Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/March-2011
Featured picture tools |
---|
Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2011 at 00:36:45 (UTC)
- Reason
- High-resolution and attractive image of a North American mushroom species that clearly shows one of its main characteristics, the extremely slimy cap.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cortinarius vanduzerensis
- FP category for this image
- Fungi
- Creator
- John Kirkpatrick (natashadak) at Mushroom Observer
- Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Agreed about the cap - the reflections give that cue. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Lovely, and a great article. J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support I don't know if lovely is the right word here, but definitely FP material. Nergaal (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support indeed shows the slimy cap. Purpy Pupple (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support per Purple pupple. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Nice representation of this fine looking species, with good EV. SMasters (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Great photo and interesting organism. Suggest playing with caption. Think you can cut "region of North America" (no other continents have a PNW and you have it hyperlinked.) Second sentence is good to be instructing on the veil, but leaves me wondering what the fruit body is. Not sure how to fix, but if you can make a little more self supporting and clear would be upgrade.)TCO (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Very nice. I love all the reflections. --Avenue (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Cortinarius vanduzerensis 134617.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2011 at 21:29:09 (UTC)
- Reason
- This image is an essential teaching tool for grounding scientific education. Carl Sagan used it as the cornerstone of the first episode of Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. This is an updated view that is designed for putting cosmology, evolution, and written history in context. In addition to dates of important events, dates for availability for different types of evidence are shown.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cosmic Calendar
- FP category for this image
- Sciences
- Creator
- Eric Fisk
- Support as nominator --Efbrazil (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose: I like the idea of this kind of diagram, however in its current state I do not think it is high enough quality to be considered:
- Technical issues: It is the wrong file type (it should be png or svg), it shows serious jpg compression artefacts and looks like it may have been upsampled.
- Description: This needs a carefully worded description to make it absolutely clear how this uses the analogy of the history of the universe lasting a year and the consequential relative timings of various historical events.
- Layout: I like the overall structure, but I find the calendar layout as a summary of December unclear. The facts crammed in to December the 31st as times of the day are particularly confusing; I would suggest splitting this to a separate timeline/row one day long. Overall the timeline needs to be clearer and it would be very useful to include the actual times at which these events occurred.
- Factual/language errors: There are many phrases which are not entirely scientifically accurate: "First life (bacterial)" is a great oversimplification, the nature of the first life is not known. "Cell nucleation" reads like nucleation is a process a single cell undergoes, it should read "Evolution of the eukaryotic nucleus" or similar. "Dinosaurs at top of food chain" ... and were also in the middle, and near the bottom. "Ape/gibbon split" etc. is sloppy scientific language, it should be "Ape/gibbon divergence" or similar. "Netherlandals and other megafauna die out" suggests netherlandals were megafauna.
- Sorry for the long-winded post, maybe I will have a go at remaking this diagram at closer to FP standards... - Zephyris Talk 01:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- If it can be done without damaging clarity, could you add some more non-human-lineage stuff, as well as missing landmarks? I'd suggest, to start:
- Eukaryotes
- Amphibians
- Arthropods
- Insects
- Flowering plants
- Fungi
- Possibly mammals' return to the sea (Whales, Dolphins)
- ...And so on. I understand this is supposed to be a basic metaphor, but covering some of the other well-known lineages would help broaden it a bit, and avoid the common misconception of the tree of life as a ladder. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose its a little subjective, but dividing "year" up into 12 discrete "months" doesn't seem to make for a good timeline and looses information about the period over which certain events might have taken place. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- 'Withdrawn as nominator Efbrazil Much thanks for the feedback! I have updated the photo to png, made the native resolution 1600 * 1200, and included most of the feedback above in the image content. I am planning to resubmit the photo unless more fixes are required. Is there a way to withdraw this submission without deleting the comments? Also, please let me know if there's a good way to get feedback before submission. I'm a newbie here and still figuring out how this all works. Thanks!
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2011 at 12:04:39 (UTC)
- Reason
- High res, good quality and EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Motorboat, Outboard motor, Hakuna matata
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 12:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a whole lot of EV in the last two. I'm wondering if there isn't a more specific article for this type of boat? JJ Harrison (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah I know about the last one, just figured it would show that the phrase is in actual use. I was looking for the name for the boat as well but couldn't get anything other than the generic motorboat. --Muhammad(talk) 12:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Any luck JJ? --Muhammad(talk) 10:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, sorry. Perhaps there is something in Swahili? JJ Harrison (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Any luck JJ? --Muhammad(talk) 10:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah I know about the last one, just figured it would show that the phrase is in actual use. I was looking for the name for the boat as well but couldn't get anything other than the generic motorboat. --Muhammad(talk) 12:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a whole lot of EV in the last two. I'm wondering if there isn't a more specific article for this type of boat? JJ Harrison (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. IMO the photo doesn't add any additional value (not already illustrated by other pictures) to the articles mentioned. - d3j4vu (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Weak oppose decent quality, but EV is not strong. SpencerT♦C 02:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Jujutacular talk 12:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2011 at 00:01:34 (UTC)
- Reason
- Gives a good overview of the crater, showing the lake, dirt roads and the numerous wildebeests and zebras who appear as dotted trails. Imae has been stable in the article for many months now.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Ngorongoro Conservation Area
- FP category for this image
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 00:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral. As I enjoyed my time there a great deal, and therefore have a soft spot for it. But -- if appropriate -- can the image be sharpened somewhat? Perhaps I'm being overly influenced by the haze on the mountains in the background, but it seems a bit less sharp than what I would hope for in an FP.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Uploaded sharpened edit over the original image. --Muhammad(talk) 10:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral. Unfortunately, this image offers almost no sense of scale. At a quick glance, the crater looks like a rather small puddle. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose It does have a sense of scale when one views it at full size (road, cars, animals)! But the problem for me is that I'm sure this is a really impressive awe-inspiring place, but this photo doesn't put that across. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per above, and messy top crop. --Avenue (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2011 at 14:48:38 (UTC)
- Reason
- Excellent exterior view of the entire temple which is among the landmarks of the Bulgarian capital as well as a very good representation of the Neo-Byzantine architecture and the Bulgarian Romantism in the architecture.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Sveti Sedmochislenitsi Church
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- MrPanyGoff
- Support as nominator --MrPanyGoff (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. It's a good photo, just a little uninspiring for me. It seems like a holiday snapshot from the angle at which it was taken. But I do like the kids playing at the entrance! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Weak support. I like the angle and the composition, and the EV is fairly clear, but the technical quality isn't enormous. Nice shot though. J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support as above --Muhammad(talk) 02:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support per J Milburn. Does this style of architecture have a name? JJ Harrison (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- In the base of the style is the Neo-Byzantine architecture mostly influenced by its specifications of the Second Bulgarian Empire. Here is an example of 13th century Church of Christ Pantocrator, Nesebar.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Jujutacular talk 13:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Only 4.5 of the required 5 supports. Possibly worth re-nominating at some point. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to the rules 4 supports are required not 5 ?!?!--MrPanyGoff (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2011 at 22:18:35 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good example of women in the military, decent background. I think the pic can make its way to March 8 if passes.
- Articles in which this image appears
- McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, Aviator#Female pilots
- FP category for this image
- People/Military
- Creator
- Tech. Sgt. Keith Brown
- Support as nominator --Brandmeister t 22:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose How do we know they are F-15 pilots? I know they are walking past some, but they could be pilots of any type of plane just had to walk past the F-15's to get back to command centre or wherever... So little or no ev for F-15 and it's a small picture in a small stub for the other article quoted... gazhiley.co.uk 23:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is what source caption says :) I've corrected the related link now. While I agree that the EV for F-15 is tiny, the EV for aviator is indisputable. Brandmeister t 23:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry; this is a snapshot of some pilots who happen to be female, which is not the same thing as a high-EV shot illustrating female pilots. Further, this a long way from eye-catching, and the quality is hardly stellar. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2011 at 01:05:03 (UTC)
- Reason
- A very under-photographed species, and not really a very repeatable image since it's endemic to such a small area
- Articles in which this image appears
- Schistocerca melanocera
- FP category for this image
- animals
- Creator
- Benjamint 01:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support as nominator --Benjamint 01:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Meets the criteria in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom and JJ. Jujutacular talk 23:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Spongie555 (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support < 5, probably worth re-nominating. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2011 at 23:04:25 (UTC)
Native range of the painted turtle (C. picta) Click for Canadian province abbreviations. Click for U.S. state abbreviations. Rivers shown are those referred to in the text. | Eastern (C. p. picta) Midland (C. p. marginata) Southern (C. p. dorsalis) Western (C. p. bellii) | Intergrade mixtures (large areas only) Mix of eastern and midland Mix of eastern and southern Mix of midland and western |
New alternate version with full state names, editable text and named countries]]
Native range of the painted turtle (C. picta) Dark grey for national borders White for state and province borders Dark blue for rivers, only showing those in article | Eastern (C. p. picta) Midland (C. p. marginata) Southern (C. p. dorsalis) Western (C. p. bellii) | Intergrade mixtures (large areas only) Mix of eastern and midland Mix of eastern and southern Mix of midland and western |
- Reason
- From the FPC criteria, this graphic especially demonstrates good use of sources and helpful illustration to an article. More than twenty sources were checked and combined. Also, an issue of readers understanding geography was clarified by showing political boundaries and key rivers along with the species extent. This follows a concern from the FAC. Wiki-linking state names and common rivers is discouraged at FA, would result in huge list-y sections of blue, and really not help the reader as much as a diagram that combines all the info. While the article had already made FA, I'd grown to feel that a first class map would take care of an issue and really help in a picture worth a thousand words manner, to combine a lot of info for the reader.
- Also, lack of quality maps (both in look and in content) is a common problem we have on wiki where our content often looks worse than magazine nature articles or certainly than field guides. I hope this map is a step in the right direction.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Painted turtle
- FP category for this image
- link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)
- Creator
- Fallschirmjäger
- Support as nominator: Proud of FS's work! --TCO (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support High EV per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Wow, very nice! Hopes this becomes a trend! Sasata (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support - ooooh, lovely. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Strong support we need so much more of these kind of images. Nergaal (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support: WP needs more maps like these and I hope an FP will encourage more people to create them, they do require a good deal of effort. It's a good example of how the SVG format encourages reuse if images since the base map was created by someone else. Also, though not visible here, the sources for the information are very well documented and WP:VERIFY needs to apply to images as well as articles.--RDBury (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support excellent and very high EV. —innotata 20:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Extremely high EV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrality (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support per everyone. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support This image has all the bells and whistles, you couldn't ask for anything more in a map.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for all the support! Fallschirmjäger ✉ 23:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Some unusual choices: some, but not all, rivers are labeled and/or shown (including several small tributaries of the upper Tennessee River, but not other rivers). Why were those rivers chosen? Two-letter postal abbreviations are used for Canadian provinces and U.S. states, but full names are used for Mexican states. And the countries of Canada, the United States and Mexico are themselves not labeled. Spikebrennan (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rivers included are only those described in the article text as noted in caption. Want to stick with this for illustrative connection to the article. We will look at the state and country names concern.TCO (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- The position of the Tennessee River is not quite correct. See map here. The confluence of the Tennessee and Ohio rivers is not near the Indiana border, it is farther west. The position of the Columbia River is also not quite correct: the point where the river crosses the US-Canada border should be further east, near the Washington-Idaho border. See this map.
Opposeuntil corrected (but with appreciation for the work done so far-- I just think that the map needs a bit more work before it's ready for FPC).Spikebrennan (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC). Opposition withdrawn in recognition of the additional corrections (but I'd still recommend following the Wikiproject:Maps conventions). Spikebrennan (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- The position of the Tennessee River is not quite correct. See map here. The confluence of the Tennessee and Ohio rivers is not near the Indiana border, it is farther west. The position of the Columbia River is also not quite correct: the point where the river crosses the US-Canada border should be further east, near the Washington-Idaho border. See this map.
