Support as nominator --Hoang Quan 02:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Support Its not perfect (a few crooked buildings, noise in the sky, feels cut off at the bottom), but I've often thought that a good panorama of the paris CBD was a glaring omission in our FPs. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for someone who lives there, and who has taken a few Paris shots, it's because it's not easy to get the opportunity... Most of the buildings are offices, and they won't let you reach the higher floors easily (already asked). I wonder who author asked, but it seems taken from Défense 2000 which is apartments building. Maybe he has a friend or relative there. - Blieusong (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to blown highlights. Maybe this could be fixed with editing. Pinetalk 09:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with JJ, shame about the highlights but the amount of detail there is superb and outweighs that imo. Fallschirmjäger✉ 08:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Few technical flaws, but maybe it's not so easy to do better, and it's OK given the size. And one has to be able to take a picture from such place... I wonder about FOP issues though.- Blieusong (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The FOP issues would probably fall under "unavoidable presence", which makes them okay. Colours are good, difficult shot because of the permissions issue, highlights are a little blown but I agree that they are offset by the difficulty of the shot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Nice panorama, good lighting, highlights are blown by a bit but they don't detract too much. —mc10 (t/c) 18:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Panorama La Défense.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2011 at 14:34:19 (UTC)
Original - An exact scaled diagram showing the orbital altitudes of several significant satellites of earth. all planets and orbital distances are drawn to scale and the altitude data was collected from many Wikipedia articles and various other sites.
Reason
It is clear and concise, high resolution, and presents information in a compelling way. It adds value to the articles it is featured in and is used in several global articles. It was promoted as a valued picture before the project was cancelled.
Support as nominator --Rrakanishu (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Should be redone in SVG format. SVG is easier to edit, easier to translate, and more usable in a variety of a situations (scalability).
The scale "1 px = 10 Km" is not as useful as a visual scale, it is also incorrect when the the image is viewed at different dimensions other than full (like on this page).
Some of the text could probably be a bit bigger for better readability.
Per above comments, I oppose at this time. If those are resolved, I may be able to support. It seems to be a very valuable image.
The Earth is raster and it wouldn't be useful to convert it or embed it into a vector file, also I think editing and translating it is not that hard as the bg is mostly black. ■ MMXX talk 22:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Earth could be a somewhat stylized vector image such as this or this. JBarta (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Weak Support There is too much stuff going on in the Low Earth orbit area. Too hard to follow the lines.... Fix this and it will get full support from me. Dusty777 (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think it's perfectly readable and not something that can or should be "fixed". It's a technical image (more or less)... it's supposed to require a little close examination to understand what's going on. JBarta (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Support I find this helpful. Dusty777, a lot of stuff happens in the Low Earth Orbit area and this diagram presents it in a way that makes sense. Pinetalk 21:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Oops, I didn't catch the typos. There's another one on the far right side of the image. Earth should be capitalized. Fix those and I think I'll support.Pinetalk 02:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Typo: "[...] are particularly usefull for capturing images [...]": usefull -> useful --Kabelleger (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that same sentence, there should be an apostrophe in "earths." Also, punctuation should be consistent: sometimes full sentences are ending with a period and sometimes not. Chick Bowen 21:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Longitude is also misspelt as logitude on the rightmost caption. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose not supporting until SVG - for the reasons mentioned above. Unless a diagram is of a particular historical significance itself, or irreplaceable third-party generated, we should strive for SVG diagrams. Also the mis-spelling is not something we expect in a high-quality diagram. Fix that and its awesome. --Cerejota (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Verifiable sources should be included. "...data was collected from many Wikipedia articles and various other sites" doesn't sound convincing. Jó Kritika (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the information should be sourced. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I appreciate the effort to compile the information, but putting it in a format that will be difficult to edit is a bad idea. The phrase "very first" makes my teeth grate, something that is the "very first" isn't any more "first" than something that is just "first".--RDBury (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Modified: I fixed all the typo's mentioned, and I am willing to do whatever needs to be done to improve this image. I have no intentions to make it an SVG though because I see no reason it would ever need to be scaled enough to warrant that. Rrakanishu (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about scaling so much as making it possible for other people to easily make text modifications. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. For example, if it were SVG, we could have fixed all the text issues right now very quickly and get this excellent diagram to FP quicker. But its a JPG and we can't do anything :/.--Cerejota (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll third it. One of the troublesome things about images that contain textual information is the difficulty in updating or correcting them. When it's an image, the only person who can make the change is the person who created the image. If others try to change the image, you run into all sorts of problems with fonts and colors, etc. Over time, the image can get a little messy. Add to that, your image is a JPG. All it takes is one person in the chain saving it at high compression and the image gets screwed up... maybe even unreadable. In the long run, the SVG format makes WAY more sense for this diagram. JBarta (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like the diagram, but it still needs a format switch to svg, and sourcing yet. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as for sourcing, do you mean the source of the earth image or where I collected all the altitude data? Rrakanishu (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really consider that anyone would need to change any text, why couldn't it be used as is. I suppose I can try to create it as svg but I'm not as good with illustrator as I am with photoshop and I fear the image will loose something in the process. Rrakanishu (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any diagram with text should be expected to be updated or spell checked in the future, and the free license implies anyone can do so. SVG facilitates this process greatly, so it is a nice standard to have. For example, I do not object it not being SVG, bu tif it were SVG my objection would be fixed quickly, even by myself!--Cerejota (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SVG format also allows for translations into other languages, for example. --KFP (contact - edits) 22:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Full Support Changing the color of the lines makes it a lot easier to follow, full support from me!Dusty777 (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in its current format, this image should be SVG. I'll be happy to do the conversion if the original author is not confident with Illustrator/Inkscape/etc. - ZephyrisTalk 10:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Its good but if it was SVG it would be better also the scale of 1 pixel to 100km is not that good Jamesrules90 (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the svg now ;) I know it's last minute but my pc has been down since last I posted. I'll post back soon. Rrakanishu (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. Capitalization issues. Should be SVG. Hard to read. BrokenSegue 09:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I finished the vector image. But when I converted to SVG some fonts and shadows got messed up (I knew something would go wrong) I'll try to fix that tomorrow. For now at least its SVG. Must sleep now. Rrakanishu (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A vector version of this image is also available, and should be used in place of this raster image where the raster image contains information that could be stored more efficiently and/or accurately in the SVG format, as a vector graphic.
If its license requires the preservation of attribution or revision history, the raster version of this image should not be deleted, in order to maintain this information. For more information, see the documentation on MediaWiki's support of SVG images.
Oppose not sharp enough, and visible RGB artifacts. Jó Kritika (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good EV but a bit blurry. Pinetalk 10:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not high enough quality and visible artifacts Jamesrules90 (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Pine, it's a good image that illustrates the bird well, it is just slightly short of the mark, if it were sharper I would support. Fallschirmjäger✉ 19:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Pinetalk 08:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: seems rather pedestrian compared to previous FPs in this category. High EV, definitely. Resolution? Of course... but it doesn't quite have the oomph factor. This made me glad I was sitting... the current nomination? Not so much. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support every time I check this page I spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at this image. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2011 at 10:13:02 (UTC)
Original - Haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus. Drawing by H. L. Todd, from: No. 10440, U.S. National Museum, collected at Eastport, Me., 1872, by U.S. Fish Commission.
Reason
High quality scan of a detailed drawing from the late 1800s, used in three articles
Oppose. Just not a striking image I'm afraid. Decent EV, although for animal articles, I think photographs are more useful personally. Kaldari (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --JBarta (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support assuming that no color photos from the same time period are available. Pinetalk 09:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1905? That would have to be a Miethe-style three-color transparency. I don't know of any such thing in the US other than lab experiments. Autochromes, a little later, but they were not used for this kind of subject (I'm planning to nominate one shortly). Prokudin-Gorsky's work, much beloved and rightly so on this page, was not actually known in the US (or even much known in Europe) until much later. It's really not reasonable to expect color before the development of inexpensive color film in the 1950s, and, if we're going to talk about film grain and maximum visible detail, I don't even think there's an appreciable advantage to color film, to this day. Digital is a different matter. Chick Bowen 23:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The unedited original should also be uploaded and linked to from the image page. The link to the LoC source is currently broken as well. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOC source fixed. JBarta (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. As JJ says above, I'd prefer that the unedited image is uploaded, and the actual edits documented (is there just cropping and minor cloning here, or is there also contrast manipulation?). Since editing appears fairly minimal here, I'll support with reservations. Chick Bowen 01:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Original image is here. Edits are documented on the image page. JBarta (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --SBORK 06:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the image but I'm not convinced of high EV. Maybe if the article was more extensive or the caption was more detailed, I could be convinced. Pine 08:59, August 25, 2011
Support Nice image, EV is sufficient for the river's mouth, although a bit of river to the left is out. Brandmeistert 23:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Sharp image, contrast is good. EV value could be improved, but it is there. Perhaps an expansion of the host article? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not too knowledgeable on the glacier itself, though I thought this image might add to the description in the article. I've also uploaded a wider angle panorama if that's more suitable/interesting. SBORK 16:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That looks nice too. Maybe you could suggest it as an ALT. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I need to do something official for that? I guess it would be possible to make a more interesting caption by combining some information about the glacier and the river. SBORK 02:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good clear image I agree with the EV being improved and it misses out a bit of the image on the left but its a good image anyway Jamesrules90 (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Ashstar01 (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not seeing the EV. This image is just tacked onto the end of the article/into a gallery. Why not show the whole building? J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the detail but I agree with Milburn that the EV is less than ideal. If there was a section in the article that discussed the entrance in detail then this would have better EV. Pinetalk 07:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there's something to be said for the dynamic composition and additional detail permitted by zooming in, FPC generally favors more stable and balanced shots of architecture, or at least such that does not cut off parts of the building. See [examples]. HereToHelp(talk to me) 22:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the definition for FPCs should be so rigid as to dictate what framing and detail level the composition has - there are certainly examples in the Architecture FPCs that similar to the nomination explicity crop into a structure to enhance certain aspects of it - enabling the viewer to understand the architect/artists creation. In this composition of the Dome of the Rock - the architectural facade and column decoration can be seen at a greater fidelity than they might will a full shot of the building. These FPC examples come to mind with similar purposeful compositions: [[1]]
Support. Slightly front-focussed, and I'd tend to drop off the ISO a bit, but quite good composition and clarity of the bird given the natural camouflage with the background, and good enough when viewed at a fair image size. --jjron (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support good but has minor focus problems. Pinetalk 07:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer edit 1 would but vote weak support there too. Pinetalk 23:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support but it's not a focus problem. As JJ mentions below, I was higher than the bird, shooting from inside a vehicle which gives the illusion of it being front focused --Muhammad(talk) 08:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit I think its in focus at the eye, but appears front focused at the feed because the photographer is higher than the bird. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit: Colours look a little better. Great definition and EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support both, prefer original I think the original shadows looked fine, thus prefer the unmanipulated version, but both are good. --99of9 (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. Good lighting and pose. Focus seems acceptable. Kaldari (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support both. Very good. TehGrauniad (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support adequate EV, clear photo, good size. Pinetalk 07:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Moderate quality, clear and decent size. Jamesrules90 (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Aesthetics is also important here and I find that the portrait aspect ratio and the tight crop ruin the picture. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I'd go for a wider crop too, if you have one, Muhammad. Chick Bowen 03:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support pref. edit. Fix the white balance please (it is too blue). You probably only have to aim for 1/250th with a slowly moving subject like this and image stabilization. You could probably manage lower for still subjects, so ISO 1600 isn't needed in my view. Wider crop would be preferable if you have it. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. What I noticed though from a series of shots I took of this bird, only one or two came out sharp the others had motion blur as the bird was moving around. Putting up an edit in a while --Muhammad(talk) 00:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't bumped the switch to mode 2 have you? At any rate just take lots of shots, assuming your card is big enough. ISO 800 might be a good compromise. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No the lens was on mode 1. Unfortunately, the bird moved away and mixed in with some impalas pretty quickly. --Muhammad(talk) 11:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: A little blue, a little close on the cropping. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 1 Uploaded The colors are warmer and I applied some fake space for wider looking crop --Muhammad(talk) 12:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both The lighting doesn't seem featurable to me. I'd prefer some direct sunlight and brighter warmer colours. --99of9 (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support both but prefer original. Quite possibly there are minor problems with colour and crop, but it's an excellent photo. What a funny looking bird! TehGrauniad (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to my count this is currently short by 0.5support. I'd be grateful if we can give Chick time to comment on the edit --Muhammad(talk) 07:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed mine to kick it over. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2011 at 10:48:49 (UTC)
Original - A decorative kris with the handle shaped like SemarALT - Original with blue backgroundALT 2 Another, closer cutoutALT 3 White background, no cutoutALT 4 More neutral background, no cutout
Reason
I think this could be a featured picture because it is of high resolution, shows the subject clearly, shows the sheathe (which many of our other pictures of kris lack, thus giving greater EV), and is interesting (the blade design, unique handle etc.). The original can be seen here, and we could also use this version, with an off-white background.
