Resolution is weak for a panoramic image and the image quality kills it completely. Unsharp and posterized all over the place. --Dschwen 12:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think what we're seeing here is a beach that probably would've looked nicer if the sand was dry and the sky was sunny, I think it just looks ugly because the sand is damp. It's pretty easy to see that something had to move those boats right next to the road and smash them up and cause such obvious, rapid erosion. What really surprises me is that the lampposts didn't get washed away. Those issues aside this isn't very sharp and it's got chromatic abberation. The photographer has nominated it, so he must mean for it to be free. --I'ḏ♥One 13:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pictures like this illustrates tsunami destruction better. 2004 tsunami in Indonesia P. S. Burton (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the occassion to take the panorama was not perfect (there was a strong aftershock of the earthquake precisely in these moments), and my real camera was damaged by the earthquake (I took the panorama with my cellphone's camera). You can see other of my pictures of the damage in the same Flickr album, or in commons:Category:Images by Diego Grez, which contains them all. Cheers and thanks for the comments, Diego Grez (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case this is much better than I would expect from a cell camera. --I'ḏ♥One 15:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is the devastation a Tsunami can wrought? Eerily, impressive. Gut (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Burton. Gut (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - considering this was taken from a cell phone, it's certainly quite impressive. :) But I'd like a rather higher quality picture that illustrates the devastation of a tsunami more strikingly, sorry. Kindly, Clementinatalk 08:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm glad this has a scale, I was thinking this was one of those giant conchs you listen to the sea in. =) --I'ḏ♥One 13:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Gut (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Scale description should be in caption, not on image. Is isn't readable at thumbnail size. Also, putting it in the caption is the modern convention for most scientific publications. (And it allows for better localization.) Kaldari (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of featured pictures with scales. If you feel there is an issue with that, fair enough, but opposing individual FPCs is not the way to go about it. J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Gyrobo (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; those simply aren't the right colours. Yeah, it makes it an interesting shot, but it's really not suitable for an encyclopedia. I've also fixed the author information. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with J on this one. Pretty picture, but it breaks number 8. Gut (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry: it's striking, but the very brightness of the colors are rather too unnatural. Clementinatalk 08:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not convinced that the colors are the result of digital manipulation. Tho only thing that looks off-color is the river itself, and it seems possible that color seen in the river is the reflection of the sky where the part being reflected is blue. It looks odd because the only part of the sky seen directly is white so when you look at it you might think the entire sky is overcast, but it reality it may only be the bit seen in the picture. If you look carefully you can see that the parts of the river near the horizon are a lighter color than the rest, which would make sense since those parts would be reflecting the clouds above the horizon. Another thing to notice is that there are a couple of spots where the river appears to be flowing faster, and so would presumably not be perfectly horizontal, and the river appears to be reflecting a different color from adjacent parts that are level. The picture does look odd though and perhaps a shot taken on a different day would have been better. The Flickr account this was taken from is no longer active so it's basically without provenance; perhaps that alone is reason to disqualify it--RDBury (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This photo is also available in an online album, apparently by the original author. Is a Sony DSC-N2 capable of taking this kind of photo without digital manipulation? --Gyrobo (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that. There is another picture of the same river in the collection where it appears more river-colored. It would seem rather odd to me for someone to post a couple hundred photos to the web and change the colors on just one of them for no apparent reason.--RDBury (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt this was adjusted after it was taken, I just suspect it was taken with some crazy settings. My photos sometimes come out a little crazily because I've used the wrong setting. The effect can be nice (as it could be said to be here) but it's not very encyclopedic. J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this looks off, my first thought was about the unnatural blue colour as well. And the other image of the river suggests work on the picture. Hekerui (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Affable advice Convince us that water is that blue. Because the photo looks that saturated, apocryphal. Gut (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --I'ḏ♥One 20:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a great pic, and I'd love to support it, but when it's not even been identified to genus level... This a good Commons FP, but it's not screaming WP FP to me, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts were made by both me and Ikiwaner to identify it. I showed it to experts and they were unable to id it any further. FWIW, the mating version with same id was promoted. --Muhammad(talk) 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this can help? --I'ḏ♥One 18:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --I'ḏ♥One 18:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think I can support this without a better ID, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The way you've presented it, it has no EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image is very noisy and there is very little detail and definition in the picture at all. Not FP standard in my opinion. JFitch(talk) 11:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw i would like to withdraw it. It looked better when i looked at it but actually looking more at it, it isnt that good. Spongie555 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Interesting, but the EV isn't wild and the quality's fairly low. J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose Upon reading the others’ objections, I have to agree. I’m sorry for my earlier comment, which wasn’t thought through. I think this image has outstanding artistic and aesthetic appeal. It is just beautiful. However, there is no article on “Vatican Museum staircase,” so per some others here, this image has low encyclopedic value (EV) for the article “Vatican Museums”. I am glad to see that it is being used in the article. Greg L (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / question Let me see if we can explore the tradeoff between “EV” and the fundamental objective of casting Wikipedia in a fine light and educating readers about a new subject by inducing them to click a link because of a captivating, beautiful, or unusual picture. Without a doubt, this image does not do a great job illustrating the subject “Vatican Museums.” But I posit, nonetheless, that this image, were it Today’s Featured Picture on the Main Page, would make readers stop, stare & click on the article (and/or the picture) because of its great beauty. I even think the caption here is especially encyclopedic. Do others see it that way? Greg L (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To a certain extent, but we're simply not here to judge beauty, we're here to judge value. The image barely has a place in the article- in many ways, I think people could be disappointed if they click to read the article. We shouldn't be promoting stuff based on the fact it's pretty, that would be more Commons's domain. J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. *Disappointment when they arrive at the article* is an aspect I didn’t think of. I’ll noodle on that principle as it applies to this situation some more. Greg L (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you’re right; it is too tangential and therefore following the link to the article would be misleading and likely to disappoint if it was the staircase that induced them to click on the article. So, Oppose. However, I would argue that Wolf Point, Chicago at night would not be misleading in this vein. It shows the subject matter, and readers would land on an article squarely about the subject upon which they clicked, it is clearly an eye-catching picture, and it is stunningly beautiful. I think in every way, it would cast Wikipedia in a very fine light were in on the Main Page for a day. I think all time exposure photographs, or fast-motion photographs, or slow-motion videos, or x-ray images retain EV even though they capture something the eye can’t directly see. Greg L (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an exceedingly poorly composed image of a well composed subject. Cowtowner (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is big and has lots of detail. But the composition is bland. Along with the messy background it has the feel of a "snapshot" (yes, crucify me for using the s-word ;-) ). Someone once used the analogy of a high-resolution image of a manhole cover which would never be an FP no matter what the quality was... --Dschwen 15:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Detailed, encyclopedic composition. No opinion on manhole FP :) Jujutaculartalk 16:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to eat. ResMar 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Good quality, but tight crop makes it hard to eyeball the size (without being told). That said, it's not enough to support. SpencerT♦C 23:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2010 at 22:41:33 (UTC)
Original - Staatssecretaris Brinkhorst of the Dutch D66 party talks during the cabinets formation of 1977 with the second chamber members of his party in a rather unusual position.
Reason
Unique moment of modern dutch history and Mr Brinkhorst. Bert Verhoeff took this photo for ANEFO. It is a scanned version of the original photograph in very high resolution. Removing more noise deriving from the film speed of the analogue original will result in quality/detail degradation.
Support as nominator --Peter Weis (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this picture will be presented as part of 1000 political photos that are shared on Commons by the Dutch National Archive. GerardM (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The view expressed about NR seems premature, and is almost certain to be quite wrong. The "quality" is not impressive enough as it is for me to be particularly worried about losing some in trying to recover some actual signal in this image. So the question is: what did you try that you thought didn't work? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The quality has been assessed by the conservator at the Dutch National Archive and the restoration of the original data was praised. So I am interested why you are so sure of yourself? GerardM (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I really care either way with respect to this image, but your comments are always supportive with archival releases no matter what their quality is. Commendable in one way, but you need to let others look at these image critically, just as they would any other nomination. The conservator may have given it a thumbs up, but s/he's not here right now, and not voting. The Wikipedia FPC community is. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if you supported a photo of a steaming pile dung on an Amsterdam street as long as it was associated with a museum release. upstateNYer 00:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For every picture that makes it to the featured picture candidates list, there are many many more that do not and will not make it. Your notion of quality when related to museum / archive material is problematic as it is so firmly rooted in digital imagery. Your notion of what I would support is offensive. Last but not least your bias shows clearly that encyclopaedic value of imagery is not what concerns you as it is exactly those conservators of museums and archives who understand such material. As to voting, are you telling me that I should ask GLAM people to come and vote ? GerardM (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Make a scaled down version. That's right, FPC, I said it. This has been pretty blatantly ≈doubled its normal, optimal dimensions which makes it look low quality, expands the apparent flaws and dilutes the detail, and why is an image from 1977 so b/w and old-looking? --I'ḏ♥One 23:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My credo on restorations is to preserve and recreate as much detail as possible. If comparing original and edit you can see the difference already achieved. Especially areas like the face will degrade tremendously if increasing noise reduction. Working with masks seems irrational here - for this will create different sorts of grain in one single image. The general fuzz on minimizing noise/filmspeed to a minimum is not corresponding with analogue photographs. Reducing noise works until a certain degree - it can not be reduced as easily as digital noise and must not be removed in order to get to best noisefree result. I used the neatimage plugin for noise reduction and would be curious to know better results achievable with keeping a similar amount of detail. Attributing my note as premature is not very cricket of you. Stay polite and objective next time. Let me know if you can improve the noise situation, would be glad to enlarge my wisdom on noise reduction. --Peter Weis (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to kick the image, but looking at it makes me feel like someone stretched it on an imager and then just blurred it so it wouldn't look pixelated; Idk, de-noising or sharpening might be possible.... but I could be wrong about that. Maybe someone at WP:GL has a more experienced opinion they could offer. --I'ḏ♥One 14:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you to nominate a decent candidate, not on us to fix its shortcomings. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Downsampling might be a good idea; the full rez view of this is awful. upstateNYer 00:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the point in sampling it down? It's resolution exceeds that of most digital cameras on the current market. That way it preserves as much information as possible. One sould not expect the technical perfecion achieved by state-of-the-art prosumer cameras from an image shot over 30 years ago. -- Any1s (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but one shouldn't expect such crap when my father's cheap camera from the time produced better images. upstateNYer 03:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather irrational argument. Be aware of the fact that your father's camera and the model Mr Verhoeff used may differ. If by any chance your father took photographs of Mr Brinkhorst or other people of encyclopeadic value, I would be glad to see those on commons/wiki. The picture's "quality" and grain may not be comparable to other imagery either on fpc en:wiki or commons. The unique historical value of this image was the reason to display it here. En:wiki's fp policy cleary states exceptions in terms of quality for historical images. --Peter Weis (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What upstateNYer says is very relevant and rational - the only excuse for a lack of quality would be that the required quality wasn't possible at that point in time, and "not possible" doesn't mean "put the wrong film in his camera". While the photo shown may or may not be locally famous in the Netherlands, the event depicted is not of such historical significance as to excuse a lack of detail imo. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so PLW was a bit more gracious with his words, but that's essentially what I meant. upstateNYer 00:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Important person caught in a special moment -> deserves FP status. -- Any1s (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that this is unecessarily huge and very low quality- the grain is visible even on the image page. J Milburn (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Recently failed to achieve FP at commons. P. S. Burton (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original I think that much is clear from all the comments. Let's see if anybody actually makes any progress on this - several have pointed out possible forward routes. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While interesting, I can’t possibly imagine how this busy, black & white, rather contemporary image can be considered an example of good photography. Greg L (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Next time please be so kind to check my global account and find any evidence before making a false accusation. Regards -- Any1s (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for being new on wikimedia, please forgive me. So what am I to tell a paranoid mind? People like you really don't make it easy to start contributing to this project. -- Any1s (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good quality, and what is the significance of him leaning over to the window? Not a very illuminating image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, grainy, not representative of photographic quality achievable at the time taken. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A lovely mushroom, and a great picture. I've been meaning to expand that article for a while. I'll do it this afternoon. J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Notwithstanding everyone's excitement about mushrooms, the composition and lighting don't impress me at all. Just a fairly standard image that almost every article has several of. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good EV!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per PLW. Much brighter background is distracting. The image is not that impressive compared to other mushroom pics. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No sense of scale at all on this photo. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 20:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Kind of snap-shotty, but good detail on the fungus I guess. A blurred out background would draw more attention to the subject. --I'ḏ♥One 15:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This has only just been added to a very over-illustrated article, and is, it would seem, somewhat redundant to the lead image. I also note that the horns are not very impressive on this animal. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, both seem to be male - what's new here? D&R? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing to this excellent image. Its EV comes from showing also the oxpecker which this one doesn't. I've never seen an Impala with an oxpecker and this one shows four! What's new here? You see the uropygium, hocks and the hairs above the hooves. --Ikiwaner (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support moving this to the lead image int the article. It is clearly better than the current lead --Muhammad(talk) 23:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. Focus and aperture are persuasive. Would like to see more of this quality. --Peter Weis (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good EV. Current FP shows some other features not shown in this image and vice versa --Muhammad(talk) 23:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why does this chap have such small horns? All our other images have much larger horns... J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The horns keep growing throughout their sexual maturity, so I'm guessing this one is just a bit younger. Having horns, though, it would still be an adult afaik. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality, good EV, and a pleasing appeal. Clementinatalk 01:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2010 at 13:14:01 (UTC)
Original - a frog (exact species unknown, facing right, to the upper left of the nearly-vertical stick in the rightmost third of the image) is nearly impossible to see among a clutter of dead leaves.
Reason
A very high-resolution image. Aesthetic value is so-so unless you like dead leaves, but educational value is quite high as a stunning example of crypsis. Honestly, I couldn't see the frog until I looked at the highlighted image.
Support as nominator --DS (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The image is currently only used in a gallery. J Milburn (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched the images around; the lizard was too easy to see and thus not the best example. DS (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I'm afraid I still have to oppose, per the reasoning below. A cool picture, but not really FP material. J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The date at the bottom should be cropped. --I'ḏ♥One 14:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - cannot support until that is removed. gazhiley.co.uk 14:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the harsh lighting. Also, the frog is extremely difficult to see, so should be presented with some sort of clear identification (possibly another pic alongside it in the article) to aid readers. Jujutaculartalk 16:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The frog is tiny in the picture. I'm not sure I'd be able to see it even if it weren't camoflaged. It should be cropped a bit closer at least. Kaldari (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The frog makes up what, 3% of the pixels of the photo? The reason I couldn't find the thing at first was because of the expectation I had on size. I'd support a photo of this type of frog in this type of environment, but not when it's so damn small and makes up so little of the photograph. In it's current state, this is a Where's Waldo. upstateNYer 03:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Great image, amazing camouflage. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Per all above, mostly the fact that if the image was cropped correctly to show the frog and not just a pile of leaves, then it would d be nowehere near upto standards. JFitch(talk) 16:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Featured Picture of the Day shouldn’t be Where’s Waldo. Greg L (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Brilliant example of camouflage. But should be cropped a little closer. rivergod
Oppose Very harsh lighting, and I fear many ordinary Wikipedia users just take a quick peek at TFP, and they would consider this to be 'just a pile of leaves'. WackyWaceconverse | contribs 13:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FPs should not be confusing. Without even a caption with the to reduce the confusing is not worth bothering. The object shown here isn't even in the center of the image. Nergaal (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted 6 supports to 9 opposed. --I'ḏ♥One 15:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support For now. I think this could really be a good addition to related articles, this might be your best nomination in a while. --I'ḏ♥One 00:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A technically good image, but like other cityscape pictures you've nominated before it's vastly overused. Some of these articles have more pictures then text... — raekyT 01:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I try to make every WP:CHICAGO article possible a WP:GA, I am not able to expand every article in the project that has good pictures.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and you do a wonderful job expanding those articles, but would you consider removing it from Chicago Spire since it's only in a gallery and it doesn't show the site very well, or moving it out of the gallery as a replacement for File:ChicagoSpireFutureSite.jpg since it shows the location much better than that image. It's removal from Aqua (skyscraper) since it's only a small component and doesn't serve much purpose in way of showing it's location, and the picture it's self is about as much screen real estate as the entire readable prose on the page (see Wikipedia:Layout#Images). The remaining uses seem ok, Illinois Center I don't think it particularity illustrates that very well, but that article is lacking of images to begin with, probably should remove one of the two images though due to Wikipedia:Layout#Images imho. — raekyT 18:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because of the good quality and interesting, wide-angle view. Although Howcheng will have to spread out Chicago-themed pictures on POTD just as he will have to with all our bug-related ones. Greg L (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate to be a prick, but the buildings are tilted (easy to fix usually), could we ask the author for frames or a restitch do you think? Noodle snacks (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have to agree with the prick above ;) both sides do seem to tilt inwards. -- bydand•talk 06:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You or someone else could still contact him on Flickr and point him towards this thread and see if hes willing to (a) fix it himself or (b) upload the base images for one of us to fix it. — raekyT 14:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of this photo, I was just too lazy originally to fix the obvious tilt after stitching it together, but since there is interest here for this picture, I'd be willing to process it again from scratch. I'll try to take a swing at it this weekend. Stay tuned.--Mindfrieze (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to slant - the building dead centre (no idea what it's called but its the famous one that silver looking) is leaning almost as much as the tower of Piza... And the bridge below is a little of straight too... Otherwise decent picture... Not sure what relevance this has to the Chicago Loop though - on first inspection anyway I cannot see any trains... Gazhiley (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? what u talking about? I didn't ask any questions other than where's the trains in this picture? Gazhiley (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The building dead center, silver looking. That's the Trump Hotel and tower. The reason that there's no trains in the picture is because the Chicago Loop is not The Loop of the El system. The Chicago Loop is a district of Chicago, which you would have worked out for yourself if you had bothered to read either article that Tony had given you. Matthewedwards : Chat 21:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support though your caption is a bit optimistic with re to the possibility of the spire being built. ;) --Golbez (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lets wait for the restitch. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, perhaps this should be suspended? It'd be nice to see if a restitch could improve it a little. We may as well have as good an image as possible, there's no hurry. J Milburn (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suspension request yes please suspend. It seems clear it will pass with an adequate restitch and fail without.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The restitch has been saved over the original. Please resume or restart consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because of the good quality and interesting, wide-angle view. Greg L (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still Oppose Most buildings to right of main tower are still leaving - to the left this time though (can't remember which way they were before as old version removed from nom). buildings to left are fine though. gazhiley.co.uk 08:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question I didn't have a problem with the original, I guess count me as still in support, but did you change the color? Seems less realistic. --I'ḏ♥One 12:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about the color and have (as already noted) contacted the author.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, I adjusted the color levels to remove a very slight red tint and increased saturation slightly (in the 15% range.) I made these adjustments more for my preference than for consideration on wikimedia. --Mindfrieze (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just can't get past the blown highlights on this one. I'm surprised no one has brought them up yet. The big bluish building on the left is particularly bad, the white building next to it is all white for 20 stories, and the building at the center is pretty bad too. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know that Aqua is suppose to look like that? You have somewhat of a point on what I think is The Regatta--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I meant the one between Regatta and Aqua, if I have the names straight. Regatta is the deal-breaker for me, though. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Nice, but still some tilt on the right. The Regatta is the only one that seems to me to have clearly blown highlights, and I think it helps emphasize the curve there, so that's not why I'm opposing. --Avenue (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has had its time now. I count 8 supports and 2.5 opposes for the new upload. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No context or date is given for the photograph. If this is a modern photo, the quality is certainly sub-par. If this is an historic photo, the lighting at least could be better. Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very poor lighting, brightness, and contrast. Greg L (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, almost certainly a copyvio. Nominating for deletion at Commons... J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --I'ḏ♥One 22:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
===Olive Baboon=== Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2010 at 18:29:57 (UTC)
;Reason:Good quality and EV. Hardly any monkey picture we have shows the complete animal including the tail as this one does. A stable taxobox image for at least 2 articles. Well lit and sharp. ;Articles in which this image appears:Olive Baboon, Baboon, Old World monkey ;Creator:Muhammad Mahdi Karim * Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 18:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC) *Support Great work. [[Use[reply]
Original - Native American Sitting Bull and showman Buffalo Bill, in Montreal, circa 1885. Sitting Bull briefly performed in his travelling vaudeville Wild West Shows during the late 19th and early 20th century.Alternate - Went back to the LoC file and did a restorationAlt 2 As above, but sharpened.Not for voting (a bit late for that) Proof of the idea that facial detail is possibly for the chief.