- Rivers included are only those described in the article text as noted in caption. Want to stick with this for illustrative connection to the article. We will look at the state and country names concern.TCO (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Question Is it possible to upload a version with modifiable text to Commons? I'm guessing there was one at some stage. This would make it easier for other Wikis to translate and use the map. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Working on a new version to make the suggested changes. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 16:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done - See new version above that now has full state name labels, named countries and editable text. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 21:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can tell why you used abbreviations initially; the new version looks crowded, and at least the country names need to be fixed somehow, perhaps by omitting them. —innotata 21:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed about looking crowded. Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions appears to implicitly recommend that labels be omitted if they're not important. For that matter, the conventions article has specific style recommendations about what colors to use. I also note that the labels for the individual state names are, in the new alt. version, kind of haphazardly oriented (some are true horizontal, some apparently follow the arc of the latitude lines, and some are angled so as to fit into a given state's area-- there's not a clear pattern. I'd recommend doing away with the labels of states (but leaving the state borders), and otherwise following the Wikipedia:Distribution maps and Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Areas maps conventions to the extent practicable. If the conventions are unsuitable for this map, then by all means let the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps know as I am sure that the conventions can be improved. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Prefer to keep the written out state and province names. I'm glad you made us add them. Think it serves my article better. The purpose of the map was to show the political boundaries and rivers in concert with the species distribution, to support the discussion in article. I agree it is prettier without. But I think better for the reader to have one map, rather than literally two. And the average international reader doesn't know all the state locations (or even average USAian know all the provinces). (I think we can nuke the country names, I will handle that in captions and these are features much more likely to be known.) We will fix Tennessee joining Ohio and also figure out British Columbia better.TCO (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've refined the shape of both the Tennessee and Columbia rivers to be more accurate now. As for the state labels, they are differently angled depending on their size and readabiliy, but I agree it doesn't look great. A possible solution would be to angle them all horizontally but in order to do so they would have to be decreased in size a fair bit, which will make them hard to read, to ensure they fit. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 23:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Great quality and highly relevant to the article as the subspecies overlapping is a point of discussion. I'm surprised and delighted that sources exist to show such detail. Credit to Fallschirmjäger's artwork and TCO's research skills. One question arises. What is the biggest size in width this image can be shown on if it's on the front page? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Have same question. Actually kinda worried that it might not be Front Page suitable, although I really feel as a diagram, it helps combine info.) One thing we could do for a main page run would be to take all the state and river text out. Also, the caption can be skinnied down to 2 columns rather than 3, by cutting the left hand column. (In article, I really prefer to stay full width as I blather on so much about aspects of geography, that labels are needed. I realize this means people on mobile devices will have to scroll.) P.s. And yes, every individual dot in the SW is sourced and we even looked at different references that disagreed and figured out which were most recent or thorough or the like (and mention disagreements in text or notes in article.)TCO (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Picture of the day doesn't show up on the mobile wikipedia homepage anyway iirc. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Have same question. Actually kinda worried that it might not be Front Page suitable, although I really feel as a diagram, it helps combine info.) One thing we could do for a main page run would be to take all the state and river text out. Also, the caption can be skinnied down to 2 columns rather than 3, by cutting the left hand column. (In article, I really prefer to stay full width as I blather on so much about aspects of geography, that labels are needed. I realize this means people on mobile devices will have to scroll.) P.s. And yes, every individual dot in the SW is sourced and we even looked at different references that disagreed and figured out which were most recent or thorough or the like (and mention disagreements in text or notes in article.)TCO (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments on the edit, please Makeemlighter (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- I prefer the edit. Jujutacular talk 13:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- I prefer the new one as well. It's not crowded at all and better facilitates interpretation of the information.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Edited version is the one in article, now. (Which should say something. ;-)) I appreciate the reviewers in pushing us for the improvement as it has increased EV. We're no longer making people look up province/state names. Also Tennessee River was improved as were all the BC rivers and actually the species boundaries in BC. There is a tension between the most pretty image and the one that is most helpful as a diagram. Given we are full size in the article and have this issue of a heck of a LOT of geography being covered in article text (read it now), think we need the political labels. I've now seen 20+ range maps of C. picta and you can see different traits followed in a field guide (where size is small, and content is really clipped) versus a report like COSEWIC. I think we are a bit closer to COSEWIC in purpose, which also has lots of geographic detail along with species range.TCO (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Per TCO. The edit is more informative and accurate. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 00:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Painted Turtle Distribution alternate.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2011 at 01:33:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- Excellent exterior view of a historic landmark building of the New York City modeled after a Gothic cathedral plan. High resolution as well as free license.
- Articles in which this image appears
- City College of New York
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Suandsoe
- Support as nominator --Suandsoe (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose the large area of snow in the foreground is distracting - I'd suggest retaking this photo once it melts (preferably at a time when the buildings behind the hall are also in the sun, if this is possible). Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree that no snow would be better here. Also tilt, perspective and lens distortion issues. Otherwise pretty good. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2011 at 21:13:07 (UTC)
- Reason
- The EV of this one is pretty obvious - shows how the skull and horns connect
- Articles in which this image appears
- Black Rhinoceros
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Creator
- Jebulon
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Benjamint 21:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've credited the right author (Jebulon, and not Noodle Snacks ;) ) - Blieusong (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, just habit I'm afraid. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Blieusong (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support sweet. Nergaal (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support per Nergaal. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support: I was going to nominate this,
^^
Maedin\talk 23:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC) - Support - :D --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Diceros bicornis MNHN.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2011 at 05:00:53 (UTC)
- Reason
- An uncommon resident down here. I believe this image meets the criteria. Probably the last Tasmanian bird from me for quite a while. Fear not though - I've probably got over 75 birds from Thailand to nominate over the next while. Whilst the JAFBP "problem" will get worse, they will counter systemic bias in some sense since we don't have much coverage from South East Asia.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Grey-tailed Tattler
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support interesting composition. Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Smaller in res than your other birds tho--Muhammad(talk) 01:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah - had to crop it quite a lot. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- you were quite far away then, considering you have an effective 1100mm. And sorry to bring up the downsampling issue _again_, but Cephas shows pretty well on Commons that one can upload large quality pics of birds. Why not you ? Sad to see the most skilled wiki photographers downsampling most of the time. - Blieusong (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- 17.5 meters according to exif - but there was still a great deal of empty frame. I was informed about this bird by text message. I managed to gradually close my distance crawling in the mud and rain over about 30 minutes as it was feeding along the edge Lauderdale canal outlet. Since it was starting to get dark the bird decided to rest for the night. I managed to close another five meters or so before it showed signs of agitation - if I'd gone any closer it would have just flown away. Getting closer would really require waiting for the bird behind cover at high tide and getting lucky. Cephas does show that it is possible, and the more that do so the better. Downsampling isn't about quality - ultimately I don't quite feel comfortable with giving everything away. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that my upload behaviour is ignominious though. On the bright side I don't downsample as much as I used to - usually it is about 75% size now instead of 50%. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- (never noticed EXIF had distance..) I can understand your think twice when it comes to give high resolutions pictures to Wiki, and I've already come across several abusive use of my own pics (and they're not as near as good as yours...). There are pros and cons. On the cons side, what about if contributions to the articles were crippled the same way ? But don't get me wrong, I'm happy you keep contributing. - Blieusong (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- 17.5 meters according to exif - but there was still a great deal of empty frame. I was informed about this bird by text message. I managed to gradually close my distance crawling in the mud and rain over about 30 minutes as it was feeding along the edge Lauderdale canal outlet. Since it was starting to get dark the bird decided to rest for the night. I managed to close another five meters or so before it showed signs of agitation - if I'd gone any closer it would have just flown away. Getting closer would really require waiting for the bird behind cover at high tide and getting lucky. Cephas does show that it is possible, and the more that do so the better. Downsampling isn't about quality - ultimately I don't quite feel comfortable with giving everything away. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that my upload behaviour is ignominious though. On the bright side I don't downsample as much as I used to - usually it is about 75% size now instead of 50%. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- you were quite far away then, considering you have an effective 1100mm. And sorry to bring up the downsampling issue _again_, but Cephas shows pretty well on Commons that one can upload large quality pics of birds. Why not you ? Sad to see the most skilled wiki photographers downsampling most of the time. - Blieusong (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah - had to crop it quite a lot. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Benjamint 06:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Avenue (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Interplay of neutral tones with just a little splash of bright reminds me of the Yes album cover Relayer. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Tringa brevipes.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2011 at 04:50:40 (UTC)
- Reason
- Shows some of the damage from the earthquake and it is not reproducible as said in former nomination. This was nominated before Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Haitian Presidential Palace in 2010 Earthquake and im nominating it again. I put the original and edited one incase of anyones preference.
- Articles in which this image appears
- National Palace (Haiti), 2010 Haiti earthquake, Port-au-Prince, Presidential palace
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
- Creator
- Logan Abassi
- Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support as I've said previously, it is an impressive picture and I am amazed we have a free picture of it. Nergaal (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- I prefer the edit. Nergaal (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Edit Should have been left alone from a tilt point of view though. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support either - though I prefer the original. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Original The edited version has blown highlights and an unacceptable amount of compression artefacts. Ottojula (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- This vote was added by an IP, so might not actually be Ottojula. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's OK. I just didn't bother to log in before giving my vote.Ottojula (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support, prefer original. I've taken the liberty of expanding the caption. --Avenue (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support I also prefer the original. Cowtowner (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Haitian national palace earthquake.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2011 at 15:23:04 (UTC)
- Reason
- Meeting all the criteria
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cathedral of Christ the Saviour
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- User Voytek S
- Support as nominator -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- A crop-out of the left pole and the front trench might help the composition. Nergaal (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose A crop still wouldn't bring the composition up to par, in my opinion. It would have helped if the picture was taken about five feet to the right. Image quality is a bit lacking as well. Jujutacular talk 23:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2011 at 06:09:12 (UTC)
- Articles in which this image appears
- Swallow-tailed Gull
- Creator
- Benjamint 06:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support as nominator --Benjamint 06:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support! Spectacular! A question though - what time of the day was this photo taken? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Around noon, no chance of a flying shot at night! Benjamint 05:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I suspected as much, so it can't be "fully nocturnal" then, yea? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- They displayed some diurnal activity, mainly just sitting on the rocks near their chicks but yeah I did see them flying a little. Perhaps the article should be reworded to improve clarity in this area. Benjamint 04:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Very nice shot, with good EV. --Avenue (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support, nice crisp bird against background just clear enough. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Swallow-tailed-gull-dorsal.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 00:44:02 (UTC)
- Reason
- An evocative and colorful picture of the city. Its serene tone gives another side to the stories about the current unrest in Libya, while giving a glimpse into the aging architecture and cramped conditions in the city. What it lacks in resolution it makes up for in tone and clarity.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tripoli
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Urban
- Creator
- Salutandre
- Support as nominator ---Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 00:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, it does not make it up in tone and clarity (has the name of a photoshop slider now become an official FPC criterion?). If by tone you mean saturated, then I wonder where the encyclopedic value is. The depicted part of town looks random and could be any north african or middle eastern city. There is nothing particularly special in the frame, and to study "normal" cityscape the resolution is nowhere near good enough. And, sorry, but the filename is not ok either. --Dschwen 04:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Size is sufficient for me, though Dschwen does make some good points. JJ Harrison (talk)
- To clarify, I mean the size is sufficient for me to oppose. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Size is insufficient. Image quality is poor - there are blown out highlights, lens flare (in the bottom right), and image noise in the darker areas. Furthermore, there are JPG artifacts and aliasing (e.g. in the green building on the left). Upon close examination there are random splotches of green and magenta. Filename suggests that image has been aggressively downsampled from the original; and even this was poorly done, as evidenced by the aliasing. Moreover, Dschwen raises good points about encyclopedic value. Purpy Pupple (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- To clarify, I mean the size is insufficient for an FP; hence I oppose. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Small size, odd lighting, noise issues. Okay enc.SpencerT♦C 21:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2011 at 09:47:47 (UTC)
- Reason
- high resolution, restored version, encyclopaedic value
- Articles in which this image appears
- 2004, Ronald Reagan (as of 28 Feb), and several international wikis
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
- Creator
- created by an unknown author and digitally restored by Peter Weis
- Support as nominator --Peter Weis (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It's a great picture, but it's not currently being utilized well in the article space. I've proposed for it to replace a picture at Ronald Reagan (a FA), but no one has responded yet. Jujutacular talk 13:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. The article on Reagan is already led by a FP, I fail to see what this one would add that that one wouldn't. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support: As per Jujutacular's suggestion, the portrait now has a good home in the Ronald Reagan article. I've updated the nomination for that. The FP we already have of Reagan is one of those ubiquitous formal White House portraits, stood in front of the flag, trying to look natural and down to earth but serious and purposeful, blah blah. This is so much better (even quality wise), and we get something of his personality as a younger man. Don't see why there isn't scope for both being FPs, as his presidency did not define him nor his career(s). Maedin\talk 22:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. The hat is cut off (would make a greater impression otherwise), but still good. Brandmeister t 23:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Good portrait, poor president. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. In my view, this is an outstanding portrait. Spikebrennan (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Jujutacular talk 01:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think this satisfies criterion 5 ("Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article"). In an article as heavily illustrated as Ronald Reagan, this picture just doesn't add much. He's already 63 in this picture (and governor of California), so it's not exactly showing a different part of his life. Restoration looks pretty good, though. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support This photo is amazingly crisp and has great EV. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Would be even better with the hat included, but it's such a good pic of the fellow's grin.TCO (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Ronald Reagan with cowboy hat 12-0071M edit.jpg --Jujutacular talk 03:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note: yes I voted in this nomination, but all the normal closers of late have voted. By tally: 7/9.5 = 0.73 = promote. Jujutacular talk 03:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2011 at 23:05:03 (UTC)
- Reason
- It has good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral colour balance (well at least that is what the image histogram strongly suggests). It meets the pixel criteria. Its probably the most photogenic of what's left of Sir George Staunton's work in Staunton Country Park (The Shell House is heavily shaded and damaged, the Chinese bridge has been reduced to it's bare structure and the lake has been altered). It adds value to the article in that it shows the structure and gives some idea of what the park would have been like before William Henry Stone got his hands on it and the trees became somewhat overgrown. The only editing done is a slight rotation and crop.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Staunton Country Park,Lewis Vulliamy,Folly
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Geni
- Support as nominator --©Geni 23:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't really feel like it has strong EV at the moment. This is more of a reflection on the article (which really focuses on the park itself) than the image. What about creating an article for the Beacon itself? JJ Harrison (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've dropped it into Lewis Vulliamy. I could probably justify putting it in Sir George Staunton, 2nd Baronet and even Leigh Park. An article on the thing itself though isn't really possible. There isn't much about it left I haven't already mentioned (it it is the centre of one of the 3 paintings of Staunton's gardens and a flag was flown from it to indicate if Staunton was at home). It's notable as part of the series of follies that Staunton built and as I have already mentioned the others have either been destroyed, lost, seriously damaged, altered or are not very photographable.©Geni 00:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- What do you think about Folly? JJ Harrison (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Tricky. I've dropped it into the follies article but eh that article needs some serious reworking of both the images and text.©Geni 02:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- What do you think about Folly? JJ Harrison (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've dropped it into Lewis Vulliamy. I could probably justify putting it in Sir George Staunton, 2nd Baronet and even Leigh Park. An article on the thing itself though isn't really possible. There isn't much about it left I haven't already mentioned (it it is the centre of one of the 3 paintings of Staunton's gardens and a flag was flown from it to indicate if Staunton was at home). It's notable as part of the series of follies that Staunton built and as I have already mentioned the others have either been destroyed, lost, seriously damaged, altered or are not very photographable.©Geni 00:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't really feel like it has strong EV at the moment. This is more of a reflection on the article (which really focuses on the park itself) than the image. What about creating an article for the Beacon itself? JJ Harrison (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 05:40:54 (UTC)
- Reason
- The Indian Army is the 2nd largest army in the world and one of the oldest also. The army has seen action in World War-I, World War-II,Anglo-Afgan Wars,Sino-Indian War,Indo Pak Wars,Kargil War and numerous other conflicts.
