High EV, Very high quality. Running Antelope was a Chief of the Hunkpapa, part of the Lakota or Teton Sioux. George F.C. Smillie’s engraved rendering caused significant controversy as Running Antelope, a Sioux, was depicted wearing Pawnee headdress.
Support — Historically significant, visually interesting — but suggest tighter cropping around loc. & tender to minimize distracting stuff in left foreground. (We don't need to see railcar behind tender, which anyway is not very visible due to angle.) Cutline should say it's a 4-6-0 built by Putilov in 1910. Sca (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support- but I disagree about the cropping. I think when the rails in the foreground are reduced, they may become less compositionally relevant and more distracting. The dark shape of the railcar give depth to the pic, which effectively draws back from the bright clutter of the rails. Amandajm (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Mattximus is right about the angle, it just looks odd. From the technical stand[pint, it is very nice, and a perfect day for a photo, but the image just doesn't do the building justice. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
derivative work with some correction, not for voting
I agree that the original is too distorted, but for me "derivative work with some correction, not for voting" slightly overcorrects. Because there is no (or too little) vertical perspective, the building appears to get slightly fatter towards the top. 86.171.42.234 (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. This edit should only gave an idea how this image should be for example. With this basic raw material it is difficult to make a better result. By the way my edit took just one minute and I a didn't made a big effort. If I would make a picture of this position I would get a few steps back (not to be that close tho the building) and I would make several shots to stitch them together. This would avoid the hazard of that thinks you rightly criticize. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nominator is requested to look at existing featured pictures and get an understanding of the process before making any further nominations. This has the same issues as the first Seth McFarlane nomination (harsh lighting, distracting object, etc.) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was the mike. Look at the paper (name cards or whatever) in front of him. As for the lighting, compare his skin tone here to images taken under more favourable lighting (most of the Google image results will work). Can't you see how much of the light his reflecting of his skin here, giving an almost orange hue? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492 The cards are barely in the whole picture, because it's at the bottom, and yes I do see shade of light on his skin, that's because at the event, they would have lights there, and I'm not noticing the orange hue in his skin. BlurredLines23:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2013 at 04:31:17 (UTC)
Original – Tina Fey at the 2010 Comic Con in San DiegoAlt 1 – Tina Fey at the premiere of Baby Mama in New York City at the 2008 Tribeca Film Festival. Photographer's blog post about this photo and the scar on Tina Fey's face.
Reason
good quality, and nice shot of her during her speaking about Megamind.
Oppose - Blown highlights on the arms, fingers (ring, though that's perhaps unavoidable). Focus doesn't seem to be on her face, which is covered in shadows. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2013 at 00:39:30 (UTC)
Original – Seth MacFarlane at the 2010 Comic Con in San Diego.Alt 1 – Seth MacFarlane at the 2009 Comic Con in San Diego.Alt 2 – Seth MacFarlane at the 2012 Comic Con in San Diego.
Reason
Well, it has high quality, it has a free license, and it has a nice capture of MacFarlane in Comic-Con 2009.
Oppose - Cups in front of him are distracting, out of focus around the eyes, lighting is really harsh, and that means the image is quite soft overall. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492 Just being curious, how exactly is the lighting "really harsh", and honestly I have no idea what you meant by describing the photo "quite soft". Also, how exactly are the eyes "out of focus"? BlurredLines03:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You and I are looking at the same photograph, right? Try looking at full size, notice how the pupils are not quite clear. I had the same issue taking pictures of Hamdy Salad and Rachmat Djoko Pradopo at a recent event (though Gage has better equipment than I); the harsh lights directed at the stage cause softness to be hard to avoid, as the light reflects off the face. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492 Well, at least the photo is not too bright so you won't be able to see the whole photo. I personally think that when he captured the photo, he didn't have the lighting feature on while taking it, or probably had a auto-brightness on the camera he had so it wouldn't be too bright, or as you say it, "harsh lights". BlurredLines03:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About the woman with cigar, the image is a publicity shot, meaning the cigar is meant to be there. The nom image is not anything like that. Mediran (t • c) 03:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Mediran There are other photos that have distracting stuff, like what you describe the mic, I have seen some photos of people with mics and other stuff that you claim are distracting. BlurredLines03:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492 The cups were part of the Comic Con that Seth MacFarlane attended, the cups (or the mic) is not hurting anyone, so starting to throw yourself off because of the cups is so unnecessary. BlurredLines03:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now you get my point that mics are sometimes distracting. According to the file description and the description in the FP nom page, "Australian comedian and TV personality Brian Nankervis during a live performance in Melbourne". Again, the mic is OK to be there. Now, for this image, it would be better if the mic is not there. Mediran (t • c) 04:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)PS: Furthermore, the nominator's reason to FP it is "High quality image of an entertainer actually performing." So it is really an excuse for the mic to be there. DO you get my point. Thanks.[reply]
@Mediran No, because obviously it needs to be there, because without the mics in Comic Con, MacFarlane may have to yell what he has to say so large groups of people can hear him, that's why Comic Con have mics in the first place, so MacFarlane could speak to it, and then the voice comes out through loud speakers. So, actually, it is OK for the mic to be there. BlurredLines04:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that so, you could alter your caption in the image (even in the file description). We don't need to be so literal like this. I'm still unconvinced for this to pass. PS: Don't argue in discussions as we can address this concern in the "nicest way" there is. Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 05:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Blurred: We are here to judge the image. Is it good? Yes. Is it featured quality? No. Why? Because those cups cover up his hands and distract from the image. That's not being pedantic, that's judging an image. Gage does spectacular and very valuable work. However, the situations in which he usually works (press conferences and the like) make it very hard for featured quality images to result. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I think Crisco's right about this one. It's overall a little soft, and the OOF cups are a little distracting. Yes, the cups were a part of the convention, but that's not really here nor there. Could a picture of MacFarlane be taken without distracting cups in front of him? Yes, quite easily. He's a public figure who makes fairly regular public appearances. This picture is very strong, and is an asset to Wikipedia. Is it among the best portraits on Wikipedia? No, not quite. J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still oppose this new one. At 1600px by 2000px, there should not be any noise or blur for an FP. (That this has been cropped and/or downsampled is patently clear as well, though that's not a dealbreaker). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. None of the three images show any quality. I believe the nominator should get a better handle of WP:FP before nominating non-quality photos of people they like. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I only used the English spelling because the American spelling led to a disambiguation page. I've changed it in the image text and the nomination text, but I don't know how to change it in the nomination title...-Godot13 (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third or fourth time you have made the very same comment, and I have explained the reasons each time. I get the point, you don't like the black background, despite the fact that it is standard convention. Can we be done now? Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who says it is a "standard convention"? I have never seen it anywhere other than here. Also, no good reason has ever been advanced. Obviously the intention is to show the edges of the item, that is completely obvious. However, that is not a reason for it to be black. 86.171.42.234 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I agree with 86.171.42.234 (talk). Museums usually display notes, coins etc in a box-case with a black felt lining and black felt cover. The illustrations on your website example have used a black background in a similar manner. However, a black background for a light-sensitive museum object is a very different thing to a black border. Because of the width of the black band here, it conjures up the black border used on funeral notices. It looks like a border. It doesn't look like a background. It needs removing and the image presented without the apparent border. It doesn't belong to the image (like the outer margin of an etching or book illustration). Amandajm (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People on here just keep on drifting further and further out to sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.132.210 (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2013
Support. I cannot imagine what all the fuss above is about. Anything with an uneven edge needs a border; otherwise it will be cropped within the edges of the original. Black is as good as any other color, and better than a non-contrasting color like white. Chick Bowen00:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Enormous EV, depicting two Israeli leaders (Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres) and one Palestinian leader (Yasser Arafat) recieving the Nobel Peace Prize for the Oslo Accords, one of the shaping moments in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and in the recent history of the Middle East in general. Great to have this official photo from 1994 in this high resolution, and the quality is quite good. FP in Commons.