Reason
A high resolution, but most importantly striking portrait of two historical figures.
Comment: I can't help but think that our restorers would be able to do something with this. J Milburn (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm going to have to oppose here, it needs graphic work, I think the contrast is too harsh and that combined with the fairly low quality from LOC... — raekyt 14:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Greg L (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll admit to being tempted.... Adam Cuerden(talk) 10:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. New version uploading. I used the LOC copy because, frankly, the bigger one is so horribly JPEG artefacted that it's not actually any better. Adam Cuerden(talk) 12:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt or alt 2, oppose originalAdam Cuerden(talk) 12:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 2 I just had to make it a bit sharper, sorry! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've taken the liberty of redoing your edit: The faces had had some selective sharpening applied already, and when I checked, they looked over-sharpened to me. That, unfortunately, is very easy to do: In the Revelations image of a couple months ago, I had to completely redo some parts after accidentally over-sharpening early on. (there were some parts where I couldn't get the image to lay flat, and thus were slightly blurry at full res. I was going through sharpening those, then sharpened the whole thing - then found that part of it had gotten horribly oversharpened, and had to paste in that bit and start over. Adam Cuerden(talk) 14:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kind of boring, but still a good quality image of two pretty well-known people. --I'ḏ♥One 04:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, SB's face is clearer here. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 17:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, if you make a dark-skinned Indian look white, his face is clearer, but that doesn't mean it's right. That's an artefact of the extremely high contrast settings. Adam Cuerden(talk) 18:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Per Sandman. Gut Monk (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original per Adam's reply to Sandman. J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Adam, I find the artifact deserving (users know that Indians aren't white?). Camera technology was lacking back then. I find Sitting Bull's facial features, liked hooked nose, useful to the picture. Gut Monk (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking like alt 2, but can we get a bit more clarification?Makeemlighter (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that the alts are a bit dark; however, the original, besides having terrible technical quality, seems over-edited to highlight foreground objects using masks. That's probably not called for. Maybe we need to try again. I don't know if Adam has uploaded a lossless version of the restoration...? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of those versions predate the sharpening you said you applied? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just experimented a bit. Facial detail is definitely possible, but it would mean that Buffalo Bill's jacket (and probably hat) would have to be remain a little lighter in colour. The bonus is that the decorations on Sitting Bull come alive. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad. Hmm. Maybe we should play with this a little bit, and come back with more final versions? Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable to me, although it might need a bit more consensus than just the two of us - perhaps it would be a reason for suspending, even at this late stage? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, we want to promote the best possible image. Ignore all rules clearly applies here. One possibility might be to create a new listing to decide which option should be promoted. Adam Cuerden(talk) 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a fair call. Do you have something that's nearly ready? Oh, and could you just reply to my question above that starts with, "Do any..."? Thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support the "not for voting" version myself. I'm tweaked it in slightly in sharpness, if that's okay. I guess I'm happy to have caused so much collaboration and desire for improvement. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me. I only put the NFV sign up because I thought it would be a little late in the nom, and I didn't spend that much time on it. It's still based on Adam's work btw, I just did a curves change and probably haven't filled in the retouch template yet. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PLW or Adam: if you come up with a "final" version, we can either re-open this for something like 5 days or we can contact all the voters to ask for a preference among all the versions. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried my hand per PLW's suggestion, but I think I'd like to do it again. Multiple goes seems to result in better results. Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:William Notman studios - Sitting Bull and Buffalo Bill (1895) edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's Alt 2. If someone eventually does an even better edit, this can be D&R'ed. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2010 at 21:20:55 (UTC)
Original - Death masks are wax or plaster masks of a person's face made after the person's death. Here, two workers, circa 1908, use plaster to create a mold of the deceased person's face in order to create the death mask.Edit 1Did some light restoration work.Edit 2 Removed textEdit 3 Re-restored from originalEdit 4 Re-Re-restored from original with effort to maintain detail
Reason
great historic image from 1908 showing how death masks are made. It has great EV. I, for one, did not know how they are made. How is the dead body handled? Do they apply plaster on the body as it's lying down? etc. The high res of this image, the historical significance, and the fact that it's the only image in the article showing how death masks are made are the top reasons why this should be a featured pic
Support as nominator --AutoGyro (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sufficiently eye‑catching to get readers to stop, stare & click. Greg L (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A few thoughts. Firstly, what's the reason to have a historical shot- why not have a higher quality current one? Secondly, this photo could benefit from some cleanup. Thirdly, some more details would be nice- I assume that's the actual body? Where was this taken? Why is a death mask being created? J Milburn (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
On the first count, I'm pretty sure that death masks are more or less archaic now as there is little utility for them (cameras are used to document the dead). On the third count, it is most likely a body and the WP article states that death masks were often used to create portraits, to serve as mementos or in forensic investigations. Cowtowner (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in this case in particular. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are focusing too hard on the “creating a death mask” part of this. If that’s all it was, why not—as you say—show a photo of the very finest and latest technology for doing so? But the subject here is “creating a death mask historically.” I find the way these practitioners dressed to be interesting. How one dressed a hundred years ago was important signaling of social hierarchy and it is quite easy to see who was the assistant here in this picture and who was the proprietor. Sometimes historical images, like this image of an old surgery, are interesting because they are old and help us to realize how things have changed. Perhaps all this caption needs is a tweak to emphasis the historical nature of it. Greg L (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can talk about "social hierarchy" and such all you like, but unless it's of importance to the article, it's irrelevant. If I was to nominate a picture of a mushroom obscured by moss and leaves, I couldn't babble on about the interesting moss and the pretty leaves in order to suggest it's better than a picture than one where the mushroom is clear. J Milburn (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now you’re just howling at the moon to listen to your own echo. The article says death masks are made of wax or plaster. This one shows a plaster death mask being made so it obviously illustrates how its done. Do you think they now use CAD software to robot-apply plaster? Or maybe you think the technique no longer works unless there is an iPhone sticking out of a Raiders jacket? The fact that it shows the face of a deceased individual is unusual. That it is historical is eye-catching. If you don’t like it, vote “oppose”. I can’t take any more of your rants today. Bye… Greg L (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rants? What's ranty here? If anyone has been ranty recently... What I said was completely valid, and it really reveals the strength of your position when you reply like that. We wouldn't accept a low quality image of an animal purely because it's "historical", even if it did show a few irrelevant historical aspects, so why accept this? J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Greg. Although, I'm shocked by how horrific the behavior is. (Although those two guys seem to be digging it; defiantly not the third, though.) Gut Monk (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comments above. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very striking and interesting image. High EV in historical context. Sir Richardson (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even if we ignore the EV/contextual issues, promoting this, when the image itself is in such dire need of restoration, would be utterly ridiculous. J Milburn (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We would be throwing high hurdles at ourselves and our nominators if we required that image editing and restoration had to be performed on old pictures that suffered in minor ways from the ravages of time. Sometimes, as when I jumped in and volunteered on the Edward Teller FPC, we can get these images cleaned up. But doing a good job on some of these images requires specialized skills and sometimes people are too busy to volunteer. This nomination is a clean and proper scan of an old artifact. Accepting it as such doesn’t strike me as “ridiculous”; it’s purely an aesthetic issue as to whether we may treat the image like the Mona Lisa (the colors of which have yellowed and dulled with time) without trying to make the image here look better than the actual artifact. I hadn’t even noticed the little tears in the emulsion and other age-related effects until you pointed it out that it should be considered a flaw. To me, this image is properly representative of what it is: an old historical photo. Greg L (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a "proper scan of an old artifact", we need a solid illustration of the making of a death mask. FPC is about the best images, so, yes, we do have to expect that older images in a poor state are given restoration work. The in-image labelling is also rather distracting. If you didn't notice the scratches, I question whether you've actually looked close enough at this picture to be qualified to judge it... J Milburn (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Methinks thee should actually look at images before voting on them. That's the point I'm fricking making. If you didn't see the appalling quality of the image, what the hell did you look at? The thumbnail, very quickly? I'm not suggesting I'm some kind of expert while you're not, I'm suggesting that if you want to have an opinion on it, you fricking look at it. And congratulations on picking up on the really important part of my comment to discuss, rather than, y'know, the bit actually pertinent to the image. J Milburn (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhhhh You mean, “Look at the picture up close!” (silly me) Did I forget to do that? Let me check… nope. As I wrote above (but you seem pleased to ignore) is I have no problem with a fine scan of an aged original, just like I have no problem with fine scans of cracked or yellowed oil pantings. You wrote we do have to expect that older images in a poor state are given restoration work. I suspect you used the majestic plural-form of “we” there; what is clear is you think volunteers here must do image restoration on scans of aged originals. I don’t. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. You know: celebrate diversity and all that. Greg L (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you "look[ed] at the picture up close" but "hadn’t even noticed the little tears in the emulsion and other age-related effects", I feel for your optician. The point is that this picture is not being used to illustrate the photo (if it was, I'm sure we could have a very interesting discussion about this) it's being used to illustate the making of a death mask. So, is this a good picture of the picture? Yes, it shows the state it's in and everything. Is this a good picture of the making of a death mask? Nope, the original picture is in a poor state and has things written all over it. J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with your ability to understand English? How many times and how many ways do I have to write that I did see all the age-related flaws and don’t have a problem with them? How many times do I have to write that I think the flaws are akin to a proper scan of an aged original, like the Mona Lisa? Don’t you get it? Or are you deliberately trying to be provocative here? I will no longer deal with you on this nomination because you are behaving too oddly for me to possibly handle. Greg L (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said "I hadn’t even noticed the little tears in the emulsion and other age-related effects". In the English I speak, that means you didn't see them. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It means precisely as I wrote it: I hadn’t even noticed the little tears in the emulsion and other age-related effects until you pointed it out that it should be considered a flaw. I had zoomed in and looked intently at what the scene was showing—the information being portrayed. The scratches and other age-related flaws didn’t bother me in the slightest or even get any of my attention. Your comment above (If you didn't notice the scratches, I question whether you've actually looked close enough at this picture to be qualified to judge it is just arrogance because it assumes that if someone looks closely at the image, the age-related defects must to be something that jumps out to the forefront of one’s mind and overcomes the rest of the image. I could just as easily have said that “Anyone who looked at a zoom and wasn’t captivated by all the interesting things in the image like the clothing of the owner and his employee and was instead distracted by silly things like scratches in the emulsion of a picture from 1908 is someone I question is qualified to judge the image.” But I didn’t, because I don’t wouldn’t want to be so obstreperous. I like the image. You don’t. I’m fine with that. You aren’t. To bad; that is something you’re going to have to deal with. Greg L (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did some light restoration work on the photo and uploaded it as Edit 1. You can decide which version you like better. --AutoGyro (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: the words "Making Death Mask 305.1" need removed from the image: That wasn't painted on, that was scratched into the emulsion, probably by ancient LoC curators. Adam Cuerden(talk) 08:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Support Edit 3Adam Cuerden(talk) 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly is that a problem? It's not like it's written on any important part of the image. It's a historical artifact. --AutoGyro (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't suddenly mean it's OK. We're not using this to illustrate historical photograph cataloging methods; it adds nothing to the image but does take a lot away. J Milburn (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I don't understand, though. What exactly is it taking away? --AutoGyro (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It detracts from the picture. Good photos don't have text all over them... J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At any rate, I removed the text from the image. See Edit 2.--AutoGyro (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Compare edit two to the first one side by side, it's lost the colour, sharpness and detail the original had. One step forward, two steps back. J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Edit 3 for a new restoration of the original--AutoGyro (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since this nomination ends tomorrow, I assume that the supporters still support the original and none of the edits?--AutoGyro (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My support vote applies to whichever one is closest to a consensus, or all of them. I don’t mind the age-related flaws. And I don’t mind the cleaned-uped versions either. Greg L (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting subject. I don't mind the text in the original, I thought the photo quality in that one was the best but whichever the closer decides... --I'ḏ♥One 20:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the edits, please. This appears to have enough supports for something to get promoted, although it's not clear what (5 general supports and 1 support for edit 3). Makeemlighter (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to promote one, edit 3 is the best, but it's still not as good as it could be. Not the best restoration work I have seen. (I couldn't do better, in case someone wants to pretend to be ten years old, but I've still got a right to expect a high standard at FPC...) J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel there's serious quality loss in Edit 3 from the original, compare the hair in both of the man on your left. --I'ḏ♥One 00:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, it's not as good as it could be, but at least it doesn't have the horrendous problems the first does. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any more discussions on this? I think Edit 3 is the best choice out of all options. --AutoGyro (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The edit really does lose quite a bit of detail. A restoration should not have less detail than the original. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of Edit 4--AutoGyro (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Still not perfect, but much better. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, much better than Edit3. --I'ḏ♥One 19:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why doesn't someone try a full restoration from the Library of Congress TIFF (download from [13]) instead of the one I uploaded from Shorpy? howcheng {chat} 17:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding idea/research, Howcheng. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus never developed here on which, if any, version to promote. The edits added late in the game may be worthy of promotion, but they received very few comments. Moreover, Howcheng's suggestion of restoration from the original presents the possibility of an even better version. At the very least, a larger version could be uploaded. None of that would be necessary for a re-nomination, but the re-nominator would need to select the best of the edits to nominate (along with the original, probably). There's no need to wait to re-nominate if anyone feels one of the versions worthy; we just need a new nomination with 9 days of attention up top to sort this mess out. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Messier 82 (also known as NGC 3034, Cigar Galaxy or NM82) is the prototype nearby starburst galaxy about 12 million light-years away in the constellationUrsa Major. The starburst galaxy is five times as bright as the whole Milky Way and one hundred times as bright as our galaxy's center.Image 2: "This mosaic image is the sharpest wide-angle view ever obtained of M82."
Reason
Another fine picture of a galaxy. Clear EV, very eyecatching, great quality and size. Already featured on Commons, the German Wikipedia and the Turkish Wikipedia. Caption copied from article.
Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Anyone else see color banding on the blue areas? --I'ḏ♥One 15:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any defects like that would be natural limitations on the most advanced space telescopes we currently have, keep in mind these are mega-zoomed in areas of the sky using multi-billion dollar pieces of equipment. You can't expect every one to be the same quality due to level of zoom and limitations in the hardware. Irregardless of small defects it is the most detailed image we have of this part of space and likely most detailed image we will have for decades or more. — raekyT 19:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...So that's a yes then? I added a different version I found on Commons, weak support either, because neither is perfect and FPC has spoiled me yet I suppose they're important. If you guys like big pics you'll love the other version. --I'ḏ♥One 20:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I don't think we should be in the business of telling people they chose the wrong image in their article, so I have requested outside input to this FPC in a couple of places. Hopefully we can get an explanation of why the smaller image was favoured, if there is a solid reason. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're both very large images within the same order of magnitude of each other, so the size isn't a major factor. The favoring probably has more to do with the coloring than anything else. However, personally, I would lean slightly to the sharper image, though less colorful because of the clearer details. —CodeHydro 22:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I'm a sucker for great space images. ;-) — raekyT 13:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like Raeky, I'm a sucker for space images. As to which one, though... tough choice. Original's prettier, but #2s's sharper and shows more structure... I'd have to support #2 over #1. --LucasBrown 22:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The alt is partly by ESA, ESA doesn't allow commercial use of their images, thus not compatable here, we sure that this doesn't affect this image's license? Not every image on NASA's site is public domain... Also the top image is a composite of Chandra, HST and Spitzer while the bottom is I think just visible light with some IR. — raekyT 00:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to ((PD-Hubble)) which is used on the image, besides which it's 4 years old, they don't seem to mind and this isn't commercial use anyway, no one's making money off the image. --I'ḏ♥One 00:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not the point though, theres PLENTY of images out of our millions that slip through the cracks, and yes people are making money off of our images, we want them too and they do. Theres lots of commercial adaptations of our encyclopedias. The second link on that template says it has to be released under a CC license, not public domain... So something doesn't add up there. ESA images are not public domain, most require a non-commercial CC license, seems it's a compromise ESA is making here with NASA to use a less restrictive CC license. I'm not entirely convinced the NASA/ESA collaborative images are entirely freely licensed. But if no one else has an issue with the license... Be sure to take these images into account in what they're showing they're not identical, since they're composed of different wavelengths of energy, the above has a lot of x-ray where the bottom has no x-ray. — raekyT 00:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ESA's name is on this somehow, but this was taken by the Hubble telescope, meaning NASA took it, they provide credits, as did the uploader on Commons, and it doesn't specify copyright ownership on the Hubble page, it also says specifically that satellite imagery is free for everyone to use on a Hubble+ESA website (scroll down); If anything I'm guessing ESA might've commissioned it, but that wouldn't be the same as transferring rights. So some guy takes this image and sells it, it's our responsibility? Did we tell him or anybody they could do that? --I'ḏ♥One 01:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that like say I own a camera, you want to use it, you pay me to use it, who owns the copyright? If ESA commissioned/paid for time to use the Hubble, even though Hubble is owned by the US Government and NASA, ESA would hold the copyright under that scenario. So if anything I think the template is wrong claiming it's public domain, and should be released under the CC license ESA's site says... This isn't a "so what" case, we unfortunately have to delete tons of ESA and other space agencies pictures all the time, like Japan's. Since it looks like this ESA/Hubble group is releasing the images under a compatible license we don't have to delete it, I just want to make sure we have it under the RIGHT license and are not labeling something public domain when it isn't. And yes, if we label an image public domain and it's not, we could potentially be responsible if someone else uses the image commercially. Many people bulk use our database and data without individually checking all of the thousands of images. It's OUR responsibility to make sure we have images that can legally be used commercially and that they're attributed right and under the right license. — raekyT 01:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear on the source website's copyright page that the image is in the public domain, as it is not clearly listed otherwise. I would guess that if it wasn't, it wouldn't even be stuck on the website to download at horrendously large resolution. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But at http://www.spacetelescope.org they say it's released under a CC license, which is correct? Is ESA the copyright holder or NASA? If ESA contracted/paid to use the telescope then they should be the copyright holder right? — raekyT 12:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that they merely request the images, then NASA makes them. I think a quick email to ASA would be the best option here. J Milburn (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, it would seem that the image is free, but we certainly need to ensure we have the correct licensing. Another possibility is that all images are CC, while those affiliated with NASA are automatically put in the public domain. I'm still leaning towards this being PD, but I can't provide any real evidence. I think we're going to need to either contact someone or open a discussion somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they're most likely freely licensed for our use here, and I too think we should have the license correct, thats why I brought it up. ;-) — raekyT 13:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Images 1 and 2 do not show the same thing. Image 2 is a composite of images taken with HST through filters in the visible light range, shows ordinary stars in the blue disk and, hm, gas emission in the red filaments, and is fairly close to what we could see with our eyes. Image 1 is a composite of images taken with HST in the visible, Spitzer in the infrared (showing dust emission) and Chandra in X-rays (showing in that case mostly synchrotron emission from fast electrons). The X-ray emission is from the blue parts which show the banding - X-ray astronomy is photon starved, which means that only comparatively few colour levels can be reconstructed). The information content in the two images is different and they cannot be directly compared. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that's why the first image was used in the article lead, then. If the two images show different things, perhaps it would be best if the second image was withdrawn from this nomination and renominated if it finds a use in its own right. J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrongfilter makes some good points. It's the same subject, presumably they were taken not long between each other considering they were released on the same date. The alternate is more realistic, larger and has better digital quality than the current lead image; It should actually be moved to the infobox of the article and the current one should be moved to the "structure" section since that's really the only usage for taking a photo of something like this in X-ray, with an explanatory caption for the false-coloring - which are pretty, but flawed and, again, unrealistic and artificial. I'm betting the alternate as far as the article, like with this nomination, was simply overlooked. The article has been edited less than 50 times in 2 years, and you can't assume the article was created or is monitored by some high-ranking expert in astronomy, just ordinary people with a hobby in astronomy. --I'ḏ♥One 07:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel the second would make a stronger lead, switch it. It is outside of FPC's remit to decide that one image is more appropriate than another and then come storming into an article to switch it. It would be up to you to make the switch/discuss the switch in the appropriate venue. J Milburn (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well ok, I did and tried to give them both their due EV and largely reworded WrongFilter's description to hopefully be a bit easier to grasp. --I'ḏ♥One 15:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to get that info out above but apparently not as well as Wrongfilter. The second image is great in it's own right, but it's not the same thing as the first. Might be the same subject but without the IR and X-ray data it's not the same image. — raekyT 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voters: please state a preference for image 1 or 2. Thanks.Makeemlighter (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has ended up a rather horrific nom because of the fact we've ended up with alts showing two different things. I suppose I prefer the alt, as that has ended up the lead image, but I do not feel we should now go and replace all the other usages. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orig I agree. Adding other versions or entirely different pictures is a prescription for confusion and getting nothing done around here. When I saw an entirely different picture slapped up here (rather than in an entirely different nomination), it was clear this nomination was at great risk for becoming a thorough cluster-pooch. My vote was for the original. Greg L (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward the alt, because it shows what the galaxy actually looks like. The infrared and X-ray are scientifically useful and make it look nicer, but they're not really real, the blue and other colors are just there to aid our human eyes and brains in seeing what the telescopes could see, plus it's FPC tradition to favor larger and sharper stuff. --I'ḏ♥One 16:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These pictures show different things- trying to choose between them is a little odd. The fact the circumstances of the article changed mid-nomination also complicates things. I'm close to saying bugger this nomination, we can let one or both have their own nominations... Am I still able to withdraw? Perhaps that would be the least ambiguous option... J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose I advise this is closed as "no consensus- clusterfuck" and someone can nominate one or both again in a month... Let this stand as a lesson as to why we don't nominate two different pictures in the same fricking nomination. J Milburn (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the numbers so far while you decide if anything should be promoted or not or just withdraw: ::7.5::(hover) supports including :1: support specifically for the alt, 0 opposes, :6: statements or votes preferring the alt including :1: user who didn't do a boldface vote, :1: preference for the original. --I'ḏ♥One 05:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Since they are "different" can we just promote both of them and be done with this nomination? We can call one "M86 in true color" and the other "M86 in X-ray and infrared". --I'ḏ♥One 22:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the long run, I'd imagine that's what will happen, but it doesn't seem that it is the result of this nomination. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice idea, but, because of the confusion of the nomination, it could hardly be said to be the conclusion we have reached. Again, I think this should be closed with neither promoted, and they can be nominated again later. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think since both have support votes and no opposes i think promoting them as a set would work. But it looks like the first image has more votes then the alt. Spongie555 (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, the way the first image is used has changed since most of those votes were made. J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to tell you guys that the first image just was promoted to valued picture. I just wanted to say since this is being nominated for FP and if it makes it to FP then it cancels out the VP. Spongie555 (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although at least one of these could probably be promoted, the result of this nomination is entirely unclear. Since the original nominator, J Milburn, has said a few times that this should just be closed without promoting anything, that's what I'm doing. One or both of these images can be re-nominated at any time, even immediately if someone wants to. Please make a separate nomination for each image, though, since this all came about due to another image being added. This could also be nominated as a set, if desired. This nomination was never presented as a set, so it didn't make sense to promote it as one. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2010 at 11:23:16 (UTC)
Original - Cymbiola imperialis is a species of volute. Shown is a shell (from left to right) from the dorsal side, the right side, the ventral side, the back, and the front. The shell measures 21 centimetres (8.3 in) in length.
Reason
Fantastic EV as far as illustrating this species goes, draws the eye nicely, great quality.
Support Clear and appealing, good quality, and good EV. It would be even better if there was a scale though, as TwilightChill pointed out :) Clementinatalk 03:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as author and uploader: The length is given in the description of the picture (21 cm). Someone changed the original description: the two views on the right side are not top and bottom, but (anatomically correct) the back side an the front side, as I described in the original. --Llez (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the clarification. J Milburn (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty brittle for 8 inches. --I'ḏ♥One 18:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2010 at 11:11:22 (UTC)
Original - The Koppelpoort is a medieval gate in the Dutch town Amersfoort. Completed around 1425, the Koppelpoort is an example of medieval defensive architecture. It is a combination of a land and water-gate and is part of the second city wall of Amersfoort, which was constructed between 1380 and 1450 AD.
Reason
Clear EV, great subject matter and a high-quality, well-executed photograph. Caption copied from article.
Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at the moment, simply because I can't see why I should be supporting it, I can't see that it shows what you have said at all. To me it doesn't show 'how big a deal it was'. The girls face is expressionless, to me it's just a girl reading a paper. JFitch(talk) 01:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per JFitch. Greg L (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think since its a little girl she probably didnt know the importance of it back then. But how the newspaper front page talks about the moon landing shows one of the newspapers across the world that reported on it. Also for someone to photograph their daughter holding a newspaper about the event shows people want to remember about what happen that day. Spongie555 (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it doesn't show their reaction. The only reaction is as J Fitch is a rather blank expression. Also IMO there's no way of knowing this was taken at the time... This could easily be a staged photo with a replica newspaper... So for those reasons I'm Out I mean I Oppose... gazhiley.co.uk 09:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as above. J Milburn (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, if we're using this to illustrate Apollo 11, The Washington Post, or Apollo 11 in popular culture we lose our de minimis exemption on the newspaper copyright. If we used it to illustrate reading or 1969 we would be fine as the content focus would not be primarily on the newspaper itself. If I remember correctly, the Washington Post was very anal about registering and renewing their copyrights (back when that was required). Kaldari (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Kaldari. Copyright status is very questionable. We have plenty of other things that could illustrate any of those subjects that are free of copyright. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the uploader of the picture it is a picture of the uploaders grandma taken by their grandfather. It is in public domian but i dont know about the copyright on newspaper. If it was promoted on Commons and Turkish wikipedia i think they didnt know if it has copyright on newspaper Spongie555 (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find this photo very interesting. It shows that the Moon landing was a big deal for everybody young and old alike. --I'ḏ♥One 21:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ineligible. WaPo issues have had their copyright renewed since January 1951 per [14]. There's no way we can include that whole front page of the newspaper. It looks like nobody on the Commons nomination even brought up that point. I think I am going to have to start a deletion request on it. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may close it if its ineligible Spongie555 (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might be wrong. The Commons DR is leaning towards keep. howcheng {chat} 17:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Jfitch. I like the idea, but this particular image really doesn't illustrate the significance of the moon landing. The copyright issues, on the other hand, strike me as ridiculous -- it is not plausible that even at full resolution this image would be considered a copyright violation of the Washington Post's front page. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2010 at 23:10:48 (UTC)
Original - The Imperial Crown of Russia, also known as the Great Imperial Crown, is the crown that was used by the Emperors of Russia until the abolition of the monarchy in 1917. The court jeweller Ekart and Jeremia Pauzie made the Great Imperial Crown for the coronation of Catherine the Great in 1762. The beautiful crown reflects Pauzie's skilled workmanship. It is adorned with 4936 diamonds arranged in splendid patterns across the entire surface of the crown. The crown is also decorated with one of the seven historic stones of the Russian Diamond Collection: a large precious red spinel weighing 398.72 carats (79.744 g), which was brought to Russia by Nicholas Spafary, the Russian envoy to China from 1675 to 1678. It is believed to be the second largest spinel in the world.
Reason
Very nice details. I like how it shows all the diamonds with details
Original-Hugo Gerard Ströhl, Vector Version by Avalokitesvara
Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't get it- what's it adding to the article? Why not a photograph? I'm assuming this is a vectorised version of a drawing- while impressive, I don't quite get why it was vectorised, and I don't love the bold black lines. They make it look more like a jigsaw puzzle. J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's missing 'A CG drawing of...' I don't see any EV for it really. I understand it probably took some time, but I don't see any value, and an actual photograph would be much more valuable. JFitch(talk) 23:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The black lines i think are supposed to be the shade the crown is giving off. Also it shows the crown what it would look like at its peack when it was all new. The real crown has gotten pretty old by looks at some pictures of it. Also it does look like a jigsaw puzzle but i think its supposed to show where all the jewals are at so they dont overlap. Thats what i think. Spongie555 (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An Adobe Illustrator-like drawing of a thing of what is no-doubt great beauty looks like a let down. Although it is arguably better than the awful pictures currently in the article, and while I can see this was a great labor of love, I find it to be far short of being “eye-catching”. Greg L (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is better then the other pictures in its article. To me its a picture you have to stop and look at the details. Spongie555 (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean that it's an example of the finest work that Wikipedia can produce, and therefore doesn't mean we should award an FP just because no-one's got a photograph... It's not like it's a historical event that can no longer be photographed... Oppose sorry... gazhiley.co.uk 10:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment great artwork. --I'ḏ♥One 21:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm disappointed that a photograph isn't available. I'm not convinced that such a drawing is better representative of the crown than any ordinary photo. -- mcshadyplTC 23:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - to provide more context, this appears to be a vectorized version of File:File:Ströhl-Regentenkronen-Fig. 03.png, which is itself a historical drawing from the 19th century. So there is some historical interest in this image, but only in a very indirect way. Altogether it seems like a well-meaning but misguided attempt at clarity. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Looking again, it's not great. J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It isn’t cropped tight enough and if it were, it would be even more apparent that the depth of field didn’t catch the near-side of the insect. Greg L (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The subject looks decently sharp (the image might look nicer with a little bit of saturation) --I'ḏ♥One 22:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I agree with Greg L that a tighter crop would do this subject justice, but I think that would be sufficient to turn it around. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, seems pretty redundant to the other image, which has a more pleasant composition. J Milburn (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately half the thing is in darkness. --I'ḏ♥One 18:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are two images in the article and both seem to have been taken by the same person, very artistic with the lighting but not so good for EV. I think File:Quartz, Tibet.jpg shows what we should should be going for with this kind of thing.--RDBury (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all comments above. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, just gawjuss. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support True 'dat Golbez... gazhiley.co.uk 15:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this probably as good a photo as you're going to get of Mespelbrunn Castle without an elevated position. Comparing the image to Google maps, it looks like it places the building in context; it's in a wooded area and although there's a town nearby I don't think it would be possible to have both in the same shot from ground level because of all the trees. It's sharp, eye-catching, and shows the site's most interesting features. I can't think of a reason not to support an excellent photo. Nev1 (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Flawless lighting, exposure, composition, interesting subject. Very eye-catching. Greg L (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is overexposed with highlights completely blown in parts. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So?? This “blown highlights” issue has gotten so out of hand it has taken on ‘urban legend’ proportions on FPC. If you want to see a properly illuminated image in the shadows of the building and in the trees and the other portions of the image that average about 18% reflectivity, then clouds are going to appear precisely as they ought to: white. That’s a Well… DUH sorta thing. It happened in silver-based photography (like this Ansel Adams shot) and in this image of Mt. Ranier. And it happens with properly exposed digital photography that appears here too. Try looking at a normal scene just like this one with your own eyeballs without staring and squinting at the clouds; see how much detail is visible in sun-lit clouds when they are just at the edge of your central vision and your eye is adapted to see a normal scene. People just need to stop looking at histograms and they’ll (hopefully) stop having a cow when they see information crowded over against the right-hand side on histograms. Pure whites happen all the time when an image has wide dynamic range (clouds, snow, reflections off of water, etc.) and the answer isn’t to reject such images until people learn how to put their cameras on a tripod and make bracketed exposures and get HDR plug-ins for Photoshop. Greg L (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to the FP criteria. Specifically, the image "has good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral colour balance" and "shows no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies." Makeemlighter (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Greg notes is that "accurate exposure" does sometimes show burned-out highlights, and the appearance in the middle of that cloud hardly constitues "significant". J Milburn (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like J Milburn said. Read what I wrote above about high-dynamic-range pictures that have light sources and white clouds and snow and whatnot in the image. It doesn’t matter if clouds in the sky are white unless the focal point of the picture is the clouds themselves. No one worries about clouds looking white any more than they worry about the blown highlights in this droplet of water, which are also supposed to be white. Nor does it matter if the sunlit side of a pure-white building or boat is “blown out”, as you say; not unless the subject of the picture is “specular reflections of titanium dioxide pigment in white paint in sunlight.” The result of this absurd focus on not having white look white has been utterly-worthless nominations like MV Queenscliff ferry boat, which had everything way too dark just so Makeemlighter could see detail in the white paint. Greg L (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The details in the clouds and buildings are not lost. A tried a quick shadow/highlight adjustment in PS and the result was much better than the image seen here. Can anybody put up and edit? --Muhammad(talk) 07:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Original (In case alts get put up this is may change) The overexposure is too much, the building on the left is the best example of this. I feel a much better picture could be taken of this. A 3 shot HDR would've been enough to sort it out really. Can probably be saved with some PS work which is why I've stated vote is for original. JFitch(talk) 10:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Edit 1 is fine. In the edit, the brightly lit building to the left looks better to me but the one in the middle that is in the shade has now lost a beautiful note of a glow. Furthermore we ought not establish a precedent here that properly exposed images must have special tricks applied in Photoshop to show detail in sunlit clouds of all things. The only way to have pulled this off with film back in the old days would be by using a polarizing filter or to burn & dodge the image if one was working in black & white. Greg L (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think Greg's talking a lot of sense here. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there aren't any special tricks applied. It was just a few minutes job with only one major PS edit that the photographer himself could have made. The fact that details can now be seen means they were never lost. --Muhammad(talk) 18:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a lot of fuss over nothing. I hadn't noticed the clouds were slightly over exposed because clouds are often white, and the subject of the photograph is the castle, not the weather. Nev1 (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dodging and burning Images like this is common practice, your not going to settle for parts of the image being badly exposed, you are going to work at getting the entire picture exposed. As for 'special tricks' post processing digital photographs is as much part of digital photography as developing is for film. In my opinion we 100% should set a precedent that to become a Featured Picture it has to be processed correctly. You wouldn't accept badly developed film photographs so you shouldn't accept badly proccessed digital photographs. JFitch(talk) 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point Jfitch. Yes, FPCs should be exposed correctly. Expecting that a light source (sunlit clouds actually add fill light into shadows on the ground) not appear pure white over large portions of them, and photos in which clouds are visible in the sky should be processed to bring out all available detail in them seems utterly absurd to me. As I mentioned above, the only way a film-based image could look like the above edit would be to use a polarizing filter. Your reasoning is therefore akin to “no FPC candidate should be allowed here unless film-based photographs showing sunlit clouds were shot using a polarizing filter.” And the workaround to this sort of mentality has resulted in total abortions like the MV Queenscliff ferry boat nom. The work-around for that nomination (“get better photo-editing software so I can see detail in the side of the white ship”) is unrealistic and unnecessary—just like polarizing filters on film cameras. Greg L (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's you that has missed the point. The clouds were never the issue. The building on the left is. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^^ This exactly. I'm not complaning about clouds here, the fact is the building on the left was overexposed. You then didn't like someone's fix because whilst fixing the buidling on the left, you felt it took away from the building on the right, well that's bad processing. Simply put with a photograph like this it isn't asking too much to have all of the buildings exposed correctly. JFitch(talk) 22:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting you: Simply put with a photograph like this it isn't asking too much to have all of the buildings exposed correctly. Uhhhhhm… some buildings are in the sun, and others are in the shade. And you want them all *properly* exposed at the same time?? And the remedy—in your view—to sun/shade situations like this is to require 100% post-photo processing (per your 19:42, 12 September post)? Yeaaaaah…Greg L (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In short, Yes. If your not going to develop/process an image to the highest quality that it can be at, then why should we have it as a FP. JFitch(talk) 16:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit is better but still not great. This probably needs to be re-shot at a different time of day. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both Pretty clearly fails criterion 1. Considering the standard of the other architecture images we promote, it wouldn't make sense to pass this one. This is definitely a shot that can be re-taken, so it's fair to insist upon better quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support either - Edit 1 is an improvement but both are top-notch. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Wasserschloss Mespelbrunn, 6 edit01.jpg 8 to 2, 6 (nom included) stating the edit is preferred. --I'ḏ♥One 14:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very good picture. It was featured on Commons,Turkish,German, and Croatian wikipedia also it was a featured picture on Trains Portal. It has EV for Chicgao Union station. It feels weird to nominate a Chicago image because usually Tony nominates them.