The "historical significance" the image carries clearly overweights the so called "quality". This image shows the symbol of "50th (INDEPENDENT) PARACHUTE BRIGADE (INDIA)" and below are three units of this brigade that participated in Kargil War. The units of brigade has seen action in World War-I, World War-II, Indo Pak Wars,Kargil War and numerous other conflicts. The units of this Brigade were the back bone of British Army and saw action in middle east from British side.
But i'm sorry to write that such a significant army is also one of the most "under-written" and "under-photographed" armies on wikimedia,wikipedia and other wiki projects.There is not a single image that is comparible to this one; not just on wikipedia but on the whole internet also. This is not just a rare image but it is rarest of the rarest image of one of the bravest brigades in the world.
Though this image is not of too good quality, but it is not the quality alone that make a picture featured one......it is the "historical significance".
This image represent the strength of 1.1 BILLION INDIANS and thus must be a "featured picture"
- Articles in which this image appears
- 50th Parachute Brigade (India),Kargil War,Parachute Regiment (India),Para Commandos (India)
- FP category for this image
- indian army
- Creator
- indian_poet
- Support as nominator --Indian poet (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Respectfully, it would be better to work on the article on the regiment, which this could go on the main page as part of the article for. One of the reasons why picture standards are so high is because it's found that, if such quality is insisted upon, we'll usually get it in the end, so it could well be counterproductive to promote this image, thereby not giving encouragement to acquiring a better one. Oppose, but I'd be willing to offer some help with the article. There are other alternatives; for instance US$40 would get a high-quality scan made of http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/oem2002006658/PP/ or http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/oem2002007114/PP/ - perhaps more significant images for war service. More broadly, we might consider the freely-available http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3g07373/ or http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8e00108/ - or if we're willing to pay for rescans, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8b05641/ http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b16259/ or http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8b05643/ - all of which would be excellent. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2002705692/ might be able to get a release after rights analysis. It might even be possible to get http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2005693711/ analysed, should we write a polite letter to the Library of Congress. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I'd suggest withdrawing this nomination as this photo is low quality and doesn't meet the featured picture criteria (as it's out of focus and the logos are at an angle). These logos may also be covered by copyright. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt they're covered by Copyright: India has fairly short copyright terms, in particular, 60 for governmental works (which includes the military) so they'd have to have changed significantly since WWII. (Section 28A here). I presume they haven't, as that would make this image worthless for the intended purpose. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to Parachute Regiment (India), two of the units whose badges are depicted (6 Para and 7 Para) were formed in the early 1960s, so their logos are potentially not PD (though, to complicate things, the badge may be generic across all the battalions of the Indian Parachute Regiment and so pre-date the formation of these units) The main issue here, however, is the poor quality of this image. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Naturally, but it's worth considering the point, as, bad quality as the image is, it's still useful to at least some of the articles it's in. (Not convinced about Kargil War.). Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to Parachute Regiment (India), two of the units whose badges are depicted (6 Para and 7 Para) were formed in the early 1960s, so their logos are potentially not PD (though, to complicate things, the badge may be generic across all the battalions of the Indian Parachute Regiment and so pre-date the formation of these units) The main issue here, however, is the poor quality of this image. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt they're covered by Copyright: India has fairly short copyright terms, in particular, 60 for governmental works (which includes the military) so they'd have to have changed significantly since WWII. (Section 28A here). I presume they haven't, as that would make this image worthless for the intended purpose. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose It would be great if you could track down a better (higher resolution) image! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per comments above. The subject matter is perfectly worthy of a featured-picture-quality image, but this isn't it. Here and here are examples of a FP-quality insignia. Spikebrennan (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, the quality is way below what is expected here. SMasters (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 07:53:07 (UTC)
- Reason
- another very under-photographed (sub)species
- Articles in which this image appears
- Marine Iguana, Española Island
- Creator
- Benjamint 07:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support as nominator --Benjamint 07:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Meets the criteria. The waves behind are very telling. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Nice species to pick. Brandmeister t 11:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Good EV, especially for its colours. The Marine Iguana article suggests that only males are brightly coloured, and only during the mating season. It would be good to include this information in the caption. --Avenue (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is definitely some ambiguity, my understanding is that the iguanas found on Espanola are brightly colored all year round because of the concentrated pigments in their diet. Perhaps clarity in this area could be improved in the article Benjamint 01:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support As per nom, and nice EV. SMasters (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Marine-Iguana-Espanola.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 10:30:39 (UTC)
- Reason
- Gives a good glimpse into a common method of salt production
- Articles in which this image appears
- Salt, Sea salt
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. Good quality, but some weak attributes at full screen. It's tough to get a proper amount of detail on all the white objects. Also composition, I think it would be more effective with only one or two people in the shot. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support interesting composition, good resolution --Muhammad(talk) 03:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support per Muhammad. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support per Muhammad. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Jujutacular talk 13:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 10:35:08 (UTC)
- Reason
- Definitely the best available image. Taken from a boat, which presents some challenges.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Collared Kingfisher
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Weak support. Looks too bright for me, probably needs some adjustment. Nice species anyway. Brandmeister t 11:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Tend to agree, but just darkening it made the eye/beak too dark, so I did a highlight reduction instead. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Looks extra bright to me too --Muhammad(talk) 03:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. Overexposed. Curves/levels should be adjusted. Kaldari (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)- I'd like to draw your attention to the edit. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. This species is amazingly variable, with 49 described subspecies. We've identified it as humii on WP:BIRD, which should improve the EV. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd love to support the edit, but the colour/quality appears degraded from the original, as a kind of posterisation, I suppose, particularly noticeable on the prominent blue of the foreground wings. Did you make the adjustments from raw? Can you fix it? Maedin\talk 22:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see some sort of periodic wavy pattern. I did the edit from the raw. It is there on the original too though. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Jujutacular talk 13:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 10:37:43 (UTC)
- Reason
- We didn't have a winter plumage image before this. Meets the criteria and is geocoded pretty accurately. Also taken from a boat.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Great Knot
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. 700mm and only 1/500th ... a lot better than what I've managed from boats. Did you have to take a whole heap of shots to get this sharp one? Benjamint 11:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- The 2 stop IS in the Canon 500mm f/4 IS probably helps. Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Probably 4/5 were sharp and a similar proportion for the kingfisher in calmer water (1/250th). The IS/Tripod probably helped, and the swell was not huge. The movement made it more difficult to keep the camera on target, but it was still considerably easier than trying to photograph seals in ~2.5m swell, 400mm f5.6 and a small boat at home was. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- The 2 stop IS in the Canon 500mm f/4 IS probably helps. Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support amazing if taken from a boat. --Muhammad(talk) 03:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. I was going to oppose based on the "distracting background", but I think seeing another bird there tells me something... J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Good shot. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Benjamint 22:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Calidris tenuirostris - Laem Phak Bia.jpg --Jujutacular talk 13:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 18:03:58 (UTC)
- Reason
- The image is high-resolution, excellent quality, and the only photo of this grape variety.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Thomcord
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits
- Creator
- Stephen Ausmus (USDA employee), uploaded by Visionholder
- Support as nominator --– VisionHolder « talk » 18:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support: Good illustration of the bunches in situ, and the lighting adds a nice artistic element. Maedin\talk 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support per above. Jujutacular talk 02:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Cropped too tightly at the bottom, and the shadow at the top (right of centre) is unfortunate. --Avenue (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2011 at 07:43:51 (UTC)
- Reason
- Cool panning shot of a racing greyhound at full extension. Good isolation of the subject on the track (hopefully that doesn't mean he was lagging behind? ^^). Promoted on Commons in January.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Greyhound racing, greyhound, gait (dog)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals
- Creator
- AngMoKio
- Support as nominator --Maedin\talk 07:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support for the sheer awesomeness of the shot. The only problem is the background. Nergaal (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- SAaadddaaammm (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic. Jujutacular talk 04:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. --Avenue (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Love seeing the musculature here. TCO (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Brilliant shot and good EV. SMasters (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Greyhound Racing 2 amk.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2011 at 20:45:51 (UTC)
- Reason
- high quality image of this building
- Articles in which this image appears
- Belvedere auf dem Pfingstberg and others
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Me!
- Support as nominator --Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Got no feedback at peer review, so thought I'd try it here. First image I've ever uploaded, I think. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Needs some perspective adjustment --Muhammad(talk) 00:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: There are patches of messy editing in the sky. They will need to be fixed. Maedin\talk 20:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Stitching errors visible at the top of the archway on the left tower. The temporary fence and dumpster are a little unsightly- are they always there? Is this the optimal time of day to shoot this subject, given the way that shadows are cast on the building? Spikebrennan (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)- Oppose per Spikebrennan gazhiley.co.uk 12:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK I'm working on a version with better stitching and sky, but the dumpster isn't so bad, IMHO, may even add EV, as the article mentions it was renovated... ... Also the shadows emphasise the architechture. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- I really want to support this impressive shot. Cloning the dumpster would improve the picture, but the shadows are one of the best parts of the photo. Nergaal (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Withdraw I spent the whole day restitching, and fixing the sky and stitch errors, and forgot to save it and my laptop crashed. I'll do it again later. I'll be back! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)- OK uploading a new version with restitching (and stitch errors "fixed"), better sky, a little bit of perspective correction and slightly altered colours. I'm not good enough to clone out the dumpster :( Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Any comments/votes on the update? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- You did fix the stitching errors so I withdraw my opposition. Still not crazy about the dumpster, though. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2011 at 20:49:29 (UTC)
- Reason
- I like the colors and the composition (with the sunset at the right), quality and EV should be good
- Articles in which this image appears
- Halde Rheinpreußen, Moers, Otto Piene, The Industrial Heritage Trail, Blue hour
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Carschten
- Support as nominator --kaʁstn 20:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd love to support this- a gorgeous pic of an interesting subject- but I am concerned about EV. Is there any chance some sourced discussion of the monument could be added to Otto Piene? If it is, this would get my support straight away. J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've incorporated information about the memorial in the article about Otto Piene. Is that now in your taste? --kaʁstn 12:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment There is absolutely no sense of scale at thumbnail size. When you view at full size, you realise (from steps and concrete cubes - which my brain assumes are about the the size as similar blocks it's seen) that it's quite big. I was a bit suprised. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- it's difficult and almost impossible to add a size comparison in the darkness which should have been seen at the thumb size next to a 30 metres high monument. At day it's much easier, see File:Halde Rheinpreußen, Grubenlampe, III retouched.jpg, but the special thing (the wow) with the illumination can just be seen at night. So I think there's nothing I can change. --kaʁstn 21:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Weak oppose It's absolutely not impossible to have a size comparison in this photo, there just isn't one. That said it is an amazing photo, with real wow factor, but it's almost misleading at thumbnail size (I had no idea of how big it was). Sorry! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Being a mining lamp a night shot really makes sense here. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. Jujutacular talk 06:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support A better size cue would be nice (e.g. a person at its base), but good nonetheless. --Avenue (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- support —DerHexer (Talk) 20:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Grubenlampe, Halde Rheinpreußen, Blaue Stunde, 2010-10-09, I.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2011 at 13:13:50 (UTC)
- Reason
- Handsome train, pretty scenery, good EV, great resolution. FP on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- NSB Di 4, Nordland Line, Norwegian State Railways
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles
- Creator
- David Gubler
- Support as nominator --Maedin\talk 13:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support This is a high quality photo with strong EV Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Indeed a high quality photo with strong EV. Purpy Pupple (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Like the EV(multiple articles). IANAP but wonder if some cropping games might make it more stunning. TCO (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support per the above. Cat-five - talk 20:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support great picture - FF23-fr (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Regarding the EV, I hate to be a contrarian, but the locomotive is rather small. The image is large. Would a crop, perhaps, improve EV? Spikebrennan (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think a crop would spoil the composition. At the moment, the locomotive has good lead room, and the blue sky at top gives context/scale. Cropping would also reduce some of the EV—the picture is in use in Nordland Line, so the scenery is an important element, too. Maedin\talk 21:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:NSB Di 4 Saltfjell.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 02:25:35 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality, EV, resolution, aesthetics.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Glebionis carinatum, Glebionis, Anthemideae
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 02:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment For identification, it'd be nice if the leaves were a bit more in focus, though I know this is a popular way of setting out Flower FPs. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support true, but still good for iding. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support < 5 Makeemlighter (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 02:12:40 (UTC)
- Reason
- high resolution, restoration, unique historic item, encyclopaedic value
- Articles in which this image appears
- Donald Pleasence
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
- Creator
- Allan warren
- Support as nominator --Peter Weis (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Much improved, but why such a tight top crop? --Avenue (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- it's the framing of the original image - the space above in the original version is of pure black, which indicates this is part of the medium used for digitisation (kodachrome slide or else). regards, Peter Weis (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Supporttttttt. Love it. J Milburn (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Conditional Support. Love the photo, but the new crop is too tight. Kaldari (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support: The original should have been promoted imo (see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Donald Pleasence). I can see some of the fixes in the edit, nothing most people would notice without a microscope. The tightness of the crop was noted in the previous discussion and making it tighter has made it worse. Honestly though, I think people are getting too wrapped up in the technical details. Most of the actor photos we get are random snaps at a convention or award ceremony, while this is a professionally done portrait with very high EV since it conveys something of the type of roles he was known for. I would hope that we'd be trying to encourage more contributions like this rather than worrying about cropping and whether there was a barely visible bit of lint on the negative.--RDBury (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. I'm not a big fan of the crop, but this is an excellent portrait anyway. The restoration has fixed up a lot more than "a barely visible bit of lint". The flaws were pretty glaring at full size. I'm glad the original was not promoted, as I don't believe we should promote images with significant defects than we can reasonably fix. I'd hope that maintaining high technical standards will encourage useful contributions like Peter's restoration of this image. --Avenue (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Per RDBury and nom. Cowtowner (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Too tight crop on top. --JovianEye (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support, crop notwithstanding - this is a fine, fine portrait. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support; this is a very well-done portrait; as RDB says, the technical issues are not that big a deal. If Peter is right that this is the crop of the actual negative, than OK. Chick Bowen 21:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Donald Pleasence Allan Warren edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 04:12:32 (UTC)