Support Great historical record here. I have just one problem: Both the caption of the picture, and the nomination blurb give the names of the two Israelis first. There is a probably reason for this. The image on Commons has its title written in Israeli (read right to left) so the translation into English follows this exactly. Then this has been transposed to the caption, and we are now reading the identity of the people wrongly. The names should commence, (in left-to-right English) with Yasser Arafat. It is very important that this is corrected before it appears on the front page.
I don't think it's such a big issue, but it was fixed. You could of course fixed it yourself in here also, instead of waiting for me (I was busy). Tomer T (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- You have got a good pic but the picture do not focus on the subject. The farm is only about 40% of the picture. Rest is of no use. You could have zoomed the picture. So oppose....'''Johncy''' (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. The relationship between wind farms and the aesthetics of landscape is a broadly debated topic, notable in itself. Single turbines are rather standard industrial products, it is how each distinct farm sits in the landscape what makes the difference. That is precisely what this picture depicts. --ELEKHHT21:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a nice enough picture but not special enough to be featured IMO for such a common thing. The clouds make the turbines harder to see in the thumbnail and the rightmost turbine is cropped. Resolution/sharpness are merely adequate. Colin°Talk19:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support-I support this for the reasons that ELEKHH has given. The contrast between the streamlined industrialisation of the wind farm and the eroded landscape is good. Also, I don't notice any parts of turbines missing. It's irrelevant to the subject of industrialisation in the rural landscape. This picture isn't simply about turbines. Amandajm (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A more visible scale is necessary, otherwise I don't know exactly what I'm looking at. The one currently there is absurdly small. Who is actually going to notice that? -- mcshadyplTC03:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I missed the lack of detail on close inspection. Great image until you look at the fine print. A bit embarrassing... Changing to Weak support-Godot13 (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree. WLM tends to reward composition and originality far more than image quality, unfortunately (although even then, this photo isn't particularly original or striking). Ðiliff«»(Talk)13:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Brandmeister. Even if the colours are not oversaturated in this scan (which I think they are), the resolution is far under the version linked by Brandmeister. Mattximus (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor colours. Not sharp. The points of reflected light are apparent all over the entire picture. While I would rule out a work as big as the Bacchus and Ariadne for reflected light on some areas, in this case it's widespread. Also, it's yet another female nude. Unfortunately this series of nudes began with two non-great pieces of Victoriana, so we have had two too many. The main page is coming to resemble Page Three. We need a bit of a time and space gap between the direction-setting Giorgione, and this, considered the supreme masterpiece of the Renaissance nude. Our next nude ought to be something that is not Renaissance and not an idealised female posing and gazing at the (male) viewer- Rembrandt's Bathsheba for example. [2] which has a tragic story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandajm (talk • contribs) 00:58, 30 October 2013
Support alternative- That is a much better version. The slightly yellowed tone is much more normal to old paintings than the pinking/reddish shade of the other. Th lighting is better. Amandajm (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support alt A much better version agreed, but the resolution (although higher than our minimum) is still on the small side for works of art. Mattximus (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the photo. But unfortunately the church itself doesn't have an article; it only has a three-line stub. This ought to be held-off from the front page until the picture can be put up with some useful information. What we are looking at here is a very unusual building that warrants some description. It can't simply be described as a Medieval or "Gothic church" or Heritage Listed building". Is the writer of the article going to do any more work on it? Anyone who looks at this pic in a truly interested way (me for example) is going to want more. Amandajm (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do plan on extending the article, I just can't find much on its history online. I'm eventually going to get my hands on one of the history books sold within the church, which will hopefully be a good source of information on it. Deferential redbrick (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support- The photograph now has an article. (There is not much on the church's history, but plenty on its architecture, its current ministry and its new organ.) Amandajm (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Love it. I was worried initially that this doesn't quite capture the depth of the church, but it can be seen; it's just not obvious. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both original and ALT.1 In the original, the shadow does disturb the view and the angle is not that great. But the quality is good. In ALT.1, I really don't know what I'm looking at. The path is really long and I don't think it has encyclopedic value at all. Mediran (t • c) 03:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expand — Nice autumnal pic, but there's nothing in the very brief article about why the canal was built, for what purpose. Sca (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria and its only talking about the images description and not the quality of the article as far as I understand it. The canal was built to make it easier for smaller ships with supplies to reach the center of Stockholm, but also for aesthetic reasons (Djurgården is a royal park).--ArildV (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support; very engaging, seems representative of the canal as a whole. I echo the claim that it's a shame the article's so short, but it does seem to contain the most important information. J Milburn (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2013 at 05:02:50 (UTC)
Original – Water game in MüGa-Park in Mülheim an der Ruhr in b/w with long exposure (1000x ND filter)Coloured version: Water game in MüGa-Park in Mülheim an der Ruhr (1000x ND filter)
Reason
high quality image; considered as a featured photo on Commons
Comment Yeah, I would have choosen the colored version of ths image, but people on Commons seemed to like the B&W version better for some reason. BlurredLines14:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, probably the uploader is planning to create it someday, but I really think that the un-creation of the article is no concern to the photo. BlurredLines14:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does. One of the criteria for featured article is that it "Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article" and that "A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value". So even though it's a nice picture, it's EV is lacking. So I oppose on those grounds. Mattximus (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for nomination and for the interest in this photo. I do not know if "water games" is the correct term for it in English, but the following is meant: A water game ("Wasserspiel") is a system of fountains which are connected to each other. If you take a closer look on the photo you see that in front of the fountain is an efflux trasporting the water to the next fountain. On the other side there is an conflux to the fountain so that it is recharged from water of the previous one. The water game is located in the "Müga" a large park in Mülheim. The complete water game extends to half of the park. Why B/W (from FP candidature on Commons): black/white is better here because it attracts the attention on the water and its flow --Tuxyso (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the colour version. Support colour version, Half support B/W version. Godhulii 1985 (talk)
Oppose at this time. The picture's currently used in a gallery on the article about the town; if it was used in an article about the park (or, even better, in an article about the fountain) then we could reconsider, but this isn't really eligible right now. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per others, the EV is missing at present. However, I have to say the "lack of colour" issue is ridiculous and frankly embarrassing for WP:FP. -- Colin°Talk18:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That "lack of colour" means it isn't "suitable for an encyclopaedia". There are many legitimate reasons to choose a black-and-white image (as Tuxyso says, here it focuses the eye on the water feature rather than the hedge and trees which in the colour one catch your eye). Black and white can be better where shape, form and texture are more important than colour. -- Colin°Talk22:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except for pictures specifically illustrating a photographic technique or genre, I cannot think of any situation in which the EV (as I understand that term) of a black-and-white image would be higher. "AV" (artistic value) is a different matter of course. 86.171.174.156 (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are plenty photographic books that disagree and will describe situations where black-and-white enhances what a viewer can get from an image. There are of course many examples where colour is better and even essential. I don't think this is one of them. What does the green of the bushes add to the viewers appreciation of the waterworks or the park's design? Even if you think there is no EV benefit to b&w, is there always a loss significant enough to oppose? Would File:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg have more EV if it were in colour? Colin°Talk21:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not so you can see that bushes are green, it's so you can see that the base of the fountain is grey and that the water is not dyed pink. Seeing the colours of things always, by definition, provides more information. "Mainstream" black and white photography only exists because of historical accident. If people weren't used to it for that reason it would be a niche "artistic" format and no one would consider it suitable for factual depiction of subjects. 86.179.5.161 (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support pretty low EV in my opinion, but support for the same reason listed above. What else could we ask for to show taxis in Hong Kong? Mattximus (talk)
