Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/June-2010

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

For promoted entries, add {{VPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} to the bottom of the entry, replacing FILENAME.JPG with the file that was promoted.
For entries not promoted, add {{VPCresult|Not promoted| }} to the bottom of the entry.
Do NOT put any other information inside the template. It should be copied and pasted exactly, and only the first one should have FILENAME.JPG replaced with the actual filename.

	Archives
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

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Sant'Angelo Castle and Bridge

**Original** - Sant'Angelo Castle (aka. Mausoleum of Hadrian) and Bridge in Rome

Reason: Aesthetic image presenting a nice composition of the castle, bridge and river. It provides contextual information about the location of these relative to each other.
Articles this image appears in: Castel Sant'Angelo, List of bridges in Rome
Creator: Kiss Tamás

Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not as sharp as it could be, but a very good image of the rear of the mausoleum-cum-castle. The battlements are clear, and the statue of an angel on top of the building is visible. The image also does well to place the site in context, juxtaposed with modern buildings which can be seen to the left in the picture, and it still manages to look good. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it possible to click a similar picture without the branches? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good EV for the subject. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 08:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not too pleased with how the image gives the impression of a large black shadow-monster attacking the bridge. What IS that, anyway? Part of the branch? Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 04:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any more comments? This has been running for over four months, and we are lacking a quorum of support. I'll close on 5 June if there are no more comments. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is adequate for VP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Angyalvar036.jpg --NauticaShad es 16:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Shortcuts

Valued pictures was a project to highlight images that add significant value to Wikipedia articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or by being a hard to obtain free use image of the content being illustrated. Per the consensus on Miscellany for Deletion, this project has been shut down.

This is not to be confused with Valued Images on Commons.

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Shortcuts

Valued pictures was a project to highlight images that add significant value to Wikipedia articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or by being a hard to obtain free use image of the content being illustrated. Per the consensus on Miscellany for Deletion, this project has been shut down.

This is not to be confused with Valued Images on Commons.

Gary Sinise on stage

Reason: This is a featured picture on commons that is used in a couple of WP articles. Its nomination recently had modest support at WP:FPC.
Articles this image appears in: Gary Sinise, Lt. Dan Band
Creator: Dschwen (Daniel Schwen)

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think there is no doubt about it; this picture “illustrates article content particularly well.” It sure beats imagining what the nature of his band is like. (“Lt. Dan Band”… cute). Greg L (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nice photo of Gary. Haljackey (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Fletcher (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Illustrates Gary Sinise well. NauticaShad es 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gary Sinise on stage 1 crop.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 03:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Shortcuts

Valued pictures was a project to highlight images that add significant value to Wikipedia articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or by being a hard to obtain free use image of the content being illustrated. Per the consensus on Miscellany for Deletion, this project has been shut down.

This is not to be confused with Valued Images on Commons.

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Shortcuts

Valued pictures was a project to highlight images that add significant value to Wikipedia articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or by being a hard to obtain free use image of the content being illustrated. Per the consensus on Miscellany for Deletion, this project has been shut down.

This is not to be confused with Valued Images on Commons.

Hailstone

Reason: This photograph is one of the most educational photos on wikipedia of a complete hailstone, including a $20 USD bill for size comparison and a neutral, non-distracting background.
Articles this image appears in: Hail
Creator: National Weather Service Wichita, Kansas

Support as nominator --Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if the hailstone is out-of-focus, or just slippery-looking.. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking closely at it at full resolution, ~~it appears that the hailstone has a type of rime or frost (or other non-clear ice) on it, because to me~~ the edges of the hailstone still look sharp enough that it appears in focus. It could also be that the hailstone appears to have just started melting as the picture was taken, as evidenced by the flash reflection off water on various places of the hailstone. On second glance, I see where you're looking, and that might be that the hailstone was differently shaped on the side facing the camera or that the flash reflected off that face wierd. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see sufficient EV to support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are better and more 'professional' ways of demonstrating scale. NauticaShad es 14:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 17:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Willis Tower

Reason: This is one of the highest EV images on WP. Although too small for FPC, this is a VPIC.
Articles this image appears in: Willis Tower
Tower
Chicago school (architecture)
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill
Tube (structure)
Skyscraper
List of tallest buildings in Chicago
Timeline of tallest buildings in the United States
List of tallest buildings by U.S. state
America's Favorite Architecture
{{User Chicago}}
{{User Chicagoland}}
{{UserbornChicago}}
Creator: Soakologist

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice picture in excellent weather conditions, in use in many articles. --Elekhh (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a striking photo with good EV Nick-D (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per above. NauticaShad es 17:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A higher resolution image can be easily created, EV is not so great to over-weigh the technical weakness. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you get that sky every day nor has been a higher resolution created in the past four years. At VPC educational value overweights technical quality. --Elekhh (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sears Tower ss.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 17:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus McCormick engraving