- Reason
- A nice portrait of a pretty bird. Only a few images on commons for this species, and all very low resolution. The geocoding adds a little value too.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Mugimaki Flycatcher, Ficedula
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support the thumbnail doesn't do it just it. Looks very good at larger sizes --Muhammad(talk) 18:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support very nice shot with very high EV. I'd go as far as to say say that this and the two other bird shots nominated at the same time are reminiscent of shots by Fir which hopefully will be taken as high praise. Cat-five - talk 20:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Contributors such as JJ and Cephas have been matching and exceeding Fir's shots on resolution and quality for a considerable time. Maedin\talk 22:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Wonderful. J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Hmm, certainly. It would be nice if we had a female to compare it too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Ficedula mugimaki - Khao Yai.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Pycnonotus flavescens - Kaeng Krachan.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2011 at 04:03:05 (UTC)
- Reason
- rare, good quality (for a century old video), interesting and good EV (first GPs were on dusty or planked roads)
- Articles in which this image appears
- 1906 French Grand Prix
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport
- Creator
- from Shell History of Motor Racing
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Question: is this a significant moment in the race or just a representative snippet? The article is somewhat ambiguous; it mentions Shepard running off the planks but doesn't make clear whether the time lost was significant or whether it contributed to his eventually breaking down. Chick Bowen 20:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm the major contributor to 1906 French Grand Prix. It would be very hard to say whether Shepard lost time as a result of running off, as he retired soon afterwards. Whether it contributed to his retirement... maybe. The wheels were fragile things and running off the road certainly wouldn't have helped. But I can say the video is a very useful addition to the article, which was unique in its use of plank roads (which were essentially a failure). Apterygial 09:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting. And as a century old video – rare and unexpected quality. – SMasters (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2011 at 03:07:53 (UTC)
- Reason
- wow factor, high quality for a 1962 picture, decent EV for both the dolphin and the closed tourist attraction
- Articles in which this image appears
- Dusky Dolphin, Marineland of the Pacific
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Creator
- EditorASC
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Yeah, it's good for its age, but it's not good compared to what is available today. This same show was being offered until very recently, so I don't really see why we should promote something that is comparatively low quality.J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)- comment the Marineland was shut in 1987, I wouldnt exactly call 24 years ago very recent, digital photography wasnt exactly prolific in 87 in fact first consumer cameras werent on the market until 88. Gnangarra 05:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies. Neutral for now then. J Milburn (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- comment the Marineland was shut in 1987, I wouldnt exactly call 24 years ago very recent, digital photography wasnt exactly prolific in 87 in fact first consumer cameras werent on the market until 88. Gnangarra 05:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- support good quality for its age, historical value per my above cmt Gnangarra 05:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Unless these dolphins are no longer kept in captivity. The image may be somewhat dated, but the subject is most likely not, making a modern photo possible and desirable. Jujutacular talk 17:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2011 at 02:05:34 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is the new updated Image I first took in 1995. It has wonderful light & color, and has been posted on the Wikipedia page for this structure as the main image for this Temple, located in Bangkok Thailand for over 2 years. First posted on: 21:21, 7 December 2009.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Wat Pho
- FP category for this image
- Reclining Buddha statue of Wat Pho Worlds largest "Buddha"
- Creator
- WPPilot
- Support as nominator --WPPilot 00:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Flowers in the front distract from the subject, the angle is horrible, and the top of the Buddha is cut off of the shot just to name the top three reasons that come to mind. Cat-five - talk 20:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The angle is less than encyclopaedic (that doesn't make it a bad photo!). JJ Harrison (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I wish that the photo was taken from a straight-on angle rather than from the side. This angle just doesn't show as much. -- mcshadypl TC 03:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Having been to Bangkok and visited a few of these reclining Buddhas, I just want to point out to folks here that many of these places have just enough space in the building for you to move around the Buddha. It is impossible to get a shot of the full length from the middle using a normal lense. You can only do it from the sides. Having said that, the flowers spoils this shot for me. SMasters (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Its true, though someone has gotten clever stitching panoramas before and it is possible to get a front on, though cut off, view with an UWA. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- That first picture looks like a painting. Unless they tore down the walls, I'm not sure how it's possible to get the shots required for the stitching. – SMasters (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- The first does look like something that's not a photo eh. But yea, not really FP quality composition. Sorry, another oppose from me. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nominator Comment: I took this picture on a weekend, a few weeks ago and the place had not less then 400 people in it at the time the shot was taken. The flowers cover a flaw in the arm of the Buddha that you can see in the original version of this same photo that I took in 1995, just look at the pictures history. --WPPilot 03:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC) (WPPilot)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 22:11:41 (UTC)
- Reason
- A quality panorama showing how the venue was utilized for the occasion (I mean, who really puts a motor race in a football stadium?). Also has some EV in the Wembley Stadium article. Might benefit from some cropping on the sides to remove a few distracting elements, we'll see what reviewers think.
- Articles in which this image appears
- 2007 Race of Champions, Race of Champions, Wembley Stadium
- FP category for this image
- Place: Interiors
- Creator
- E01
- Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support It has wow. I wondered about cropping, but really the stadium and spectators are part of the event too. I can't see any obvious stitching errors. It might benefit from a noise reduction in the sky. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the stadium is important to the composition and the EV. The parts I thought about cropping were the person in white at right and the video screen at the left. Cowtowner (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Good ev, but sharpness is a problem. SpencerT♦C 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment This is in a serious need of some denoising --Muhammad(talk) 15:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- This file is quite large. It might benefit from a scaled reduction in file size, which might help increase the sharpness visually. – SMasters (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 21:34:25 (UTC)
Eastern painted turtle C. p. picta |
Midland painted turtle C. p. marginata |
Southern painted turtle C. p. dorsalis |
Western painted turtle C. p. bellii |
---|---|---|---|
- Reason
What's special about this image is the content and composition. This species of turtle is the most written about species (over 2000 science papers) and has been widely described in field guides, review articles, etc. I never find a really good way of understanding the subspecies descriptions though.
To differentiate the eastern and southern, the top view is most important. For the midland and western, you need to see the bottom shell view.
I collected the individual shots piece meal: three were special donations that I wrote to obtain, three I hunted down around the web, and then two were in article already. Jack Merridew started the composite view and then RexxS did quite a lot of work to crop, flip, etc. so all the images made sense. The 3/4 views for the top shell are deliberate (as straight top down, tends to lose discernability of the images given how the shells curve). Although we lack a scale in images, the sizes are "about right" in that southern subspecies is known as the smallest, then eastern, then midland, then western.
In a perfect world, I would go into the field collect all four specimens from heart of range territories, and use a light table and just shoot them all against some blank background. But I still think it's kind of an advance as is. Although the individual images are far from perfect, I just thought this was a concept to share for other article work (and it does make our painted turtle article more powerfully illustrated than the non-Wiki competition).
Also hoping that FP crew can push it further if it is short of star material (but somehow could get there). And Jack and RexxS are on content-creator strike and I hope this makes them smile and love teh Wiki.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Painted turtle
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
- Creator
- RexxS, Jack Merridew
- Support as nominator --TCO (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: This is a beautiful collection, but I do not think FPC is the right place to honour it; there simply doesn't exist a mechanism to recognise this sort of thing (though the failed valued pictures project could have been if its aims were better defined). I'd have to oppose a number of them straight away- File:Painted-Turtle-1 Young.jpg is obviously far too small, File:B3 Southern painted turtle underside.jpg is also too small and has poor lighting, while the hand and background on File:B1 Eastern painted turtle underside.jpg almost certainly stop it from being featured material. I'd also have to oppose File:A4 Western painted turtle.jpg as it doesn't have the best composition to display the subspecies, and the focus is a little off. The others may have some potential- File:A2 Midland painted turtle.jpg is cute but not mind-blowing; File:A3 Southern painted turtle.jpg needs a little cleanup and perhaps has rather harsh lighting. The colours on File:B2 Midland painted turtle underside.jpg look a little muted, while, by comparison, the colours on File:B4 Western painted turtle underside.jpg look a little too much. FPC can't recognise this as a group. I certainly can, and I congratulate you on a job well done. However, individual pictures may stand a chance here- I wonder what anyone else thinks? J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm definitely nominating the whole thing as one schematic. Like you might have a drawing that shows evolution of man from a fish or whatever (iow, with multiple parts to it). I agree with the comments on the non-specialness of these as individual pictures, but my whole point was to show a concept. Anyhow...even if no star, I hope that sharing an idea sparks more things from others. All for teh good of teh Wiki.TCO (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I think J Milburn has been more dismissive of the format than deserved. This butterfly scale magnification series is a good example of how we've dealt with this type of set nomination before. FPC certainly can recognise the collection—however, I have to agree that pretty much all of the photos included here are too far below the FP mark individually. The image with the thumb, for example, particularly ruins it for me. I like the concept and think it would be feature-able, but the individual images need to be generally more consistent and have better quality and composition first. Maedin\talk 21:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you. It's not good enough for FP. But I still felt it was a real advance over general practice on the wiki and over anything else I've seen on the painted turtle off-wiki. I'd like to let it run it's course, so at least I can have a positive influence on our articles (these teensy nugget of an idea that I have in terms of more analytical imagery). Plus I totally heart you for saying something kind.TCO (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, ^^ And I heart you for doing something different and putting the work into it. It's just the kind of super-informative, high-value content that we like . . . just, ya know, we're fussy, too, :p Maedin\talk 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you. It's not good enough for FP. But I still felt it was a real advance over general practice on the wiki and over anything else I've seen on the painted turtle off-wiki. I'd like to let it run it's course, so at least I can have a positive influence on our articles (these teensy nugget of an idea that I have in terms of more analytical imagery). Plus I totally heart you for saying something kind.TCO (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I actually have an eastern bottom shell view that does not have a thumb (more like the others). The problem is that the specimen has iron oxide staining of the plastron (something a percentage of specimens get depending on where they live) which discolors it. The issue is it ruins the classical "look" of the plastron. So I really need to go with the more helpful view of the animal, even if there is the darned thumb. I feel like I busted my ass so much to get what we even had so far. If it were just a matter of that one, I might try to go get another (although it really was a significant feat to somehow assemble all 8 cells with free licence pics).TCO (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just thinking out loud, but what if we had one of the photo jocks here, photoshop the pic? Would it be possible to fix the thumb? We could also go ahead and make the backgrounds all the same (maybe that plain white)? Or gravel? What's best? Should we try it for the top? Not trying to push a rope, but just thinking...01:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Photoshopping that image to remove the thumb would be too drastic, and would probably be considered innapropriate digital manipulation as far as FPC goes. In my opinion, showing all of them in natural habitats would be optimal (the top four are all pretty well composed IMO). But yea, none of them are up to par in terms of image quality. Jujutacular talk 04:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just thinking out loud, but what if we had one of the photo jocks here, photoshop the pic? Would it be possible to fix the thumb? We could also go ahead and make the backgrounds all the same (maybe that plain white)? Or gravel? What's best? Should we try it for the top? Not trying to push a rope, but just thinking...01:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Just to clarify what I meant- this set as it stands now is worthy of recognition, but FPC is not the place to give it. I appreciate that sets have been and can be featured, and I appreciate that a similar set with stronger images could well pass, but I was meaning that, at this time, this set would not pass. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I made my remarks based on a different understanding of what you said. Sorry! Maedin\talk 19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 04:16:17 (UTC)
- Reason
- Despite the fact I had to crop it a ton (25 meters and a small bird, just about a 100% crop), I think this is one of my favourites. It was a shy bird and decided to disappear quickly, even at this distance.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Black-capped Kingfisher
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support very nice shot with very high EV. I'd go as far as to say say that this and the two other bird shots nominated at the same time are reminiscent of shots by Fir which hopefully will be taken as high praise. Cat-five - talk 20:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. The quality is not perfect (a bit of noise), but the beautiful background and composition make up for that. J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support per J Milburn --Benjamint 22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Passable quality and given the crop percentage, I'd say pretty good. Some minor artifacts(?) on the tail- could you fix those? --Muhammad(talk) 14:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Will give it a go tonight. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Suspended while JJ works on an edit. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Photoshop has stopped working for some reason. I'm getting a new computer within the week, so will fix it then. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- It should be fixed now. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Photoshop has stopped working for some reason. I'm getting a new computer within the week, so will fix it then. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Halcyon pileata - Phra Non.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2011 at 00:12:53 (UTC)
- Reason
- sufficient EV and also shows the internal camera arrangement to a good extent.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Red light camera
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics
- Creator
- Jovianeye
- Support as nominator --JovianEye (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I think a technical photo of the camera without the casing would have much more EV. This picture doesn't really tell us anything - there's no sense of scale or position, either. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with Adam, but I also feel that this is a long way from a picture which illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A picture illustrating this subject in such a way would be difficult, but not impossible. J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above. This photo would be more interesting (at least to me) if the whole height of the camera was shown and possibly flashing at a speeding car or something. SpencerT♦C 03:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Maedin\talk 07:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2011 at 03:01:03 (UTC)
- Reason
- Great composition color and structure
- Articles in which this image appears
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wat_Arun
- FP category for this image
- Categories: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture;
Creator:WPPilot
- Support as nominator --WPPilot 03:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Conditional support If the article it's used in is beefed up a bit to improve this image's EV. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- And the distortion was annoying me, so I took the liberty to create an alternate. Please don't be offended
- Haha not at all. The 15mm f1.8 lens give a perspective all its own. None taken. . .