Support Maybe my conception of EV is skewed, but after reading the article, I think this has great EV. Can't really get more interesting visually, either. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies23:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that maybe the caption should specify that these are high-fare taxis, as it seems a color-coding is enforced. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies23:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about the EV. I've been wondering how you can ask "What else could we ask for to show taxis in Hong Kong?" and yet say this has low EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consider an extreme example. What if we have the *perfect* photograph of the third street light from my house. It is technically everything we could ask to show the third street light from my house. But does it have EV? I guess you would argue that any photograph that has a wiki page therefore has potential EV, regardless of the topic? Does a picture of taxis in the 27th largest city in the world merit being featured? I agree, and support, but admit that it is low EV. Mattximus (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we had an article on the third streetlamp from your house (if, say, it were as famous as the Centennial Light) then there would be serious EV. In an article on street lamps it would have good EV as well. Here we have an article on taxis in Hong Kong. These are taxis in Hong Kong, and thus there is still good EV attached to this. That the individual taxis are not notable does not mean that there is no EV (just like how the PS2 shown in File:PS2-Versions.jpg or the soursop shown in File:Soursop, Annona muricata.jpg are not individually notable, yet still have EV as representative of a class). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The subject of this image is protected by copyright and the country of origin does not have freedom of panorama. The English Wikipedia does not have a consistent position on this issue, and, until it does, we have no business promoting these images. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Issue with FOP (none in Dubai) noted, and as such this image has been nominated for deletion. After all, works after 1990 are still copyrighted in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys. Excellent teamwork again to derail an FPC based on misleading copyright assertions as previously. The copyright of this image is consistent with Wikipedia policy, and surely the DR will be dismissed. If you disagree with the policy, please raise your concerns where appropriate. --ELEKHHT11:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing it appears I was mistaken about this building's status in the US. Will be withdrawing the nomination there. My oppose here was not based on the copyright status. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Elekhh, once again, you are doing your best to belittle legitimate concerns with vague assertions. I do not disagree with the policy, there is no policy. J Milburn (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Photographs of buildings from publicly accessible viewpoints should NOT be disallowed on the grounds that the view can be copyrighted (obviously they can be disallowed for other copyright reasons). The concept of doing so is nonsensical, and Wikipedia should not play any part in supporting such a ludicrous idea. 86.171.174.156 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Expecting the top to be in focus or to have the same sharpness as the rest (bearing in mind any vertical-perspective correction and lenses being less sharp at the edge) is not fair imo. Deletion issues should be raised elsewhere and any FP nomination suspended meanwhile (this one's deletion is now withdrawn). This is not a forum for discussing copyright issues. Colin°Talk18:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free images cannot be promoted to featured picture status, so whether this image is freely licensed is definitely a discussion we must have. I am going to oppose this image being promoted while our policy remains as ambiguous as it is, and I implore anyone else with any respect for the "free" part of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to do the same. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can establish, in the appropriate forum, that this image is non-free then there is no need for any discussion here. I fully agree with you that we should only celebrate truly free images, though last time that got suggested at WP:FP it got shot down. I also appreciate that often licence issues are only discovered at FP. But discussion of file licence issues do not belong on this page. -- Colin°Talk18:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't get shot down. Another user made baseless assertions, and then, for reasons not clear to me, my comments were hidden. Images of this building were deleted from Commons a few years ago- note that this one is uploaded locally to avoid deletion there. There simply isn't a (consistent) policy about these images on the English Wikipedia- I can't "establish" that, as I can't prove a negative. Until there is one, this should not be promoted. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I was referring to the GFDL proposal. I don't see what the lack of consistency on en:wp policy has to do with FP. Go fix en:wp policy. We can always remove FP status from any wrongly promoted images. Colin°Talk21:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the confused comments above about governing copyright law, just would like to clarify: Wikipedia has a clear policy on copyright that states "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law." Further clarification is provided in the guideline Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights that states "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries.". That is all very clear IMO. Commons has a different policy, but that is independent of Wikipedia, and the two should not be confused. --ELEKHHT22:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide evidence that this can be released under a free license in the United States? Do you have any evidence that the US is quite happy to ignore local laws concerning FOP when dealing with photographs of recent works of architecture abroad? (While you're at it, you may wish to nominate all "free" images of recent sculptures for deletion. Of course, that has nothing to do with this nomination, but may go a good way to show how committed you are to this policy you insist exists...) J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's called Lex loci protectionis, that "means that the copyright laws of the source country have no relevance in deciding about copyright infringement in the United States.". The recent deletion of images of Claes Oldenburg sculptures taken in Germany makes it clear that German FOP is disregarded under US law. If you're keen to have sculpture images deleted prior to community resolution of their specific copyright issues, please go to Commons where these images are stored. Please be aware that your persistent mixing-up of Wikipedia and Commons, sculptures and architecture, FPC and village pump, is increasingly disruptive. --ELEKHHT13:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have never once muddled Commons policy and the English Wikipedia policy, and nor have I suggested any change in policy. Perhaps you have been muddling me with other people. Your self-righteous assertions remain as disruptive as they ever were. (Oh, and please, if you want to talk about disruption, go and do it somewhere else, I suppose. That's what we do, isn't it? Insist that anyone talking about things we don't want go and do it somewhere else?) I am more than a little bit done with this- my oppose remains, but I will not be commenting any further. J Milburn (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have to echo the above, short of doing some massive corrections there is just no way to keep the the entire field of view in focus at any given time when the subject stretches over a long horizontal or vertical distance from the photographer. This is a well framed photograph that manages to get the whole building in while maintaining a high image quality with no blown highlights so this gets my support. Cat-fivetc ---- 02:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are specular highlights (sunshine on glass). Simply impossible to avoid the sun reflecting off glass somewhere on this building unless you take the side in shadow or take it at night. It's a "my eyes are hurting; I'm going blind" level of brightness. This is Dubai, not Glasgow. Colin°Talk09:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the issues of photographing in 37 degree temperatures with very little cloud cover. I live and work in Indonesia, right? I can get bad highlights off a matte surface if the sun gets hot enough. I just find it funny that one would say "no blown highlights" for this picture. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco I know you are experienced and understand, and I agree the comment isn't accurate. But FP reviews get read by lots of people trying to determine how to vote and what makes a good image. I just wanted to clarify that specular highlights of the sun cannot be expected to be in range of an 8-bit JPG. Colin°Talk13:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. Agree about the technical limitations (though I still stand by my position as the bands about 2/3rds of the way up are a little disturbing) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492:, I think you know what I meant and what I probably should in retrospect, which was that there were no blown highlights outside of what any picture of a building shot in sunshine would have. It was my fault for being ambiguous in my comment but it should have been pretty clear what I meant by my comment. As Colin mentioned, any picture of any building shot in sunlight is going to have glare which will show as being blown but that's hardly the same as any other possible source of blown highlights, mainly glare doesn't necessarily detract from the image (although it can) but other blown highlights seem to almost always detract from the image quality if not the EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 22:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll have to agree to disagree regarding the glare "not detracting from the image" (can't even make out the shape of the windows in some places). A bit more cloud cover, or a less heated day, may have been desirable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've thoroughly reviewed the concerns raised above about the copyright status of this image, and I do not think it is a legitimate reason to oppose this nomination. The image is properly hosted on the English Wikipedia in full accordance with Wikipedia policy and U.S. copyright law, and it has a free license as required by the featured picture criteria. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2013 at 06:00:14 (UTC)
Reason
High quality, very high EV (greater EV viewed as a set). I am re-nominating this complete set of United States Fractional currency. The last nomination was unopposed, but came up one vote short for promotion. The main article in which these images are highlighted was reworked, developed, and expanded specifically to highlight this numismatic reference set and to highlight items from the Smithsonian Institution collection. Working with the original files since the last nomination, the image sizes have been increased and the crop tightened.
