Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Older Archive
Miscellaneous Archive
2004: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


Chinese Garden of Friendship

[edit]
The entrance to the Chinese Garden of Friendship in Sydney

A very pleasant photo which illustrates the visual style of the Chinese Garden of Friendship. It is clear and colourful and is of much higher quality than the other photo in the article. It was taken by Greg O'Beirne (Gobeirne) earlier this year and is licensed under GNU Free Documentation 1.2.

Not promoted --Fir0002 07:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nishi Tribal

[edit]
A Nishi tribal wearing a traditional headdress
File:Nishi tribal-edit.jpg
Edit 1 by SG.
Edit 2, lightened with curves, by User:Janke.

A photograph of a Nishi tribal taken during sunrise in Arunachal Pradesh. Appears in the Nishi article and another article depicting the people of the region. More information about the subject on the Image page.

  • Nominate and support. Preference for Janke's edit. - doniv 18:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Wow, technically excellent, encyclopedic, good depiction of subject, and a funny hat! HighInBC 19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any version - slight preference for SG's or Janke's. Excellent portrait - good composition and quite an emotional image in addition to being encyclopaedic. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Nice portrait. Iorek85 01:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - getting my vote in before somebody shouts "OMG blown sky!!!!!111" - this is a superb, encyclopaedic and refreshingly human image; agree with Diliff about the emotional impact. --YFB ¿ 01:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support — either edit. Blown sky!!!!!111 ;-). I'd strong support with a better exposure. --Tewy 03:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do people care about blown highlights so much? For example, what information would otherwise appear there? A shallow gradient of sky color? Debivort 08:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I completely agree with you there. There are times when blown highlights can ruin a landscape image, but I generally think it is not nearly as important as people suggest. Sometimes it is literally impossible to avoid SOME blown highlights and still capture a specific scene. Sometimes selective overexposure/underexposure actually helps you to isolate a subject, in the same way that good composition does. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • People care about blown highlights because they are a distracting flaw in most photographs that contain them. You might consider the information that would otherwise appear there unimportant, but that doesn't mean the blown areas aren't distracting. Blown highlights were almost nonexistent when 95% of all photographs were taken on negative film, and the 5% that were taken on slide film were shot by working pros who were careful about overexposure. Now the majority of photos seen on the web are shot with digital cameras, which react to light more like slide film - easy to overexpose and a narrower dynamic range than negative film to begin with. I don't think the presence of a few 255, 255, 255 pixels necessarily means a photo can't be featured. It's when those pixels are an obvious distraction to me that I oppose an image because of them. -- Moondigger 12:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do see your point, and I agree with much of it, but its the idea of what constitutes an obvious distraction that there is some subjectivity in, I guess. For example, while I wouldn't nominate this image for FPC by any means, I don't feel that the very obviously blown highlights in the background truely distract that much. Yes, you notice them, but since the background isn't the focus of the image, it isolates the foreground and thats what I was refering to previously. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The image smoothly gradiates into a small band of overblown sky near the horizon. I think it looks good. HighInBC 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support beautiful, top notch quality -- PlaneMad|YakYak 08:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Janke's edit. As per HighInBC, Diliff, and Yummifruitbat. NauticaShades(talk) 08:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per above. Debivort 08:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. This is indeed a great portrait, marred by the gigantic swath of blown pixels across the center. My first thought upon seeing this image was, "nice portrait, too bad about the background exposure." The viewer's attention should be on the subject of the photo, but even folks who supported this image have to admit they were at least temporarily distracted by the blown area. That said, the portrait is so good that I can't oppose - so I'm Switzerland on this one. -- Moondigger 12:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't like the angle much, and I cannot possibly support something with so many blown highlights. Clearly I'm the only person that feels this way, but the image isn't very striking for me. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Pharaoh Hound. --mstroeck 14:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for me, the quality of the image in the foreground completely makes up for any blown highlights, especially as those highlights seem to be an area around the setting sun. The head is practically a silhouette but still contains amazing detail in the face and clothing. Blow a few highlights if you must. --Bridgecross 15:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I could have uploaded this photo, but it wouldn't have been encyclopaedic. With a sunrise in the background, there are bound to be blown highlights. But for portraits, I think it sometimes accentuates the subject. I do agree that the blown highlights are distracting in the FPC image, and was hesitant to nominate it. But then I thought it was a great portrait too. doniv 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose IMO it doesn't show the subject clearly. The highlights are very distracting because they are on the ecuator of the picture and with that angle i have a hard time figuring out how that headwear is suppoosed to look. Very artistic, but not very encyclopedic.Nnfolz 18:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great photo, and remember people the subject is the headdress, not the particular person (not a bio photo). Staxringold talkcontribs 00:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If the subject is supposed to be the headdress, it does not show it clearly at all. And the photo itself hurts my eyes a bit.--DaveOinSF 02:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My oppose vote applies to all three versions now on this page.--DaveOinSF 19:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Incredible detail! Even with the bright sky, I still support this photo. However, I've uploaded an edited version to make the sky easier on the eyes, though I support any version. ♠ SG →Talk 03:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. per Diliff and others Mikeo 07:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- per Pharaoh Hound --ZeWrestler Talk 16:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I think there needs to be more light on the head and headgear. howcheng {chat} 21:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original my edit... ;-) Blown highlights - Duh! - he's looking into the sunrise! That gives a nice lighting effect on the face. Here, the 255-255-255 pixels are a plus, not a minus. --Janke | Talk 15:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sunrises don't have to be blown -- in fact, they look far better when they're not. -- Moondigger 15:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, but the subject here is not the sunrise. Had the exposure been for the sky, the face would have been a silhouette. Fill flash would have destroyed the feeling - the solution is perhaps a white or sivered reflector card, say 2 by 2 ft, but who carries something like that around all the time... --Janke | Talk 07:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC) PS: Uploading a lightened version for those who think original is too dark. I used only the Curve adjustment, which means the highlights aren't affected. --Janke | Talk 08:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A proper background exposure for a portrait, however difficult it might be to obtain, is an important factor in what separates a good portrait from a great one. An off-camera shoe cord and a flash positioned to the left for fill would have done it, and it would have still looked as if the sunrise was the light source for his face. A reflector to the right (behind the subject) would have provided some needed light on the headdress. This is an excellent, moody image if we consider only the man's face. But the lack of fill lighting for the headdress and the overexposed background prevent me from supporting the image. I'm not opposing, but I'm not supporting either. -- Moondigger 12:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Janke's edit. Very encyclopedic, nice hat, good detail if the sky is ignored, which is supposed to happen as it is not the main subject | AndonicO 16:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To all those who have opposed this on the premise of the subject not being clear, let me clarify that it covers all the elements. The hornbill beak, the monkey hair, the brass skewer through the hair bun and the cane weaving. As for the lighting, it's taken care of by Janke's edit - do check it out at full size. Please do explain if it still isn't encyclopaedic - doniv 16:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad you pointed out what's supposed to be in that picture, because I sure can't tell... --DaveOinSF 06:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above description has been along with the image all the time. Also, if you could tell what these elements are at first glance, there would be nothing unique about them, no? Exactly the reason why people brave non-existent roads, nature and spend a lot of time to get such images - doniv 07:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that I cannot tell what part of the photo is the headdress and what part of the photo is the woman's hair. It's very unclear.--DaveOinSF 08:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a man! Actually I'm surprised about what you said, since the headdress is the half-cup cane woven part. His hair is black with white streaks. The bun up ahead is tied up with string. Anyone else facing this problem? Or are you pulling my leg? doniv 09:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Nishi_tribal_lightened.jpg It seems to be the consensus --Fir0002 07:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lassen Volcanic National Park

[edit]
Kings Creek in Lassen Volcanic National Park
Edit 1 - Fixed what was fixable. Downsampled (happy now?), and lightened (that was actually a reasonable suggestion). Of course it still has the unsurmountable stigma of uneven polarisation. Sorry I just couldn't do better.
Edit 2 - Separately corrected the sky with a gradient to compensate for the uneven polarisation

A panoramic shot of Kings Creek which appears in the Lassen Volcanic National Park article. The park, home to Mt. Lassen, a volcano which last errupted about 90 years ago, is a lesser known park in northern California, and its article was lacking a picture which truely conveys the magnificent landscape. Oh, and it is taken by me, so fire away.

  • Nominate and support. - Dschwen 17:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - won't vote yet, this is too dark on my calibrated monitor. Needs some curve or level correction, to remove the "sooty" feeling from the greenery. Some downsampling would be nice, too - a teeny bit fuzzy in full size... --Janke | Talk 19:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't get the downsampling. Too fuzzy at full size? Don't look at it in full size! Downsampling always looses information. Always! If anyone needs a downsampled version, its no big deal, create one, but why replace the original with a downsampled picture? --Dschwen 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Way too dark on my CRT monitor - Adrian Pingstone 20:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It does not look dark on my laptop monitor. I looks like a great picture. HighInBC 22:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would support a lightened version. Great picture, and the overexposed snow isn't enough for me to oppose. Plus it's so difficult to not overexpose the snow. --Tewy 23:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will support if someone brightens it.Nnfolz 00:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Way too dark on my calibrated monitor. I would change to support if a much lighter version was made available. --Nebular110 00:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The image is dark on my monitor as well, and somewhat unsharp at full resolution. These might be adjusted, but the uneven polarization across the sky is nearly impossible to correct. The left side is significantly brighter than the right side. -- Moondigger 02:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Very blurry. --Midnight Rider 02:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which picture did you look at? Sorry, but this comment is just ridiculous. Slightly blurry maybe, I used a G3 to take the pics. But very blurry implies out of focus parts or motion blur, and the pic has neither. Look at the grass, is that blurry, no! --Dschwen 07:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose uneven polarization of the sky. Glaurung 05:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Impossible to fix. And I've only seen this complaint cone befor, yesterday. Is this a new thing? --Dschwen 08:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, uneven polarization has always been an aesthetic bugbear, which is why it is not recommended to use for wide angle/panoramic photography. Whether it is enough to oppose the photo all depends on the extent of the polarization and the way it affects the sky. Hazy skies are not affected as much and the effect is minimal. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1. Downsampled image is still high resolution and alleviates most of the faults, but you're right, the polarization is not really fixable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; Sure it is fixable - I'd do it, but I'm busy building steam trains in my workshop now... But, here's how to do it in Photoshop: Use the selection tool with a suitable value, additively select several spots in the blue sky. The, use "select similar", and the whole sky and is selected. After that, you can use an adjustment level or other tools such as gradients to lighten the darker portions of the sky... Greetings, --Janke | Talk 11:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there'd be a better chance of success (more natural looking) if the sky was adjusted with a new layer and a layer mask using the gradient tool on the mask itself. I said it was nearly impossible to fix uneven polarization in my previous comment -- and that's usually true for most images. But given the large, uninterrupted blue expanses in this one, it stands a better chance of success. I could give it a try later on... -- Moondigger 14:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, ok, it is, in theory, fixable in the same way that you can fix a landscape blemished with power lines by removing them. ;) To use a gradient means falsifying the sky by guesswork... I'm not saying I'm completely against the idea in theory, but usually you would end up flattening the sky, removing cloud texture and random variations. As moondigger said, it is as a general rule unfixable but you do have options. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "To use a gradient means falsifying the sky by guesswork..." Not if you apply the gradient to a layer mask over a sky which has merely been levels-adjusted, which is why I suggested it. The analogy to removing power lines is applicable to Janke's method, but not to mine. Mine uses the actual sky captured in the image, including minor variations and cloud texture, and does nothing more to it than levels-adjust it. Then we vary the transparency of the layer mask using the gradient tool, such that the levels are unaffected on one side of the sky but progressively adjusted across the sky to the other end. The trick (and the primary problem, really) is making the layer mask adjust at an inverse rate to the change in the sky due to polarization. For many images with uneven polarization, the rate of change is not regular, and the gradient tool cannot simulate the proper rate of change on the layer mask. In those cases the only solution is to just select the entire sky and replace it with the sky from another image or with a paint-bucket dump of sky blue color. But doing something like that is no solution at all IMO, for the reason you mention -- it's akin to changing the actual content of the image rather than simple brightness/contrast adjustments of what's there. This image looks as if it might lend itself to the layer mask method. -- Moondigger 17:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • By mentioning gradients, I didn't mean you should dump a blue greadient over the sky, no, no, use the gradient as a tool (you can adjust the linearity of it, so a good match can be achieved), for masking (or whatever) the original sky. I don't want to spend an hour or more on it, but it can be done, I bet. --Janke | Talk 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for the clarification. However, even though you can adjust the linearity of the gradient you apply, I believe the change still has to be mathematically "regular" -- either linear or logarithmic. If the uneven polarization is not regular (a possibility given the fact that this is a stitched pano), even small imperfections in the layer mask gradient will be visible. -- Moondigger 18:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try the following: Creating a layermask by subtracting red and green channel from the blue channel and adjusting curves (Yields a sky only mask). Then applying a gradien on the mask (from left to right, modulating the mask transparancy) and and adding the unbrightened sky to the brightened image using the aforementioned layermask. This should preserve structure while reducing the polarisation effect. Stay tuned. --Dschwen 20:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But let me mention that I actually like the gradient in the sky... --Dschwen 20:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uneven polarization in the sky can be an interesting effect sometimes, but doesn't represent what skies actually look like when you're viewing the scene in person. It is almost universally frowned upon by professional photo editors, even if it isn't mentioned here often. -- Moondigger 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per above. If a version eventually address the polarization I might change my vote. But Edit 2 doesn't. --Fir0002 12:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I whish I'd have been told before I wasted my time editing it. Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Thanks for the constructive input, but if even edit 2 doesn't satisfy the new fad I withdraw the nomination. It's a slap in the face if on the same page pictures with worse issues get nothing but support.

Duck at UConn

[edit]
A female mallard duck

Many featured pictures of this, I know, but I feel like this particular angle shows the mallard's face in a different fashion from the others. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The feet are not blurred in the original, but I couldn't find an effective way to balance the background blur (so you didn't focus on the grass) with the feet (so there weren't these blocks of focus surrounded by out of focus grass). If I gave you the original, think you could give me a better idea? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 06:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Answer to The Ultimate Question Of Life, the Universe and Everything

[edit]
Bow before the awesome power of 42!

As The Answer to The Ultimate Question Of Life, the Universe and Everything, I feel that this picture is way beyond qualified to be a Featured Picture.

'In the end of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams, a possible question to get the answer "forty-two" is presented: "What do you get if you multiply six by nine?" Of course, the answer is deliberately wrong, creating a humorous effect – if the calculation is carried out in base 10. People who were trying to find a deeper meaning in the passage soon noticed that in base 13, 6 × 9 is actually 42 (as 4 × 13 + 2 = 54). When confronted with this, the author stated that it was a mere coincidence, and that "Nobody writes jokes in base 13 [...] I may be a pretty sad person, but I don't make jokes in base 13." See also The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.'
Base 7 was just continuing the joke. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 06:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island Rail Road

[edit]
A Long Island Rail Road M3 train on a siding at Jamaica Station.

I first saw this image when I was looking for a picture of a Long Island Rail Road train to replace the one that had been at the top of the Long Island Rail Road article (Image:LIRRtrain.JPG). It immediately struck me as the perfect picture for the article. It provides an excellent visual, since it's a clear, direct shot of an LIRR train. But it also struck me as a great piece of photography. The scene is very serene and quiet, a quality I like in a picture. The color balance is exceptional; the yellow strip on the platform compliments the shade on the side of the train perfectly, and combined with the dark blue sky and the red light on the back of the train, it makes the image stunning.

It's also used on the page describing the type of train it is, an M3 (M1/M3 (railcar)) made by the Budd Company. Photos are especially important in articles like ones about train cars because description often isn't enough, and this picture is a perfect illustration of an M3 car. It's also used in the Budd Company article as an example of a car made by them.

When I found the image, it was licensed as "Non-Commercial," so I glumly began to look for another, but there was absolutely no image anywhere of anything approacthing this quality. So, I emailed the person who took the picture, Eugene Wei, and he happily cooperated and changed the license to what it is now.

Comment This isn't just a matter of numbers. The size requirement is in place to ensure that images capture sufficient detail to portray their subject well in a reproduction. This image doesn't show a lot of details, and that isn't helped by the low resolution. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 06:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping ant fight

[edit]
Jerdon's jumping ants fighting

Looks stunning and the subject is clearly captured. It's used in Harpegnathos saltator. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 06:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese Dog

[edit]
A Maltese dog.

A great picture that exemplifies both the breed Maltese and the rich diversity that is in the dog species.

I cannot see that this image is in any article. Another version of it is (an uncropped image with a time stamp), so technically, this nomination is in error. Please replace the stamped image with the one you nominate here. --Janke | Talk 19:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Not promoted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 06:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Brown Bears

[edit]
Two frolicking brown bears.

In all my months of using this site, I have not seen a picture that does a better job of capturing the moment of action, and I think it certainly meets and exceeds all the criteria in Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?.

Not promoted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 06:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Capitol Building

[edit]
US Capitol Building at night, January 2006. A mosaic image of around 10 segments taken with a Canon 5D and 24-105mm f/4L IS lens. Author: User:Markles Diliff

I feel the clarity of this image is stunning. Its content has immense historical value; the image currently appears in the United States Capitol article. It was taken and uploaded by User:Markles Diliff.

Promoted Image:US_Capitol_Building_at_night_Jan_2006.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 07:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snow on the Shropshire Hills

[edit]
Photo showing the textures of a Snowdrift on the Long Mynd, Shropshire
Option Two. Same Time Same Place! More of a wideshot!

This photo I took myself early on the 24th of February 2005. Taken on the Shropshire Hills or Long Mynd in England. I thought it would be a nice addition to the article on Snow and to add a bit more description to the Snowdrift stub. As I couldn't find any other images of snowdrifts on Wikipedia. I know the image has a bit of a blank foreground at first glance, but it shows the amazing texture of the drift, which appears to be piled up to the horizon, actually caught in the heather. I took the photo squatting down to get a more interesting angle. The contrast with the dark sky I think its something else, as the sun was on the point of coming out at the time. I have two other photos as different options for nominations as 'snowdrifts' taken at the same place around the same time. If you wish to see them I will put them up as you ask. I thought it might also be a good idea to put a snowy nomination up for the impending northern winter :) !

I added the Second Option! Less texture in the drift itself, but slightly more interesting colouring. Grey blue snow? lol

  • Self Nominate and support. - Sean the Spook - See above!
  • Oppose. - Koolgiy 23:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Now i'm not being mean, or saying you stink at photography. But its not the most interesting of pictures. Try to get snow with a dramatic light like sunset, or something. Plus the cameras facing down, grey sky, and some noise on the picture.[reply]
  • Neutral Oppose I like it, but it's not a great picture; the detail keeps me from giving it an oppose. Perhaps the other 2 are better? | AndonicO 23:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In principal, I like the idea of a low-contrast high-quality photo to illustrate snowdrifts. But it's remarkably hard to pull off. Maybe catch it in better light, with a higher resolution. --Bridgecross 00:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I have to agree with Bridgecross, here. NauticaShades(talk) 06:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I changed my vote to oppose per Bridgecross, and also because ofAndonicO 09:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC) seeing the other pictures being nominated. | AndonicO 09:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author Comment Thank you for your comments, I would just like to say the photos were indeed taken in a funny light, with an hour to go before sunset, cloudy etc. Its quite difficult to catch snow with the quality camera I have got, and with the conditions present at the time. Do you want to see Option Three? Sean the Spook 11:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would not hurt anyone. | AndonicO 13:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both. Uninteresting composition, subject not very well depicted. doniv 14:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it took me a bit to figure out what the subject was, uninteresting. -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 20:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both. The angle and composition are good, but both are grainy and slightly out of focus (probably because of the DOF). I don't think you need interesting lighting to display the concept of a snow drift; just an improvement on the technical aspects of the photograph. --Tewy 20:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few points about these photographs: They were taken in a funny light as snow reflects light back powerfully, without adjustable camera settings it is impossible to capture it with a perfect exposure. Also I dont think you realise just how rare snow in the British Isles can be, even on high ground in the winter. This not only shows a very rare sight in Britain, it shows it in its 'natural settings', maybe this coming winter, the natural settings will be completely in my favour. And in yours... Sean The Spook 18:57 2 October 2006.
  • Oppose both/either. Uninteresting. Photos like this have to be taken in superior lighting conditions to work, and these don't. --S0uj1r0 10:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Vivid Flower

[edit]
Very Vivid Flower

Photograph taken by Matthew Trevithick (Myself). Photo of a very red flower. If anyone knows what the flower may be called, would you please say. I'm no good with flowers.

Actually, it's dianthus. I've grown dianthus and carnations several times, and this is unequivocally dianthus. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that's no carnation. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok then. So your all for nos then. I will take a better, sharper, and more high resolution picture of a flower or something, relevant to an article on Wikipedia. Koolgiy 13:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic Goat

[edit]
Domestic Goat

A good photo of a fine animal. Illustrates it's article perfectly. And for those who are wondering, this was taken on a slope, and yes it is straight!