Support high res, good EV. Pinetalk 07:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The cut-out job from the original blue background is, frankly, pretty average. Looks like an auto-select tool was used and the selection never cleaned up. There's a lot very rough edges on both objects, and colour mismatch near the top of the blade. To have a realistic chance I think this really needs to be either redone properly, or nominated as the original image with the original background. I feel though that original lighting and sharpness are a little off too. --jjron (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did my best on that (2 hours+), so I will bring this to the Graphics Lab. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added the original as an ALT, and am trying to upload another picture which may be under better lighting conditions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, some pros, some cons to the alt source. Shadows are less harsh and b/g is more pleasant, but the actual objects are both duller, yet with more direct flash reflection, I'm assuming the result of a more overhead flash use. I'm not sure which one I prefer overall (assuming a cut-out is done, otherwise the blue b/g itself is off-putting in that one). I'd have a go at the cut-out myself, but don't have the time to spare. --jjron (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lighting, probably. The original was taken at roughly 12 noon, while the alt was at 5pm-ish, about 45 minutes before sunset. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tossed in my effort at cleanup (ALT 2) into the mix. JBarta (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lines seem cleaner but colors seem very different in Alt 2. Pinetalk 23:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Could we tone the red down a bit? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it was too red. I tried lessening the bluish cast from the original and overdid it. Manipulating colors is not my strong point. Your fix looks much better. JBarta (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Thanks for the cutout too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You made a further edit (21:21, 29 August 2011) that reintroduced the bluish cast. Your edit of 20:38, 29 August 2011 was good. Why do you feel it needs to be close to the original when the original is arguably flawed? I think you should revert it back to your edit of 20:38, 29 August 2011. JBarta (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undone. Must be my monitor, it looked better that way. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A size reference would be helpful-- simply adding the dimensions of the object to the image page would be sufficient. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both cut outs are obvious in my view and the blue background one is pretty horrible. Since this is a self nomination I assume you can shoot this again. You really need to stop playing with photoshop and toss it on a white background, like paper, or better, white acrylic. A lot less work than the photoshop route. The lighting and detail is good. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2 was cut out from a white background (and not by me). I will try another reshoot tomorrow, as it is nighttime here now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ALT 2 was cut out from this. Maybe obvious as a cutout, but for a cutout I think it's not all bad. At any rate, I agree that a nice photo on a white backgound would be preferrable to a cutout on a white background. JBarta (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I touched up the source for the ALT. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So did I, then I used curves, then I used the dodge tool on the background where needed. I uploaded over the top to avoid too many edits etc, but you can upload it separately if you like. It is easier to do that than cut stuff out entirely. Getting the lighting right will save a lot of effort for things like this though. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the touch-ups. ALT4 looks the best IMHO. Regarding lighting, I will try for the next image but I only have a mid-range camera. Do you think ALT4 is good enough? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think so. Camera shouldn't matter, just a light tent (possibly home made) and some of those cheap halogen work lights shining on to it should work pretty well for nearly no money. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 4 You might need to run a new nomination with just that given the time spent editing etc. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Pinetalk 07:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Lighting is blown, especially along the left side. Detail on the poppy buds is lacking due to light conditions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a good example of where the artsy-ness of the image detracts from its encyclopedic value. While it's a lovely photo, it doesn't tell us much about the subject. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would a better caption help? What would you like to see different? Pinetalk 23:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, unless this is specifically illustrating a trait that I've missed. Compare this to some of our other flower FPs- File:Cypripedium acaule - Sasata edit1.jpg, File:Papaver April 2010-13 crop.jpg (also a poppy), File:Fritillaria meleagris LJ barje2.jpg. Each one of them would have a place in a field guide, but this one wouldn't, as it's just not all that useful in terms of identifying the species/showing what it looks like. These flowers are stunning enough as is, we don't need to do this kind of thing to "draw in" readers. J Milburn (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm going out on a limb here, but I feel that the "stimulates reader's interest in the subject" thing is getting side lined. It's reasonably stunning, and it shows basically how a poppy looks. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have to agree with the above. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone replaced it in that article. Pinetalk 22:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd be inclined to recommend waiting, with this one. There's no great urgency to promote now, and the article/subject may yet change dramatically. To phrase in relation to the criteria- while there does seem to be a considerable degree of EV right now, whether that will be the case in the future is less clear. There is an explicit rule about current events at GAC; I wouldn't support an explicit rule here, but I think it's something to consider. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that it wouldn't hurt to pause this nomination for a week in case a better photo of the same subject becomes available. I don't object to your putting it on hold. Pinetalk 22:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs to sit in an article for a week first. I suspect this image is the sort that could be swapped around a bit, so let us let the dust settle. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJ, see discussion above. :) I said I don't object to putting this on hold for a week. Pinetalk 04:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, it's not really a rule to wait a week, just a suggestion so people don't nominate pictures that get removed from the articles before the voting period is over.--RDBury (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not an especially impressive way of illustrating this most recent storm event. It's not an especially well-defined system, and barring unusual visual appeal with these kinds of illustrations, it's just another satellite image among thousands of others taken every year. I would rather find a high-quality picture of damage from NC or VT or another relevant area. Also, FWIW, I think this shot is a bit misleading and lacking in educational value. At face value, it looks like a symmetrical, powerful hurricane with a nice eye and everything, but a closer look reveals several structural impediments preventing the storm from intensifying: limited outflow on the western semicircle, outflow boundaries on the NW quad, and dry air being entrained into the CDO. If it were used to illustrate these issues with an explanation of how they affect tropical systems, then I would be more willing to support. However, it seems to be used in a misleading fashion at the moment. Juliancolton (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is of a high technical standard. Is of high resolution. It is similar in quality, composition, resolution to other FPs of similar amphibians in their habitat. It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, showing how a female of the species looks in its habitat, it is attractive and natural, supported by the article text on the rarity of this frog: it could be used as a poster-child for frog conservation efforts. Has a free license - PD US Government. Adds value to the article providing a high quality illustration of the subject in its habitat. Is verifiable, a US government picture is of high reliability. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation - there is no visible manipulation.
Oppose This has looks up-sampled to me and the quality suffers when viewed at any reasonable resolution. If down-sampled it may still meet the criteria, but as is I can't get behind it. Cowtowner (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: I still oppose the nomination more or less per Makeem. This doesn't touch the quality of our current gallery, with the possible exception of a now-extinct species. While I'm not a proponent of the "we can do better argument" (for, surely, we always could), it certainly seems to be the case that we haven't done well enough yet and should expect more. Cowtowner (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I have to agree with Cowtowner, the full image seems up-sampled. I'd support a down-sampled version with good image quality. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Down-sampled to minimum size for FPC. Please re-evaluate comment.--Cerejota (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You probably didn't have to go that far. What would a 1500x(w.e.) pic look like? It might be a good compromise between size and quality. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Down-sampled to 1500px on widest side. Support? --Cerejota (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that four people had already supported the non-downsized version, you should be putting the edit up as a separate edit, not overwriting the original (especially given it's not even your photo). As is, those pre-edit votes technically don't necessarily count now. --jjron (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More likely, as they were "per nom" support, they support the change as a minor improvement to the encyclopedic quality. I have notified them of your concern so they can weight in. If they do not respond, we can safely assume they still support.--Cerejota (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification. I have no problem with either version, although I agree with jjron that it would have been better to set up the alternates separately. I agree that the original and the 1500 version are a little grainy but for me either is good enough. Pinetalk 00:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried doing that but I could link to the previous version using the thumbnail box. Can you help doing it?--Cerejota (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly sure what or who you're asking, but refer to something like Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Semar_Kris up above for what to do. You can't link to the overwritten file; you need to upload the edit as a new file to show them both. --jjron (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: Seems a little grainy, but not as bad as the original size. Pose is nice, sharpness is pretty good, colour balance is nice. EV is good. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know there is an element of subjectiveness here, but this is a nocturnal amphibian in its natural habitat. Except for the directly comparable File:Atelopus certus calling male edit.jpg, (which except for being larger and having a less busy background -probably due it being a captive/staged picture- it is of the exact same technical quality and is nocturnal) the two or three closest amphibians are indeed brighter, but they are diurnal and have the advantage of natural light, however they have the same EV, focus, color balance and subject centerness, essentially the same quality. Other than that, with the fix for downsampling, this is at the level of the comparable amphibian FPs that exist, like File:Bufo_melanosticus_01.JPG or File:Litoria_phyllochroa.JPG. So I find your comment that it "Doesn't come close" to be a bit unfair - at a technical level it is at the same level or close to it. I could accept some of these amphibians are prettier subjects, with brighter colors or better habitats, but that is what the subject is - if that is what your are evaluating, it sounds like you think it is impossible to make an FP of this subject - something I think the FP process doesn't agree with. I carefully evaluated this picture against the existing Amphibians before nomination, and found it comparable, otherwise I wouldn't be wasting out time.--Cerejota (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking this picture was most probably pretty easy. It was most likely just a matter of pointing the camera at it with the flash on. I'm guessing the quality was a bit low because the photographer had to crop it since he/she didn't have a macro lens. That possibly the choice of aperture possibly. About half the amphibian FPs are taken with flash, probably at night, and most of them are better quality. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have handled this particular frog, and there is nothing easy about photographing it, it is evasive, quick moving, and seldom comes out of its rock habitat into the trees. I am actually extremely surprised at the quality considering how rarely photographed this species is - unlike other frogs called "coqui" or "guajon" in Puerto Rico, this is a rock-dweller, and very hard to spot and photograph. Compare for example, the pedestrian photographs of other "coquis" File:Eleutherodactylus_antillensis01.jpg, File:Eleutherodactylus_gryllus.jpg, File:Common_Coquí.jpg etc. You will hopefully see why the issues introduced by scaling are minimal compared to the other quality standards to be considered, both in comparison to other amphibian FPs and to other pictures of similar frogs in the same genus and habitat area - extremely difficult topic to successfully photograph. This picture is amazing in that context, and enough intrinsic value to be featured even without that context, at least in my view and in comparison with other Amphibian FPs.--Cerejota (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I did support it. I mean easy in the technical sense, like with the right equipment it is "just" a matter of point and shoot. I didn't mean that it'd be necessarily easy to get the camera in the right position, or find the subject. However, many subjects presented here are evasive, quick moving and difficult to find. "coquis", and other species from that region are poorly represented here because of systemic bias as far as photographer location goes, not because of inherit extra difficulty. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you support, I am simply putting an additional element to consideration - I am surprised that the best quality coqui picture in wikipedia (which is this one) is actually of one of the hardest one to make, while the common coqui, which is pernicious and easy to photograph is lacking.--Cerejota (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this picture of the same (or approaching) FP quality, except in size - which I think shouldn't be punished for, as it is sufficient for FAC criteria (ie not all FPs need to be the same size/resolution).--Cerejota (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not punishing it for size, I agree it meets the criteria, but that doesn't make it of the same quality as better resolved ones. Even if we were only evaluating the thumbnail, this one shows very considerable noise! --99of9 (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2011 at 01:19:54 (UTC)
Original - Autochrome nude study by Arnold Genthe. The autochrome is a photographic process that entered the market in 1907, which uses a random mosaic of colored grains that are visible through a black-and-white image, producing the effect of color.Alt 1 no blur, full-size
Reason
We do not have a single featured autochrome, nor do we have a single photographic nude, nor anything by Genthe, who was one of the best-known California photographers before Adams. So let us overcome this triple oversight. As nudes go, I feel this one makes particularly clear the goals of modernist, artistic nude photography; the circular form with one hand over the head calls to mind the famous Edward Weston picture of Bertha Wardell. It also shows the way the imprecise color of an autochrome can be an aesthetic strength.