This set nomination is a complete type reference set of U.S. Fractional Currency representing each significant design change. The United States issued Fractional currency between 1862 and 1876 in denominations of 3, 5, 10, 15, 25, and 50 cents. Across the five issuing periods paper quality was developed to prevent destruction and designs changed as anti-counterfeiting measures were put in place. Sizes range from roughly 66 x 41 mm to 110 x 54 mm. Captions include: denomination, catalog number, and person or vignette depicted.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2013 at 23:19:58 (UTC)
Original – Typical view of Joshua Tree National Park with impressive rocks and Johshua trees (Yucca brevifolia). The photo is taken from the parking lot close to the Banana Cracks Formation
Reason
Attractive, crisp, good colours... easily meets the criteria
Comment I'm curious about the word choice, when you say "Typical view of Joshua Tree National Park"... because to me it's exactly the opposite. The "typical" view is what I've always seen: Joshua Trees at sunset, with or without U2 bandmembers standing about. I had no idea there were any jutting rock formations there. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies22:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure I agree with using the phrase "typical view" to describe an image even if it is typical, even though I can't think of anything better to call it. That being said it is a high quality and illustrative image. Cat-fivetc ---- 02:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per your suggestion I edited the caption. I copied more information from the image description page which gives it more context. Cat-fivetc ---- 21:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for the nomination and friendly words. Why "typical"? If you take a look on the maps provided by the National Park Service you can see that geology and rock formations play an important role in the park. The Joshua Trees are not the stars there but the trees combined with the nice desert landscape with its rocks. Joshua Trees are not that seldom - you find a lot of them also far away from the park. @Keraunoscopia. The park is definitely worth a visit - I really enjoyed my time there. Unfortunately a fews hours later a strong thunderstorm was approaching and we had to leave fast due to the risk of flash floods. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2013 at 08:20:56 (UTC)
Original – Alatskivi Castleis a Neo-Gothic castle in Estonia. Dating to the 16th century, it was rebuilt in the late 19th century by Arvid von Nolcken, modeled on the royal residence of Balmoral in Scotland. On the first floor is a museum dedicated to the music composer and conductor Eduard Tubin.
Support I'm guessing that this was processed to modify the contrast because it looks a little bit unnatural, not so much though that it ruins the image by any means though. Cat-fivetc ---- 02:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - eye-catching, yes. However, she and her legs are rather out of focus, the scene overall is dark, and one leg is cutoff. That said, the subject is deceased, so no better image may exist. I note that our copy is 1,363 × 2,048, while the original on flickr is 2832 × 4256, so someone should definitely grab the higher res one. Chris857 (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Author reads User:Leezagibbons and source reads "Own work", indicating this is a self-portrait (and perhaps uploaded as self-promotion, which would not be in line with commons policies). However the metadata ebedded in the image file mentions one "Ron Derhacopian" as photographer and contains a copyright statement mentioning "Ron Derhacopian Photography, Inc." as owner of the rights. This renders authorship and copyright status unclear and could mean that the file will be deleted from commons. I don't think anyone whould like to have a possible copyvio featured on wikipedia's main page. I would suggest ending the nomination now, sorting things out and (if the file can stay) updating the file information page and/or the embedded metadata. Then the file could of course be re-nominated. Jahoe (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This file has been permitted by the Commons OTRS team for use. The ticket, located here, is available for those with OTRS account. Also, in the metadata, since this was modified (I don't know if by Leezagibbons, "some details may not fully reflect the modified file." Mediran (t • c) 09:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really need the file deleted and it's fine with me to have it on the main page, but not until it's copyright status is clarified and the conflicting information on the file's info page corrected. Unfortunately, filing a deletion request is the only way to challenge a file with unclear copyright status on commons. Jahoe (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. May I suggest a more thorough status check as part of the nomination procedure in the future? It would have been easier if that had been done first. Jahoe (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (tentative oppose) Based on the article, I'm not totally sure that this is the type of red tape that the expression "red tape" comes from. ("All American Civil War veterans' records were bound in red tape, and the difficulty in accessing them led to the modern American use of the term.") So I'm not sure of the EV. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That background just ruins it for me. It almost looks like they're on black sand or something and parts of them are buried and in full size the texture of the background is incredibly distracting. Cat-fivetc ---- 02:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support either version Overall, the subject is somewhat boring, particularly compared to two-side digitizations of paper money, but EV is there. Brandmeistertalk09:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Decent photo with a high EV. The fact that the background is hazy is a little disappointing but I'm assuming that that's an unavoidable part of the area. Cat-fivetc ---- 02:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2013 at 09:40:02 (UTC)
Original – A a panoramic view of the Stockwell Bus Garage in London.
Reason
It's an interesting panoramic view of the interior of the Stockwell Garage in London. It might appear at first to be a relatively obscure industrial building (and in some ways it is), but it is also a Grade II* listed building in the UK (the second highest importance) and at the time of completion in 1952 was the largest unsupported roof in Europe.
Weak oppose - Are those structures on the ceiling actually curved? Or are they actually straight? This is why I'm generally not a fan of these panoramas. They blow natural perspecive to hell and the result is a curvy mess. It may make for groovy art... but not an encyclopedic photograph. The article would look soooo much better with a couple well done normal photos. Also, it has been inserted into the article only in the last few days. – JBarta (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the structure is curved. If you read the article, the roof is made of barrel vaults that sit on top of the large arches. I haven't been there but I think the space might actually be "groovy". A very similar version has been added a week ago, and than changed to this one -which I agree is better- about five days ago, so I don't think that's an issue. --ELEKHHT22:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what Elekhh already mentioned, I just wanted to note that there is no such thing as 'natural perspective'. There is only perspective distortion of varying degrees, and there are trade-offs on all perspectives and compositions. Forget stitched panoramas for a second, and consider individual photos taken with a regular rectilinear lens. They still show perspective distortion. The only way to minimise perspective distortion is to take a photo from extremely far away with an extremely telephoto lens, but is this a possibility in interior architectural photography? Absolutely not. Distortion is a natural consequence of trying to photograph any significant portion of an enclosed space. Ðiliff«»(Talk)08:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Totally disagree. Natural perspective enables us to accurately reconstruct the original 3D geometry in our brains. Distorted prespective causes us to fail to understand the 3D geometry or to construct a false or ambiguous representation. Of course, we are quite dependent also on recognising familiar objects and understanding their likely shapes and sizes, and also interpreting other visual cues. This may enable us to detect and compensate for distorted perspective. Nevertheless, it is common sense that distorted and natural perspectives are meaningful concepts. 86.171.174.169 (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that certain projections are more difficult to visualise 'naturally', and the cylindrical projection used in this image takes a curved space and flattens it so that it can be displayed on a flat display. But that doesn't mean that perspective distortion doesn't exist in all photos. In any case, it would not be possible to show a wide enough view of the interior without distortion of some kind. A lens capable of capturing a wide enough view to include both the building as well as the roof structure would be significantly distorted at the edges, as all ultrawide angle photography is. This does not look 'natural' either. If you keep the camera horizontal, the roof is distorted (and probably not significantly in the frame either). If you tilt the camera up, the vertical lines become horribly tilted. There is no real solution to this problem - any 'correction' distorts something. As I said originally, there are trade-offs in every perspective and projection. Anyway, I could go on but I guess we can agree to disagree on this. Ðiliff«»(Talk)23:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So do those buses look unnatural to you? (other than being double-deckers)? Regarding how our brain reconstructs what our eyes see, just take it easy :). @Diliff: As the lens spects do not show up in the EXIF, can you just let us know, or add that to the file description? --ELEKHHT23:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After looking online at other photos of this garage, I'm changing my vote from 'weak oppose' to 'oppose'. This image is simply not a realistic/accurate portrayal of the inside of that garage. While it's a pretty image, the EV is blown. – JBarta (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images I think better represent the garage: 1,2,3. Reasons I noted above. Also, 86.171.174.169 made good points. The image simply tries to capture too many degrees of view and squish them into a narrow image causing an unnatural amount of distortion and causing the viewer to question what he's looking at. On looking at it, my first question was are the vaults parallel or do they splay