Well if you don't mind me saying so, you've effectively made your commment on the composition redundant - those elements were necessary to show that it was a domestic goat for precisely the reasons you just mentioned. --Fir0002 12:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, you don't need to show the environment to demonstrate that it is a domestic goat, but it could help. However, if in doing so, you make the composition unappealing, then that makes the benefits of context redundant for a FPC, as it is less likely to be supported. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd read my initial description you'd have found out that this pic was taken on a hillside. That shed behind the goat is not straight - it is on the same plane as the hillside. The image infact is (near) perfectly straight --Fir0002 05:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aplogies for not reading the intro. I change my comment to "the apparent slope spoils it for me" - Adrian Pingstone 09:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Nemo Elephant 1

[edit]
Little Nemo in Slumberland

This is a page from "Little Nemo in Slumberland", which ran from 1905 to 1914. Winsor McCay was able to create sequential art that is still striking even a century later. This is a prime example of how he was a master of flat-color comics, and, above all, a master of form and composition.


Comment It is Dutch (except for the title). The expiry term for copyright is 70 years in the EU as well. Preslav 12:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Crossing The Delaware

[edit]
Washington Crossing the Delaware - George Washington's army crossing the Delaware River

Although not the highest quality of picture I think the historical significance makes this image Featured Images worthy.

No it is the biggest available.If you can get a bigger scan than do so.SOADLuver 02:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"biggest on the internet" != biggest available. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Buy the poster and scan that.[1] This pics quality is too low, I can wait. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 15:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about his one?[2] Trashking 19:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's bigger, but I hate to say there are blown highlights... on a painting. NauticaShades(talk) 06:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a heavily photoshocked image... --Janke | Talk 06:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KC-135s on the tarmac in Afghanistan

[edit]
KC-135s on the tarmac in Afghanistan

Beautiful contrast between the twilight sky and the aircraft parked on the tarmac. Official USAF photograph (PD). Included in KC-135 Stratotanker article. ted the image.

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Male Mallard Duck Midflight

[edit]
Male Mallard Duck in midflight

A spectacular image of a Male Mallard duck in midflight. Particularly difficult because the duck is travelling towards the photographer, and therefore rapidly moving out of focus.

You're thinking too narrowly...this picture is being used to illustrate Flight, as well as the duck itself.--DaveOinSF 05:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of odd that you're calling nature in all its wonder "unnatural"...--DaveOinSF 06:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is. I didn't realize it when I wrote that comment, but indeed it is being used to illustrate Flight.--DaveOinSF 05:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Male mallard flight - natures pics.jpg --Fir0002 10:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animated zipper

[edit]

Animated GIF showing how a zipper works. This is on its way to becoming a Commons FP. Created by User:DemonDeLuxe and used in Zipper.

Promoted Image:Zipper animated.gif --Fir0002 10:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camouflaged flounder

[edit]
Nominee for FP status (updated following nomination)
File:Flounder camo md edit.jpg
Edit 1, by Fir0002

This is a double nomination: (1) nomination of Image:Flounder Camo md.jpg for Featured Picture status and (2) nomination of Image:Camouflage.jpg, a current Featured Picture, for delisting. Both are of the essentially the same topic (a sea creature camouflaged among rocks), but the upper one is of far better quality (photo by User:Moondigger). The lower one has a center composition, a distracting reflection above the cuttlefish, and some shadow in the lower left corner.

  • Nominate and support flounder pic. Delist cuttlefish pic. howcheng {chat} 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace the current FP by the edit made by Arad. Support I wanted to nominate the same image by Moondigger as soon as I could and now I see Howard beat me to it. does it make a difference anyway? Good photo. Arad 21:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hadn't spent any time working on this image before today -- I uploaded it because it seemed encyclopedic and useful to a couple of articles, but didn't pay much attention to sharpness, contrast, etc. When I discovered it had been nominated, I fixed it up a bit. Apparently while I was working on it, Fir0002 submitted an improved edit as well, addressing some of the same problems that I fixed. If Fir's doesn't look much different than mine now, that's only because we've both made edits. They're both improvements over the original version. -- Moondigger 02:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either version, with a preference for mine. Suggest nominating the cuttlefish image for delisting separately in the regular Delist section. If not, I'm neutral on the delisting. -- Moondigger 02:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support my version - the purpose of the picture is to illustrate camoflauge, and the cuttlefish is clearly better camoflauged into the sand. Raul654 02:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - your image is already a featured picture. It's being nominated for delisting (i.e., to lose featured status), so a "Keep" vote is more appropriate than a "Support." People are being asked to decide on two separate questions here: 1. Do you support or oppose promotion of the flounder image to featured status? And 2. Do you want to delist or keep the cuttlefish image in featured status? Personally I'm neutral on the idea of delisting yours, and think it unlikely a consensus to delist it will be reached, whatever the outcome of my nomination is. -- Moondigger 04:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After having gone through the lengthy "discussion" on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Muybridgehorse, I suggest that the delisting of the cuttlefish picture be seperate from the nomination of the flounder picture. Therefore, I oppose the delisting on this nomination page. That should be left for individual consideration on a delisting page. However, I think the flounder image is FP material, so I will support Moondigger's edit (the original nomination) on its sharpness, saturation, and encyclopedic value. --Tewy 04:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, this was kind of a test case. Since we decided not to ban replacement nominations, I thought I'd test it with a similiar-themed replacement. Guess this was stretching the boundary a bit. howcheng {chat} 17:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Moondigger's edit. Sharp, large, nice colors, and depicts camouflage very well. Abstain from the discussion on the delisting of the older FP picture. --theSpectator talk 04:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Moondigger's version, move delisting to its proper place - note that FPCs are independent of each other, and should be judged so, unless basically the same image - which these aren't. --Janke | Talk 06:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support New Image, Abstain On Delisting. I support either edit of the new image. The delisting of the old one should be seperated and moved down. NauticaShades(talk) 10:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Flounder camo md.jpg --Fir0002 10:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Lightning

[edit]
Lightning strike in Denver

A beautiful image of lightning striking downtown Denver, Colorado. The image is used in the Denver article.

Comment If this were used in the Climate section of the Denver article, I think that then it would be fine.--DaveOinSF 17:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking Denver, so I updated my introduction. Either one would be appropriate. Royalbroil Talk  Contrib 13:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Denver Lightning.jpg --Fir0002 10:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moraine Lake

[edit]
Moraine Lake and the Valley of the Ten Peaks in Banff National Park, Alberta.


This stunning image by Commons User:Gorgo is not only of good quality, but adds a lot to the articles it is in (Moraine Lake, Valley of the Ten Peaks, Banff National Park, Rocky Mountains, and Mountains of Alberta). The clear reflection of the mountains on the lake is quite beatutiful. I've also added a panorama of Moraine Lake for you consideration

Bank of Canada has pictures of bills featuring the Valley of the Ten Peaks: link --Qyd 15:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, exactly, 1978. I like the old bills better than the new ones. Arad 17:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Purple fringes? There is a shadow there in the top image, and with the way ice and glaciers can reflect light, sometimes glaciers appear bluish and shadows can appear purplish. Does this image value to an article? This scene, as mentioned above, was once pictured on the Canadian $20 bill. It's an iconic scene, likely one that Banff National Park is best known for and adds a great deal to the article. The top image is high quality, with lighting that captures the reflections in the water. --Aude (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "purple fringes" are an artifact of the camera lens & CCD. Rahter common in highligts on low-end digital cameras (and some better ones, too). --Janke | Talk 12:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it turned out, the picture appeared on WP main page after all (on October 15, 2006, to illustrate the featured article Banff National Park). --Qyd 20:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phenotypic variation

[edit]
Individuals of the bivalve Donax variablis show high variability in their shell pigmentation and patterning. This illustrates the concept of phenotypic variability, a perequisite for evolution by natural selection.
Edit with background texture reduction.

I feel this is an aesthetic image that shows the diversity of form capable within a single species, a concept that is critical for evolution by natural selection. Plus, shells are pretty. The image appears in the Donax and phenotype articles. Shells collected, imaged and uploaded by me user:debivort.

  • Nominate and support. - Debivort 02:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I really like the idea and it has great encyclopedic value, but there's too much noise in the picture for me to support. I may change my vote as input from other users comes in. --Tewy 04:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah this is kind of interesting. I assume you are referring to the background. What looks like noise is actually texture on the surface I photographed them on (anodized aluminum). I'll make an alternative version in which the appearance of noise is reduced. Debivort 04:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I'd still like to see a little more noise reduction in the background. NauticaShades(talk) 07:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Good illustration of phenotypes. Yes, the original background "grain" is very distracting. The edit is better in that respect, but still suffers from there being too many shells, many look almost identical (especially in thumb size). I think a better image would contain only a few, say, four to six, very different shells, seen in much greater detail. I'd like to compare the striations and ruffled edges really close up! So, since you could do better, I give a No Go on this one... --Janke | Talk 08:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would you think if there were the same number, but the image was much larger, i.e. 3x larger on each axis? or does your concern about too many shells also arise in the thumbnail? Debivort 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Not bad, could be better per Janke. I'd say about ten shells would be good, six are too few (IMHO). | AndonicO 13:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All 20 types are pretty different. One possibility is treating a new version as a panorama - taking hardcore macro images and then stitching them together. Matching the backgrounds would become a problem though, and one might have to just set it to white, and make the thing more of an illustration. Debivort 18:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I like the topic but for some reason the picture is meh. Is it just me or does it seem like its taken at a slight angle? Also can the lighting used be improved? there are reflectiosn on some of the shells. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doubt much can be done about the reflections. The shells are shiny, and I only have point sources. Doesn't seem like it's worth sinking much effort into a re-shoot. Does anyone think otherwise? Debivort
  • Weak Oppose Subject is very nice and has good encyclopedic value, but the photo has problems. White background distracts from the subject. Something dark and diffuse would be better. Lighting is messed up by highlights: a diffuse source would probably help. Also, since there are no actual paired shells, don't present them arranged in pairs. If you could do a less slanted, more uniform grid that would be good. I encourage you to try again. Dgies 21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I couldn't see that the left ones were concave. Dgies 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F18 launching

[edit]
Marine F18 launching off a carrier

A beautiful picture of a F18 launching off a carrier.I took this picture my self.

Done Blind14 00:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain on principle. I can't support it given the attempt at stealing the photo credit. If you are in fact, Photographer’s Mate Airman Apprentice Ricardo J. Reyes, then I apologize. howcheng {chat} 22:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologize then please =) Blind14 22:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize and your image now has my support. If this nomination fails here, I would definitely consider nominating it for Featured Picture status on Wikimedia Commons, as the encyclopedic value of the photo is not as important there. howcheng {chat} 16:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your forgiven.Just remember to vote for me on the commons page (It's nominated now)Blind14 20:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose. While a beautiful picture, it does not strike me as very encyclopaedic. Still a great photo though. say1988 00:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • thank you,but may I ask what you mean by "encyclopedic" Blind14 00:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Encyclopedic" roughly equates to pedagogical (educational) value. This seems to be a more artistic or impressionistic image. Something that is high on encyclopedic value but low on artistic value would be a well-drawn map, for example. Or a photo of a machine that clearly shows the working components -- boring, maybe, but highly educational. That said, many featured pictures have both. Personally, I'm still undecided on this one. -- Moondigger 03:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Great picture all in all. Okay to all of the hardline "encyclopedic" image people... look the current picture of the day and tell me that it is not a lil artistic? Open your standards a bit. There are many awesome pictures out there that add to the value of wikipedia. Who cares if they are completly encyclopedic or not. As long as they are great pictures and add to the overall articles value. --Tobyw87 14:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not." From What is a featured picture
What does this picture add to the article? Sure it makes it look nice, but it has absolutely nothing to do with anything around its location in the article (it does nothing to show the speed required for takeoff or gliders). The picture of the 737 demonstrates the basic process of taking off better, so it doesnt pas this criteria. If fact I would say this image detracts from the article by distracting the reader from the subject at hand. This image was just stuck somewhere so it was elligable for FPC. say1988 00:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
actually it does, it shows an airplane taking off of an aircraft carrier. Blind14 19:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you know about a carrier launch after seeing that picture that you didn't know before you saw it?Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many things-

1.planes have wings 2.planes have an engine. So really you do get something out of this picture.So really this objection is incorrect. Blind14 21:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have doubts about the sourcing information on this image. Blind14 has claimed images that he obviously didn't take as his own work before. See Image:Loken03.jpg. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes I forgot to nominate that for deletion.I couldn't find the copyright info and accidently put that tag on there, but I can promise you I did take this picture. Blind14 21:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The darkness adds intrest and makes it unique in my mind.I also believe it's very "encyclopedic" (open your minds guys think outside the box maybe this isn't the best picture for description when it comes to a plane taking off of an aircraft carrier.It could show many things.C'mon this is an encyclopedia.)

P.S.If this user wanted to steal an image off a website just so he could nominate it here why would he pick this one?Trashking 21:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!Thanks!! Blind14 21:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you did steal it.. from here. Given you have no respectable history, I can't say I believe you are the original photographer of this image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did take this picture, but since it is on that website I will change the copyright information.Blind14 22:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have been caught in the act my friend lol Trashking 22:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Cool image, but I agree with the above on it being non-encyclopedic, and let me explain why. If the subject is the plane, the picture is both far too dark and not currently used in a plane article. If the subject is the takeoff, you see almost nothing of the actual launching gear and the plane isn't even off the carrier. It either doesn't display the plane at all properly, or doesn't display the take-off. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can't tell if he did take this nice picture or not, but it's still worthy of FP status. | AndonicO 13:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is more like a still from Top Gun than an encyclopedic image. It has plenty of emotional power, but doesn't serve our purposes exceptionally well.--ragesoss 16:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This would do much better on Commons, try it there. On another note, I have nominated a more encyclopedic takeoff picture. NauticaShades(talk) 17:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think this is encyclopaedic material since it depicts the following(do correct me if I'm wrong) - Afterburners, Take-off (assuming that the afterburners are pushing away), a carrier deck, the open ocean in front and an unmistakable F-18 silhouette. Plus, no harm looking like a Top Gun still - this is poster material, and I think the grain actually works in favour. - doniv 14:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The F/A-18 is at such an angle that it doesn't really show what it looks like. Thetiny fraction of the flight deck visible is black and shows no detail. You can hardly tell the Ocean from the sky so you don't get a look at it. I don't think a still can really show a plane taking off very well. Maybe this picture shows afterburners working, but that would be much better shown from a greater angle. And when it comes to showing those things, it doesn't matter, as it is not in those articles. As for it being poster material: definately, but it isnt encyclopaedia material. BTW the earlier edit was by me, forgot to sign it. say1988 19:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support PPGMD 14:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 00:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loligo vulgaris

[edit]
Loligo vulgaris also known as the Common European Squid, is a large squid belonging to the family Loliginidae. The mantle is up to 40 cm long (here 138 mm).

High quality image of an unusual subject. Appears in Loligo vulgaris and Loliginidae. Created by User:Lycaon.

Promoted Image:Loligo vulgaris.jpg --Fir0002 23:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gull portrait ca usa

[edit]
A Western Gull
Alternate version

A stunning photograph, both technically and visually, taken by Dschwen. It greatly illustrates the features of a gull's head. Do not oppose this photograph; you could potentially offend the birds.

Not promoted I renominated the second version seperately. --Fir0002 23:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muybridge galloping horse

[edit]
Annie G. galloping - a set of Eadweard Muybridge's photos in motion.

Earlier this year, I made an older version of this animation (184x135px). The picture is used in Horse gait and High speed photography. It is Wikimedia Commons featured picture.

The old version was nominated here (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Muybridgehorse). In the meantime I could get better copies, so I made a new version of the animation (300x200px) which I want to nominate. It can be used in the above mentioned articles instead of the old version. Here you can see the full size of both versions at the same time.

Muybridge's photos where taken between 1878 and 1887. The animation is made of 15 frames (nr. 2-16). Muybridge wrote that the exposure time he used for horses at full speed was between one six-hundredth and one eight-hundredth of a second each. The interval of time between successive exposures was 31 thousands of a second. As one sequence of 15 pictures takes about 1.5 seconds, the animation shows about 1/3 of normal speed.

Promoted Image:Muybridge_race_horse_animated.gif

B-1 Lancer

[edit]
A B-1 Lancer drops back after air refueling training

I discovered this while checking out the U.S. fleet of bombing aircraft, I thought it looked promising, so here it is. This appears in the article B-1 Lancer.

Promoted Image:B-1B over the pacific ocean.jpg

Washington Monument

[edit]
The Washington Monument in Washington DC

.

A picture of a famous monument, against a beautiful sky. I do not know who the photogragher is, as he only says it is "myself". It was taken by Diliff. Apears in Washington Monument.

Promoted Image:Washington Monument Dusk Jan 2006.jpg --Fir0002 00:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F/A-18 Hornet Taking Off

[edit]
An F/A-18 Hornet taking off from the USS Kitty Hawk.
File:050817-N-3488C-028 edit.jpg
Edit 1, by User:Fir0002

Since the previous Hornet (also taking off) is failing, I thought I would try this one. This one may not look eye-catching as the other one, but it is much more detailed and encyclopedic. This was taken Navy Photographer's Mate 3rd Class Jonathan Chandler. On a side note, the uploader was French, so I had a fun time trying to translating words like "featured" and "promote".

Promoted Image:050817-N-3488C-028.jpg --Fir0002 00:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supermarine Spitfire XVI

[edit]
Supermarine Spitfire XVI at Duxford
Edit 2 by Diliff. Similar processing as Edit 1, but higher quality noise reduction (Neatimage) and lower JPEG compression = better result
Edit 3 by Diliff. Same as Edit 2, with additional cropping. There is basically nothing of interest in the background sky so why not crop a little more to maximise the thumbnail view?
Edit 4 by Fir0002
Edit 5 by Fir0002, removed "halo". Personally I don't feel it's needed
Enlargements of key areas of selected edits. View at 100% size for analysis and see discussion for further comments.

I think this is a pretty nice illustration of a Spitfire -- you can even see the pilot's helment and mask. I took the photo at an air show at Duxford last month.

Note: Edit 1 also exists. It has been removed for the sake of clarity (and that it has not recieved much support). If you think it should be reinstated, feel free to put it back.

  • Nominate and support edit 3. Strong oppose edit 4 and 5 due to loss of detail, over compression, and over saturation. - chowells 10:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support edit 2. Support original or edit 3. Weak Support edit 1. As Diliff mentioned, edit 4 has a halo effect, and I believe edit 5 didn't help much in removing it Therefore, I Oppose both. As for the picture, it has great quality, good encylcopedic value, and it's pleasing to the eye; it's got it all. NauticaShades(talk) 12:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 2 or edit 3. Excellent shot, and everything Nauticashades has said before me. Ideal lead image for the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's a very nice picture, and a great angle too, but, is it just my monitor settings, or is this photo dark? Strong Support edit 4 With those edits, this picture is 100% marvelous! I support Fir's edit; it is clearly the best. | AndonicO 22:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is slightly dark on the forground side twards the tail. Where is Fir0002 when you need him? :) -Ravedave (help name my baby) 15:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno where Fir is, but I can do an edit to make it brighter. Just give me a few minutes to work on it and I should have it up soon. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There, done. As you can see from the caption, I brightened it, adjusted the contrast somewhat, and removed some noise. I would recommend looking at the edit at full res, there are some details missing in the original that are visible in my edit, but only at full res. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there are rather a lot of JPEG artifacts in your edit. chowells 18:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I can't see any. At any rate, I saved it under the maximum quality setting in photoshop elements. Either they were there before, or something else happened (can't imagine what). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well judging by the difference in file size, it can't be the maximum quality - or if it is, then Elements doesn't have a particularly conservative compression slider. In reducing noise, you will also have reduced the information required in the JPEG, but I reduced noise a little further in my edit(s) and the filesize was still ~2500kb. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I mis-typed. What I should've said was that I saved it on "one of the highest quality settings," not the maximum. Now that I look a bit closer I do see the artifacts. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this doesn't mean much, but just for interest I actually did not touch the saturation at all in terms of using the Hue/Saturation tool in Photoshop. I achieved that effect through a few rather unconventional techniques which worked well on this image because of the blue sky (enabled me to get an almost perfect cut out through the blue channel). Obviously I can't tell what the pic looks like on your monitor or what color of the sky you think is "normal", but personally I think it's just the prefect hue for that kind of sky (high above the horizon). Anyway that's just for interest; as obviously saturation is a percieved strength of the colors, not just adjustment through the hue/saturation tool, but through any means of boosting the colors. --Fir0002 12:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I do sometimes disagree with the sentiment and results of some of your edits, I have to admit that you do yourself no favours by uploading an edit without any explanation of what you have done (except in circumstances like this when you feel the need to explain it). Sometimes it is obvious, but other times, subtle adjustments that you have made can be missed because we aren't aware we should be looking for them. In this case though, I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say you did to the image, but it almost looks to me like you painted the sky - There is a distinct lack of contrast around the aerial (it 'fades' into the sky compared to the original and other edits) above the R and around the canopy, and a strange halo around the blurred propellor blades. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well see this is why I don't usually explain what I do in my edits because it is usually a complex process. In this particular image, I extracted the blue channel as a seperate layer. I then applied levels until I had the sky a pure white and the plane a dark black. I painted over the blue markings on the plane in black. I then inverted that layer. Then I used levels to reduce the white point to a gray (about 1/3 down the slider by memory). Then I put that layer into softlight ontop of the original, and bang! It looks good. --Fir0002 22:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well fair enough but bang! It has also introduced haloes around the propellers and removed detail from the areas I mentioned above. I don't think it is as good as you think it is - too many side-effects. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough about the aerial (minor detail), but I really can't see where you get your haloes from. Several images you've mentioned haloes where I can't seen any. Oh well I guess it's impossible to determine what the average person would see on an average monitor. You're free to think it's not very good, but I hope I'm also extended the right to think it is good. The only side effect I'm getting is the less prominent aerial - something I personally am quite willing to sacrifice in the face of the huge improvements elsewhere. --Fir0002 08:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I urge you to compare the propellers in your image and the others. There are definitely artifacts, particularly on the far left side. The problem I see is that you didn't need to sacrifice anything if only you had masked the plane better when you were working your black magic. And as for average people seeing things on average monitors, I can't imagine how anyone could miss it on any monitor if only they lookd closely, as it isn't at the light or dark end of the spectrum here - as long as you can see mid-range detail, you should be able to see the faults I mentioned. If you still can't see it, I will go ahead and create an image with the faults magnified side-by-side later, but I can't at the moment as I'm at work. And yes, I extend you the right to think whatever you like, but I'll try to point out the flaws in your logic if they're presented in FPC ;-). This is about creating the best final image, when it comes to it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added some elargements to highlight the haloes and strange effects that your edit has had, as well as strong noise visible. I feel that the canopy above the pilots head lacks definition in Edit 4. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, one question (maybe dumb, certainly impertinent): Why are you so "hot" on making (often unrequested) edits, many of them rather pointless (example: Zanzibar)? Sure, you've both done a lot of good edit work, but I think edits should be held to a minimum number, since too many make the closing of a nom really hard - remember all the previous talk, and the re-voting requests by closers. Of course, when an edit is requested, then it's time to act, but do we really need four edits, thus five versions to vote on, for a simple picture like this? BTW, Fir, I must agree with Diliff, especially after seeing the enlarged example - the cockpit cover has a "cookie-cutter" edge in edit 4, and there are indeed artifacts around the prop. --Janke | Talk 07:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved discussion to talk page, as this has definetly left the realm of this nomination. --Fir0002 07:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Supermarine_Spitfire_Mk_XVI_NR.jpg. I have promoted the second edit. There was quite a bit of support for edits 2, 3 and 4; however, there was also quite a bit of opposition to edit 4 and 5. So, that brought it down to 2 vs 3; a straight vote count gave edit 2 the lead. ♠ SG →Talk 03:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed edit promotion as per discussion here. Final tally: Original - 2 Edit 1 - 0 Edit 2 - 6 Edit 3 - 3 Edit 2/3 - 1 Edit 4 - 8 Edit 5 - 0 Any edit - 3 --Fir0002 10:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit promotion changed back to original closer's decision, per discussion here. -- Moondigger 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pulaski Skyway

[edit]
The General Pulaski Skyway in New Jersey.
Alternate version: larger, more aggressive sharpening

This beautiful picture is a very high quality and illustrates the Pulaski Skyway perfectly. I know it is in black and white, which slightly detracts for the image, butI think that the image has enough going for it that it could still be Featured.