This was a tricky edit (here's the original). Though there was damage to the plate, there's also a fair amount of chromatic randomness that is inherent to the autochrome process. I did take one step that was a little more aggressive than usual. Autochromes have a typical gridlike chromatic pattern, which is visible in a high-resolution scan of the plate but wasn't the way they were traditionally viewed (which was in a small handheld viewer, sort of like half a stereoscope). To reduce the obviousness of this pattern, I applied a very slight blur and downscaled a little bit. The post-edit, pre-blur, pre-downscale version is here. We can consider it as an alt if you like. I don't think the difference is enormous. Oh, you'll also note that I left a little black in the corners of the crop. This is to avoid cutting off her elbow or hair. I've never seen an autochrome with straight edges anyway.
Support as nominator --Chick Bowen 01:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the difference isn't enormous as you say, I don't think the blur should be applied if it is to appear in the photographic autochrome article. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This comes from the LoC and I found it here, though this looks like a different scan. My first impression is that it seems to be in black and white with random color stains rather than a color picture. The LoC's Genthe collection has many examples where the color shows up much better, though there may be copyright restrictions on them. So I'm not convinced it has significant EV for the Autochrome article.--RDBury (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The color is subtler because it's darker. Note that an autochrome is black and white. Chick Bowen 14:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even in comparison with other autochromes the color is barely noticeable. Compare with this image in the same collection; you can see the colors in the rainbow, the green of the trees etc. The other images we have in the autochrome article are better examples as well. The LoC archive has hundreds of images in the collection, many are very poor quality (the difference between an archive and a gallery), but it doesn't take much time to find images that are better examples of autochrome than this one.--RDBury (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image you link is a better example of the way autochromes represent bright colors. That doesn't necessarily make it a more representative example of what autochrome was used for. As this image and many others indicate, there was quite a range of the way photographers made use of the available colors. Keep in mind that Genthe was a pictorialist; strict documentation of his subject was seldom his aim. Chick Bowen 14:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're making the assumption that what we're seeing is what Genthe intended; given the images in the collection with washed out colors or other damage I don't think that assumption is valid. According to our article one hazard with autochromes is damage from projector heat and it's possible that that happened here. Your claim that Genthe was trying for some kind of artistic manipulation of the colors doesn't jibe with the other pictures in the collection. I've gone through it and there are landscapes, portraits of famous people (mostly women), pictures of houses and gardens, etc., but imo nothing to suggest the kind of thing you're talking about. What you're saying may be true, but to use it as an argument for EV it should be covered in the article with supporting references, until then I'm skeptical.--RDBury (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a superb image artistically, but I must agree that it is a particularly poor representative of the color quality that photographers of Genthe's caliber routinely achieved with Autochrome plates. Judging as a longtime student of early color processes and the proprietor of a modest collection of Autochromes, IMO this image probably boasted rich peaches-and-cream skin tones when it was new but has deteriorated considerably. Every Autochrome has a built-in color fading test chart in the form of the dyed grains, which will be very intensely colored if it is well-preserved, so if an ultra-high-res version of this is available from the LoC perhaps it would be possible to judge the true state of preservation by the intensity of color apparent in some of the larger grain clusters, and also to do some historically accurate color restoration on that basis. This plate might be a victim of projection "frying", the typical symptom of which is a stain-like yellow-brown discoloration over most of the image with somewhat better-preserved color at the corners and edges, where the heat of illumination was less intense. It could also be the result of simple prolonged exhibition by daylight—fading in Autochromes is easy to misdiagnose, because unlike modern color materials it is possible for the color to fade completely while leaving an image with neutral grays and decent blacks, as the relative luminances are due to the silver image and not dependent on the dyes.
Some, at least, of the poor color may be due to the way the plate was rephotographed. Images which exhibit "quaint" muted colors and pinkish skies when lying on a typical light-box can look remarkably different when viewed by daylight in an optimally arranged diascope or, best of all, illuminated with the aid of a condenser lens as if for projection. Even then, when rephotographed either on film or digitally, the results are rarely representative. I have several specimens which, when optimally viewed, are nearly as fresh and vivid as yesterday's snapshots, and I have seen many other high-quality examples, but it would be very hard to believe such color quality was possible if judging only by the almost universally poor reproductions available online and in books, or even by specimens seen "live" with the color-impairing disadvantage of modern display techniques. The George Eastman House's extensive online collection is further hobbled by that institution's insistence on the "authentic" representation of their images as very dark, just as they would appear surrounded by the brightly-lit expanse of the abominable fluorescent light-box undoubtedly used to rephotograph them, so that the only true whites are in areas of damage where there is just bare glass with no color grain layer. It is not clear if the LoC also subscribes to this bizarre philosophy, but if so, that could also account for some of the murkiness and color degradation. AVarchaeologist (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For an easy visual-ed alternative to slogging through my overlong and rambling discourse above, check out [5] at the LoC. The substantially different appearance under different lighting conditions is obvious. An Autochrome is a three-dimensional array of minute optical elements slightly spaced apart by a varnish layer, not just overlaid dye images like a Kodachrome or Ektachrome transparency. Their primary colors were orange-red, green and blue-violet, not RGB or CMY. Color balance and saturation, and even apparent contrast, are hugely dependent on the nature of the light source and the optics of the viewing setup. The close-up view on the LoC page almost certainly employed a light box for illumination. The view of the same plate in its diascope may have been shot by incandescent light. By daylight, a different (and almost certainly more vivid and accurate) color palette would appear. My point is that nobody can know just what the candidate image really looks like unless the LoC grants them the unlikely privilege of taking the original in its diascope to some spot where actual daylight, ideally a patch of bright white sky visible through a rather small or distant window, is available for illumination. AVarchaeologist (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support unless it's true that they *should* be more colourful. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those large black marks in the top corners detract from the image. Considering the age, I don't think the pixelation is too bad. The ALT is better. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Just not a very striking image—seems overly muted/washed out. Also the black corners are distracting. I understand this is inherent to the medium, but it doesn't help the aesthetic qualities of the work. Kaldari (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't like it", isn't much of a criteria. The fact that muted colours are "inherent to the medium" simply adds to EV -- whether or not you think it adds to the aesthetic. Cowtowner (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about it "doesn't illustrates the subject in a compelling way" and it isn't "among Wikipedia's best work". Kaldari (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom (unless someone can verifiably demonstrate that the colours should be different). Cowtowner (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either, but I prefer the no-blur. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I've tried fixing the black marks, but they won't disappear. After looking at other monochromes, I am convinced that the nominator's statement that it is inherent to the medium is true. I prefer the ALT, but either will do. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "black marks" are just the inner edges of the gummed black paper edge tape which was almost always used to bind an Autochrome plate up with a cover glass, to protect its delicate emulsion side. The plates were cut neat and square at the factory, but it was practically impossible for the end-user to apply gummed tape with equal precision. The LoC has prudently chosen to leave slivers of it visible rather than cropping any of the image to get rid of them. If the traces are disturbing, a historically correct remedy would be to "restore" the rest of the tape by adding a narrow black surround, roughly 1/4 of an inch wide at actual-size scale, that blends into the bits which are visible. Guaranteed to make the border irregularity pass unnoticed by the vast majority of viewers. AVarchaeologist (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in seeing that, if possible. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it possible to eliminate the black... dirt?... from the water? It is a little distracting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's pussible to remove all of them, but IMO some of them are needed as they give dimension to the picture, maybe only remove the one which is close to the bird on the right. anyway, it's a nice picture with good EV, I like it. ■ MMXX talk 20:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for gits & shiggles I removed all that extra muck. (Edit 1) Also cropped it a bit. JBarta (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Supportedit. Beautiful, feathers are very crisp. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice photo, but we already have a FP of this bird for the lead article image and this photo isn't significantly better than the existing one, so this photo doesn't add much EV. Pinetalk 21:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, the current FP has blown highlights all over the beak iirc, and this is more detailed for a start. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with JJ on this one; the current FP is not of the same quality, although I don't think it warrants a replacement. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question, what is standard practice regarding having multiple FPs of the same subject? If this is not considered a problem for EV of the second photo then I'll reconsider. On the subject of highlights, I must disagree, because if we're going to allow the recent photo of Paris to be its FPC with its blown highlights all over the photo, I don't think the minor issues with the current bird FP's beak should be a concern. But as I said, I'll reconsider if the standard practice for FPs is that multiple FPs of the same subject are OK. Pinetalk 07:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have maybe 5 pictures of the space shuttle and a good few of the Eiffel Tower, so it is allowed. I think the key is that it must show a different aspect of the subject. For this image, I think showing the bird's feeding habits and a bit more of the body (as there are two birds) would qualify. Regarding the Paris picture, one of the main reasons for the highlights being ignored was because of the difficulty in taking such a picture, due to usually limited access to skyscrapers at night. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is either some different aspect, or a direct, considerable improvement to qualify. I think this does so on both counts. As far as blown highlights are concerned, thought should be given as to what is blown, if it is an ancillary detail, and if the subject is misrepresented or not. The whole beak on that shot is blown, making the colour a weird orange, misrepresenting it. I seem to recall opposing it at that time for that reason. Some blown highlights on light sources are unavoidable for a night photo. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, prefer original persuaded by Crisco. Thanks for the reminder about the shuttles. Pinetalk 20:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impala article now has 4 featured pictures so I think this is fine as long as it shows some different aspect of the bird. Nice capture BTW --Muhammad(talk) 02:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Excellent! Something awful has happened to the file-size of the edit, it's less than 1MB. TehGrauniad (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit Flicking between them there is a pretty serious loss in image quality. The beak and eye of the left hand bird shows it pretty well. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support originalTomer T (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support originial, oppose edit. I don't see the benefit of removing the environment of the species! Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 20:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2011 at 12:56:16 (UTC)
Original - The view of Nanga Parbat, taken 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) from the base camp.