I don't know why its in that article. I think the light coming from the windows is something scientific. Im not really good with science so i dont know what to do about that. Spongie555 (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you track down the edit where it was added to the article. I want to see if I can bend the ear of the person who did so to understand what is going on.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were probably thinking about the double-slit experiment when adding, but it doesn't really illustrate that at all. Jujutaculartalk 16:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Whatever the picture's technical or artistic merits, it has no EV for the articles it's in.--RDBury (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does have EV because it shows Chicago Union Station during WWII in 1943 when it was at its busiest (yes it is busy just this picture it doesn't look like it, if you look behind there are people). Idk about the EV for Basic concepts of quantum mechanics but it does have EV for the main article. Spongie555 (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I would like to argue for EV, it does not teach me what Union Station looks like. I can neither tell its exterior architecture nor interior decor. I can not see the busy traffic. It is not depicting a typical view of the station. I can not even tell what the uniforms of the officials look like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to what I read this is the waiting room of the station and not the main hall. But it is a very good picture for its time, to me the light coming in gives it an effect. On Commons the nominator who promoted it there said that it has good details because you could see the people in the back waiting (well it's in the waiting room), you could read the wartime poster which advertised not to waste transportation. I can see a little of the uniform but mostly on the guy facing towards the camera. Spongie555 (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
. * Oppose Per RDBury. Greg L (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Pretty, but no EV, so far as I can see. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is this photo supposed to be showing? Who are these people? What are they doing? --I'ḏ♥One 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This photo is showing light coming into a the Chicago Union Station waiting room. It shows officers in uniform and people waiting in the backround. It is Union Station during WWII(wartime poster in the background) when it was at its busiest(it is busy but this picture isnt probably slow day but i dont know). Also i think it has EV beacuse it shows the station in WWII. Spongie555 (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This photo certainly has EV for Jack Delano and Farm Security Administration. That said, the three scans available for the picture are among the most atrocious the LOC has ever posted on their website. I'd wait until they post a better quality version. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you commented on the wrong nomination Spongie555 (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh no. This is one of Jack Delano's best known photos for the FSA, viz here. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh i didnt know that. If any voters want to re look at the nomination for that it would be appreciated. Spongie555 (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I didn't understand the encyclopedic value of this image until Trialsanderrors explained it above. I adore this photo. I have to concede that even the best of the available scans, in the Library of Congress Flickr stream, could probably be improved upon -- however, I am not holding my breath for the LoC to rescan its entire holdings at higher resolution. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a version of the negative scan at File:Chicago_Union_Station_fsa.8d24901u.jpg (the unedited LOC scan is in the file history). Other than being one of the worst large-size LOC scans I know, it also has multiple blown highlights, especially visible in the window grid. Normally we should try to use a negative scan rather than a print scan, but in this case they both have serious deficiencies. That's why I said I'm hoping for a better scan. This might have a better chance than others since it's considered one of the highlights of the FSA-OWI collection. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the version nominated here. Although it's a smaller resolution than either the original or your edit, it preserves much more detail. Many of the finer shadows in your processed version have been reduced to silhouettes. For all that, I think the original scan is superior to either version -- I don't think overprocessing this image does it any favors. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2010 at 20:54:55 (UTC)
Original - Bryaninops yongei, shown here on whip coral, is a species of sea whip goby. The genus is known for its commensal relationship with gorgonians (commonly known as sea whips) and black coral.
Reason
Pretty stunning photograph. The coral, as well as being lovely to look at, is more than a little bit relevant, as that's the thing about this genus- in lives in that coral. Already featured on Commons.
I wrote the article and created the nomination. A day later you decide you're conominator? Ok. In any case, thanks for the support. J Milburn (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a different story to this that I suspect you don't want to talk about, where you tried to suppress discussion of whether this and several other images that I suggested should be nominated, starting on 13 August [15], so I think you'll just have to accept that I take credit for bringing these to your attention. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you got me, I was terrified people would find out you masterminded the whole thing. I was aware of this image before you pointed it out, I lurk the Commons FPC, as I'm sure you realise. I did not nominate it sooner as it was not positively identified, so lacked EV. When I saw it was, I wrote an article and nominated it. If you really want to be a co-nom, that's fine, but I don't think it really matters. J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, tried to suppress it? I moved it to the talk page, and continued to discuss it with you until you made a cocky comment implying you wanted to discuss it with others first. No one else replied. There was nothing stopping you nominating this or any of the other images for which you clearly deserve to be listed as nominator- that was weeks ago. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your last comment stands as but I worry some people won't like the nomination page being flooded - that's in favour, is it? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's me worrying about the pragmatics of your plan. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly oppose Nice capture, but chromatic aberration and it could be sharper. --I'ḏ♥One 17:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with IdLoveOne, issues with CA are rather evident and detract from the quality. SpencerT♦C 03:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is that not to be expected on a picture as large as this? J Milburn (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria says CA's a no-no, and I agree with that, weird light ghosts are not high quality and it seems to be a common enough problem above or below water and tends to be the fault of the camera, and yes, I know light acts differently underwater. --I'ḏ♥One 13:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm thinking the CA could be mitigated a great deal by cropping the lower part of the image where it's most evident. This would also center the subject within the frame and all that would be lost are the repetitive bits of the coral.--RDBury (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice subwater scene. CA in water always visible much more. In this case it is tiny defect -- George Chernilevskytalk 07:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had a look through the author's other work earlier, and most of them are definatley FP-quality—if only they were used in articles. WackyWaceconverse | contribs 13:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's essentially what I was thinking, too. Except for the ones that are ineligible due to size, most of them could be reasonably nominated. Clearly, the availability of eligible pictures is no longer the bottleneck - it's rather down to our ability to process them. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Wirecoral goby.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a surprisingly awesome portrait. As ever, could possibly benefit from a tiny amount of restoration work, but I'm happy to support without it. J Milburn (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per J Milburn. Greg L (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a joke referring to when he played Moses in the The Ten Commandments. Support as above. Cowtowner (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This certainly could have benefited from some more effort into restoring it. Regardless, it's a great-quality photo of a very notable person. -- mcshadyplTC 23:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There's a lot of grain there, but not so much that the image isn't compelling. Incidentally, if this passes it will be the third picture from the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom to be featured. The Civil Rights Movement appears well photographed. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - agreed that it's grainy, but not in a way that detracts from the image. A classic, and a great reproduction. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Charlton Heston Civil Rights March 1963.jpg --I'ḏ♥One 13:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. She's in character here, is she? That should probably be made clear- I'd argue it has more value for the character article than for her own, though I know there are people who would rather see this kind of portrait in actor bios anyway. In any case, she's not in-character as anything too outlandish. J Milburn (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see her role appearance here is not much different from that in the real life: [16] vs.[17]Twilightchillt 14:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WP:SPAM. This image is used for illustrating the article “Alexz Johnson”. Having such an article—and the picture therein—for those readers who seek out her article is an entirely separate issue from helping Epitome Pictures advertise this artist by plastering one of their publicity photos for 24 hours on the Main Page as Today’s Featured Picture. Besides, Epitome Pictures’ boosting the blue channel and attenuating the red to obtain this color cast isn’t what I consider fine photography; it lends a “moody” note but a color-adapted eye wouldn’t see it this way—that freight elevator is painted blue. Greg L (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, basically I agree, but the image shows exactly what an actor/actress is supposed to do - acting, especially amid lack of her real-life free photos. Would wait for more feedback before possible withdrawal though. Twilightchillt 20:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don’t withdraw based largely on my opinion. My anti-SPAM views in this regard are not embraced by everyone who frequents this joint. Greg L (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's largely disgusting TV commercials, that annoy me :) I'd add that a role-playing shots certainly have no less EV than the real-life ones as you won't find freely licensed movie screenshots. Twilightchillt 09:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original Only Lovely portrait picture. I see it's EV and no issues concerning SPAM for me. JFitch(talk) 00:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this image reminds me that I am a guy. One of the few at FPC. Frogs and fungi don't do it for me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that how you say such a thing politely? I thought my reaction of “This picture makes me feel fuuuuuuuny” would be unbecoming. Greg L (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are human, and there's no requirement that we psychologically castrate ourselves before commenting at WP:FPC. Sexuality is part of the beauty of life; I oppose any effort to portray sexuality, or at least male heterosexuality, as inherently juvenile or disgusting. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a flattering picture of her and I support either the original or edit 2. I don't know what color Betty Davis' eyes are, but this woman his nice (and maybe Betty Davis) eyes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent image of a beautiful actress. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original because I don't think the superficial beauty of the subject should enter into our decision to feature an image. Ugly people are just as featurable if they're notable (and FPC isn't the place to decide on notability). This image also carries the scent of a fairly major colour cast -> wb correction needed. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might violate you sense of fair-play and all-things-humanity, but ugly people aren’t as eye-catching as pretty people—that’s why they’re called “pretty.” “Eye-catching” is a critical element of FPC criteria. Greg L (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iconic photographs: [18][19][20]. Eye-catching, well-executed, and of people that are not, at first glance, particularly attractive. An accomplished light painter can make a beautiful work out of any subject. Sebastião Salgado's is a good example of this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. (Your very good) point taken. Fine photographs can be had of ordinary looking people. But having beauty can certainly enter into a judgement of an image; beauty sorta goes with the territory and is a component of what makes people stop, stare & click when presented with a photograph. People like looking at attractive people. They even did experiments where chimps chose to “pay” with significant portions of daily food rations at a photo juke box of sorts for the privilege of staring at photos of chimps that had high social standing. This phenomenon is in our genes. Peter Karlsen’s point is that we just accept this as part of our innate humanity and get over feeling guilty about it because it’s *dirty* or somehow *unfair*. Greg L (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where guilt was being advocated and by whom, but I also think that we should cook our meat and use condoms, so maybe we can evolve in other ways, too. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evolve to where humans don’t prefer and enjoy looking at pictures of pretty people vs. ugly people? (????)… (I mean… really… WTF???). That would be somewhere between the heat death of the universe and infinity. In the mean time, there will be millions of frustrated liberals who fancy themselves as being enlightened beyond all comprehension who won’t like that. Like they say in the military: “So sad – Too bad.” Go with the flow dude; you’ll enjoy life more along the way if you accept things the way they are and forever will be. There will always be guys who hold the doors open for women. And there will always be guys who let go of the door a half second too soon so it hits the fat gals in the butt on the way in. Greg L (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that you would support your edited version of the image -- unless of course "the superficial beauty of the subject" makes a image of excellent technical quality and of a notable person non-featurable. I notice that you downscaled the image when changing the colour balance, which usually isn't necessary since the MediaWiki software will dynamically generate images of any reasonable resolution requested. As the image has an effective resolution of at least 50% of the size at which it was uploaded, downscaling to 30% of the original resolution is effectively discarding quality. Featured images should have as high an effective resolution as possible, within the file size limits for uploads. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As far as I know white balancing doesn't require downscaling, as any other retouchment, but anyway looks like a good proposition. Twilightchillt 07:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great and free portrait. No concerns for me. - Darwinek (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I strongly disagree with the suggestion that this is spam--in fact, I think a high-quality, professionally-done portrait released under an appropriate license is something we should very much encourage, and making this a featured pic might well help encourage that. On the other hand, the complaints about the color of the original are clearly valid, and the white-balanced suggestion is downscaled. If someone makes an equivalent white-balanced version at full-scale, then change this to support. Xtifrtälk 19:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The white balance issues you have raised here aren't accurate. This is how the image was shot and processed. This is accurate to how the lighting and balance were setup by the photographer. Reprocessing the image to represent what you 'feel' it should look like in your mind is not acceptable. The photographer took the portrait with a warm feel to it and technically it is fine. JFitch(talk) 22:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has what's called a colour cast, which means that the colours aren't particularly suited to a colour display that in many cases is already limited in the colours it can show. Just as you wouldn't drink your tea through a straw filled with coffee beans (unless you're the sort of person that feels harrassed by the tea-or-coffee question and would rather not decide), you wouldn't try to get an impression of a notable person's features through thick yellow glasses. The encyclopaedic standard has always been a neutral white balance, except where the notability or EV stemmed from a deliberately shifted white balance, for instance where the image is of interest only because the photographer is famous for his use of colour filters, or where the image itself has already become iconic with a particular white balance. In all other situations, we correct the colours so that the image contains true whites, true blacks, true greys. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what a colour cast is and it's nothing like your analagy. Using your analgy again, what you've done here is been taken the tea and changed the leaves to ones that suit you. Also in your 'corrected' version you've either just Auto WB'd or gone too far manually, either way you've compensated to achieve natural lighting, which is inaccurate for this studio shot, even without a colourcast. Also looking through the FP's we have, there are many with stylisedwhitebalanceJFitch(talk) 01:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I opposed or at least disagreed with several of those, but actually, none of them have a significant colour cast. This one does. And I'm old enough to remember changing film when moving indoors, to avoid unsightly white balances like this one. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree 100% with JFitch’s 22:27, 13 September post. We can’t be messing with the color cast of this publicity shot. That’s the shot in the article, that shot is precisely as the producer intended it, it shows the artist in the mood they prefer, that shot should stay in the article, so we can’t be advancing an alternative edit as the FPC. My “oppose” vote still stands for the reasons stated above. Greg L (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may apply to the article about the fictional character, but not the one about the actress. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of WP:MOSFICT the real person behind is more important (and not only because that character doesn't exist, but also because portrayals of fictional characters may vary from actor to actor). Twilightchillt 20:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're misapplying that guideline there; it's not about which subject is "more imortant", (for instance, which is more important, the character James Bond, or the actor Bob Holness who happened to play him in a minor radio series?) it's about how we discuss fictional content. We talk about things from a real-world perspective, yes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be illustrating aticles on fictional content with portrayals of said fictional content. As I said above, it would be unfair and misleading to lead an article on an actress with a picture of them in role unless it's made clear that that is them as someone else. I agree strongly with Greg and JFitch- this is a picture of the character; even if we're using it to illustrate the actress it remains a picture of the character, and it is not at all acceptable for us to be fiddling with that; it effectively equates to us changing what the character looks like. Unlike with photos of real people, there is not anything that this character really looks like, so we can't edit the picture to drag them closer to reality- they look like what the creators of the show tell us they look like. We wouldn't be changing the colours in a cartoon strip, would we? As such, strongly opposed to either or any edit. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support white balance edit, the contrast on it is perfect; #2 overdoes it too much. Excellent photo in any of the 3. Shadowjams (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support white balance edit or edit 2 only, oppose original: Colour cast on original looks awful. Don't buy that it "keeps it in character", nor do I care that it's "as the producer intended". This is not just their publicity shot any more. Maedin\talk 19:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it's still their character, and who are we to tell them what the character actually looks like? J Milburn (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This exactly. They present this charachter, we have the option of either supporting what we have, or opposing it. We have no right to edit this picture to something we like more. JFitch(talk) 13:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly do have that right, that's why we require a license that grants the four freedoms - these include the freedom to alter the work and share the altered version. This image has been released under such a license (CC-BY-SA). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point. OK, technically obviously we have the right to alter images, and we use this to make things more technically correct. However as J Milburn said above, we have no right to decide what it should look like, they as creators have that right, we either support or oppose it. JFitch(talk) 17:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more. We've been editing images at FPC for many years. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree with JFitch and JMilburn. Changing pictures shot by amateur volunteer contributors is an entirely different thing from changing a P.R. picture taken by a professional photographer and submitted by her P.R. firm; they know full well what they are doing and shouldn’t be second-guessed by anyone here.