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long-Billed Dowitcher

[edit]
Long-Billed Dowitcher, Birding Center, Port Aransas, Texas

Sharp, natural environment and I love the soft lighting.

Long-billed Dowitcher ;-) --Fir0002 21:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry; guess I missed the t. | AndonicO 19:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey City Skyline

[edit]
Jersey City Skyline
Edit 1 - Slightly wider view. Reprocessed from RAW with better colour balancing and corrected for tilt

I thought this was just a good overall shot of the skyline, so I thought I would give it a shot at FP. I like it because it's very sharp and detailed; it stands prominently in the Jersey City, New Jersey article, and Diliff created the image.

  • Nominate and support - edit 1. - Tewy 00:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Tilted, dully lit with little contrast against the gray sky, and not really eye catching overall. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Tilted - Adrian Pingstone 14:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak(ish) Support Not tilted! Difference of a pixel... 30 Hudson Street Building is even at the angle it should be! Sean the Spook 18:35 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, you're wrong! First, the tilt is obvious to the eye (I checked with my two sons and they both agree). Secondly, bringing the largest version into Photoshop and adding a vertical rule shows a very obvious slope of about 7 pixels between the top and bottom of the tallest building. The slope of this building is visible even on the thumbnail - Adrian Pingstone 18:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked it myself, its not tilted, its an optical illusion with false perspective. The river front on the left is closer to the camera than the right. Sean the Spook 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't you see the leaning tower of Jersey in the original? Weak oppose, not too stunning, would also benefit from some contrast/brightness enhancement. --Janke | Talk 07:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tilt has nothing whatever to do with perspective. Tilt is where the camera was not held level, as in the first picture. If there was no tilt, how come the second picture has corrected it! - Adrian Pingstone 08:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • False perspective is an optical illusion where a part of the image seems closer than the other, making the distance look smaller to the foreground? The tilt is not 'obvious' as there is no tilt, any tilt comes from it been taken on a ferry, and despite this fact pointed out by the author, I have counted the exact same amount of pixels (13) on the thumnnail, along the river, at five different intervals, I have also gone onto 'paint' and sqaured up the buildings using black squares, the slight lean (1pixel) on the 30 Hudson Street Building, comes the photo been taken at an angle from the building, showing a 3D image of it. Not only is this image an interesting 'new skyline' photo (building completed 2004) for the New Jersey City Article, it would be extremely difficult to top it any other way? Still I give it weak support! Sean the Spook 13:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hey, you can't measure tilt by the shoreline! You must look at the verticals only. In the original, the largest building is clearly tilting to the right, both sides of it. If it were due to perspective only, the sides would converge towards the top, and the right edge of the building would tilt to the left. Look at the full-size image, make a square - or just scroll a wall to the display's edge, and you'll see what we're talking about... --Janke | Talk 13:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry Sean, but I have to agree with Janke. There was a slight tilt to the right across the whole image. You are also right that the shoreline appears to be tilted due to the perspective but this is a different phenomenon to what Janke And Apingstone have been referring to. Sean, have you been viewing the image at 100% resolution? There was more than 1 pixel of tilt on the building. It wasn't excessive by any means but it was there. The edit corrected this tilt and it is (virtually) straight now. As Janke suggested, zoom in (to 200-300% if you like - that accentuates the tilt allowing you to see it easier) and scroll it across so that the edge of the building almost touches (maybe 2-3 pixels away) the edge of the window. If there is any tilt, you will see it there. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose I think the photo captures the look and feel of Jersey City, so is great for the article, but not eye-catching enough for an FP. --Bridgecross 15:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. Good picture but not so very impressive. sikander 18:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yeah not as good as the other pano. --Fir0002 08:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, not impressive as a FP. - Mailer Diablo 10:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villarceau circles

[edit]
Animation showing how an obliquely cut torus reveals a pair of circles, known as Villarceau circles.

This image was created by User:Kieff, and illustrates in a very succint way the concept of Villarceau circles. It is simple and elegant.

Old version

[edit]
  • The comments below were towards the old revision of this image.
    • Weak support, it's an excellent illustration of the concept, but the shading of the shadows in a few cases is very confusing and distracting from the actual shapes involved. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Despite watching the animation many times I still can't understand the creation of the circles so, for me, it's too confusing and doesn't add value to the article - Adrian Pingstone 14:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Debivort 17:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose. Maybe it is the article going over my head, but I have the same problem as above. I took a long time see the circles. I would suggest highlighting the circles when the animation is frozen at the end. I would support then. say1988 19:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as the per the reasons above. Part of the problem is that I have trouble following the movement of the torus. I think the object needs more texture to aid in this. As it is, as it slides around, I have trouble visualising the movement in three dimensions so when it finally stops, I'm a bit puzzed by the angle I'm viewing, and what its significance is. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. It's good to hear opinions about the animation coming from people not familiar with this sort of thing, because that's exactly the kind of people the animation should be helping. You guys made good points, though. The animation needs better reference points and the lighting is creating confusing shadow patterns. I'm working on an improved version that should fix these issues :) Just give me a few mins. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Per Say1988. The red highlights show very poorly against the gray, it took me several times watching to even notice that they were there. I would suggest a shade of bright green like chartreuse against that particular shade of gray. Making each highlighted circle a different colour (aqua or bright yellow would be my suggestion for second colour) would be would make the circle pattern easier to notice. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New version

[edit]

Promoted Image:Villarceau circles.gif --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Plant Blossoms

[edit]
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Ice plants thrive in sandy soils in Mediterranean climates, such as coastal California where they are an invasive species. (Option 4)


Four nominations for the price of one! All four illustrate the ice plant article, are high res, not blown out, and generally aesthetically pleasing. The first was shot by Carsten Niehaus and is a commons image (does that change anything?), and the latter three were taken/uploaded by me, user:debivort. All have GFDL licenses.

Not promoted NauticaShades 14:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westtown_Township

[edit]
Farm along Pleasant Grove Road in Westtown Township, Pennsylvania

This photo captures the traquil, bucolic scenes to be found in Chester County, Pennsylvania; Westtown Township, Pennsylvania; Gregory Kohs

Not promoted --NauticaShades 10:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zanzibari Ocean View

[edit]
View of the Indian ocean from Zanzibar. The boat is a dhow
Edit 1, by Fir0002

I think the picture is both artistic and encyclopedically valuable. It appears in Zanzibar and was created by User:Chris huh

Not promoted --NauticaShades 10:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day old Chicks

[edit]
A couple of one-day-old Chicks.
I am nominating this image because the subject, the near chick, is very sharp. It contributes to the article chicken, especially to the latter part of the section "chickens as pets". Picture taken by User:Fir0002.

Not promoted --NauticaShades 10:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DLP Rainbow Effect

[edit]
Photo demonstrating the rainbow effect present in single-chip DLP projectors

This is used in the article DLP projectors to illustrate the rainbow effect that can be seen when a single-chip projector is displaying a moving image. The photographer is waving his hand in front of a projector in a darkened room. Taken by Damien Donnelly. The image is high resolution, GFDL, and vividly illustrates the color strobing present in single-chip DLPs. There is some blurriness which is probably unavoidable as it is a motion shot under low light.

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culpeo

[edit]
A Patagonian fox has vibrissae (whiskers) on its nose and above its eyes.

This is a nice and artistic close-up picture of a Culpeo, or Patagonian fox, a charismatic animal found in South America. The image has a high resolution, is very sharp, has a nice DOF and doesn´t have any distracting elements.

Pic added to Vibrissae

[edit]

Promoted Image:Pseudalopex culpaeus.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago from Adler Planetarium

[edit]
Chicago Skyline stretching from Shedd Aquarium to Navy Pier taken from Adler Planetarium

This image was taken October 1st from Adler Planetarium. This image is a composite of 8 high resolution images. The current image of the Chicago skyline is fuzzy and a little out of date. Chicago is a gorgeous city and has so much to offer.

I spent a lot of time working on alignment and stitching with hopes that it would be more to every one's liking. I also reduced the amount of air and water that occupy the image.

There are 3 new versions available including the one above. The one which I like best has much more air and water. Also I put up a version which eliminates Shedd and Navy Pier.

Old Version

[edit]

New Version

[edit]

Not promoted --NauticaShades 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DNAClamp

[edit]
The assembled human DNA clamp, a trimer of the protein PCNA, which is a processivity factor that increases the speed and efficiency of DNA replication. In the assembled replication complex, the clamp encircles the DNA, which passes through the central pore.
Edit 1. Colored by polypeptide chain.

I think this image is nice looking, interesting and enclopedic. It is a DNA clamp rendered by user Opabinia regalis using VMD ([3]) modeling software.

  • Unfortunately there isn't really much to label. The most obvious and useful improvement would be to show the actual PCNA-DNA complex, but unfortunately the two molecules have not been co-crystallized. I added some explanatory text to the caption to give a better sense of what this thing does outside the context of the articles. Opabinia regalis 05:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can see no reason to have the multiple colors on this image. If the goal is to show the individual domains, wouldn't it would be more informative to show the individual trimers in either three different colors or to have the equivalent sections of each of the trimers in the same colors? This could alternatively be done by adding labels to the individual trimers. Also, svg would be nice. InvictaHOG 05:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's colored by atom index, which honestly is mostly used for visual effect, but in this case I liked the way it highlights the pseudohexagonal symmetry, which is an unusual feature of these molecules. I'm not aware of a way to convert a raytraced image to SVG - it can be rendered even larger, but surely there's a point at which file size and scaling artifacts become a problem? Opabinia regalis 01:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit colored by chain! InvictaHOG 02:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit colored by chain as per InvictaHog. Terri G 10:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:1axc_tricolor.png NauticaShades 09:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White-lipped Tree Frog

[edit]
What are you lookin' at??

This image of a White-lipped Tree Frog was nominated once before but failed, mostly due to its size. A larger size was uploaded but it was too late. Thus, I am re-nominating it now.

Withdrawn by nominator. That was pretty lame of me. This has no chance in hell of making it to FP status. howcheng {chat} 22:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so hard on yourself. It is a very stunning image at smaller sizes. Some people are more picky than others when it comes to detail at 100%. It is my understanding that for FP, that sort of thing does matter, but if it didn't, I would have supported this image myself.--Andrew c 00:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point being that I've been doing this for a little while, I should have known better. Wasn't thinking on this one -- it was so close to being promoted the last time around that I just assumed the full-size version was fine when in fact it's just too blurry and noisy. For some reason viewing the full-size images at my office is ridiculously slow, so I didn't bother with examining it until after I read the above comments. howcheng {chat} 03:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Smoke Plume on 9/11

[edit]
The World Trade Center Site on September 12, 2001, as visible from space.
Full resolution (2560x1920) copy
Photo courtesy of NASA, taken by Landsat 7. I think it adds very much to it's article September 11, 2001 attacks,both by showing the extent of the damage, as well as by giving one a significantly different view. In several other languages, this picture is missing (maybe in all of them as I only checked about 10), and it feels as if the articles need it to display the damage done by terrorists on that day.
  • Nominate and Support | AndonicO 16:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — The resolution is far too low for a satellite image. There is really nothing special about this image, except for the fact that there is a lot of smoke coming out of Manhattan. You've also made me realize that this shot of Antarctica needs to be delisted. ♠ SG →Talk 19:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • reluctant Oppose I was ready to go for this one based on the thumb, but the full size looks oversharpened and low res, and grainy in the smoke. Debivort 19:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this image is not something that we can just go out and take a better picture of. It is related specifically to a one time event. Therefore, I believe, taking this under consideration, the noise and other technical issues are outweighed by the encyclopedic value. It provides a unique view of the result of the attack, and illustrates the size/coverage of the smoke/debris cloud. If I am mistaken, and there are better satellite photos of this out there, then I would oppose this image, but barring that, I feel that this could be the quintessential satellite image for this topic.--Andrew c 21:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's just not a very special photograph. There are much better photo's illustrating 9/11 than this one, and there are much better satellite photo's too. Iorek85 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All photographs are special, otherwise they would not be worth a thousand words, as the old saying goes. This is is worth even more because it is an event that will (hopefully) never happen again. I would encourage people not to list "its not a very special photograph" when opposing; if you insist on opposing, cite some tangible thing that hiderns the image’s promotion. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I understand it, Featured Pictures are supposed to be 'special' in that they are above and beyond the rest of the photos we have. As for 'never to be repeated', no event is ever (technically) repeated. My objections still stand - as a photo it isn't exceptional enough to qualify for FP, IMO.
  • Support This is a once in a life time shot. They didn't take a higher-res picture. Trust me, i've looked, and asked. And this is as good as it gets. Plus it shows one of the most memorable moments in world history Koolgiy 02:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. It's sad; I agree with Debivort, but I can't get past the significance of the image. --Tewy 02:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The full size copy from Goddard is double the resolution of the proposed image. I've uploaded and added it above for comparison. Eyeballing the new image, I'd say it's at the full 15 meter resolution of Landsat 7; you're not likely to find much better from non-classified sources. I don't believe anything's been done to the image beyond the standard Landsat processing (and I kept the JPEG setting at fairly high quality); it's just at the limits of the satellite. That said, I'm Neutral, as per Tewy. --Davepape 03:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just because we can't ever get it again doesn't mean its a fairly low quality satellite image. Featured pictures must meet several criteria.. the one this has going for it is encyclopedic value and that isn't enough to go make it an FP. drumguy8800 C T 07:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Has quality issues, but is very historical. If a better image from a similar perspective can be found I would support this being delisted in favour of it. HighInBC 19:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You can't even see the site properly. NegativeNed 23:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't believe this picture has any value. Sure it is of a historic event, but what does this say about the event? There was lots of smoke. Any big fire could create smoke, so this isn't special in that way. Sure the picture is an interesting novelty, but not useful. say1988 01:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, can't see anything but smoke. Ground shots would be much more illustrative. —Pengo talk · contribs 23:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A satellite picture of a big building fire would look exactly the same. howcheng {chat} 19:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted NauticaShades 07:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

View from McMillans Lookout

[edit]
View from McMillans Lookout, Benambra

The spectacular view from McMillans Lookout in Benambra, Victoria. Clearly shows the effects of deforestation on the area

  • Support Self Nom --Fir0002 07:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great and encyclopedic photo. - Darwinek 08:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Another fantastic photo from User:Fir0002. --S0uj1r0 10:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. I little bit too much grain for me, but the beauty and encyclopedic value of this image outweigh it in my opinion. NauticaShades(talk) 10:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support per Nauticashades et al. --Bridgecross 13:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)--160.79.219.133 13:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Looks like there is a lot of colour noise (colour blotchiness) in the shadow detail. The image is pretty but a bit generic and doesn't really contribute significantly to the article as there is an obvious cutoff in density but there are still plenty trees elsewhere. I don't think the deforestation here is quite as dramatic in scale or distinct as the aerial shot of Bolivia in the article (although obviously that image is not good enough to be FP either). A deforestation FP can do better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While this is indeed a lovely pic, I don't see how this shows deforestation. Honestly, it looks like a lot of the open spaces in California (wide swaths of grass punctuated with random trees). howcheng {chat} 16:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because if this weren't touched by humans, it would be a huge sclrophyll forest. You can see the forests on the mountains in the background. It hasn't lost a little bit of density, it has lost almost all of it. It is useless to most forest wildlife now. I wouldn't compare anything like this to California, what you described was probably forest at one stage as well. --liquidGhoul 00:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't doubt that the area was deforested, I'm just saying that it's really difficult to tell from this picture. Perhaps a before-and-after comparison would work better (not that that's possible). Or maybe a picture where the line of demarcation between unsullied-by-humans area meets the deforested area to see the contrast. Otherwise, there's nothing to suggest that it's not naturally like this. howcheng {chat} 04:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Man! How many of your images are featured? Geez im jealous. Anyway, I kinda support, it but I don't know where in an article you would use it. Koolgiy 20:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wow, deforestation sure is beautiful! Kaldari 05:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It is a bit grainy.. at least in the sky, but not so bad. I know how it is, its almost impossible to completely eradicate. And.. it almost looks like the deforestation is happening from right to left.. like there are far fewer trees on the right, then you get patchier with dead stuff, then thicker with alive stuff. It's like its happening as you watch.. nice! Also, I think I used to think you were like 12, are you 17-18ish? The Year 11 stuff in your userpage probably threw me off, I'm used to junior, senior, etc drumguy8800 C T 07:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm a 17 y.o --Fir0002 10:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 6/4.5 NauticaShades 07:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset over an Arizona Lake

[edit]
An aritficial lake in Arizona at sunset.
edit 1
I found this picture in the article Lake, Water reservoir, and Arizona. The photogragher is Rich Niewiroski Jr. I think the photo is as good as they get (the lake pictures, I mean), the equal of this one, , which is already featured.

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 18:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Baths in Bath Spa, England

[edit]
A panoramic view of the Roman Baths (Thermae) in Bath Spa, England
Edit 2 - adjusted tilt, & halo over right statue
Edit 1, by Andrew c

This is an image I took in July this year but only successfully stitched it very recently. The main thing that people may find a problem is the perspective. Due to the extremely wide angle view in this image, I needed to stitch it with spherical perspective, meaning the left side curves around. I have tried to minimise the distortion and I feel this is still a worthy image with plenty of detail and great architecture - The Roman Baths at ground level (only the bath itself and the column supports are Roman - the rest of the structure was built in the 18th century when it was re-discovered) and Bath Abbey in the background.