out? I had to look elsewhere to get a better idea of what the garage actually looked like. – JBarta (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, I see now what you mean. It is the curved projection of the top of the back wall that might have given you that impression. From the examples you link at (1) and (2) I find much inferior in terms of illustrating the structure and the space. (3) is an interesting perspective that focuses on the cross-section, in a way complementary to the longitudinal section illustrated in this nomination. I still think this image is very well illustrating the structure, the space and its use, and the smooth sunset lighting is quite successful, so I continue to support. --ELEKHHT00:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This angle doesn't really give you a sense of how large the building is. Also gives the illusion that the spandrels (or whatever they are called) are bending away from the photographer, but in the architectural drawing above appear to be straight. Mattximus (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have though the buses give a pretty good sense of the scale of the space. In terms of perspective effects, for consistency you might wish to nominate images like this and this for delist as big way more confusing. Also I think this image should have been nominated for the category Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors. --ELEKHHT01:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please compare this nomination and image "3" linked above. Before seeing that new image, I thought there was quite a shallow roof to this building. The nomination really doesn't give the sense of scale. Mattximus (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second you mention is absurdly awful. How it got to be a FP is beyond me. The first, if those arched transom windows are in real life parallel, then that image is a bit absurd as well. If those images are the low form of life that is FP worthy, then who am I to oppose this one? This one is no worse. Might as well throw this in with the others, slap a star on it and happy trails to all. – JBarta (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in defense of the terminal panorama, someone on the nomination page suggested looking at only a small section at a time while scrolling it and it looks like you're looking around. In that manner, I'll admit it does look kinda neat. – JBarta (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, look at this one the same way and see how neat it is :). A crop of the top-middle section could be FP on its own right for detailing the structure. --ELEKHHT02:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific about which photos are better than this one? Also, just because they exist, doesn't mean they are available to upload to Wiki. I urge you to find an image that is high resolution, shows the shape and size of the building sufficiently, and is freely licensed. And when you find one, upload it to Wikipedia. But until then, I don't think "there are better images on google image search" is a valid argument. Ðiliff«»(Talk)19:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read your previous comment and it seems to me that I cannot agree with you regarding perspective. With a reply to 86, you've justified your position but I really don't think that a panorama from this position is necessary to depict this garage. Rather this pic is more clear: [3] For me, in a panorama the perfect symmetry is very necessary unless lack of symmetry returns as a WOW factor. In this pic, the buses are not symmetrical, the roofs do not give me an idea about its shape (I had to search in google to check what are they: stretched like this pic or parallel). So, to me it has no WOW effect for which I should support this. You cannot force me to say that it is a WOW pic. About unavailability of pics: this is a pic from london, not from a place which is v.difficult to go. What if no one correct this in a significant time: well, you can see mentos-diet-coke featured pic. Initially that was rejected in 2006 with a reason: "easily reproducible", for next 7 years no one did that and it was elected in 2013. So, if no one upload a better pic in significant time then obviously this can be judged again, for now Oppose. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid we are dealing here with an example of systemic bias at FPC that is detrimental to conveying our readers a better understanding of architecture. No building can be fully understood from one image, and while very simple symmetric frontal perspectives are commonly promoted, it has to be clear that such images only depict one particular (and seldom experienced as such) aspect of the building. Same way we understand that an article about ducks can have multiple FPs (female, male, baby duck, mating, eating, etc), it should be clear that articles about architecture should have the potential to incorporate multiple FP quality perspectives. Of course duck images are also easy to support because perspective effects of any kind are much less apparent. Anyway, note that the image you link to places the emphasis on the buses, whereas this image places it on the structure - that is what is most notable about this building. --ELEKHHT11:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see both sides. I wanted to say that because there's some hectoring here. The difference between this picture and the airport terminal one is that that's a rectangular room, so it's easy to reconstruct what it must look like in your head. I have no problem with perspective distortion in architecture if it allows us to see a larger space in more detail, but in this case, given a curved ceiling to begin with, it's rather confusing. Chick Bowen01:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But none of the other images of this building avoid the distortion of the ceiling vaults either. There's nothing special about this being a stitched panorama that results in distortion that wouldn't be there in a regular photo. I just feel that the opposers are exaggerating the issue. Yes there is divergence of straight lines as occurs in ANY three dimensional scene, and yes it tends to make it harder to visualise the shape of the building, but I don't believe any other images can eliminate this issue because it's a visually confusing building to begin with. Ðiliff«»(Talk)03:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the "Does it splay out like that or is it the projection?" question is a valid one and a problem for this image. But it is a problem for other images too that aren't wide-angle or from this viewpoint. I've looked at lots of images on Commons and elsewhere online and none of them individually answer the question to me about what it actually looks like. Smaller images can show accurate detail of a portion but you don't, literally, get the full picture. I like the WLM nominee File:Stockwell Bus Garage skylight reflections.JPG as an image but its EV for the garage is lower. One of the problems with WP:FP that it expects a lot from a single picture. This is an article that really needs a set of pictures working together to not only help visualise the building but also tell its story. Currently the article is a bit crap and not long enough. Now, if you'll all excuse me, I must go fetch my fisheye lens and arrange a visit :-) -- Colin°Talk12:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Physically/geometrically, while looking at it along its axis, it obviously does not splay like that. But when you're there in the building looking at it, yes it does 'appear' to splay because of the fundamental laws of perspective. As I've said above already, this is nothing to do with the fact that it's panoramic, or that it's cylindrically stitched (although that does 'bow' the vaults somewhat). It would be the case for any wide angle field of view from that central position. For this image's slightly wider than average field of view, it does splay slightly more than normal. But I think we are (or should be) sophisticated enough to understand that there is distortion inherent in all images. Some of the above commenters seem to imply that some perspectives are more natural than others. 50mm rectilinear may be presumed to be close to the way we view the world with our eyes but I think that's an oversimplification and a narrow-minded way of thinking. Yes, the image might be confusing for some to understand at first glance, but I never expected this image to judged as the be the be-all-and-end-all of photos of the building. No single photo can encapsulate every aspect and detail of a three dimension structure. I think it's fine as the lead image, however, because there are no similarly detailed images in the Wiki Commons archives that improve on it IMO. But as for going there with a fisheye, watch out! The peanut gallery (joke) will be after you because we don't have eyes like fish! ;-) Also, FYI, the interior of the building is apparently off limits to the public. Many of the photos do appear to be taken from inside but there are signs at the entrance forbidding entrance to non-staff members. Whether that's waived if you ask nicely, I don't know. I guess it's a H&S issue due to the buses passing in and out. I didn't spot any staff to ask so I just hung around at the entrance. I looked around and I didn't find better compositions elsewhere anyway though. In some of the google image shots, the buses are nicely lined up in a row. I wasn't so fortunate to find that the case on my visit. ;-) Ðiliff«»(Talk)13:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with you. The buses help give the reader some clue that it isn't very distorted but still there's an discomfort among someone unfamiliar with the building about how faithful it is -- even though it may well be. Anyway, you are preaching-to-the-converted with me about not minding a few curves. Who says our pics have to look like architect's drawings? -- Colin°Talk14:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm not seeing a very high EV. He seems to have published one obscure book, and a very very obscure newspaper. I wonder why he has a wiki article at all. Is there more that I am missing? Mattximus (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well Sassounian is a very notable figure in the Armenian diaspora and especially in its literary and journalism circles. He has received awards from heads of states, assemblies and lobbies, and many other organizations. He is a regular contributor to the Huffington Post and the Los Angeles Times and is cited in many books and journals. Just typing his name in Google yields hundreds of thousands of results. I thought the article portrays his notability quite well. If not, I'll be more than happy to expand it a bit more. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2013 at 07:20:15 (UTC)
Original – Ukiyo-e woodblock print, A woman playing a large suspended drum (tsuridaiko), part of A set of five prints for the Hisakataya poetry circle by Yashima Gakutei, c. 1827.