Reason: For its age this is a quality image and it has high EV. It is too small for FP, but fine here.
Articles this image appears in: Cyrus McCormick
International Harvester
Reaper
Irish American
Creator: George Smillie

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hard to justify a 640px image, plus the image is also shoehorned into Irish American in an ungodly large collage of images in the infobox. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not even shoehorn it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fail to see where I said you did... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a higher quality than the current nominee?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the source of the nominated picture. There has been no reduction in quality. Jujutacular ^T · C 07:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that, he did upload the reduced resolution version. I have uploaded the full sized version over it - now it is 1,243 × 1,536 pixels. Jujutacular ^T · C 08:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Raeky, please state whether your oppose vote still stands on this at the new resolution, although I am considering withdrawing it and sending it to FPC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1243x1536 is sufficient, it would print good at 3x5. If the image is good enough for a FP or not, remains to be seen, usually a lot of the raw scans from the LOC needs restoration. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn - Moving to FPC with hi res image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 00:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Jackson, 1983 cropped

Reason: The uncropped version of this (File:Jesse Jackson, half-length portrait of Jackson seated at a table, July 1, 1983 edit.jpg), which is more widely used, just passed at FPC (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson 1983). This is also a fine, high EV image.
Articles this image appears in: Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1984
Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1988
United States presidential election, 1988
United States presidential election, 1984
Creator: Leffler, Warren K., U.S. News & World Report, edited by Fletcher

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hm, I kind of think this image is "covered" by the FP of the uncropped version. Fletcher (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a useful, but not very interesting, portrait and is greatly inferior to the FP. Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Part of the reason I voted for the FP was the hand gesture. This version doesn't have that so I'm a bit ambivalent about it.--RDBury (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Un-cropped version is sufficient... If this passes it will open the flood gates for crops of hundreds of FP's where there's something in the overall picture that could be cropped... Gazhiley (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As per above, adds nothing to the original in either compostion or encyclopedic value. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 00:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Willis Tower upward pano

Reason: :This is a featured picture on commons and German Wikipedia. It is also a quality image on commons. Despite being a little light in terms of EV, it represents a masterfully stitched panorama. It had quite a bit of support at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Willis Tower upward pano
Articles this image appears in: Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower)
Wacker Drive
Creator: Daniel Schwen User:Dschwen

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support It is an unusual perspective of a particular aspect of this building, however executed at high quality and thus has a solid place in the article. --Elekhh (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was a bit rushy to straight support and I amended my position to weak support. Diliff is right that EV is key criteria for VP and that this image is not outstanding in the usual sense EV is judged at FP. However to clarify the reason I still tend to support it as a VP, is that it provides a different perspective on the building and thus contributes to a plurality of views on Wikipedia, which I consider to have a significant educational value. --Elekhh (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unless I've misinterpreted the criteria here, my understanding is that the EV requirement is roughly as strict as FPC, but the technical requirements are less stringent. The problem with this image, for me, is that it is the EV that is somewhat low because of the akward projection. The buildings and the surrounds don't bow like that and even though a viewer would likely be aware of this, it is hard to imagine what the building really does look like. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is your complaint about the projections related to the EV, especially since its highest EV is in an the article showing the building from many perspectives. In its highest EV use it shows the builing from an alternative perspective so it does not cause a problem of imagining what the building really does look like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you prefer a massive tilt perspective correction to make the lines in the Tower appear straight up and down?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'd prefer a photo taken from further away so that you wouldn't need massive tilt correction to fix the perspective. ;-) Just because it's an 'alternative' perspective, doesn't make it a great image to illustrate the subject IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can not get anything much further away to capture anything similar to this. Wacker Drive has tall buildings (one of which is visible in this photo) lining the other side of the street. In order to show the Wacker Drive address plate, you would are very limited. This is an upwards pano, which has its artistic merits. It is a difficult DOF shot from my limited photographical knowledge. This image shows the building from Wacker Drive, which is basically different subject matter than its place in the skyline like the other VPC below. The fact that it is the same building and could be shot in a manner similar to other buildings misses the whole point of showing what it looks like from its base. For what it is (an upwards pano) it is among the finest illustrations that WP has to offer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand what you're saying (although I think calling it a 'difficult DOF shot' does show your limited photographical knowledge - with that sort of angle of view, DOF isn't likely to be much of an issue), but that doesn't change the fact that the image's projection makes it confusing and misleading. Let me rephrase. Just because it's the best way to show the building at street level, doesn't automatically give it sufficient EV for FPC and VPC. Some subjects are more difficult to illustrate than others, but difficulty alone doesn't qualify it IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 06:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although it might unfortunately be hard to belive: The building pretty much looks like this. The projection does it justice. I've benn there, I saw it. --Dschwen 15:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find it hard to believe that the buildings all lean inwards with a curve when you look upwards though. ;-) I know all projections involve spacial compromises, but our eyes/mind can visualise the reality of some projections better than others, and IMO this isn't one of them. But my point is that even if it did look like this image from this specific viewpoint, it's still not an ideal way to illustrate the building. I don't think it's superior to an image taken from further back, showing the shape/size of the building with better context and less distortion. I prefer this image of yours for that reason, although I'd still have to think hard about whether I'd support it here or at FPC. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If anyone even nominates it... Anyhow, some distortions in the periphery are not a major problem. The main subject is reproduced pretty well. So I support if I may. --Dschwen 01:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you've stood at the base of one of these supertall skyscrapers, the real perspective actually can be confusing and disorienting, almost vertigo-inducing, as the top of the building is so far away you lose context with its surroundings. So the weakness of the projection is really a strength, in recreating the experience of being there. I realize in reality the buildings at the sides wouldn't curve as in this stitched projection, but the main subject looks accurate enough. And I reiterate even if a more distant vantage point would be a more ideal illustration, that doesn't mean this viewpoint has no EV. Different perspectives should be possible and worthwhile. Fletcher (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose We have this, this, and quite a few more that illustrate the subject with more EV than this distorted image. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too wonky, to use a technical term. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 00:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Clark