- Now Support eitherAaadddaaammm (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Haha not at all. The 15mm f1.8 lens give a perspective all its own. None taken. . .
- And the distortion was annoying me, so I took the liberty to create an alternate. Please don't be offended
- Support alt. Looks good. Brandmeister t 00:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support alt only. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support alternative - it's pretty awesome. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. I am not in front of a good monitor. Are those blown highlights in the upper left? Spikebrennan (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- As for as I can tell, the only completely blown pixels are near the top about a quarter of the way across, on a small round cloud. (Is there an easy way to check this with The Gimp?) Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Use the color picker tool. O is the keyboard shortcut. A completely blown white is RGB 255/255/255. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nominator Comment. I have gone back the the files from this shoot and edited the original to suit the taste and coments above. --WPPilot 03:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support alt only. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support alt Jujutacular talk 18:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Temple of the Dawn 01 Photo D Ramey Logan perspective.jpg --Maedin\talk 07:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2011 at 22:22:55 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is a wonderful and artistic photo that clearly shows the grace of the NAPA valley in the early morning fog.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Napa County, California
- FP category for this image
- Category:Wine regions of the United States
- Creator WPPilot
- Support as nominator --WPPilot 22:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't find anything here that explicitly identifies Napa County or Napa Valley. It could be any vineyard anywhere in the world. It isn't even clear that this is morningtime. Anyway, surely Napa Valley AVA would be the main article for the nomination rather than the article for the county? Image needs a better caption both here and in the articles. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not really the sort of useful image we would normally feature IMO, and there are a number of distracting elements (is that a cell phone tower? Some sort of radio tower anyway). It's not great compositionally IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 09:54:14 (UTC)
- Reason
- A good picture of this (somewhat distant) relative of the Common Blackbird.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Blue Whistling-thrush
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support prefer edit 1 --Muhammad(talk) 17:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support edit 1. Looks like a bird from Avatar. Brandmeister t 20:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support edit 1. I assume this species is more active in the day than its Malaysian relative, which I tried to photograph last year. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't answer that, but they seemed pretty shy. This one was taken from inside a portable hide. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. J Milburn (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support, prefer edit 1. Jujutacular talk 18:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Myophonus caeruleus - Ang Khang edit1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 09:56:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- We have a purple swamphen FP, but a different subspecies and the plumage is quite different. It has dinner in it's mouth too.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Purple Swamphen
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: That's a very ugly animal, and the shellfish in the mouth is a nice touch. Where's the other FP? J Milburn (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Added here now. The plumage is quite different. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's not a FP- this one is, but it is not currently used in the article space. J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Purple Swamphen - Pukeko02.jpg. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, quite right. I don't see how it should affect this nomination though. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's not a FP- this one is, but it is not currently used in the article space. J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Added here now. The plumage is quite different. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Looks kinda warm though. Golden light? --Muhammad(talk) 03:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, sunset. This was taken 15 minutes later. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I should probably add that this was taken from a boat as well. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, sunset. This was taken 15 minutes later. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. --KFP (contact | edits) 05:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support: Nice, better composition than other FP. Good that subspecies is identified, too. Maedin\talk 20:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Cowtowner (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Porphyrio indicus viridis - Bueng Boraphet, Thailand.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 09:59:33 (UTC)
- Reason
- A good picture of this migratory bird.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Greenshank
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Benjamint 22:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom --Muhammad(talk) 13:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Nergaal (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Jujutacular talk 18:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. --KFP (contact | edits) 05:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Pile on... Cowtowner (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Tringa nebularia - Laem Phak Bia.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 10:31:16 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality, very good composition, illustrative image of one of the major landmarks of the Bulgarian capital city.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Ivan Vazov National Theatre
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- MrPanyGoff
- Support as nominator --MrPanyGoff (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Seems to be tilted a bit CW. Jujutacular talk 04:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support The tilt should be fixed however. It felt a little dark, but I guess its the time of day. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a little bit darker but I intentionally waited for the moment when there is no direct sunlight. I would like to avoid the strong contrast caused of the nearby high-rise buildings which throw a shade on the front elevation. --MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Nice. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Good photo indeed. --Gligan (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Nice shot and EV. – SMasters (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support - I like it. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:IvanVazov National Theatre 7.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 22:19:09 (UTC)
- Articles in which this image appears
- Magnificent Frigatebird
- Creator
- Benjamint 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support as nominator --Benjamint 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, used only in a gallery. J Milburn (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 22:19:09 (UTC)
- Articles in which this image appears
- Magnificent Frigatebird
- Creator
- Benjamint 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support as nominator --Benjamint 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, used only in a gallery. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 22:19:09 (UTC)
- Articles in which this image appears
- Magnificent Frigatebird
- Creator
- Benjamint 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Strong Support as nominator --Benjamint 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Weak support There is some slight oversharpening visible around the edges of the bird. Image size is acceptable, but not particularly large. There is some vignetting. Bird's right wing (left in image) appears to have some chroma noise. Otherwise, it is an okay image and encyclopedic value is very strong especially with the female and juvenile to compare with. I suggest rotating this picture to look consistent compared with the pic of the female and the juvenile. Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- This image easily meets the IQ benchmark for in-flight FPs Benjamint 07:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, used only in a gallery. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- (only replying to this one for the sake of clarity) I know we normally follow that rule but which passage is it in the criteria that actually states that? I would argue that it would be outweighed in this case anyway: we have three images which collectively have pretty high EV but would clutter the article if placed outside. If that's not mitigating I don't know what is. Placed them below the gallery with larger thumbnails, anybody have a better idea to integrate them into the article? Benjamint 22:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've put this image in Frigatebird. I think many would be more likely to see these in flight than when landed. For birds, I'd argue that if a good field guide would picture something, then the EV is most likely good. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support I think this is the best of the three and has high EV. The article just needs work. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 22:33:54 (UTC)
- Reason
- another highly underphotographed species
- Articles in which this image appears
- Freckled Duck
- Creator
- Benjamint 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support as nominator --Benjamint 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Muhammad(talk) 13:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support JJ Harrison (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Excellent photo and good EV. Very nice. – SMasters (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Jujutacular talk 18:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. --KFP (contact | edits) 05:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support per my support for the male above. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 07:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support See my comments on the male nomination. Cowtowner (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose small, cutted off shadow at bottom --kaʁstn 17:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Freckled-duck-female.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 22:33:54 (UTC)
- Reason
- another highly underphotographed species
- Articles in which this image appears
- Freckled Duck
- Creator
- Benjamint 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support as nominator --Benjamint 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support JJ Harrison (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Very nice, and good EV. – SMasters (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Jujutacular talk 18:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. --KFP (contact | edits) 06:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support - beautiful composition, excellent EV, very striking image. Definitely worthy of a star. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 07:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support I would move that this and the female image be promoted as a set. I think that this is an example where the two images complement each other in such a way that they have enhanced EV together. Cowtowner (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, good idea. Brandmeister t 13:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose small, cutted off shadow at bottom --kaʁstn 17:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Freckled-Duck-male.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2011 at 04:41:16 (UTC)
- Reason
- this is a photo of a view that is for the most part, only reserved for pilots that fly out of John Wayne Airport.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Newport Beach - Newport Back Bay - San Diego Creek - Upper Newport Bay
- FP category for this image
- Category:Newport Beach, California
- Creator
- WPPilot
- Support as nominator --WPPilot 04:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. I assume the brighter area in the sky and the water towards the right is a reflection from a window? It does detract from the aesthetics a bit... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think that spot could be edited out (the colors in that area are almost homogeneous). Brandmeister t 11:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Spot was removed. WPPilot 19:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think that spot could be edited out (the colors in that area are almost homogeneous). Brandmeister t 11:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Weak support Removing the spot is a huge step in the right direction, but I'm not crazy about the washed out colours and lack of sharpness. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition feels off and it feels as though the important thing is off in the distance. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The whole image looks fuzzy, i'm assuming this was a helicoper shot, and as JJ Harrison and Adam said the washed out and long range look doesn't do the subject area justice. Cat-five - talk 18:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2011 at 05:25:40 (UTC)
- Reason
- Nice perspective of the terminal area
- Articles in which this image appears
- John Wayne Airport
- FP category for this image
- John Wayne Airport
- Creator
- WPPilot
- Support as nominator --WPPilot 05:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Top left... Can we do the same magic as below? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sure . . magic complete
- I'm not saying that I could do better, but that cloning is pretty messy... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sure . . magic complete
- Support Cut off for the whole thing of course, but great for the terminal. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Jujutacular talk 07:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2011 at 13:51:44 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality, EV and very high res. The only quality wise decent image in the articles. Boats provide scale
- Articles in which this image appears
- Delmas (shipping company), Cargo ship, Container ship
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 13:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Very nice, good detail. Jujutacular talk 14:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Good photo of something which is of everyday importance. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support and many thanks for the correcting of the oversharpness! Very good now --kaʁstn 13:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support: Resolution, detail, quality, and EV are all very good. Maedin\talk 13:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support; lighting is nice. It might have more EV in the "crane" section of Container ship, since it shows the cranes better than the one that's there (though currently it's next to a paragraph about cranes anyway, further up). Chick Bowen 23:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Container Ship.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2011 at 23:02:25 (UTC)
- Reason
- high EV and meets the FP technical requirements
- Articles in which this image appears
- HMAS Australia (D84)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
- Creator
- Allan Green / State Library of Victoria
- Support as nominator --Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Clears the bar for this kind of image. I'd rather see it in Vehicles>Water if it is promoted though (we already have a few ship pictures like this there) Cowtowner (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, you're right. Sorry, I didn't double-check the category. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Spongie555 (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Would support if the obvious spots and fibres were cleaned up. Maedin\talk 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Only 4 supports. Worth re-nominating, especially if cleaned up. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2011 at 23:02:56 (UTC)
- Reason
- It's quite unusual to have a good "moving" shot of a car that's in focus, especially one as nice as this (you can even read the brake calipers). Has good encyclopedic value, showing the whole car in profile without shadows and without anything to distract alongside it. The image is used to illustrate the article about the car in the infobox. I don't think we have many car featured pictures, and it gained support at its peer review.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Ferrari F40, List of automobile sales by model
- FP category for this image
- /Vehicles/Land
- Creator
- Will ainsworth, slightly modified by me.
- Support as nominator --Bob talk 23:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful image. Indeed we could use more FPs of cars. The background could be better, but it doesn't detract too much imo. Jujutacular talk 01:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Was this taken from another car or using one of those camera boom rigs? If it was the latter we need a retouched tag. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader hasn't edited since 2009, but there is a "Will Ainsworth" on Flickr who is likely the uploader ([1]). I sent them a message there, hopefully they will drop by. My guess is that this was taken from another car. Jujutacular talk 13:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Great Picture WPPilot 03:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Just FYI, I ran a tineye search on the image: [2] and got 5 hits, but they were all lower quality so this is very likely the original. Jujutacular talk 13:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Nice --Muhammad(talk) 18:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Excellent shot! Good EV and FP quality for me. – SMasters (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support High quality photo with strong EV Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Benjamint 09:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:F40 Ferrari 20090509.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2011 at 18:31:29 (UTC)
- Reason
- Second try (and not happy with the first nomination). I think it deserves the FP status for the excellent image quality and encyclopaedic value, showing the features of the breed and the characteristic resting posture. Maybe it is now time to have a featured cat.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tabby cat
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Creator
- Alvesgaspar (talk)
- Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support - beautiful cat, beautiful picture, very clear and hard to capture given that cats never ever stay still for very long! --Thanks, Hadseys 23:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support purr nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support per Hadseys --Muhammad(talk) 00:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Good EV and quality. If I have no idea what a tabby cat is, and I open an encyclopedia, this is what I would want to see. – SMasters (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support virtual cats - they don't excite my allergies. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose good quality, good colors, but the composition isn't featured. The cat just sits the in middle of picture, the background is ugly. I miss something special, or maybe using of rule of thirds or the golden cut. That's just a common pet photo to me. --kaʁstn 17:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support High quality and good EV. Jujutacular talk 00:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support <instert Meow Mix reference here> (high quality, high ev) Cat-five - talk 18:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Cat November 2010-1a.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2011 at 03:22:15 (UTC)
- Reason
- Great perspective and the ONLY photo of the entire city. I fly a route that takes me down over Laguna and then up the ridge to get this perspective. Few people ever see this view of Laguna Beach. One of my personal favorite photos.
- Articles in which this image appears
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laguna_Beach
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- WPPilot
- Support as nominator --WPPilot 03:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support The rest of us don't have the facility for aerial photos, so pretty hard to replace. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Question: Is that the curvature of the earth on the horizon? Or lens distortion. Jujutacular talk 13:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Split answer. If you look at the meta tags you can see that this picture was taken with a 15mm fisheye lens. The 15mm has no distortion at centerline, so what you see is for the most part the curviture of the earth. I was at about 3000 feet ASL (above sea level) and you do see the curve in the horizion when you get above the haze and see things from that perspective. The fact that it is just ABOVE centerline makes me think that it is both the earth as well as the lens that we see here, but more the earth then lens distortion for sure.