Reason
I think this should be an FP as it is fairly high resolution for its age (6 years) and a technically difficult shot due to the trek. It has high EV and provides an interesting contrast between the green grass, grey stone, and white snow. Crisp and clear.
Question If I'm seeing this right, there is a hill in the foreground that blocks the view of the mountain. Why couldn't this photo have been taken from the top of that hill to give a clearer view of the mountain? Pinetalk 21:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Perhaps it was off the trail; I'm assuming when climbing at certain heights people avoid any unnecessary dangers. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with that hill in the foreground, this photo doesn't impress me the way that many of the existing panorama FPs do. Pinetalk 07:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like having the foreground there - it tells me stuff about the lower altitude habitat and I don't find it distracting. Going significantly off trail is often frowned upon in such wilderness areas, a lot of alpine vegetation is quite vulnerable to trampling. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Ahura21 (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Ahura, thank you for nominating your image. Unfortunately, it is currently not placed in an article, which is a requirement for featured pictures. Please review the featured picture criteria. Jujutaculartalk 18:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This photo has a nice idea, but even supposing that this had been in the article for a week, I would oppose because of the graininess and other quality problems, especially at the top of the image. If someone wants to take a similar photo with better quality and lighting, it might be a good featured picture. Pinetalk 07:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Terrible image quality, horrible noise for no reason, bad lighting, signs falling down, no EV. JFitch(talk) 17:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is very poignant showing the despair of a homeless person against the grandness of the cathedral. It also is a visually striking photo. The only downside is that at full resolution, there is some color fringing. However the overall effect overcomes the flaw, in my opinion.
Support as nominator --Arg342 (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose The idea behind this photo was a good one, juxtaposing grand architecture with poverty. However, the blurring and stretching of the photo at the edges prevents me from supporting this for Featured Picture. Pinetalk 07:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The pic is titled anti-clockwise. The crop is tight at the bottom, cutting off the wheel. The CA could be fixed in software. The top half of the building is out of focus. The lighting is harsh. Too many technical problems. Not sure this has strong EV either. --Colin°Talk 09:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that the juxtaposition of elements is a good idea for an image that is designed to position an audience, but not so much for an encyclopaedia article. I think this is a difficult subject to illustrate well. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support looking nice. Pinetalk 08:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The head and neck seem rather blue-tinged, perhaps because the giraffe is partially under a tree. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like a selectively warmed version or would that be inappropriate manipulation --Muhammad(talk) 16:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have a problem with it, if not obvious. I don't know about other editors. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to edit 1 but I prefer having no edits where possible, and I don't have a problem with the original so I prefer it. Pinetalk 20:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support original: Thanks for the edit Muhammad, but it's still rather blue. I think we should stick to the non-edited version in this case. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have goofed in my edit summary, so to be clear I support the original. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think I prefer the edit. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. Very good, I love seeing the context and that funny thorny tree in the background. TehGrauniad (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both -- Unfortunate crop, the poor animal looks caged! This affects the EV of the picture imo as the giraffe is an open space species! Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and quality--Someone35(talk) 15:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Giraffe Mikumi National Park.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2011 at 10:20:24 (UTC)
Original - Striated Pardalote (Pardalotus striatus) on a Silver Wattle (Acacia dealbata), Risdon Brook Park, Tasmania, Australia
Reason
High quality image of a Striated Pardalote. This subspecies is differentiated from all the others by the fact that the spot on the wing is yellow, rather than red.
Support a selective denoise on the eyes would be nice --Muhammad(talk) 14:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: I see some Photoshop remnants above the head and the eye is a little glossy, but the quality on the bird is fantastic. EV is good too. I'd give full support with a bit of touch-up. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by photoshop remnants. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Colin°Talk 19:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no major problems with this as it is. Pinetalk 20:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. The whole of the bird's in focus this this time. Good detail, including the talons. TehGrauniad (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a bit of sunlight allowed me to stop down to f8 or so. Bear in mind it often isn't possible to do that. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2011 at 10:24:29 (UTC)
Original - Australian Golden Whistler (Pachycephala pectoralis)
Reason
Its a nice photo of a bird more often heard than seen in close quarters. My last good chance for a photo-op was in 2008, and I simply didn't have the equipment for it at that time. This photo shows all of the important plumage.
Support. Good EV, fantastic resolution. Highlights are rather blown on the head and foot, but do not detract heavily from the image. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Colin°Talk 19:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. Pinetalk 20:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. There's a blur across the branch and tail, but this doesn't detract from the subject. TehGrauniad (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good a nice photo of something which normally wouldn't be photographed like that, it also shows everything that it needs to show. Jamesrules90 (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2011 at 20:45:28 (UTC)
Original - British Conservative statesman, writer, academic, poet and former solider Enoch Powell. Well known for his controversial 1968 "Rivers of Blood" speech.Alternative
Reason
A striking and high quality portrait, particularly exceptional among the UK's political figures.
Support, absolutely. A highly significant person, irreplaceable as he is now dead, and a great portrait. Our only shot of him; something we are very lucky to have. There are a few imperfections, but, honestly, I don't care. This is the kind of thing of which I would love to see more here. J Milburn (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Nice photo, but there's some blurring on the face, so I prefer Enoch Powell 4 Allan Warren.jpg. If the nom is willing to put this up as an alt and put it in an appropriate place in the article, I'm more likley to support the alt. Pinetalk 09:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly a fair statement. That currently nominated version displays more blur on the face is perfectly acceptable given the larger size. This, to me, clearly is a more detailed presentation of the subject. Cowtowner (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposing to this photo, but I like the other one better. Pinetalk 08:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support whichever one is the lead image of the main article. The EV is far lower in the article on the speech. J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have tried to get Warren's work featured here before and have been disappointed with the reactions (I mean, there have been successful nominations, but not the ones I nominated). He is an excellent photographer and, as Milburn says, has frequently provided the sole free image for very important subjects. Chick Bowen 22:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This image is a mirror image of the one on his web site. JBarta (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the one here must be correct. A pocket square is generally worn on the left (where the pocket is!). Chick Bowen 00:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the fact that Powell parted his hair on his left. J Milburn (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There seems to be a black hair on his forehead. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: Come to think of it, I prefer Enoch Powell 4. Crisper lines, less lint or whatever. The pose in the nomination is better, but it needs some cleaning (down-sampling, removal of extraneous hairs and whatever).Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Enoch Powell 4 as an alt. Sir Richardson (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt: As I've noted, I prefer the pose in the original but it needs some major touch ups. The alt is already good to go. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Milburn. Cowtowner (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A striking portrait. Good EV. Kaldari (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More input needed - Which one is preferred? Also, please comment on the EV factor: the original is the lead image of a well-developed article. It would be difficult to promote the alt under the guise of EV, as it is only used at Rivers of Blood speech. Jujutaculartalk 19:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the ALT, but I would accept the original. It could use a little cleaning-up, though. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My support is for the original only, as it is the one used in the lead of the main article. Because of its usages, the other does not have the EV. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the alt but I don't have a major objection to the original. Pinetalk 07:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Enoch Powell 6 Allan Warren.jpg --Jujutaculartalk 15:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original, weak support edit (Neutral towards edit) This is much closer than your other submissions, so keep up the good work. The lighting and image quality are pretty good. However, the crop is too tight at the sides and there is too much space at the top and bottom. For a symmetrical composition like this you really need to take care to stand on an axis of symmetry of the object (ie to the right a few feet). JJ Harrison (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also oppose the edit. It's better than the original but still not angled well, and I still find that the person on the top level of the monument detracts from the quality of the image. Pinetalk 07:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is centred, but based on the alcove with the statue (nearer the top). Different elements of the building seem slightly off-axis relative to each other - not the photographer's fault, in my opinion. Samsara (FA • FP) 09:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support nice panorama showing animals in the park, but some of the trees in the background are OOF. Pinetalk 07:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They would not be out of focus, it would be due to heat-haze. Unfortunately, but to be expected and hard to avoid in hot climates. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 08:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: High resolution, animals are visible and plentiful. High EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good illustration of the flora, fauna and landscape of the NP. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 08:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good to have some feedback from you after such a long time :-) --Muhammad(talk) 15:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :-) I know, I've been fairly quiet lately. It doesn't help that my Canon 5D has died and won't turn on... I'll probably wait for the next generation 5D (Mk III?) instead of getting a Mk II though, but who knows when that will be! Ðiliff«»(Talk) 06:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well wait for the MKV :P. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could we crop off the left third or so of the photo? I'm not sold on having the tree right in the middle, and all the animals are on the right anyways... Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it just as it is. TehGrauniad (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as is. --99of9 (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Mikumi National Park June 2011.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2011 at 05:17:37 (UTC)
Original - An illustration of two males kissing, a common feature in Yaoi manga. The receiving partner is somewhat androgynous, as is common in the genre, while the image itself is drawn partially with copic markers, which are common in the industry
Reason
I think this should qualify as a featured picture as it is a tactful representation of the subject matter, Yaoi (also known as boys love), which as noted by the article is "female-oriented fictional media that focus on homoerotic or homoromantic male relationships". The image is of high resolution and good artistic quality. Although this is rightfully not a FP criteria, it should also be noted that the image is featured at Commons. As a side note, it appears that this image would be one of the first anime and manga related FPs. I am aware that the nomination could be quite controversial.