Reason: This is a high quality and high EV image that recently failed at WP:FPC (see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wesley Clark)
Articles this image appears in: Wesley Clark
List of awards and nominations received by Wesley Clark
Oklahoma Democratic primary, 2004
Valedictorian
1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
Kosovo War
Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2004
United States presidential election, 2004
List of United States Military Academy alumni
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe
Democratic Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2008
Democratic Party (United States) vice presidential candidates, 2008
Creator: United States Army

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit2 Greg L (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 2. Very encyclopedic. NauticaShad es 07:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 2 Great EV, good quality, certainly a valued pic. I also uploaded a new version of Edit 2 as the boost to contrast exposed further dust which has been reduced. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 11:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but standard shot, does not reveal personality, only physical appearance in a standard staged situation with a standard background. Limited educational value IMO. --Elekhh (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:General Wesley Clark official photograph, edited.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 13:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Reagan

Reason

This image has a high EV and has been masterfully retouched.

Articles this image appears in

Nancy Reagan
List of breast cancer patients according to survival status
List of First Ladies of the United States

Ron Reagan (via template {{Nancy Reagan}})

Patti Davis (via template)

Ronald Reagan (via template)

Just Say No (via template)

My Turn (memoir) (via template)

Creator: U.S. government, retouched by User:Scewing.

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great EV with this portrait. NauticaShad es 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. classic portrait. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jujutacular ^T · C 00:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Nancy Reagan.jpg --Elekhh (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Shortcuts

Valued pictures was a project to highlight images that add significant value to Wikipedia articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or by being a hard to obtain free use image of the content being illustrated. Per the consensus on Miscellany for Deletion, this project has been shut down.

This is not to be confused with Valued Images on Commons.

Patti Smith performing in Finland, 2007

Reason: This is a Commons Featured Picture that has been a commons Picture of the day but has failed at WP:FPC (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Patti Smith performing in Finland) in February 2008. It currently illustrates seven articles, giving it high EV.
Articles this image appears in: Patti Smith
Black-and-white
List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees
List of people from Chicago
List of female rock singers
Provinssirock
Shure
Creator: Beni Köhler

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A classic VP I would say, used in many articles. --Elekhh (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per Elekhh. NauticaShad es 14:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jujutacular ^T · C 17:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Patti Smith performing in Finland, 2007.jpg --— raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal Flag of Chicago

Reason: This image has achieved the highest level of EV possible in many respects.
Articles this image appears in: Flag of Chicago
Chicago
This image links to more than 500 articles on WP, even excluding transclusions. Among its other most important uses are {{Chicago}} in article space, {{User Chicago}}, {{User WPChicago}} and {{UserbornChicago}} in numerous user space.
Creator: -xfi-

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This flag is no more and no less valuable (I guess) than all other flags of countries, regions, cities, parties, etc. Should we promote them all? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems to me that based upon the footnote at WP:WIAFP #5 that says, "An image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article. . .", it seems that each flag that has a WP article needs to be illustrated and images of such flags have high EV. Thus, all flags that have articles on WP should be highly promotable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:WIAFP #3 says, and WP:WIAVP #2 says it must be among Wikipedia's best work, or most educational work, respectively. Alves is saying there is nothing particularly distinguishing about this flag. It definitely has encyclopedic value; I don't think anyone disagrees there. However we must keep in mind the entire criteria. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So if I understand correctly, since every significant municipal flag exists on WP, this one is not FP material unless its technical merit is above average compared to other municipal flags.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not 'technical merit' but enc value, which should be exceptional in some way to justify the VP status. In this particular case, the strict technical component of the image (as a drawing) is trivial as is its illustrative component. Nothing really wrong with the image, the same happens with all other modern flags. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Elekhh (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]