  • Nominate and abstain. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original, oppose edit 1 I noticed this on the Bath article a few days ago and thought it was excellent. A few more of the images on Bath are also FPC worthy IMO. Edit 1 looks unnatural. chowells 14:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Perfect quality, good encyclopedic value. NauticaShades(talk) 17:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1. Edited for color, contrast, and to 'polarize' the sky.--Andrew c 17:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above - boy that water looks ... therapeutic. Debivort 20:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. (I am amazed by the variety and quality of photos you offer.) Having recently read of the dangers of too many versions, I have nevertheless offered an "edit 2" (of the original, placed below it because it's more similar than "edit 1") that, to me, has a "straighter" horizon; I also noticed a halo over the righmost statue's head, and a spot in the sky, that have been cloned into submission. Not wanting to go overboard, I have adjusted nothing else, although I am for a somewhere-between-Diliff-and-Fir/Andrew adjustment to levels/saturation. Finally, if this improves nothing, feel free to remove the edit for simplicity. –Outriggr § 05:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that edit, it looks good. I didn't notice the halo above the head of the statue until now - I think it may have been a glitch in the stitching. I'm not sure that the panorama needed straightening, but perhaps it did - I didn't measure it exactly. The saturation of the sky was a touchy thing while I was processing it. I had to decrease the contrast a little to bring out the very deep shadows on the bottom right side without blowing the sky out with overexposure, but I think the sky perhaps suffered in the process. Your edit 2 seems about right - Edit 1 is a bit over saturated. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still feel edit 2 is a bit dull in the sky and on some of the distant stonework. Would it help if I worked on that edit, but less saturated than edit 1? I'm new to this, and seeing FP like this, this, and this and basically every other FP, I figured a bit of a faux-polarization, and beefing up the saturation wasn't problematic. All that said, I still think the current edit is a little on the dull said and personally wouldn't mind a minor edit (even if less dramatic than my first).--Andrew c 16:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 2, edit 1 has too "flashy" sky color. --Janke | Talk 16:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Despite a small amount of lens distortion. HighInBC 19:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Maybe I don't get it, but this picture does nothing for me. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 2. Edit 1 is oversaturated. NauticaShades(talk) 07:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Great looking scene, but I feel it would have been better taken as a single shot and avoiding the rather significant bending in you panorama. Also seems oversharpened. For the record though, I personally think Edit 1 is a significant improvement, although it would benefit from the rotation of Edit 2 --Fir0002 11:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you underestimate the angle of view in this image. If you took just a single photo, you would end up with something like this, the previous image of the baths. To truely incoporate all the elements of this image into a single shot, you need either an ultra-wide angle, probably fish-eye, and then you end up with the same 'faults' as this image, minus the clarity of a high resolution stitch. As long as the viewer doesn't literally expect that the baths are really that shape (and there are enough visual cues to suggest it is just spherical perspective distortion), I don't think the curves are a big problem. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I may have underestimated it, but just out of interest, what focal length did you use for each frame in the panorama? Because I think with your full frame sensor and the 17-40L you would have got pretty close to that angle of view. --Fir0002 23:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. Would prefer a combination of Edit 1 & 2 as well. Also, I know you've acknowledged there's a curve on the left, but is it just me or is the curve bigger at the water level than at the window level above? That's a little offputting. --jjron 13:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The curve is only greater at water level because it has a larger deviation from the horizon (the horizontal focal point of this panorama). Likewise, the vertical centre of the frame is the vertical focal point, so the curve is also accentuated as the view extends from the centre to either side. Its just the effect of perspective. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original, oppose edits. The original is fine, no need to tamper around and juice up the colors etc. --Dschwen 08:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Roman Baths in Bath Spa, England - July 2006 edit3.jpg howcheng {chat} 18:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foz Do Iguaçu Waterfalls Panorama

[edit]

Panoramic picture of Foz Do Iguaçu Waterfalls located on (or around) the Brazil/Argentina border, they are considered one of the 'top' waterfalls. From the article:

The water falling from Iguazu in peak flow has a surface area of about 1.3 million square feet whilst Victoria in peak flow has a surface area of over 1.8 million Square Feet (Niagara has a surface area of under 600,000 square feet). Victoria's annual peak flow is also greater than Iguazu's annual peak (9.1 million litres per second versus 6.5 million. Niagara's annual peak flow is about 2.8 million), though in times of extreme flood the two have recorded very similar maximum water discharge (well in excess of 12 million litres per second. Niagara's all-time peak was about 6.8 million). Surprisingly, Niagara discharges the most water per year as its water flow does not vary greatly. Iguazu and Victoria fluctuate enormously in their flow rate, and can almost disappear in the dry season. Mist rises between 100 and 500 feet from Iguazu's Garganta del Diablo, and over 1,000 feet above Victoria (sometimes over 2,000 feet).

The picture is located in the Iguazu Falls article and was taken by Giacomo Miceli on 2006/06/17. It has been released to the public domain by the author.

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 18:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European honey bee at work

[edit]
A European honey bee extracts nectar from a flower using its proboscis. Tiny hairs covering the bee's body maintain a slight electrostatic charge, causing pollen from the flower's anthers to stick to the bee, allowing for pollination when the bee moves on to another flower.

Honey Bees are very fasonating insects. This is the first image I've put forward as a featured photo. The image appears in the article bee. Having read the FP critera, I believe it includes all the relevant technical merits, and does an excellent job of visually illustrating the bee's role both in gathering necter and in plant pollination. The only flaw I can find is the extremely shallow depth of field, which results in parts of the bee and flower drifting out of focus. However, I would add that every other photo on the bee page (including two that have been selected as FP) has the same problem, which is a nearly unavoidable consequence of extreme close-up photography. I took this photo myself and have released it into the public domain. I look forward to your comments and criticism.

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 18:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorescent minerals

[edit]
Collection of various fluorescent minerals under UV-A, UV-B and UV-C light

Cool looking picture, but also encyclopedic. I had no idea about the range of fluoresing rocks. It appears in Fluorescence and Ultraviolet. It was created by User:Hgrobe

Lumped together only here. Different captions in the articles! --Janke | Talk 16:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This looks great, and it gives information in an encyclopedic manner. I don't think it is cluttered at all. HighInBC 19:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support TomStar81 (Talk) 02:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nice idea, but the encyclopedic value is near zero if the content is not explained with a caption. What exactly are we seeing on this image? And it definately is too cluttered, it isn't even possible to tell where one specimen ends and the next one begins. That makes a caption enumerating the stones from top to bottom impossible. Please reshoot with less minerals more spacing and write a detailed caption, then it'll be a really great picture. --Dschwen 10:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Cool colors, but there's little encyclopedic value here with so many specimens. Cluttered composition; sharply cropped on either side. The image is also grainy and only softly focused in high resolution. --S0uj1r0 19:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - I've already opposed above but want to add a comment in a place where it will be prominent and read by all who are interested. Could this image be neatened up, like the Coquina variations above? That would surely need all new pictures, but it's the only way in my opinion to make this picture the quality necessary to be an FP. - CountdownCrispy ( ? 06:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 18:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's cradle

[edit]
Newton's cradle in motion. One ball is set in motion and soon collides witht the rest, conveying the energy through the rest of the balls and eventually to the last ball, which in turn is set in motion.
Alternate option 1.
Alternate option 2.

This animated .gif, yet again by DemonDeLuxe, is not only very good quality and aesthetically pleasing, but also quite encyclopedic. It (obviously) appears in the article Newton's cradle, but I'm sure other uses could be thought up for it. I've also added two of his other (older) versions for your consideration.

It does bother me, so oppose until a correction is made. There should be a slight delay while the impulse propagates through the row of balls - like in real life. In option 2 again, the pause is too long going one way, OK the other. Never satisfied... --Janke | Talk 21:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there is a remarkable delay (a question that can be answered by a physicist). In the original version, the frame 17 shows the ball at the left side a short moment before it hits the next one. The frame 18 shows the moment, when the left ball is close to the others and the ball at the right side has already moved a bit away from its neighbour. A film shows pictures at certain intervals. In my opinion there is no need to show the moment when all balls are close together to make it look natural. The animation is correct, if the distance of the left ball in frame 17 plus the distance of the right ball in frame 18 is equal to the distance a ball would run through during the interval of time between frames 17 and 18 at the velocity shortly before hitting (approximately, because it is an accelerated movement). In the shown animation (original) I think that the added distance of the 2 outside balls is a bit too long. Nevertheless I support it. --wau > 11:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Referring to option 1: The speed of sound in steel is ~4500 m/sec, so if the distance traveled is ~20cm the time required would be roughly 4.4E-5 seconds...3 orders of magnitude shorter than the duration of a single frame. However, the deceleration of the ball as it rises and accelerates as it falls just looks unnatural. Visually its beautiful but I cant support it. The motion of the spheres in options 2 and 3 is even worse. I oppose all three. Meniscus 14:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 18:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shuffle

[edit]
A riffle shuffle being performed during a game of poker.

I discovered this image from wikipedia commons while looking at the page for shuffle, in which it is the header image. The image author is Todd Klassy. Both very detailed and high resolution while displaying the way the shuffle is performed, both in hand positioning and due to the blur of the card that had just been shuffled along with the intertwining cards below. The image is taken during a game at a bar need Madison, Wisconsin.

Promoted Image:Riffle shuffle.jpg, but it was right on the border. howcheng {chat} 18:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pi-unrolled.gif

[edit]
Image:Pi-unrolled-720.gif: Animation of the act of unrolling a circle's circumference, illustrating the ratio π.

A previous version of this image was nominated for FP; several objections were raised. A workshop was operated, concerns aired, and a great many changes made.

Some prior objections, with comments:

  • badly needs antialiasing
    • Antialiasing is essentially clever blurring of an image. This is not always wise when presenting a geometric design; it leads to inaccuracy. Antialiasing does not really improve the (generally poor) resolution of your monitor; it just fools your eye into seeing more than there is.
    • Images are always tradeoffs between quality and file size. The latter concern is aggravated by animations, which contain much more information than the equivalently sized static image; this animation contains 45 distinct frames.
    • JPEG photos are handled well by MediaWiki but not animated GIFs. This format depends for small file size on a palette of indexed colors; this particular animation economizes still further by sharing one palette across all frames. The palette is very small: only 8 colors are used, therefore 3 bits are sufficient to specify any pixel. Antialiasing works by blurring the image which creates a range of "in-between" colors. This greatly bloats the color palette. Thus, a fully anti-aliased version might in theory be double in file size. In practice, the penalty is about +50%. This version is already 64 Kb.
  • the box should be removed, simpler to ignore the area question, the rectangle is the culprit Many users objected to the final display of a rectangle in the proportions of π.
    • The final rectangle is gone and with it, an entire sequence of frames. Now, once the wheel has rolled out of sight, the show is over. Having established a linear unit, we now treat π exclusively in terms of position on the number line.
    • For the odd swamp-dweller (me) who liked the rectangle, the entire graphic is now in the rough proportions of π (360px x 114px). Also easter egg in that the final frame is held for a duration of 3.14 seconds.
  • Heart-shaped plumb bob says Pi is for Girls!
    • Given the shortage of women in Mathematics... anyway...
  • A distinguished spoke or marker at the start point on the wheel has long been requested; previously deferred due to workload.
    • The plumb bob is gone in favor of a system of diamond markers. A wheel spoke is so distinguished.
  • better choice of colors, color scheme
    • A proposed palette was edited on workshop. Most of the current palette has had broad exposure and general endorsement. Not everybody agrees on all colors but we have a decent compromise.
  • should look slick and professional
    • Not sure exactly what slickness is desired but if this comment is driven by the usual mass-media, 3D, CGA eye candy, sorry. For one, I have neither the tools nor the time to do advertising-spot-quality animations; for another, the final product would be a gigantic file. Every refinement has a price; this is the "cheapest" version that still works.
    • The frames were all produced in FreeHand and exported as industry-standard EPS files. This is a vector file format and can be scaled to any desired size. So, if you like, we can exchange the frameset and you can convert them to high-resolution video; we can even link to an OGG.
    • I still think for maximum accessibility, the smallest possible file size is best and most professional.

I realize that we all have concerns and I've done my best to address all of them. Inevitably, that means that some editors will not get everything they wished for. Sorry. I've tried to balance all comments made against technical restraints and proven principles of professional graphic design. Hope it's okay now.

  • Nominate and support. - John Reid 02:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Minor quibble: the distance looks more like 3.15 to me. joke –Outriggr § 04:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original was designed with a unit of 1 inch at the assumed resolution of 72 ppi. The big one's unit is 144px; π is shown at 452px or 3.13888... units. If it makes you feel better about it, anti-aliasing in the big one blurs the line out a smidge to the right so, if you squint, you might say it's exactly at π units. John Reid 09:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Antialiasing is not blurring: both antialiasing and the unantialiased rasterization you are using are methods for going from some idealized high resolution image to a low resolution pixelization, but antialiasing is a more accurate reflection of the original image, and not the same as blurring an unantialiased image. I still think your unantialiased text is ugly, though I don't care so much about the division lines etc. But I have no strong opinion on whether the improved appearance of antialiasing is worth the file size blowup. —David Eppstein 04:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I think it's awesome. But is there an svg version? I'm sure you've thought of that, which leads me to assume it would be ill-fitting, and I'm curious why. --Masamage 05:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*STRONG oppose - those are not circles! They are 74 x 65 pixel ovals!!! --Janke | Talk 07:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The old image needed to be purged. --Janke | Talk 09:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, illustrates the concept in a very elegant manner. - Mailer Diablo 10:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - excellent. Though I had to purge the page cache twice to get the new version to show, it looks great, and addresses those concerns I had with the previous version. Thanks for making the effort! -- Moondigger 13:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose and comment:
    1. MediaWiki handles GIF files just fine, they just can't have optimization of frame animation (it has to store all frames on the whole). Most programs tend to optimize by default, but a good GIF editing program can unoptimize existing optimized files and fix this loslessly (I have done so with several Wikipedia images already).
    2. About the additional colors for anti-aliasing, they wouldn't bring a big difference in file size at all. Compare with my currently FPC on Villarceau circles, which is a full 3D render with lots of shades. It uses a whole color pallete for EACH of the 39 frames, and the full-sized file is only 582 kB in size, and it has 4.2 times more pixels per frame than this one does. That means that, with this resolution and a much simpler and constant color pallete, the file size wouldn't go much beyond 100 kB, and I dare to guess it would stay at the 90 kB mark. I do think anti-aliasing is a must-have here because of clarity and smooth-ness of shapes, and as I just explained, file size would hardly be an issue.
    3. Given this, I'm enamoured with the concept of this animation and I think it's an excellent visual demonstration of pi, but I just think this COULD be a lot better than it is. I just believe the reasons for not making it better don't really make much sense. ? ?i?ff?? 17:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good illustration. HighInBC 19:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Big and slick

[edit]
Image:Pi-unrolled-720.gif, full size


thumbnail image
  • Support I nominated the first pi image, and it got shot down. I do like this better. Viva La Vie Boheme!
[edit]

Masochists and obsessives can check out a gallery of all uploaded versions of this graphic at Image talk:Pi-unrolled.gif/Gallery. Warning: This page will not just load slowly; it may slow down your whole machine while it's open in your browser. John Reid 21:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Pi-unrolled-720.gif

Yay for constructive criticism! --NauticaShades 18:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger's final crew

[edit]
The final seven austronauts of the Space Shuttle Challenger.

The final crew of the Space Shuttle Challenger pose for their official photograph 15 November 1985. Photo appears in numerous articles, among them STS-51-L and Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Official NASA photograph, licensed to the public domain.

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia's final crew

[edit]
The final seven astronauts of the Space Shuttle Columbia.

The final crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia pose for their official photograph. Photo appears in numerous articles, among them Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and STS-107. Official NASA photograph, released into the public domain.

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1906 San Francisco earthquake by Arnold Genthe

[edit]
Looking down Sacramento Street with San Francisco on fire, following the 1906 earthquake
Darker, but slighty better quality version (same scan, but without quality-diminuising contrast correction).

Famous photo by famous photographer; Lots of detail about life in turn-of-the century San Francisco - cable car tracks, the architecture, the society woman in her petticoat on the left side of the image. All that juxtaposed with destruction, fire, human drama. Photo appears in 1906 San Francisco earthquake, History of San Francisco, California, and Arnold Genthe.

Note: This nominatation is older than 7 days, but a decison has not been reached. Supporters, please clarify which version you prefer. Older opposers, please consider the alternate version.

Withdrawn and closing FP candidacy.--DaveOinSF 22:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly I support Version 2 in addition to Version 1, if consensus can be arrived around Version 2. I do caution that Version 2 is the original scan from which Version 1 was created, and do not see a substantial difference in the number of alleged artifacts. (Mainly because I honestly don't see very many at all.) Those who see these artifacts, please help us clarify whether it is indeed the original scan or whether it is the subsequent contrast correction that is at fault. --DaveOinSF 22:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Woops, didn't do a very good job looking at this one did I! I defiantely see what you guys mean. Pity though. Witty lama 09:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was kind of the whole point, Paul. The non-digital version, ie the original, clearly doesn't have those artifacts, meaning the photo being "historically signifigant" doesn't wash away those artifacts because they damage said historical signifigance. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Be of high quality. It should be sharp and of pleasing colour balance, contrast and brightness, free of compression artifacts (such as in highly packed JPEG files), burned-out highlights, graininess, and other distracting factors.
    • The exception to this rule is the rarity or importance of the image being depicted. The more historically-important an image is, or the rarer the content of the scene, the lower the quality that can be allowed. For example, the first photograph ever taken is of poor quality, but is one-of-a-kind, whereas NASA has a surplus collection of high-quality images.
This image is from the online archive of California, managed by the University of California who performed the scan. This wasn't scanned on a $50 scanner in somebody's attic. I doubt that anyone can find a better quality example of this image. It is essentially one-of-a-kind and qualifies under the exception.--Paul 10:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, web issued absolutely can be low quality. Hell, a lot of White House shots aren't bigger than 500px or so. The artifacts clearly are not in the original, making this a crummy scan. And the historical signifigance, as I said above, is nullified by the crummy scan. Signifigance is specifically stated to allow the IMAGE to be of poor quality, but here that IMAGE is FP quality, just the particular uploaded representation that isn't so great. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Please upload a FP quality jpeg of the Genthe image.--Paul 13:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had one I would. I do not. This being the best we have, if it is not anywhere near the best possible and not particularly good in it's current form, it is not a FP simply because it's "what we've got". Try noogying around in Photoshop with the darker version Nautica linked to. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify what you mean - the version that was linked to is the same version that was used as the source for this image. I just want to know whether the "original" version ("original" meaning the one here) is unsalvageable or whether it was the subsequent photoshopping/cropping/whatnot that rendered it unacceptable.--DaveOinSF 19:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to poor digitization. HighInBC 16:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (original) per Paul, Mikeo. I'm just not seeing the "horrible" artifacts. –Outriggr § 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC) & 01:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • a quote: "On 18 April 1906, the morning of the great San Francisco earthquake, Genthe, with his cameras and studio destroyed, borrowed a hand-held camera and photographed the destruction across the city. Of his over 180 surviving, sharp-focus photographs of San Francisco, probably his most famous image is "San Francisco, April 18th, 1906," which shows a view from Nob Hill, down Sacramento Street. Enormous clouds of smoke ominously approach, buildings' facades have collapse from the quake, and residents stand and sit in the street, in a stupor, calming watching the approaching fire. "Steps that Lead to Nowhere" (also known as "After the Fire") depicts the barren remains of a large house with the lights of the Mission District in the background." Mel Byars, N. Elizabeth Schlatter. "Genthe, Arnold"; American National Biography Online Feb. 2000.
  • Support per Paul's comment "This image is from the online archive of California, managed by the University of California who performed the scan. [...] It is essentially one-of-a-kind and qualifies under the exception." TransUtopian 17:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I understand the opposes, being able to see the artifacts if I zoom in, but I think it's overall an amazing photograph of an important historic event and therefore support. MeekSaffron 14:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MeekSaffron SOADLuver 20:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, far too artifacted, we can wait until someone gets a better scan or better compressed version. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may wait a long time. People don't have original copies of this print lying around in their attics. The best known digital copy available is from the University of California here: Genthe 1906 Fire which is the one we are using. The San Francisco Library has a far worse one click here. Editors do not have the option of uploading a better image, as the existing prints (and who knows how many exist? 10? 20?) are in libraries, and the good libraries have provided a digital version, and the bad libraries haven't digitized it at all. Several editors have now suggested that we should just upload a better scan, that it is possible to have better digital version of this image. Theoretically, that is true. Practically, it is false. It is one-of-a-kind. This is a unique historic artifact. It has scratches and blotches. It is over 100 years old. Instead of complaining that it wasn't shot with a 10 megapixel digital camera and uploaded as a raw tiff, we should be marveling that it is available at all, that we have it at 1300 x 740 resolution, and that we have the privilege to envision what it was like on the morning of April 18, 1906 in San Francisco, and to share that experience with others here on Wikipedia.
Those voting no are letting the perfect be the enemy of the great, and are willfully ignoring the exception granted to rare and historic images.
P.S. Do any of the oppose votes ever watch old B&W films??--Paul 22:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that better quality is possible, and we should strive for that, especially when the flaws here significantly detract from the image. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is better quality possible? Can you upload a better version? If not, how do you expect me to upload a better one? Who has a better version? Insisting that something is possible is not the same as actually bringing it into being.--Paul 17:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could call up the historical society and work something out to scan the image. Our exceptions for "irreproducible" images apply because the image is of a historical event that's not going to be recreated. The hindenberg isn't going to crash again, the soviet union isn't going to conquer nazi berlin again. However, this image is still in their archives and can still be scanned again, just like either of those iconic images could be. We don't accept a blurry, poorly compressed version because it is possible to produce a better version. The image itself can't be retaken, but the physical print can be rescanned. We hold featured content to a high standard here, and laziness (not wanting to bother to go through the trouble of getting a copy and rescanning this image) is no excuse to lower that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the California Historical Society website:

"Do you provide digital scans or images for purchase? No"
"May I photograph or scan Library materials myself? By arrangement and at the discretion of library staff, you may take digital photographs for reference use only, using your own camera. Flash is not permitted. A $1.00 per image fee applies. Scanning is not allowed."