Comment: Just for clarification, this is not by a notable artist? Secondly, are Copic markers and pencil crayons really typical media for this style of artwork? J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sen Cross appears to be a volunteer/employee with Animexx, a group for the promotion of Japanese animation in Germany. Art styles vary heavily in Japanese animation (like in Western animation). A look through the manga-related categories in commons shows rather plain computer assisted drawings (such as this) and more detailed drawings (such as this. I will request feedback from from WP:ANIME regarding the different art styles used in Japanese drawings, both fan art and commercial productions. I would assume that works meant to be sold en masse for profit would use a simpler style. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: While uses of crayon pencils are certainly less common, use of Copic markers is extremely common (I would say they are even the unofficial standard, given how many artists there use them). I suspect the reason why crayon pencils are used less is because they produce a less-even coverage than do markers, and therefore make the reproduction of the work slightly more difficult, especially when it comes to turning it into animation. Markers provide a smoother appearance, more in keeping with what you see in most animation coloring. That said, this image is typical and accurate in general appearance to many anime and manga images released by professional artists in Japan, and I see no issues with it being made a featured image as it is very well done and high quality (as Commons has already recognized). It is free, so that makes it very valuable in an area where high quality free images are extremely hard to come by. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe it meets the criteria, it might be deemed unsuitable for picture of the day, but that is an entirely separate issue. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The character on the right looks like a woman to me (or at best androgynous), so I think it's not the best illustration of the genre. (Correct me if I'm wrong). Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above and in the article, the genre is generally targeted at women; as such, I don't think a "bear" would be well accepted. The Yaoi article notes that stories are often "adolescent romance[s]", which would imply a level of androgynoussness(sp?). Also, the image itself is of the shōnen-ai variety, which involves "beautiful boys in love". As such, I think somewhat androgynous characters would be common in the genre/subgenre. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Depictions of the partners in shonen-ai/yaoi are discussed at length in this article - androgyny is part of the history of the genre. --Malkinann (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned by Crisco and Malkinann, the androgyny is very common in yaoi manga as it is seen as "less threatening". ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vanishingly low EV without any particular related manga as a source. Brandmeistert 00:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The educational value (I'm assuming that's what "EV" stands for here) is that it accurately depicts one aspect of the yaoi genre. As for your second comment, if it was a derivative of a specific manga, we couldn't use it because it wouldn't be a free image (and would be a copyright violation). The whole point here is that it is an original work which has the features of one category of manga, and is released under a free license. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(EV is encyclopedic value). It is an accurate representation of the genre; requiring it to be from a specific manga series does not seem to be one of the criteria. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yaoi has a limited number of specific devotees, the general public would be hardly interested. Brandmeistert 21:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't relevant. If something is notable enough for an article, or fits well into one, then it is notable enough for a featured picture. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also doubt that the general public would be interested in a species of shrubs from Western Australia but that did not prevent Banksia brownii from becoming a featured article. General interest does not appear to be a criteria.--70.24.215.48 (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that your claim about this being of little interest to "the general public" is not really a particularly good argument against featuring this. I am concerned about the fact that, so far as I can see, we have no reliable source tying this work/artist to this genre. Yes, it's free, but that doesn't mean we need to feature it. J Milburn (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, Sen Cross is a member of Animexx, which promotes anime in Germany. He does mainly freelance stuff, from what I can gather from his profile. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As with all other works of art nominated to FPC (including Mona Lisa), I'm not sure what are we are really trying to feature here: the artistic quality, the technical quality of the digital reproduction (not applicable here, I suppose) or anything else? And why should we use different criteria for assessing this particular picture, like being an excellent illustration of a certain manga genre? Do we feature a painting of van Gogh for its EV in illustrating the Impressionism? In the absence of objective evaluation criteria, I use my personal taste and oppose. Nothing special, really, other than the slight erotic/forbidden touch -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, a high-quality free image from this genre is quite difficult to find, which would make it different than impressionism. As also noted above, it includes styles common to the genre (androgyny, Copic markers), as well as another one I'll add here: one of the partners being a "uke" or receiver, generally the more androgynous one. Regarding the illustration of styles, this just-promoted nude was supported mainly on representing the medium and the artist, this was for representing the subject, as was this; as I have indicated above, and has been supported by several editors, the image is an accurate representation of the genre (styles, themes, relationship between the characters) which gives it a higher EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no wow, nothing visually special about this picture. Not pleasing to the eye. —stay (sic)! 08:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The art style is not pleasing, or the subject material? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both. —stay (sic)! 08:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... yet per the criteria, "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing" Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Not always" doesn't mean every time. I still oppose. —stay (sic)! 09:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Crisco and Nihonjoe have made very convincing arguments for its EV. The complaints about aesthetics don't really make any sense. A good representative image of the genre is going to look like this. Otherwise, it would lose its EV. I think the image caption could be extended to include brief comments on angrogyny and copic markers, since those seem to be noteworthy features of the image. Fallingmasonry (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good illustration for the term and for the drawing technique. It shows what needs to be seen to understand the style and the topic. --Niabot (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2011 at 15:56:58 (UTC)
Original - A gayaman-style kris, with a figure of Semar as the handle
Reason
I think this could be a featured picture because it is of high resolution, shows the subject clearly, shows the sheathe (which many of our other pictures of kris lack, thus giving greater EV), and is interesting (the blade design, unique handle etc.). The original can be seen here. This nomination is a renomination of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Semar Kris, as the current suggested image surfaced quite late in the discussion. This renomination is based on closing comments by User:JJ Harrison and User:Makeemlighter, as well as discussion on Makeemlighter's talk page.
Support I'm glad to see this coming back. Pinetalk 07:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the dimensions, these don't seem to be a matching pair. If I'm wrong, it would be nice for EV to see how they fit together (and please don't just photoshop them). If I'm right and they do not match, this fact should be noted. Samsara (FA • FP) 09:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a few low resolution images (not for consideration for FP) to address your concerns and show that the blade and sheathe are a pair. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much improved, good job. I slightly tweaked the colour levels to reduce the blue a small bit which showed on the dark wooden areas. Fallschirmjäger✉ 15:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sure. It really doesn't look like the two could fit together does it? Some kind of optical illusion maybe? Sabine's Sunbirdtalk
Perhaps because the slot in the wooden handle isn't visible, or the positioning with the head of the handle where the base of the wooden guard is. It never occurred to me before Samsara made a note above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I notice many white barbs (or something) near the petals. Are those supposed to be pure white? They seem to have reflected the flash terribly. The tendrils on the bottom flower seem to have blown highlights, but it wouldn't influence my vote. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the EXIF, there's no flash used. Those white items probably are stem of another plant --Muhammad(talk) 16:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I am curious as to what these white things are, but as noted by Muhammad there was no flash so they seem to be correctly coloured. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cropping a few pixels on the left would get rid of the intruding 2nd flower. --99of9 (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gives no sources. Samsara (FA • FP) 13:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on lack of sourcing and the rainbow background, which seems to serve no purpose. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The background colour seems to refer to the initial State or Territory which corresponds to the colour of the area on the map. The White line corresponds to what Singapore was doing at each point and is coloured white on the map. Nice idea, but could use some tuning. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 07:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We prefer diagrams to be in SVG format. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of sourcing, should be svg. Colouring is fine, though I'm not sure I'd pick those particular hues. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It isn't svg and the rainbow background detracts from the image, even though it serves a purpose it would look better either with the hues changed or without the colours at all. It is also quite chaotic which may confuse some people. Jamesrules90 (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2011 at 19:04:28 (UTC)
Original - A female African Bush Elephant raises her trunk as a warning sign in Mikumi National Park, Tanzania
Reason
We already have a FP of this elephant but IMO this one shows a different aspect. While in the park, our vehicle moved too close to the elephant and she raised her trunk and one of her fellow elephants did the same, as if sniffing the air. This one then stomped around for some time. Good EV as it shows the individual hairs which may aid in the sensitivity as well as the raised trunk. Very high res.
Weak support: Good EV, action shot, high resolution and clear. Worried about how the majority of the animal is not shown, but considering the context that was the least of your worries. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the animal is shown in the other FP. IMO the purpose of this is to show the trunk and facial details. Fortunately we were left untouched by the mighty elephant, no thanks to the guide who insisted we move even further! --Muhammad(talk) 17:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support adequate EV, clear shot. Pinetalk 21:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Head shots can have a tough time, but I think this one has appropriate EV. I think it has been perhaps sharpened a bit much though (the fine white halo between elephant and sky) JJ Harrison (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per JJ, but wouldn't mind a re-edit; the sharpening halo is even visible in thumb. --jjron (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would have loved to have seen the whole animal, but can be forgiven given the context and resolution. SMasters (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2011 at 15:58:24 (UTC)
Original - An SVG version of the image used for Young Pioneer pins in the Soviet Union. Lenin is pictured. (With shadow)ALT1 - No shadow
Reason
I believe that the image has high encyclopedic value and represents its subject well, as it was the emblem of the group. SVG so resolution is no issue. Currently featured at Commons.
Oppose because if we allow this to be FP, then every high resolution logo of every organization with an article would qualify for FP, which could clutter this nomination page and a few FP categories. Pinetalk 21:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent reproductions of striking, free logos of organisations, especially when the logo itself is significant, and when there's no issue of advertising (though maybe concerns about advertising would just serve to keep them off the main page...), would make good FPCs, in my opinion. That's a very small group of images. Of more concern to me are crests/coats of arms; we've promoted some of them, but it seems that almost any of them would be eligible. J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like it, and I prefer it without the shadow, but I wonder why the red bars are thicker than the black bars? That doesn't appear to be the case with the pin. J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why is there the change of tone in the middle? The top half being lighter than the bottom half? J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As noted (very indirectly) above, this is an SVG version of a pin image. It appears that the gradient is in the original pin. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (leaning oppose). Where do the colours for this image come from? The colours on the pin are very different, particular in the flame section (see [6]) - the flame is more like the lighter rays below and it is all one colour whereas this gets darker towards the edges. Also, on the pin, the lighter rays are thinner than the dark ones, but here it is the other way round. Another image I found is again different ([7]). To my mind an image of an actual pin or logo has more EV than an SVG image. Polequant (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose per above, unless colours are changed or explained. I'd also still lean to an image of an actual pin or banner too (given the proliferation of the pins, I wouldn't have thought it would be too hard to find one in good condition). Polequant (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I saw a decent pic of a better-condition pin, but it wasn't free. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportA nice picture of something which is historically significant.Jamesrules90 (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the various concerns above. I'm ok with this in theory, but I'm really not convinced that this reproduction is completely accurate. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the flame should be more orange than the red star. Easy to change though, isn't it? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --WPPilot 19:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: Image seems to have blown highlights, and there are some framing issues (the flagpole at the top of the palace, for example, is mostly cut out). The palace itself seems to be a little crooked in the image. It's a nice shot, and I'd be happy to support an image taken under better lighting conditions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The colour balance seems off - too green or too yellow or something. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Aaadddaaammm. Pinetalk 08:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also have to agree with Adam and Pine. SMasters (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2011 at 10:20:12 (UTC)
Original - Ice from the Vatnajökull glacier on the black volcanic shoreline at Jökulsárlón
Reason
High resolution, high EV (shows where the pictured iceberg came from (Vatnajökull)), good quality, good composition. Geo-tagged. Quality image on Commons.