That image is used to illustrate the Jude Harrison article, which is a fictional character. The image is the way the P.R. firm wants to portray the actress and character. A small cabal of less than a half-dozen volunteer people who happened to have had nothing better to do than cybersquat at FPC this week have zero right to say “Tough, we don’t like the color cast of the picture and changed it to suit our tastes.” Such an attitude reeks of excess self-esteem. Greg L (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We would be more legit to do so on most other publicity pictures- we could realistically say "ah, well, they've doctored it a bit, let's change it to what the subject really looks like" but what this character really looks like is what the production company says she does. Chnaging something here is not the equivalent of adjusting the colours of a photo to be more like life, it's the equivilent of adjusting the colours of an artistic work because we don't like them. We wouldn't change the colour of Peter Rabbit's coat, and so we shouldn't be fiddling with this photo if we want to be accurate and encyclopedic. J Milburn (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point has already been made that if we're using this to illustrate the real person (which we are, as the lede image!), the production argument is void. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)se I[reply]
I switched myself to the notebook screen and the way it displays the unedited original is tolerable for me, most likely because I discern all four grey circles. Twilightchillt 08:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and my old PC monitor displayed the image terribly. But because people have various monitors, I understand your concerns. Twilightchillt 10:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PLW, no, it isn't void, because the image is not her, even if we're using it to illustrate her, it's her in character- a suitable illustration for an actress. We should not hold up this picture and say "hey, look, it's Alexz Johnson!" We have to hold it up and say "hey, look, it's Alexz Johnson as Jude Harrison!" To further my comparison before, we wouldn't put forward the picture of Peter Rabbit and say "hey, look, it's a Rabbit!" J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to point out that you've just argued my side? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you miss the point. Clear as I can put it now: The photograph is of a fictional charater. This photograph is also used to represent the actress, true, however this doesn't change the fact that the photograph is of a fictional character! JFitch(talk) 13:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph is used as the infobox image in the actress' article, and that's the wrong place for an image that is either badly done or deliberately altered to have a yellow cast, whatever the reason. Note that a cast is not necessarily the same as a colour balance choice - a yellow cast makes white yellow; colour balance changes can be made without affecting luminosity, so white can stay white while, for instance, giving warmer colours to the rest of the image (and likewise for black). With a colour cast, there is always a net loss of information in the image, and what information remains gets more difficult to access because it's being crammed into a smaller fraction of available colour space. All of these are undesirable characteristics for an encyclopedia image. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you oppose a photograph from a noted photographer for this reason, when being used to show their work? Of course not- that would be a deliberate choice of the photographer, and of encyclopedic interest. Same here- we are promoting this as an image of the character, even if it is for the use in the article on the actress- we can't promote it as an image of the actress because it isn't one. We cannot just change the colouring of an image and then say "hey, now it's a picture of the actress, not the character!" any more than we can remove Peter Rabbit's coat in order to turn the illustration into a suitable one for rabbit. This is a photo of the character- we are all agreed on that- and yet, you have said yourself, it would be inappropriate to modify that for the article on the character. Why, then, would it be appropriate in the article on the actress, when it is still being used as a photograph of the character? J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your views on Peter Rabbit are a little strange. You're arguing that we can't use Peter Rabbit, a falsified, estranged rabbit, to illustrate rabbit, yet you maintain that we can use a falsified, estranged picture of Alexz Johnson to illustrate her article. That's a direct contradiction. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that we can't use "a falsified, estranged picture" to show Alexz Johnson, just as we couldn't use Peter Rabbit to show a rabbit- we can, however, most certainly use "a falsified, estranged picture" to show Alexz Johnson in character- big difference. The point is, the picture is of her in character, so it must be treated like a character portrait, not like a straight up portrait of Johnson herself. J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're going to suggest that she turns a different colour when she's "in character", including a strange yellow glow that fills her environment (bioluminescence), I fail to see what the strange colour choice has to do with her being in character. In fact, the ability to enter a role for an accomplished actress should be independent of the environment she's in. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are deliberately trying to miss the point here. It's quite clear and has been explained in many different ways. The Character doesn't exist, therefore the character can look however the creators feel, we have no right to decide what the character looks like the creators do, the creators provided this picture...therefore this is how she looks! Pretty simple really. Therefore we have no right to alter the image to what you 'think' it should look like, because what you think is wrong, and the creators are right. If you still don't understand read it again and again until you do. JFitch(talk) 12:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:2099725 FreightElevator 135.jpg --I'ḏ♥One 13:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tally: Support, Opposed - The majority seems to lean toward the original, I'm gonna close it because I think you guys have hashed this out enough, if I'm wrong contact me or just nominate this to delist and replace. --I'ḏ♥One 13:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you're wrong - counting only specific supports or opposes:
It points to me to a promotion of edit 1 (four supports, one oppose) rather than original (1 support, 2 opposed). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Counting like that doesn't sit quite right to me. The voters had 10 days they could've specified which their support was for, but keeping there supports general it appears to me that they're ok with any version, which adds up to 8 votes applicable to the original. --I'ḏ♥One 13:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the original was explicitly unsupported by 4 (Shadowjams, Maedin, Papa, Xtifr). The edits had non-support from only J Milburn and JFitch. That makes it Edit 1. Maedin\talk 14:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'ḏ♥One Had it right the first time. For all nominations here a vote of simply support is for the original. The way you are putting it you are trying to count support votes for the Alt's before the Alt's were even submitted. Thats just wrong. JFitch(talk) 14:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, a vote of support without clarification, when alts are available, indicates a lack of preference. There are only two open-ended supports from before edit 1 was added. And the nominator was active during the nomination and didn't clarify his vote, and also expressed happiness with the edit(s), so support for original and edits can easily be inferred from him. Maedin\talk 15:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. (I know the voting period is over, but I just wanted to express an alternate opinion on this image. Feel free to ignore it if you like.) This looks like a generic publicity shot of a B-list actress to me. These may be rare on Wikipedia, but they're a dime a dozen in the real world. What's so special about it? In 100 years when all the copyrights on a zillion glossy publicity photos have expired, are we going to feature them all? Kaldari (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not, added you. --I'ḏ♥One 17:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be promoting based on numbers. The arguments have been made- the only person who has responded to those was PLW, who has, as usual, ignored the arguments, made ridiculous statements and generally got in everyone's way. Many of those who supported the edits clearly did so as a knee-jerk reaction without actually considering the implications. If we aren't going to promote the original, so be it, but the alts should not be used in the articles in any way, shape or form, so should not be promoted. Also, while you've been number crunching, you've completely ignored the fact that Greg has made clear his opposition is far stronger to the alts- he happened to not write "strong oppose" anywhere, so it doesn't count? J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had already read everything you had to say on the subject by the time I made my oppose, and I made it clear that I disagreed. You had nothing further to reveal after that, and Papa argued for me just fine. The fact that I didn't respond is irrelevant. It is also not for you to say whether or not other voters made their decisions in a "knee-jerk" fashion. Has it not occurred to you that your opinion about a colour cast keeping an actress "in character" is ludicrous and that not everyone agrees with you? If they're so concerned about this being her image, the producers would have sprayed her with a fake tan by now and coloured her hair. We also do promote based on vote count, but as someone who doesn't close perhaps you hadn't realised. I haven't yet seen a persuasive argument for why the edited versions can't be used in the articles. And, one more thing, strong anything doesn't count. I know you like to do it, but it's meaningless. Maedin\talk 22:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know you had read the arguments concerned; I was talking about others (who, I accept, may have done, but that I doubt). Also, yes, vote-counting does hold a lot of sway here (and strong/weak opposition/support, which I and others sometimes use, has been deemed to count differently; check the archives... And no, I don't often close, because I prefer to vote...) but that doesn't mean we should open our mouths, cross our eyes and count... J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, out of pure interest, have you ever disagreed with anything PLW's said? J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, bugger it, you have done the classic "omg ur rong shut up" and not actually explained why. Care to elaborate? Or are my "ludicrous" arguments not worth your precious time? J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im Confused it says the first image is already a featured picture but the nomination isnt done yet. Spongie555 (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. IdLoveOne closed it incorrectly and then didn't bother to fully revert the action. I've asked him about this, twice now, and no action is forthcoming on his part. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't wrong, I closed it according to the numbers and explained to you on my talk page that if people had come back to change their supports I was ready to shift the ((FeaturedPicture)) star. I'm sorry that the candidate image you picked lost but that's just the way the ball bounces sometimes and you should know that by now. I'm putting this in recently closed, I'd hope we could have a mature discussion and re-count but I see that that's not going to happen. If you still want to see the edit you prefer be the featured one just nominate that image at D&R. --I'ḏ♥One 08:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was clear preference for the edit after it was added. Please make the correct choice per our established practice. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And some users like J Milburn and J Fitch came out and changed their votes specifically for and only for the original and there are 5 general votes that were obviously originally meant for the original. Common sense tells you that if those users didn't like the original they wouldn't have voted on it or would just have opposed it to begin with. --I'ḏ♥One 09:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong about this, and Maedin has already told you that. The instructions specifically say that Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly. and it has been established in previous discussion that if reviewers do not change their votes, that means they're happy with any version. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, then it could be 8 to 7, it still reminds though that by that same argument it could be 8 supports to the original and still only 4 for an edited version. --I'ḏ♥One 16:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that doesn't follow at all. Use your sense of logic please. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd demonstrated in the chart, and here's no 'biased picture of debate,' that's why I added the dagger and note. J Fitch and I both already explained that a basic "support" is originally meant for the original version, not that I mind this use of a technicality you're using PLW. --I'ḏ♥One 19:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've pointed out that that's hollow. Check out again what the instructions say. I was helping you by actually posting it verbatim at 10:02. Did you read it? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: That is a technicality. My point was, still is and was when it was apparent to me to that the original was the one that should be promoted -- well, what I said in my last point. Your example is basically like a poll version of 'move your feet, lose your seat' or finder's keepers. If that's allowed here than w/e, but it's still not the same as saying more people voted for the one you like because that is not what happened and that is why I promoted the original, not an edited version, and I'm not sorry for doing so either. --I'ḏ♥One 22:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you officially declaring now that you engaged in a biased closure? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is what ILO is saying, and I don't think it's helpful to suggest he is. I just think the two of you have counted in a different way- the way ILO has counted the votes is not how we ave generally done it here, but that does not mean it's a terrible idea. It does mean, however, that it should probably not have been used in this case. J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making BS false accusations against me, and I did notice when you made the same suggestion earlier but had sense enough to delete it. I don't even know who the hell that girl is and don't care about any version of this picture. I'm not sure what kind of selective understanding disorder you must be suffering from, but all I've done in each and every post I've made here today is state firmly that my concern is with the numbers. You are the one who has shown blatant bias for your choice alone and total disconcern for people who've voted differently than you. --I'ḏ♥One 23:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, but I know how to close without bringing my personal views into it, and in accordance with the logic that we've always applied. You changing the logic is what needs explaining. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eight is bigger than four is a partisan personal view? Omigawd call the police so I can confess! Seriously, you're just reaching now. Your accusations are more BS than would be needed to fertilize the continent of Australia. --I'ḏ♥One 23:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add that I considered the votes as well as the arguments. This is nearly a "no consensus", but Edit 1 just has it. Makeemlighter (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow this is just stupid. How you get +8 is amazing. Thats some creative school you people must have gone too to learn counting like that. So now what you've essentially done is nominate a file that is just going to have to be delisted as it has no place being nominated as it isnt used in any articles (wrongly placing it into places it doesn't belong is not ok, we have never changed articles to warrant a FP, it has to be warrented first, then we see it's EV for FP). Common sense was lost here I see. JFitch(talk) 11:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a procedure for dealing with cases where an edit is promoted. If you want to take this dispute to article space (which is what your tone sounds like), then that's not really of any concern for how this candidacy should be closed. Generally, I would advise that you read what is available on the FPC page (where this is currently transcluded) about the nominating, reviewing and closing process, maybe it will answer some questions. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't give a crap which one gets picked, but I still say we should've kept it on the original since it clearly got more votes, this is worse than the Florida 2000 general elections. --I'ḏ♥One 14:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly prefer the original, as I have made clear, but on vote counting, I'd say that, techically, the alt has it. J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I strongly disagree with that, when a person comes to an image and puts Support that is generally for the original version unless they come back after another possible candidate comes in and changes their vote. In this case what Papa Lima, Maedin and Makeemlighter seem to have done is change the minds of the users who clearly originally meant their vote for the original for them for a minority-picked image. --I'ḏ♥One 14:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the easiest way to solve this would be to ask the original "support"ers for their preference (and it would be good if they could be pointed to the discussion above before they make a call). J Milburn (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I notified them. --I'ḏ♥One 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly not meaning to badger or patronise, but have you read through the debate above? J Milburn (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. When an alternate version of an image is promoted as a featured picture, the image in the article is replaced with the promoted version. We're not forbidden to modify images supplied by third parties - the definition of "free content" implemented on Wikipedia for the purpose of determining the acceptability of media licenses actually requires that permission to distribute modified versions be granted. By supplying the publicity photograph under cc-by-sa-3.0, the producers expressly granted Wikipedia editors, and anyone else, the right to edit the image for white balance or any other purpose. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been any objection on those grounds. The objection has been that it would not be accurate to modify it- in the same way we could legally edit the Mona Lisa so she had a blue face, but wouldn't want to, we wouldn't want to edit this, while we legally can (so Jfitch, Greg and I argued). I'm getting the impression you've really missed the point- perhaps take another read through? J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The white balance edit isn't a defacement that would make the image unsuitable for encyclopedic use, like the Mona Lisa with "a blue face". It's just a technical correction. We've never had a rule that any image editing at all renders photographs inaccurate. I mentioned our standards of image licensing because we wouldn't go to such great lengths to preserve the right to modify photographs, only to forbid editors to utilize the permission in any way. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no one is proposing that there's "a rule that any image editing at all renders photographs inaccurate" or should be. The issue is in relation to this particular photograph, because of the nature of the subject. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question, I suppose, is whether the subject is "Alexz Johnson" or "Alexz Johnson's publicity photograph". Since only Johnson, and not the photograph itself, is notable, I believe that the subject is the actress herself, in which case we're not obliged to retain the original color cast. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That argument would be a deal-breaker for me, apart from the fact that the subject is neither of the things you list- the subject is "Alexz Johnson as Jude Harrison". She's not herself here, she's in character- the point is, the character looks like what the publishers tell us she looks like- that's why I personally see it as improper to edit this. We're not "bringing it closer to reality" in cleaning it- there is no reality to bring it closer to. J Milburn (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose that instead of using a publicity photograph, an editor managed to enter the set, and take a photograph of Alexz Johnson playing Jude Harrison, without a producer-created color cast. Would such an image then be excluded from articles, or be un-featureable, because the producers had not expressly approved it? Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shit, good point. Ok, yeah, I accept that. J Milburn (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Unless, of course, the red sheen was part of the character in the TV series- compare, if a character was always shown in greyscale, it would be inappropriate to show them in colour. However, I see no evidence that this is the case here.) Consider my opposition to the alts withdrawn. J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read all the discussion above and after having given the matter some serious consideration I clarify that my support is for the original version only. However, I don't oppose the alts. --Priest zadok (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image
Original
Edit 1
Edit 2
Support
TwilightChill†, J Milburn, J Fitch, Tony the Tiger, Darwinek, Priest Zadok†
Xtifr, Papa Lima Whiskey, Shadowjams, Maedin, TwilightChill†, Priest Zadok†, Peter Karlsen
Papa Lima Whiskey, Tony the Tiger, Maedin, TwilightChill†, Priest Zadok†
Oppose
Greg L, Papa Lima Whiskey, Kaldari, Maedin
Greg L, Kaldari, J Milburn
Greg L, Kaldari, J Milburn
†General "Support"
I'm leaning to support any white balance edit, the original looks quite bad on conventional PC monitors. Twilightchillt 14:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2010 at 16:37:19 (UTC)
Original - Jaw of Ambondro mahabo, seen in lingual view (from the side of the tongue). The scale bar is 1 millimetre (0.039 in). The mammal species is known only from this fragmentary lower jaw with three teeth, interpreted as the last premolar and the first two molars. The oldest known mammal with putatively tribosphenic teeth, it is about 25 million years older than the oldest previously known mammal with such teeth.
Reason
Not something you see every day- this entire species and genus (the article for which is a current FAC candidate) is known entirely from this tiny fragment of jaw. We have a microscopic photograph of the fragment, in the usual style for this kind of thing, sent to us by the scientists at the request of the article writer. Highly encyclopedic content and style, massive encyclopedic value, incredibly irreplaceable, obvious technical quality. Caption modified from the article.