If you want to continue to believe that "laziness" is what prohibits other editors from "obtaining a copy" of this photogragh, or that a superior image of this photograph can be easily obtained, go ahead.--Paul 22:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it would be easy. The standard for irreproducibility is not ease, though, but possibility. It might be hard to find a rare bird when we only know of two in a zoo somewhere--but the birds are still there to take a better picture of them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the version I had linked to earlier. NauticaShades(talk) 12:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Striking view of the fire with all of the onlookers. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-29 04:30Z
  • Weak Oppose. If there are copies in various libraries, then this could be replaced with a technically superior version. Nobody is complaining that this wasn't taken with a 10 megapixel camera... only that the scan, which was made with modern equipment, is lacking. Historical significance offsets technical deficiencies because in most cases those technical deficiencies cannot be overcome. In this case, those technical deficiencies that people are concerned with can be overcome. I agree that this is a compelling image, but would like to see a better scan of it. -- Moondigger 11:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not many photagraphs of this. | AndonicO 14:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Adds volumes to the subject. When (and if) a better quality version comes along, it can replace this. doniv 15:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Support version 2 only. NauticaShades(talk) 16:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Version 2. sikander 18:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 13 support and 7 oppose is still one short of the 2/3rds usually taken as a supermajority consensus around here. Given the fact that none of the objections have been addressed, only dismissed, I don't think this image deserves to be promoted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit disingenuous. The objections raised were of a nature that is technically impossible to address - it was alleged that the image was scanned badly - and the comments made in response to the "oppose" votes were made to make clear that addressing such an objection is impossible. Indeed, in an effort to confirm that it was indeed the Historical Society's scan and not my subsequent edit and contrast correction that rendered the image unacceptable, I did ask whether the original scan from which Version 1 was created (linked above and which has since been uploaded as Version 2) has fewer of these alleged artifacts. --DaveOinSF 22:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and since it's fundamentally flawed, we shouldn't promote it until we can get a better scan. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a bit of disagreement on this, if you read this thread. Apparently there are some people who objected to Version 1 but not to Version 2, which suggests that in some people's view, the alleged artifacts are not due to the scan, and thus it is not fundamentally flawed. If this can truly clarify this issue, we can actually get somewhere. --DaveOinSF 22:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is perhaps a bit beyond disingenuous for some editors to continue to insist on waiting for "a better scan" when it has been pointed out that this is almost impossible. I know of two physical copies of this photo. The one in the SF library is of inferior quality, and the one at the Historical Society cannot be rescanned. Nor, of course, can someone take another photo of this event. There are far fewer artifacts in the second version, and that is likely to be the best version we will ever have. My take is that since we have a majority in favor, the administrator should promote the image anyway, as opposing voters are disregarding a fairly clear exception, and have been proposing remedies that are not possible. --Paul 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that many people who opposed at the beginning may not be aware of the new version and have not taken it into considereation. In my opinion, they should be contacted and told to modify their vote (or choose not to), and then the votes shuld be re-tallied later. At any rate, this should not be closed yet, as even most of those who support haven't clarified which version they prefer. NauticaShades(talk) 10:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --DaveOinSF 22:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC) This image was traced from Walker (1953) and all versions have been deleted from Wikipedia for copyright violation[reply]

Dragonfly Morphology

[edit]
File:Dragonfly morphology.png
The basic morphology of a female dragonfly. This particular diagram is close in likeness to that of a Green Darner dragonfly. They can grow up to 3 inches in length with a wingspan of 4 and a half inches. It is identified as female due to the colour of its abdomen.
Edit 2 - Vector version, by Gustavb – same text as Edit 1 ((Note: This is a new file, not nominated file from 2006))
File:Dragonfly morphology edit 4.svg
Edit 4 - more wing adjustments

I am self nominating a peice of my own work which shows the basic morphology and anatomy of a female dragonfly (specifically a Green Darner). I created it for the Dragonfly article which is extremely lacking in any kind of anatomical or scientific detail, riddled with errors and inaccuracies. This article is accompanying several major updates I plan to make to the article to bring it up to featured article status. I believe articles like those on the cat, horse, dog, wasp, ant, etc have a high chance of being selected for FA status and so am focusing my efforts on bringing them up to a good standard. I believe this diagram qualifies for FP because:

  • It was created exclusively for Wikipedia by me.
  • It is of high resolution and detail (I do not plan to make an SVG version as the setup of my computer will not allow for an SVG program, however it is about 3000 pixels by 2000 so its as large as anyone will ever need it to be.)
  • Aesthetically pleasing and simple to follow
  • Anatomically correct and useful for all kinds of people researching wasps
  • Common to all species of dragonfly and also damselflies.


As I've said before with these mainstream article diagrams, I can just imagine kid having to go and research dragonflies at school and coming back with this image and a report on them based on my work. And thats just the best feeling, that somewhere, someone will learn something from this. And what more can we ask for a diagram and an article! So I hope you'll join me in wanting to give this featured picture status. Ta!


  • Nominate and support. Please do not count this vote when tallying the end result as I am self nominating. Thanks! - WikipedianProlific(Talk) 12:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I like this diagram a lot, but I have to ask the question: Why exactly does your computer setup not allow for an SVG program? Just about any computer, in theory, can create an SVG file. Obviously Adobe Photoshop cannot, but there are others that can. The issue that many of us have is that SVGs are much smaller in filesize and can be scaled far better than a bitmap. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. It's another case of the SVG/PNG issue. And I don't believe that this image is as large as anyone will ever need it to be, because the standards keep going up. Eventually this may be considered a small image. Why create something in limited PNG when you can create it in virtually unlimited SVG (in terms of size)? But, I have to support because just as the wasp image, this meets all the requirements for FPs. --Tewy 19:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your questions, I use a graphics tablet to draw from. Sadly one of the core components of every SVG program I've come across to date conflicts with the tablet software and causes the machine to crash. Finding a work around for it has so far been unsucessful. In the future when I replace this tablet I will likely convert to SVG based programs for this style of drawing. I appreciate rising size standards for images, and it is a fair point especially given the abundance of HD technology. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 20:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fairly considerable sadly. Not impossible but it would take about as long as it would to just draw it again. Which was why the concerns were addressed in the text rather than changing the diagram. Personally I feel the likeness is close enough and the wing situation is explained in enough depth to prevent any potential cofussion, but I do see where concerns are coming from. In any case its made fairly clear the wings are only in it to give it a sense of proportion (it didn't look right without them). Its really more about the parts of its body than the shape of the wings. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 09:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've made an edit which I think has corrected any text problems. If there are more that I missed, just tell me what needs to be changed.
  • Comment I drew a vector version. The labels are the same as in Edit 1 (I hope) but the font is different, this was needed as I wanted to keep the strings as text in the SVG. – Gustavb 00:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The vector is much too small. NauticaShades(talk) 05:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a vector image. It can be scaled to however large/small you want it without loss of detail. Support. howcheng {chat} 06:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason I changed the size is that Mediawiki has a size limit set to 1024 for rasterization of SVGs. If I make it larger than that, and the the user has a max thumbnail size bigger than 1024 (e.g. 1280x1204), the rasterized image will be scaled up to that size on the image description page though it's still only 1024. The result looks really ugly (I started with uploading a 3000x2000 version, see the image history). Check this image for instance with your max thumbnail size set to more than 1024. But anyway, it's a vector image, so the size only affects how it's rendered on Wikipedia, it doesn't tell anything about the actual resolution of the image… –Gustavb 08:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SVG version (3). Great illustration! --Dschwen 09:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SVG, another awesome diagram. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Chinasaur. It's a very nice diagram, however, if it is inaccurate and there needs to be text in the image description to correct the errors, this is unacceptable. Now that we have a vector version, can someone just adjust the line segments in the wings? --Andrew c 20:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well they could do I suppose, although that will take additional time, and I wouldn't say the wings are that incorrect personally. Its a bit of artistic/anatomical difference of opinion I think. If one looks at the photo in the description its pretty clear that its only the hind/aft wing which is elongated at its base which isn't clear. It could be elongated at its base in the diagram, its not clear if thats the case because its not clear if the wings are flat facing the viewer of the image or at an angle to them, obsuring their exact shape. I do see where this point of concern comes from... however, its not a diagram to show the wings of the Dragonfly, but rather a diagram to show the morphology of the dragonflies body. The wings are only shown for proportion which is clearly pointed out. Changing it seems tantamount to asking Leonardo da Vinci to change Mona Lisa's hand because its 'too big and not anatomically correct to the human female form' at what point does anatomical detail v's aesthetics take over?. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 22:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, this morphological feature is one of the defining things between dragonflies and damselflies. It's not like someone is going to look at the Mona Lisa's hand and think it's a painting of a chimp, while someone could look at these wings and think its the wrong species. And seriously, when I get home I will try to edit this myself. If the image has been turned into vectors, it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes of editing. I'm not sure what program you use or how you created this, but I'm familiar with Illustrator and Freehand, and making these kinds of changes are not complex or time consuming. And I want to tell you that this is a very beautiful diagram. The color choice and design is nice, the image clean and illustrative. It just seems that an image with a known error that could confuse what species is in question that could be fixed in 5 minutes shouldn't be promoted until it is fixed.--Andrew c 22:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so how does it look with the wider wing? Is that more accurate? (side note, how come my file size is 1MB, and Gustavb's was 100kB? Any ideas what I did wrong? I was using illustrator to edit and save the file.)--Andrew c 03:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was just comparing mine to Gustavb's and I totally messed up somehow. All the strokes got a lot thicker, and the italic type was lost. Any suggestions?--Andrew c 03:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. –Gustavb 11:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right nice work so far. It needs to taper in more though, so where the hind wing is slimest at its base, it needs to be even slimmer and less curved on the right hand edge. It then needs to taper out longer, and it needs to be less rounded on the elongated edge. But its an improvement. Though none of this changes the fact the dragonflies wings don't usually sit that high except when its on its 'high' stroke in flight.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 12:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll be able to work on this again in a few hours. I think I know what I need to change, but I'm a little confused by "less curved on the right hand edge... taper out longer... less rounded on the elongated edge". Sorry, I just want to make sure I get this right. Do you know of an image that shows the wings from this angle? Or any other pointers? (What I think I need to do is to make the base/wing attachment area skinnier, get rid of the little curve before the wide part on the right hand side close to the base/attachment area, and lessen the curve between the attachment and the wide area, so the wide part starts much closer to the wing base/attachment). Thanks for your help.--Andrew c 13:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried my best to go on what was said above. Please look at edit 4 and tell me if that is ok, or more specifically what needs to be changed. Thanks!--Andrew c 15:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think edit 3 was closer. The elongation is correct but the wing doesn't start to expand outwards until its further from the body, theres a sort of 'wing stem'. But it doesn't matter. I think version 3 will be best as we are in the process of beating a horse which if not dead, certainly soon will be. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 17:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind working more to make it accurate. I just didn't understand what needed to be fixed about version 3. I mean, you could take the image and use a basic paint program and draw a very rough outline or something to illustrate what needs to be changed. Or if version 3 is good enough, so be it.--Andrew c 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think version 3 is accurate enough for FP. Now that it's vector we can make some minor additional changes but let's not worry about it for the purposes of this vote. --Chinasaur 22:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, its an anatomical diagram not a precise dimensioned schematic. For that reason version 3 seems best. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 09:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the votes in context, it seems safe to me to confirm FP for edit 3, but I'm not familiar with how this process works. Can someone move this forward? --Chinasaur 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Technically, Odonates do not have petioles. What you call "petiole" is actually comprised of the first 3 abdomenal segments. You have also given male claspers ("anal appendage" and "paraproct") to a female. Either delete the anal appendages (called "cerci" and used in grasping the female during copulation) or delete the ovipositor. There is also no stinger - dragonflies do not sting. The "sting" is actually the male paraproct, with an epiproct located slightly below the cerci and not present in your drawing. --luckynutmeg c 18 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckynutmeg (talk • contribs)

problematic wings from a taxonomic perspective

[edit]

I really liked this diagram and was most impressed. Kudos to WikipedianProlific for creating it and the other similar insect graphic art diagrams.

However I would like to suggest that the wings be modified to reflect the correct taxonomy. I believe these wings are some type of Hymenoptera (wasp or bee). Odonate wings are much more complex -which is probably why they were not used in the first place. So given I am not a graphic artist I leave that up to someone else how to correctly simplify the wings.

Here are some terms and the correct wing venation on another dragonfly: 

http://www.habitas.org.uk/dragonflyireland/anatomy_1.htm

Another site with correct wings: http://www.life.uiuc.edu/edtech/entomology_slides/pages/31432-anax-junius-wings.htm


Lastly, odonates don't sting. Hence it is odd to see a diagram on dragonfly morphology with it labeled as such. What is labeled sting is actually called a stylus. What is labeled anal appendage are technically called cerci, though they are anal appendages. Here is a site with correct morphological terms: http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9442/anatomy.pdf Moscow999 00:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Oppose. I'm no entomologist but it took me about a quarter of a second to think "why does this dragonfly have a stinger?" I note that the artist said this would be "useful for all kinds of people researching wasps". I'm probably not the only here to note that wasps are hymenoptera rather than odonata like dragonflies and damselflies. They are as different as dogs and cats. Very good drawing but better understanding of the subject was needed. House of Scandal (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F/A-22 Raptor

[edit]
300% zoom on the left tail fin. Note JPEG compression artifacts along edge.
I was reading the Fixed-wing aircraft article and was looking at the pictures; when I saw this one, I was stunned. It says it was taken by someone in the US Air Force, employee or airman. In my opinion, nothing detracts from this picture, nothing is wrong with it, but that's just my opinion; what is yours'?

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth of July fireworks behind the Washington Monument

[edit]
Washington Monument with Fourth of July fireworks in the background.

A shot of the Washington Monument with Fourth of July fireworks in the background, very eye catching and stands out from all of the Washington Monument photos.

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donax variation

[edit]
Individuals in the mollusk species Donax variabilis show diverse coloration and patterning phenotypes.

This is a follow up nomination to this one. It addresses concerns from that nomination, including, fewer shells, black background, higher res, diffuse light sources, etc. Illustrates phenotype Created by me, User:debivort.

Promoted Image:Coquina variation3.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Crater

[edit]
Version 1: Victoria crater with rover Opportunity a crater's edge taken by the HiRISE camera on board Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO).
Version 2: Victoria crater with rover Opportunity a crater's edge taken by the HiRISE camera on board Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) (labeled).

This is a really cool image of the Victoria crater and the rover Opportunity just released by NASA. I've included the two versions because, though I think the Where's Waldo aspect of Version 1 is cool, Version 2 may have more encyclopedic value. Also, Version 1's caption is lifted directly from NASA, I'm not sure if this is allowed so I've upload also Image:MarsVictoriaCrater1.jpg with an original caption. Please advise concerning this caption issue and Help find a place for Version 2 on wikipedia.


Promoted Image:PIA08813.jpg (version 1) --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella Cockatoo

[edit]
File:White Crested Cockatoo .jpg
Umbrella Cockatoo

This photo illustrates the sharp, powerful jaws and strong cage of the Umbrella Cockatoo as well as its 92% tame personality. People new to cockatoos and other kinds of parrots seem to think the birds can be carried on the shoulder. However, that is not a good idea because the creatures are sometimes in a bad mood. What article it appears in: Umbrella Cockatoo &Wikipedia:List of images/Nature/Animals/Birds Who created the image: User:Chuck Marean

  • Nominate and support. - Chuck Marean 20:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Please read the requirements for a FP. This is way too small, and has many other shortcomings. --Janke | Talk 20:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Janke and insofar as, notwithstanding the image's general deficiencies, I am unable to appreciate why the image is thought to merit FP status, if only because the nominator provides absolutely nothing consistent with Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nomination Procedure to explain why FP promotion is in order; indeed, the nomination consists solely of a restatement of that which is on the image's description page. In any event, in order that the nominator might address specific objections, I would suggest that the image, contra Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?, is not of high quality (the cage is a distracting feature; were the image to be tightly of the cage and the bird situated therein, there might be some justification, but here the image means to depict the bird and is unnecessarily complicated by the cage), is not particularly unique and surely not representative of Wikipedia's best work, is not particularly pleasing to the eye (in view of its graininess and lighting, which I suppose also fit under the not of high quality objection), and doesn't include a particularly useful caption (this surely can be remedied—People new to cockatoos and other kinds of parrots seem to think the birds can be carried on the shoulder. However, that is not a good idea because the creatures are sometimes in a bad mood could surely use work—but the other problems are more severe). Joe 20:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Falls far short of FP requirements. (Nominator should compare other bird images which have achieved FP status) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a joke picture I think. This doesn't meet a single guideline for being a featured picture. Gold Nitrate 07:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unfortunately not a joke, but likely a good faith lack of understanding of policy (given nominator's edit history). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --ZimZalaBim (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Admiral Butterfly (Vanessa Atalanta)

[edit]
Vanessa atalanta

I feel this image fulfills all of the FP criteria apart from perhaps quality, although at a downsampled size it displays nicely. It adds more to the article than the other images because of the angle, which depicts the body of the butterfly instead of just the wings.

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Statue

[edit]
The Statue of Liberty from the east, silhouetted against a golden sunset.

Created by User:Geographer.

This is one of the most stunning pictures I have ever seen. I think it really speaks for itself, but it certainly meets and exceeds all the criteria in Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?. I am blown away by the overall effect of this picture -- its composition and balance, and the color of the sky are remarkable.

It appears in the Statue of Liberty article.

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn V

[edit]
Saturn V and Apollo 4

I wonder why this image isn't featured yet. Beautiful lighting, good focus and very pleasant to the eye.

The image appears in the folllowing mainspace articles: Saturn V, Spaceflight, Apollo 4 and Arthur Rudolph.

The image was photographed by NASA and therefore is public domain.

Unfortunately, no. There is a finite amount of information coded digitally as colored pixels in each image. If an image gets bigger, there is no way to create more new information to fill in the gaps. As the WIAFP page states, NASA has a vast quantity of high resolution images, so it is surprising that this one is so small (which makes me think there may be a bigger version somewhere). Here is a list of all the Saturn V images that I could find, with multiple resolution options. I couldn't find this image.--Andrew c 21:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see.. none of these image, however, are of featured quality. Michaelas10 (T|C) 21:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention it's not in any article. NauticaShades 20:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible Triangle

[edit]
A view of a sculpture of the Penrose triangle.

I found this image while browsing Wikipedia and was relatively surprised it wasn't featured. It is high resolution and high quality and doesn't have any obvious flaws, but most importantly it captures the subject, the sculpture, at an angle so perfect that it is nearly impossible to find the "break" in the sculpture, which is actually completely disjoint. The only problems I can see is that the info page might need a bit of work, and it could be retouched/cropped as needed.

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posttower

[edit]
The Post Tower, corporate headquarters of the Deutsche Post AG.
File:Posttower Bonn 001-2.jpg
New version with increased midtones and sharpness

Nominated because it shows - in an very well done photograph - a wonderful example of modern skyscraper architecture (designed by Helmut Jahn). The picture appears in the Deutsche Post article (not all that fascinating an article in itself). It was created by Thomas Robbin (German wikipedia user).

I think the leaves HELP, because they add to the picture composition. MadMaxDog 05:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - while I feel that 1) the shadowing only affects the trees which are not the subject of the image, 2) the leaves contribute to the framing as MMDog indicated, I also feel that 3) the subject matter is of everyday experience, 4) it is by no means a stunning image of a building, and 5) I'm not sure it would generate all that much interest in an article. Leads me to weak support. Debivort 10:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For an image of a single building to be featured, it would usually be a pretty outstanding photo of a fairly unique building. I'm not sure that either of these apply. I don't mind the 'framing' leaves, but I don't like the placement of the tree on the left - a better angle could probably have been found if the photographer wasn't trying to hide the sun behind the building. --jjron 13:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - New version with increased midtones and sharpness. Trees frame the off-center image nicely. —dogears (talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Comment - Actually this photo is not really bad, but as mentioned above, a picture of a single building should be really amazing to be FP. The leafs and the clouds are no problem, but the quality is not really good and the edit made it worst. By the way, this form of architecture is not MODERN anymore. Actually the modern architecture is really different now. --Arad 04:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose per Andrew c and jjron. Good picture and all, but, it lacks something. I don't like the tree on the left; the one on the upper right corner actually adds to the picture, though. Overall, just misses FP status. | AndonicO 14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The edit is horrible, look at the grass and the quality of the leaves on the tree. The first picture isn't so bad, it just isn't awe-inspiring enough to be an FP. drumguy8800 C T 03:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose original, oppose edit 1. The original isn't very detailed, and the backlit lighting doesn't help. And the edit did strange things to the grass and other areas. --Tewy 01:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose--Vircabutar 04:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pennant Coralfish

[edit]
Pennant Coralfish, Melbourne Aquarium
Edit 1, brings out details in pelvic fins
Edit 2, I think this is what Janke wanted

Closing some noms today and realized just how few fish FP's there are. This pic shows a Pennant fish in the Melbourne Aquarium. It's sharp and has a nice background (not easy in an Aquarium!) and shows an interesting (at least I think) fish.