- Support as JJ --Muhammad(talk) 07:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Jujutacular talk 15:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Valuable photograph. - Darwinek (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:LagunaBeachCA photo D Ramey Logan.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2011 at 21:44:39 (UTC)
- Reason
- Just a superb picture. It is of high standard and resolution and looks absolutely incredible. The subject (the bridge) is of great historical significance
- Articles in which this image appears
- Forth Bridge, World Heritage Sites in Scotland
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- George Gastin
- Support as nominator --AndrewvdBK (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Great picture; not very high resolution by current standards (particularly since the subject takes up a rather small percentage of the frame). It appears that an FP regular asked George quite a while ago if he was willing to upload a higher-resolution version and he responded by suggesting a different one. Chick Bowen 22:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose low resolution and low EV - the image is concentrated on the shoreline, not the bridge, and the sky and water conditions seem highly unusual. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice picture, but per the creator not particularly encyclopaedic. It feels like a tobacco grad ND has been used. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - although visually interesting, it's not very high resolution and the subject (the bridge) itself isn't the main focus of the picture - for an encyclopedia, we should be able to find out from the picture that the bridge is actually red! Also, the yellow sky looks a little oversaturated in post-production. Bob talk 10:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. An impressive looking picture, but not FP material. J Milburn (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2011 at 21:00:03 (UTC)
- Reason
- Last week there was a nomination of a photograph of Tripoli, which did not have sufficient quality to get very far, but I thought it was a worthwhile thing to try to do.[Addendum--I now realized I had my Tripolis mixed up.] This photo not only illustrates its subject better than any modern photographs of the tower on the web, it also shows the quality and precision of the work of the American Colony photographic division (I found an archeologist talking about the value of that work for archeology, and cited her in the American Colony article). I've cropped it, adjusted the levels slightly, and cloned out a lot of scratches, dust, and other damage, but all the cloning I've done is in the sky and ground; the building is untouched. The people in the image give a sense of scale; the composition (which I think is aesthetically quite good) shows the integration of the site into the modern infrastructure.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Lion Tower, American Colony, Jerusalem
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Photographic Division of the American Colony, Jerusalem (most likely Elijah Meyers or Lars Larsson); digitally edited by Chick Bowen
- Support as nominator --Chick Bowen 21:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom JJ Harrison (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Not overly eye-catching, but very high quality. Good EV. Jujutacular talk 12:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Wow, I was ready to say "not very eyecatching" like Juju above, but at full res this photo is spectacular. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Edit: but looking at it thumbnail, the comp is bugging me. Can we give the poor building a bit more headroom? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree it would be nice, but there isn't really any there--if you look at the original (linked as a tif from the image page) you can see I cropped probably less than 10 pixels below the border of the negative (and the shade of that bit of sky is off, which is common at the edge of the frame with a view camera like they used). Chick Bowen 22:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, I've uploaded a jpeg version of the unedited image for easier comparison: File:Tripoli Tower of Lions unedited.jpg. Chick Bowen 23:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree it would be nice, but there isn't really any there--if you look at the original (linked as a tif from the image page) you can see I cropped probably less than 10 pixels below the border of the negative (and the shade of that bit of sky is off, which is common at the edge of the frame with a view camera like they used). Chick Bowen 22:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Edit: but looking at it thumbnail, the comp is bugging me. Can we give the poor building a bit more headroom? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support I opened this only after reading Adam's comment but I must say I'm impressed. Good restoration done as well --Muhammad(talk) 01:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Tripoli Tower of Lions edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2011 at 07:02:37 (UTC)
- Reason
- Has Ev as its the lead image. It is a valued and quality image on Commons. It was nominated before but didnt pass by one vote, here is the old nomination Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/HMCS St. John's (FFH 340). A edited version was created after the nomination so i put the original and edited incase of any preference.
- Articles in which this image appears
- HMCS St. John's (FFH 340)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
- Creator
- Airwolf
- Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support A good image of the subject. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Any preference out of both them? Spongie555 (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Probably the alt, but I can't check for blown highlights etc atm. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Any preference out of both them? Spongie555 (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support edited: lovely picture, crisp with a lot of details, big EV. The edit's colours are slightly brighter so I'd prefer that, but the original isn't bad either. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 06:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support edit: Very nice and edit is an improvement. Had intended to support on the last nomination but it finished before I got a chance. Maedin\talk 21:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support edit Jujutacular talk 00:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I'll play devils advocate and note that the ship is in need of a paint job. Navy ships get painted almost as often as sailors get haircuts, and this boat is about due. The composition is also less than spectacular. A shot of the ship underway or parked in a more aesthetically pleasing harbor would make for a more eye-catching image.Shroomydan (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I hate WP:NPA specifically since I can't respond to comments like the above with what's actually deserved so I'll leave it to say that although I am by policy forbidden from calling you stupid this is one of the stupidest ocmments (note I'm criticizing the content of the comment not the commentor) I've ever seen on here. You hedge your bets by criticizing the composition so people will be less likely to criticize your comment, but seriously the paint job? There have been plenty of FP's of everything under the sun with new paint jobs, old paint jobs, rust, mold, slime, grease, hell even stuff on fire on occasion, Although it can't be required I'd honestly suggest you take a look at the archives to see other things that have been nominated and featured before commenting again.</rant> Cat-five - talk 18:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support (edit) Since it's pretty well done and interesting for a picture of a boat and seems to have fairly good EV. Cat-five - talk 18:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- <formatting note> I split off my support to make it more clear and separate it from my comment above, hopefully that won't break anything but wanted to note it just in case. Cat-five - talk 19:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment From what I can tell from the article, this ship is still in service. That means there will be future opportunities to photograph it. Having served in the navy for six years, I know that rust stains like those appearing on the bow in this picture can develop after a month or two at sea. Navy ships are painted several times a year. They can be painted at sea, by guys hanging over the side. We always painted my ship before pulling into a port where dignitaries were scheduled to visit the ship, so as to look good for a photo op. This is a good picture with fine EV, but the prominent rust stains on the bow detract from its beauty. The red thing in the background also draws my attention to those rust stains, and the industrial port setting provides a less than attractive background. If you look through the archives of featured ships, Cat-five, you will not see another modern navy ship displaying so much rust.Shroomydan (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are two pictures of contemporary warships at FP, neither of which have any hull visible which could show (or not) any rust! Of the civilian ships, at least one - File:Container Ship.jpg, passed this month - is visibly "tired", but others are much more polished. I'm not sure there's really much to go on here in terms of comparable images.
- In general terms, I don't think the rust detracts from the image - whilst it is mildly unsightly and probably would be painted over later in the general run of things, it's "real", it's normal, and it shows the ship in a realistic day-to-day manner. Were the ship visibly half-way through being repainted, or if there were large scrapes down one side, for example, it would be reasonable to object that we're showing it in an unusually unfavourable light, but I don't really feel routine rusting reaches this point. Shimgray | talk | 16:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- If it detracts at all I definitely think it doesn't detract to the point where this isn't FP worthy and just because the ship is still in service and will eventually be repainted doesn't mean that there will be features chances to get a shot that is overall this good of it in the future. Especially considering that others have commented but none have agreed enough to oppose as well, the oppose vote above seems specious, except in cases where there's a notable defect in the subject that detracts from it's EV quality of the subject has never really been considered relevant to FPC's when the quality of the image has been high, the size has been right, and the general EV has been unquestionable and especially on the last one I question the sincerity of anyone who would say that the EV is hurt by a little rust on the boat. Cat-five - talk 19:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agree that the rust should not be taken too seriously. See the featured picture criteria: "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing" and "A picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value." Jujutacular talk 19:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:HMCS St. John's Gdynia wb.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- The edit has it. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The southern part of Laguna Beach overlooking The Montage Resort with Aliso beach directly to the south
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2011 at 06:51:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- Another aerial shot of Laguna Beach that is featured on the Laguna Beach Wiki.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Laguna Beach, California
- FP category for this image
- Laguna Beach, California
- Creator
- WPPilot
- Support as nominator --WPPilot 06:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but the contrast is way too high, and the you can't make out much detail on the land. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm sorry, I am going to have to agree with Adam. J Milburn (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2011 at 09:03:03 (UTC)
- Reason
- The article needs an image trim, but this is easily the best of them. Taken from a boat.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Asian Openbill
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Ugly bird and a massively over-illustrated article, but this is worthy of the star. J Milburn (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. --KFP (contact | edits) 05:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Benjamint 09:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I went a little further with image clean-up in the article and left just three of the most useful/representative in the gallery. Would love to support this lovely picture, but have some EV concerns, due to the black of the wing feathers not being very well illustrated—hardly at all, really. Maedin\talk 20:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose a little hazy and the colors/lighting don't stand out as much. Jó Kritika (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support very good sharpness and detail. A slight levels adjustment helps with the haze mentioned above. --Muhammad(talk) 07:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose/but because: I agree with Jó Kritika; it could use some colour. It now looks like the last bird saved in the New Orleans oil disaster. For now I will oppose, but with just a final touch, I possibly will support it. Ρόμπστερ 1983 ☞Life's short, talk fast ☜ 22:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Anastomus oscitans - Bueng Boraphet.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2011 at 09:10:59 (UTC)
- Reason
- One of the rarest birds, for Thailand, that I photographed. My guide had not seen it for 8 years prior. We had a drawing only before.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Rufous-tailed Robin
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Very pretty bird, and a lovely composition. There's what looks to be a flaw to the right of the tail- could it perhaps be 'shopped out? J Milburn (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree the speck is distracting, and small enough to be photoshopped out. Jujutacular talk 18:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I fixed it. Just an insect. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Support, a particularly good one. J Milburn (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I fixed it. Just an insect. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree the speck is distracting, and small enough to be photoshopped out. Jujutacular talk 18:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. --KFP (contact | edits) 05:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. Jujutacular talk 15:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Good EV, nice capture --Muhammad(talk) 07:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support: Vivien Leigh has gone with the wind, and reincarnated into this bird that has showed her best in front of the camera. Big support. Ρόμπστερ 1983 ☞Life's short, talk fast ☜ 22:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support; nicely composed. I remember Vivien Leigh as less beaky, but maybe that's just me. Chick Bowen 23:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Very nice. --Avenue (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support very nice posture and lighting. --Elekhh (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Luscinia sibilans - Khao Yai.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2011 at 03:14:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- high quality, informative
- Articles in which this image appears
- Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Exclusion Zone, Chernobyl disaster, Chernobyl disaster effects, Red Forest
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
- Creator
- CIA Factbook, Sting (vectorisation), MTruch (English Translation)
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Detailed and encyclopaedic. Also svg. I haven't checked that text is editable etc though. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support as per above. Ρόμπστερ 1983 ☞Life's short, talk fast ☜ 22:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Question Is there a reason this isn't fully translated? Makeemlighter (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- You mean local names? I am guessing that those are small towns that do not Anglicized names. Nergaal (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I mainly meant "Chornobyl'" instead of "Chernobyl" and "Kyyivs’ke vodoskhovyshche" instead of "Kiev reservoir", but there are others. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- You mean local names? I am guessing that those are small towns that do not Anglicized names. Nergaal (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Color keys are supposed to be in captions, not within the images themselves. Kaldari (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Aren't there FP maps with captions inside the image already?
- There are heaps. [3], as one example. Where does it say colour keys should be only in the caption? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- In fact, Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps generally requires keys inside the image. If the image is printed or used elsewhere, a key on the Wikipedia page doesn't help. Matthewedwards : Chat 17:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are heaps. [3], as one example. Where does it say colour keys should be only in the caption? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Aren't there FP maps with captions inside the image already?
- Oppose until all names that can be given in English, are. Matthewedwards : Chat 17:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- To the closer, I didn't come back in time to change my vote to "support", but note that I said I opposed until names were translated, which they have. Please consider that. :) Matthewedwards : Chat 03:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I've translated as much as I can to English using en:wiki article names where there are multiple English versions. If I missed anything or another name is preferred, I'll gladly change those too. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- suppport As long as the black outline is removed.©Geni 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Chernobyl radiation map 1996.svg --Jujutacular talk 15:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Counted Matthewedwards' support Jujutacular talk 15:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2011 at 05:49:42 (UTC)
- Reason
- This area of the Tokyo Imperial Palace is not a area that is readly available to the public for photography.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tokyo Imperial Palace
- FP category for this image
- Category:Tokyo Imperial Palace
- Creator
- WPPilot
- Support as nominator --WPPilot 05:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Could we try a (much) tighter crop on the building and some contrast/brightness adjustment? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The lighting needs work and the fisheye is bending straight lines too obviously. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't imagine that this is the best angle for illustrating the building, or the palace in general. As far as composition, I prefer this image of yours (of a different building in the palace), but image quality still a bit low. Jujutacular talk 13:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose: I agree with Jujutacular. The angle could be way better. Ρόμπστερ 1983 ☞Life's short, talk fast ☜ 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose not a good angle, distracting optical distortions. --Elekhh (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2011 at 07:48:08 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality and EV. Illustrates the safari vehicles and to some extent the type of terrain and clothes worn.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Safari, Ngorongoro Conservation Area
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 07:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support love the stereotypical safari goer mid frame. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not a fan of the composition and the way to two vehicles overlap. Cowtowner (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Cowtowner, also the image is a bit small --kaʁstn 17:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2011 at 08:09:12 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality picture showing highly enriched uranium.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Enrichment_of_uranium
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Sciences/Materials_science
- Creator
- work of the United States Federal Government
- Support as nominator --Ahirwav (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Rotate 90 degrees counter clockwise? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Originally oriented image (used in more articles), and associated FPC nom. Jujutacular talk 13:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Strong oppose as it is, support the rotated alt. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support alt (which I've added). Nergaal (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support alt; although I must say: how would an ignorant wikipedian know it's uranium (is it explained as such on the page it is featured on)? Ρόμπστερ 1983 ☞Life's short, talk fast ☜ 22:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Erm... yes... the clue's in its caption "A billet of highly enriched uranium metal". :P Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Correct picture, nice quality and good EV. But nothing here justifies the status of FP. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support alt -- Correct picture, nice quality and good EV justifies the status of FP, in my opinion. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support alt; Good EV and valuable addition to the article, given the fact of restricted access. --TheMandarin (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support alt --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Ugly orange gloves and a metal disk with marker writing on it. The aesthetic qualities of this photo are way below standard for FP metals. I also question the EV. This photo shows that enriched uranium can be formed into a disk, but what else does it show? If not for the caption there would be no way to tell this is even uranium. A more feature worthy picture might include a radiation warning sign, a Geiger counter reading, and dramatic lighting.Shroomydan (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure you understand the point and the EV of the gloves. They need to stop both alpha and gamma radiations, and the bright color is probably necessary to notice staining (nobody wants some uranium oxide sticking on their hand without knowing). And yes, knowing that it can be formed into a disk is noteworthy, since for example a similar picture of the very related metal plutonium, would be glowing (possibly close to the critical mass) and completely unsafe to hold it in your hands. Among other things, this picture shows that uranium metal IS SAFE to handle with some relatively-small amount of protective gear. I am sure that possessing this much amount is strictly regulated, therefore the ID number put down with a marker (more EV). As for differentiating it, I don't know how much chemical experience you have, but essentially ALL metals look very similar in an inert atmosphere once the oxide layer is removed. Technically it is almost impossible to differentiate among most metals under rigorous conditions. Just take a look here. Also, the DOF of this picture points the viewer to the metal sample itself (further technical points). Nergaal (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- The gloves would probably be sufficient to stop alpha and much beta radiation. They would probably only attenuate the amount of gamma radiation slightly. The real point of radiation suits is to protect against contamination with radioactive particles. Most alpha and beta decay sources are much more dangerous if you ingest them. The worker holding this would be kept safe by limiting his overall radiation exposure more than magic gloves. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure you understand the point and the EV of the gloves. They need to stop both alpha and gamma radiations, and the bright color is probably necessary to notice staining (nobody wants some uranium oxide sticking on their hand without knowing). And yes, knowing that it can be formed into a disk is noteworthy, since for example a similar picture of the very related metal plutonium, would be glowing (possibly close to the critical mass) and completely unsafe to hold it in your hands. Among other things, this picture shows that uranium metal IS SAFE to handle with some relatively-small amount of protective gear. I am sure that possessing this much amount is strictly regulated, therefore the ID number put down with a marker (more EV). As for differentiating it, I don't know how much chemical experience you have, but essentially ALL metals look very similar in an inert atmosphere once the oxide layer is removed. Technically it is almost impossible to differentiate among most metals under rigorous conditions. Just take a look here. Also, the DOF of this picture points the viewer to the metal sample itself (further technical points). Nergaal (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Opposeper Alves and Shroomydan. Jujutacular talk 19:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)- Thought about it, and I could actually see this as somewhat compelling, perhaps satisfying criterion 3. Thank you for the comments above Nergaal. I am withdrawing my oppose, but I'm not convinced enough to support. Jujutacular talk 02:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Question for opposers: which of the 8 WP:FP? criteria it does not pass? Nergaal (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Criterion #3. Thank you for the explanation of the gloves Nergaal. I agree the photo demonstrates that you can hold enriched uranium provided that you wear protective gloves - Good EV. The image is still underwhelming. There is nothing about the photo that would entice me to click on it. Shroomydan (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support JJ Harrison (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:HEUraniumC.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2011 at 18:03:46 (UTC)
- Reason
- A very rare archaeological find and incredible work
- Articles in which this image appears
- Helmet of Coţofeneşti, National Museum of Romanian History
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
- Creator
- Photographed by Radu Oltean, uploaded and prepared by Codrin.B
- Support as nominator --Codrin.B (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The "XAT" reflection (at the top slightly left of centre) was the first thing I saw. Could we clone it out? I'm also not thrilled about the sharpness, or composition, but these things can be tricky in museums... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- How about this one File:Helmet of Cotofenesti - Front by Radu Oltean.jpg?