Reason
High quality ukiyo-e scan from the Google Art Project. Good EV for the art style, as well as a record of historical use of taiko drums.
Promoted File:Yashima Gakutei - A woman playing a large suspended drum (tsuridaiko) A set of five prints for the Hisakataya poetry c... - Google Art Project.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus09:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2013 at 11:51:28 (UTC)
Original – An illustration of two males kissing, a common feature in Yaoi manga. The receiving partner is somewhat androgynous, as is common in the genre, while the image itself is drawn partially with copic markers, which are common in the industry.
Reason
One of my first FPC nominations, I think this deserves another shot. My original rationale, which I still stand by: "I think this should qualify as a featured picture as it is a tactful representation of the subject matter, Yaoi (also known as boys love), which as noted by the article is "female-oriented fictional media that focus on homoerotic or homoromantic male relationships". The image is of high resolution and good artistic quality. Although this is rightfully not a FP criteria, it should also be noted that the image is featured at Commons. As a side note, it appears that this image would be one of the first anime and manga related FPs. I am aware that the nomination could be quite controversial."
Comment: Here's my concern. This is here as an example of the genre, but we seemingly have no reliable source tying this work/artist to the genre, and, to boot, this the media used to create the picture seem to be atypical for the genre. We wouldn't be promoting a watercolour by a non-notable artist as an example of cubism, so I'm not clear on whether we should be promoting this. J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per J Milburn and my previous vote on this. While it may be an acceptable substitute for the actual yaoi, which will remain copyrighted in the nearest future, it fails criteria 3 and 5 of WP:WIAFP. Brandmeistertalk16:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2013 at 12:40:45 (UTC)
Original – Coiled galaxy has an eye-like object at its center which is actually a monstrous black hole surrounded by a ring of stars. In this color-coded infrared view from Spitzer, the area around the invisible black hole is blue and the ring of stars, white. The galaxy, called NGC 1097 and located 50 million light-years away, is spiral-shaped like our Milky Way, with long, spindly arms of stars.
Support Holy extra long captions Batman! The caption is waaaaaaayyyyyyy too long to be any good but I'm going to support anyway because it's such a great image and with the assumption that someone will come along and trim the caption to a reasonable length. Cat-fivetc ---- 02:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly due to it's historic importance.Also,this is an artistic expression of Coonan Cross Oath, which took place in 1600's that split St.Thomas Christians.
Oppose - My very first thought when I viewed the picture was "what the hell is that white blob". That my eye focused on the white blob before I even realized that this was a portrait is, to me, an indication that this is a supremely poorly composed image. I also find the blurring of the books in the foreground and the strange way that the background unfocues to be distracting. In my opinion, if the focus of an image is a person, that person has to 'pop' from the image. In this image, that doesn't happen. In fact, I am struggling to figure out how a photographer that could produce something as visually interesting as this portrait could produce something as astoundingly bad as the nominated image. Sven ManguardWha?22:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly hadn't noticed the white blob, as my eye was drawn to the subject's face. The books, obviously, are hers; we often get "oppose, image gives no indication of why the subject is notable", so I thought that the presence of the books was a particularly apt way to get around that problem. I find the image overall to be understated, but strong- I suspect Blujold doesn't rely on her image in the same way as Ego Likeness, so there's no need for such an in-your-face portrait! (Of course, I do agree with you that the Ego Likeness photo is excellent!) J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not convinced the composition is all that bad (it would be silly, not to mention just about impossible, for both the subject and her books to be sharpy in-focus), but I'm left disappointed with the very dull lighting on the subject. She almost looks a bit underexposed. You weren't too far off the mark with this nomination though. – Juliancolton | Talk05:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the blob. The DoF is about 6cm and seems to have just caught her arm and chin but not her eyes. Even at this heavily downsampled version, it isn't especially sharp. -- Colin°Talk15:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a great image to use as the illustration of some kind of psychological effect/illusion. I can hardly bear to look at the bright part, even though it cannot possibly be brighter than the white screen that I am constantly looking at with no discomfort. 86.151.118.91 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. However, I actually don't know how to restore. Anyway, as per Cat-five, the "dirtiness" is not "hurting" the EV and the quality. Mediran (t • c) 03:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "hurting", but a skillful restoration would certainly make this more reusable, attractive, and representative of how it looked when it was produced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But still, I'm not skillful in restoring stuffs, or something. However, I'm not against in restoring this work. If someone could do this kind of thing, it would be appreciated. Mediran (t • c) 09:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure this could probably be restored but the dirtiness on the upper border doesn't hurt the EV of the image and it doesn't necessarily hurt it's overall quality. If anything attempting to restore the image could hurt the EV more and do more harm than good. Cat-fivetc ---- 02:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - definitely useful and above-average, but I'm not convinced the square composition is ideal here, and even then there's an awful lot of dead space in the foreground. I think a 2:3 horizontal frame at a longer focal length with the building itself more prominent would work better (or something along those lines). Beautiful place, though, by the looks of it! – Juliancolton | Talk05:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The building certainly has its possibilities, but most architecture FPs focus on the building itself. Getting a hundred metres or so closer would probably have presented more possibilities. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe it's just me but the head seems to be severely out of focus, look specifically at the eyes and you'll see what I mean. Cat-fivetc ---- 02:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. What a curiosity; the article's well sourced too, which is a plus. I don't think the photograph's quite as inspiring as many of our architectural shots, but bonus points for a notable photographer, in my eyes. J Milburn (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very low EV, the page is nearly orphaned, and just barely more than a stub. But I'll support because it is a very good picture of that building...Mattximus (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2013 at 02:10:19 (UTC)
Original – Schrödinger's cat: a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal monitor detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.
Reason
This is a high quality diagram which does a good job of concisely and clearly illustrating the theoretical setup of the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment.
Support Although it could be argued that this would be a relatively simple image to recreate, simple can also mean elegant. My only (very minor!) quibble is that the ghostly transparency of the cat allows a Necker cube effect. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the caption to the one from the Schrödinger's cat article, excluding the last sentence since it doesn't really apply to the image. This is definitely a long caption but it does a pretty good job imo of describing what we're seeing in the image. If anyone has any better ideas though feel free to change it. Cat-fivetc ---- 20:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm honestly not convinced that this is a professional-quality diagram or an example of Wikipedia's best work. Look at the little cartoon beakers, for instance. They look like clip-art. J Milburn (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is not amongst Wikipedia's finest work. From a design standpoint, there are numerous inconsistencies in the style used to draw the various entities. The quasi-3D look and the superimposition of the two outcomes make the image more complicated and difficult to understand than is necessary. I think that File:Schroedingers cat film.svg is a bit better executed. dllu(t,c)21:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dllu was referring to the two different drawing styles used in the diagram the (1) superimposed 2D cat, and (2) the 3d boxes and switch. This combination makes it look rather hokey. So it's not about the superimposition itself. Mattximus (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
High Ev as lead image, very good quality. It is very hard to find good quality free images of recent popes which makes images like this rare on wikipedia
Oppose. A great asset for the article, but not, I fear, featured quality. I'm unconvinced about the composition and find the background distracting. J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decent resolution, full-length film, notable one, no commercial issues (it's public domain, not really advertising is it?). Notable as the first pairing of Laurel and Hardy, even though they were not partners at the time.