Question: Icebergs are, by definition, in water, aren't they? Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one got to there probably by water and then I guess it just drifted to the shore before it reached the ocean (there's a small river between jokulsarlon and the ocean which can be seen in the picture behind the iceberg)--Someone35(talk) 17:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more encyclopedic if in the water. As is, I'm not sure if it could even be called an iceberg. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it demonstrates strong EV in any of the current article placements. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It shows in both articles (Jökulsárlón and Vatnajökull) where the iceberg came from. Also the composition is good in my opinion and the quality is good too and it is geo-tagged--Someone35(talk) 11:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There is no way of evaluating scale here. How big is this ice block? Could it be considered an iceberg if it were only a few feet high (or less)? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's about a meter (3 ft) high I think--Someone35(talk) 15:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Language difficulty? It's not an iceberg then. Icebergs are very large floaty lumps of ice (sink ocean liners, that kind of thing). Describe it as a picture of the shoreline at Jökulsárlón - it seems to be a cracking picture of the extraordinary landscape. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, many questions as shown in discussion above. Pinetalk 08:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: changing the term to landscape doesn't quite cover it, as the focus on the ice block belies what it is meant to be. High resolution, but little EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do I change a picture's name? And Crisco, what demonstrates the connection between Vatnajokull and the icebergs in Jokulsarlon better than a picture of both the ice block/iceberg in Jokulsarlon with Vatnajokjull? Pino, if I'll change the picture's name from "iceberg" to "ice block" and add the size of the iceberg/ice block in the description, will it be good enough for you?--Someone35(talk) 12:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the file is on Commons, you need to use the rename template and give a suggestion, then wait for an admin or filemover to do it. Regarding the image itself, it would have higher EV if an actual iceberg. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do have pictures of icebergs too (such as the one on the right) this picture but there are tons of pictures of Jokulsarlon itself (so it won't contribute much to these articles because there's already a panorama made by a professional photographer there, do you think that picture will have a better chance to be a featured picture?--Someone35(talk) 13:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone35, you need a more poetic caption (although I fear it won't add much to the EV) "Ice from the Vatnajökull glacier on the black volcanic shoreline at Jökulsárlón" Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lol, added it but how will it help the picture? and which one is better, the first or the second one?-- Someone35 15:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many issues, plus now FP wowfactor for me at all. JFitch(talk) 08:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What issues? The fact that I called it an iceberg instead of an iceblock isn't a problem-- Someone35 11:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Not a heck of a lot. A better developed article would be nice, but that's not a criterion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eye-catching rocket, although some crop could be made. Brandmeistert 02:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should be cropped though. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it as it is. I don't think that cropping is necessary, but if someone wants to post an alt then we can consider it. Pinetalk 09:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop is ok as it is, but I would support a cropped version too. - ZephyrisTalk 10:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suppose this is very deep water, in which case I don't think a too-tight crop is needed (although I would also support a crop) as we would loose the indication of the murky environment. The articles are a little short, but I thin they check out ok. TehGrauniad (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Added a cropped ALT. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As TehGrauniad said, I didn't a too-tight crop to represent the natural environment, the immensity of the deep water.--Citron (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high quality, maybe the resolution could be higher but this is good too--Someone35(talk) 15:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this thing microscopic or the size of a bus? You have no chance of telling from the picture alone... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As noone's addressed the scale issue I have to oppose as the EV is really compromised by not knowing how big it is. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the location, I doubt the photographer could have stepped out and measured it. The species' size itself doesn't seem to have been identified (not in any of the sources). Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert, but I believe that the size varies as much as, say, mould or coral, meaning that the size of this particular specimen isn't particularly important. I believe what you're seeing here is many different organisms that act as one, as a "colonial organism". It's not too distantly related to the famous Portuguese Man o' War- they're both in the order Siphonophorae. J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1, better crop. Kaldari (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 IMO it's much better. ■ MMXX talk 22:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Support This is one of the most beautiful images I have seen here, it is detailed superbly and not grainy. It is not blurred hence the appendages look like lightbulbs. I think this picture is representative of the subject + Comment Not only mankind can light up the world! Oh, and do they make plushies of these? SheledUmlal 14:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image was rotated 90 degrees - is that justified? Samsara (FA • FP) 00:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy that you like this image. I've rotated it because is his natural posture. The NOAA photo Library has not even made the effort to identify the specimen, so, we don't ask them to put the image in the right direction! see this one --Citron (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of this photo makes orientation pretty arbitrary, so I would say Citron was right in doing so. If this were a landscape it would be another story. Jujutaculartalk 15:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 High EV and resolution. SMasters (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - Because I like the composition more and it puts the subject in context, as Elekhh said. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' I'd support the file specified by User:JJ Harrison. Way higher EV. This image is a pretty one and might definitely win a competition, but in terms of EV, I think it looses out a little. Hariya1234 (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on your interest. If one's only interested in the design of the main façade, than indeed the other one is better. If interested in how the building sits in its urban setting than this one has clearly higher EV. --Elekhh (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd go for the one indicated by JJ. The image is used in the article regarding the church, so a view of the church should be paramount. A good view of the facade with a wider field of view would be even better, but don't think we have one. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT1. High EV, high quality. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support both versions. Pinetalk 08:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support either Alt is probably slightly underexposed. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support alt only the first shows the bridge, and doesn't expand the EV further. I remember to nominate File:Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.jpg before, but it failed. I agree that this is much better, but it is a little bit too dark; for example I can badly see the images on the round archs, as there is shadow on the top of them. Even the lightning on the first image is better. Also I think it is a little bit crooked, but I am not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatOrangePumpkin (talk • contribs) 13 September 2011
Support Either, but I prefer the original. The alt leads me to think that the bridge is a road, which is quite misleading pictorially. Just MHO. SMasters (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Thaejas (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems rather blurry, and the water is reflecting light somewhat. Leaning towards oppose. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my above comments. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose adequate EV but it's blurry on the right side. Pinetalk 08:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely crop a bit from the right to center the flower. Materialscientist (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 07:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The image is undoubtedly heart rendering, but can't really see a strong EV in the current article. No qualms about the image. Hariya1234 (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Don't really understand the question on EV; looks to be quite strong to me. Image quality seems fine despite slightly ambitious downsampling. Was concerned on the licensing (many of these agencies copyright their images) but source checked out. My only quibble is that, for better framing, the child should be a little more to left of frame. --jjron (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This adds enough EV to the article. Pinetalk 07:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: high technical quality, fair enough EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good artistically and technically. There is value- this could be written, but it's much more striking from a picture, and seeing as we have an umambigously free picture, it should certainly be used. This is something that will make people stop and stare. J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's called "slum voyeurism". We get to pop in and get a peek at the wretched poor from the comfort of our cushy lives. Lucky for us such photos (and movies) don't also transmit some of the local smells. JBarta (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aaadddaaammm (though I'm sure he is referring to jjron). JJ Harrison (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This image isn't in the article mentioned above. JBarta (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been there for three weeks and only yesterday removed without explanation. I placed it back again. Also opened a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the EV of the image in the article, and invited input from the contributors. --Elekhh (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I recommend that this nomination is placed on hold while that discussion is ongoing. J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think is any need for that at this stage unless some real controversy emerges. There are six more days for debate here. --Elekhh (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have stabilised. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unless the image cannot stay on the article. High EV for me. SMasters (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good ev, lots of wow. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Oxfam East Africa - A mass grave for children in Dadaab.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting bird photo. Pinetalk 11:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: High resolution and EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image, like the colours of the background too. Fallschirmjäger✉ 23:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely crop a bit from the left to center the bird. Something like 2300px total width looked fine on my PC. And I suggest doing it now as FPs are so hard to edit after they are promoted. Materialscientist (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. I would also agree with a slightly tighter crop, given that the habitat in the background is not in focus anyway. --Elekhh (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I wouldn't object to a crop, but I don't think it's completely necessary. What an ugly creature. J Milburn (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer the original. Nice EV. SMasters (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pref Original --Muhammad(talk) 20:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support original -- Excellent quality and composition. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. Excellent, what a bird! TehGrauniad (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The turkey's right leg borders have visible CA/jpg compression. Also its feathers in the back look like they were copy and pasted from another image (see the borders).-- Someone35 12:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might need to look up what both CA and jpeg compression look like. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The tail looks like you pasted it from another image-- Someone35 14:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe the photo was doctored? It seems fairly clear that the border you are referring to is between the wing's edge and the body. Naturally, there will be a discontinuity in the coloration. Fallingmasonry (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that, I said how it looks like-- Someone35 07:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Pinetalk 11:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems to require a bit of a crop to remove the borders. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped. JBarta (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Irrefutable EV for the base itself, decent picture to understand airport layout. High resolution, PD, clear lines, good contrast. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not stimulate my interest because it's a really ugly photo. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not stunning photography. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And all these pictures of birds are? Personally I find them a little boring. It seems to me the real objection to this image is what the image portrays... an overhead shot of an air force base. I can't imagine how such a shot could be made glamorous, or stunning, or whatever. But for what it is... it seems to be a fine image. Another thing to consider... "stunning" images of flowers and birds and landmarks are littered all over this place. How many are around that show such an installation from the air and in such fine detail? JBarta (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've been on this base numerous times and I live about 10 miles from it; believe me, it shows the base exactly as it is. Is it an ugly photo, or a photo of an ugly place? For me, it's the latter. Edwards is in a dry. ugly part of the desert and barely anything but yucca trees and creosote brush grow here. It's not a stunning area at all, and for me the photo captures the ugliness and lack of stunningness just fine. Having knowledge of the base, I can identify the compass rose painted on the lakebed, the main base and Dryden Research Center, and a few other things, but it's missing the auxiliary base, the painted runways on the lakebed are unclear or not included, the compass is faint, and we can't see any of Edwards, California. which is as much part of the base as anything else. Matthewedwards : Chat 19:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you read Wikipedia's featured picture criteria, you will find no mention of the words "stunning" or "ugly". In fact, the reasons given for opposing this image (largely subjective aesthetics) are not even mentioned in the criteria, except to say that "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing." And, if you read the rest of the criteria, it's hard to make the case that this image doesn't qualify nicely on most points. Just sayin... JBarta (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have read the criteria. I was responding to others saying it was ugly and not stunning. I think it captures the ugliness and not-stunningness of the area. The Antelope Valley is what it is. That is not my issue with the photo. The image isn't up to standards in other ways
It is missing major parts of the base, including Edwards community, the auxiliary airbase and the runways on Rogers lake. Not to mention completely leaving off Rosamond Lake. It appears to be tilted, either the runway should have been parallel with the edge of the image or it should have been rotated to the left by a large amount so the runway and the strip by the hangers and bases were in the centre of the picture.
In your nomination statement you make a point of saying that many buildings and aircraft are visible, but there's no detail to them. Most people would be hard pressed to identify the planes.