- Can we have second opinion here from someone who's not making it up as he goes along? But the XAT thing, is what looks like a reflection of the letters XAT vertically above the helmet. Do you see it? You could use a image editing software, like photoshop or gimp to edit it out. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- The author took care of the "XAT reflection" and gave me another version, which I uploaded. Could your review this one? --Codrin.B (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The XAT thing is weird, maybe a reflection in the glass. Was this image shot through a glass display case? The XAT could be cloned out, but the angle of the helmet and the dark shadow below it are too distracting. Maybe a hand-held light below the helmet could reduce the harsh shadow if you could manage it without causing glare on the glass.Shroomydan (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Based on the quality of the subject's image that highlights very well details of the helmet. It should be also taken in consideration that this is about a 4th century BC artwork. I prefer this one File:Helmet of Cotofenesti - Front by Radu Oltean.jpg Boldwin (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Harsh lighting, too tight crop (let the poor thing breathe!) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2011 at 22:21:56 (UTC)
- Reason
- It may not be the uttermost & best quality, though it does show the most important Egyptian pyramids, the Giza Plateau and the outskirts of Giza-city all in one. There are many maps of this plateau, but here is an aerial blueprint of it all.
- Articles in which this image appears
- at this moment: Egyptian pyramids, Giza Necropolis, Giza Plateau, Pyramid
- FP category for this image
- it could be several: artwork (is it art?), landscape (part of Egyptian landscape), culture (Egyptian culture), engineering and technology (build with 'π/pi'?), history (where to start?), places (Cairo, Giza, Egypt, etc.), sciences (again with the 'π/pi', and the way it is all build)… The pyramids are rather versatile. This photo could (mostly) be used in whatever way you want. These are universal buildings, and lots of theories are attached to them. Go wild, if you'd like.
- Creator
- Robster1983
- Support as nominator --Ρόμπστερ 1983 ☞Life's short, talk fast ☜ 22:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - I really like the composition of this. It shows just how close the pyramids are to the city, as well as the size of the pyramids, and the vastness of Cairo. Unfortunately the quality is just too low for this to be a featured picture. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry. I agree that this is a very interesting picture, but I feel the image quality is just too low. Quality isn't everything, but this isn't really a unique shot, either. I hope this doesn't discourage- new faces at FPC are always appreciated! J Milburn (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment A very good image composition wise but I feel in this case you have been limited by the quality of the camera. --Muhammad(talk) 00:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment II Of course this does't discourage me! Adding a photo to FPC means that it is looked at in several ways, one of them being certain standards in terms of quality. And even I have to be honest: I have seen photos on this page that are way better (my guess is that there are a lot of high quality/professional photographers here on wikipedia). :) I think it's a good thing what you're all doing here. :) Ρόμπστερ 1983 ☞Life's short, talk fast ☜ 10:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Too small, poor image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition and encyclopedic value of the subject are good, but the image quality suffers greatly from the inferiority of the camera. Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry I have to agree with everyone. It is a nice photo, but the camera just wasn't up to the task of taking a featured picture. Hope you stick around anyway, Robster. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2011 at 00:44:02 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality, composition, EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Papilio demoleus, Papilio
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 00:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support However the white balance is very slightly green I think. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. Jujutacular talk 13:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support -- Beautiful animal, very nice composition and quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Very nice shot. Good EV and composition. SMasters (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Lime Butterfly Papilio demoleus.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2011 at 15:46:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality, composition
- Articles in which this image appears
- Metal clay
- FP category for this image
- Featured pictures/Artwork/Others
- Creator
- Denise Chan
- Support as nominator --Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is unlikely to get support here. The resolution is rather low, particularly since the subject of the image takes up a tiny portion of the frame. But then, higher resolution would just bring out more of the inherent weirdness of human skin. I'd suggest going at this in a different way, either hanging in air or against a neutral background, taken with a macro lens. Focus stacking may be necessary, as well; as it is the focus actually appears to be on the hand, with the raised portions of the pendant a tiny bit out-of-focus. Chick Bowen 01:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK. Please withdraw the nom. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- To me, this is not all that far off from FP quality. If it were perhaps a bit bigger (say 2000px wide), I would most likely support. The hand in the frame gives the viewer a size reference. It may be worth it to send the flickr user a message to see if you can get a higher resolution image. Jujutacular talk 12:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition seems to be fine and the subject is certainly encyclopedic, however, the main deficiencies of the image lie not only with the substandard resolution, but also the fact that basically half of the pendant is out of focus (especially the right side). As Chick Bowen mentioned, focus stacking may be the only way to remedy this. Hence I think that even a higher resolution image may not qualify for Featured Picture status. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2011 at 19:37:53 (UTC)
- Reason
- Absence of pictures that portray the impressive illumination this palace displays during the night hours.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Belvedere Palace
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- User:Murdockcrc
- Support as nominator --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Nice, but I'd argue that its quite underexposed. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Harrison. Thanks for the comment. I also have a +2EV version of this image. The problem is that all the windows highlights are completely blown out, which makes them distracting on the composition. That's why I uploaded with version with 0 exposure bias. I can't see any other way of fixing this except by doing an HDR, which will introduce a set of other problems... I uploaded a second version, which you can check out here, I played with the curves to increase the exposure. However, honestly, this is certainly not the way you will see this place in real life. In reality, the palace has a very focused illumination, it is not overall brightly lit.--Murdockcrc (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- One thing you could try is (if you shot this with RAW) to export two or three images with varying exposure compensations (-2EV, 0EV and +2EV for example) and then exposure blend the three photos. I'm not saying you need to have taken three exposure bracketed photos, you can use the one RAW file for this as they contain more dynamic range than a typically contrasty JPEG. This usually does a good job of maintaining highlights without underexposing the rest of the image, and because you're blending from the same RAW image, you don't have the issues with ghosting that you might sometimes get from a bracketed HDR photo. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Harrison. Thanks for the comment. I also have a +2EV version of this image. The problem is that all the windows highlights are completely blown out, which makes them distracting on the composition. That's why I uploaded with version with 0 exposure bias. I can't see any other way of fixing this except by doing an HDR, which will introduce a set of other problems... I uploaded a second version, which you can check out here, I played with the curves to increase the exposure. However, honestly, this is certainly not the way you will see this place in real life. In reality, the palace has a very focused illumination, it is not overall brightly lit.--Murdockcrc (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Yes exactly - some of the whites are already blown in this version, so what it doesn't need is longer exposure. One could argue that it would make more sense to take the photo during the day, but I'm not going to! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose original, alt 1 In it's current form. Blown highlights are acceptable here - the subject is the exterior of the building, not the glimpse of the inside through the windows. At any rate there are multiple exposures available to do some type of blending. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. Completely agree with JJ, I was about to say the same thing myself. There's no particular detail of interest through the windows, so it makes sense to expose for the outside of the building and only try to preserve the highlights in the windows as a secondary concern. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)- Comment Hi all. Thank you for your feedback. I will try to edit the picture according to suggestions and will upload an alternative as soon as possible. --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Alternative 1
With this second version I intend to incorporate the feedback of given so far. I improved the exposure of the palace by modifying the curves on the shadows and midtones. Also, I employed two tools called "High tonal width" and "Low tonal width" to try to make the exposure more vivid without clipping the highlights. Increased contrast and vibrancy. So here you go, you have two alternatives for voting. Thanks. --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for making an alt, but the contrast is way too high in this - the roof is fluorescent green! Oppose alt, still support original. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if the contrast is significantly higher. In some ways, it looks lower contrast. But there is something a bit strange about the tonality and colours. Maybe it's the white balance. It's hard to know for sure what it should look like without having access to the original RAW files and/or having been there at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diliff (talk • contribs) 12:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Alternative 2
I had more time to play with the image and I have uploaded this second version. Here I have honestly already reached my post-processing limit! I hope this version solves the exposure issue as well as the color problems of the first alternative. Your feedback on this second version will be highly appreciated. --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Support Alternative 2. It's a big improvement over the first two IMO. The colours look a lot more natural. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Alt 2 JJ Harrison (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Weak support alt 2 as it is trippy, but borderlining CGI. Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies for complicating with another edit, but I've done some selective noise removal. Maedin\talk 22:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support: Alternative 3. Maedin\talk 22:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Any comments on Alternative 3? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- The difference between Alt 2 and 3 is very slight, but I suppose I would have a slight preference for 3. Jujutacular talk 14:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Happy with either but if Alt 3 is deemed to be an improvement, I'll support it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Only a marginal difference, but 3 I think. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Alt 2.Shroomydan (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- That sentiment could have been more succinctly expressed by saying nothing at all. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- It could have, but I was requested on my talk page to comment. I thought it was marginally better than ignoring it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- That sentiment could have been more succinctly expressed by saying nothing at all. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Upper Belvedere LCD-toneedit2 NR.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen enough. Alt 3 has it. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2011 at 07:56:33 (UTC)
- Reason
- Best image of the species
- Articles in which this image appears
- Asian Barred Owlet
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. The tree branch spoils the view. Brandmeister t 10:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Too small and as above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Brandmeister, resolution is fine for me. Jujutacular talk 02:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2011 at 08:03:27 (UTC)
- Reason
- We don't have any partridge FPs. This is a good image of a female Bar-Backed Partridge. The male is similar but has red on the chin.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Bar-Backed Partridge
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Nice, but that tail on the right is slightly distracting. On the other hand it fits well the infobox in this format. --Elekhh (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - Quality image is fine but composition and framing are not good enough. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. The composition is fine for me, this is a bird of the jungle-floor so jungle-floor stuff is to be expected. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Perhaps a tighter crop? Lose the other bird and the branch on the left? J Milburn (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The backside of the other bird is unfortunate. Cropping it would leave the main bird without lead room, so I don't think there's a featurable solution. --99of9 (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support The other bird and the bit of the branch ruin the picture. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:41pm • 10:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Did you mean to oppose? --99of9 (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2011 at 07:59:06 (UTC)
- Reason
- Nice image of a male.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tickell's Blue Flycatcher
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Nice species, seems to be entirely in focus. Brandmeister t 10:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Weak support -- Beautiful bird and beautiful picture. A pity that image quality is not excellent (ISO 800 is to blame) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Nergaal (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Jujutacular talk 02:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Good EV and quality. SMasters (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Weak support Nice composition of a pretty bird. My support is weak because I can see the vertical line on the log which separates the non-denoised bit of the log from the denoised background bit of the log. Any chance this could be blended in slowly?--99of9 (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support the vertical line is not so much a big issue, the image is otherwise high quality. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:42pm • 10:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Cyornis sumatrensis, male - Kaeng Krachan, Thailand 1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2011 at 14:33:46 (UTC)
- Reason
- Exciting aerial view of the central part of this picturesque Adriatic town. The image gives the entire idea of shape and proportions of the square as well as the connection with the bay.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tartini Square (should be placed also in Piran after the eventual expansion of the article)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
- Creator
- MrPanyGoff
- Support as nominator --MrPanyGoff (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Weak support Complements the other articles well, and does show the connection with the bay. But the resolution is not stellar, and there's no reason why exactly the same photo couldn't be taken with a better camera or as a panorama. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it is clearly stated in the criteria: still images should be a minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height; so it completely meets the criteria ;) --MrPanyGoff (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yea, but you changed the emphasis in your quote - it's a minimum. And I'm still supporting this photo, I just think it could be better! :) Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support despite the limited resolution, as the subject is clearly depicted. I suspect is not an "aerial view" as in the nomination description, but from the top of a hill? Also added to Boris Podrecca, the designer of the square's current layout. --Elekhh (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support The elevated view gives a nice perspective. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Weak support as per Aaadddaaammm. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Good quality, acceptable resolution for the subject, good EV. Jujutacular talk 02:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support as per Jujutacular. SMasters (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Nergaal (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:TartiniSquare-Piran-6.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2011 at 22:10:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- Wonderful clearity and depth in this image
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cherry blossom
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
- Creator
- WPPilot
- Support as nominator --WPPilot 22:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note: I've suggested a category for this image. Chick Bowen 04:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Weak support Cool, but the flowers aren't entirely in focus. Brandmeister t 12:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Weak support Looks good, but I'll have to agree with User:Brandmeister.--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 13:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Sorry, but the image quality and composition are not good enough for reaching FP status. Please take a look at this FP gallery: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Alvesgaspar. Also, what's with the lines in the background? Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, per Alvesgaspar. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2011 at 09:07:04 (UTC)