Oppose It looks like the one posted on youtube [4] is much better quality when changed to 480p. I paused at a few similar frames in both and it looks to me like the youtube version is clearly superior. However, if I'm mistaken will gladly change to support, would like to see this featured! Mattximus (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the music is part of your consideration, it shouldn't be. The music could not have been included with the original film (there's a reason it was called the "silent" era) and was a later addition which may or may not be copyrighted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just the image quality was all I was concerned about. I paused both at similar frames and the youtube one looks much better. However, I could be mistaken. Would support the better quality version if that is possible. Mattximus (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2013 at 12:27:13 (UTC)
Original – The Finnish Lutheran cathedral of Helsinki, located in the centre of the city, was built from 1830-1852 as a tribute to the Grand Duke of Finland, Tsar Nicholas I of Russia.
Reason
High resolution composite image of an important Finish monument, adding to the article
Comment. For me, this picture is rather spoiled by the fact that the bottom of the building is cut off. However, I don't know how easily that can be avoided. 86.171.42.209 (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is how people see the building when approaching it. But I think the current FP has significantly higher EV because it shows the full extent of the stairs as well as the volume of the church. While this is a very fine picture, I think the nomination does not explain how it adds to the article. I also find that the removal of the current FP picture was unwarranted, so I re-inserted it. --ELEKHHT14:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - It's a bit noisy, although this is more common with sports photography. I also wish the angle was slightly wider; I don't like the hand cut off at the bottom. Other than that it is an appealing and valuable photo. Jujutacular (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2013 at 12:35:24 (UTC)
Original – Skyline in the city of Tampa, Florida. View to north from the Embassy Suite Hotel, just after sunriseAlternative – Skyline in the city of Tampa, Florida. View to north from the Embassy Suite Hotel, in the morning
Reason
A beautiful and high resolution depiction of a modern skyline, adding to the articles about thye city of Tampa, Florida
Comment Both images are nice and of high quality, showing a central part of the skyline. But being a port city with a river, I think a skyline image with water would have had higher EV. As I don't know much about the subject will abstain for now, but I think the midday view has higher EV as there is more light cast on the streets, the framing is slightly wider, and has a more neutral lighting. --ELEKHHT14:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2013 at 07:23:04 (UTC)
High EV (higher EV viewed as a set), high quality. Federal Reserve Bank Notes (FRBN) were issued by the United States government in three series: 1915, 1918, and 1929. These notes were directly backed by one of the 12 District Federal Reserve Banks that comprise the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) system. Series of 1915 and 1918 are referred to as “Large-size” notes (average 7.375 x 3.125 inches or 187 x 79 mm) and Series of 1929 as “Small-size” notes (6.125 x 2.625 inches or 156 x 67 mm) based primarily on their size relative to each other. Part of a Smithsonian Institution archival digitization project (this set was scanned 23 August 2012).
Original – A 12-note complete type set of Federal Reserve Bank Notes (FRBN) by denomination including both large and small size issue.
Support Very nice work as always, though I do have a question. I see that the $100 FRBN (1915) is not an actual circulating note and does not have the reverse a true note would have. Is an example of an actual circulating note just not available in this denomination? Rreagan007 (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the $100 FRBN was more of a concept note: it was designed and engraved (obverse only), but never went into production (i.e., they were never issued).-Godot13 (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2013 at 07:12:47 (UTC)
Original – Joseph Ambrose, an 86-year-old World War I veteran, attends the dedication day parade for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in 1982, holding the flag that covered the casket of his son, who was killed in the Korean War.
Reason
A historic image with striking emotional impact which greatly adds depth to the article it is used in. The image was nominated originally in 2005, but was not promoted due to its (at the time) low-resolution copy, a replacement for which was unable to be found. I did some research today and located a high-quality version of the image at the National Archives and Records Administration website, which I have uploaded.
Oppose - Whomever cropped this image made a number of bad decisions, most notably cutting off the flag, both elbows, and the boot which I assume is in the veteran's lap. I'd love to see if the original, uncropped version, can be found, as I'm sure we could do a better job with it. Sven ManguardWha?21:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2013 at 00:04:51 (UTC)
Original – The reading room of the Sainte-Geneviève Library in Paris, designed by Henri Labrouste. Completed in 1850, the 17x80m reading room is 15m high, and is noted for its slender cast iron structure.Alt - currently in article
Reason
Very high EV, providing a good overview of the whole reading room, its layout and proportions, as well as an extraordinary level of detail. Previous nomination did not succeed for lack of participation (4 support, 1 neutral, 0 oppose, author abstained), so I think it deserves a new chance, as there is a lack of FPs of notable building interiors.
Support -- Colin°Talk 20:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Per previous nom, all three variants are excellent. I think the current article pic (alternative here) is probably better for right-hand-side placement as the wall is on the right rather than the left, leaving it more open on the left. -- Colin°Talk08:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my mistake, I somehow mixed-up the two nearly mirrored views, perhaps because this one (showing the northern side) is featured on Commons. I added below the Alt, and support either as previously. --ELEKHHT03:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why but I like the first one you posted better. Why don't we just slip that one into the article instead of the alt and not say a peep? Mattximus (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Left to right reading order. We tend to analyse images starting from the left, and the original tells the story of this room better when using that order. Support original. Adam Cuerden(talk)16:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the original one take my eye straight to the distant window and it gets stuck there. And when I take it back out, I get distracted by the dark section in the wall. Whereas the alt (currently used in the article) has my eye sweeping from left to distant right and then back down towards the front. Plus the wall is on the right, which is also the edge of the page. -- Colin°Talk15:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Colin regarding the current layout: visually the "alt" brings the viewer's attention back to the article. But I wonder if that wouldn't be true if placing the "original" on the left side? On the other hand the "original" illustrates better the northern side of the room showing the entry, and thus bit more info. Which makes me lean toward the "original", but honestly I still find it too difficult to decide, so I stay neutral. --ELEKHHT09:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Funny, but my feelings are quite different. I really don't see anything special about this picture. To me it seems a competent but fairly ordinary snapshot (albeit with a good camera). The composition not great, lighting not the best, etc. Of course, a very useful addition to the article nonetheless. 86.151.118.91 (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the composition draws the eye to the subject, rather than to something in the background- quite difficult, given the busyness of the area in which he's stood. If it was adjusted, it may end up looking like one of those holiday snaps in which someone has their photo taken with something. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: This is a beautiful picture, and would be an easy support for me, apart from the fact that the building shown only has a brief mention in the article. That said, it gives a fairly strong impression of the park itself. J Milburn (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this is a lovely photo. The focus is good enough for me, and I have no idea how anyone can claim it is "not suitable for article". 