Support Not visually exciting, but, as is stated in the nom, incredibly interesting. WackyWaceconverse | contribs 13:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A clear illustration of the sum of our knowledge about this animal. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm actually not wild about the artistic or technical quality, but the encyclopedic value is too tremendous to overlook. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Ambondro lingual.jpg --I'ḏ♥One 17:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In an apparent effort to preserve detail in the clouds of all things, the main subject (the helicopter) is too dark. Greg L (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might be your monitor Greg - Looks perfectly light enough to me... The dark bits are black anyway... gazhiley.co.uk 20:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn’t either my 27-inch iMac LCD monitor or my 21-inch Sony Trinitron external monitor; both are adjusted properly and award-winning photography featured on photography-related sites always look good. Greg L (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough... maybe mine's lighter than it should be then... gazhiley.co.uk 15:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, but too small, leaves me wanting to see more detail. P. S. Burton (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a rare aircraft, and moving at speed, but a featured picture should at least show all of the blades. Good shot apart from poor composition. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see all six blades...Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means the entire blade. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good picture of a helicopter in flight. The slight blur on the blades makes it just dynamic enough to work. Detail is excellent on my 27-inch iMac LCD monitor. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The composition and backlighting keep this short of FP - also, this image is not irreplacable and standards are appropriately higher.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhatfield (talk • contribs) 14:45, 19 September 2010
Oppose for now, will support restored version. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, I'm not wild about this one, if I'm honest. The focus isn't great, the composition's a bit ordinary and it's a bit dusty. J Milburn (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It caught my eye and made me want to know who it was. I would click through her article if it were on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're starting to sound like Greg :P J Milburn (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The picture does have some depth of focus issues, is that normal for daguerreotypes? What I'm getting at is whether it's the fault of the photographer or ca. 1850 technology.--RDBury (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems rather good for its time in that respect - it wasn't until a lot later that those sort of issues disappear - the photos of Mathew Brady - considered one of the best photographers of his time - have similar issues. However, I do wonder about the colours. I could buy a daguerrotype being a bit yellow from the bromide and yellowing; conversely, desaturating photographs is rarely that bad of a choice; but this odd greenish cast? Seems a bit off. Now, my experience has not involved seeing many originals, so I may be wrong, but given the two uploads switch from red to green, colour fidelity is in question. Adam Cuerden(talk) 21:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per J Milburn, at full resolution this clearly needs some dust sweeping. Also worth playing around with Adam's idea to get a crisper color scheme. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 03:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually dont know how to edit photos. So i dont know how to dust sweep and get a crisper color scheme. If anyone knows how to do that it would be fine with me. But personally i think its ok. Spongie555 (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per technical concerns stated above by J Milburn. - Darwinek (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Adam Cuerden, this is one of the best old, B/W pics I've seen in a while and probably the best photo or illustration of Susan B. Anthony I've ever seen. --I'ḏ♥One 15:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The "technical concerns" need to be understood in context that this is an 1850s daguerreotype. The quality and resolution are good, and the depth of field and portrait composition are excellent. Shadowjams (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns are motivated by the large number of excellent restorations of older work that have passed through FPC. It seems fair to insist upon restoration when we already have a ton of restored images. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. That seems fair. But I think notwithstanding those concerns, this image is in great shape. What specifically could we improve about it? Or is it a lost cause? Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally argue a lost cause. Not wild about the composition, and the depth of field is very poor. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I persoanlly dont know how to restore photos. Spongie555 (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the artifacts and shallow DoF are very much in keeping with a daguerrotype of this era. Despite these flaws it is an excellent image with high detail and very high historical value. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fewer than two thirds support? I don't mind either way- it looks like the consensus is to promote, to me, but I know "two thirds" is banded around a lot. J Milburn (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, especially given that it's not featured anywhere else. I think history category would go. Twilightchillt 09:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think a heraldry (and related- seals, emblems, that sort of thing) category would be good. We have a few heraldry pictures bouncing around in various places. J Milburn (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be a bit broader, "Emblems, symbols, logos, and heraldry"? Adam Cuerden(talk) 20:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, perfect. Could probably be a subcat of artwork. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please if you do create something new, try to give it a shorter name - "signs" or "signage" or something. Even "symbols" would probably be general enough to cover all those things listed above. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks nice and clean at thumbnail and while the dings of reality are clear at full size, can hardly hold the actual flaws of the physical object depicted against it! (What? Your photo of the Venus de Milo has no arms?!) Staxringoldtalkcontribs 03:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's a nice picture to be sure, problem is that we don't really know that it belonged to the McDonnells of Antrim (the Earls of Antrim). It certainly isn't the coat of arms of the current McDonnell of Antrim, and it isn't the coat of arms given in Burke's General Armory for the earl back then at atleast (1884). At the moment we don't know who it belongs (or belonged) to. I think it had better be renamed to what is certain - it's a coat of arms outside Dunluce Castle.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the discussion has come out that the coat of arms changed over time, with this reflecting an older (but very similar) form of the coat of arms than the current earl uses. The differences are minor, and the upshot is likely to just be using both in the article. =) Adam Cuerden(talk) 00:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - my chief reservation is that Brianann MacAmhlaidh seems to raise some good points about whose coat of arms this actually is. I think those issues should be resolved if this is to go to FP. Otherwise, it is a very good, clear image with strong EV. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an interesting type of nomination we don't usually get. --I'ḏ♥One 17:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2010 at 20:52:33 (UTC)
Original - Palmer Mansion, an important Chicago (dun dun dun! - but seriously, stop being so anal about that. If we get a lot of high-quality content about it, that's only a plus =) ) landmark destroyed in 1951. A district of Chicago sprung up around it.
Reason
Historical view of a destroyed building. Only high-quality image I can find with the documented colours. The tree is a little unfortunate, but since the building no longer exists...
Oppose because the building is so obscured. I get how valuable and irreplaceable this is (it would be the perfect nom for my failed "valued pictures that actually means something" proposal...) but the fact "we can't do any better" does not make it feature-worthy. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is, obviously, a rare file, but with the, well, forest in front of it obscuring the view, it is not particularly asthetic. WackyWaceconverse | contribs 13:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a lousy composition of a building before. I wouldn’t have taken this picture when I was 7 years old. Greg L (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per J Milburn -- The historical value makes me want to like this picture much more, but there are just too many problems with the composition. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - White-spotted puffer (Arothron hispidus) is being cleaned by Hawaiian cleaner wrasse, Labroides phthirophagus.Cleaner fish are fishes that provide a service to other fish species by removing dead skin and ectoparasitesAlt1Alt2 Disclaimer:what is seen behind the bigger fish flipper is not a noise and not chromatic aberration. It is just a tail of a smaller fish. :)Alt3Alt4Alt5
Comment I just noticed that the image was nominated a few days ago here. I was really upset by oppose reasons. Some wrote that the lead image for the article is a better illustration. Really? A better illustration of what? The image is nominated as a cleaner fish, and the nominated image is the best image of a cleaner fish. If the image was nominated as a cleaning station, than this image File:Cleaning station.JPG would have been a better illustration, but still not the lead image in cleaner fish. Other opposes complained "chromatic aberration" There's none. It is a natural color of the fish, and details are seen even in thumbnail. Besides all of the above the nominated image is probably the best one to illustrate White-spotted puffer. So here's another nomination after my explanations.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original as before. Oppose alts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (1: blurry, 2: shot from top (composition), 3: underexposed and showing no interaction, 4: upside down (and possibly confusing composition anyway - is it really eating that sea urchin?), 5: inclusion of upside down photograph and wb in top left). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if the same ignorant oppose reasons as before will be repeated, and they were! A few days ago President Obama complained about republicans. He said: "If I say the sky is blue, they say 'no.' If I said fish live in the sea, they'd say 'no.'" . Here's is pretty much the same situation.
Nothing is upside down. The fish is eating a sea urchin, in the only position he could ad the time. Just another ignorant review.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great EV, nice and rare photo. Also promoted FP on Commons with 9:0 supported result -- George Chernilevskytalk 17:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hint When you get upset by people opposing a FPC, its usually time to step back for a second and try to get some perspective. P. S. Burton (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the hint. Maybe "upset" was not the right word to use. It is all my English you know. It is not that I am upset because my image got opposed. I upset for the reviewers who oppose the image without clear understanding what they are opposing for.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well just let it go, people are usually unwilling to change their minds, but sometimes they're right. I'd suggest that if one image fails, try another, and keep trying until you really get a good eye for quality so good they can't help but agree, and actually in this case I'm not really happy with this image, which is why I couldn't bring myself to vote for it last time. It's nice, especially for underwater, but this isn't a good angle to see either fish, plus it's very small which further doesn't allow for a really good look at the fish. A good closeup profile would be far more amazing. --I'ḏ♥One 17:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image you compared to is an aquarium shot. The nominated image was taken in a wild. The size of the fish is less than 4 inches.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you didn't miss my point. Also, as far as the caption, I don't think they're trying to help other fish so much as that they're just opportunists that found a niche and free eating in the skin of other fish, not to be gross. --I'ḏ♥One 17:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The caption was copied from cleaner fish. Of course the cleaner fishes do not clean other fishes to "help" them. It is simply an example of a symbiotic relationship. I do not believe I missed you point, but I am not sure you did not miss mine. One cannot compare the images of two absolutely different fishes, with an absolutely different behavior taken in absolutely different environment, and under absolutely different conditions. Cleaner fishes are really fast, and I could not have taken a real close up of it without cutting off the other fish.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is the caption's a bit naive-sounding, not that that's what we're voting on. So what? You should've just cut the other fish off if it would've let you get a close-up photo of the cleaner fish, that's the subject we're voting on, right? Or if ever you can try to get a camera with a better view. --I'ḏ♥One 14:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGerardM (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC) NB There is no before, I think this is the probably the best of the bunch[reply]
Comment I added a composite to show the behavior of a small fish. Each individual frame is available by request. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 5 I like that montage and it sort of lets you get away with the bad angle of the fish. I also support the image in the lower right of Edit 5 if it is added. --I'ḏ♥One 22:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everyone, please indicate exactly which images you support or oppose. With 8329 versions, this will quickly turn into a mess if we aren't careful. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was under the impression that in the case of collages, we prefer promoting individual images per Dschwen's argument on Alvesgaspar's poppy nomination. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my support vote above is support for all variants. It is really nice photos IMO. Tiny cleaner fish at job and big client. Perfect photos taken in wild. --George Chernilevskytalk 07:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. As before, I don't consider this image the best for illustrating the article in which it is used, and none of the alts really hit the spot either. I'm mainly opposing because I think it's a little sub-standard EV-wise. The fact it doesn't even lead the article is a bit of a giveaway- we have other images which are more effective in illustrating the article. Compositionally, they're all a little awkward- it's hardly eye-popping photography. I don't like the collage at all- they're six similar shots, not six stages of something, or six different views or something. Not good as a set- you could add more or take more away and the set would be no more or no less "complete". J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the set shows how the cleaner moves together with the fish, and cleans different part of its body. I could have added more images to the set, and then EV will be better. I could have taken some out, and EV would have been lost. No other images in the article illustrates a cleaner fish better, none. When I added the image to the article I got this message at my talk page. You are entitled to your opinion, but IMO it only shows the ignorance over and over again.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is ignorant about what I've said? If you're gonna use that kind of language, back it up. You have so far attacked anyone who disagreed with you in this nomination- have you considered that it may not be "everyone else" who's wrong here? J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support like the last time. Great underwater image taken in a wild. Broccoli (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it is disappointing that this is heading towards a promote when its possible the nominator has scared away opposition by shouting at it. Does anyone else have any more thoughts on this nomination? J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(And, if it makes any difference to the final outcome, I am most strongly opposed to alts 4 and 5 for reasons given by myself and PLW above.) J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More input needed on each image. Everyone, feel free to comment, even if you didn't vote.Makeemlighter (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I strongly oppose Alt5 for the reason I explained (this is not a set, it's a batch of similar images) and strongly oppose Alt4 as, so far as I can see, it is upside down, despite Mbz's angry assertions to the contrary. Why is the sand on the top? I oppose them all generally because I don't feel this is the best possible illustration for the article subject, as I explained in the first nom. It doesn't so much illustrate the behaviour as show two fish that happen to be next to each other. I'm not saying it's an easy behaviour to show, I'm just saying that, to my eyes, this just doesn't show it. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though I did not vote, here are my thoughts. In terms of showing the behaviour and the fish the best images here are likely the original and alt 1. They have the most pleasant composition and are closest to clearly showing the wrasse cleaning the puffer. Alt 1 probably shows this behaviour more clearly. All of the other single image alts are not nearly as well composed or as clear. The composite image doesn't add much value and is probably a case whether the whole is less than the sum of it's parts. The original and alt 1 are the only two viable images for me. Cowtowner (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at the risk of being called ignorant and possibly other names, too, I can say that had I voted, I would have opposed. Mainly for reasons explained by PLW and J Milburn. --Priest zadok (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, too bad you did not vote. I had a very, very good laugh over some reviews, but most of all over PLW claim that alternative "4: upside down ". A few more reviews like that would have made me feel even better about the nomination than I already do. I do mean it.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At danger of repeating myself, and in all seriousness, I wonder how many people would have come out to oppose had there not been such aggression here. I will leave this to Makeemlighter, but I question the consensus here. J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong here, but I don't see a consensus to promote; there's not enough supports floating around...is this discussion necessary or should this just be closed as a non-promotion?Cowtowner (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was silly of me to nominate the images or even upload them for that matter. I withdraw my nomination because the images are way too good for that forum. BTW I removed the image from the article also. J Milburn may safely rest his D= DX campaign now --Mbz1 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grow up. I didn't support the first time, you coming back and just shouting isn't going to make me support a second time. There's absolutely no reason to behave like this; your conduct in this discussion has been awful. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? My conduct has been awful? Well, you might be right. I do need to grow up, and stop trying to prove to the reviewers, who have not a slightest idea what they are talking about, that the image has encyclopedic value, and does add value to the article. BTW as I said I did remove the image from the article. Guess what, it was added back in a few minutes with the edit summary "adding back good, encyclopedic image" , and this edit summary explains why your no, not just a single oppose vote, but the whole disgusting campaign against the nomination only showed an absolute ignorance about the subject that you have never seen, and probably will never see yourself in a real life. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that the image adds something to the article, but I stand by what I have said; the image does not illustrate the subject as well as I would like a featured picture to. You've done little to provide any counter arguments, all you've done (and all you've continued to do) is be abusive. There has been no "campaign", and the fact you've continued in your efforts to make this personal doesn't just cross the line, it's pathetic. (For what it's worth, no, I don't dive, I'm not a very strong swimmer. I've never seen this in the wild. So what? I doubt many reviewers have actually seen most of the things on which they comment.) J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photo technically just fine. But the subject matter lacks color and the day isn’t sunny, which lends a *blah* note. I simply don’t find it eye-catching at all. This looks like the sort of thing I would shoot with my iPhone and go in and ask my wife “See this plant with spider webs on it? Is it a weed or something you want out there?” Ergo, lack of “stop, stare & click.” Greg L (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but a plant with spider webs all over it just doesn't really have much encyclopedic value. WackyWaceconverse | contribs 10:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A plant with spiderwebs? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. --Muhammad(talk) 11:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a plant with spider webs. WackyWace didn’t use the proper lingo when s/he used the term “EV” to cite the objection. Please don’t bite the newcomers just because you don’t consider them to be an insider who has not yet earned their Ovaltine decoder ring and can’t yet talk the lingo here. Clearly, WackyWace considers the spider webs to be a flaw significant enough to justify not awarding FP status to this self-nomination. For me, the spider webs were just one of the elements that made the photo look like an afterthought snapshot of a weed on a drab day. Greg L (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Next you'll be telling me a lioness' picture looks like a snapshot because her teeth are bloody, rabbit's picture is not acceptable if it has some grass stuck to it. These things are natural. I strongly oppose changing a natural scene, brushing off spider webs to take a picture. --Muhammad(talk) 14:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on this image at this time, but, more generally, natural does not always mean good. Take parasites, or diseases, or dirt, or awkward posing- all of them can be natural, but all can prevent a photo of a plant or animal (or mushroom :P) from being as good as it could be. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The spider webs here aren't a problem, but sometimes it does make sense to make some scene modifications. Recent fungi pictures I've usually have a dig to expose the Volva, for example. I've also pruned plants (in my own garden), to allow the perspective I wanted etc. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm happy with the brightness and detail. --I'ḏ♥One 15:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - technically it's excellent (the "spider webs" objection is just weird to me), but I agree with Greg L that it's just not quite striking enough to make sense as a FPC. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I was gonna go against the flow and support this, but, looking at its use in the article, I'm not convinced. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I can't help but feel that an image of the full-grown moth should be the infobox (perhaps alone, but in addition to this works well too). J Milburn (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Focus not quite as I would have liked but the lighting is quite good. Any tutorials for the ring flash? --Muhammad(talk) 15:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll prepare one later today. As for the focus, please keep in mind the image has >12MP! --Dschwen 15:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC). P.S.: it is actually pretty close to this, only that I used sturdier cardboard for the back and added a V-shaped beam splitter where the flash enters (helps get the light distributed more evenly. --Dschwen 15:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a picture of my contraption with some image annotations (so be sure to go to commons to view the image page). --Dschwen 15:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per above. Haljackey (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High quality macro shot. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 12:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The vignetting is pretty heavy. Sometimes it's hard too avoid in macro shots, but I just wanted to ask if any was added in post-production. Kaldari (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the only thing I did in post was removing sensor spots and denoise the blue sky bg. This actually isn't vignetting, and the Sigma 150mm macro only exhibits vignetting at very open apertures. If I recall correctly it is probably a tree in the background. --Dschwen 02:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good detail and composition. Not a huge fan of the lighting, but I suppose I'm nitpicking :) Kaldari (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. What is the thing it is standing on? Can it be said too? Foldedwater (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to find out. It is the fruit (or maybe unripe flower pod?) of a vine plant clingint to a mesh wire fence. --Dschwen 13:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support These air-to-air shots are striking and rare. Greg L (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice to have this image at larger than 1,023 × 678 pixels if available, but this is enough for a web image.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 16:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, but too small, leaves me wanting to see more detail. P. S. Burton (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - striking and rare image, quite usable even at this resolution Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the minimum size for FP on enwp is 1000px. As this photo meets that threshold, the size of the image really shouldn't matter. As to whether a larger resolution photo is possible, many photographers like to profit from their hard work, and by making available an extremely high resolution photo this would negate their ability to profit from their work. Hence, a higher resolution version of this image will not be able to be provided. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak 10:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly small, yes, as we have all noted, but incredibly striking. WackyWaceconverse | contribs 13:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fact of the matter is that this photo really is small. It may exceed the bare minimum in terms of size, but many crucial details are not visible. -- mcshadyplTC 23:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Smaller than might have been hoped for, but still, it's a very interesting and high-quality picture. It has a good EV and is pleasing to the eye. Clementinatalk 02:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image meets WP:FP?, so oppose votes should not be based simply on the size. We have all agreed that the image is on the small side for a FP, but since it was created by a professional aviation photographer and he has made a version available to Wikipedia, we should be grateful and not complaining.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 07:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is not so small that it is excluded from this process does not mean that it couldn't be said to be too small. We reject high quality images all the time, even when they meet the size requirements, because they are too small. J Milburn (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Truth is that it's big enough by the criteria, and not a generous crop, and it hits the spot in every other way. And in contrast to J Milburn's view, I believe that we don't routinely reject images that are big enough because they're not big enough, but rather, because there are other exacerbating faults. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, perhaps, but those are sometimes faults that we would be willing to ignore on a larger image. J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, images should be judged when scaled to minimum eligible size or slightly above. At the same time, just because an image looks okay at minimum eligible size doesn't mean we should forego restorative measures if there are problems like scratches or digital noise visible at full size. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the quality concerns above. Cowtowner (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suport. Great picture. Fulfills the size requirements and is large enough for me too. Offliner (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: absolutely gorgeous. It's a shame it isn't larger, as I wish to download it as my desktop background, but alas... bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:58, 15 September 2010
Oppose. I'm not sold on this, it just isn't big enough, to my eyes. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - while it's a shame it isn't larger, that alone isn't enough in my opinion to detract from an otherwise excellent and detailed shot of this plane. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. Not enough detail. Resolution is insufficient for such a large subject. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Aesthetically top notch, pity about the resolution. Doug (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Sukhoi Su-30 inflight.jpg —Maedin\talk 17:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2010 at 16:55:21 (UTC)
Original - Launch of steamboat Frank J. Hecker. St. Clair, Michigan, September 2, 1905
Reason
Momentous and eye-catching photo. I thought ships are commonly launched empty, but here you can see several persons onboard while this stuff is watering :) The accompanying sounds must have been fascinating as well.