- Reason
- Just as noisy as it's Australian cousin. Apparently has similar dive bombing tactics for nest protection too.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Red-wattled Lapwing
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. I feel that the picture of the nominate subspecies should lead the article, but this illustrates the major difference extremely well. J Milburn (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Benjamint 09:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- oppose; Overexposed? The ground looks terrible, and the cheeks are blown. Jó Kritika (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Looks a bit blown in the white areas. --Muhammad(talk) 07:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is a little patch on the cheek, so I'll fix that tomorrow or something. I don't believe the ground is overexposed though. It was near midday sun and basically sand. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support: Maybe the ground looks terrible, but the bird itself plays with the camera as Gloria Swanson tried in Sunset Boulevard ("No, I'm not that important, though I ám the star of it all"). In my opinion, this photo says more about the bird than the photographer, which is just what wikipedia needs! Big support! Ρόμπστερ 1983 ☞Life's short, talk fast ☜ 22:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Only 4 supports. Worth re-nominating. Makeemlighter (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)- Comment I had lost my internet for the past few days and didnt see the edit till now. Support if possible --Muhammad(talk) 07:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I had lost my internet for the past few days and didnt see the edit till now. Support if possible --Muhammad(talk) 07:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Vanellus indicus - Laem Phak Bia.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2011 at 01:04:58 (UTC)
- Reason
- It presents the subject from an irregular perspective. The use of colour is also interesting, as the colour of the sky reflects off the structure.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Spinnaker Tower
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Harrison49
- Support as nominator --Harrison49 (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry I have to oppose due to the poor colours (or should I say, colour). Also, a really minor point, but the top of the tower is just too close to the top of the frame. Would it be possible to retake this photo in lighting conditions that give it a bit more contrast?? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also it's only part of a gallery - not so much encyclopedic value there. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- It certainly could be. I liked the way the colour of the sky reflected off the material of the structure but as you say, perhaps there is too much of the one colour here. Harrison49 (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Framing issues as well. My experence with the Spinnaker Tower is that pictures of it tend to turn out almost perfect.©Geni 00:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- You'll notice the lack of good lighting caused a bit of noise as well. Also, make sure to compress images at a fairly high-quality setting, there are a few bits of compression artifacts in the image. I'm not sure about the surroundings of the tower, but if it is at all possible to get more of it in the frame (the bottom of the tower), that would be beneficial. Good work overall, hope you will re-take. Jujutacular talk 12:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The interesting framing and blue white balance are not the best for EV. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. Would it be worth closing this nomination early? Harrison49 (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2011 at 00:50:06 (UTC)
- Reason
- The main subject in within the main part of this photograph. This has a good use of colour and is in high resolution.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Ruislip Lido Railway
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
- Creator
- Streets1988 - copied to Commons by Oxyman
- Support as nominator --Harrison49 (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Image quality seems to be lacking a bit: Chromatic aberration and JPG artifacting is present throughout, and there is clipping in the sky. Jujutacular talk 12:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support picture meets featured picture criteria 1-8. Its framing allows both for the train to be in the centre of the picture, and also for us to get an idea of the gauge of the railway track itself to the right of the train. TehGrauniad (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2011 at 19:26:40 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution and good quality. Good EV (been in the Houston article for many months).
- Articles in which this image appears
- Houston, Architecture of Houston
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
- Creator
- Jujutacular
- Support as nominator --Jujutacular talk 19:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Still thinking about it I'm not sure what I think. It's awesome resolution, and I can't see any stitching errors, and everything that should be straight is straight. But does seem a little uninspired (apart from the big guy getting on his bike!). I find the trees a pity (per discussion [here|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Houston/Archive_10#Skyline]. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose A little too much foreground in this superbly detailed image. A neat angle on the city. Shroomydan (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Somebody should upload a crop just above the road level. That could fix the distraction issues. Nergaal (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I personally disagree, cropping above the road line would remove the foundation of the image, ruining the composition. A better fix would be finding a better location to get a panorama of the skyline. I will work on that. Jujutacular talk 04:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2011 at 10:22:14 (UTC)
- Reason
- Our selection of featured crustaceans is pretty small. This is good resolution and acceptably sharp.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Grapsus grapsus, list of tautonyms
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals
- Creator
- Lieutenant Elizabeth Crapo (US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration)
- Support as nominator --Maedin\talk 10:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Color here is quite vivid, but this seems to agree with other examples, especially considering the very dark surrounding rock. Nice find. Jujutacular talk 11:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just to update, I still support this nomination based on the image's current use in the body of Grapsus grapsus. Seems to be stable there now. Jujutacular talk 00:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Very nice, and good EV. I like the colour contrast as well. SMasters (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support as uploador--Citron (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment While this is technically a very good photograph, it is not the best illustration of the species for that article. I have twice had to revert the change in image, which I now realise was made purely to further this nomination. One of the most notable traits of this crab is its agility and activity; showing a crab cowering in fear from the photographer is much less representative than an image which shows the crab in a more typical, active posture. I have looked for other articles where this image might be suited, and have not had much success. If Galápagos Wildlife were a half-way decent article, there may be room for it there (the photograph was taken in the Galápagos, after all), or there might be room for it in a "fauna of the Baja California peninsula" or "fauna of the Gulf of California" if such articles existed. While I would love to see another crustacean picture promoted, forcing an image in where better illustrations already exist is not the way to achieve it. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Update: I have added the image to list of tautonyms, where the crab's characteristics are not relevant. I made sure that my edit summary clarified that the image was being changed to help this nomination. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate your explanation of why you removed the image from the species article; I do not, however, appreciate the explicit suggestion that I added this image to the article only to further this nomination, and I certainly did not "force" it in. Do be more gracious with your assumptions. A check of my contributions, from two days to two years ago, will show that I add lots of good images to articles and never nominate them. The only reason I replaced the infobox image with this one is because the resolution and sharpness are better and, I think, it is a clearer illustration of the chelae. I do not know anything about crab posture, but nothing in its pose here suggests to me that it is "cowering" in fear. I also, as I often do, had a look at the last dozen or so changes in the article to check if the same image I was adding had been previously removed or replaced for some reason. And, it was someone else who changed back to this image after your initial reversal yesterday; I wouldn't have done so (though "I prefer the previous image" is hardly sufficient as an encyclopaedic edit summary and I would have questioned you on it).
- Having said that, withdraw. It does not have enough EV in list of tautonyms and I don't have time to research crab posture and confirm or argue Stemonitis's information. Since nominating the image it has been pointed out to me that the saturation is blown and I have not, from the jpg, been able to recover lost detail sufficiently and was contemplating withdrawal anyway. Maedin\talk 08:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW we are meant to wait a week these days anyway. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't withdraw it too soon. It has been reinserted at Grapsus grapsus, and while I have once again restored the original taxobox image as being the better illustration of the species for that purpose, I see no reason why we can't have both images in the article. I also can't see any problem with the saturation, but my understanding of the technical side is rather limited. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Waw! They talk about me here. So, as Maedin says, I submitted the image in the taxobox because I don't understand the reason to prefer the previous image. For me the Crab posture is very well, the colors is natural and the picture is remarkable for its quality. The previous picture isn't really better, it's the same posture for me... --Citron (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'll withdraw my withdrawal. I do still like it and it sits well in the body of the species article. Maedin\talk 14:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Update: I have added the image to list of tautonyms, where the crab's characteristics are not relevant. I made sure that my edit summary clarified that the image was being changed to help this nomination. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Grapsus grapsus Galapagos Islands.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2011 at 03:13:37 (UTC)
- Reason
- High Ev as lead Image. Has been restored very good
- Articles in which this image appears
- Janissary, Ottoman Empire, Ottoman persecution of Alevis
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
- Creator
- Christoph Weigel and Caspar Luyken (restored by RA)
- Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment In my opinion, contrast and brightness could be increased just a bit. Also, what does "ein tanitschar" mean? Jujutacular talk 03:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ein Tanitschar means "A Janissary" in German. Spongie555 (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Increased the contrast and brightness per request. --RA (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Nice scan, good EV. Thank you for the tweak RA. Jujutacular talk 17:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support JJ Harrison (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support As per nom. SMasters (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Very dark; A curves adjustment, concentrating on the top right, would improve this greyish scan. Also needs a little sharpening. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Only 4 supports. Probably worth re-nominating, particularly if the change Adam recommended is made. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2011 at 04:18:10 (UTC)
- Reason
- very informative for those who don't know it already, good quality for an animation
- Articles in which this image appears
- DNA, Biopolymer
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
- Creator
- Magadan
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment There is also this alternative image which is already a featured picture on the Spanish language Wikipedia, has a transparent background and is a higher resolution. - Zephyris Talk 12:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I prefer the alt since it is higher res. Nergaal (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Both are really low quality, compare them to this beautiful image [4], for example. I'm a big fan of DNA and I'd be disappointed to see such a low quality (also cliched) image featured just because it looks scientific. Also, how does it spinning help, one sees how it's 3D pretty clearly in a 2D picture already. And the spinning doesn't even spin in a way that shows the magic of DNA - how the base pairs fit together like lego. The bases are always shown from the side - like looking at a piece of paper from its side. </rant> Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well in that case what would your perfect animation look like? I have Qutemol, pymol and a pdb file of bDNA... I just need suggestions on what would make the best possible animation! - Zephyris Talk 00:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would imagine higher resolution and no transparent background (due to GIF anti-aliasing issues). Kaldari (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yea, definitely higher resolution, and maybe try rotating in other ways, not just around the y axis, so we can see some of the details which are on the x-z plane. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've had a bit of a go making this elusive "best possible animation". I feel what we need to do is simplify the backbone, and maybe show the bases as 2D planes. I don't have any time to figure out how to do this at the moment - maybe in the next few days, but no promises, there must be an expert lurking here somewhere... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yea, definitely higher resolution, and maybe try rotating in other ways, not just around the y axis, so we can see some of the details which are on the x-z plane. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would imagine higher resolution and no transparent background (due to GIF anti-aliasing issues). Kaldari (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well in that case what would your perfect animation look like? I have Qutemol, pymol and a pdb file of bDNA... I just need suggestions on what would make the best possible animation! - Zephyris Talk 00:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm kind of with Adam here: not really seeing what animation adds. My favorite of your images in the DNA article, Zephyris, is this one. I think an image of undamaged DNA with that level of detail would add to the article. Chick Bowen 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Like this one? File:A-DNA, B-DNA and Z-DNA.png - Zephyris Talk 09:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would support that if it had a caption that might explain to me what I'm looking at. I read the relevant section of DNA as well as A-DNA and I don't really get it. Chick Bowen 16:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- So I made this image... I think it's quite good, but we should split any discussion of it off to the picture peer review. - Zephyris Talk 22:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I find that very clear and helpful. Let's see if it sticks as the main image at DNA. If so, I'd suggest you start a new nomination in a week or so. Chick Bowen 03:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're my new hero, Zephyris. Awesome image. Strong support, or should we start a new nom? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I find that very clear and helpful. Let's see if it sticks as the main image at DNA. If so, I'd suggest you start a new nomination in a week or so. Chick Bowen 03:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- So I made this image... I think it's quite good, but we should split any discussion of it off to the picture peer review. - Zephyris Talk 22:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would support that if it had a caption that might explain to me what I'm looking at. I read the relevant section of DNA as well as A-DNA and I don't really get it. Chick Bowen 16:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Like this one? File:A-DNA, B-DNA and Z-DNA.png - Zephyris Talk 09:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2011 at 11:51:18 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and high quality scan of the original handwritten 1876 manuscript by John Joseph Woods of God Defend New Zealand, the national anthem of New Zealand.
- Articles in which this image appears
- God Defend New Zealand, John Joseph Woods
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
- Creator
- Sonia, edited by SMasters
- Support as nominator --SMasters (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. This image is very yellow, presumably an accurate representation of the original manuscript, but wouldn't it be more useful to nudge the contrast up and the saturation down to improve readability? - Zephyris Talk 12:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support I consider it a reproduction of the document as it stands today and thus the levels etc shouldn't be tweaked. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support; I agree with JJ. Also I find it quite readable, even hummable, which is pretty rare for a music manuscript. Chick Bowen 03:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Note we also have a Featured sound of this (shown below). Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support ka pai! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Nergaal (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:52pm • 12:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Avenue (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:God Defend New Zealand manuscript cropped.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)