The image is outdated. In 2008 a runway was installed to the left of the large one. Unless being presented as an historic photograph, which would be odd since its from 2007, it is misrepresentative and has lost its encyclopedic value as showing the base as it is today. Matthewedwards : Chat 23:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2011 at 10:41:15 (UTC)
Original - Spotted Pardalote (Pardalotus punctatus) female with nesting material, Risdon Brook Park, Tasmania, Australia
Reason
This shot (and the one below) make a nice matching pair. These two were busy padding out their nest (a hole in an embankment) next to a relatively busy footpath.
Support Good pair of photos. Pinetalk 11:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Why not nominate them as a set? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly because a few are categorically opposed to sets. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Odd thing to do, considering some images (such as these two) have higher EV as sets. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the counter argument is that each individual image tends to receive less scrutiny in a set. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then buy yourself eyeglasses-- Someone35 14:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly a diplomatic way of expressing your opinion Someone35, but yes, I see the CA as well. It's on the branch directly above the bird's head. Also some very small degree of it on other branches. Not significant enough, in my view to get a an oppose from me.--Nanoman657 (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per my comment above--Nanoman657 (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Pardalotus punctatus female with nesting material - Risdon Brook.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2011 at 10:40:32 (UTC)
Original - Spotted Pardalote (Pardalotus punctatus) male with nesting material, Risdon Brook Park, Tasmania, Australia
Reason
This shot (and the one above) make a nice matching pair. These two were busy padding out their nest (a hole in an embankment) next to a relatively busy footpath.
The image is of a high technical quality and in a style reflective of things common to the genre (hentai). It has high EV and is used as the lead in the hentai article. Although it could never be used on the MP, the criteria do not preclude sexually explicit images. High quality hentai images that are free are few and far between, and this is one of the best images we have illustrating the genre. I am also including a version without the halo.
Strong oppose -- This forum has a strong educational component and used to be family and work-safe. Please keep it that way. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a bad example of the topic, and a rather unremarkable cartoon in terms of technique and positioning - if we are going to FP erotic art, it better be at least mildly arousing. I suggest however that the above be ignored as an "oppose" - erotic art and even entertainment is an educational topic and recognized as such by the most prestigious educational institutions. The other arguments on "family and work-safe" is in my view, contrary to the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED - we do not shy from educational topics because they might offend you.--Cerejota (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough rationale. There is another large, free hentai image, but I consider it of inferior quality to this one. This replaced the old one. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is a better illustration of the topic than the previous, but not FP material. Look at the works of List of hentai authors, and compare this work with theirs, and you will see what I mean. I know it will be hard to get license compatible hentai image of FP quality, but it is not impossible.--Cerejota (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Basically per Cerejota. Although this is a very relevant pic in the context of hardcore hentai, embodying a number of familiar tropes of that genre, and it's not bad (decent composition and colouring), and it's high res, it is not particularly remarkable. The art isn't especially detailed (e.g. see the man's face or the background) and it doesn't "stand out" - I realise this is a subjective assessment. Dcoetzee 08:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True enough that it is standard in the context of hardcore hentai; however, FPs are for Wikipedia's best work, meaning free images. None of the award winning hentais have licensed their images under a free license, so this could be the best Wikipedia has to offer on the subject. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've linked to the images rather than put the thumbnails here. This page is most probably viewed in locations where such an image isn't appropriate (work for example). This is only because people go to FPC expecting it to be work safe, not that we shouldn't consider the image. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I didn't realize that we were allowed to do that. (Although I don't think there are many explicit FPs, if any). Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Cerejota's reasoning. This is a subject which, though it may make a lot of people queasy, I am not opposed to featuring per se. We just need something special- preferably by a notable, or at least noted, artist. J Milburn (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would special be, in your opinion? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A piece which has previously been published (as opposed to self-published), and is by a notable artist, would be a good start. Yes, this not an old style, so we don't have droves of public domain pictures, but, for comparison, we have sound files that have been released under free licenses by notable musical groups. For instance, our article on folk metal currently features a song by Balkandji. J Milburn (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could make a request at WikiProject Japan (I don't speak Japanese so I'd have a few issues), but I am batting 0.000 when requesting OTRS permission. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not something that would be easy to get hold of, at all. But that's what I would support. Featured status isn't meant to be easy. J Milburn (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Notable published artist, maybe, this artist no. Also, it goes without saying I will strongly oppose this if it has ANY chance of being on the homepage regardless of notability. — raekyt 15:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, maybe a more softcore hentai image might be in order for FP.--Cerejota (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - extremely high resolution, suitable image for the article, adequately illustrates subject. Disagree that it is particularly obscene or poor in artistic quality. 82.27.132.19 (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there- while your thoughts are most certainly welcome, please note that, as per the instructions above, "anonymous votes are generally disregarded". If you have an account, perhaps you'd like to log in? J Milburn (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aargh my eyes, my eyes! Only kidding. I do not oppose on the explicit subject matter per se, but as others have said, if we were to feature this, then it should be from a notable artist or other historical depictions of note. This is just a generic image from thousands of such illustrations. Nothing special here. SMasters (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I realise that the job here is mostly to compare the picture against the Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria, for me this picture looks like children involved in a sex act. Maybe this is something that is intrinsic to this genre, but it makes me very uncomfortable. TehGrauniad (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Japan they'd probably be marketed as 16-17; in the US 18. It's common practice when localizing hentai. As this is not a commercial work, it wouldn't quite apply here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2011 at 12:15:12 (UTC)
Original - Enzifer, of Urgehal, displaying typical black metal apparel while performing in Belgium, August 2011. Typical of the genre is corpse paint, fake or real blood, leather clothing featuring spikes, and anti-Christian imagery, including inverted crosses and pentagrams.
Reason
Something a bit different. Striking? Yes. High quality? Yes. EV? Yes- understanding the imagery of black metal is far easier with a picture like this.
Support I didn't expect myself to be so affected by this, but I find it quite disturbing. Jujutaculartalk 13:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ~Asarlaí 20:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo with strong EV. I'm glad I don't live next door to this guy. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If anyone's interested, especially if you don't know black metal, this (NSFW) is what Urgehal sounds like. Enzifer can be seen on the left, wearing pretty much the same stuff. That's a fairly typical black metal sound- not to everyone's taste. J Milburn (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- Horrible character! A shame that the crop is so extreme. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Urgehal Metal Mean Festival 20 08 2011 10.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2011 at 08:47:23 (UTC)
Original - Cirrus (curl of hair) floccus (flaked or puffy) with virga
Reason
It is one of the most stunning cloud images I have ever seen, and it greatly enhances the Cirrus floccus page, showing how precipitation can often fall from these clouds, and then begin to evaporate before reaching the ground.
Support as nominator --Inks.LWC (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that it is beautiful, but it seems rather grainy. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question What makes you call it cirrus floccus? How are you sure its that rather than some other cloud type? JJ Harrison (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a meteorology major a semester away from receiving my degree, and have taken numerous classes, including cloud physics. The label for the picture by the author was cirrus floccus with virga, and while I wouldn't be able to be 100% sure that's what they are without being there to observe them, they fit the general appearance. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wasn't able to verify the id with my knowledge and resources, so thought it best to ask. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Yes, the 'species id' is probably correct but that is not enough for reaching the statuts of FP. Even if image quality were good (which is not) it would still miss some magic touch. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I'm inclined to agree that the quality isn't really up to scratch (there's too much noise) but I do feel that it has the "magic touch" of which Alvesgaspar speaks. Cloud varieties would make wonderful FPs. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose agree with J Milburn. With a better camera this would be worthy of FP. Pinetalk 21:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2011 at 11:49:03 (UTC)
Original - The Doom Bar at high water, with waves breaking across the shoal
Reason
The uncropped image A high quality image which shows waves breaking over the Doom Bar at the mouth of the River Camel in Cornwall. The Doom Bar is a sandbank, the shape of which can be seen under the water, on the near of the picture (the far side is Daymer Bay). It has been cropped slightly to increase encyclopedic value. This my first ever featured pic nomination, so sorry if I've got anything wrong!
Support as nominator --WormTT· (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid. It doesn't have that zing of sharpness that makes a great landscape. If you have a look at some of the FPs of landscapes (e.g. [8], [9], [10]) they are super crisp and make you go wow. I'm not sure what's happened on this one, whether it's just the equipment or JPG compression or whatnot but at full resolution it is very blurry and unclear. I'm not a fan of the colour change from the original either - you can tell it's been tweaked. Polequant (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: Not as stunning as some of the other FPs, but sufficient EV for the article itself. I would prefer something taken from a higher angle, to better show the bar. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image quality isn't there. You could try stitching a panorama to improve it with your camera. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I've got the image on the camera still, and the quality appears much better on the screen, so I'm wondering if there was some problem with compression during the import. I'll have a look and see if there's anything I can do to improve it. WormTT· (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely overcompressed (it wouldn't have come off your camera at 1,000KB unless something very strange is going on), but I doubt that would explain such low quality. What's the camera? --jjron (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 1000KB one was after Crisco gave me a hand with cropping - it came off at about 4Mb originally - as can be seen in the uncropped version. The camera is a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ10, and I've just been taking the image directly off using a Mac using iPhoto. I'm wondering if I use the "official software" written for windows it might work better - can then do the cropping (as the field at the bottom doesn't add much EV) WormTT· (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's right; my connection has this weird habit of downloading size reduced files (when I downloaded the original, it came in at less than a megabyte) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's weird. Is that a work or school or uni connection or something? Worm, the method of getting it off your camera shouldn't really matter. I don't imagine iPhoto automatically does anything odd to them (never used it), but personally I usually just browse the camera directly and download as straight files, then edit them in an image app of my choice. To be honest I'd say the camera's probably not really up to this (the IQ of the original image isn't much better than the edited version), but you may like to check your camera settings to try to maximise quality. JJ's suggestion of stitching a pano may help, but with this quality I can't see it getting it to FP quality. Keep experimenting though. --jjron (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a really s****y SIM card-based modem; my current apartment doesn't have wi-fi or a landline. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks jjron. I thought that might be the case, but thought it was worth experiencing the process anyway! WormTT· (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2011 at 23:28:45 (UTC)
Original - Sendan Kendatsuba, one of the five scrolls in the 12th century Extermination of Evil
Reason
It is a high quality digitization of a national treasure of Japan. It is from the holding museums's website, so it should be guaranteed to be accurate. Image is from the 12th century, so any creases would be understandable. One of five high quality images.
Support All have EV: "a set of five paintings depicting deities banishing evil". Good quality etc. Aren't you missing one though? JJ Harrison (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tenkeisei is already an FP. These four are not. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: All good resolution and EV and the quality of the digitisation appears to be the same. Assuming the four here pass, we can arrange to feature them as a set by discussion on the talk page, if wanted. Julia\talk 12:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2011 at 23:34:18 (UTC)
Original - Shoki, one of the five scrolls in the 12th century Extermination of Evil
Reason
It is a high quality digitization of a national treasure of Japan. It is from the holding museums's website, so it should be guaranteed to be accurate. Image is from the 12th century, so any creases would be understandable. One of five high quality images.