Comment: Current licensing/sourcing information is substandard- it it claimed it was published before 1923, but where? J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think either in Detroit or in St. Clair, where the photo was taken. I've fixed the license, the copyright notice in the LoC file became stale. Twilightchillt 19:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Setting aside licensing issues, this is a terribly dramatic shot with spectacular lighting. Greg L (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm really trying hard to like this picture but it seems all wrong to me... The arty shot and angle it's taken from just don't do it for me... The flag may well have been massive, but it seems overly large compared to the size of the ship (unless this is a really small ship - there's no article for the ship so I can't compare), and the heads sticking up over the edge spoil it for me - until I read the caption I thought they were features of the ship... And finally without prior knowledge of the process of sideways launching this picture doesn't show the process - it could even be a straight launch for all we know (launching backward towards but past the camera position)... I know few will agree with me on this but I just don't like it... gazhiley.co.uk 09:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overall the photo is pretty bland, despite it's historical value. Not featured picture material in my opinion. Haljackey (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - normally I would prefer a more conventional, descriptive angle for a FP, but the image is so dynamic, with so much detail and such crisp lines, I find it hugely compelling. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It adds significantly to the article. Launching is a dynamic event, and this crisp and well composed photograph demonstrates that well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2010 at 03:51:03 (UTC)
Original - Franklin in London, 1767, wearing a blue suit with elaborate gold braid and buttons, a far cry from the simple dress he affected at the French court in later years. Painting by David Martin, displayed in the White House.
Reason
Very good painting of him. It was featured on Commons. It is actually the painting of Franklin thats in the White House(random fact).
Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I never ever tire of good light & shadow in paintings. I hope someone finds a killer example of light & shadow on cloth; I remember one that was stunning but can’t find it anymore. Greg L (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where's the EV here? J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of Benjamin? Greg L (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's a picture of the subject, doesn't mean it automatically has EV. I've considered nominating this before myself, but I just couldn't see the EV. It seems to be "just another picture", thrown in to break up the text. J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "famous painting" line would hold weight only if the painting was discussed in the article in question. As for the "fancy clothes" thing- so what? You saying we should have a featured picture of everyone in a suit, and a featured picture of everyone in jeans and a sweattop? It's not really adding much to the article. There is something there, I'll admit that, but, in its current usage, it's not exactly important. J Milburn (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs cleaning, and is this really the painting and not a scanning of a print? --I'ḏ♥One 15:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know if its really the painting or a scanned print. I didnt upload it Spongie555 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. File:Benjamin Franklin 1759.jpg has more EV, showing a younger Franklin that differs substantially from the more common view of him. howcheng {chat} 17:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent reproduction of the painting. Composition speaks for itself; an older portrait is preferable in my opinion. Shadowjams (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta disagree, see here, it's apparently much more red IRL. --I'ḏ♥One 18:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not really feeling the EV here. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are better pictures of this guy around. Haljackey (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Greg L and Shadowjams. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2010 at 06:08:18 (UTC)
Original - The Whooping Crane, Grus americana, is an endangered species with an estimated population of 535. This individual, resident at the Calgary Zoo, is one of an estimated 152 captive birds worldwide.
Reason
It is high resolution, with clear details visible in the head, feathers, and surface of the legs. I was lucky with this shot, as the bird was doing its own thing and didn't seem to mind me creeping up to him only a few feet away, and also because it was overcast, so I didn't have to worry too much about blown highlights.
Oppose If there was ever a reason for HDR treatment (see Mespelbrunn Castle, below), this one needs it. The brightness and contrast and dynamic range needs fixing. Then there is the overly in-focus background cited by WackyWace. The nearly perfectly sideways orientation of the bird also seems less than idea for this particular bird for some reason. The overcast day really lends to an exceedingly boring, *blah* look. Far too many shortcomings to be considered as exemplary bird photography (or any photography). Greg L (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. HDR is something I'm just starting to figure out, and I agree, some bracketed exposures and Photoshop twiddling would have helped this out. Still learning. Sasata (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HDR is designed for reducing contrast, not increasing it. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This shot just needs better lighting, not HDR. HDR isn't a substitute for shooting a good picture. Kaldari (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Nice depth of field, but probably could use some more contrast. Shadowjams (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Juxtaposing a unicoloured bird with a busy, (semi-)natural background is what gets some pictures to the top of photography competitions. Here is a composition that has worked for many heron photos because these birds have a very intent gaze already, and this very real impression (don't get near the beak!) is heightened by the background. You couldn't have done much more for the contrast with a single exposure - the histogram couldn't have been better-used. What you could do, though, is clean up the chromatic aberration - there are filters for that. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support It's a good generic picture, but needs something more to get my full support. Haljackey (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support; PLW's arguments are convincing. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs brightening. --I'ḏ♥One 18:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried brightening, but couldn't do it well enough to not have the highlights on the top of the bird blown out. Perhaps someone more adept in Photoshop could give it a go? (I have the RAW file too). Sasata (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is the lighting itself, not the brightness. The highlights are all concentrated in one area (the back of the bird), thus leaving the rest of the picture rather dark and lackluster. Kaldari (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Curves can brighten without blowing stuff out. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wackywace. Lovely picture, just a little too distracting. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2010 at 03:26:30 (UTC)
Original - Washington's crossing of the Delaware River, occurring on December 25, 1776 during the American Revolutionary War, was the first move in a planned surprise attack organized by George Washington against the Hessian forces in Trenton, New Jersey.
Reason
One of Washingtons most memorable portraits. It has high EV. It was featured on Commons. Also this is the second nomination beacuse i saw someone else tried to nominate a image of this(not this one) and failed but i cant find that nomination.
Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image is iconic to the point of being overused. Greg L (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like the Ben Franklin I don't think this is the actual painting. It's extremely smooth and flat, doesn't look like canvass at all, but I'm wrong I'll scratch this out. --I'ḏ♥One 18:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I don't know if this is the actual painting or not, I believe it comes from a style where the artist strives to hide the brush stroke and therefore have a result that is smooth and "unpainterly" Cowtowner (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the original is also very large. However, does it look slightly blurred to anyone else? Adam Cuerden(talk) 21:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that it looks blurred and you are correct: the original is very large. Cowtowner (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Photo could have been taken better. Nothing against the painting itself. Haljackey (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Greg L's point is well taken, but this is a superior image of the painting. I am a little surprised at the criticism of the image quality (for a Commons featured image, no less). A Google image search for Washington Crossing the Delaware turns up other images that are washed out, off balance, poorly cropped, overly dark, and otherwise inferior. This may be an overused image, but this is one of the best pictures of this painting on the net. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty good, but it's a sub-quality digital reproduction and we usually have higher standards about these things. For example we dismissed a disappointing version of The Scream, this nomination almost failed until a much better version was uploaded, and just look through the feature paintings. That's why I opposed this and that Ben Franklin one, but I guess if they pass and a better version comes along we can just D&R. --I'ḏ♥One 22:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your insistence on quality. This image is the finest digital reproduction of Washington Crossing the Delaware that I can find on the net. I would not rule out the possibility that a better and clearer image could some day be obtained, but I do not think that should be a barrier to declaring this one a featured picture. Tim Pierce (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no opinion at this time on this nomination, I would like to note that FPC is very much not for the "best we have at the moment". J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a better digital reproduction of this painting than anything I have seen. That is enough for me to be comfortable with it as a FP. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: for overexposure. See the sky and the ice in the background here: [21]. Maedin\talk 18:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --WiiWillieWiki 03:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Comment I really like this image. This angle and the way the light reflects off the side of the caterpillar is very interesting and eye-catching. Alas, I fear this one might receive wrath for not having every atom of this thing in sharp focus (depth of field). I personally don’t have any problem with it. Greg L (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shallow DOF, some parts look completely blown and distracting background. --Muhammad(talk) 06:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shallow DOF and distracting background? Are you sure that's what you meant? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the distracting background. The crop isn't quite there either- I can see what the photographer was trying to do here, and, if it'd worked, it would have been awesome, but, sadly, it didn't quite. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make that strong, the image is currently only used in a gallery. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the distracting background. --Priest zadok (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. This caterpillar is certainly eye-catching and without blown highlights I'd support. The background seems quite natural and isn't annoying and the angle is also fortunate enough to show nearly all colorful stuff (IMHO). Twilightchillt 14:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support FWIW I'm satisfied with the subject the BG doesn't seem distracting to me. --I'ḏ♥One 19:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at how the image is used in the article? J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It really should be in the "life cycle" section. --I'ḏ♥One 22:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Support, should have EV, but doesn't." J Milburn (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would if moved to the "life cycle" section... =3 --I'ḏ♥One 00:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose really not a fan on any level: lighting, composition, background. Cowtowner (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's the orange and blue appendages that are blown, in the red and blue channels, respectively. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Excellent clarity on the caterpillar, but it needs something more than that to be a featured picture. Haljackey (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen that the image is currently only used in a gallery? J Milburn (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, you've failed to notice that the "just gallery" you keep mentioning is labelled "Life cycle gallery" and shows the few and valuable images in it aligned chronologically: Eggs, caterpillar, pupa, adult, mating. --I'ḏ♥One 17:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that's fine, then go for it- I don't personally think it is. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good composition, excellent detail. It's a shame that the background is the same color as the caterpillar, but that and the DoF issues are not enough for me to decline. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is probably the best photo that we have of the Su-35, and it illustrate the Su-35 article perfectly, and shows the aircraft off in a fantastic light.
Question How is this size wise? I don't know how you find out whether a picture meets our size creteria but this seems to me to be smaller than most pics nom'd but not sure if it's too small... I certainly want to be able to zoom in further though... gazhiley.co.uk 08:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In terms of size criteria, as per Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria, it meets the size requirement on enwp (and also on Commons). I have emailed the photographer and have asked him if he is interested in supplying a higher resolution photo for our use. I will await his answer, as I do not wish to pressure photographers who have donated to us so much of their toil. I will revert back with a response from Oleg in due course. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak 08:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the response... I know the criteria but where to find out if it meets it or not I haven't got a clue... Ta tho... gazhiley.co.uk 09:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gaz, unless I'm missing something, the full size of the image pixel-wise is listed directly below the picture on the image page. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OOOOhhhhh that's where it is... Wondered why I was missing something... thought a calculation had to be made based on the file size or something... Cheers... And I can see that it's min 1000 pixels in each direction so yeah this pic is fine... I still want to look closer tho :-( gazhiley.co.uk 12:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you're talking about the criteria or the image, but the criteria currently read as, minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gaz, it would not be inconsistent to admit that an image meets the size guidelines while still opposing as it is too small to show everything you would like it to. J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Slightly off topic, but what is the condensation above the wings? I assume it's due the low pressure from the air foils but I'm no expert.--RDBury (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct - compare with the image and caption here. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is featured picture material. Excellent quality and adds a lot to the article. Haljackey (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question is there a good reason not to rotate&crop the image such that the airplane is more vertical? It is weird to have a plane at 45°. Nergaal (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that could be seen as misleading. My understanding is that the condensation vortices wouldn't be present in stable horizontal flight. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry not to join the bandwagon. Why is the image so small and the crop so tight? Itt looks like the poor thing is caged. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it's reasonable and logical to expect that detail/resolution increases with the size of the object being depicted. This plane is large, we expect to see more. Indeed, as a viewer I feel like I'm missing out with this image. Cowtowner (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. It's a damn nice shot, and I certainly wouldn't feel cheated if the consensus was to promote, but it's just too small for me. J Milburn (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great photograph, has much encyclopedic value as all of the plane (just manages to show the turbines), and of very high quality, albeit the low resolution. Although I'm still totally with it for featured picture, at a small resolution like in the article, the plane itself is notably not too visible so the edges, at least on the right, may need some cropping. Otherwise, it deserves featured picture much more than the Lockheed Martin plane someone else nominated today, and truthfully, most other images nominated today, in my opinion. --Γιάννης Α.✆|☑ 16:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The resolution is merely okay. The attitude of the plane is not clear to the observer. The vapour trails blend with the clouds. The clouds are distracting. The leading wing edge is saturated. Lastly, a picture about camouflage needs to demonstrate the environment in which an object is camouflaged. Not an irreplaceable shot, so standards are higher. I love the Su-35 and I'm sure this picture is an asset to the article, but this isn't FP quality. Doug (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good EV for illustrating the nature of sharks in captivity (a topic that may surprise some) and it's the sort of picture at which you look twice. A very nice composition. The quality's not sky-high, but I feel it'd still be a good FP. Already featured on Commons.
Interesting, I hadn't seen that. I'm certainly not arguing we use this image to illustrate whale sharks, which is what some people in that nom seemed to be thinking, but rather illustrate whale sharks in captivity. J Milburn (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People opposed for a variety of reasons. The glass seam running through the shark's head seemed to get mentioned more than once. And the picture was already included in two aquarium-related articles at the time. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I read through the debate. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen this image around a couple of times and always thought it looked awesome. (Mah bad Cowtowner (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Hi- please note that votes from anonymous users at FPC are often disregarded- please consider creating an account or signing in if you already have one. J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, that was me. Cowtowner (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a great picture, but sadly the quality isn't there. It's pretty blurry in my opinion. Needs to be crisper. Haljackey (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is a beautiful image and don't have much of a beef with it technically (the slight blurriness and the seam in the window don't bother me much). Compositionally it's beautiful, with the spectators in silhouette and the shadows coming out around the shark. But I'm not quite sure I get the educational value of illustrating "sharks in captivity" vis a vis other photos of sharks, or photos of other marine life in captivity. I'm not sure how I would feel about this as a featured picture. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that. I guess you could look at it like this. Imagine reading the line "whale sharks are kept in aquariums". You'd say "oh, cool". You see this picture, you go "holy SHIT, look at that thing!" I guess that's the difference. I'm not going to pretend the encyclopedic value is sky-high, but I do feel it's there. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No question, and it's an outstanding image to illustrate sharks in captivity and public aquarium. But my gut says a featured picture should clearly be an illustration of something of a little more general interest, so in terms of subject matter this falls a little short for me. I love the picture and yet it doesn't feel right as a FPC. Tim Pierce (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really based in our criteria; but, regardless, I'm a little suprised you're saying it- sharks are generally a pretty exciting, interesting topic! J Milburn (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2010
I completely agree with Milburn. The EV here is outstanding in those articles. As for general interest, look at the Discovery Channel's Shark Week. Sharks have fascinated and horrified humans for millenia. Cowtowner (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sharks are indeed an exciting and interesting topic! Sharks in captivity are a bit more of a niche interest. That's the distinction I'm making. Look, I'm not actually opposing the nomination -- just expressing why I feel conflicted over it. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your logic, however it doesn't really apply here. Look at all of the niche interests we represent in our FP galleries. Many of them are of unpopular or, more accurately, under-visited topics. Cowtowner (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose a boring aquarium shot.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's an aquarium shot. It's being used to illustrate sharks in captivity. J Milburn (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is being used to illustrate Whale shark too, and it is a horrible illustration of a beautiful fish. I was lucky enough to swim next to a few of them in Indian Ocean, and I believe whale sharks should have been never put to aquariums. Aquariums are not for them.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your moral principles are not what we use to assess images here. Cowtowner (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this happening if only for the awkward cropping. --Dschwen 14:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Tony will you not take notes from previous Nom's? every nom of this building so far has given a reason to oppose as the whole stage is never shown... And surprisingly enough this one is the same... Nom's with the subject cut off pretty much fail every time... I'm sure there are exceptions somewhere hence the lack of the word "never" but this is not one of those exceptions... Even the seating area isn't fully shown, it's cut off at the bottom... There's huge distracting shadows across the seats too making your eye naturally look up to see why but oh what do you know it's cropped too low to see why... The lighting is poor too as the stage looks like a cave as it is in pretty much darkness... There's an ugly bit of railing in the bottom left of the picture... Need I go on? You gotta look a bit harder Tony than this sorry... gazhiley.co.uk 15:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry man, but it needed to be said. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Gazhiley, but this is the best photo of this theater I've seen yet. --I'ḏ♥One 15:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tbh, I might have supported this if about 30 degrees were taken away from the left and added to the right. Bonus points can be obtained for capturing the full height of the stage and stage roof. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The seating is cut off at the bottom, and there's nothing of interest in the background. Bad angle in my opinion. Haljackey (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I find panoramic pictures generally problematic. They're interesting to look at but also confusing: by their nature they tend to be busy and have several points of reference that distract the eye. Where's the foreground? Where's the background? This is a very well done panorama, but the composition is still too chockablock to make it a good FP. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The foreground's to your left, background's center right. =) --I'ḏ♥One 20:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2010 at 01:04:48 (UTC)
Original - The Trumpeter Swan, Cygnus buccinator, at the Calgary zoo.