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 11:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I only like the orginal though, the edits are too pixelated. Great encyclopedic value and good quality. The only issue is the slight blown highlights, but those are hard to avoid considering the fish reflecting scales. NauticaShades(talk) 11:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1 2 (see my comments further down). I brought out some detail in the pelvic fins, which are almost black in the original. Nice fish! Edible? ;-P PS: Horrible problems with wiki tha past two days - up & downloads stall or break, has anyone else noticed? --Janke | Talk 13:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: Fir, I liked your first version better (on commons image page), the unsharp masking you used to bring out the scales did strange things to the background! If you can get back the original background and still keep the better scales, I could make new fins for you... ;-) --Janke | Talk 13:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice edit... I mean that doesn't look realistic at all! ;-)--Fir0002 05:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Original - I don't get what's going on with the edit Janke, I can't even see it). Lovely photo. However can I suggest this pic be added to the Butterflyfish article as well or instead, as despite its resemblance to the Moorish Idol, and its mention in that article, it's not even in the same Family. Until there's an article on Heniochus, or this actual species, Butterflyfish is about as close as I can find on Wikipedia. --jjron 13:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, I brought detail to the black fins (and the scales above them). However, this can be seen only when viewed in full size (I hope you did), on a properly calibrated monitor (I hope yours is)... --Janke | Talk 17:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean I literally can't see Edit 1, even when I try to open just its image page, but it must just be me for some reason cos obviously others can see it (can see Edit 2). --jjron 07:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see three (or even four) dark gray circles in the calibration image? If not, your monitor doesn't display shadow detail well. --Janke | Talk 07:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No blur applied, that's how it looked. Can't tell you off hand, but I'd have been using a pretty large aperture due to the low light which would have contributed to the bg blur I suppose. --Fir0002 23:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the BG looks manipulated in the original, too. To me, it appears to be unsharp masking with large radius, to bring out the scales. Fir fixed it in edit 2. --Janke | Talk 08:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either original or edit 1. I opened two windows and flipped back and forth between the original and the edit, and the only visible difference I see (at full size) is the lightening of the fins. If there really is a difference in the two backgrounds, my monitor isn't properly calibrated, because I don't notice a thing. Oh, and Janke, Fish are friends, not food. --Tewy 20:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
;-) --Fir0002 23:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that not all people agree with that... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The bg is the same in original and edit 1, see comment below. --Janke | Talk 08:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 2 nice pic, the edit is nice cause you get to see the fins. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 03:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, edit 2 is what I "wanted". Fir: if you can get all supporters of edit 1 to switch to edit 2, you can remove my edit 1, since the change there is incorporated in edit 2, even if not quite as clearly. Tewy: edit 1 is done from the displayed original, but there was an earlier version which is in edit 2 now - I definitely like the background better in that one. I think edit 2 also addresses Diliff's concern. --Janke | Talk 06:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Pennant coralfish melb aquarium edit2.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AT4 Rocket Launcher

[edit]
Marine fires AT-4 rocket launcher

Found it while browsing this article. Just a really nice image and I think it depicts the article well.

  • Nominate and support. - Code E 21:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very dramatic, sharp focus. Flash is saturated, but I don't really mind. (And: he just totally r0x0rd the dood next to him ZOMG!)Debivort 21:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The blown highlights are unavoidable, but there are still JPEG artifacts, and the rocket launcher isn't clearly depicted (only the projectile and its backblast). --Tewy 23:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, I'm confused. You think the projectile and blast are clear, but the launcher isn't? It seems the complete opposite for me. The jpeg artifacts you see, are they places outside the sky? If they are only in the sky, they could be easily fixed. Debivort 02:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The launcher is obscured by the person holding it, the other part (I'm not sure what it is) is obscured by the hill, and the second person is distracting from the subject. Sure, you can make out that a projectile is escaping at a high rate of speed, and that a soldier is holding it as the backblast shoots out of the back, but I'd like to see more details of the launcher itself (what's to say this isn't a different kind of launcher?). But that wasn't the main reason for my oppose. If you look around the edges of the soldier using the rocket launcher, you'll see the artifacts I'm talking about. --Tewy 03:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • After looking over the image more carefully, I've decided that the problems I've pointed out aren't that serious, so I'll change my vote. --Tewy 03:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose. --Tewy 03:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is an AT-4 rocket launcher (as stated in the source provided in it's description) but I don't think it's that hard to tell it isn't anyway. Also, the article it's used in is about Shoulder-launched missle weapons, not just that specific model. One of the main reasons I chose it because I thought it represented the article well.
As for the jpeg artifacts, there is a little there, yes, but it's not very noticeable in my opinion. Code E 12:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (11 support / 6 oppose / 1 weak oppose) --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Rainbow Bridge with yakatabune at night 20060529.jpg

Mason bees

[edit]
Two Mason bees
File:Bee FPC regions.png
detail of what seem like oddly colored regions

Another lovely insect image from User:Aka of two Mason bees (presumably) mating, along the same lines as his Anthomyiidae picture. Clear, sharp, good exposure. What more could you ask for? Oh, and it's featured on Commons too.

*Neutral, with caveat I would like verification of the "alleged mating" part before I put in my vote for Support. If it is what it is, then i'll support it. If not, I will oppose. And I am unanimous in that. --293.xx.xxx.xx 02:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common Raccoon face

[edit]
Common Raccoon

A very clear and sharp image of the face of a Common Raccoon so that the "mask" can be easily discerned. Taken by Benutzer:Darkone and used in the animal's article. This is a Commons featured picture.

That was just triggered by all the vibrissae comments above, it's not anywhere near as good a picture for them as the one we just promoted. As for the face, the way it just blurs off to the right makes the face/head indistinct from a part of the body that I'm pretty sure is not directly connected to it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 2.jpg NauticaShades 21:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gull ca usa

[edit]
Western Gull

Renominated image as was added late to this nomination and although did gain some support, many voters did not respecify their vote. So I've renominated it seperately.

Promoted Image:Gull ca usa.jpg - 7/1.5 --NauticaShades 09:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leapsecond.ut1-utc

[edit]
Plot showing the difference UT1−UTC in seconds.
Vertical segments correspond to leap seconds. Red part of graph was prediction (future values) at the time the file was made.

Graph showing the difference between UTC (based on an atomic clock with leap seconds) and UT1 (based on the movement of the Earth). This graph illustrates the effect of leap seconds, along with why there have been so few leap seconds in the past several years.

Used in Leap second, Coordinated Universal Time and DUT1.

  • Nominate and support. - Billpg 16:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. It's in SVG, looks good, and demonstrates the concept, but I don't think it's the best Wikipedia has to offer. I also don't like the very short "predicted" segment at the end. It should either have a relatively long predicted segment, or none at all. This type of graph will have to be updated every year or so to remain accurate. --Tewy 17:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yeah I guess it's encyclopedic, but it's certainly not pleasing to the eye, or at least mine. Robert 23:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an idea for a different graph, I'd like to see a cumulative chart of measured deviation from 0 leapseconds, with a second jagged line representing the official UTC time (including the effects of leapseconds). This one just looks like a jittery line, and makes it hard to grasp the actual variance over time. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Ordinary science graph. The maximum value of the ordinate axis should be 1.0, not 0.8. -- Alvesgaspar 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just out of curiosity, what's wrong with the value 0.8? - Adrian Pingstone 07:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing really wrong as a matter of fact. But it is a common practise in scientific graphs to use "round" numbers whenever possible or adequate, with the aim of facilitating reading and interpretation. It is also a common practise to extend the ordinate axis a little beyond the extreme values, I believe for aesthetical reasons. - Alvesgaspar 10:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leap seconds are intended so that the difference never goes beyond +/- 0.9 seconds. --Billpg 12:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize if this is in the wrong place or I'm doing this wrong, I'm new to editing...But is there a possibility someone could point me to a graph of all the data since 73? I'd be curious to see, in a plain and simple graph, if there are any patterns or trends there. --Curious 10:36, 01 April 2007 (EST)

Not promoted --NauticaShades 16:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sun

[edit]
The Sun, as seen from the surface of Earth through a camera lens.

Sol, as viewed from under an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere at 1 AU. I personally prefer the human view of this star rather than the "orange" pictures normally used, such as the recent sun/earth comparison.

Used in Sun, Star, Solar System and Blue supergiant along with a variety of userboxes; (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.)

Do not, under any circumstances, look directly at the Sun with the naked eye or through any conventional lens or glass.

  • Nominate and support. - Billpg 14:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this unique image. Mgiganteus1 14:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't understand the purpose of this image. It dosn't seem to show the actual ball of the sun and only shows optical flare caused by too bright a light shining into the camera. So it's not a picture of the sun but of the rays and other optical artefacts produced in the camera. Sorry, but I can see no encyclopedic value whatever in this picture - Adrian Pingstone 15:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blown highlights in the sun :) j/k. Actually, I can oppose for relatively low resolution and grainy jpg artifacts throughout the image. I have no problem with an image illustrating "the Sun as seen from Earth" if labeled as such. That seems encylopedic to me. --Bridgecross 15:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per arpingstone. --Thelb4 19:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This image isn't so much the sun as the artifacts produced by the camera when looking at the sun. Also, a part of the encyclopedic value of a photo is that it shows something people normally couldn't otherwise see. Unless they're living deep underground or in England, people can see the sun any time they want. Severnjc 21:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is nothing encyclopedic about this picture because its what we see. If I wanted to see this picture I would go and look at the sun. No information is given from the picture and its not visually appealing. --Midnight Rider 00:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As several people have already said, this isn't even the sun, so much as lens flare, aside from the low image quality. Thegreenj 00:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not the best Wikipedia has to offer. --Tewy 03:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose A few days ago, someone tried to have a bit of fun with an image of number 42 (supposdly the answer to whatever). When I saw this image, I thought it'll be a good joke for FPC. This image is seriously not unique, poor quality, can be taken from anywhere on earth by any human being alive with any color camera, and it's not the best wikipedia can offer. Maybe this is a joke too? Arad 04:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong opposed This isn't a decent picture. 1. It's not unique. 2.It's not the finest work possible of the sun (an actual picture of the sun from Nasa etc would be even better. 3. It does not truely contribute much to the article, everyone has most likely seen this sun to know what a sun is without the picture. Again, a Nasa picture would be more suitable. --Steven 01:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - wouldn't it be interesting to use a camera obscura to get a good image of the sun? Just an idea--Niro5 18:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Rather boring photo. . 23:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --NauticaShades 16:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITER Reactor

[edit]
File:ITER col.jpg
Technical Cutaway of the ITER device.

The Internationan Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor joint international research and development project that aims to demonstrate the scientific and technical feasibility of fusion power. Designed to produce approximately 500,000,000 watts of fusion power sustained for up to 500 seconds.

Luzern old part of town

[edit]
Old part of Luzern
Edit #1

Great picture of the old part of Lucerne and the Reuss river. Appears in the Lucerne and Reuss River articles. It is going to be a commons FP. Photo taken by Simon Koopmann


My bad, fixed. drumguy8800 C T 22:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted

Onion

[edit]
Onions on a white background

The soft lighting and selective focus makes this quite an interesting image IMO. Makes a perfect lead image on the Onion article

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 22:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not voting yet, because I am not on my good monitor, but the image seems too light/bright. I can see that the highlights are not blown, but the amount of contrast between the background and the highlights is distracting. Also the DoF is a little shallow. It looks pretty with the background onions out of focus, but the tip of the foreground onion is blurred. For encyclopedic purposes, it may have been better going for a smaller aperture so we could see the detail on all the onions. The photo looks professional, like stock photography, sure, but I'm torn on if something like that is encyclopedic.--Andrew c 22:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken a photo to try and address these issues. Since it is one of my first images, I have posted a request for comment (peer review) at Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Yellow onions. Input would be greatly appreciated.--Andrew c 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Another great photo by Fir. As far as the DoF, I think the artistic slant is good and doesn't make the image unencyclopedic. The foreground onion is clean enough -- though there is a bit of detail lost at the tip. Adding the variety to the caption would be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody.pope (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose per Andrew c's reasoning. It looks overly bright and DOF is too shallow. Would suggest a similar picture taken at a smaller aperture, less exposure, and maybe have one of the onions peeled or partially peeled? More encyclopedic that way. Compositionally it's very nice, and agree it would make a nice stock photography-type image if the brightness were dialed down. -- Moondigger 00:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that sounds good. Maybe cut one of the onions in half to get a cross section? Yeah.--Andrew c 01:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose It's a good photo, but I think it could better illustrate the concept if there were two onions in focus, rather than just the one. As it is we only get a clean shot of half an onion, while the rest are just background without adding any real information. Severnjc 02:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For encyclopedic porposes it would be nice to have one of them cut in half, and a slightly higher DOF. --Dschwen 06:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. Agree with Dschwen about having one of them cut in half to reveal the layers of the onion. Otherwise a pretty classy shot - a minor issue is the texture of the surface in the shadow of the onion but not big problem obviously. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--James 16:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Good composition, but the DOF and lighting could be improved. I'd like to see more contrast, and possibly the inner layers. --Tewy 02:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Good picture, but a cross section of the onion would be a very encyclopedic addition. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abies cones

[edit]
Juvenile male cones of a fir (Abies nordmanniana)

I nominate these picture for the unusual and lively colours of the cones and leaves, seeming to announce Spring. The photo was taken by Joaquim Alves Gaspar in April 2005, in a mountainous region of Portugal (Serra da Estrela)


Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The First Step on the Moon

[edit]
Neil Armstrong about to take the first step on the moon.
Although saying the quality is lacking is an understatement, it is extremely important, historical, encyclopedic, unique, and will never, ever, be taken again (compare to ). It appears in the article Apollo 11. It was uploaded by User:Rmhermen, but I do not know the original photographer. This picture was taken from the TV footage on Goldstone Station.
  • Nominate and Support | AndonicO 16:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Actual NASA photos are easy to obtain and are of much higher quality than this one -- why not search their site to find a better photo? SteveHopson 17:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, unless this is really the best picture of the event. Otherwise, weak support per nom. --Billpg 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alright, I'll try to find a better one. | AndonicO 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I well remember watching this on UK TV in 1969 but I hope we can get a better picture than this - Adrian Pingstone 20:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is apparently some talk of converting the proprietary format used by the moon lander video cameras into something useable. If that happens then we may get a good quality picture of this.Seano1 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, nothing turns up looking even remotly similar. Probably because it's a picture of the TV set. | AndonicO 23:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The idea is good but the picture is ridiculously bad. I'm sure there is a better picture of this. --Midnight Rider 02:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Seano1, NASA has yet to digitize any of the original video (or at least hasn't released it). Here's the low down on the pic: "S69-42583 (20 JULY 1969) --- Astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, Apollo 11 commander, descends the ladder of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module (LM) prior to making the first step by man on another celestial body. This view is a black and white reproduction taken from a telecast by the Apollo 11 lunar surface camera during Extravehicular Activity (EVA). The black bar running through the center of the picture is an anomaly in the television ground data system at the Goldstone Tracking Station." There’s plenty of good pics that aren't this first moment. Because NASA will probably digitize this, we should wait to add it as a featured pic. --Cody.Pope 02:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Poor quality considering there may be better ones out there. If someone finds one and I might reconsider. --Tewy 01:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Historical value does not change the fact that this is a photograph of a monitor. Originals do exist and will become available. This is replacable. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I doubt there exists (or will exist) any higher quality version of this image. NASA has realy not yet released original video footage, but this is image from it. --Li-sung 20:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citus Fruits

[edit]
Various Citrus Fruits.

A picture of various slices of citrus fruits. Taken by Scott Bauer of the Agricultural Research Service. It's relatively good quality, and quite encyclopedic. Appears in Citrus and Sphere packing.

  • Nominate and support. - NauticaShades 13:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Grapefruits, Oranges, Limes & Lemons, I've tried them all (being from Florida). These look good to me. | AndonicO 15:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is a lot of "dust" on the fruits AND on the white background. The lime on the lower left corner as a bit of a fruit under it that is very displeasing to the eye (that way it is made, it almost look like a stitching error, even if it's not that). This picture feels also like it could use a little more contrast and seems to lack resolution. PYMontpetit 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this image looks horrid at 100%. Like it has been artificially enlarged and posterized (or maybe it was converted from a GIF or something with a very limited bit/color field).--Andrew c 23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be silly. You could have easily looked at the original image (a 1MB JPEG file) to verify that no enlargement has taken place: rather the original image was cropped to its present size, the background was deliberately overexposed to get rid of the film grain, and furthermore it was denoised and sharpened. Had you actually looked at the original image, you would have seen that it doesn't have good contrast and tonal range to begin with (the median pixel value is 216), which is not surprising given that it was shot directly against an illuminated surface. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, I was just saying what it looked like. As if it had been enlarged and posterized. We both agree the image was originally poor, and you can't make magic out of something like that. The 'effects' and retouching don't help, so I still oppose it, even if it wasn't actually enlarged (but just looks it).--Andrew c 03:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose -- too much dirt/dust. Clean it up and I'll support. howcheng {chat} 17:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, This is already a wikipedia featured picture --Vircabutar 04:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? It's a commons FP, I don't think it's a Wikipedia one. --jjron 07:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose At first glance I wanted to support this, but a full resolution the noise and dust are too great. And this is not a FP here, but on the commons, which has different FP criteria. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Canyon South Rim

[edit]
File:Grand Canyon South Rim Panorama.jpg
The Grand Canyon South Rim
File:Grand Canyon South Rim Panorama edit.jpg
Edit #1: sharpen, rm grain, slight saturation adjustment

Nice panorama of the Grand Canyon, meets all requirements; Appears in Grand Canyon, Created by Digon3

  • Nominate and support. - Thegreenj 01:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit - Sharpened, removed grain, slight increase in saturation. drumguy8800 C T 03:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both. Both are fairly blurry, and I think I see some stitching flaws in the sky. I can understand that atmospheric conditions at the time of the shot would prevent a crystal clear image, but even the very foreground (on the bottom) is blurry. The edit helps to improve some flaws, but not enough for my support. I also don't like the people on the lower left. --Tewy 03:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Neutral The bluriness appears to be caused by atmospheric haze, an unavoidable phenomena when you consider that the background in this photograph is probably 10-15 miles distant. This photo does an excellent job of illustrating the scope of the grand canyon. Also, the people in the lower right, if anything, serve to add scale to the image. Severnjc 06:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After seeing Diliff's I have to agree that this simply isn't the same level of quality. If it's not suitable for FP status, this one certainly isn't. Severnjc 04:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The quality is not satisfactory for an FPC. Maybe it is heat haze but that doesn't concern the viewer, who just wants to see a sharp pic - Adrian Pingstone 08:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The grand canyon is a difficult subject to photograph (short of renting a plane and flying down the middle of the canyon, that is) but this image isn't the best that we can offer. I personally subjectively prefer my panorama, also on that article, but I wouldn't necessarily nominate it for FPC as it isn't that good either. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. One of the source images is out of focus (there is a visible transition between a sharp and and a blurry region right of the center), and there is a weird blending error in the sky, looks like a stain due to water spotting. The removal o the people is done badly and is just unnecessary manipulation. If this spot is frequented by tourists, so be it, its part of the message of the picture. --Dschwen 11:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Haze can usually be fixed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per focus/transition HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House Sparrow

[edit]
Female House Sparrow

For a relatively common bird it is surprising that there are nearly no good photos of it on commons or elsewhere. That said, despite being pretty tame, they are still tricky subjects to photograph. I particularly like the posture of the bird in this image.

Ok, where? Because from what I've seen on commons, and the previous image that headed the House Sparrow article (Image:SparrowsMaleFemale.jpg) the alternatives are pretty poor. --Fir0002 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose dito, the background is disturbing. All the time I'm asking myself what it is ;). I have no fantasy :/. Darkone 21:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All right, the House Sparrow is a rather ordinary looking bird. But this is a very high quality photo of said un-interesting bird. Hence it is encyclopedic for the article. I have also seen better pictures (of other subjects). I have no fantasy. --Bridgecross 22:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A fine looking bird, but the background is quite distracting. I can't help wondering what that is back there - a television? Whatever it is, it draws attention away from the subject and seems incongruous. Also, the banding in the out of focus area is distracting. I agree this image is better than what can be found of this subject on Wikipedia and Commons, but it still doesn't seem like FP material to me. -- Moondigger 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak oppose. It's a technically great shot, but the composition, namely the background, ruins it for me. It's tricky to get a neutral background in an urban setting, but it could be better. --Tewy 01:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - the background is unnatural, but the sparrow is largely an urban bird. Just as it would be strange to see a pidgeon or cockroach in front of a field of flowers, so too would it be strange to see a sparrow there. Background, with its industrial look, adds to the encyclopedic value, imho. Debivort 08:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objection to an urban setting. Rather, I find the background distracting because I can't figure out what that is back there. It looks vaguely like a television, and that's incongruous because televisions wouldn't normally be found outdoors next to a ledge. I realize it's most likely not a television, but nonetheless it is distracting. -- Moondigger 13:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Personally I couldn't care less about the background, when the bird is so sharp it almost looks 3D, how can your eye fail to be drawn to it. Terri G 18:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well, if it is a house sparrow a non natural looking background seems appropriate to me. After all it is blurred enough to make the sharp and detailed bird stand out. The only minor flaw I see is that the shape of the beak is a little obscured in this full frontal view. --Dschwen 14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - A great photo, but I'd prefer a closer crop to eliminate some of that distracting background area and also to focus your eyes on the bird better when at thumbnail size. - CountdownCrispy ( ? 15:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The sparrow is quite sharp and detailed but I actually prefer the female sparrow taken by Fir0002 from the article. The composition is better and it stands out more against the background than this one, which is one of the main reasons for my opposition to this image, so in that sense I agree with Tewy and Moondigger. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree that the other image is superior, both for the less-distracting background and for the fact that the profile gives us a better idea of the details of the bird's head and beak. I suggest it be nominated separately. -- Moondigger 17:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. Good resolution and excellent quality, however, just like what CountdownCrispy said, I prefer a closer crop. Acs4b 07:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support background is a tad dodgy. But the picture still looks very good and is perfect for articles. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 08:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I remember seeing this picture on Fir's user page not too long ago; I was impressed with the quality. As to whether this image is better, possibly if we had a vote. It would be close, but I like this one better. Good work Fir0002. | AndonicO 10:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Very appealing composition, very good resolution, very illustrative of a Sparrow! I feel that everyone who is in opposition to this photo commented solely based on personal aesthetic values. Jellocube27 14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but crop. --Masamage 20:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but only because you have made a better alternative. The other female photo is heaps better, and it still shows the urban environment. Good work with these, they are great. --liquidGhoul 05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Towsonu2003 22:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sparrow on ledge.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyanocitta-cristata-004.jpg

[edit]
Blue Jay

Mdf created several beautiful pictures of birds. Many pictures deserve to be featured. This is one of them and appears in the article Cyanocitta.