86.176.213.7 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Since this is essentially an image of a 3-dimensional piece of artwork, shouldn't it have a copyright status tag on the information page? Rreagan007 (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that the crop is a tad top-heavy (I'd trim a sliver off from the top so that the amount of brick around the outside is move even), but this captures a detailed scuplture that is technically difficult to photography (both because of placement and because it's shiny) very well. I see sufficient EV in the article Böttcherstraße as well. Sven ManguardWha?20:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A striking image like this one needs a clear caption. What is the man doing, what motorcross trick is he performing? The FPC rules are quite clear on this. 210.55.212.140 (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Rock Solid" trick:Perform the Superman Seat Grab, release the seat and extend both arms away from the bike so that the bike is completely detached. Grab the seat and remount the bike after catching enough air.JKadavoorJee07:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question beautiful picture... until I zoomed in. Is it just me or is it rather blurry? For example, some of the text on the building I cannot read and the features on the angels on the roof are hard to distinguish. Mattximus (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support refreshing to see a building so nicely captured with people inhabiting the place around it. I think the lack of readability of some of the inscriptions is just due to decay as newer inscriptions are very clear. Also ver nice smooth lighting. --ELEKHHT11:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This only shows a very small fraction of the glacier, not giving the viewer any sense of scale. The page has other pictures that are more encyclopaedic. Mattximus (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nvv, it's a very interesting image, but to be of featured picture quality the quality really has to be sharp and very clear. They're far from being quality photographs and are amateurish photos if you compare them to some of the high quality images of ice and snow which you can view by a google image search. Compare the quality with [5] for instance. ♦ Dr. Blofeld10:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may be fixable, but I don't have the skills for that... I tried uploading a slightly tweaked version, but I'm not sure it's any better. The sun was just out of frame and because of the layout of the Temple Mount, this is the only position to get two sides of the mosque. I would have happily waited for the right lighting, however the site is only open to the public from 8am to 10am.-Godot13 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The shadows are a bit harsh, but not as bad at full size as I would have expected from the thumbnail, and there is no noise in them either. Impressive photograph all around. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually don't mind the overexposed sky. And if this is the only position to take the photograph of 2 sides, it's really a top notch encyclopaedic photograph. Mattximus (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great, and great EV especially since it's not only the main building but it appears to be the only surviving building at the site. Mattximus (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. The other three just have the bases left. Outside of the main excavated area there are two more recent diggings, but that's only exposed parts of a wall. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Personally I don't really like this type of composition where the camera is placed along a rectangular structure's diagonal. It makes it somewhat harder to discern the shape of the structure. (I note the existence of this FP, though.) --Paul_012 (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The diagonal was a deliberate choice, to allow the front entrance (which has space between it and the central structure) to be distinct while still showing the staircase leading to the top. A plain side view would not have worked as some of the more interesting details (the nagas, for instance) would not have been visible, and a front view would have made the entrance blend in with the wall behind it. If I were to photograph Prambanan I'd probably look straight forward, but Borobudur might be best from an angle as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Paul 012 regarding the confusing diagonal view, as before. A couple of small steps to the right, and you would get a better composition. --ELEKHHT11:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with those above that a few steps to the right would have led to a better composition. I also think the lighting is not ideal; it looks like a bit of an overcast day. Jujutacular (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the rainy season; of course it will be a bit overcast. I have quite a bit of free time this weekend so I will try reshooting if lighting is better. The perspective in the second picture is okay, but I dislike how nothing is visible at thumbnail size (hence why I nominated this one, which is useful at both thumbnail and full sizes). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - More solid scans. I expect in about a year's time people will stop complaining about birds on the MP and start arguing that we have too many dollars (and to that I say "take some pictures of your own then") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Technically not a strong photograph, even if the composition is quite nice. Both articles are overillustrated and obese with the fruits of futile labor, and the picture doesn't really add much to the article on the National Park, which doesn't even mention squirrels. The species isn't even identified- this really isn't a good candidate for FP status. J Milburn (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
High EV, high quality image of a very rare object. A $10,000 Gold certificate depicting Salmon P. Chase, signed by W.A. Julian and Henry Morgenthau, Jr.. The series 1934 $10,000 Gold certificate was never released to the public and do not exist outside of government institutional collections.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2013 at 04:41:08 (UTC)
Original – Two Tahitian Women, an 1899 painting by Paul Gauguin which depicts two topless women, one holding mango blossoms, on the Pacific Island of Tahiti.
Reason
Notable artist and work. Don't think we have any Gauguin promoted yet.
Question it seems like this picture is much darker than Paul Gauguin - Two Tahitian Women this alt. Does anyone know which of the two is more faithful to the original? Mattximus (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ALT has been digitally lightened, for one. This scan is straight from the MET's website, so I think the lighting should be appropriate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2013 at 04:32:20 (UTC)
Original – The Day The Earth Smiled, July 19, 2013; the Cassini spacecraft turned to image Saturn and its entire ring system during an eclipse of the sun. The photo also included planet Earth and our moon; Mars; Venus; and a host of Saturnian moons.
Reason
Notable photograph. Original resolution. Public domain.
Support It would also be nice if someone would do another version of this image with labels for notable objects (Earth, Moon, Venus, etc). Rreagan007 (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
_-_THE_NOBEL_PEACE_PRIZE_LAUREATES_FOR_1994_IN_OSLO..jpg)
Done Good idea --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
$0.05 - Fr.1231
$0.10 - Fr.1240
$0.25 - Fr.1280
$0.50 - Fr.1312-$0.05-Fr.1231.jpg)
-$0.10-Fr.1240.jpg)
-$0.25-Fr.1280.jpg)
-$0.50-Fr.1312.jpg)
$0.05 - Fr.1232
$0.10 - Fr.1246
$0.25 - Fr.1284
$0.50 - Fr.1322-$0.05-Fr.1232.jpg)
-$0.10-Fr.1246.jpg)
-$0.25-Fr.1284.jpg)
-$0.50-Fr.1322.jpg)
$0.03 - Fr.1226
$0.05 - Fr.1238
$0.10 - Fr.1254
$0.25 - Fr.1294-$0.03-Fr.1226.jpg)
-$0.05-Fr.1238.jpg)
-$0.10-Fr.1254.jpg)
-$0.25-Fr.1294.jpg)
$0.50 - Fr.1328
$0.50 - Fr.1339
$0.50 - Fr.1355-$0.50-Fr.1328.jpg)
-$0.50-Fr.1339.jpg)
-$0.50-Fr.1355.jpg)
$0.10 - Fr.1259
$0.15 - Fr.1269
$0.25 - Fr.1303-$0.10-Fr.1259.jpg)
-$0.15-Fr.1269.jpg)
-$0.25-Fr.1303.jpg)
$0.50 - Fr.1374
$0.50 - Fr.1376
$0.50 - Fr.1379-$0.50-Fr.1374.jpg)
-$0.50-Fr.1376.jpg)
-$0.50-Fr.1379.jpg)
$0.10 - Fr.1265
$0.25 - Fr.1308
$0.50 - Fr.1381-$0.10-Fr.1265.jpg)
-$0.25-Fr.1308.jpg)
-$0.50-Fr.1381.jpg)
Comment: Thanks for the nomination and friendly words. Why "typical"? If you take a look on the maps provided by the National Park Service you can see that geology and rock formations play an important role in the park. The Joshua Trees are not the stars there but the trees combined with the nice desert landscape with its rocks. Joshua Trees are not that seldom - you find a lot of them also far away from the park. @Keraunoscopia. The park is definitely worth a visit - I really enjoyed my time there. Unfortunately a fews hours later a strong thunderstorm was approaching and we had to leave fast due to the risk of flash floods. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
-alt.jpg)
_A_set_of_five_prints_for_the_Hisakataya_poetry_c..._-_Google_Art_Project.jpg){kind=spacer}
_2003.jpg)
$100 FRBN (1915) proof depicting Benjamin Franklin. Large-size $100 FRBN were never issued. FRB New York.
.jpg)
$10 FRBN (1929) depicting Alexander Hamilton. FRB New York.
$50 FRBN (1929) depicting Ulysses S. Grant. FRB New York.
$100 FRBN (1929) depicting Benjamin Franklin. FRB Cleveland.
_by_Bernhard_Hoetger_(1936).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AChen_Rong_-_Nine_Dragons.jpg&diff=137132429&oldid=126712408){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_016.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.nationalparkguides.com/images/glacier-bay/glacier-bay-np-l.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Margerieglacier.jpg){kind=link}
_over_Italy.jpg){kind=link}
_over_Italy.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_over_Italy.jpg)