Reason
I may be pushing my luck with yet another white bird image, but here goes. The good: high resolution, pose shows all of the bird-and it is not quite the "classic sideways orientation", background not overly distracting (imo). Possible downsides: It was cloudy, but this makes it possible to see highlights in the birds feathers. Too dark? I'll let you decide.
Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry - maybe it's the lighting but the fine details of the picture aren't there... The feet seem blurred and the feathers are very soft and feature-less... Shame though, as it's a good pose EV-wise gazhiley.co.uk 08:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this picture might stand a very little blurring of the background, to make the bird pop out more, and/or raising the exposure a bit. It's otherwise a fine, clear image. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Has there been editing/masking around the bird's head? It would appear so—curious as to what editing was needed. Oppose for that alone, but while I'm here: the composition is quite bland, with background too in focus, overexposure on the swan's back, and an odd lack of detail in the feathers on the head. Maedin\talk 18:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no head editing. Thanks for the comments. Sasata (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, okay. Do you see what I'm referring to, though? Maedin\talk 18:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2010 at 18:11:16 (UTC)
Original - The fungus Gyromitra infula, commonly known as the "elfin saddle", has the ends of both saddle lobes drawn out to sharp tips that project above the level of the fruiting body.Edit 1 Noise and chromatic aberration reduced; white balance change.
Reason
High resolution; high EV (shows classic "saddle" shape); both stem and cap are clear.
Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the risk of sounding repetitive, I suggest a denoising. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I applied a luminance noise reduction. FWIW, shutter speed was 1/13 sec, and ISO was 800. Sasata (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also query the whtie balance while we are at it. Do you think it is a bit yellow? Noodle snacks (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was a bit too much red - see edit 1. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a noise-reduced and white-balance corrected version. I had the white balance camera setting on "cloudy" (b/c/ it was cloudy that day), but in retrospect it seemed to overcompensate by adding yellow. Sasata (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 Mushrooms often look squishy, but the stalk shows a lot of detail here, which suggests that focus is okay. I don't think we've had a saddle-shaped mushroom FP, so potentially extra EV there. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not really seeing how us not having any similar images at FP level gives it more EV, but I can understand that variety is nice. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't expect to have to explain this to a member of WikiProject Fungi, but you have some morphology related articles, e.g. Lamella_(mycology)#Classification where having examples of various configurations is useful. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, but the image isn't currently used there. We can't really support based on potential EV. This is, of course, an academic argument. J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness is pretty low. It is either out of focus or there was motion blur taking the shot. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
f25 on a tripod, and 2-second delay timer, FWIW. Sasata (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is your problem. f25 is much too narrow - you will get huge amounts of diffraction softening. I'm not sure what sort of camera you have. Choose f8-11 for a APS-C digital camera, 11-16 for full frame and maybe 5.6 or something for a compact camera. Focus stack if you need additional depth of field. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2010 at 16:31:32 (UTC)
Original - A male Grant's Gazelle eating in the Ngorongoro crater, Tanzania. The tail is constantly moving to disturb insects.Edit 1 Removed speckles-type noise.
Support - very crisp image, illustrates the subject well. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - beautiful image with a high educational value. Clementinatalk 05:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the edit the horns now look like injection molded plastic. Plenty of details got lost: Compare the tail, the eyes the mouth and the cheek of the edit with the original. --Ikiwaner (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strongly prefer the original. Cowtowner (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Question went unanswered and noise issues seem beyond repair. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I can't even see any real noise in the first picture. I think that's just the texture of the animal. Cowtowner (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The actual undenoised original is here. There's no texture that I know of that produces bright white specks on black background without any blurring on the edges - clearly digital noise, and of a slightly strange kind. The same problem came up in the previous gazelle nom by the same uploader. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no undenoised version. I denoise almost all my pictures with NeatImage and a color chart based profile for my camera. A chart got used to build a input colour profile in order to produce best colour reproduction. I sharpen my images with Photokit Sharpener and I manually mask the sharpening layers to avoid sharpening where it's not serving anything. My images are optimized for best sharpness when viewed from ~1.5 times its diagonal. This has the "downside" of showing the structure PLW found in this image when viewed on his ~150ppi screen at 100%. PLW has proven with his ultra denoised version that you can't have both sharpness at normal viewing distance and smoothness in large zooms. I could just overwrite the image with a downsampled version and you wouldn't see those speckles anymore. Actually that is what I did with the other image and PLW promptly supported. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Amphioctopus marginatus using a coconut and a bivalve shell for protection. This species, also known as the coconut octopus and veined octopus, is found in tropical waters of the western Pacific Ocean.Crop available at higher resolution.
Reason
High res, encyclopaedic, FP on Commons. This species got its fifteen minutes of fame at the end of last year, when it was made public that they use coconut shells to hide and/or shield themselves, and that they carry these with them for future occasions, which meets the definition of tool use - claimed as the first ever documented example in an invertebrate.
Support. Not the best image to show what the species looks like, but a fine illustration showing the behaviour of the creature. J Milburn (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Because the tool-use behavior is so significant for this species, an image illustrating how the octopus uses the coconut shell is particularly valuable. The image itself has excellent color and clarity. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominated image is smaller version of this one I think; thought about nominating that one but it didn't seem great. --I'ḏ♥One 23:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, and they're both used, your one in octopus. We usually try to promote the largest version, even if quality declines a bit as you move towards higher res. Let's see what people think. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool. As for sizes, I would have been happy with the smaller one, but the larger one clearly holds more detail even if it is larger at full size. Therefore, I prefer the larger of the two. Cowtowner (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the ship is in the dry dock, the parts normally submerged are visible and the angle is fortunate enough to show the propeller on the opposite board, the gun coverings are also there. Probably the best photo of the ship available. Except insignificant blur, the quality is very good for the 19th century photography.
Support I think it makes sense to have this. Very detailed, and sharp, too. The fact that the top 5 metres are cut off is tolerable given how difficult this would presumably be to replace. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Especially given that the ship was ultimately dismantled and sold for scrap. Twilightchillt 20:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above, very cool view. Cowtowner (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent quality, irreplaceable. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -MBK004 06:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great detail. Doug (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2010 at 13:22:06 (UTC)
Original - From the article lede: The Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor is a single-seat, twin-engine fifth-generation fighter aircraft that uses stealth technology. It was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but has additional capabilities that include ground attack, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles.
Reason
Dynamic, high resolution, illustrative and encyclopedic image. This is what I think our standard for aviation images should be.
Thanks, I had a feeling this had been nominated previously; just couldn't find it. I can't really make out the concerns mentioned in that nomination; to me, if they're there, they wouldn't be a deal breaker. Cowtowner (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I was nominating that, the concerns about some digital manipulations have been raised and the image did not get enough votes. Twilightchillt 20:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it doesn't look manipulated it to me. I'm sure if we downsized it to minimal resolution, as seems to be the trend in recent airplane noms, those would disappear. Cowtowner (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that they were downsized, as such (as a rule, we don't downsize) it's that that was the largest version released by the author. J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In most of these cases I suspect the photographer is far away (probably on the ground) and shooting with a telephoto lens; even with a powerful zoom lens the resulting image is going to be relatively small. That seems like a reasonable concession; it's unrealistic to expect all airplane FPs to be shot from 100 feet away. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly to Milburn, that's true, but the point I was making was really that the images in question have been shrunk from their original resolution. To Tim, yes it's true that most of them may well be small but we are here to focus on the best of these images which may well be only those shot from 100 feet away. Cowtowner (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are certainly some visible artifacts in this image, particularly around the perimeter of the plane (see the lighter pixels between the plane's wing and the sky), and the plane's body itself looks overly denoised. Far too minor to diminish the value of this image. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where these artifacts would raise concerns about digital manipulation. The FP criteria don't disallow all manipulation though, only "inappropriate" manipulation. In this case I suspect the background was altered, perhaps to remove clouds. It would be nice to see the original, unmodified image to see exactly what, if anything, was done. Note that this seems to have been cropped to remove a signature in the lower right corner, as can be seen in the flikr version.--RDBury (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a single pixel artifact under the lower edge; unfortunately, Wikipedia's downsizing algorithm emphasises and persists this artifact, and even appears to introduce some ringing artifacts of its own in the low res versions. I don't see this as a serious reason to oppose the image. I also saw what I thought was aggressive denoising on the wings until I realised it was vapour trails over the wings, creating a similar optical effect. If the rest was denoised it was done with extraordinary patience and skill, there is a lot of detail that blends in seamlessly. Vapour trail and exhaust effects are nicely captured: dynamic shots are so superior to posed ones. Definitely among the best miltary hardware shots on WP. Doug (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: absolutely gorgeous image, high EV, seems to be some technical squabbles about the nature of the image vs. digital alteration, but I see no evidence of a violation to the criterion. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+ Gorgeous, I want to fly one now. Nergaal (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we assume that means support Nergaal? I personally never like to asssume... gazhiley.co.uk 10:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a support. Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Lockheed_Martin_F-22A_Raptor_JSOH.jpgPapa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Yann (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - flawless composition, excellent detail. This is the clearest and crispest image of the Taj Mahal on Commons. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This nom is kind of dark and they have different framing, but this one has fewer people. --I'ḏ♥One 01:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current FP of the Taj Mahal is overexposed. I think it would not get FP status with the current quality standard. Yann (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel this image is so clearly stronger, perhaps you should make an effort to replace the other usages of the current FP with this one. J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unless I'm missing something, in supporting this, you are saying it is stronger than our other featured picture, as they are showing the same thing and serve the same purpose. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having been there, I'd say this needs to be brightened up quite a lot. It is a bit better than the old one, but it wouldn't be too hard to expect a really high resolution panorama or something sooner or later for this building. What I'd actually really like to see actually is a close up shot of the marble marquetry on the building itself. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No, not everyone loves Justin Bieber. :-) I can't really fault the portrait though as it's naturally posed and well composed. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 19:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ugh. Was in the hospital 3 days ago to deal with a minor emergency for my 2 year old, and beyond the curtain I heard a teenage girl almost in tears, pleading with her doctor to fix her up quickly or else she was gonna miss the Bieber concert that evening.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasata (talk • contribs)
Weak Oppose. The lighting looks unnatural (I mean distractingly so). The background is pitch black and yet every side of him is well lit. He must be standing on the event horizon of a black hole. Kaldari (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's on stage, of course there's heavy lighting on both sides. For a bit of context, here's another picture from the same set, showing the same lighting and black curtain in the background. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I can't bring myself to support Justin Beiber-anything but I have no solid reason to oppose. Cowtowner (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't really feel I would recognise him based on this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a bit of a daft reason to oppose. Do you oppose all portraits of people you don't aren't aware of and therefore wouldn't recognise them? Or are you saying that if you saw him on the street or TV or in a magazine, you wouldn't recognise him because this image does not show his usual likeness? Matthewedwards : Chat 03:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A portrait is supposed to identify the portrayee sufficiently that you would recognise them if you met them again. This doesn't do that for me. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Don't like him (my 7-year-old does), but the image is very nice and ticks all the boxes at WP:FP?. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think portraits from the side are good. Otherwise this would be a good FP if it were on the Bieber harcut. Nergaal (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A strong portrait of a performer. Mostlyharmless (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentFile page at Flickr says this is CC-BY-NC-SA, which is not a Commons-compatible license. Not sure how to check what it once might have been, but the entire Flickr set has the same license. upstateNYer 01:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was confirmed by Flickr upload bot (see the image page) which means it was that license at the time of confirmation. It was released under this license (probably at the request of a Wikipedian- check the comments) uploaded to Commons and then the license was changed. Releasing under a CC license is irrevocable, so we're good to use it under this license. J Milburn (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't like the composition (poor lead room) and it's clearly overly cropped, lots of artifacts in the shirt due to noise, also the black background looks unnatural, almost as if he was cut out. No reason to promote a semi-underpar image of him when hes actively performing, better pictures are obtainable and likely in the near future we'll have more to consider. — raekyt 13:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that what looks a lot like chrominance noise is actually just the fabric of the shirt (you can see in the original uncropped Flickr shot that it's the fabric). I'm not saying the quality is amazing, but just making sure you're not seeing problems that aren't there. I don't think there are any significant artifacts in the shirt, although there are some along the neck line and on the chain. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 14:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not in the shirt on second glance, but yea there is some issues with artifacts elsewhere, and that black background doesn't look natural in this corp, it's a little less an issue I think in the original where there is head room and looks more natural. Personally the uncropped is much better, composition wise. — raekyt 09:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So why should a poor quality image be promoted when the person could be better dressed at least? Nergaal (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the criteria for FP does not include a subject's sense of style, and if the supposed issue is not actually an technical issue but just the fabric, then there should be no issue... gazhiley.co.uk 10:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But if the composition is distracting because it almost looks like noise, AND a picture without this distraction could be easily obtained, then there is no reason to have this as a Fportrait. Nergaal (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I suppose fair enough... gazhiley.co.uk 11:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What does this guy have that gets him both Easter and Christmas ops with the pres. Must be the hair.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Awkward composition and strange facial expression Nick-D (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow this is the first time you have supported on of my nominations J Milburn. Spongie555 (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason for mentionning this? Are you wanting any particular response? Almost seems a little inflamatory to me... gazhiley.co.uk 11:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasnt supposed to be offenses to anyone it was just an observation. Spongie555 (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry. I'm really not convinced this is the best illustration for the subject. It's technically ok, but the composition isn't stunning- forground grass gets in the way and so on. I'd also generally prefer an upright specimen. It does illustrate the colour change fairly well, but I'm not convinced it's feature-worthy. J Milburn (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the cut a natural phenomenon? Putting it there on the ground doesn't tell. Why not a white background or the hand who cut it? Foldedwater (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need for a studio shot here; the cut is a clear way to demonstrate what might happen if, say, an animal knocked the head off the mushroom. Cowtowner (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shot was taken in wild nature. This place where the mushroom has been found and cut off. Nearby the root (stub) from which he is visible has grown. Also you can look this photo. --George Chernilevskytalk 13:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I am suggesting is that a studio shot might be a better option. It is not needed as other variants can also improve it. When taking a picture (a featured one) it is not enough just the subject there, inside the frame. Everything inside the frame should be conspiring to present the subject or what it is saying or at least not being against it. The branch in the corner and the grass are stealing attention from the mushroom without contributing to it portrayal. A studio shot would do better since, for example, what is wanted is to show is the efect of sectioning it, something that can be associated to lab, biologists with white robes and a scalpel. If context is going to be provided, since the photo is about an action (what happens when you cut it) then show it. Show the hand and the knife. Of course, care show be give to how to do it. A hand and a knife there in any way can be as distracting as the branch if not done wisely. Foldedwater (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Next time i will try to make video. 10-20 seconds are enough to show change from yellow to dark blue color. --George Chernilevskytalk 20:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good EV--Mbz1 (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per J Milburn, and from George's comment at 20:06 on the 27th, it sounds like we'll get a better candidate soon. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For me its too shadowy on the cap and too bright on the stalk. Also, the photo is very dark on the upper left corner at the thick tree trunk in the background, and lower third at the dirt in the foreground. However, I don't know enough about photography to be able support or oppose. :/ Matthewedwards : Chat 03:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see that the lighting is meant to make the mushroom look menacing, but having the stalk very bright and the cap very dark is just wierd. Wackywaceconverse | contribs 10:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. To be fair, the cap of this species is darker than the stem, but I'm not convinced that this is feature worthy photography. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, go on then, support :) J Milburn (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and quality!--Mbz1 (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
suport Hard to imagine how this subject could be photographed better. I sepecially like the background containing information about where it grows. --Ikiwaner (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2010 at 19:11:32 (UTC)
Original - A male Red-and-yellow Barbet, photographed at Lake Manyara National Park. The species is found in eastern Africa where it lives in broken terrain, nesting and roosting in burrows.
Reason
Strong picture of the bird, clear EV as lead of the newly expanded article on the species. Bird noms aren't too popular right now, but I feel this is an interesting and eye-catching enough bird that people will be happy to support.
.jpg)
.jpg)
I withdraw my nomination May as well just close this up. --I'ḏ♥One 20:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
_edit.jpg)
_curves.png)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