Promoted Image:Cyanocitta-cristata-004.jpg howcheng {chat} 17:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam Canal

[edit]
A panoramic view of an Amsterdam Canal in the summer
File:800px-Amsterdam Canals - July 2006 temp.jpg
edit 2.

I took this back in July and liked the result but didn't get around to nominating it until now. It is a 4 segment stitched panorama taken vertically. It is high resolution, detailed, and shows a very typical Amsterdam canal, with compact housing, road transportation and canal transportation all well represented. It is used as the lead image in the Amsterdam article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Amsterdam Canals - July 2006.jpg howcheng {chat} 17:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley Snowflake Photographs

[edit]
Snowflakes by Wilson Bentley, in 1902.

Not only is this image quite exquisite in my opinion, but is carries much historical value. It was taken by Wilson Bentley, the first person known to photograph snowflakes. He did so by catching an individual snowflake on a blackboard, rushing it onto some black velvet, which he would then potograph using a bellows camera he had attached to a microscope. It is used in Water, Ice, Snow, Snowflake, Crystallization, Johnson State College, and Wilson Bentley of course.

Promoted Image:SnowflakesWilsonBentley.jpg howcheng {chat} 17:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malibu Hindu Temple

[edit]
Hindu temple near Malibu, California

I had taken many pictures of temple last weekend. I am nominiating this one since this one is front-facing one of the lot. It is high resolution, adds greatly to the Malibu Hindu Temple article.

I agree with both your comments. It was taken a little too early in the morning. I will try to take a picture of better composition and lighting in my next visit. I will try to get this picture in particular. It will avoid getting the cars. Do you think that picture is a better one? - Ganeshk (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to technical side of the photography. Do you have any suggestions to avoid washed out colors. I have a Canon PowerShot 500. Is it even worth it to try FPC with pictures from it? :) Please advise. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly up against the 8-ball with a lower quality P&S camera, but it by no means disqualifies you. To avoid washed out colours, you have to be quite selective about the weather and the time of day you photograph in. A photo taken on a day with grey clouds and no blue sky is likely to result in either a washed out white sky or a dark foreground and dull colours. Ideally, you will have blue skies (which are actually darker in relation to the landscape than on a dull grey day, where the clouds are somewhat lit up by sunlight but disperse the light in all directions so less of it hits the ground). If you do take a photo on a sunny day, it helps to take the photo facing away from the sun, so the sunlight is hitting the subject directly and you are less likely to get strong shadows or the sun blowing out the sky in the background of the photo. Hope that helps. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unité d'Habitation

[edit]

Reasons for nominating: This is a flattering detail shot of the Unité, providing good detail of the irregular, blocky facade. It is in good resolution, with no visible artifacts, and excellent contrast, also showing the building contrasted against a blue sky. This angled view showcases the colorful walls of the balconies, which a head-on shot would not capture. The composition is centered on the Hotel Le Corbusier on the third floor, which has a distinct yet in-style appearance. The photo's angle also showcases the building's imposing size. Unlike in many photos of brutalist structures, the concrete is bright and has good tone.

The Unité itself is noteworthy as one of French architect Le Corbusier's most famous works, which was replicated by him throughout Europe. His designs, especially that of this building, are credited as starting the Brutalist architecture movement.

What articles it appears in: Unité d'Habitation and Brutalist architecture

Who created the image: Andy Wright [7]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar

[edit]
Head shot
Edit2:Corrected colors
Edit 3 by Diliff - Corrected colours more accurately than edit 2 (which has blown out some of the white) and reduced background noise. Sorry, I know this is getting to be an excessive number of edits again :-/ )
Edit 4 by Diliff/Fir0002 - Sharpened version of Edit 3
Sitting
Edit1:Corrected colors, cropped

I took both these images and not sure which to put forth so putting both forth. :) Both appear on Jaguar.

  • Note: Just so that it's clear, these are two separate photos. The head shot is not a crop of the sitting photo.
  • Second note: These are not fake nor are they of a stuffed animal. It is a living, breathing Jaguar at the milwaukee zoo at an indoor exhibit with a painted background. And, yes, he stood there just like that for no less than 15 minutes which is why some may think it was stuffed.


Good job with the color correction Diliff, but would have liked to see some sharpening, so have applied some. --Fir0002 22:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Head Shot Edit 1.. The headshot minimises the visibility of the somewhat fake looking background, but I think the white balance is a bit off. I know the white fur is not literally white, but it should be a bit less pastey yellow I think. Looks like it was shot indoors with incandescent lighting or something. Would likely support a corrected edit.

Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radcliffe Camera, Oxford

[edit]
Radcliffe Camera, Oxford, England
Horizontal lean
Various leans
Existing FP alignment

This is a mosaic stitched panorama I took of the Radcliffe Camera in Oxford on the weekend. It is one again extremely high resolution (3137x4605) and detailed, clear and quite an interesting view of a beautiful building. There is an existing FP of this building, but I feel that this FPC is far superior in many ways (resolution, exposure) and the old FP would be a good candidate for de-listing should this one be supported (and perhaps even if it isn't - the existing FP is below resolution standards at 500x667).

  • Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. Amazing quality, good encyclopedic value. But is that tilt I see?NauticaShades 07:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if it is an illusion or not but the building seems deformed, as if the shot were made with a wide angle lens. The effect is not very pleasant for me. -- Alvesgaspar 08:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it must be an illusion, as the building is not deformed. ;-) Due to the distance between the viewpoint and the subject, a wide(ish) angle of view is necessary to fit the subject comfortably into the frame. This is unavoidable for the subject. This 'deformity' (it is commonly called perspective distortion) is worse (although different) if you take a photo from ground level. The difference is that we are more used to seeing things from ground level so the distortion we see such photos is generally disregarded. I think this FPC image is a more interesting angle, though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Incredibly sharp and I like the lighting, however I agree with Nautica, there is a fairly obvious lean. Also agree with Alvesgaspar about the deformity (especially in comparison to the existing FP) - similar to the Roman baths shot, I'm sure this could have been taken as a single shot, avoiding the distortion and still uploaded at a sufficient res (12 megapixel) to more than justify FPC requirements. Just as a side note - any idea why this section is so much sharper than this bit? --Fir0002 10:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, the lean is not obvious: it's most likely an optical illusion. Secondly, I really don't see the distortion you are talking about. NauticaShades 10:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't a major difference in sharpness between those two crops that I can see, but it could be explained by a slight focus difference between frames (was set to autofocus, not manual) or perhaps slight blur (it was handheld) but it is reasonably negligible. As for the distortion, the difference between the roman baths image and this image is that there would be no significant difference between taking it with a single shot as opposed to a panorama as they were both stitched with rectilinear perspective. The only distortion in the image is the same distortion you would get with a normal rectilinear lens. The roman baths were stitched with a spherical perspective, meaning the same sort of distortion as a fish-eye lens. In comparing to the existing FP, I can't see any significant difference in the disortion (but of course the existing FP is so small it is difficult to see much detail at all). To summarise, this image has all the same attributes as a single rectilinear photo in terms of perspective distortion so that argument is kinda moot. As for the lean, can you demonstrate and quantify it? As I mentioned previously, if there is an actual lean it is pretty negligible. Any perceived lean is more likely to be due to the photo not being taken directly in front of the doors (so that the doors do not line up with the windows or spire exactly). If there is a lean, it is probably less than 0.5% - likely less than other architectural images that have passed FPC. Is this really a reason to oppose? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No I agree the difference in sharpness is neglible I was just interested. My main concern was the tilt/distortion factor. If you're not using Firefox, get it, and then open your image and the existing image in two tabs and flick b/w the two and I think you'll see what I mean by distortion. The existing one looks fairly natural (to me anyway) and your one seems to bulge down the middle/bottom. As for lean I calculate it to be at least 1 degree horizontally and a lot vertically. Vertical lean could be just perspective but still gives the image an unbalanced look - which is definetly not an attribute diserable for an architectural image! Key points in the example - I think that the center of the door in the bottom should be in alignment with the spire at the top - note center verticle line. The bulge at the base can be see on the left and right lines. Line at base of dome shows horizontal lean. --Fir0002 11:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the crop of the window is not a good basis for comparison because as I mentioned previously, it is not in the centre of the view of the building and as the building is circular, of course it is going to tilt as it is somewhat rotated around. Thats like saying a disc's circumference isn't horizontal when viewed slightly from above. As for the other image, I can see what may be a very slight tilt to the right - I'll re-stitch it tonight (or just rotate the existing image) to see if it will improve things. You are right, vertical lean is perspective and that will be the case with ANY image that is photographed at anything remotely wide angle due to basic laws of physics - any object viewed from angle will result in parallel lines diverging. This can be corrected when stitching by setting the centre point at the horizon but it will then distort other parts of the image as it bends those lines straight. You simply cannot avoid distortion of some kind in photography - you can only minimise it by taking photos with a long telephoto lens at a large distance (not very practical!). I still maintain that it is a pretty petty reason to oppose though, but you're entitled to your opinion ;-). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK fair enough, I not pretending to understand all physics behind stitching panos etc, but the fact remains is that the existing FP manages to get a near perfect straight line from spire to center of door. Perhaps you could have moved position a little? Anyway thanks for agreeing to entitle me with my opinion ;-) --Fir0002 22:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Note that the picture hasn't been taken from directly in front (compare the sides). This could account for the apparent horizontal lean on the centre window. Either way it's not a big deal. ed g2s • talk 11:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neutral The shooting position is obviously the origin of the apparent distortion of the building and other geometrical problems. I understand that, no matter what solution was adopted (a series of shots or a single shot with a wide angle lens), the result would be basically the same. So, we can't blame the photographer for his choices, except the position of the camera (but I suspect that nothing can be done about that...). But aesthetical considerations, although subjective, are also relevant. And I think the building looks ugly in this picture. -- Alvesgaspar 12:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say that "ugliness" is quite subjective, and I also do not see what you are talking about at all: I just don't see how the Radcliffe looks ugly in this circumstance. NauticaShades 15:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither do I. I don't think this image looks significantly different (aside from quality) than the original FP and it received glowing reviews. Obviously standards have increased a little since then but this is one of the landmark sites of Oxford and I think it looks pretty impressive from any angle, but viewing it from above ground level allows a better view of its position relative to the city. In the end, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but at least it seems the majority can still appreciate this one. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really ugly, I must confess (I've changed my vote to "neutral"). The problem is most of your pictures are superb!... --- Alvesgaspar 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Apparentely, there is some freedom in choosing the camera position. At least, it is possible to center the door! Also, it seems that the existing FP was taken from a slightly lower position -- Alvesgaspar 23:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct, it was possible to center the door, and I thought I was pretty centered at the time. ;-) The problem was that it was a VERY old tower and there was just barely enough room for people to squeeze past me, so I was fairly limited in my ability to take my time and line everything up perfectly. I am happy to admit this image isn't geometrically aligned perfectly, but I still believe that the pros outweigh the cons ;). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wow, what a lot of talk! I'll just cut through it and say I like it, even with a few non-worrying leans - Adrian Pingstone 13:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. howcheng {chat} 17:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it certainly is better than the one it is replacing. If someone else wants to get a diliff quality picture that doesn't have a one degree slant, I would support that one in this one's place.--Niro5 19:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As far as I can tell the distortion is minimal, and may have been unavoidable. --Tewy 00:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As far as i know, this photo is good. Arad 18:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – very nice picture. If the lean is really a problem, all it would take is a slight rotation and crop to make the edges straight again; I could do it in about 3 1/2 seconds if needed. — Editor at Large(speak) 17:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted Image:Radcliffe Camera, Oxford - Oct 2006.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dendroica pensylvanica

[edit]
A female Chestnut-sided Warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica) at Rondeau Provincial Park in Ontario, Canada

I've been hanging around FPC for a while, and I figured it was time I actually nominated something, so here's my first shot. This photo is high resolution, good image quality, and highly encyclopedic. It appears in Chestnut-sided warbler and List of Kansas birds. It was created by Mdf.

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina

[edit]
Hurricane Katrina on August 28 2005.

This image is not only huge and good quality, but it has a lot of encyclopedic and historical value as well as being pleasing to the eye. Taken by NASA, it appears in Hurricane Katrina, Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina, List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis paradise island

[edit]
Royal towers, beach towers, and coral towers of hotel on Atlantis Paradise Island.
Edit #2: Rotated CCW, cropped, brightened, rm blown highlights on trees

This photo is high resolution, good image quality, and highly encyclopedic. It appears on the Atlantis Paradise Island page, and was created by N4nojohn.

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cunda

[edit]
View from a fish restaurant in Cunda Island

An eye-catching view from a not-well-known touristic destination.

What article it appears in: Cunda_Island Who created the image: User:Towsonu2003


Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lychee

[edit]
Lychees

Note: Many of the early oppose votes were due to size. However, a higher resolution version was uploaded. Older voters, please update your votes accordingly.

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 15:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Jupiter

[edit]
The most detailed map of Jupiter in existence, according to Nasa.
This picture well illustrates the rings of Jupiter, as well as the south pole (which I didn't know existed). It says on the Nasa page that it is the most detailed map of Jupiter ever made. It was constructed with images taken by Cassini, and appears in the article Jupiter. The captions are also very good, as it was "Image of the day" on the Nasa page.
  • weak Support I don't mind the polar view - it is certainly more unusual, and provides information beyond what is seen in the standard perspective. My hesitation comes from wondering about how much distortion there is near the equator, and how far up the map goes lattitude-wise. btw - Jupiter does have rings, just not charismatic ones. Debivort 08:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'd prefer another projection. Yes, Jupiter has rings, but they are practically invisible. What you see in this image are the cloud belts. --Janke | Talk 08:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, that is what I meant, belts (I think they call them bands sometimes too). Sorry for the mistake. | AndonicO 09:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what is that weird blurry circle at the very center of the image?--Andrew c 15:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure; it seems like it is some kind of supermassive crater or something of that kind (which is of course impossible). It is probably there to cover up something, maybe a gap which none of the Cassini pictures could fill in. | AndonicO Talk 18:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I had to guess, it's just a color fill put in by NASA. Remember, the satellite isn't straight below the South Pole looking up at the planet, it's at an angle, so the viewing angle grows more and more extreme the closer the shot gets to the pole (You can see the stitching where they merged the composite images around the pole ). I'm guessing the angle was far too shallow to get any real image data from the pole itself. Severnjc 18:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. Clearly encyclopedic- and if it made NASA's pic of the day it can certainly make Wikipedia's Borisblue 00:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we see a planet, we want a perspective that shows it as a 3-D object. This one forces the vision to accept it as a 2-D one. This can be confusing to the viewer. I am not sure many people would relate Jupiter to this image. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I understand, but then again, should the captions not explain? Are the captions not explaining? Besides, 3-D images are common, a map of a planet is a rarity, at least I've never seen one before. Should a good quality picture that is not too common, and presents an often seen planet in a differant way not be featured? I should think so. | AndonicO Talk 22:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support There is nothing wrong in utilizing a polar ortographic projection to represent Jupiter. We use it often with Earth and it is the way it really looks when seen from very far away. The problem for me is the colouring of the image which seems dull. Both for aesthetical and reading purposes contrast between the various layers should be enhanced. - Alvesgaspar 22:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at it closely, you will find a new appreciation for Jupiter's colors. It almost looks like liquified marble; It is far from dull or bland. Look closer, you'll see what I mean. | AndonicO Talk 22:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Doesn't illustrate subject clearly. Poor proyection selection to illustrate a planet ( for the same reasons it makes no sense to take a pic of the earth from the pole to illustrate it's features).Nnfolz 22:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But having Jupiter on a map in the same oval way they portray earth wouldn't be good. Imagine consentric rings on an oval map: it would seem more distorted than earth's, because the streching and bending of the rings would be very obvious, as opposed to continents, which break the curvature. In this manner, these terrible defects are avoided, and unless you would actually like to see a much distorted map of Jupiter, with wavy rings, on the main page, this is the best option. | AndonicO Talk 23:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To portray a planet I think a view from its ecuator its always best. check this image out to see what I mean:
Although not not qualifiying to be a FP due to size i think this image illustrates the subject more clearly. Nnfolz 11:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I understand and accept the fact that that picture is more striking and beautiful, but nowhere near as encyclopedic. I've seen tons of pictures like that one, and I'd like to see more, but this, I've never seen. Since the nominated picture is of good quality, and, as NASA says (see captions), it is "the most detailed map of Jupiter", It surely deserves nomination. By the way, the edje of the map is Jupiter's equater, if that is what it is called, just like polar maps of earth. | AndonicO Talk 12:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This discussion is meaningless! We use different map projections for different purposes, knowing that geometric distortion is unavoidable. Obviously, the polar regions are much better represented in an azimuthal projection (ortographic or not) than in a cylindrical one. - Alvesgaspar 12:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know we use different proyections for different things. I just posted that to illustrate a different point from that one.Nnfolz 12:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But don't you think that the best map of Jupiter (or it's southern hemisphere), should be included as the best of Wikipedia? I think the FP criteria fits this picture like a glove. | AndonicO Talk 13:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There a few things that need to be taken care of first. The first thing is that the image description page lacks source description. It just says the image is from NASA, but the specific page information is missing. Also, I see that the image was edited using Adobe Photoshop CS Windows, which is very unlikely to be NASA's pet software. Also, the image is very clearly enhanced to a great deal. One doesn't expect to find the pole of a planet so brightly illuminated, and without shadow on any side. The whole disc seems to have nearly equal illumination intensity. The image description page should clarify the way image was reconstructed (by NASA) and further edits by the Photoshop editor. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 16:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India roadway map

[edit]
1) Map of the national highway network in India and NHDP projects

Nomination is pretty self explanatory. This is the only complete and comprehensive map of the Indian national highway network found on the entire web. Appears in Indian highways, Golden Quadrilateral, National Highways Authority of India, National Highways Development Project, List of National Highways in India. There are two versions, one is just the road network and the other one is imposed on a population density map and appears in Indian highways.

  • Nominate and support both versions. - PlaneMad|YakYak 10:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Disagree with format of map (svg). A static map like this one shouldn’t be scalable: if you reduce the scale, the lettering and other cartographic symbols might become illegible and the image crowded; if you enlarge it, you are suggesting a precision (and accuracy) that the map doesn’t have. Note that topographic maps of the same region, but with different scales, have different detail and symbology (different levels of “generalization”, as cartographers say). Also, the image available for Wikipedia articles (and for this analysis) is too small to appreciate the details. I will review my opinion if map is presented with a specific size and scale -- Alvesgaspar 11:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, IMO the advantage of using svg is to pack more details into the file, as an end user can download it and zoom in to see the details which is not possible for a png map. I have used specific sizes for the fonts so that state names, state capitals, commercial cities and tourist towns are visible in the raster version. Only to see the smaller towns do you nedd to open the svg file -- PlaneMad|YakYak 11:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • SVGs specify a recommended display size; there's no need to use a raster-based format to address this problem. And note that more detail doesn't necessarily mean larger size; on high-DPI printers, more detail is necessary to sharply print the same size, and SVG provides that. Redquark 13:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question and Comment Which is the image under evaluation? If both, please create fresh nomination. As for the size of the images, I'm still complaining that it is not enough for the present purpose (reviewing) and for normal use in an article. As far as I know, the MSI Explorer does not suppor svg and it is not practical to download the file just to look at it (in the case the user has an application capable of reading svg, which I don't). If, as Redquark states, svg's specify a recommended size, that size should be immediately available and a scale should be specified for it. -- Alvesgaspar 15:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cannot vote as there are 2 pictures. One picture per nom please. HighInBC 15:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. HighInBC 19:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very very few Wikipedia users (not us editors, but the folks who actually use Wikipedia) have SVG support and therefore cannot view this at the proper magnification. MapMaster 21:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. This is what a map on Wikipedia should look like. It's very informative and the legend on the description page makes it even better. The SVG format is just perfect for this. –Gustavb 19:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great map, right format! I just cannot believe anyone would ask for a raster version. As stated in the image upload instructions the peferred (and technologically superior) format for this kind of illustration is SVG. Benefits of SVG include easier editing, including translations of text labels (there are more Wikipedias than just the English one), and high quality printing (SVG provides infinite resolution). --Dschwen 21:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because this is a beautiful map. However, for most Wikipedia viewers it is not at all useful. If you view it on anything but the largest size, you just can't read anything. But in order to view it at the proper size for reading, you need some sort of SVG support/plug-in. In fact, when I try to view at the proper size on my computer without SVG support, my browser (IE6) abends. Nonetheless, the map is beautiful at any size and I believe maps need more support here in Wiki-land. MapMaster 21:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with hesitation; Alvesgaspar brings up a good point about being overly-precise. But I nonetheless think this is one of the few maps that qualify for FP. It's highly detailed, in SVG, and looks professional. --Tewy 00:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I’m not being overly precise. It is easy to agree that this is a beautiful map. But aesthetics is not the only criterion to be taken in consideration (its not even a very relevant one in this context). In Cartography accuracy (positional accuracy and also thematic accuracy) are key quality elements we should consider when evaluating a map. Of course we really don’t have here the means, or the knowledge, to assess the accuracy of maps. But at least we should look at some basic cartographic principles, instead of only beauty, when assigning a FP quality tag to a map. One of the most important is the objective of the map because it has direct consequences on the way it is constructed: is it designed to be put in a wall, to be used in a computer display or to be pasted, as an illustration, in a A4 page? My insistence that a size and a scale should be clearly stated is not a futile obstinacy: I was just trying to get an answer to that question. I don’t really care about the format of the picture file provided it serves well our objectives. It should be clear by now that I’m not an old reactionary trying to avoid the use of superior technologies. I am a map lover and believe, like others, that “maps need more support here in Wiki-land”. - Alvesgaspar 08:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Another informatiom that should be given in the legend is the map projection. It looks like an azimuthal projection (either equidistant or equal-area) but I'm not sure. - Alvesgaspar 10:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The map is primarily a computer document, but you need at least an A3 print to see the details, i guess. But the beauty of the format is that however large you scale it up, it wont deteriorate one bit. You must understand that India is one huge country and much like the US but with hundreds of more cities. There is now way i can make a map of the primary road network that can be appreciated in a thumbnail, you have to view the full version to get an idea of the scale of it all, much like this one. And the SVG format was a necessity to make a map of this kind. If i had made this map in PNG of appropriately high resolution, it will be over 3mb in size. And being SVG, the map is open source. Image:India_roadway_map.svg#SVG_Support. Projection has been mentioned under notes. -- PlaneMad|YakYak 10:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support very meticulous and detailed map. However, I am not that fond of how the state names are a tint and run across other text. However, it is still encyclopedic, high resolution, and frankly overwhelmingly detailed.--Andrew c 16:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I do not understand why the Raster version on the image page is a completely different image than the full size SVG. The state names do not show up, the key is compeltely different, the highway lines are different. What's the deal with that?--Andrew c 16:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently a thumbnail cache problem, should be ok now -- PlaneMad|YakYak 07:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will do that when i get back home next week. -- PlaneMad|YakYak 01:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:India roadway map.svg howcheng {chat} 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Parks - American Gothic

[edit]
American Gothic by Gordon Parks

American Gothic, a portrait of government cleaning woman Ella Watson, is possibly Gordon Parks' best known photograph. Parks later said of the image:

I had experienced a kind of bigotry and discrimination here that I never expected to experience. ... At first, I asked her about her life, what it was like, and so disastrous that I felt that I must photograph this woman in a way that would make me feel or make the public feel about what Washington, D.C. was in 1942. So I put her before the American flag with a broom in one hand and a mop in another. And I said, "American Gothic"--that's how I felt at the moment. I didn't care about what anybody else felt. That's what I felt about America and Ella Watson's position inside America. [8]

Roy Stryker, Parks' supervisor at the Farm Security Administration, told him "that picture could get us all fired."