Support All have EV: "a set of five paintings depicting deities banishing evil". Good quality etc. Aren't you missing one though? JJ Harrison (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tenkeisei is already an FP. These four are not. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: All good resolution and EV and the quality of the digitisation appears to be the same. Assuming the four here pass, we can arrange to feature them as a set by discussion on the talk page, if wanted. Julia\talk 12:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2011 at 23:31:54 (UTC)
Original - Shinchu, one of the five scrolls in the 12th century Extermination of Evil
Reason
It is a high quality digitization of a national treasure of Japan. It is from the holding museums's website, so it should be guaranteed to be accurate. Image is from the 12th century, so any creases would be understandable. One of five high quality images.
Support All have EV: "a set of five paintings depicting deities banishing evil". Good quality etc. Aren't you missing one though? JJ Harrison (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tenkeisei is already an FP. These four are not. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: All good resolution and EV and the quality of the digitisation appears to be the same. Assuming the four here pass, we can arrange to feature them as a set by discussion on the talk page, if wanted. Julia\talk 12:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2011 at 23:36:43 (UTC)
Original - Vaisravana (Bishamonten), one of the five scrolls in the 12th century Extermination of Evil
Reason
It is a high quality digitization of a national treasure of Japan. It is from the holding museums's website, so it should be guaranteed to be accurate. Image is from the 12th century, so any creases would be understandable. One of five high quality images.
Support All have EV: "a set of five paintings depicting deities banishing evil". Good quality etc. Aren't you missing one though? JJ Harrison (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tenkeisei is already an FP. These four are not. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: All good resolution and EV and the quality of the digitisation appears to be the same. Assuming the four here pass, we can arrange to feature them as a set by discussion on the talk page, if wanted. Julia\talk 12:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Without these the article obviously wouldn't be possible, we're lucky to have access to great copies of these. TehGrauniad (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Extermination of Evil Vaisravana.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I nominated the two pictures as a set. But I'm not sure the procedure and format are correct -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Both have high enough quality, and seeing the different stages of the plant gives it high EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bud. Not a FP quality. Oversaturated green, centered composition -- George Chernilevskytalk 20:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both Not FP standard, quality is low, second image has incredibly distracting backgroung, could be shot better and with better lighting. JFitch(talk) 08:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. The flower just isn't quite up to scratch generally, and, while the bud picture is a rather lovely one, it's EV is lacking. I'd imagine there is much to be said about the symbolism of the bud- as someone who cares about both flowers and Indian religion, I'm sad to see that the article's not in better shape. J Milburn (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --PERSIA ♠ 09:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't really get what this has got to do with parkour. There's not a wall in sight. This guy could just as easily be an acrobat, or jumping from a trampoline. J Milburn (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's a list of parkour moves in the article- what is he performing? J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
add:A,B,C,DPERSIA ♠ 10:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Low EV - tells me almost nothing about parkour, per Milburn's comments. Easily the lowest EV image in the article and was only just added by the nominator; it's a schemozzle, it doesn't even have an image caption, and probably should come out. Regardless of that, it also has poor image quality due to overly aggressive jpeg downsampling. There is heavy jpeg artifacting, particularly noticeable on his pants, but also quite apparent in the sky. Sorry for being rather harsh, but besides being far from an FP, this is poor Wikipedia practice. --jjron (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per J Milburn JFitch(talk) 19:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is more freerunning (parkour is efficiency based, backflips are freerunning or gymnastics), and has been deleted from the parkour article.
Unfortunate oppose. The pose, angle and background are great, but. Poor centering (too tight on the left) and yes, unclear topic - there are literally several dozens of possibilities for this jump (where, from where and to where) which we can't tell from the picture. Materialscientist (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --PERSIA ♠ 09:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Noisy and unsharp, just doesn't compare with our other fruit and vegie FPs. Poor article usage. The caption just says "Onion" (come on) and went into the article literally one minute before this nomination! As with the parkour one, it probably should be reverted out of the article. --jjron (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: poor lighting on an easy to shoot object (shadows throughout the right side of the image) Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It should have been an easy shot, aiming to show us the whole onion, with its roots (preferably slightly grown, and sharp :), in homogeneous lighting, with minimum reflections. Lighting is just too bad. Materialscientist (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --PERSIA ♠ 10:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality doesn't seem high enough to be in line with other FP's, in thumbnail it's nice but not full res. Also streetlighting is very distracting. JFitch(talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to noise and blown lighting. Half of the articles listed above probably shouldn't include it, and in Si-o-se Pol it is in a gallery; no EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support historical image about Iranian history & Architecture.--Mehdi (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Little EV (a day shot would be much better), poor quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Colouration in flamingos is highly dependant on diet - see Flamingo#Feeding. There's no way of saying what is the 'correct' pink when comparing disparate groups. --jjron (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: Beautiful resolution, but the colours are rather dull for a bird popularly perceived as being pinker thank pink. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background and horrible light reflections. Overall lighting isn't ideal either. If what above commenter has stated is true also it certainly doesn't seem appropriate. JFitch(talk) 23:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per jjron I don't think not being pink is an argument. However I think the lighting isn't so good (backlit), and the shadow/highlight compensation isn't working so well. Also, the focus is on the body rather than the head/beak. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2011 at 03:39:51 (UTC)
Original - Indian Palm Squirrel pictured in Bangalore, India
Reason
We already have an FP of this animal but that one shows a camouflaged squirrel feeding. This one is much easier to spot with a an aesthetic background.
Support I think I have a photo or two of this species, if it is found in Thailand. I prefer yours though. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funambulus palmarum doesn't occur in Thailand, and neither does any other Funambulus. You might have a Lariscus or Menetes, both of which look somewhat like Funambulus. We don't have any pictures of either squirrel yet, so I'd encourage you to upload your pictures. Ucucha (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Fantastic resolution, cute critter (good for the MP), and encyclopedic. A little concerned about the tail fur, which reaches the edge of the frame, but it isn't a big enough deal for me to oppose. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are we able to have a new crop of this? JFitch(talk) 23:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not but IMO a few hairs should not matter --Muhammad(talk) 03:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I'd prefer a nicer crop but besides that I can get behind this. JFitch(talk) 17:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd have liked, I didn't get the full animal in a single shot and squirrels are not animals that usually pose for shots ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 17:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I considered a weak support because I don't think the usages are perfect, but the fact this is from India (underrepresented) tips the balance into a full support. The quality is good, the EV is reasonable, the crop does not concern me. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This photo never fails to amaze me everytime I look at it. For a photo which is now nearly 40 years old, the quality is absolutely AMAZING! It has often been said that it looks like a computer generated image, but low and behold, it is absolutely real, and is quite probably the most amazing photo of this vintage Soviet aircraft that I have seen
Articles in which this image appears
Tupolev Tu-104, Aeroflot, User:Russavia/SU fleet (a future article on the history of the Aeroflot fleet)
FP category for this image
link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)
Support - Not much more to add to this discussion. High resolution, plane is centered. A blown highlight on the nose, but I don't think it's that bad. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tail is clipped, background is too busy, distracting and unappealing with that ugly dome thing, as well as that poorly placed light-post looking like a giant aerial in thumb. --jjron (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As above, especially on the clipped wing and tight crop. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting, blown highlights, bad framing. JFitch(talk) 22:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Cropped tail, poor lighting and too many distracting details - for example, the numerous marks on the plain body and on the ground in front. Maybe this all (except for tail) can be tweaked by editing, but I would rather reshoot. Materialscientist (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2011 at 18:31:28 (UTC)
[[|thumb|right|260px|Original - Self-portrait of a female Celebes crested macaque (Macaca nigra) in North Sulawesi, Indonesia, who had picked up photographer David Slater's camera and photographed herself with it.]]
Reason
High technical quality, public domain (because a monkey cannot hold a copyright), verifiable (if the Daily Mail counts), and a very unique and interesting image: a self-portrait by a macaque, a type of old-world monkey, who picked up a photographer's camera. Also kinda cute.
Support as nominator --dbw (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's so cute and kind image about monkey. :) --Mehdi (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are we sure about the copyright status? Last I heard the photographer was still arguing about it. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does the law explicitly say person? Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as I'm not convinced of the EV. If we had an article about animal self-portraits or something, then maybe, but this doesn't necessarily tell us much about the species. J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small resolution to be considered for FP.--Nanoman657 (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Copyright issue aside, the image is much too small. Let it be noted that "A Monkey" is a very nice change to see in the creator field, and I would like to see more artworks by animals. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. The fact (if not a hoax) that an animal could create such a sharp (and yes, cute) image is astonishing. Surely it tells a lot about these critically endangered species - that they can photograph :-). Materialscientist (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The image is very nice, but it's not particularly encyclopedic. What importance does the subject of the picture have? This would be much better suited as a candidate for Valued Images on Commons. -- Diego_pmcTalk 19:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a valuable image to me.Trongphu (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Mehdi (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too low resolution for a panorama, methinks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks over processed, and the sky on the left has real problems, the resolution is low and I suspect the stitching is a bit wavy too. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Indeed, per above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has the potential to be extremely good, but has suffered a lot from the HDR processing. It would be interesting to see a non-HDR (or less HDR) version at a higher resolution. - ZephyrisTalk 18:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed as said above. JFitch(talk) 01:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2011 at 23:42:53 (UTC)
Original - The rare and recently discovered Brazilian rice rat DrymoreomysAlt - another view, partially obscured by a tree.
Reason
This and File:Drymoreomys albimaculatus 001.jpg (here proposed as an alternative) are the only published pictures of a live Drymoreomys, as far as I am aware. Drymoreomys is a rare rice rat from southern Brazil that was only described this year; its Wikipedia article is an FA. While this image may not be technically perfect, its encyclopedic value is huge. And it's a very beautiful mouse.
Support as nominator --Ucucha (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. As far as I am concerned, the charisma of the picture, rarity of the species and obvious encyclopedic value, in that it adds greatly to a featured article, serve to outweigh the technical problems. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice use of fill-in flash for an elusive little critter that I am sure was hard to photograph. Also agree with J Milburn's points above. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (original only) - the greenery contrasts well the animal. 71.88.113.110 (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. While your comments are certainly welcome, "anonymous votes are generally disregarded", as is noted above. Perhaps you could create an account, or log in if you already have one? J Milburn (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. Only downside is the strong flash, everything else is very nice. Shrubbery adds to the value I think. All important parts of the mouse are visible. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 06:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: I'd fully support a crop, but with the rat in the top corner the focus isn't quite what I'd want it to be. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Modified 15:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Support per J Milburn. Rlendog (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original, but with a slight crop of the right part as it adds too much distraction (yes, we need to show the habitat, but not that much of it). For the same reason (distracting details) I do oppose the second image. Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Orbitalaltitudes.svg
_Mikumi.jpg)
_Mikumi_shadow_lift.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
_2.jpg)
.jpg)
_3.jpg)
.jpg)
![[1]](/en/File:Hohenzollernbrücke_Köln.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](/en/File:Gatineau_-_QC_-_Museum_of_Civilisation3.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](/en/File:La_Giralda,_Seville,_Spain_-_Sep_2009.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](/en/File:WestertorenAmsterdam.jpg){kind=link}
_Mikumi.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