To me that sounds almost like complaining that Hokusai doesn't appear in In the Hollow of a Wave :) - Parks' significance is in his work, not in what he looked like. But I agree that the photo merits greater discussion in the text, and have now worked to expand that (in Parks' article as well as in American Gothic). --Davepape 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What it basically comes down to is "Do we feature every excellent free work of art in wikipedia?" It's a great image, but what does it add to us as an encyclopedia? If that's the case, there are hundreds of PD paintings that could be featured. This one needs some addition value beyond being an excellent work. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Powerful photograph. I was actually thinking about making an article for it, but wasn't really able to find any real sources that really discussed the image itself and its impact. howcheng {chat} 22:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found several sources, but none so far that go into great detail on its impact. If you want to look some more, JSTOR & Lexis/Nexis provide a few articles; in books, Fleischhauer's Documenting America, 1935-1943 and Biel's American Gothic talk about it a bit. --Davepape 18:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Gordon Parks - American Gothic.jpg howcheng {chat} 16:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barred Owl

[edit]
The Barred Owl, Strix varia, is a large owl found across Canada, the eastern United States and south to Central America.
Edit 1 - Cropped

The picture is large, clear, sharp, and is very pleasing to the eyes. The picture looks unique and is of very high quality, and makes the Barred Owl article look very good. Along with the previous qualities, it is also infomative. It clearly allows viewers to see a Barred Owl, in a natural setting. The picture was created by Mdf.

NOTE: a larger version has been uploaded and is (3072x2048) if you dont see this force a refresh in your browser

Promoted Image:Strix-varia-005.jpg howcheng {chat} 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer

[edit]
Old man with camera in a tunnel
Edit 1 by Alvesgaspar.
Brightness/contrast adjusted detail showing "transparency" of man's legs.
Legs macro
Legs scan
Legs scan, image rotated 90º

Created by Joaquim Alves Gaspar - uploaded and nominated by Alvesgaspar. I nominate this picture for the simplicity and balance of its composition. The two-dimensional silhouette is brought into 3-D world by the light dimly reflected in the ground. The photo was taken in 1968 with a Rolleicord-type camera, those with twin lenses and square negatives. Because the negative is lost a scanned image of a paper copy was made, only corrected for scratches and white dots. This is a minimalist picture whose only thrill is to guess whether the old man is moving toward us or away from us... In a technically-driven forum like this one, it should have little chances...

  • Nominate and support. - Alvesgaspar 14:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - what article does this illustrate? Without illustrating an article, and image is ineligible for FPC I believe. Debivort 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the featured pictures criteria really refers to adding value to an article. But are you sure that all FP were taken from existing articles? As far as I know there is no such imposition. In the present case, I think the picture illustrates well the old photographic technique of "contre-jour" (I might write an article on this...). --Alvesgaspar 14:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - good historic picture. --Ineffable3000 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I like the composition, and it demonstrates Contre-jour well enough, but a scan from paper is bound to have impurities, and this one just isn't clear enough for me to support. And since this has little or no historical value, I would prefer to see a color image for the encyclopedic aspect. I'm sure there are more examples out there. --Tewy 23:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It demonstrates Contre-jour very well and the fact that the subject is artistic and describes a concept rather than an object/location means that I don't think it has be clear, accurate or colourful to be a good candidate - only relevent and representative of the concept. The only issue I have is that it could be cropped slightly, but thats just my opinion. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like it, it's a very good example of Contre Jour - Adrian Pingstone 13:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - my laptop LCD often lets me see strange detail in image shadows. I noticed that the texture of the tunnel floor is visible through the legs of the person in the photo. Is this transparency a typical effect of Contre-jour? I've illustrated this by selecting the darkest regions of the guy and boosting the brightness and contrast (see detail image). If this aspect is expected using this photographic technique, I will support image. Debivort 20:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are kiding, right?... The only translucent part of the silhouette is the top of the man's hat. What you see in your laptop either is magic or ... some artifacts created by the manipulation of the image. You might well support the image just for its beauty.... -- Alvesgaspar 20:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Info I'm joining two more images: the first (Legs macro) is a macro photo of the offending detail in the paper copy; the second (Legs scan) is a fresh scan of the same detail. As you can see, the artifacts are quite visible in the scanned version but absent in the macro photo. Conclusion: it is caused by the scanning process. Did any of you ever heard of Occan's Razor? :) -- Alvesgaspar 08:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or maybe the old man is just a ghost! Spoooooky... NauticaShades 14:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, but in this case, Occam's Razor might suggest that the simplest explanation is that you manipulated the image so don't invoke it too rashly ;-). The only thing I can think of is that, similar in concept to a laser printer drum keeping an electrostatic 'image' for a short period of time, the scanner's photoreceptors have scanned along the lines and not reset their charges quickly enough for the sharp contrast. But then again, when I think about it, surely 'white' would result in a charge and black in a lack of charge, meaning there would be even less chance of it imprinting the silhouette. I can't really explain it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Info I have re-scanned the image, this time after rotating it 90º. The artifacts are gone! I think you might be right about the delay of the photo receptors. -- Alvesgaspar 10:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm glad that has solved the problem. I was going to suggest that it might depend whether the lines were parallel or perpendicular to the direction that the scanning head moved. Looks like that was the answer. Have you replaced the original image? As long as it is fundimentally the same (minus the artifacts) then it should be no problem to just overwrite the existing file rather than upload a new one for comparison. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid that won't be possible, the paper copy doesn't fit in the scanner that way. -- Alvesgaspar 10:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Towsonu2003 22:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (An amazing picture) reason: simplicity, contrast, balance. One of the best photographs I have ever seen Xunex
  • Neutral - I dislike the presence of the scanning artifact, but would support a version without it. Debivort 19:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info - It's fair. I have replaced the original with a slightly edited version in which most of the artifacts were corrected. This is the best I could do. - Alvesgaspar 22:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the future, you shouldn't remove the original nomination; just add an edit. And that edit should be uploaded to commons, as was the original. One question: why did you crop the top? ♠ SG →Talk 06:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I'll do that. Yes, the second version is a little shorter, I'm sorry. The problem is I did not work on the first version but on the original image that came out of the scanner. Anyway, I think it is better this way and I had at least two comments suggesting a crop at the top. - Alvesgaspar 08:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great image of a person. Dont know why it already isn't a pic of the day already. Bill g
  • Support – although you can't (I couldn't) immediately tell that it is a photographer holding a camera, the beauty of the shot and the exemplary use of framing, shape, and simplicity make this a very worthy candidate. — Editor at Large(speak) 17:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:The photographer new.jpg howcheng {chat} 16:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Regnbyge.jpg

[edit]
A picture of rain falling.

This image appears in the article Rain. It was apparently created by Malene Thyssen, User:Malene on Commons. I found it to be by far the best image in that article. It is in focus, clear, horizon is straight, etc. The best thing about it is that it shows that the rain in the distance is patchy; on the right of the image it is not raining, and on the left it is. It is heavier in some places then others. Where the photographer is standing it is dry. This is the first time I've nominated an image for FP, so I hope I did it right and didn't do anything wrong by nominating someone else's image.

*Nominate and support. - ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 17:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Oppose Read the rules! there's a link to them at the top of the page that took you to this page -"the picture should be of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions. While larger images are generally prefered, images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported, unless they are of historical significance or animated" This one is 859 pixels across - Adrian Pingstone 18:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I did read the rules. It looked large to me. How do I find out how many pixels the image has? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If firefox, if you Rightclick on the image and select view image, the resolution will be displayed in the title bar. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And in Internet Explorer? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see, click on properties. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But wait, today's featured picture of the day (Image:Hebe x franciscana.jpg) is only 625x599... at 800x559 isn't this one larger? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That image was promoted in early 2005 when the FP criteria were different (its resolution at full size is, in fact 800x767 px). You could try to contact the uploader/creator of this photo and ask if she has a higher resolution version. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...And there is rain falling from that cloud in the distance. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Opera House Sails

[edit]
Sydney Opera House, clearly showing the outline of its "sails".

Clear, crisp photo, high resolution, well taken.; Sydney Opera House amongst others. Photo taken by Enoch Lau

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lion in Namibia

[edit]
A male lion (Panthera leo)

A nicely framed shot; appears in lion ;-), and yaaaay created the image (from Flickr). SFC9394 reviewed the original image.


Promoted Image:Lion waiting in Namibia.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Tree Cluster

[edit]
The Christmas Tree Star Cluster will eventually break apart.
This picture was taken by Nasa's Spitzer Space Telescope, and appears in the article Star cluster. As it was "Image of the day" on the Nasa web-page, the captions are very detailed. I am nominating this picture for it's good quality and good captions (which can later be added to the article).

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archilochus alexandri

[edit]
A female Black-chinned Hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri.
Edit 1 to reduce noise

Per the suggestion of Niro5 on my first nomination attempt, I'm trying again with a different image. It was created by Mdf, and appears in Black-chinned hummingbird. It's high res, sharp, fairly well lit, and has good DOF ;) Also, it's one of the better images of a female of this species on the net, and is a challenging subject to photograph. It might benefit from an edit to reduce grain.

It seems to me that the bird lost some color with the edit. Apart from that, the edit is an improvement. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had color noise reduction on as well, and didn't mask the bird. A little blue on the highlight of the beak, and a bit of orange in the shadows of the feathers was lost. I'll re-upload the image with those elements restored. Sorry about that.--Andrew c 17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Ok, it's fixed now. In case anyone was wondering, here is the first upload with the bad color noise reduction. I had 3 tabs open and the differences are slight but noticable. Good catch KFP!--Andrew c 17:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, the color issue was resolved. The pixles on the bird itself are unchanged. As for the the detail in the wings, I guess that is a matter of opinion, because how much detail is there really in motion blur? But still, your criticism is welcome.--Andrew c 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Archilochus-alexandri-002-edit1.jpg --NauticaShades 20:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Burning Match

[edit]
A burning match

High quality and tricky photo of a burning match. By far the best of it's article and adds a lot to the article too. Created by Sebastian Ritter.

Thanx man. ;-) --Arad 05:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Streichholz.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abrams Tank at the Dona Anna Range

[edit]
An Abrams Tank

An Abrams tank crew, 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, makes its way off Fort Bliss’ Doña Ana Range after completing their qualification table.

Not promoted --NauticaShades 13:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinwheel Galaxy

[edit]
The galaxy Messier 101 (M101, also known as NGC 5457 and nicknamed the Pinwheel Galaxy) lies in the northern circumpolar constellation, Ursa Major (The Great Bear), at a distance of 25 million light-years from Earth.

This is one of the largest and most detailed photo of a spiral galaxy that has been released from Hubble. The galaxy's portrait is actually composed of 51 individual Hubble exposures, in addition to elements from images from ground-based photos. It is absolutely stunning to see all the star clusters up close at the full resolution. I would highly suggest looking at the full-res version before voting. The only negative thing I can see about it is that since it is made up of many exposures, some parts are blurrier than others, but I don't find them to take away from the picture. It is on the Pinwheel Galaxy page.

Also, I can't seem to get the FPC template tag onto the images page for some reason, could someone do that for me? thank you in advance. :-)Imaninjapirate 00:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3D Glass Balls

[edit]
File:3D Glass Balls.jpg
A 3D scene of 8 red glass balls

I think that this image should be featured because it is clear, simple and balanced. (It can also be used for a background) Appears in: 3D computer graphics Created by: TheJosh (talk · contribs)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Widgeon

[edit]
A female American Widgeon.

This photograph of a female Anas americana (American Widgeon), taken by Mdf, appears in American Widgeon. It is not only very good quality, but also pleasing to they eye and at an encyclopedic angle. Granted, the Widgeon is partially submerged, but if anything this helps us observe its behaviour and how it swims. NauticaShades 09:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Anas-americana-004.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry by County

[edit]
A map from the US Census department indicating the most common country of origin of people in each county.

Came across this while reading about Yooper dialect english. It's an attractive and highly informative map. I found it was one of those maps that has lots of surprising information (like Irish people in Oregon - huh!). It's a vector JPG (sadly) but has few compression artifacts, and very high resolution. It appears in Racial demographics of the United States and was created by Uncle Sam and is therefore in the public domain.

  • Neutral - This is a nicely done map. The only thing preventing me from supporting it is the lack of a precise explanation of its meaning. What is the "country of origin" of people: the country where their parents were born? or their grand parents? - Alvesgaspar 13:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good question - My guess is that it reflects what people indicate (on the census survey) as their own national ancestry. I don't know what's going on with the people who say their ancestry is "American" but not "American Indian" Debivort 14:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An explanation is at http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf but that's for the entire census. Anyway my understanding is that this map is based on the question "What is your ethnic background?" Personally I think the people who say "American" are generally of English or Scots-Irish descent for the most part, they either don't know or don't think it's relevent, as their great-grandparents were probably born in America, so they have little connection to the country their family is from, as opposed to second- and third- generation Americans, whose parents/grandparents spoke the language, remembered the country directly, were still in touch with relatives there, etc. If your family moved to America in the 1760s it's kind of unlikely you know the cousins back in England or wherever.
So ideally people are answering the question "Before they came to America, members of my family lived where?" Which in some cases can require tracing 200-300 years back, and obviously for Native Americans it's impossible to do. I think this is a great image and will try to expand on the information included for it. --W.marsh 14:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict with last two replies). These problems worries me. It could well be that the answer will depend on exactly what choices were available. (For example, some people might say they were Hispanic, but a more specific nationality if offered, and then it depends what choices were available and how you add them up whether combined-Hispanic wins). And then you have the usual problems of first past the post voting systems when showing just the "winner". And some ethnicities may hold on to their nationality for longer than others. (Is most of the country really dominated by Germans? Or do they just think of themselves as "Germans" long after other groups have become "Americans"?). And I bet most people are really "bits of this and bits of that" whatever they reply. :-) Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm one of those bits and bits people - one branch of my family is 8 generations American, the other is 1 generation American. I don't know how I would answer this question - probably leave it blank. Maybe the best thing to do is describe the map as "the nationalities with which people identify their ancestry." Debivort 15:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have tried to clarify that this map represents sample data from the 2000 Census showing the plurality of each county's residents when asked what their ancestry is. I think this is a very interesting map, and while it's true that most people report multiple ancestries, it's still interesting to see what the most common ones in a given part of America are, and it shows the viewer things they might not have realized before, like the large Finish-American population in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan for example, and just gives people a bit more context in understanding America (which is, as the cliche goes, a nation of immigrants). Really interesting and informative stuff. --W.marsh 19:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (replaces my previous vote) I went to the web page of the US Census Bureau, whose address is given in the map, and tried to get addicional information about the way it was made. I cannot guarantee that the information is not there but I couldn't find it. This way, without knowing the exact meaning of the data represented, the map is almost useless. Apparentely, and because of its caption(Figure 3), it's part of some report where the origin and meaning of the information should be fully explained. But none of it is depicted in the map. - Alvesgaspar 20:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Assuming the Census people knew what they were doing, this is a nice map. But since we don't know exactly what it means, I can't support this and bring it to FP status. Potentially false data should not be made featured. But the biggest problem is the file format. SVG or at least PNG is highly recommended for maps, and this one is in JPEG. Normally the large size would gain a weak support from me, but combined with the conflict in accuracy, I can only give a weak oppose. --Tewy 23:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As stated in the image upload instructions the peferred (and technologically superior) format for this kind of illustration is SVG. Benefits of SVG include easier editing, including translations of text labels (there are more Wikipedias than just the English one), and high quality printing (SVG provides infinite resolution). --Dschwen 06:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that SVG offers advantages over other formats, I'm not sure not this "rant" (as your template calls it) is appropriate in this situation because this is not a map created for Wikipedia. If this map met all the FP criteria (which I believe it does not), would you vote against it just because somebody in the U.S. Government created it in JPG? MapMaster 16:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetical question! My comment is directed at this map. Full stop. There are more problems with this nomination which I'm too lazy to point out. Also: loosen up, rant is obviously self-deprecating. --Dschwen 13:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Image should be in SVG format, or at least PNG. Also, trying to keep an open mind about the quality of the data, I followed the link to sf3.pdf to find out what the Census Bureau think it means, but I ended up at a 1200-page document which may or may not have had the information I wanted. Finally, the kerning between sf3.pdf and the closing parenthesis is terrible! So, sorry, it looks as if there's some interesting information here, but at the moment there are both technical faults in the drawing, and a lack of explanation about the meaning. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The map itself is too cluttered by sideboxes, mini-maps, various blocks of text to be a compelling image. The data itself is much too suspect to deserve FP respect (e.g., to the casual reader, "Americans" apparently only live in the upper South and most of the U.S. is occupied by those of German extraction). MapMaster 05:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --NauticaShades 13:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borage flower

[edit]
Flower of Borago officinalis, known as "Starflower", a culinary herb

I took this photo in an old walled garden at Southerndown in September 2005 and I've been meaning to upload it for ages. It's a sharp, detailed macro shot of a starflower, showing its structure of multiple 5-pointed stars along with the characteristic hairy sepals. I'm probably biased but I think it's attractive and eye-catching too =)

Appears in Borage, Herb garden and Edible flowers.

Created, uploaded and shamelessly self-nominated by Yummifruitbat

  • Comment - With respect, I don't entirely agree that the DOF in this case diminishes the encyclopaedic nature of the image. Every prominent feature of the flower is in focus in the near field, so I can't see what you'd learn about the flower from a photo with greater DOF. I had to shoot handheld and there was a fair breeze so I needed the large aperture to get a fast shutter speed. I'm afraid there's no chance of me getting a reshoot in the forseeable future, as I'm now firmly city-bound (no car, at uni). Thanks for commenting, though - if it doesn't make the grade, nothing lost. --YFB ¿ 14:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --NauticaShades 13:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Thracian Lowlands

[edit]
The town of Sliven and the lowlands of Thrace from southern Stara Planina.
Edit 1 by Arad. Romoved the dirt.
Karandila, Edit 2
"Naughty" Photoshop job - Edit 3 by Fir0002
Original image, with the birds - Edit 4 by Evgeni Dinev 18:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this picture is featureworthy, it will surely be praised by those who are better at it than I would. :P Small in size or not, simply breathtaking. Taken by one Evgeni Diven and released under the free Creative Commons license, it appears in Sliven and Upper Thracian Lowlands as well as on a great deal of user talk pages as a gift.

He had no prior edits so I was suspicious, but now that I've checked and the account's been around since may I'm appeased that it wasn't a new fraudulent creation. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you please - couldn't resist! :-) --Fir0002 11:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely work, Fir0002, and I really like it a lot more now, and subsequently support. -- CountdownCrispy ( ? 18:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you mean edit 3, but could you clarify to ease the closer's job? --Tewy 19:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Karandila2.jpg --NauticaShades 13:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surface waves

[edit]
Surface waves

Self-nomination. Used in the article Wave

Not promoted --NauticaShades 15:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/October-2006&oldid=612061006"